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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/1/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Amendment filed 4/1/2026 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-13 and 15-24 are pending. Claims 3-6 and 14 are cancelled. Claims 16-23 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 4, 7, 8 and 24 are amended. No new matter is added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the electrical contacts (See figure 5a) are all not in a row. Contact 531 is not aligned with 5106a, 5106c and 5106b. Thus, Ampolini fails to teach or suggest the claimed amendments.
Examiner agrees. The newly added feature will be addressed hereinafter.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 4 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AMPOLINI et al. (US 2016/0331030) in view of GALLOWAY et al (US 2016/0050974)
With respect to claims 1 and 2, AMPOLINI et al. discloses an aerosol delivery device (Abstract) comprising an electrical power source, 110, such as a battery (Paragraphs [0086], [0091]); a heating chamber (inside 103) (Paragraph [0094]; Figure 1) operable to heat an aerosol substrate to generate an aerosol (Paragraph [0095]); a first control circuitry, 106, configured to control a supply of electrical power from the power source to the heating chamber (Paragraphs [0086], [0089]-[0091]); a housing, 101 and 103 (Paragraphs [0079], [0086], [0087]; Figure 1) comprising a mouth end, at 128 (Paragraph [0088]) and an opposing end, at 112 (Paragraph [0086]) . The electrical power source, heating chamber and first control circuitry are arranged within the internal volume of the housing (such as in a single unitary body) (Paragraph [0079]; Figure 1) and the heating chamber is arranged between the first control circuitry and the mouth end and the first control circuitry being arranged between the heating chamber and power source. AMPOLINI et al. discloses that the PCB comprises electrical contacts for connections to the electrical power source and electrical contacts to the heating chamber (Paragraphs [0126], [0127]).
The mouth end, heating chamber first control circuitry and power source are arranged along a common line (as required by claim 2) (Figure 1, annotated below)
[AltContent: textbox (PCB transverse to common line)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Power source)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Control circuitry )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Mouth end)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Heating chamber)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Common line )][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
656
262
media_image1.png
Greyscale
AMPOLINI et al. discloses the PCB has a surface wherein the first electrical contact for the power source is adjacent to a first electrical contact for the heating chamber and a second electrical contact for the power source is adjacent to a second contact for the heating chamber (Paragraph [0126]; Figure 5a).
AMPOLINI et al. does not explicitly disclose that the first and second power source electrical contacts, and the first and second heater electrical contacts are in a row. GALLOWAY et al discloses an aerosol generating system (Abstract) with electrical connectors. The circuit board is provides with a plurality of aligned contacts, with a plurality of them in a row (Figure 9; Paragraphs [0023], [0099], [0100]). The contacts connect to a plurality of devices of the electronic vaporizer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the electrical contacts (e.g,. first and second heater and first and second battery contacts) aligned on the circuit board of AMPOLINI et al., as taught by GALLOWAY et al so that they can be tested sequentially.
The courts have generally held that mere rearrangement of parts is prima facie obvious if operation of the device would not have been modified. See, In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144, 04, VI, C. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to align the contacts of AMPOLINI et al. on the circuit board, either independently of the teachings of GALLOWAY et al, or in light of, as a matter of design choice or so that they are easily sequentially tested.
With respect to claim 4, AMPOLINI et al. discloses that the first control circuitry comprises a PCB (Paragraph [0086]) arranged transverse to the common line (See annotated figure 1, above).
With respect to claim 10, AMPOLINI et al. discloses a frame for the heating chamber (e.g., 644, 675) in which the heating chamber rests (Paragraphs [0130], [0134]; Figure 6). The power source, 410, is held by a power source frame, 424 and 411 (Paragraphs [0122]-[0123], [0120]; Figure 4).
______________________________________________________________
Claim(s) 7, 8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AMPOLINI et al. (US 2016/0331030) in view of GALLOWAY et al (US 2016/0050974) as applied to claims 1, 2, 4 and 10 above, and further in view of NETTENSTROM et al. (US 2019/0046745)..
With respect to claim 7, AMPOLINI et al. does not explicitly disclose that the PCB is a double sided PCB, as claimed.
NETTENSTROM et al. discloses a vaporizer (Abstract; Title) having a PCB control unit (Paragraph [0026]). The PCB is a double sided PCB with electrical contacts to the power source arranged on one side thereof and electrical contacts arranged on the other side for the heater (Paragraphs [0071], [0072]; Figures 8A and 8B). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configured the PCB of AMPOLINI et al. in the manner taught by NETTENSTROM et al. so that the heater and power source can be connected in the shortest path thereby reducing the amount of wiring needed.
With respect to claim 8, AMPOLINI et al. does not explicitly disclose that the power source is in direct contact with the first contact. NETTENSTROM et al. discloses that the first electrical contact is in direct contact with the pins of the power source (Paragraph [0074], [0079]; Figure 1, 9 and 10a). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a direct contact between the first electrical contact of AMPOLINI et al. and the power source, as taught by NETTENSTROM et al. so that these components can be connected in the shortest path, thereby reducing the amount of wiring needed.
With respect to claim 11, AMPOLINI et al. does not explicitly disclose that the control circuitry is supported between the frames. NETTENSTROM et al. shows that the battery is supported in a frame and the PCB is between the heater and frame (Figures 1 and 9).
[AltContent: textbox (PCB area)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval][AltContent: textbox (Battery frame components)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
340
428
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide battery frame components in AMPOLINI et al., as taught by NETTENSTROM et al. so that the battery does not move around during use.
______________________________________________________________________
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AMPOLINI et al. (US 2016/0331030) in view of GALLOWAY et al (US 2016/0050974) as applied to claims 1, 2, 4 and 10 above, and further in view of LI et al. (US 2015/0208730).
With respect to claim 9, AMPOLINI et al. does not explicitly disclose that the PCB is arranged as a thermal barrier.
LI et al. discloses that the circuit board includes a heat insulation chamber to serve as a heat buffer thus reducing the effects of heat on the power supply (Paragraph [0024]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a heat insulation chamber in the circuit board of AMPOLINI et al., as taught by LI et al. so that the effects of heat from the heat chamber can be reduced on the power supply.
__________________________________________________________________
Claim(s) 12, 13, 15 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AMPOLINI et al. (US 2016/0331030) in view of GALLOWAY et al (US 2016/0050974) as applied to claims 1, 2, 4 and 10 above, and further in view of BOWEN et al. (US 2018/0043114).
With respect to claims 12 and 13, AMPOLINI et al. does not explicitly disclose that the first circuitry supports a higher power than the second circuitry and that the two circuitries communicated via logical signaling.
BOWEN et al. discloses a vaporizer and its control (Abstract; Title). The vaporizer includes an identifier therein and may be part of a PCB (Paragraph [0116]). The identifier is read by the vaporizer body controller (Paragraphs [0056], [0057]) so that pertinent information about the cartridge can be determined. The identifier is an RFID component that is passive and does not have its own power source (Paragraph [0069]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a passive RFID on a printed circuit board (as required by claim 13) as the second control circuitry of AMPOLINI et al., as taught by BOWEN et al. so that the vaporizer body can determine various information about the cartridge.
BOWEN et al. further discloses that the communication is performed by logic reading and writing (Paragraph [0086]).
Moreover, given that the passive RFID does not have a power source, the second PCB supports a lower power than the first PCB
With respect to claim 15, AMPOLINI et al. shows the second control circuitry is arranged along a bottom side of the heating chamber (Figure 1).
With respect to claim 24, AMPOLINI et al. discloses the PCB has a surface wherein the first electrical contact for the power source is adjacent to a first electrical contact for the heating chamber and a second electrical contact for the power source is adjacent to a second contact for the heating chamber (Paragraph [0126]; Figure 5a).
AMPOLINI et al. does not explicitly disclose that the first circuitry supports a higher power than the second circuitry and that the two circuitries communicated via logical signaling.
BOWEN et al. discloses a vaporizer and its control (Abstract; Title). The vaporizer includes an identifier therein and may be part of a PCB (Paragraph [0116]). The identifier is read by the vaporizer body controller (Paragraphs [0056], [0057]) so that pertinent information about the cartridge can be determined. The identifier is an RFID component that is passive and does not have its own power source (Paragraph [0069]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a passive RFID on a printed circuit board (as required by claim 13) as the second control circuitry of AMPOLINI et al., as taught by BOWEN et al. so that the vaporizer body can determine various information about the cartridge.
BOWEN et al. further discloses that the communication is performed by logic reading and writing (Paragraph [0086]).
Moreover, given that the passive RFID does not have a power source, the second PCB supports a lower power than the first PCB
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX B EFTA whose telephone number is (313)446-6548. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST M-F.
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 Tucker can be reached at 571-272-1095. 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.
/ALEX B EFTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights