DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 7-15-2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of the reference listed under “NON-PATENT LITERATURE DOCUMENTS” that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein (in said reference) has not been considered.
The information disclosure statement filed 10-8-2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of the reference listed under “NON-PATENT LITERATURE DOCUMENTS” that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein (in said reference) has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 1426. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation recited in claim 8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “an” (Ln2) should be amended to read “the” or “said”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
●a sensor configured to detect a volume of a liquid: claims 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13
●a shielding member configured for shielding: claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 12
●a heater configured to heat a wick: claims 1, 12
●a first shielding member configured to shield: claim 9
●a second shielding member configured to shield: claim 9
●a controller configured to receive and calculate: claim 13
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly
claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 is considered to be indefinite in that the claim does not clearly set forth which portions of the shielding member are received by the groove.
Claim 4, with respect to “of a respective one of the plurality of second potions” (Ln4), the claim does not clear set forth the purpose of this phrase relative to the grooves and the portions (Ln3) received in the grooves. Claim 4 is therefor considered to be indefinite. Claim 5, with respect to “of a respective one of the plurality of second potions” (Lns2-3), the claim does not clear set forth the purpose of this phrase relative to the grooves, protrusions, and portions received in the grooves. Claim 5 is therefor considered to be indefinite. Also, see the same claim language in claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Woon (KR 20200127819 (A)).
Claims 1-3 and 8-13 : Woon teaches an aerosol generating device comprising:
●a container (comprising at least liquid cartridge tank 1 (liquid cartridge tank 200), smoke flow
tube 2, wick 4) having a lateral wall that is elongated and shaped to define a storage space that contains a liquid-A (¶4 ¶22)
●a plurality of sensors 10 sequentially arranged outside (not within) of the lateral wall in a
longitudinal direction of the lateral wall, wherein each of the plurality of sensors 10 is configured to detect the presence of and a volume of the liquid-A contained in the storage space (¶s22-24)
●a shielding member 30 disposed between two adjacent sensors 10 from among the plurality
of sensors 10 (forms an inner wall that is located inside the lateral wall and extends in the longitudinal direction of the lateral wall, wherein the inner wall is shaped to define an elongated insertion space, wherein a portion of the storage space is formed between the inner wall and the lateral wall (¶23)
●a heater 6 (atomizer 3 comprises at least heater 6, cotton ball 7, power terminal part 5)
disposed around at least a portion of the wick 4 and configured to heat the wick 4 (¶4).
The shielding member 30 comprises: a first shielding member (portion of shielding member 30) disposed between adjacent two sensors 10 from among the plurality of sensors 10; and a second shielding member (portion of shielding member 300 disposed between the first shielding member and any one of the adjacent two sensors 10. See Figures 1 and Figure 2, of Woon, annotated below.
PNG
media_image1.png
518
434
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
516
577
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Other locations within reference may be included in the above recited locations (paragraphs, drawing, abstract, claims) to demonstrate further the features in the reference as claimed in the instant claims.
Also, for claims 2 and 8: Woon teaches the aerosol generating device of claim 1 wherein the plurality of sensors 10 (each having a size) and the shielding member 30 cover an outer surface of the lateral wall of the container with the liquid-A therebetween. A portion of the surface of the lateral wall faces outside of the container. See Figure 2, of Woon, annotated below.
PNG
media_image3.png
385
567
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Also, for claim 3: Woon teaches the aerosol generating device of claim 2 wherein the lateral wall of the container comprises: a plurality of first portions respectively corresponding (horizontally across from) and facing to one of the plurality of sensors 10. A plurality of second portions individually located between adjacent ones of the plurality of first portions and facing the shielding member 30. See Figure 2, of Woon, annotated below.
PNG
media_image4.png
523
467
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Also, for claim 10: Woon teaches the aerosol generating device of claim 1 wherein there is a length of the shielding member 30 that protrudes beyond an end of the plurality of sensors 10 in a width direction of the lateral wall. This protrusion has a length (i.e. “protruding length PL”). Each sensor 10 has a length in the longitudinal direction of the lateral wall (i.e. “sensing length SH”). Figure 2 illustrates PL to be greater than (SH)/2. See Figure 2, of Woon, annotated below.
PNG
media_image5.png
440
528
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Also, for claim 13: Woon teaches the aerosol generating device of claim 12, further comprising: a controller 50 configured to: receive an input from the plurality of sensors 10 based on respective detection of the presence of the liquid-A contained in the storage space (by way of at least the use of multiplexer 35); and calculate the volume of the liquid contained in the storage based on the received input (by way of at least calibration unit 45) (¶s23-24)
Claims 1- 3, 9-10, and 12-13: with respect to claimed sensor, because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The instant specification teaches a structure for the sensor to perform the claimed function. Woon teaches a structure for the sensor to perform the same claimed function. Woon is thus considered to meet this limitation of the claim.
Claims 1-3, 9, and 12: with respect to claimed shielding member, because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The instant specification teaches a structure for the shielding member to perform the claimed function. Woon teaches a structure for the shielding member to perform the same claimed function. Woon is thus considered to meet this limitation of the claim.
Claims 1 and 12: with respect to claimed heater and the controller in claim 12, because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The instant specification teaches structures for the heater and controller to perform the claimed functions. Woon teaches a structure for the heater and controller to perform the same claimed functions. Woon is thus considered to meet these limitations of the claim.
Claim 9: with respect to claimed first and second shielding members, because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The instant specification teaches a structure for the first and second shielding members to perform the claimed functions. Woon teaches structures for the first and second shielding members to perform the same claimed functions. Woon is thus considered to meet these limitations of the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action (and the object to claim 4) and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claim 4, the closest prior art of record to Woon, alone or in combination with the other prior art of record, does not teach or fairly suggest that each of the plurality of second portions is shaped to define a groove relative to an outer surface of the lateral wall, wherein respective portions of the shielding member are received by the groove of a respective one of the plurality of second portions. Woon illustrates in Figures 1, 2, and 3 that the lateral wall is flat on both surfaces – does not have a groove defined by the plurality of second portions.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
●Alsay teaches a vaporization apparatus having a cartridge wherein a capacitance
sensor is used to measure the volume of liquid in the cartridge – instant specification indicates using capacitance sensors to measure a liquid volume to be vaporized;
●Porter teaches an aerosol delivery device wherein a level of liquid in the device is
sensed by a capacitance sensor;
●Lim teaches an aerosol delivery device wherein a level of liquid in the device is sensed
by a capacitance sensor;
●Capacitance-Level-Measurement discusses the benefits of measuring a volume of
liquid in a container; and
●Jones teaches an aerosol delivery device having measuring indicia on a liquid storage
portion of the device.
●Hon teaches an electronic cigarette having a capacitor sensor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDA GRAY whose telephone number is (571) 272-5778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9 AM to 5:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Phil Tucker can be reached at (571) 272-1095. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LINDA L GRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights