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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-9, 15, and 18-36 are pending. Claims 1-2 and 8-9 have been amended. Claims 3, 5, 10-14, and 16-17 have been canceled. Claims 35-36 are new. Claims 18-33 remain withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed October 14, 2025 with respect to the claim objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. Said objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed October 14, 2025 with respect to the § 101 claim rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. Said rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed October 14, 2025 with respect to the § 103 claim rejections concern amendments to the claims which are addressed in the rejections below.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ampolini et al. (US 20140270727); furnished with IDS, in view of Otiaba et al. (US20200046025).
Regarding claim 1, Ampolini discloses aerosol delivery articles and in particular articles considered to be smoking articles for purposes of yielding components of tobacco and other materials in an inhalable form. (Fig. 1 ¶[0002]) The “other materials” reads over non-nicotine materials and the smoking article reads over a non-nicotine electronic vaping device. The smoking article comprises a cartridge (140) (Fig. 3 ¶[0014]). The cartridge reads over a non-nicotine pod assembly due to “other materials” as noted above.
An aerosol precursor component (200) and a heating component (320) are arranged within the cartridge portion (140) (¶[0064]). The aerosol precursor component (200) reads over a non-nicotine reservoir to hold non-nicotine pre-vapor formulation. The heating component (320) reads over a heater configured to vaporize non-nicotine pre-vapor formulation drawn from the non-nicotine reservoir.
A controller (360) is arranged in the control body portion (120), (¶[0065]), the controller 360/processor 370 may also be configured to determine a current flow 550 (i.e., a differential current) through the heating component (320); the current sensing arrangement is a resistor (575). In one particular aspect, the current flow through the heating component (320) may be determined, for example using a current sensing ADC block (590) of the controller 360/processor 370 (¶[0071]). (The controller (360) is configured to determine (e.g., detect) faults or malfunctions associated with the electronic smoking article (100) (¶[0075]). This reads over a plurality of fault events at the non-nicotine electronic vaping device. The controller (360) may be configured to recognize such conditions 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 reads over a soft fault pod event, the power source (340) is low reads over a soft fault device event, and the power source (340) (i.e., battery) is discharged reads over a hard fault device event. Another example is no current flow through the heating component (320) may indicate the heating component (320) is defective. This reads over a hard fault pod event (¶[0075]).
Ampolini further discloses at the initiation of every puff, the software executed by the controller 360/processor 370 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/control 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]), reading over a vaping off operation of claim 1. The cartridge unit is expired, (e.g., empty of aerosol vapor pre-cursor material) reads over hard fault pod event which is an abnormal condition within the pod assembly of claim 1.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably suggested not activating the heating component due 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 as discussed in Ampolini (¶[0131]) previously. This reads over claim 36.
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 vapour provision device comprises: a first electrical resistive heater for vaporising a precursor material to generate vapour in an airflow for inhalation by a user and a second electrical resistive heater for vaporising 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 (20) and the body (30) 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 (20) and the body (30) when they are attached to one another (¶[0021]).
The device portion (30) includes a battery unit (330) for powering the e-cigarette (10), 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 (460) measures how much current is being drawn from the battery (330) and supplied to the cartomizer (20) (Fig. 2, ¶[0036]). In operation therefore, the current monitor (460) tracks the level of current supplied to the heater (235) (¶[0048]). If the controller (410) does detect some abnormal situation based on the current level as tracked by monitor (460), for example, a sudden fall in current which is likely to be caused by a rise in resistance, typically representative of over-heating (reads over a soft fault pod event of claim 1), the controller (410) may take appropriate remedial (compensatory) action (reads over a first consequent action). For example, the controller (410) may instruct the power control system (450) to restrict (reduce) or even turn off the power supply from the battery to the heater (335) (reads over the first consequent action is a heater off operation of claim 1) (¶[0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the invention of Ampolini and 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 (550) through the heater component (320) which is likely to be caused by a rise in resistance which is typically representative of over-heating as taught by Otiaba. This reads over a controller configured to perform a first consequent action based on a detected fault event being a soft fault pod event of claim 1.
Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably suggested that turning off the power supply to heater of Ampolini upon detection of a sudden fall in monitored current through the heater of Ampolini would end a current puff (reads over vaping) and that the smoking article of modified Ampolini is capable to resume puffing as no consequent action was required to be taken following turning off the power supply to the heater. This reads over claim 35.
Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize turning off the power supply from the battery to the heater (i.e., a heater-off operation) due to over-heating is not the same as not activating the heater due to detecting the cartridge is expired as discussed above. This reads over the heater off operation and the vaping off operation are different of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Ampolini discloses the actual voltage at the heating component (320) below minimum value and no current flow through the heating component (320). (¶[0075]) This reads over the soft fault pod event is an abnormal conditions at the cartridge portion (140) (e.g., non-nicotine pod assembly). Ampolini discloses the power source (340) (i.e., battery) is low and the power source (340) (i.e., battery) is discharged. (¶[0075]) This reads over the soft fault device event and the hard fault device event are abnormal conditions at the device body. (See claim 1 rejection.)
Claims 4, 6-9, and 15 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 et al. (US 20160050974). Modified Ampolini discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Regarding claim 4, modified Ampolini discloses the controller (360) may be configured to notify the user of fault conditions or malfunctions (Ampolini ¶[0075]).
Modified Ampolini does not expressly teach a vaper indicator to output an indication that a fault event has occurred.
Galloway teaches an aerosol delivery device, with a control circuit (¶[0012]); 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]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the invention of modified Ampolini with a user display interface as taught by Galloway which notifies the user of a fault condition. One of ordinary skill in the air would have a reasonable expectation of success with predictable results, such as a visible, effective means of notifying the user of fault conditions. This error notification reads over at least one vaper indicator configured to output an indication that a fault event has occurred of Claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, modified Ampolini teaches that the cartridge unit further includes a memory (Ampolini, ¶[0091]);
Modified Ampolini does not explicitly teach to disable a vaping function (e.g., cease heating an aerosol precursor composition to form an inhalable substance) (Galloway ¶[0039]) and causing the at least one vaper indicator to output the indication that the fault event has occurred (see rejection of Claim 4).
Galloway teaches control component (212) may be configured to monitor, actuate, control, regulate, and/or cease power supply to a heating element that may be used to heat aerosol precursor composition to form an inhalable substance in an aerosol delivery device comprising the control board (402), (Galloway, ¶[0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the invention of modified Ampolini and program the controller of Ampolini to cease power supply to the heating element that is used to heat aerosol precursor composition to form inhalable substance upon detection of a hard fault pod event such as a no current flow through the heating component which may indicate the heating component (320) is defective (see rejection of claim 1).
Modified Ampolini does not explicitly teach in response to the hard fault pod event, the controller is configured to log an occurrence of the fault event in the memory. However, modified Ampolini teaches the controller (360)/processor (370) may include a memory for storing, for example, application software, a communications interface, data collection software, or the like (Ampolini, ¶[0095]).
Therefore, 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 data collection software of Ampolini to include storing the occurrence of fault events with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results, namely, an effective means to store the occurrence of a fault event, such as no current flow through the heater of Ampolini, for later review by the user. This reads over to log an occurrence of a fault event in the memory of Claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, modified Ampolini does not explicitly teach the controller is configured to detect disengaging of the non-nicotine pod assembly from the device body and disable the vaping function at the non-nicotine electronic vaping device in response to detecting disengaging the non-nicotine pod assembly from the device body.
However, modified Ampolini discloses no current flow through the heating component (320) may indicate that there is an improper or defective connection between the control body portion (120) and the cartridge portion (140) and as such, the controller (360)/processor (370) may be configured to recognize such conditions and notify the user of the fault condition. (Ampolini, ¶[0075]) Improper or defective connection between the controller and the cartridge reads over the detection portion of Claim 7.
The control body and the cartridge portion are detachable with respect to each other (Ampolini,¶[0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that disengagement (e.g., detachment) between the control body portion and the cartridge portion would result in the vaping function as well as all other device functions to cease operational functioning due to the lack of power from the power source which is arranged within the control body portion (120).
Regarding claim 8, modified Ampolini does not explicitly disclose the controller is configured to cause the device body to enter a sleep mode in response to determining that the corrective action has not occurred within the threshold time period.
However, modified Ampolini teaches control board (900) may enter a sleep mode if a defined wait period (i.e., threshold time period) expires (Galloway ¶[[0129]-[0133]). This reads over the controller is configured to cause the device body to enter a sleep mode in response to determining the corrective action has not occurred within the threshold time period of Claim 8.
Regarding the claim 8 limitation, “determine that a corrective action has not been taken in response to the hard fault pod event”, it necessarily follows that the controller includes such logic within its programming since such programming steps, specifically if/then steps, are inherent to controllers, unless shown otherwise. In the alternative, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, to have programmed the controller to first check if a corrective action had not been taken in response to the fault event, and if a corrective action had not been taken, to then perform a consequent action so as not to perform unnecessary actions in response to the fault event.
Regarding claim 9, modified Ampolini teaches that the device body further includes a memory (Ampolini, [0091]); and the controller is configured to perform the at least one consequent action by initiating an auto off operation by entering a sleep mode (see rejection of claim 8) and causing the at least one vapor indicator to output the indication that the fault event has occurred (see rejection of Claim 4). See the rejection of Claim 6 regarding the logging of the fault event.
Regarding the claim 9 limitation, “a determination that a corrective action has not been taken” and then performing at least one consequent action based on the detected fault event and “the determination that the corrective action has not been taken,” it necessarily follows that the controller includes such logic within its programming since such programming steps, specifically if/then steps, are inherent to controllers, unless shown otherwise. In the alternative, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, to have programmed the controller to first check if a corrective action had not been taken in response to the detected fault event, and if a corrective action had not been taken, to then perform at least one consequent action so as not to perform unnecessary actions in response to the fault event.
Regarding claim 15, modified Ampolini discloses that the cartridge unit includes a memory [0091] and a controller configured to determine faults (Ampolini ¶[0075]). This reads over the non-nicotine pod assembly includes a memory. While Ampolini discloses a controller configured to determine faults, Ampolini does not explicitly disclose the specific detection steps as recited in the claim.
Galloway teaches an electronic cigarette comprising control circuitry (¶[0012]). Galloway teaches the controller is configured to detect the fault event by performing calibration, specifically calibrating a heating temperature for heating aerosol precursor wherein if the temperature is outside of an expected range, a fault is detected (¶[0079]). Galloway teaches the electronic cigarette includes a memory capable of storing a threshold temperature value, in addition to other data (¶[0071], ¶[0079], ¶[0080]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the threshold temperature value in the memory of Ampolini since it would be necessary to have a threshold temperature value to determine if the measured temperature was outside of the expected range, and storing the threshold temperature value in the memory would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing since Galloway discloses a memory capable of storing a threshold temperature value, in addition to other data (Galloway ¶[0071],[0079],[0080]).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to look to Galloway for the specific steps of detecting a fault event, which is disclosed by Ampolini, with the ability to calibrate the temperature of the heating element by a controller in an electronic cigarette.
This reads over obtaining the threshold temperature value from memory and estimating a temperature of the heater during operation detecting the fault event in response to determining that the temperature of the heater is greater than or equal to the threshold temperature value of Claim 15.
Claim 34 is 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). Modified Ampolini discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
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 (365). The short circuit might occur for reasons such as an electrical fault at the heater (365), the heater circuit having been tampered with, excessive moisture making contact with the heater (365). The short circuit of the heater (365) may risk damage occurring to the e-cigarette device, or worse, injury to the user (¶[0061]). One of ordinary skill in the art is reasonably suggested the short circuit, such as from the heater circuit has been tampered with, may occur without the user drawing air through the e-cigarette (10). The heater short circuit reads over a hard fault device event. The over-current protection PCB (1000) upon detection of a current deemed too high (i.e., above a certain predetermined threshold) through the connector (25B), causes the supply of current from the battery (210) to the connector (25B) to be cut which reduces the chance of damage to the e-cigarette (10) and of injury to the user due to such a short circuit (¶[0062]). This reads over a power stage fault; the power stage fault is a presence of current flowing through the heater after vaping conditions are no longer present of Claim 34.
Leadley further teaches the over-current protection PCB (1000) may also monitor current flowing through the connector 25B, and/or voltage applied at the connector (25B), during recharging of the e-cigarette via USB connector (25B). For example, expected voltage applied by a USB charger to the USB connector (25B) may be 5V, so that the over-voltage cut-off (reads over auto off operation) might be set, by way of illustration, at 6V. The over-current protection PCB (1000) therefore provides protection for the e-cigarette both during recharging (against excessive recharging voltage), and also during normal operation (against excessive current) (¶[0065]). This reads over the power supply charging failure is a power supply failure at a charger of Claim 34.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the invention of 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONNIE KIRBY JORDAN whose telephone number is 571-272-5214. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM - 4PM (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, Michael H. Wilson can be reached on 571-270-3882. 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.
/RONNIE KIRBY JORDAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747