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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-10 and 12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/17/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-8 and 11 in the reply filed on 06/17/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 6 is 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.
Claim 6 contains the trademark/trade name Bluetooth. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe the claimed wireless communication interface and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
In the absence of an explicit definition in the specification that limits “Bluetooth interface” to a specific protocol, version, or structural implementation, Examiner will interpret the term “Bluetooth interface” to broadly encompass any wireless communication interface capable of establishing a short-range data connection with another device, including but not limited to Bluetooth-compliant, NFC, or other similar radio-frequency interfaces.
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) 1-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tremblay (US 2015/0181945 A1), and further in view of Schennum et al. (US 2016/0120218 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tremblay teaches an electronic aerosol-generating (vaping) device (100) configured to produce vapor for inhalation by a user (¶¶ [0051]–[0064]).
a wireless communication interface (170) configured to communicate with a previously paired user electronic device (400) such as a smartphone or tablet via a short-range wireless link (e.g., Bluetooth) (¶¶ [0067]–[0074], [0105]–[0107]).
a controller (160) configured to enable or disable generation of an aerosol by a vapor producer (120) when the wireless communication interface establishes that a wireless link is available (¶¶ [0124]–[0128]).
a chamber (124) for receiving a consumable comprising an aerosol-forming substance (¶¶ [0059]–[0061]).
Tremblay also teaches sensors such as a fluid-drawing detector (154) or motion/biometric sensors (¶¶ [0064]–[0065]) that detect user actions and cause the controller to initiate or control communication.
However, Tremblay does not explicitly disclose a lid movable between open and closed positions or a sensor configured to detect manipulation of the lid.
Schennum disclose a container (3) for an electronic nicotine delivery system including a chamber (4) for receiving an electronic cigarette or consumable (¶¶ [0004], [0008]–[0011]);
a lid (9) pivotally attached to the body for movement between a closed and an open position (¶¶ [0027], [0044], [0047]; Figs. 8a–8b);
and a switch or sensor configured to detect whether the lid is in an open or closed position (¶ [0037]). The switch may be mechanically or electrically actuated to signal a controller regarding lid position.
Tremblay and Schennum are directed to the same field of electronic nicotine or aerosol delivery devices and are therefore analogous. Tremblay provides the electronic control system and wireless interface, while Schennum provides a well-known mechanical cover and sensor assembly.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aerosol-generating device of Tremblay to include the lid and lid-position-detecting sensor of Schennum. The skilled artisan would have recognized that integrating Schennum’s lid and sensor structure with Tremblay’s wirelessly controlled device would protect the consumable chamber, improve power management and user safety, and provide an intuitive user input to initiate or disable Tremblay’s wireless connection. Such a modification would represent a predictable use of one known element to improve another similar device, producing expected results in accordance with KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding claim 2, Tremblay discloses that the controller 160 enables or disables the vapor-providing capability of the electronic cigarette 100 for predetermined periods in response to commands received via the wireless communication interface 170. Specifically, Tremblay teaches that the controller maintains activation for a defined time window following receipt of an external command transmitted over the wireless link 440 (¶¶ [0128]–[0129]; see also ¶¶ [0081]–[0083]).
Tremblay further discloses that once the predetermined period has expired, the controller automatically disables vapor generation until another external command is received (¶ [0129]).
Thus, Tremblay expressly teaches controlling aerosol generation for a predetermined time period upon establishment of a wireless link with a paired device.
Regarding claim 3, Tremblay discloses an input device that is activated by the user to initiate aerosol generation. Tremblay teaches that the electronic cigarette 100 includes a user interface 150 on the device itself, comprising one or more buttons or other input elements 156 that the user actuates to enable the vapor-providing capability (¶¶ [0176]–[0177]). The controller 160 responds to the activation of the user interface 150 to effect a control action that enables or initiates aerosol generation. Thus, Tremblay explicitly teaches an input device configured to be activated by the user to initiate generation of an aerosol.
Regarding claim 4, Tremblay alone teaches the additional limitation. Tremblay discloses that the controller 160 detects activation of the input device (e.g., button 156 on user interface 150) and, when the vapor-providing capability is disabled, triggers the wireless communication interface 170 to re-establish a wireless link 440 (e.g., Bluetooth) with a previously paired mobile communication device 400 (¶¶ [0068]–[0074], [0124]–[0128], [0176]–[0177]). Upon re-establishment of the link, the controller executes a control action that enables aerosol generation.
Thus, the feature recited in claim 4 is explicitly disclosed in Tremblay.
Regarding claim 5, Tremblay teaches an indicator configured to display the status of the device. Tremblay discloses that the user interface 150 includes circuitry and/or software for controllably illuminating a tip of the electronic cigarette 100 as specified by the controller 160 (¶ [0065]), and further describes a visual output device 190 for visually conveying information to the user (¶¶ [0233]–[0237], [0244]). These visual indications represent the operational status of the device, thereby meeting the claimed indicator limitation.
Accordingly, the limitation of claim 5 is expressly taught by Tremblay, and the combination with Schennum is maintained for consistency with the base claim.
Regarding claim 6, Tremblay expressly teaches that the electronic cigarette 100 includes a wireless communication interface 170 configured to communicate with an external communication device 400 via a short-range wireless link such as Bluetooth (¶¶ [0068]–[0073]). Tremblay further explains that the electronic cigarette 100 may pair with a smartphone, tablet, or smartwatch using Bluetooth to establish a communication link 440 for transmitting and receiving operational commands and data (¶¶ [0068], [0073], [0128]).
Thus, Tremblay explicitly discloses a wireless communication interface that is a Bluetooth interface, satisfying all limitations of claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Tremblay teaches an aerosol-generating device including a controller 160 and a wireless communication interface 170 configured to communicate with an external user device (¶¶ [0068]–[0073]).
Tremblay further teaches that the controller may disable communication and vapor-producing functionality based on certain conditions such as user inactivity or restriction events (¶¶ [0080]–[0092], [0128]).
However, Tremblay does not teach a sensor configured to detect a lid position or that the wireless communication interface is disabled in response to lid closure.
Schennum teaches a container including a lid 9, switch 152, and PCB 154 configured to detect whether the lid is open or closed and to control associated electronic functionality in response to that position (¶¶ [0160]–[0162]; Figs. 8A–8B).
Specifically, Schennum discloses disabling electrical functions such as LEDs or charging circuits when the lid is closed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tremblay to incorporate Schennum’s lid-detection feature so that Tremblay’s controller 160 disables the wireless communication interface 170 when the lid is closed. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so to conserve battery power, prevent inadvertent wireless transmission, and improve safety and energy efficiency, consistent with Tremblay’s own condition-based disablement teachings.
Accordingly, Tremblay in view of Schennum collectively teaches or renders obvious the limitations of claim 7.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tremblay (US 2015/0181945 A1), in view of Schennum et al. (US 2016/0120218 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reevell (US 2019/0380391 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Tremblay discloses an aerosol-generating device comprising a container 124 configured to receive an aerosol-forming substance such as liquids, gels, or dry herbs, and a heater (vapor producer 120) configured to heat the substance within the container to generate an aerosol (¶¶ [0059]–[0064], [0091]–[0092]).
However, Tremblay does not explicitly disclose that the chamber is configured for receiving a consumable in the form of a rod comprising tobacco.
Reevell discloses an aerosol-generating device having a heating chamber (16) configured to receive an aerosol-forming article (30), which may be in the form of a tobacco rod. Reevell further teaches that the aerosol-forming substrate may be a solid or a liquid aerosol-forming substrate (¶[0032]), including tobacco-containing material or sheets of tobacco (¶[0040]). The article is inserted into the heating chamber for aerosol generation, and the device includes a heater configured to heat the consumable within the chamber.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the chamber of Tremblay in view of Reevell so that it is configured to receive a rod-shaped tobacco consumable, as both references are directed to electronic aerosol-generating devices that heat aerosol-forming substrates, whether liquid, solid, or dry herb, to generate inhalable vapor. Such a modification represents a predictable substitution of known chamber geometries to accommodate different forms of consumables, yielding the same functional result of generating aerosol from heated organic material (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tremblay (US 2015/0181945 A1), in view of Schennum et al. (US 2016/0120218 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kueny et. al (US 2015/0075546 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Tremblay (¶¶ [0096]–[0098], [0107]–[0108], [0123]–[0128]) teaches an aerosol-generating device having a wireless communication interface 170 configured to establish and maintain wireless communication (link 440) with a user electronic device 400. Tremblay describes the aerosol-generating device receiving an external command or signal from the user’s mobile device 400 and maintaining communication therewith, thereby implying a link with a previously paired user electronic device (¶[0096], [0123]–[0128]).
However, while Tremblay inherently teaches that the wireless interface establishes a link by receipt of communication data from a previously paired user device, it does not explicitly disclose that such link establishment occurs by receipt of a MAC address or equivalent hardware-level identifier.
Kueny discloses a vaporizer device comprising a communication system 80 that communicates with a remote computing device via Bluetooth or Wi-Fi, and explicitly teaches that “the MAC address may serve as a unique identifier for the communications port.” (¶¶ [0021]–[0023])
Kueny thus provides the specific mechanism for establishing communication between a vaporizer and a previously paired user device using a MAC address for recognition and re-connection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the MAC-based identification method of Kueny to Tremblay’s wireless communication interface to facilitate device recognition and automatic re-pairing with a known user device. Such substitution represents a predictable use of well-known Bluetooth protocols for maintaining secure, reliable communication between paired devices (MPEP § 2144.04).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER KESSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-7739. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am - 5:00pm.
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.
/JENNIFER A KESSIE/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights