Status of Claims
In the communications filed on 02/04/2026 and 02/19/2026, claims 1-15 are pending. Claim 6 is amended. No claims are new. No claims are presently cancelled.
Response to Arguments
A subset of the prior objections (sections 4-5 of prior Office Action, dated 11/20/2025) to the Drawings are withdrawn, while remaining subset of the prior objections (section 6 of prior Office Action) are maintained. Although the boxes in the figures are numbered which allows a correlation to each box as one reads the specification, the numbers by themselves do not allow one to quickly ascertain the concept of the invention which is desirable during a later search of analogous art. The numbers should be complimented with words spelled out to facilitate future searches.
Annotated copies of the replacement drawings filed 02/04/2026 and 02/19/2026 are attached to indicate the replacement drawings are not approved due to the remaining objections.
An annotated copy of the clean specification filed 02/04/2026 is attached to indicate the specification is okay to enter.
The prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn due to the amendments.
The applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. The arguments are focused on the references Cassidy (US 2007/0105010 A1) and Akao et al. (US 2020/0237009 A1).
Argument #1: Flag indicating that the battery is not in an operating condition
The applicant argues (pp. 13, 1st para.) “a flag indicating that battery has lower voltage than predetermined range as disclosed in Akao is not equivalent or comparable to a flag set "when a fault in the battery is detected" and "indicating that the battery is not in an operating condition," as recited in claim 1”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner asserts that claim 1 does not include any further limiting language to define the claim terms “fault” and “operating condition”. The instant application’s specification (clean specification, filed 02/024/2026) explains that “a state of deep discharge” is “detected by … determining when the voltage falls below a threshold voltage” (pp. 15, lines 11-14) and “a non-recoverable fault condition of the battery is detected, such as … the detection that the battery 22 has entered a state of deep-discharge” (pp. 15, lines 28-30). Thus, a battery voltage below a threshold voltage, such as taught by Akao, is considered a fault in a battery. Thus, the examiner interprets that an excessively low battery voltage (Akao: Fig. 12, step S402: “Vbat < lower limit value of predetermined voltage range”; ¶ [144]) is a fault in the battery indicating the battery is not in an operating condition (Akao’s operating condition is “Vbat” > “discharge termination voltage”; ¶ [10, 112, 153]).
Argument #2: Separate electrical paths to supply power independently to the battery and control circuitry
The applicant argues (pp. 15, 2nd para.) “Cassidy does not teach or suggest that "power can be independently supplied to the battery and the control circuitry," as recited in claim 1”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner agrees with the applicant’s remark (pp. 15, 1st para.) that “power is always supplied to the purported control circuity [sic] of Cassidy when power is supplied to the battery 262”. However, the examiner asserts this power is “independently supplied to the battery”, in view of the instant application’s full disclosure.
The instant application’s specification never discusses supplying power to the battery without also supplying power to the control circuitry. In fact, it clearly requires the opposite. The specification (pp. 12, 3rd para.) reads “Enabling charging of the battery 22 comprises sending a signal to the battery charging circuitry 26, wherein the signal indicates that charging of the battery 22 is enabled. The battery charging circuitry 26 is configured to only charge the battery 22 when the charging enabled signal has been received from the control 15 circuitry 24”. Thus, in the applicant’s disclosed electrical system, power must always supplied to the control circuitry when power is supplied to the battery.
Thus, the applicant’s argument against Cassidy could also be made as an observation regarding the applicant’s disclosed electrical system. Instead, the examiner interprets that the limitation “power can be independently supplied to the battery and the control circuitry” permits this characteristic.
Thus, in light of the instant application’s disclosure, the examiner interprets that Cassidy teaches “power can be independently supplied to the battery and the control circuitry”.
Further, the examiner asserts that power can be supplied to the battery without affecting the supply of power to the control circuitry. In other words, power can be supplied to the battery without having to disable the supply of power to the control circuitry Thus, the electrical system is supplied independently to the battery from the external power supply.
Argument #3: Checking the flag without charging the battery
Further, the applicant argues (pp. 15, 5th para.) “Since the applied combination of references requires incorporating the electrical system of Cassidy into the aerosol generating device of Akao, and since Cassidy does not teach or suggest that "power can be independently supplied to the battery and the control circuitry," the modified aerosol generating device would not be configured so that a "flag can be checked without charging the battery," as required in claim 1”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
This argument appears to be a combination of argument #2 and argument #4, each of which is addressed separately herein.
Argument #4: No Motivation to Combine
Further, the applicant argues “there is no motivation to "incorporate the electrical system [in Cassidy] into an aerosol generating device, as taught by Akao, to broaden the commercial applicability of the electrical system to the inhalable tobacco market," as alleged in the Office Action.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner asserts that broadening the commercial applicability of a technology into more markets is widely known to provide financial opportunities. Each of Cassidy and Akao disclose battery-based electrical systems which are intended for commercial applications. Thus, financial reasons are easy to see as potential results from expanding the range of potential markets for more commercial applications.
Thus, the applicant’s arguments with respect to similar independent claims 1, 10, 15 and their dependents are not persuasive.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they are incomplete. 37 CFR 1.83(a) and 37 CFR 183(c) read as follows:
(a) The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box). In addition, tables that are included in the specification and sequences that are included in sequence listings should not be duplicated in the drawings.
(c) Where the drawings in a nonprovisional application do not comply with the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the examiner shall require such additional illustration within a time period of not less than two months from the date of the sending of a notice thereof. Such corrections are subject to the requirements of § 1.81(d).
Figures 1-2, 3A-3B, and 6 are incomplete because they feature unlabeled rectangular boxes. Drawings that feature rectangular boxes need to include text labels with corresponding nomenclature from the specification to label each rectangular box. Although the boxes in the figures are numbered which allows a correlation to each box as one reads the specification, the numbers by themselves do not allow one to quickly ascertain the concept of the invention which is desirable during a later search of analogous art. The numbers should be complimented with words spelled out to facilitate future searches. For example, Fig. 1 needs to include text labels for reference characters “4”, “6”, “8”, and “12”, each of which is presently drawn as a rectangular box. The “8” box should be labeled as “battery charging circuitry 8” and so forth, or redrawn in different shapes.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) and/or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cassidy (US 2007/0105010 A1; hereinafter "Cass") in view of Akao et al. (US 2020/0237009 A1).
NOTE: Akao has an effective filing date of 08/17/2017 from priority to PCT/JP2017/037759.
Regarding Claim 1, Cass discloses a device (Abstract: “intravenous fluid warmer or other medical or electrical devices and equipment”) comprising an electrical system (“fluid warmer heating and control circuit 200”; see annotated Figs. 2A-2B, included infra).
Cass further discloses the electrical system (200) comprising a battery (“battery pack 262”; Fig. 2B) and a control circuitry (combination of “power path controller logic 221”, “fluid warmer microcontroller 222”, “battery condition indicator and controller 248”, “first order battery protection circuit 250”, and “second order battery protection circuit 252”; Figs. 2A-2B).
Cass further discloses the control circuitry (221, 222, 248, 250, 252) is configured to monitor a status (voltage of “262” is monitored by “256” and communicated to “250” and “248”) of the battery (262) during a discharge operation (¶ [38]: “monitoring and control blocks to facilitate … discharging of the battery pack 262”) of the battery (262).
Cass further discloses the battery (262) and the control circuitry (221, 222, 248, 250, 252) are connectable to the external power supply (“external power 202, 206”; Fig. 2A) via a first electrical path (from “202” to “262” through “charger 232”; see annotated Figs. 2A-2B, included infra) and a second electrical path (from “202” to output of “low voltage supply 220”, which provides power to “all circuits except heater 226”; see annotated Fig. 2A) respectively.
Cass further discloses this such that power can be independently supplied (power flow controlled by switches “208”, “230”, and “246”) to the battery (262) and the control circuitry (221, 222, 248, 250, 252).
Cass further discloses the electrical system (200) is configured to supply power (“low voltage” supplied via “220”) to the control circuitry (221, 222, 248, 250, 252) from the external power supply (202, 206) via the second electrical path (through “208” and “220”) when the electrical system (200) is connected to the external power supply (202, 206).
Cass further discloses this such that the battery status (voltage of “262”) can be checked without charging (“continuously monitored” per ¶ [47]; thus, this includes when any of “battery switch 230” and/or “battery disconnect switch 246” is open-state) the battery (262).
PNG
media_image1.png
881
1332
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
915
1303
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Cass does not disclose the device is “an aerosol generating device”.
Cass further does not disclose the control circuitry is configured to “set a flag when a fault in the battery is detected, the flag indicating that the battery is not in an operating condition, wherein the control circuitry is configured to check the flag when the electrical system is connected to an external power supply, wherein the control circuitry is configured to enable charging of the battery based on the flag”.
As addressed supra, Cass discloses that the battery status can be checked without charging the battery. However, Cass further does not disclose “that the flag can be checked without charging the battery”.
Akao teaches an aerosol generating device (“flavor inhaler 100”; Fig. 1) comprising an electrical system (“battery unit 110”; Figs. 4-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the electrical system disclosed by Cass and incorporate the electrical system into an aerosol generating device, as taught by Akao, to broaden the commercial applicability of the electrical system to the inhalable tobacco market.
Akao further teaches the control circuitry (“control unit 50”; Fig. 4) is configured to monitor a status (¶ [143]: “51 acquires a voltage (Vbatt) of the power supply 10 (step S401)”; ¶ [149]: “voltage of the power supply can be acquired by the voltage sensor 150”; Fig. 12) of the battery (“power supply 10”; Figs. 4-7; ¶ [65]: “10 may be … a rechargeable battery”).
Akao further teaches the control circuitry (50) is configured to set a flag (¶ [144]: “a second flag is set to “1” (flag F2 = 1)”; Fig. 12, step S403a) when a fault in the battery (10) is detected (Fig. 12, step S402: “Vbat < lower limit value of predetermined voltage range”; ¶ [144]).
Akao further teaches the flag (F2 = 1) indicating that the battery (10) is not in an operating condition (operating condition is “Vbat” > “discharge termination voltage”; ¶ [10, 112, 153]).
Akao further teaches the control circuitry (50) is configured to check the flag (¶ [152-153]: “51” checks the status of “F2”; Fig. 12, step S441) when the electrical system (110) is connected to an external power supply (“charger 200”; Fig. 7; ¶ [118]: “controller 51 detects the connection of the charger 200 to the battery unit” 110”; Fig. 12, step S400).
Akao further teaches the control circuitry (50) is configured to enable charging of the battery (10) based on the flag (per ¶ 152-153], charging is performed when “F2=0”).
Akao further teaches that the flag (F2) can be checked without charging (¶ [143]: “voltage of the power supply 10 is an open circuit voltage (OCV) acquired in a state in which the power supply 10 and the charger 200 are not electrically connected to each other”; thus, the battery voltage is measured while the battery is not being charged) the battery (10).
Akao further teaches the flag to indicate a battery fault to help prevent the battery from discharging down to a deep discharge state (¶ [109-112]), which improves the battery’s life.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art modify the control circuitry disclosed by the combination of Cass and Akao to store and check a flag to indicate a battery fault, as further taught by Akao, to improve the battery’s life by protecting the battery from damaging deep discharge conditions.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Cass and Akao teaches the aerosol generating device of claim 1.
Cass further discloses the electrical system (200) is configured to supply power to the control circuitry (221, 222, 248, 250, 252; power is supplied to these components by “low voltage supply 220”, which is powered by either “external power 202” or “pack (+) 240”, depending on switch states; per ¶ [33-34] and the Fig. 2A circuit, power can be supplied from “262” to “220” when “battery discharge switch 230” is in the closed state) from the battery (262) when the electrical system (200) is not connected to the external power supply (202, 206).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Cass and Akao teaches the aerosol generating device of claim 1.
Cass further discloses the electrical system (200) further comprises a heating element (“heater 226”; Fig. 2A; ¶ [36]: “226 is powered via a thermal fuse 224 connected to … 218 and to … 252”).
Cass further discloses the control circuitry (221, 222, 248, 250, 252) is configured to switch off a power supply (via melting of “thermal fuse 224” by “252”; ¶ [36]: “on sensing a potentially damaging condition in … battery pack 262, the second order battery protection circuit 252 electrically heats and melts the thermal fuse 224 to prevent a furtherance of the potentially damaging condition”) from the battery (262) to the heating element (226) when a fault (¶ [36]: “an excessive voltage across the components of the battery pack 262”) is detected in the battery (262).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Cass and Akao teaches the aerosol generating device of claim 6.
Cass further discloses the control circuitry (221, 222, 248, 250, 252) is configured to switch off the power supply (via opening of “230” by “221”; ¶ [34]: “power path controller logic 221, akin to steering logic, controls two switches, namely, an external power switch 230 such that based on a need of the fluid warmer or of the battery pack 262, power may be directed from external power or the battery pack 262”; in combination of ¶ [34] and Fig. 2A teaches “221” blocks current from “262” to “226” when external power “202” is connected by commanding “208” into the closed state and commanding “230” into the open state) from the battery (262) to the heating element (226) when the electrical system (200) is connected to the external power supply (202, 206).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Cass and Akao teaches the aerosol generating device of claim 1.
Cass further discloses the electrical system (200) further comprises a fuse (“thermal fuse 224”; Fig. 2A).
Cass further discloses the control circuitry (221, 222, 248, 250, 252) is configured to activate the fuse (224; ¶ [36]: “on sensing a potentially damaging condition in … battery pack 262, the second order battery protection circuit 252 electrically heats and melts the thermal fuse 224 to prevent a furtherance of the potentially damaging condition”; ¶ [43]: “back-up battery protection … via the thermal fuse 224”) when the fault (“potentially damaging condition” per ¶ [36]; also referred to as a “fault condition” per ¶ [48]) detected in the battery (262) is deemed to be non-recoverable (¶ [43]: “sensing the dimensions of … battery pack 262, for a potential structural failure”).
Cass further discloses activating the fuse (224) irreversibly disables charging (because “224” is in the first electrical path that includes “charger 232”, melting the fuse prevents “262” from being charged until both the fuse and battery are replaced; see annotated Fig. 2A) of the battery (262).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Cass and Akao teaches the aerosol generating device of claim 8.
Cass further discloses the control circuitry (221, 222, 248, 250, 252) is further configured to activate the fuse (224; ¶ [36]: “on sensing a potentially damaging condition in … battery pack 262, the second order battery protection circuit 252 electrically heats and melts the thermal fuse 224 to prevent a furtherance of the potentially damaging condition”; ¶ [43]: “back-up battery protection … via the thermal fuse 224”) when the fault (“potentially damaging condition”) is detected in the battery (262).
Cass does not disclose the activation of the fuse is to occur “when a threshold amount of time has elapsed since the flag was set and the fault in the battery is detected as still existing”.
Akao teaches the control circuitry (50) is further configured to activate the fuse (“fuse 172”; Figs. 5-7; ¶ [126]: “51 may switch the disconnection means 170 to the second mode to blow the fuse 172”; Fig. 11, step S424: “stop use of power supply”) when a threshold amount of time (“first predetermined time period”) has elapsed (“yes” response to step S420 indicates the “value of first time exceeded first predetermined time period”; Fig. 11; corresponds to an “accumulated value of the connection time period to the charger” per ¶ [117]) since the flag was set (flag “F2” gets set to “1” in step S403a, which occurs when the electrical connection to the “charger 200” is made in step S400; Figs. 11-12) and the fault in the battery (10) is detected as still existing (¶ [125]: “controller 51 determines that the power supply 10 has been degraded” in step S422).
Akao further teaches using a time threshold to activate the fuse to prevent a battery detected as degraded from being further charged (¶ [125]; Fig. 11, steps S422-S424).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the control circuitry disclosed by the combination of Cass and Akao to incorporate a time threshold to activate the fuse, as further taught by Akao, to prevent a battery detected as degraded from being further charged.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cassidy (US 2007/0105010 A1; hereinafter "Cass") in view of Akao et al. (US 2020/0237009 A1) and Fu et al. (CN 110547514 A).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Cass and Akao teaches the aerosol generating device of claim 1.
Cass further discloses a battery charger circuitry (“charger 232”; Fig. 2A; ¶ [37]).
Cass does not disclose “the control circuitry is configured to send a signal to the battery charger circuitry based on the flag, the signal indicating that charging is enabled, and wherein the battery charger circuitry is configured to charge the battery when the signal indicating that charging is enabled is received from the control circuitry”.
Fu teaches the control circuitry (“controller 151”; Figs. 5-6) is configured to send a signal (“charging start signal CHG_EN”; Fig. 6; page 28, 2nd – 4th paragraphs) to the battery charger circuitry (combination of “charge protection circuit 156” and “charge management circuit 157”; Fig. 5) based on the flag (“CHG_EN” is provided when battery voltage “BAT+” is greater than threshold “TN10”; page 28, 2nd – 4th paragraphs), the signal (CHG_EN) indicating that charging is enabled (“charging start”).
Fu further teaches the battery charger circuitry (156, 157) is configured to charge (page , 13th paragraph: “157 may receive the charging signal VCC_CHG” and “control the charging of … 20”) the battery (“power supply assembly 20”; page 6, 10th paragraph: “20 may be a rechargeable battery”; Fig. 5) when the signal (CHG_EN) indicating that charging is enabled is received from the control circuitry (151; page 15, 4th paragraph: “156 can receive a charging start signal CHG_EN from the controller” and “output a charge signal VCC_CHG to the charge management circuit 154”).
Fu further teaches the signal to enable the charging to control the starting/stopping of charging the battery, which helps prevent the battery from overheating and harming users (page 26, 2nd paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrical system disclosed by the combination of Cass and Akao to incorporate a signal to enable the charging, as taught by Fu, to help prevent the battery from overheating and harming users.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Cass, Akao, and Fu teaches the aerosol generating device of claim 2.
Cass further discloses charging the battery (262) comprises supplying power to the battery (262) along the first electrical path (see annotated Figs 2A-2B; charging path includes “charger 232”).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cassidy (US 2007/0105010 A1; hereinafter "Cass") in view of Akao et al. (US 2020/0237009 A1) and Komaki et al. (US 2005/0248311 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Cass and Akao teaches the aerosol generating device of claim 1.
Cass does not disclose “the control circuitry is configured to modify the flag upon detecting that the battery has been replaced”.
Komaki teaches the control circuitry (“notebook computer 1”, including “CPU 2”, “power supply controller 7”, “utility storage portion 8”, “battery pack installing portion 10”; Fig. 1) is configured to modify the flag (fault associated with previous battery was displayed to the user in step S210 per ¶ [112]; “yes” response to step ST207 clears this fault so “normal operation” can begin in step ST208; Fig. 5) upon detecting that the battery (“battery pack 30”; Fig. 1) has been replaced (replacement of “30” is sensed in step ST301; safety of the new “30” is confirmed in step ST207; fault associated with previous, unsafe “30” is cleared to begin “normal operation” in step ST208; Fig. 8).
Komaki further teaches to clear the flag upon detecting that the battery has been replaced to improve the user-friendliness of the electronic device (¶ [20, 137, 145]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the control circuitry disclosed by the combination of Cass and Akao to clear the flag upon detecting that the battery has been replaced, as taught by Komaki, to improve the user-friendliness of the aerosol generating device.
Claims 10 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cassidy (US 2007/0105010 A1; hereinafter "Cass") in view of Akao et al. (US 2020/0237009 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Cass discloses a method (Abstract: “battery charging and discharging are accomplished in a controlled and protected manner”) of operating a device (Abstract: “intravenous fluid warmer or other medical or electrical devices and equipment”) comprising an electrical system (“fluid warmer heating and control circuit 200”; see annotated Figs. 2A-2B, included supra), the method comprising the following.
Cass further discloses monitoring, using a control circuitry (combination of “power path controller logic 221”, “fluid warmer microcontroller 222”, “battery condition indicator and controller 248”, “first order battery protection circuit 250”, and “second order battery protection circuit 252”; Figs. 2A-2B), a status (voltage of “262” is monitored by “256” and communicated to “250” and “248”) of a battery (“battery pack 262”; Fig. 2B) in the electrical system (200) during a discharge operation (¶ [38]: “monitoring and control blocks to facilitate … discharging of the battery pack 262”) of the battery (262).
Cass further discloses the battery (262) and the control circuitry (221, 222, 248, 250, 252) are connectable to an external power supply (“external power 202, 206”; Fig. 2A) via a first electrical path (from “202” to “262” through “charger 232”; see annotated Figs. 2A-2B, included supra) and a second electrical path (from “202” to output of “low voltage supply 220”, which provides power to “all circuits except heater 226”; see annotated Fig. 2A) respectively.
Cass further teaches this such that power can be independently supplied (power flow controlled by switches “208”, “230”, and “246”) to the control circuitry (221, 222, 248, 250, 252) and the battery (262).
