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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 8/12/2026.
Claims 1 and 13-14 are amended.
Claims 6 and 18-20 are cancelled.
Claims 1-5, 7-17, and 21-24 and are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see page 11, filed 8/12/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2, 5, 13-17, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tremblay in view of Kim have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended claims 1 and 13-14 to include the limitation “invalidate both the operation received by the operation unit and the detected request for aerosol generation.” Tremblay fails to disclose such a limitation. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly cited prior art.
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:
(A) 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;
(B) 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
(C) 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: “an operation unit that is configured to receive an operation to enable generation of an aerosol” in claim 1.
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.
The limitation “an operation unit that is configured to receive an operation to enable generation of an aerosol” has been interpreted as “a button type switch, touch panel, or the like (equivalents thereof)” as described in [0024] of the instant specification.
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.
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 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 1-2, 5, 13-17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tremblay (US 2015/0181945; of record) in view of Kim (US 5430363; of record) and Colotte et al. (US 2018/0301915).
Regarding claims 1 and 13-14, Tremblay discloses an electronic vaping device (abstract; “aerosol inhaler”), a method for controller the electronic vaping device (para. 9), and computer-readable storage medium storing instructions for implementing the method (para. 11) including a power source (110; “power supply unit”) comprising:
a battery (112; Fig. 4; “power supply”);
a user interface (150; Fig. 6) including input device (156) including one or more buttons (para. 65) allowing a user to enter an external VCA command to indicate whether vaping is to be enabled (para. 104) the VCA events being one or more conditions (para. 111) involving one or more of time (para. 115) and refilling of a depletable resource (para. 120);
a charge source (192; “external power supply”) connected to the electronic cigarette via a cable (198) (para. 168);
a connection between the power source and a vapor producer (120; see para. 61; “discharging terminal”) and a vaporizer (126) for vaporing a liquid (para. 60; “discharging of the power supply through the discharging terminal”); and
a control system (130; Fig. 5) including a controller (160) having suitable circuitry and/or software ([0066]; “circuitry”) and the user interface (150) configured to:
detect with a fluid drawing detector (154; “inhalation sensor”) when the user has drawn fluid through an outlet (152; “detection of inhalation”) (para. 65);
detect data received from the input device (156; para. 65; “detect operation by user”) indicating vaping is enabled (para. 104) to activate the vaporizer (para. 64; “enable generation of aerosol”);
activate a vaporizer (126) to vaporize a portion of the liquid (“control discharging of the power supply through the discharging terminal to the load to generate the aerosol from the aerosol source”) in response from the fluid-drawing detector detecting when the user has drawn (e.g., puffed, inhaled) fluid through the outlet ([0064]; “detected request for aerosol generation”); and
control operation of the power source (para. 66) including recharging of the battery (para. 166);
wherein:
the electronic cigarette is connected to the computer (194; in this case the “external power supply”) to recharge the battery (para. 168; configuration where “the external power supply can be electrically connected to the charging terminal in a state where discharging of the power supply through the discharging terminal is possible”),
the controller disables vapor-providing capability of the electronic cigarette by refraining from sending an internal control signal to the vapor producer (para. 168) thereby disabling the vapor-providing capability of the electronic cigarette in response to refilling of a depletable resource such as recharging of the battery (para. 120, 166-167) and may effect another control action to once again alter (e.g. enable) the vapor-providing capability of the electronic cigarette (para. 166) by requiring authorization information (750) being inputted into the user interface (para. 176); and
the controller, upon recharging of the battery (para. 175; “charging has ceased”), uses authorization information is used to establish that the user is authorized to use the electronic cigarette to effect a control action in order to enable the vapor-providing capability of the electronic cigarette (see paras. 175-176).
Regarding the claim limitation “a charging terminal,” one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the electronic cigarette requires a charging terminal in order for the charge source 192 and cable 198 to connect to the electronic cigarette.
Regarding the claim limitation “the circuitry is configured to invalidate the operation received by the operation unit, prohibit discharging of the power supply to the discharging terminal, and perform only the charging, when the operation by the user to enable generation of the aerosol is detected while the charging terminal and the external power supply are electrically connected and the charging by the external power supply through the charging terminal is performed,” Tremblay discloses this limitation. Specifically, in the situation where an unauthorized user inputs incorrect authorization information into the user interface, the capability of the electronic cigarette is still disabled (see e.g. para. 53). Therefore, Tremblay discloses that the control unit invalidates the incorrectly inputted authorization information, disables (i.e. prohibits) discharging of the power supply to the discharge terminal, and performs only charging.
However, Tremblay is silent as to the circuitry is configured to invalidate both the operation received by the operation unit and the detected request for aerosol generation. Specifically, Tremblay merely discloses invalidating incorrectly inputted authorization information, but does not further disclose invalidating the detected request for aerosol generation.
Colotte teaches an aerosol-generating system (abstract), a method for controlling the system ([0019]), and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium including software to implement the method ([0037]) comprising: a control unit (2) including a puff sensor ([0046]) which normally activates a heater upon detection of a puff of an adult vaper ([0046]) and controls the supply of electric power from the battery to the heater [(0067]); wherein the control unit only allows charging of the battery or operating the heater ([0043]) such that the control unit may detect that the charger is connected to the system and prevents the heater from heating even if the puff is detected ([0046]; “circuitry is configured to invalidate…the detected request for aerosol generation”) such that the puff of the adult vaper will not result in an activation of the electric heater and thus a subsequent operation of the heater is prevented by the control unit for as long as the battery is on charge ([0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tremblay’s circuitry such that heating is prevented even if the puff is detected for as long as the battery is on charge as in Colotte in order to beneficially prevent overheating of the battery and (title, describing overheating prevention; and [0003]-[0004], [0041]).
Moreover, Tremblay is silent as to the circuitry is configured to invalidate the operation received by the operation unit and prohibit discharge of the power supply to the discharge terminal for a predetermined time immediately after the charging as ceased; and the circuitry is configured to prohibit the charging by the external power supply through the charging terminal for a second predetermined amount of time after the discharge of the power supply through the discharging terminal.
Kim teaches a method of performing battery activation function (abstract) comprising control means for controlling the battery charging device by sequentially enabling charging of the battery, analyzing first and second digital data during charging, determining that charging completion state exists based on the first digital data and second digital data, stopping said charging of the battery (“after charging has ceased”) and then waiting a predetermined period of time when said charging completion state exists (“predetermined time immediately after the charging has ceased”) analyzing said first digital data, and enabling discharging of the battery based on the first digital data (claim 2). Moreover, Kim teaches a charging and discharging operation such that a newly inserted battery is charged in step 206 (Fig. 2A; col. 4, l. 55-col. 5, l. 2) such that while charging is performed, the CPU reads the voltage and temperature of the battery (Fig. 3); if the charging operation is stopped in step 207, the CPU checks in step 208 whether the charging and discharging operation has previously been performed (col. 6, ll. 2-6), and then sets a charging block flag to stop the charging operation and stands by in a waiting state for a predetermined time in step 211 (col. 6, ll. 6-16); in the standby state, the charging voltage of the battery is determined and an abnormal state is indicated if the charging voltage of the battery drops in steps 212-213 (col. 6, ll. 9-46); if the battery is a non-activated one, the abnormal battery flag is set up in step 213 is recognized in step 204 (col. 6, ll. 53-59) such that the CPU then checks whether the current state of the battery satisfies the discharging condition in step 215 (Fig. 2B) and discharging if the condition is satisfied in step 216 (col. 6, l. 60-col. 7, l. 7) and again the CPU then checks the voltage and temperature of the battery again in step 215, and goes to step 217 to stop the discharging operation (col. 7, ll. 7-15; “after the discharge of the power supply through the discharging terminal has ceased”); afterwards, the CPU enters a standby mode for a predetermined time in step 218 (col. 7, ll. 19-20; “second predetermined period of time”).
It would have been obvious to said skilled artisan to have modified Tremblay’s control system to perform the known steps of sequentially determining that a charging completion state exists, stopping said charging of the battery, waiting a first predetermined period of time when said charging completion state exists, analyzing first digital data, and then enabling discharging of the battery, checking the voltage of the battery, and finally disabling discharging and entering a standby mode for a second predetermined period of time as in Kim because such a method is particularly useful in charging new batteries or a battery that has been unused for a long time since full-charging is inaccurate without completion of maximum charging (Kim; col. 1, ll. 39-52), and waiting the second predetermined period of time before recharging allows for heat generated by overheating of the battery to be dissipated (Kim; col. 7, ll. 19-23), thus preventing damage to the battery.
Regarding the claim limitation “the circuitry is configured to invalidate the operation received by the operation unit and prohibit discharge of the power supply to the discharge terminal for a first predetermined time immediately after the charging has ceased,” modified Tremblay discloses this limitation. Specifically, modified Tremblay discloses at least stopping the charging state, then waiting a predetermined period of time after charging is complete, and then enabling discharging of the battery. This means that during the predetermined period of time, discharging of the battery is disabled. Thus, during the predetermined period of time where discharging of the battery is disabled, modified Tremblay’s controller would continue disable any discharging from the battery, including the vapor-providing capability of the electronic cigarette, by refraining from sending an internal control signal to the vapor producer (para. 168). In a situation where an unauthorized user inputs incorrect authorization information into the user interface during the predetermined period of time, the capability of the electronic cigarette is still disabled (see e.g. para. 53). Thus, modified Tremblay discloses that the control unit continues to invalidate the incorrectly inputted authorization information during the predetermined period of time. This continues until (1) the controller finishes analyzing the first digital data and (2) an authorized user correctly inputs authorization information to then enable the vapor-providing capability of the electronic cigarette.
Regarding the claim limitation “the circuitry is configured to prohibit the charging by the external power supply through the charging terminal for a second predetermined amount of time after the discharge of the power supply through the discharging terminal has ceased,” modified Tremblay teaches this limitation. Specifically, modified Tremblay teaches that the device enters a standby mode after discharging (Kim; step 218; Fig. 2B). At this period of time, the abnormal flag and the charging block flag are set on such that any request to charge the battery at this point would result in an output of stopping the charging port (Kim; step 207; Fig. 2A) which interrupts and prevents performance of the charging operation (see Kim; col. 5, l. 67-col. 6, l. 2; “continues to invalidate an operation to start charging…and prohibit the charging by the external power supply”).
Regarding claim 2, modified Tremblay discloses the electronic cigarette may be connected via a cable 198 (e.g. a USB cable) (para. 167).
Regarding claim 5, modified Tremblay discloses upon disconnection from the electronic cigarette from the charge source, the controller may prompt the user to input authorization information (para. 178; “suppress discharging immediately after completion of charging”).
Regarding claims 15-17, modified Tremblay discloses a first state where the electronic cigarette is connected to the charge source (192) of a computer (194; Paragraph 168), and then a second state where the cigarette receives one or more inputs via the user interface (150) in order to detect a VCA event indicating the vapor-producing capability of the electronic cigarette is enabled (Paragraph 169), such as authorization information (750; Paragraph 171; “predetermined operation”).
Regarding claim 21, modified Tremblay discloses an electrical circuit device (143) disposed between the power source (110) and vapor producer (120) (Fig. 9) in the form of an electrical switch (para. 88), wherein disabling the controller disables the vapor-providing capabilities of the electronic cigarette (para. 88) when the electronic cigarette is connected to the charge source (para. 167) by cutting off power to the vapor producer, even if the controller detects from the fluid-drawing detector (para. 91; “prohibits the charger and the discharging terminal from operating at the same time”)
Claims 3 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tremblay view of Kim and Colotte et al. as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Holzherr et al. (US 2020/00352253; of record).
Regarding claim 3, modified Tremblay discloses the power supply unit as discussed above with respect to claim 2, wherein the power source (110) at least extends in an axial direction of the housing (115; see Fig. 1).
However, modified Tremblay is silent as to the discharging terminal is provided at one end of the power supply unit in the predetermined direction, and the charging terminal is provided on a side surface of the other end of the power supply unit in the predetermined direction.
Holzherr teaches an electrically operable aerosol-generating system (abstract) the aerosol-generating system including an aerosol-generating device (220; equivalent to a power supply unit) and a method of operating the aerosol-generating device (Paragraph 78) comprising: a device battery (226); an operating button (290) wherein the heater of the device is actuated by depressing the operating button such that the aerosol-forming substrate is heated to a temperature sufficient to generate an inhalable aerosol (paragraph 120); first and second device contacts (227, 228) electrically connected to the device battery to allow for recharging of the device battery (Paragraph 112) by an external power supply such as mains power (Paragraph 111); internal walls (229; equivalent to a discharging terminal) including heating elements (paragraph 113; equivalent to a load) are electrically connected to the device battery and act to heat the cavity (paragraph 113) and replaceable and/or separate from the first and second device contacts (see Fig. 2; Paragraph 64); and a microprocessor for controlling charging of the device battery and operation of the heating means (Paragraph 95, 114; equivalent to a control unit configured to control discharging of the power supply through the discharging terminal and charging of the power supply through the charging terminal); wherein the aerosol generating device including the button may act to initiate a heating cycle when the aerosol device is not engaged with the charging device (Paragraph 123) and when the charging device and aerosol generating device are in a first engagement position in which the aerosol generating device is engaged with the charging device for charging with the button being accessible by a user (Fig. 4; Paragraph 123) the system detects the engagement of the aerosol-generating device with the charging device and the button is switched off or deactivated to prevent accidental activation of the heating element (paragraph 13, 123). Therefore, Holzherr teaches the aerosol-generating device has a longitudinal dimension defining a longitudinal axis (Paragraph 21; interpreted as a predetermined direction), the device battery (226) extending along the longitudinal axis (see Fig. 2), and the internal wall (229) is provided at a proximal end (223; interpreted as providing the discharging terminal at one end of the power supply unit) of the aerosol generating device (see Fig. 2), and the contacts (227, 228) are provided at a distal end (224; interpreted as the charging terminal is provided on a side surface of the other end of the power supply unit in the predetermined direction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the location of the discharging terminal and charging terminal of Tremblay to be located on opposite ends as in Holzherr in order to improve the speed and ease with which a user is able to insert the aerosol-generating device into a compatible charging device (Holzherr; para. 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
830
575
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, modified Tremblay discloses the power supply, the operation unit, the charging terminal, the discharging terminal, and the control system are located in the same housing (115) (see Fig. 2 of Tremblay).
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tremblay view of Kim and Colotte et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ampolini et al. (US 2014/0270727; of record).
Regarding claim 4, modified Tremblay discloses the power supply unit as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
However, modified Tremblay is silent as to the charging terminal is a power receiving part able to receive power from the external power supply in a non-contact manner.
Ampolini teaches an aerosol delivery article (Paragraph 2) comprising a rechargeable battery, wherein the smoking article comprises charging contacts for interaction with corresponding contacts in a conventional recharging unit (Paragraph 28) and may further include components for providing a non-contact inductive recharging system (Paragraph 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Tremblay to include components for providing a non-contact inductive recharging system as in Ampolini in order to charge the smoking article without the article being physically connected to an external power source (Ampolini; Paragraph 28).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tremblay view of Kim and Colotte et al. as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Glasberg et al. (US 2014/0014124; of record).
Regarding claim 7, modified Tremblay discloses the power supply unit as discussed above with respect to claim 5.
However, modified Tremblay is silent as to a charger that controls charging power input from the charging terminal to the power supply.
Glasberg teaches a tip charging electronic cigarette (abstract) comprising a regulator (104; Fig. 8) connected to the center charging contact (38) and the battery (30) which regulates the amount of power that flows to the battery (para. 44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a regulator as in Glasberg to the circuit of Tremblay in order to control overcharging of the battery and prevent damage to the circuit (Glasberg; para. 45).
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tremblay view of Kim and Colotte et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schennum et al. (US 2017/0222468; of record).
Regarding claims 8-9, modified Tremblay discloses the system as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
However, modified Tremblay is silent as to wherein the circuitry is configured to stop the charging in response to detection of a predetermined operation on the operation unit in a state where an electric connection between the charging terminal the external power supply is maintained.
Schennum discloses a pack for holding and recharging an e-cigarette (abstract) having a dual activation mechanism comprising two separate triggers for causing the re-charging mechanism to begin re-charging the e-cigarette (Paragraph 8) the dual activation mechanism including a toggle trigger from insertion of the e-cigarette, and a monostable trigger by pressing a button (Paragraph 92; interpreted as an operation unit that a user can operate), wherein the triggers de-activate the case (paragraph 91).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the charger of Tremblay to include a dual activation mechanism as in Schennum in order to obtain the predictable result of de-activating the recharging when both triggers are not activated because the dual activation sequence is helpful if a user accidently drops a foreign body in to the charger and prevents re-recharging unless some further positive action is performed (Schennum; Paragraph 92).
Regarding claim 10, modified Tremblay discloses a detection of an inhalation via the fluid-drawing detector in order to activate the vaporizer (para. 64; “operation different from the predetermined operation”).
Regarding the claim limitation “the control unit…generates aerosol after stopping the charging of the power supply based on detection of the operation different from the predetermined operation,” this limitation has been considered, and construed as the manner of operating an apparatus that adds no additional structure to the apparatus as claimed. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114. However, because the device of modified Tremblay is structurally similar to that instantly disclosed, it is capable of being operated with similar if not identical claimed characteristics.
Regarding claim 11, regarding the claim limitation “the circuitry is configured to activate in response an operation on the operation unit performed when the power supply unit is off activates the control unit” this limitation has been considered, and construed as the manner of operating an apparatus that adds no additional structure to the apparatus as claimed. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114. However, because the system of modified Tremblay discloses the same structure as instantly claimed, it is capable of being operated with similar if not identical claimed characteristics. Specifically, when the battery of the system does not have any remaining charge, the system is turned off. Activating both of the dual triggers would allow the battery to charge thereby activating and turning back on the control unit.
Regarding claim 12, regarding the claim limitation “the circuitry is configured to restart charging after stopping the discharging” this limitation has been considered, and construed as the manner of operating an apparatus that adds no additional structure to the apparatus as claimed. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114. However, because the system of modified Tremblay discloses the same structure as instantly claimed, it is capable of being operated with similar if not identical claimed characteristics. Specifically, a user is able to discharge power to the heater in a state where the aerosol-generating device is separated from the charger, and then connect the aerosol-generating device to the charger to restart charging.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tremblay view of Kim and Colotte et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Williams et al. (US 2017/0119052; of record).
Regarding claim 23, modified Tremblay discloses the power supply unit as discussed above with respect to claim 1 including waiting a predetermined period of time when said charging completion state exists (Kim; claim 2).
However, Tremblay is silent as to the predetermined time is measured with a timer.
Williams teaches an aerosol delivery device (abstract) comprising a power control mechanisms including a “long puff” safety timer (“timer”) such that the time between puffs on the device may be restricted to less than a period of time, the timer may automatically reset the aerosol delivery device if its control component or software becomes unstable and does not service the timer within an appropriate time interval (para. 58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a timer in Williams to Tremblay’s device in order to obtain the predictable result of obtaining the time between puffs (Williams; para. 58) with the additional benefit of permanently disabling aerosol delivery in the event of a detected flow sensor and prevent inadvertent heating (Williams; para. 52).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tremblay in view of Kim and Colotte et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lamb et al. (US 2016/0128389; of record).
Regarding claim 24, modified Tremblay discloses the power supply unit as discussed above with respect to claim 1 including the fluid drawing detector (154; see para. 64).
However, modified Tremblay is silent as to the inhalation sensor includes both a capacitor microphone and a pressure sensor.
Lamb teaches an aerosol delivery device having a microelectromechanical system-based (MEMES-based) sensor (abstract), the MEMS-based sensor may be a MEMS microphone including a die with a micromachine, pressure sensitive diaphragm (“pressure sensor”) and a backplate that forms a variable capacitor (“capacitor microphone”) (para. 7, 9), the MEMS-based sensor (110; para. 43) is used to detect an airflow rate through the aerosol delivery device during the duration of a draw to output a signal to the heater relative to the output signal from the sensor (para. 52, 57) and dictate a sensory feedback member’s output (para. 51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tremblay’s fluid drawing detector to be the MEMS-based sensor including a microphone and pressure sensor and in Lamb in order to obtain the predictable result of varying the output form the MEMS-based sensor based on airflow rate (Lamb; para. 57) that can be used to influence the heating profile (Lamb; para. 52) and other mechanisms such as a sensory feedback member (Lamb; para. 51) in order to improve the sensations of smoking that is more similar to smoking of a cigarette (Lamb; para. 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SONNY V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8294. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM 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 Y 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.
/SONNY V NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights