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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 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 of this title, 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.
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.
Claim (s) 1-2 and 7-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blandino et al. (WO 2020182735 A1) hereinafter Blandino in view of Daisuke (JP 2014099507A).
Regarding claim 1, Blandino discloses a power supply unit (see 122 and 118 in Fig.7) of an aerosol generating device, the power supply unit comprising: a power supply (118;Fig.7); a first switch (processor mounted on 122 that controls 126;Fig.7 and 9) configured to adjust electric power to be supplied from the power supply to an atomizer that atomizes an aerosol source ( human users presses a switch to signal the processor to control the on and off of inductor which atomizes an aerosol generating material); and a circuit substrate (122;Fig.7) on which the first switch is mounted, wherein the circuit substrate includes: a first layer (122;Fig.9) that is a front layer on which the first switch is mounted (processor is mounted on 122).
Blandino is silent with respect to a second layer that is different from the first layer, a first via that penetrates the first layer and is connected to the first switch, a second via that penetrates the first layer or the second layer and is spaced apart from the first via, and a first conductive pattern that is provided on the second layer and connects the first via and the second via.
Daisuke discloses, in Fig.1, a second layer (last layer 210) that is different from the first layer (top layer 210), a first via (27c) that penetrates the first layer (top layer 210) and is connected to the first switch (3;Fig.1), a second via (27f) that penetrates the first layer and is spaced apart from the first via (27c), and a first conductive pattern (26a and 26b) that is provided on the second layer and connects the first via and the second via (26 connects 27c and 27f).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the teachings of Daisuke to modify the printed circuit board of Blandino to make electrical connections to perform various circuit functions.
Regarding claim 2, Blandino fails to specifically disclose wherein the first switch overlaps the first via when viewed in a stacking direction of the circuit substrate.
Daisuke discloses, in Fig.1, wherein the first switch overlaps the first via when viewed in a stacking direction of the circuit substrate (see switch 3 overlapping 27c in Fig.1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the teachings of Daisuke to modify the printed circuit board of Blandino to make electrical connections to perform various circuit functions.
Regarding claim 7, Blandino discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a width of the first conductive pattern is larger than that of a conductive wire pattern having a smallest width among conductive patterns formed on the first layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use wherein a width of the first conductive pattern is larger than that of a conductive wire pattern having a smallest width among conductive patterns formed on the first layer in order to perform circuit operations, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ233.
Regarding claim 8, Blandino discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a width of the first conductive pattern is larger than a width of any of conductive patterns formed on the first layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use wherein a width of the first conductive pattern is larger than a width of any of conductive patterns formed on the first layer, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ233.
Regarding claim 9, Blandino fails to specifically disclose wherein the first conductive pattern has a rectangular shape. Applying a rectangular shape to the teachings of Blandino would be a matter of choosing aparticular shape, or configuration, of the first conductive pattern. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47(CCPA 1966) the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plasticnursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art wouldhave found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of theclaimed container was significant. Examiner found no persuasive evidence that thethe rectangular shape was significant. Therefore, it would have beenobvious for the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply therectangular shape to the first conductive pattern in order to conduct electrical current and perform circuit operation functions.
Regarding claim 10, Blandino fails to specifically disclose wherein the first conductive pattern has a corners that are rounded. Applying a rounded shape to the teachings of Blandino would be a matter of choosing aparticular shape, or configuration, of the first conductive pattern. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47(CCPA 1966) the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plasticnursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art wouldhave found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of theclaimed container was significant. Examiner found no persuasive evidence that thethe rounded shape was significant. Therefore, it would have beenobvious for the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply therounded shape to the corners of the first conductive pattern in order to conduct electrical current and perform circuit operation functions.
Regarding claim 11, a modified Blandino discloses wherein a conductive pattern (see 21;Fig.1 of Daisuke) formed on the second layer and connecting the vias is only the first conductive pattern (see 26 the only one connecting 27c and 27f of Daisuke).
Regarding claim 12, a modified Blandino discloses wherein the circuit substrate further includes a fourth via (see 27h in Fig.5 of Daisuke) that is not connected to the first conductive pattern (26) and penetrates the second layer (see 27h penetrating the most bottom layer 210 of Daisuke).
Regarding claim 13, a modified Blandino discloses in Fig.5 of Daisuke, wherein the second layer includes a region insulated from the first conductive pattern (see right side of 210 that is insulated from 26a and 27d) and provided on an inner side (right side of ) of the first conductive pattern (26a) when viewed in a stacking direction of the circuit substrate (top down direction), and the fourth via penetrates the region (see 27h).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 14-20 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 an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 3, The prior art of record neither anticipates norrenders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole eithertaken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach" a second switch different from the first switch and configured to adjust the electric power supplied from the power supply to the atomizer that atomizes the aerosol source, wherein the second switch is mounted on the first layer, and the circuit substrate further includes a third via that connects the first conductive pattern and the second switch. " in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim 1.
Regarding claim 4-6, The prior art of record neither anticipates norrenders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole eithertaken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach" a boosting converter mounted on the first layer, wherein an output voltage of the power supply boosted by the boosting converter is supplied to the atomizer “ in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim 1.
Regarding claim 14-16, The prior art of record neither anticipates norrenders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole eithertaken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach" a controller, wherein the circuit substrate further includes a third layer which is different from the first layer and the second layer and on which a second conductive pattern used for serial communication or parallel communication of the controller is formed. “ in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim 1 and 11.
Regarding claim 17-20, The prior art of record neither anticipates norrenders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole eithertaken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teachwherein the circuit substrate further includes another layer that is provided on a side opposite to the first layer and that is a back layer, and the other layer is different from the second layer” in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim 1.
Therefore, prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the instantapplication claimed invention as a whole either taken alone or in combination.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no laterthan the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferablyaccompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments onStatement of Reasons for Allowance."
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETE LEE whose telephone number is (571) 270-5921. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (2nd & 4th Friday Off). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Timothy Dole can be reached at (571) 272-2229 The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/PETE T LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2848