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 .
Maintenance of Rejection Under 35 USC 103
Claims 1-8 and 11-15 remain rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Tsui (US 2017/0303597) in view of Williams et al (US 2017/0119052) and Farine et al (US 2017/0199052), and claims 9-10 over Tsui (US 2017/0303597) in view of Williams et al (US 2017/0119052) and Farine et al (US 2017/0199052), further in view of Oda et al (JP 2020-054304-A, reference to US 2020/0108409) for the reasons set forth in the previous Office Action mailed on December 4, 2025. The full statement of the rejection set forth in the Office Action mailed on this date is hereby incorporated by reference and is maintained. Applicant’s arguments filed on March 4, 2026 have been fully considered but to not overcome the rejection for the reasons set forth in the following “Response to Arguments” section:
Response to Arguments
As stated above, Applicant's arguments filed on March 4, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
-Applicant argues that the cited art fails to teach two distinct voltage thresholds wherein a circuit comprising a control module is decoupled at a first (higher) threshold, battery charging is prevented at a second (lower) threshold, and charging is permitted between the two thresholds when the control signal is in a floating state. This argument is not persuasive because Tsui, Willams et al and Farine et al collectively teach and render obvious every aspect of this functionality. Regarding the first threshold (circuit decoupling), Williams et al teaches that when the battery voltage drops below a minimum threshold (the claimed “first threshold level”), the regulator isolates/decouples the control component from the battery, completely powering off the control component to preserve shelf life and prevent improper circuit operations (see paras. [0011],[0082]). Regarding the second threshold (charge prevention), Williams et al (see paras. [0057],[0078], [0095]) and Farine et al (see paras. [0016]-[0017], [0026], [0080]) explicitly teach secondary under-voltage protection wherein if the battery voltage falls below a critical threshold (the claimed “second threshold level”), charging/operation is prevented to safeguard the battery against thermal runaway, shorting, or permanent damage.
-Applicant asserts that Tsui’s “PFET2” controls the connection between the battery and the OUT terminal rather than decoupling control circuitry 126 and therefore cannot serve as the claimed “protection module”. But, this characterization misconstrues the reliance on the prior art combination. The rejection does not rely on Tsui’s PFET2 alone to meet the structural decoupling limitation of the protection module. Instead, as cited in the rejection, Tsui is cited as the primary reference for the non-combustible aerosol provision system, charging unit, and control module outputting charge enable/disable signals. Williams et al is cited to supply the clear teaching of the protection module that decouples/isolates the control module from the battery upon reaching the first under-voltage threshold. Applicant is reminded that a rejection under 35 USC 103 does not require a single reference to teach every limitation but evaluates what the combined references as a whole would suggest to a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2142 or MPEP 2143).
-Applicant argues that there is no indication in Tsui or Williams et al of continuing to charge the battery if a charging control signal is in a “floating state”. This argument is not persuasive because in even basic “logic” electronics, when a microcontroller or control module is unpowered or decoupled from its supply voltage (as disclosed by Williams et al when the battery voltage falls below the first threshold), its output pins enter an un-driven, high-impedance state - which is, by definition, a floating state that is neither a “charge enable” nor a “charge disable” state. Williams et al discloses a standalone battery charging subsidiary block 608 that manages battery charging upon connection to an external power supply (see paras. [0057],[0083],[0094]). When a user plugs in a depleted aerosol device whose battery is between the first threshold and the second threshold, the charger’s integrated circuit detects external power and charges the battery despite the control signal line from the de-coupled microcontroller unit being unpowered (“floating”). Hence, if the charger’s integrated circuit in Williams et al did not initiate the charging when receiving a “floating” input from an unpowered microcontroller unit, a depleted device that dropped below the “undervoltage lockout” threshold could never be recharged. So, initiating charging when the control signal is floating (i.e., when battery voltage is between the first and second thresholds) is rendered obvious by the standalone charger integrated circuit and undervoltage lock-out/decoupling control set-up of Tsui in view of Williams et al.
-Lastly, Applicant contends that Farine et al cuts power for “user experience” reasons (poor vapor volatilization) rather than “battery protection”, and therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art seeking battery protection would not be motivated to combine Farine et al. This argument is unpersuasive because Farin et al clearly discloses that electronic systems require a minimal operating voltage and that dropping below this voltage causes improper component operation (see para. [0016]). Farine et al further discloses reducing power to zero to conserve remaining battery power for maintaining system data and error indication (see para. [0026]). This explicitly pertains to power management and system safety. Note that a reference is available for all that it reasonably teaches and is not limited to just preferred embodiments (see MPEP 2145). A person having ordinary skill in the art designing s power management integrated circuit for an aerosol delivery system (as in Willimas et al) would look to battery management references like Farine et al to establish low-voltage fault handling procedures. Combining Farine et al’s cutoff safety logic with Williams et al and Tsui ensures that depleted batteries are safely managed without risking thermal instability during recharge.
In sum, because the combination of Tsui, Willimas et al and Farine et al discloses and renders obvious every limitation of the claims, including two-threshold battery protection and charging behavior during control module decoupling, Applicant’s arguments fail to overcome the rejection. Accordingly, the rejections of the claims are being MAINTAINED and made FINAL.
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 DIONNE WALLS MAYES whose telephone number is (571)272-5836. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays and Thursdays, 8:00AM - 4:00PM (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 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.
/DIONNE W. MAYES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights