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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dahlmann (US 2019/0269176 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Dahlmann teaches an aerosol generating device (Fig. 1) comprising an elongated chamber (Fig. 3, Ref. Num. 110) configured to store liquid aerosol generating substrate (Fig. 3, Ref. Num. 111) and a level sensor (Fig. 3, Ref. Num. 131, 132; Para. [0045])) inside the chamber that are made of an insulating substrate (Fig. 3, Ref. Num. 113) extending in a longitudinal direction of the chamber and a plurality of sensing electrodes (Para. [0043]) that are spaced apart from each other (Fig. 3, Ref. Num. 131, 132) where the sensor may be in direct contact with the liquid (Fig. 3, Ref. Num. 132).
Regarding claim 2, Dahlmann teaches that the electrodes can follow the shell of the liquid reservoir (Para. [0030]), which would make the electrodes extend from an upper to lower end of the reservoir (chamber).
Regarding claim 3, Dahlmann teaches that the plurality of electrodes extend from a lower end to a predetermined height (Fig. 3, Ref. Num. 131, 132).
Regarding claim 4, Dahlmann teaches that the sensor (Fig. 3, Ref. Num. 132) is disposed at a center of a lower end of the chamber and the insulator substrate (Fig. 3, Ref. Num. 113) is disposed adjacent to the center of the lower end.
Regarding claim 5, Dahlmann teaches a first electrode (Fig. 3, Ref. Num. 132) and a second electrode (Fig. 3, Ref. Num. 131) that are alternately disposed with respect to a direction intersecting the longitudinal direction with a gap between them.
Regarding claim 6, Dahlmann teaches a control unit (Para. [0044]) that is configured to measure impedance between the two electrodes and calculate the liquid level based off the impedance (Para. [0044]).
Regarding claim 8, Dahlmann teaches a heater (Fig. 3, Ref. Num. 120) and an output device (Para. [0018]). Dahlmann also teaches that the controller is configured to output information regarding to the amount of liquid through the output device (Para. [0018]) and to turn off power to the heater based on the liquid level (Para. [0017]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahlmann (US 2019/0269176 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Dahlmann teaches a device that measures the current level of impedance (Para. [0044]) and that the device is capable of turning off the device when the liquid level is too low ((Para. [0017]). Dahlmann does not teach that the controller is configured to determine that the liquid is exhausted by comparing the impedance to a reference impedance value; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to compare the current impedance to a reference impedance to know when it is necessary to turn off the device due to a low liquid level.
Regarding claim 9, Dahlmann teaches a motion sensor (Para. [0015]) and an output device (Para. [0018]). Dahlmann teaches the controller is configured to determine the angled of the chamber from the sensor (Para. [0015]), control the power supply (Para. [0017]), measure the impedance between the two electrodes (Para. [0044]), and that is able to output information to the user (Para. [0018]). Dahlmann does not teach that the controller is configured to output a warning based on the angled being greater than a reference angle; however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to output a warning through the output device when the current angle is greater than a reference angle to warn the user of improper device usage.
Regarding claim 10, Dahlmann teaches the aerosol generating device of claim 1 (See Claim 1 Rejection) comprising a body (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 1), a liquid reservoir (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 4) that can be a cartridge (Para. [006]) that comprises the chamber (Fig. 3, Ref. Num. 110) and the level sensor (Fig. 3, Ref. Num. 131, 132), and a control unit (Para. [0044]). Dahlmann does not teach a connection terminal; however, as the liquid reservoir is a removable cartridge that contains electronic parts, there has to be a connection terminal to connect it to the rest of the aerosol generating device. Dahlmann does not explicitly teach that the control unit is configured to determine through the connection terminal whether the cartridge is coupled and control the power supply based on that; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date as Dahlmann has a connection terminal to connect the cartridge to the device and the control unit has the capability of control the power supply (Para. [0017]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J WEILER whose telephone number is (571)272-2664. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at (571) 270-5545. 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.
/N.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights