DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the new limitation of a non e-liquid material overcomes the prior art. The Examiner disagrees. Claim 1 is directed to a control module. The actual presence of the modules the control module is intended to be connected to is not required by claim 1. The claimed material in these modules does not further limit the configuration of the control module itself to distinguish from the control module of Kinchington. The control module of Kinchington thereby reads on the present limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kinchington (WO 2016090426).
Regarding claim 1, Kinchington teaches a control module 600 [00112] for a modular aerosol generating device for generating an inhalable aerosol wherein the control module is arranged so that a user can configure the aerosol generating device by selectively connecting to the control module different configurations of modules of a first module type and a second module type [00107; Fig. 5], wherein modules of the first module type 500a contain an e-liquid 505a for generating an aerosol and wherein modules of the second module type 500b contain a material 505b and comprise a heater 115b that can be activated to heat the material [0037, 00106]. The modules are structurally identical to each other [00107], and thus the control module is arranged so that it can be selectively connected in a first single module configuration comprising a module of the first module type 500a, a second single module configuration comprising a module of the second module type 500b, and at least one multi module configuration comprising at least two modules selected from modules of the first and second module types connected together in a stacked arrangement, as shown in Fig. 5. Regarding the claimed “non e-liquid material”, it is noted that claim 1 is directed to a control module. The actual presence of the modules the control module is intended to be connected to is not required by claim 1. The claimed material in these modules does not further limit the configuration of the control module itself to distinguish from the control module of Kinchington. The control module of Kinchington thereby reads on the present limitations.
Regarding claim 2, the configurations comprise a first multi-module configuration comprising a module of the first module type 500a and a module of the second module type 500b connected together in a stacked arrangement and wherein the module of the first module type 500a is closer to the control module than is the module of the second module type 500b as shown in Fig. 5.
Regarding claim 3, as the modules are structurally identical to each other as discussed with respect to claim 1, the modules could be re-arranged such that a module of the first module type 500a and a module of the second module type 500b are connected together in a stacked arrangement and wherein the module of the second module type 500b is closer to the control module than is the module of the first module type 500a.
Regarding claim 4, as the modules are structurally identical to each other as discussed with respect to claim 1, the configurations comprise a third multi-module configuration comprising two modules of the second module type connected together in a stacked arrangement.
Regarding claim 5, as the modules are structurally identical to each other as discussed with respect to claim 1, the configurations comprise a fourth multi-module configuration comprising two modules of the first module type connected together in a stacked arrangement.
Regarding claims 6 and 8, Kinchington teaches that a user is able to selectively power one of the coils (heaters) of the modules [00115]. In other words, the control module is configured to enable a user to use the control module to select a first mode in which, in use, when a module of the first module type and a module of the second module type are connected together in a stacked arrangement, the control module controls the module of the first module type to generate an aerosol flow from the e-liquid in a time period when the heater of the module of the second module type is in-active.
Regarding claim 7, Kinchington teaches that a user is able to selectively both of the coils (heaters) of the modules [00115]. In other words, the control module is configured to enable a user to use the control module to select a second mode in which, in use, when a module of the first module type and a module of the second module type are connected together in a stacked arrangement, the control module controls the module of the first module type to generate an aerosol flow from the e-liquid in a time period when the heater of the module of the second module type is active.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinchington as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kerdemelidis (US 2016/0338407).
Kinchington teaches the control module comprises a first power connection for making a first electrical connection with a first module connected to the control module to supply power to the first module [00113]. Kinchington does not specifically teach a second power connection. Kerdemelidis teaches a vaporizer device comprising multiple power connections for multiple modules [0089]. As this is a conventional electrical supply mechanism known in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a second power connection with the control module of Kinchington to achieve the same, predictable result of supplying power to the second module. Such a second power connection would be able to make a second electrical connection to a first module connected to the control module to supply power, via the first module, to a second module connected to the first module.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinchington as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ampolini (US 2014/0270727).
Kinchington does not teach the control module is configured to identify what type of module or order of types of modules is connected to the control module. Ampolini teaches an electronic smoking article wherein the control module is configured to identify what type of module is connected to the control module so that the control module may retrieve the particular heating component profile corresponding thereto [0107]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the control module of Kinchington to identify what type of module is connected to the control module so that the control module may retrieve the particular heating component profile corresponding thereto.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ERIC YAARY whose telephone number is (571)272-3273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
/ERIC YAARY/Examiner, Art Unit 1755