Cass further discloses supplying power (“low voltage” supplied via “220”) to the control circuitry (221, 222, 248, 250, 252) from the external power supply (202, 206) via the second electrical path (through “208” and “220”) to check the battery status (voltage of “262”) without charging (“continuously monitored” per ¶ [47]; thus, this includes when any of “battery switch 230” and/or “battery disconnect switch 246” is open-state) the battery (262) when the control circuitry (221, 222, 248, 250, 252) detects that the electrical system (200) has been connected to the external power supply (202, 206).
Cass does not disclose the device is “an aerosol generating device”.
Cass further does not disclose “setting a flag indicating that the battery is not in an operating condition when the control circuitry detects a fault in the battery,”
As addressed supra, Cass discloses to check the battery status without charging the battery. However, Cass further does not disclose “to check the flag without charging the battery”.
Cass further does not disclose “enabling charging of the battery based on the flag”.
Akao teaches a method (title: “method for controlling battery unit”) of operating an aerosol generating device (“flavor inhaler 100”; Fig. 1) comprising an electrical system (“battery unit 110”; Figs. 4-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the method and electrical system disclosed by Cass and incorporate the electrical system into an aerosol generating device, as taught by Akao, to broaden the commercial applicability of the method and electrical system to the inhalable tobacco market.
Akao further teaches setting a flag (¶ [144]: “a second flag is set to “1” (flag F2 = 1)”; Fig. 12, step S403a) indicating that the battery (“power supply 10”; Figs. 4-7; ¶ [65]: “10 may be … a rechargeable battery”) is not in an operating condition (operating condition is “Vbat” > “discharge termination voltage”; ¶ [10, 112, 153]) when the control circuitry (“control unit 50”; Fig. 4) detects a fault (Fig. 12, step S402: “Vbat < lower limit value of predetermined voltage range”; ¶ [144]) in the battery (10).
Akao further teaches to check the flag (¶ [152-153]: “51” checks the status of “F2”) without charging (¶ [143]: “voltage of the power supply 10 is an open circuit voltage (OCV) acquired in a state in which the power supply 10 and the charger 200 are not electrically connected to each other”; thus, the battery voltage is measured while the battery is not being charged) the battery (10).
Akao further teaches enabling charging of the battery (10) based on the flag (per ¶ 152-153], charging is performed when “F2=0”).
Akao further teaches the flag to indicate a battery fault to help prevent the battery from discharging down to a deep discharge state (¶ [109-112]), which improves the battery’s life.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art modify the method and control circuitry disclosed by the combination of Cass and Akao to store and check a flag to indicate a battery fault, as further taught by Akao, to improve the battery’s life by protecting the battery from damaging deep discharge conditions.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Cass and Akao teaches the method of claim 10.
Cass further discloses supplying power to the control circuitry (221, 222, 248, 250, 252; power is supplied to these components by “low voltage supply 220”, which is powered by either “external power 202” or “pack (+) 240”, depending on switch states; per ¶ [33-34] and the Fig. 2A circuit, power can be supplied from “262” to “220” when “battery discharge switch 230” is in the closed state) from the battery (262) when the electrical system (200) is not connected to the external power supply (202, 206).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Cass and Akao teaches the method of claim 10.
Cass further discloses activating, using the control circuitry (221, 222, 248, 250, 252), a fuse (“thermal fuse 224”; Fig. 2A; ¶ [36]: “on sensing a potentially damaging condition in … battery pack 262, the second order battery protection circuit 252 electrically heats and melts the thermal fuse 224 to prevent a furtherance of the potentially damaging condition”; ¶ [43]: “back-up battery protection … via the thermal fuse 224”) in the electrical system (200) when the fault (“potentially damaging condition” per ¶ [36]; also referred to as a “fault condition” per ¶ [48]) detected in the battery (262) is deemed to be non-recoverable (¶ [43]: “sensing the dimensions of … battery pack 262, for a potential structural failure”).
Cass further discloses activating the fuse (224) irreversibly disables charging (because “224” is in the first electrical path that includes “charger 232”, melting the fuse prevents “262” from being charged until both the fuse and battery are replaced; see annotated Fig. 2A) of the battery (262).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cassidy (US 2007/0105010 A1; hereinafter "Cass") in view of Akao et al. (US 2020/0237009 A1) and Fu et al. (CN 110547514 A).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Cass and Akao teaches the method of claim 10.
Cass further discloses a battery charger circuitry (“charger 232”; Fig. 2A; ¶ [37]).
Cass further discloses charging the battery (262; charged by “232” per ¶ [37]).
Cass does not disclose “sending a signal from the control circuitry to a battery charger circuitry indicating that charging is enabled;”.
Fu teaches sending a signal (“charging start signal CHG_EN”, sent by “controller 151”; Figs. 5-6; page 28, 2nd – 4th paragraphs) from the control circuitry (“controller 151”; Figs. 5-6) to a battery charger circuitry (combination of “charge protection circuit 156” and “charge management circuit 157”; Fig. 5) indicating that charging is enabled (“CHG_EN” indicates “charging start”; page 28, 2nd – 4th paragraphs).
Fu further teaches sending the enable signal to control the starting/stopping of charging the battery, which helps prevent the battery from overheating and harming users (page 26, 2nd paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method and electrical system disclosed by the combination of Cass and Akao to send a signal to enable the charging, as taught by Fu, to help prevent the battery from overheating and harming users.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cassidy (US 2007/0105010 A1; hereinafter "Cass") in view of Akao et al. (US 2020/0237009 A1) and Komaki et al. (US 2005/0248311 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Cass and Akao teaches the method of claim 10.
Cass does not disclose “clearing the flag upon detecting that the battery has been replaced”.
Komaki teaches clearing the flag (fault associated with previous battery was displayed to the user in step S210 per ¶ [112]; “yes” response to step ST207 clears this fault so “normal operation” can begin in step ST208; Fig. 5) upon detecting that the battery (“battery pack 30”; Fig. 1) has been replaced (replacement of “30” is sensed in step ST301; safety of the new “30” is confirmed in step ST207; fault associated with previous, unsafe “30” is cleared to begin “normal operation” in step ST208; Fig. 8).
Komaki further teaches to clear the flag upon detecting that the battery has been replaced to improve the user-friendliness of the electronic device (¶ [20, 137, 145]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method and control circuitry disclosed by the combination of Cass and Akao to clear the flag upon detecting that the battery has been replaced, as taught by Komaki, to improve the user-friendliness of the aerosol generating device and associated method.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cassidy (US 2007/0105010 A1; hereinafter "Cass") in view of Akao et al. (US 2020/0237009 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Cass (with teachings from Akao incorporated per the modifications discussed in the claim 10 rejection, included supra), discloses “an aerosol generating device comprising an electrical system and steps comprising: monitoring, using a control circuitry, a status of a battery in the electrical system during a discharge operation of the battery; setting a flag indicating that the battery is not in an operating condition when the control circuitry detects a fault in the battery, wherein the battery and the control circuitry are connectable to an external power supply by a first electrical path and a second electrical path respectively such that power can be independently supplied to the control circuitry and the battery; supplying power to the control circuitry from the external power supply via the second electrical path to check the flag without charging the battery when the control circuitry detects that the electrical system has been connected to the external power supply; and enabling charging of the battery based on the flag”.
NOTE: Because these steps are equivalent to the method steps of claim 10, the claim item mapping is not repeated in the claim 15 rejection for brevity. Please refer to the claim 10 rejection for complete mapping of these limitations to the teachings, modifications, and motivations of Cass and Akao.
Cass does not disclose “a non-transitory computer-readable memory medium comprising executable instructions stored thereon” and that these executable instructions are “executed on a computer or processor”.
Akao further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable memory medium (¶ [188]: “storage medium in which the program is stored”) comprising executable instructions (¶ [24]: “program causing a battery unit to execute the method”; ¶ [51]: “controller 51 may have a program … to execute the above-described method”) stored thereon.
Akao further teaches these executable instructions are executed on a processor (¶ [106]: “control flow … is performed by a processor”).
Akao further teaches the non-transitory computer-readable memory medium to provide a physical embodiment with processing capabilities to implement the method steps (¶ [24, 51, 106]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method steps disclosed by the combination of Cass and Akao to be incorporated onto a non-transitory computer-readable memory medium with instructions to be executed on a processor, as further taught by Akao, to provide a physical embodiment with processing capabilities to implement the method steps.
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 Daniel P McFarland whose telephone number is (571)272-5952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM Eastern.
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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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.
/DANIEL P MCFARLAND/ Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights