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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-11 are pending and are subject to this Office Action. This is the first Office Action on the merits of the claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein the inductive sensor further comprises” in Line 4 should read “wherein the . Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 7 is 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 7 is considered indefinite for reciting “The aerosol-generating device according to Claim 5, further comprising a cartridge coupled to the body to be adjacent to the insertion space, wherein the sensor is disposed between the insertion space and the cartridge”, because it is unclear if the claim is intending to recite an additional cartridge or if it is referring to the same cartridge as the one disclosed in Claim 5.
If the claim is reciting an additional cartridge (i.e., a second cartridge), then this is not supported by the Applicant’s specification because only one cartridge is referenced in Applicant’s disclosure, wherein said cartridge is identified as element 150 as shown in Figs. 6 and 9 of Applicant’s Drawings. There are no additional cartridge or cartridge element number identified in the Specifications or Drawings. If the recitation of the “cartridge” is referring to the same cartridge component disclosed in Claim 5, then the recitation of the cartridge in Claim 7 is considered redundant as the component is already fully disclosed in the previous claim which the present claim is dependent on.
For examination purposes, Examiner will interpret the recitation of “comprising a cartridge coupled to the body to be adjacent to the insertion space, wherein the sensor is disposed between the insertion space and the cartridge” in Claim 7 to be redundant with limitations in Claim 5 and thus, will be ignored in Claim 7.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reevell (Publication No. US20180263286A1) in view of Unseld et al (Publication No. US20190302927A1, see IDS dated 09 April 2024).
Regarding Claim 1, Reevell discloses an aerosol-generating device (Figs. 1-2, [0126]), comprising:
a body (Housing 1) comprising an insertion space (Receiving Chamber 12) (Figs. 1-2, [0126-127]); and
a heater (Heating element 63) configured to heat the insertion space (12) (Figs. 1-2, 11; [0150-0151, 0163-0167]; consumable is heated by heater, wherein consumable is in the insertion space; considered equivalent to heating the insertion space).
Reevell further discloses a sensor (i.e., detection system) installed in the body (1) to recognize the presence or absence of a consumable in the device ([0163]; sensor/detection system is in the device which is considered equivalent to being installed in the body). Reevell does not disclose the following:
the sensor (i.e., detection system) comprises an inductive sensor comprising a planar sensing coil wound outwardly from a center of the sensing coil; and
a capacitance sensor comprising a sensing electrode, and disposed parallel and adjacent to the sensing coil to cover one side of the sensing coil.
Regarding (I-II), Unseld, directed to sense units (i.e., detection systems), discloses a combined sense unit that is capable of both inductive and capacitive sensing for the purpose of detecting various types of magnetic and conductive objects in proximate to the sense unit [0033-0034]. The unit comprises a first and second electrode attached to a first and second terminal for capacitive sensing, while an inductor and capacitor are attached to the first and second terminal such that they are parallel to each other for inductance sensing (see Fig. 4A, [0035, 0081-0084]; the inductor is illustrated as a planar coil wound outwardly into a spiral).
Though Unseld does not explicitly state that the capacitance sensor electrode is adjacent to the sensing coil, it should be noted that Unseld does state that the inductance components can be utilized for capacitance sensing, wherein the sense unit (540) comprises an inductor (642) which acts as a first electrode and capacitor (640) in parallel to the inductor can act as a second electrode for capacitive sensing (Fig. 6A; [0100-0101]; note that the capacitor is connected to other components to form a resonant circuit to become the second electrode circuit that is parallel to the inductor electrode circuit; the inductor and capacitor are shown to be near/adjacent to each other and of similar size, implying full side coverage).
Thus, the inductor and capacitor components for inductive sensing, which are shown to be parallel and covering each other, are considered equivalent to the first and second electrodes of the capacitive sensing mode as both sensing modes share components to measure inductance and/or capacitance depending on the selected sensing mode.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the detection system disclosed by Reevell to incorporate a combined inductance and capacitive sensing unit(s) with a planar inductive coil and adjacent electrode (i.e., capacitor) as disclosed by Unseld, as both are directed to a detection unit/system for sensing object proximity to said sensor, where Unseld teaches the advantage of using a combined inductive and capacitive sensing unit for sensing both conductive objects and metals [0034]; this also involves applying a known teaching of combined sensing units disclosed by Unseld to a similar sensing/detection unit system disclosed by Reevell to predictably yield a detection unit system capable of detecting absence or presence (i.e., proximity) of a consumable cartridge via capacitive and/or inductive sensing.
Regarding Claim 2, Modified Reevell further discloses that the capacitance sensor is configured to sense a change in capacitance of the insertion space (see Claim 1 rejection for full modification; Fig. 1; [0163]; this is implicit because the detection system is for detecting the presence of a consumable, which goes into the insertion space); and
wherein the inductive sensor is configured to sense a change in inductance of the insertion space (see Claim 1 rejection for full modification; Fig. 1; [0163]; this is implicit because the detection system is for detecting the presence of a consumable, which goes into the insertion space).
Modified Reevell does not explicitly disclose the sensing coil is disposed between the insertion space and the sensing electrode, wherein the sensing coil and the sensing electrode are disposed to face toward the insertion space.
However, it should be noted that this would be an obvious arrangement for the sensing coil and electrode in light of its function disclosed by Unseld; in both the inductive and capacitive mode, the inductor is utilized to measure an object’s proximity to said sensor based on its detected proximity to the magnetic or electric field generated from the inductor [0082-0084]). Regarding Reevell, the insertion space (12) is where the consumable/cartridge is inserted into, which is also the object being detected by the detection system.
Thus, it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art based on Selby’s disclosure that if the inductor is being utilized to detect the consumable, it would be desirable to construct it facing the consumable’s insertion space, and further preferably between the insertion space and second electrode capacitor so that the inductor detection range is closer to the desired detected object.
Regarding Claim 3, Modified Reevell does not explicitly state that the sensing electrode shields the sensing coil from magnetic fields. However, it should be noted that regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary (see MPEP § 2112.01.I).
In this case, Modified Reevell already discloses a sensing electrode as claimed by the Applicant, wherein said sensing electrode is disposed parallel and adjacent to the sensing coil. Since the sensing electrode is structural the same as the one claimed by the Applicant, it is presumed that Reevell’s sensing electrode will also be capable of functioning as a shield for the sensing coil from magnetic fields, unless evidence of the contrary is provided.
Regarding Claim 4, Modified Reevell does not explicitly disclose a shielding member disposed opposite to the inductive sensor with respect to the capacitance sensor, and covering one side of the capacitance sensor.
However, Xie, directed to an inductive sensor, discloses a method of shielding an inductive sensor from magnetic fields using a shielding coil that is arranged outside of the detection coil of the inductive sensor (Abstract). Specifically, the shielding coil(s) surrounds the detection coils of the inductive sensor by situating around the perimeter, adjacent to the resonant capacitor that is connected to the detection coil to form a resonant circuit (see Fig. 4; [0026]; the shielding components are opposite to the inductive sensor detection coils relative to the capacitor).
Regarding Modified Reevell, a similar sensing coil and capacitor component is configured for the inductive/capacitive sensor, wherein the capacitor also acts as an electrode when the sensing system is configured to measure capacitance instead of inductance (see Claim 1 rejection for full modification). Thus, one ordinarily skilled in the art could add a shielding member surrounding the inductor and capacitor such that it is opposite to the inductor as disclosed by Xie, wherein it is implied that said shielding member will be opposite to the inductor relative to the electrode since the capacitor also acts as the electrode.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the detection/sensor system disclosed by Modified Reevell to further comprise a shielding member disposed opposite of the sensing coil inductor relative to the capacitor/electrode as disclosed by Xie, as both are directed to an inductive sensor, where Xie teaches the advantage of using a shielding member to shield and protect the inductive sensor from outside magnetic influence (Abstract); this also applies a known teaching of using a shielding member to protect sensors as disclosed by Xie, to a similar sensor disclosed by Modified Reevell to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 5, Modified Reevell further discloses a cartridge (32) coupled to the body to be adjacent to the insertion space (12) (Reevell, see Figs. 1-2; [0135]; discloses a cartridge consumable and its own receiving chamber 11 adjacent to the insertion space/chamber 12);
wherein the inductive sensor is configured to sense a change in inductance (see Claim 1 for full modification rejection; Unseld, [0059]; sensing unit is configured to measure changes in inductance to determine proximity); and
wherein the capacitance sensor is configured to sense a change in capacitance (see Claim 1 for full modification rejection; Unseld, [0053, 0059]; sensing unit is configured to measure changes in capacitance to determine proximity).
Modified Reevell does not disclose the following:
wherein the sensor is disposed between the insertion space and the cartridge;
wherein the sensing coil faces toward one of the insertion space or the cartridge; and
the sensing electrode faces toward the other one of the insertion space or the cartridge;
Regarding (I), it should be noted that rearrangement of parts without modifying the operation of the device is held to be an obvious matter of design choice that gives predictable results (see MPEP § 2144.04.VI.C). In this regard, Reevell does not explicitly state where the detection system is located, but does provide an example of a touch sensor which is located in the receiving chamber to generate process signals [0197].
Furthermore, Unseld, which is used to modify Reevell for the induction and capacitance sensors (see Claim 1 rejection for modification), discloses that the inductor (i.e., sensing coil) is utilized to measure an object’s proximity to said sensor based on its detected proximity to the magnetic or electric field generated from the inductor [0082-0084]). Thus, one ordinarily skilled in the art would reasonably understand from Reevell and Unseld’s disclosure that there is a general preference for the signal generator component (i.e., conductor) to be located in relative proximity to the object and/or space that is meant to be detected (in this case, the insertion space and consumable).
As such, it would be an obvious design choice for one ordinarily skilled in the art to arrange the sensor to be disposed between the insertion cavity (12) and cartridge (32), so long as the inductor component of the sensor is preferably arranged proximal to the insertion cavity relative to the capacitor component, to predictably result in the sensor detecting inductance and/or capacitive changes in the insertion cavity via signal transmissions from the inductor.
Regarding (II-III), as stated above, the inductor in Modified Reevell’s detection system is the primary component for generating transmission signals that can detect and relay information regarding inductance and capacitive measurements for detecting an object such as a consumable cartridge.
Therefore, if the desired object for detection is a consumable inserted into the insertion cavity (12), then it would be obvious for one ordinarily skilled in the art to arrange the inductor sensing coil to face the insertion cavity to predictably result in the inductor picking up inductance and/or capacitive changes in said insertion cavity when there is a presence or lack of presence of a consumable.
Further note that if the inductor sensing coil is disposed to face the insertion cavity, the capacitor (i.e., electrode sensing component when in a capacitive sensing mode), will by default be facing the cartridge due to the capacitor being parallel to the inductor, and the entire sensing system comprising the capacitor and inductor being situated between the insertion cavity (12) and cartridge (32).
Additionally, this is also applicable in the alternative case, wherein if the desired object of detection is the cartridge (32) instead of the insertion space (12), then the sensing coil would be preferably designed proximate to the cartridge relative to the capacitor, wherein the capacitor would now be the component disposed proximate to the insertion cavity (12).
Regarding Claim 6, Modified Reevell does not explicitly state that the sensing coil is wound to provide electric shielding for the sensing electrode from electric fields, wherein the sensing electrode provides magnetic shielding for the sensing coil from magnetic fields.
However, it should be noted that regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary (see MPEP § 2112.01.I).
In this case, Modified Reevell already discloses a sensing electrode as claimed by the Applicant, wherein said sensing electrode is disposed parallel and adjacent to the sensing coil. Modified Reevell also discloses that the sensing coil is a spiral coil which is equivalent to being wound up (see Claim 1 rejection for full modification; Unseld, see Fig. 4A).
Since the sensing electrode and sensing coil are structurally the same as the ones claimed by the Applicant, it is presumed that Reevell’s sensing electrode will also be capable of functioning as a shield for the sensing coil from magnetic fields, and the sensing coil is capable of providing an electric shielding function for the sensing electrode unless evidence of the contrary is provided.
Regarding Claim 7, Modified Reevell further the sensor is disposed between the insertion space (12) and the cartridge (32) (see Claim 5 rejection for the sensor arrangement);
wherein the sensor further comprises an inductive sensor including a sensing coil (see Claim 1 rejection; Reevell was modified with Unseld to include an inductive/capacitive sensor, wherein the sensor includes an inductor coil).
Modified Reevell does not disclose the following:
Regarding (I), it should be noted that the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.04.VI.B).
In this case, Reevell discloses an aerosol-generating device comprising a plurality of insertion cavities and consumables/cartridges. Reevell further discloses a detection system which can comprise sensors such as a touch sensor for detecting the absence or presence of a consumable [0163]. Unseld is directed to touch sensors such as capacitive and inductive sensors, wherein detection of an object is relative to its proximity to a sensor [0002].
Thus, it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art based on Reevell’s and Unseld’s disclosure that if a capacitive/inductive sensor is used for proximate determination of an inserted object, one would duplicate Unseld’s sensor to match the plurality of consumable objects and/or insertion cavities in Reevell so that each sensor can measure and transmit signal relating to the proximity/presence of each consumable and/or insertion space.
Therefore, it would obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to duplicate the inductive sensor in Modified Reevell to form a second inductive sensor with a second sensing coil, to predictably yield a sensor component that is capable of measuring inductance from an insertion cavity with one sensor, and an inductance value from the cartridge (and its associated second insertion cavity) with a second sensor.
Regarding (II), note that as previously discussed in Claim 5 (which the present claim is dependent on), the sensor is arranged such that it is between the insertion space (12) and cartridge (32), wherein the sensing coil is specifically arranged to be proximate to the insertion space (12) for detection purposes.
Following a similar logic, one ordinarily skilled in the art would preferably arrange the second sensing coil for detecting an additional insertion cavity for inserting the cartridge (32) to be proximate to said cartridge (32) and its associated cavity relative to its capacitor so that the inductor’s sensing coil and its magnetic/electric field signal is directed to said cartridge (32).
Thus, if the sensor is disposed between the cavity (12) and cartridge (32), wherein the first and second inductor sensing coils are further disposed facing one of the cavity and/or cartridge, then subsequently the parallel capacitors for each inductive sensor must naturally be disposed between the first and second sensing coils by default of the sensor location.
Regarding Claim 8, Modified Reevell further discloses the first sensing coil and the second sensing coil are each planarly wound (Unseld, see Fig. 4A, [0035, 0081-0084]; the inductor is illustrated as a planar coil wound outwardly into a spiral). Modified Reevell does not explicitly disclose a spacing between turns of the first sensing coil is larger than a spacing between turns of the second sensing coil.
However, it should be noted that the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design (see MPEP § 2144.04.IV.B). In this case, Unseld discloses that the inductor sensing coils can be considered as an electrode [0100], wherein the size and shape of the electrode can be specifically chosen based on the application and type of object being detected [0134]. In particular, Unseld notes that selecting electrode sizes include determining a coil capacitive coupling between turns and layers of the electrode between the ground and target object to determine optimal detection frequency [0135].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to change the size and shape of Modified Reevell’s sensing coils such that a spacing between turns of the first sensing coil is larger than a spacing between turns of the second sensing coil, to predictably result in the first and second sensing coils having different optimal frequencies for different target objects of detection.
Regarding Claim 9, Modified Reevell further discloses the first inductive sensor is configured to sense a change in inductance of the insertion space (12) through the first sensing coil (see Claim 5 rejection for arranging the inductive sensor to detect the insertion space; see Claim 7 for further modification for two inductive sensors; note that if the original inductive sensor from Claim 5 is considered as the first sensor, then it is implicit that the original inductive sensor is for detecting the insertion cavity);
wherein the capacitance sensor is configured to sense a change in capacitance of the insertion space through the sensing electrode (see Claim 5 rejection for arranging the inductive sensor to detect the insertion space; see Claim 7 for further modification for two inductive sensors; note that if the original inductive sensor from Claim 5 is considered as the first sensor, then it is implicit that said inductive sensor when operated as a capacitive sensor will detect capacitive change in the insertion cavity); and
wherein the second inductive sensor is configured to sense a change in inductance of the cartridge through the second sensing coil (see Claim 5 rejection for arranging the inductive sensor to detect the insertion space; see Claim 7 for further modification for two inductive sensors; note that if the original inductive sensor from Claim 5 is considered as the first sensor, then it is implicit that the duplicated second sensor comprising the second sensing coil is directed to the consumable cartridge).
Regarding Claim 10, Modified Reevell further discloses that the first inductive sensor is configured to sense a change in inductance of the cartridge through the first sensing coil (see Claim 5 rejection for arranging the inductive sensor to detect the insertion space; see Claim 7 for further modification for two inductive sensors; note that if the original inductive sensor from Claim 5 is considered as the first sensor, said first sensor and its sensing coil can be alternatively arranged to sense the cartridge);
wherein the capacitance sensor is configured to sense a change in capacitance of the cartridge through the sensing electrode (see Claim 5 rejection for arranging the inductive sensor to detect the insertion space; see Claim 7 for further modification for two inductive sensors; note that if the original inductive sensor from Claim 5 is considered as the first sensor and is alternatively arranged to detect the cartridge, then it is implicit that said inductive sensor when operated as a capacitive sensor will detect capacitive change in the cartridge); and
wherein the second inductive sensor is configured to sense a change in inductance of the insertion space through the second sensing coil (see Claim 5 rejection for arranging the inductive sensor to detect the insertion space; see Claim 7 for further modification for two inductive sensors; note that if the original inductive sensor from Claim 5 is considered as the first sensor and alternatively arranged to detect the cartridge, then it is implicit that the duplicated second sensor comprising the second sensing coil is directed to the insertion cavity).
Regarding Claim 11, Modified Reevell further discloses the sensing electrode and the sensing coil have perimeter shapes corresponding to each other (See Claim 1 rejection for full modification; Unseld, see Fig. 6A; Reevell is modified with Unseld’s inductor coil and capacitor which acts as an electrode; the inductor coil 642 and capacitor 646 can be constructed to have the same circular perimeter shape as shown in the figures).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bruwer et al (Publication No. US20180128650A1) – Inductive sensor comprising an inductor which can also act as a capacitive sensor electrode.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vu P Pham whose telephone number is (703)756-4515. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th (7:30AM-4:00PM EST).
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, Philip Louie can be reached at (571) 270-1241. 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.
/V.P./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights