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, 2, 4, 6-9 and 34-38 are pending.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 34, 35 and 36 have been amended.
Claims 6-9 remain withdrawn.
Claims 3, 5 and 10-33 have been cancelled.
Claims 37 and 38 are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, filed 2/6/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Applicant' s arguments, filed 2/6/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Applicant has amended claim 1 to include limitations that were not previously presented. The previously applied prior art, Ampolini in view of Leadley, do not appear to teach or suggest the new limitation. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of previously applied prior art in view of newly found prior art.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 34, 37 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 20140270727 (Ampolini hereinafter) in view of US 20200046025 (Otiaba hereinafter).
Regarding claims 1, 34 and 38, Ampolini teaches a nicotine electronic vaping device (Fig. 1) comprising:
a nicotine pod assembly (cartridge 140) including a nicotine reservoir (200) to hold nicotine pre-vapor formulation, and a heater (320) configured to vaporize nicotine pre-vapor formulation drawn from the nicotine reservoir ([0064]); and
a device body (300) configured to engage with the nicotine pod assembly (via connectors 285 and 290), the device body including a controller (360) configured to detect a plurality of types of fault events within the nicotine electronic vaping device (“determine faults”, [0075]).
The controller (360) may be configured to recognize fault events or malfunctions and notify the user of such fault conditions or malfunctions. For example, an actual voltage at the heating component (320) is below the minimum value of the expected voltage range may be an indication that the power source (340) (i.e. battery) is low or is discharged. The actual voltage below minimum value of expected voltage is a soft fault pod event, the power source (340) is low is a soft fault device event, and the power source (340) (i.e. battery) is discharged is a hard fault device event. Another example is no current flow through the heating component (320) may indicate the heating component (320) is defective, which is a hard fault pod event ([0075]).
Ampolini further discloses at the initiation of every puff, the software executed by the controller (360) may be configured to communicate with the cartridge unit to conduct the authentication process to validate the cartridge unit as being a legitimate device for use with the power unit. If the cartridge unit is authenticated, the puffing process is allowed to continue. At the start of every puff, following the authentication process, the software may also be configured to read puff count data from the cartridge unit memory and, if there are a sufficient number of "puff- seconds" (i.e., remaining capacity or service life) remaining, the software may be configured to allow actuation of the heating component. Upon a puff deactivation, the software may be configured to direct the white LED to flash 3 times in the sequence 100 mS on -500 mS off. The white LED may be directed to flash 5 times in the sequence 100 mS on -500 mS off, on every puff, when the cartridge unit is expired, and the heating component is not activated (e.g., power is not applied to the heating component) ([0131]) (“vaping off operation”). The cartridge unit is expired, (e.g., empty of aerosol vapor pre-cursor material) is a hard fault pod event which is an abnormal condition within the pod assembly.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably suggested not activating the heating component due to an expired cartridge unit disables all energy to the heating component and that the expired cartridge must be replaced or refilled with aerosol vapor pre-cursor material as the at the start of every puff, following the cartridge authentication process, the software may also be configured to read puff count data from the cartridge memory and, if there is remaining capacity or service life remaining, to allow activation of the heating component ([0131]).
Ampolini does not explicitly disclose a controller configured to perform a first consequent action based on a detected fault event being a soft fault pod event, the first consequent action being a heater off operation, and wherein the heater off operation and the vaping off operation are different.
Otiaba teaches an electronic vapor provision device comprises: a first electrical resistive heater for vaporizing a precursor material to generate vapor in an airflow for inhalation by a user and a second electrical resistive heater for vaporizing the precursor material and/or heating said airflow. The device further includes a control system to monitor for a change in the resistance of at least the second electrical resistive heater. The second electrical resistance heater therefore serves both as a heater and as a temperature monitor (abstract). The e-cigarette (10) comprises two main components, namely a cartomizer (20) and a device or body portion (30). In use, the cartomizer (20) and the body (30) are joined together. In particular, each of the cartomizer and the body is provided with a respective connector (25A, 25B) (referred to herein in combination as connector 25) that provide mechanical and electrical connectivity between the cartomizer and the body when they are attached to one another ([0021]). The device portion (30) includes a battery unit (330) for powering the e-cigarette, as well as a printed circuit board (PCB) (335) on which is mounted a controller (410) ([0030]). The supply path from the battery (330) to the connector (25B) (and hence to the cartomizer 20) includes a current monitor (460). The current monitor measures how much current is being drawn from the battery and supplied to the cartomizer (Fig. 2, [0036]). In operation therefore, the current monitor (460) tracks the level of current supplied to the heater (235) ([0048]). If the controller does detect some abnormal situation based on the current level as tracked by monitor, for example, a sudden fall in current which is likely to be caused by a rise in resistance, typically representative of over- heating (“a soft fault pod event”), the controller may take appropriate remedial (compensatory) action (“a first consequent action”). For example, the controller may instruct the power control system to restrict (reduce) or even turn off the power supply from the battery to the heater (“the first consequent action is a heater off operation”) ([0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the controller of Ampolini to turn off the power supply from the battery to the heater of Ampolini upon detection of a soft fault pod event such as a sudden fall in monitored current through the heater component which is likely to be caused by a rise in resistance which is typically representative of over-heating as taught by Otiaba (“perform a first consequent action based on a detected fault event being a soft fault pod event”).
Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize turning off the power supply from the battery to the heater (“a heater-off operation”) due to over-heating is not the same as not activating the heater due to detecting the cartridge is expired (“vaping off operation”).
Regarding claim 2, Ampolini discloses the actual voltage at the heating component (320) below minimum value and no current flow through the heating component ( [0075]) (“the soft fault pod event is an abnormal conditions within the nicotine pod assembly”).
Ampolini discloses the power source (340) (i.e., battery) is low and the power source is discharged ([0075]) (“the soft fault device event and the hard fault device event are abnormal conditions within the device body”). (See claim 1 rejection.)
Regarding claim 37, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be reasonably suggested that turning off the power supply to the heater of modified Ampolini upon detection of a sudden fall in monitored current through the heater of modified Ampolini would end a current puff event and that the smoking article of modified Ampolini is capable of resuming puffing (“remains steady for vaping”) as no consequent action was required to be taken following turning off the power supply to the heater (Ampolini, [0131]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ampolini in view of Otiaba as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Galloway (US 20160050974).
Regarding claim 4, modified Ampolini teaches at least one vaper indicator configured to output an indication that a fault event has occurred (“notify the user of such fault conditions”, [0075]).
Modified Ampolini does not expressly teach a vaper indicator.
Galloway teaches an electronic cigarette with a control circuit ([0012]). Galloway teaches a user interface (618) and in some embodiments, a first message (e.g., an error message indicating a fault was detected) may be displayed if a fault is detected ([0095]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized a user interface, such as a display taught by Galloway, to “notify the user of such fault conditions” of modified Ampolini, with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results, namely an effective means of notifying the user as to fault conditions.
Claim(s) 35 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ampolini in view of Otiaba as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Leadley (US 20170207499).
Regarding claims 35 and 36, modified Ampolini does not expressly teach that the hard fault device event includes at least one of a power supply charging failure or a power stage fault, wherein the power supply charging failure is a power supply failure at a charger and the power stage fault is a presence of current flowing through the heater after vaping conditions are no longer present at the nicotine electronic vaping device and the vaping conditions include application of negative pressure above a threshold to a mouthpiece of the nicotine electronic vaping device.
Leadley teaches an electronic vapor provision system such as an e-cigarette (10) ([0024]). Some electrical components of the e-cigarette shown in Fig. 10 including an over-current protection PCB (1000) ([0060]). The over-current protection PCB (1000) monitors the current flowing through the connector (25B) during operation of the e-cigarette (10) and if there is a short circuit at the heater (365), there will be sudden increase in current flowing through the heater. The short circuit might occur for reasons such as an electrical fault at the heater, the heater circuit having been tampered with, excessive moisture making contact with the heater. The short circuit of the heater (“hard fault device event”) may risk damage occurring to the e-cigarette device, or worse, injury to the user ([0061]). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention is reasonably suggested that the short circuit, such as from the heater circuit has been tampered with, may occur without the user drawing air through the e-cigarette.
The over-current protection PCB upon detection of a current deemed too high (i.e., above a certain predetermined threshold) through the connector, causes the supply of current from the battery to the connector to be cut which reduces the chance of damage to the e-cigarette and of injury to the user due to such a short circuit ([0062]) (“power stage fault” which is a presence of current flowing through the heater after vaping conditions are no longer present).
Leadley further teaches the over-current protection PCB may also monitor current flowing through the connector, and/or voltage applied at the connector, during recharging of the e-cigarette via USB connector. For example, expected voltage applied by a USB charger to the USB connector may be 5V, so that the over-voltage cut-off (“auto off operation”) might be set, by way of illustration, at 6V. The over-current protection PCB therefore provides protection for the e-cigarette both during recharging (against excessive recharging voltage), and also during normal operation (against excessive current) ([0065])(“power supply charging failure” which is a power supply failure at a charger).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of modified Ampolini and include the over-current protection PCB as taught by Leadley to provide protection for the e-cigarette both during recharging (against excessive recharging voltage), and also during normal operation (against excessive current).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YANA B KRINKER whose telephone number is (571)270-7662. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.
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.
YANA B. KRINKER
Examiner
Art Unit 1755
/YANA B KRINKER/Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights