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 Submission
Applicant’s submission filed on 2026 July 28 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 7-9, 14-15, and 20-26 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 23: the claim recites “receiving data from a remote EVPS” and outputting “based on the data received from the EVPS”. Confusion arises as to whether claim 23’s remote EVPS is different than claim 14’s EVPS from which data is received. The limitation “receiving data from a remote EVPS” is interpreted as “receiving data from the EVPS” to make the claim examinable.
Claims 24-25 are rejected by dependence on claim 23.
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.
Claims 1-2, 7-9, 14-15, and 20-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bessant (US 20210007406 A1) in view of Galloway (US 20170156405 A1).
Claims 1 and 14: Bessant teaches a fall (i.e., misuse) response procedures (i.e., method) for an aerosol-generating system comprising:
a detection processor adapted to detect one or more of a plurality of predetermined misuse events (i.e., fall) ([0071]);
a diagnostics processor adapted to perform, in response to detection of a predetermined misuse event, at least one corresponding system diagnostic ([0083]), and
an output processor (i.e., communication interface) adapted to indicate a result of the at least one system diagnostics performed to a user ([0057]), using one or more output devices of the EVPS which are configured to provide visible ([0053]), audio ([0052]), and/or haptic output ([0051]).
Bessant further teaches that “a device held by a user may be bumped and jarred into motion causing a shock without a fall” ([0068]), and “the sample rate may be increased, for example increased to about 100 Hz or about 200 Hz, if the first detected sample exceeds 1G significantly due to additional force provided by a user's hand, for example, exceeds 7G. This may allow the device to determine a free fall before the device reaches to the floor” ([0080], Fig. 1 components 12, 14, 20). This clearly establishes that the misuse events involving the aerosol generating device (i.e., EVPS) were caused by a user during their use of the device (i.e., relating to use of the EVPS by a user), wherein the diagnostic processor (i.e., processor) is configured to detect a predetermined misuse event (e.g., a fall) related to the device’s use by a user ([0083]).
Bessant further discloses performing a cell integrity test in response to diagnostic routine, wherein the cell integrity test comprises measuring one or more parameters of a cell of the EVPS. ([0106])
However, Bessant does not explicitly teach one or more of the limitations described below:
(a) the EVPS comprises an electronic thermometer sensor, and the detection processor is adapted to detect a predetermined misuse event relating to use of the EVPS by a user by detecting whether a signal from the electronic thermometer sensor exceeds a threshold value, and if so, the diagnostic processor is adapted to perform a cell integrity test
(b) the EVPS comprises at least one of an input voltage sensor or an input current sensor, and the detection processor is adapted to detect a predetermined misuse event relating to use of the EVPS by a user by detecting whether a signal from at least one of the input voltage sensor or the input current sensor is outside a predetermined range, and if so, after detecting that the signal from at least one of the input voltage sensor or the input current sensor is outside the predetermined range and as a consequence of detecting that the signal from at least one of the input voltage sensor or the input current sensor is outside the predetermined range, the diagnostic processor is adapted to perform the cell integrity test
(c) the EVPS comprises a payload closure sensor, and the detection processor is adapted to detect a predetermined misuse event relating to use of the EVPS by a user by detecting a signal from the payload closure sensor indicating improper payload closure, and if so, the diagnostic processor is adapted to perform one or more selected from the group consisting of: a moisture test, a circuit integrity test, and the cell integrity test, and
(d) the EVPS comprises a moisture sensor, and the detection processor is adapted to detect a predetermined misuse event relating to use of the EVPS by a user by detecting a signal from the moisture sensor indicating moisture, and if so, the diagnostic processor is adapted to perform one or more selected from the group consisting of: the circuit integrity test, and the cell integrity test; and
the one or more parameters relating to the cell comprising one or more of: (i) a voltage from the cell: (ii) a current from the cell: and (iii) a temperature of the cell, to check that each of these one or more parameters relating to the cell are within a predetermined operation range.
Galloway teaches a system and method for testing components of an aerosol delivery device. The system comprises a control board (i.e., EVPS) and a test apparatus (i.e., mobile communication device), wherein the control board includes an interface that communicatively couples with the test apparatus ([0005], Fig. 4). Galloway also discloses that the control board’s processing circuitry ([Fig. 5 component 510]) is configured to verify that the measured current satisfies an expected current value criterion ([0077]); therefore, it is clear that the processing circuitry of the aerosol delivery device (i.e., EVPS) inherently includes an input current sensor to measure the current delivered to the resistance load by the heater circuitry ([Fig. 5 component 518]). Furthermore, Galloway teaches that the processor (i.e., processing circuit) ([Fig. 5 component 510]) is configured to determine (i.e., diagnose) if there is a fault in the heater circuitry from the detected current values ([0077]). The heater circuitry directly connects to the power source (i.e., battery/cell) to provide power (i.e., current) to the resistance load. Thus, it is clear that verifying the measured current values delivered to the resistance load is also a method to diagnose the cell’s integrity (i.e., cell integrity test—teaching wherein the cell integrity test comprises measuring one or more parameters of a cell of the EVPS, the one or more parameters relating to the cell comprising one or more of: (i) a voltage from the cell: (ii) a current from the cell: and (iii) a temperature of the cell, to check that each of these one or more parameters relating to the cell are within a predetermined operation range.). The reference further states that based on the fault detection and/or diagnostic information calibration routines (i.e. testing to ensure measuring instruments are providing accurate and reliable results) can be performed. The calibration routine includes calibrating a battery measurement component (i.e. a cell integrity test) (paragraph [0080]).
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 aerosol-generating system (i.e., EVPS) of Bessant to incorporate the teachings of Galloway by including an input current sensor in the control circuitry. Doing so would allow the processor to detect and measure the current values delivered to the heating element, diagnose any faults in the battery based on the measured current values after the device experiences a fall or shock caused by misuse events related to the device’s use by a user, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
Please refer to the modified Figured below:
PNG
media_image1.png
566
842
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is further noted that the “output processor adapted to indicate a result of the at least one system diagnostic performed to a user, wherein one or more of (a) to (d) below is met” allows for only one or the conditions (a) to (d) to be met. Which is clearly obvious over the combination of Bessant and Galloway above.
Claims 2, 15 and 26: modified Bessant discloses the EVPS comprises an accelerometer sensor ([0062, 0072]), the detection processor is adapted to detect whether a signal from the accelerometer sensor exceeds a threshold value ([0065, 0066, 0088]). Modified Bessant also teaches that the processor is configured to perform a diagnostic routine to verify that some or all features of the device are functional ([0128]). Thus, it is clear that the circuitry within the device (i.e., EVPS) would inherently be checked to ensure it properly functions after the device experiences a fall or shock. Furthermore, Modified Bessant discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing computer executable instructions adapted to cause a computer system to, when executed by the computer, perform the method ([0009]).
Claims 7 and 20: modified Bessant discloses an aerosol generating device comprise a wireless communications circuit for communication with a remote mobile communication device ([0055, 0056, 0087]); and the remote mobile communication device comprising at least the detection processor, and signals from one or more sensors of the aerosol generating device are transmitted to the remote mobile communication device ([0057]). In other words, the remote mobile communication device could be a tablet or a smart phone includes a processor which would inherently be capable of transmitting (i.e., output) and receiving (i.e., detect) signals wirelessly from the sensors of the electronic smoking device once they (i.e., electronic smoking device and mobile device) are properly connected via an application.
Claims 8-9, and 21-22: modified Bessant discloses the electronic vapor provision system (EVPS) comprises a processor (i.e., detection processor) for analyzing the signals detected from sensors, such as an accelerometer ([0070, 0071, 0085]). Modified Bessant also discloses the EVPS comprises a wireless communication circuit (i.e., communication interface) for communication with a remote mobile communication device ([0056,0057, 0058]). Modified Bessant further teaches that the remote mobile communication device (i.e., remote user device) includes its own communication interface to exchange data with the EVPS ([0057]). Therefore, a diagnostic result performed by the EVPS is inherently transmitted to the remote mobile communication device. However, modified Bessant does not explicitly teach the remote mobile communication device comprising at least the diagnostic processor.
Galloway discloses a system and method for testing components of an aerosol delivery device. The system comprises a control board (i.e., EVPS) and a test apparatus (i.e., mobile communication device) ([0061], Fig. 6 component 600), wherein the test apparatus (i.e., mobile communication device) includes a processor (i.e., processing circuitry) ([0061], Fig. 6 component 610) configured to determine (i.e., diagnose) whether the components within the control board (i.e., EVPS) are faulty based on the diagnostic information sent from the control board (i.e., EVPS) ([0095]). Galloway is considered to be an analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the electronic aerosol delivery devices.
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 remote user device of modified Bessant to incorporate the teachings of Galloway by programming the remote user device’s processor to perform diagnostic tests upon receiving diagnostic information from the aerosol generating device (i.e., EVPS), as recognized by Galloway.
Claims 23-25: modified Bessant discloses a mobile communication device (i.e., remote user device) ([0114], Fig. 1 component 28) comprising a wireless communications circuit for communication with a remote electronic vapor provision system (EVPS) ([0057, 0114]); a display ([Fig. 1 component 28]); and the processor of the remote user device inherently displays the result of at least a first diagnostic test performed for the EVPS on the display screen ([Please refer to the rejection of claims 8-9 and 21-22 above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments of 2026 July 28 have been carefully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (p. 9, “Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112”) that amended claim 23 clearly defines the EVPS. However, confusion remains as to which EVPS receives data and whether the remote EVPS is the same or a different EVPS.
Applicant argues (p. 10, [3-4]) that Galloway’s testing device being exemplified as an external apparatus precludes applying Galloway’s testing to Bessant’s circuits enclosed in a housing. However, the mere exemplification of Galloway in the shape of an external apparatus does not break applying Galloway’s testing routines to Bessant. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant argues (p. 10, [5] – p. 11, [2]) that Galloway teaches calibrating a battery measurement component rather than checking that a temperature, current, or voltage is within a predetermined range. However, [Galloway 77] does teach checking that a current is within a predetermined range (expected range of current values).
Bessant teaches running a diagnostic test ([Bessant 106], diagnostic routine). Galloway teaches running a diagnostic test ([Galloway 77], fault detection) by measuring current and, if the current is outside a predetermined range (expected range), performing a cell integrity test ([80], calibrating a battery measurement component). As in the above analysis, calibrating a battery measurement component against a reference state teaches/requires determining that said reference state represent a typical current and voltage baseline of said battery [Galloway 77 and 80], i.e., determining and comparing the battery’s integrity as claimed.
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 Tobey C. Le whose telephone number is (703)756-5516. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:30-18:30 ET.
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 at 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.
/TOBEY C LE/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights