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 .
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.
Claims 1-4 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Lim et al. (US 2020/0305512).
Regarding claim 1, Lim teaches an aerosol-generating device (Lim para 47) comprising: a housing shaped to define an insertion space that is elongated (Lim para 47, fig 2, item 10); a heater configured to heat a stick (Lim item 200) upon insertion into the insertion space (Lim para 48, 51, 67, 68, item 130); a stick detection sensor configured to output a signal associated with the insertion space (Lim para 69, 115, ‘cigarette insertion detecting sensor’); a display (Lim para 69); and at least one processor (Lim para 63).
Examiner’s note: Applicant’s ‘inductance channels’ appear to be regions of the insertion space within the aerosol-generation device corresponding to the heating element. Further ‘region’ is a broad, open-ended term. Therefore, for purposes of Examination, ‘a first region of the insertion space’ and a ‘second region of the insertion space’ will each be considered to define the ‘first inductance channel’ and ‘second inductance channel,’ respectively.
In the instant case, please reference Lim, figure 2, annotated and reproduced below for ‘first’ and ‘second’ regions.
PNG
media_image1.png
392
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, Lim teaches the stick detection sensor comprises at least a first region of the insertion space, corresponding to a first induction channel, and a second region of the insertion space, corresponding to a second induction channel.
Lim further teaches at least one processor (Lim para 63, equates the controller 110 with a processor) configured to: determine a type of the stick based on at least one of a first signal corresponding to the first inductance channel or a second signal corresponding to the second inductance channel (Lim para 115-116, teaches various sensing methods which may alter induction, such as a QR code, bar code, optical stickers, and/or physical differentials, such as bumps , e.g. a series of bumps. In the instant case, a first bump would correspond to a theoretical first region and a second or more bump would correspond to a second theoretical region.); supply power to the heater based on the determined type of the stick being same as a predetermined type (Lim para 115-119); and control the display to output a screen corresponding to the determined type of the stick based on the determined type of the stick being different from the predetermined type (Lim para 130-131).
Regarding claim 2, Lim teaches the aerosol-generating device as above for claim 1. Lim further teaches it possesses an input interface, where the processor is further configured to change the predetermined type to the determined type of the stick in response to receiving, via the input interface, user input selecting the determined type of the stick (Lim para 63, 98, 103).
Regarding claim 3, Lim teaches the aerosol-generating device as above for claim 1. Lim further teaches it possesses an input interface, where the processor is further configured to control the display to output a screen corresponding to a change of the predetermined type in response to receiving, via the input interface, user input selecting the determined type of the stick (Lim para 63, 98, 103).
Regarding claim 4, Lim teaches the aerosol-generating device as above for claim 1. Lim further teaches it possesses an input interface, where the processor is further configured to supply the power to the heater in response to receiving, via the input interface, user input selecting the determined type of the stick (Lim para 63, 98, 103).
Regarding claim 8, Lim teaches the aerosol-generating device as above for claim 1. Lim further teaches the heater may be disposed to surround the insertion space (Lim para 89, ‘disposed outside the cigarette’), and wherein the first inductance channel and the second inductance channel are disposed to surround the heater (see Examiner’s note, above, for claim interpretation).
Regarding claim 9, Lim teaches the aerosol-generating device as above for claim 1. Lim further teaches that the heater may be disposed to correspond to at least a portion of the first region of the insertion space and at least a portion of the second region of the insertion space (see Examiner’s note, above, for claim interpretation, and annotated fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Lim teaches a system comprising: an aerosol-generating device (Lim para 47); and a stick (Lim item 200, cigarette), wherein the aerosol-generating device comprises: a housing shaped to define an insertion space that is elongated (Lim para 47, fig 2, item 10); a heater configured to heat the stick upon insertion into the insertion space (Lim para 48, 51, 67, 68, item 130); a stick detection sensor configured to output a signal associated with the insertion space (Lim para 69, 115, ‘cigarette insertion detecting sensor’); a display (Lim para 69); and at least one processor (Lim para 63).
Examiner’s note: Applicant’s ‘inductance channels’ appear to be regions of the insertion space within the aerosol-generation device corresponding to the heating element. Further ‘region’ is a broad, open-ended term. Therefore, for purposes of Examination, ‘a first region of the insertion space’ and a ‘second region of the insertion space’ will each be considered to define the ‘first inductance channel’ and ‘second inductance channel,’ respectively.
In the instant case, please reference Lim, figure 2, annotated and reproduced below for ‘first’ and ‘second’ regions.
PNG
media_image1.png
392
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, Lim teaches the stick detection sensor comprises at least a first region of the insertion space, corresponding to a first induction channel, and a second region of the insertion space, corresponding to a second induction channel.
Further, Lim teaches the stick may comprise comprises a wrapper configured to wrap an aerosol-generating substance (Lim para 78), wherein the wrapper comprises: a first partial wrapper having a first thickness to correspond to the first region (Lim para 78, two or more wrappers corresponding to different portions of the cigarette such as filter and tobacco regions); and a second partial wrapper having a second thickness to correspond to the second region (Lim para 78, two or more wrappers corresponding to different portions of the cigarette such as filter and tobacco regions), it is further noted that the claim does not require or suggest that these thicknesses must be the same or different, just that they both occur.
Lim further teaches at least one processor (Lim para 63, equates the controller 110 with a processor) configured to: determine a type of the stick based on at least one of a first signal corresponding to the first inductance channel or a second signal corresponding to the second inductance channel (Lim para 115-116, teaches various sensing methods which may alter induction, such as a QR code, bar code, optical stickers, and/or physical differentials, such as bumps , e.g. a series of bumps. In the instant case, a first bump would correspond to a theoretical first region and a second or more bump would correspond to a second theoretical region.); supply power to the heater based on the determined type of the stick being same as a predetermined type (Lim para 115-119); and control the display to output a screen corresponding to the determined type of the stick based on the determined type of the stick being different from the predetermined type (Lim para 130-131).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Mironov et al. (US 2017/0095003).
Regarding claim 5, Lim teaches the aerosol-generating device as above for claim 1. Lim further teaches that the processor is configured to identify the stick (‘cigarette’) and differentiate between a first and a second ‘type’ (Lim para 63, 106-108).
Lim does not explicitly teach that the processor is configured to determine the type of stick (‘cigarette’) via a variation in frequency of the current flowing through the first inductance channel being less than the first threshold, determine whether the type of the stick is a second type based on whether a variation in frequency of a current flowing through the second inductance channel is equal to or greater than a second threshold.
Lim and Mironov are related the field of electronic aerosol generating devices. Mironov teaches an aerosol forming article that utilizes a controller configured to measure inductance of a tobacco article, such as by magnetic particles present in the wrapper (Mironov para 1, 13, 26) to set the desired temperature for that particular type of tobacco article (Mironov para 30) via measuring the difference (less than or equal to value of second threshold, identification threshold) between a baseline inductance (claimed ‘first threshold) and the measured inductance i.e. value equal to or greater than the second threshold, thus either preventing use of the device if the value is baseline or altering the temperature of the heater to the appropriate value (Mironov para 40).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the processor identification method of Lim to be an inductance differential as taught by Mironov because this is another method that allows for the device of Lim to measure, identify, and control the heater to the appropriate temperature for the detected/identified type of ‘stick’.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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: Neither Lim nor Mironov, singly or together teach configuring a processor to utilize a first inductance channel to obtain a first value and a second inductance channel to obtain a second value and then using either the sum or the square of the difference in values to identify the ‘type of stick’ utilized within an aerosol-generating device.
Further, because Mironov explicitly utilizes using the difference in values from a set baseline, it would constitute impermissible hindsight to configure a processor to utilize a summation or a square of the values for identification.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA B FIGG whose telephone number is (571)272-9882. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9a-6p Mountain.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/LAURA B FIGG/Examiner, Art Unit 1781 9/23/2026
Prosecution Insights