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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/5/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-2 and 17 are amended. Claim 10 is cancelled. Claims 15-18 are withdrawn. Claim 20 is newly added. Claims 1-9, 11-14, and 19-20 are presently examined.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the interpretation of claim 5 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The interpretation of 9/5/2025 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of 9/5/2025 are overcome.
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.
Claim 20 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.
Regarding claim 20, it is unclear how the limitations of claim 1 and the instant claim can coexist. Claim 1 requires the device to be in the inactive state when the movable closure is in the closed position. Claim 1 further requires that, when the device is in the inactive state, the communication module must be enabled if the control circuitry determines the device in the inactive state. Therefore, any time that the control determines either that the movable closure is closed or the device is in the inactive state, communication must be enabled.
The instant claim requires that the control circuitry disables the communication module when the movable closure is in the closed position. This phrasing indicates that the control circuitry is aware that the closure is in the closed position when communication is disabled. However, as established in claim 1, communication must be enabled whenever the closure is in the closed position. It is therefore unclear how the limitations of claim 1 and claim 20 can simultaneously be met, rendering the claim indefinite.
It is unclear whether the limitation “a closed position” refers to the closed position of claim 1 or to a new closed position, rendering the claim indefinite.
For the purposes of this Office action, the claim will be interpreted as if it did not further limit claim 1.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 7 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lim (US 11,744,287) in view of Baker (US 10,369,308).
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Lim discloses an aerosol generating device into which a cigarette is inserted (column 9, lines 34-39) having a heater (column 11, lines 26-37, figure 9, reference numeral 52), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a heating oven. The operation of the heater is controlled by a controller (column 11, lines 55-65, figure 9, reference numeral 70). In a different embodiment, the controller also activates a Bluetooth communication function when the operational mode of the aerosol generating device is in an ON mode (column 12, lines 45-50). The ON mode is when the controller supplies power to the heater (column 12, lines 18-28). The operational mode is set based on whether a cigarette insertion hole is open or closed (column 12, lines 29-33). The top the device has a cover that is mounted on the upper surface of the case (column 9, lines 40-48), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a movable closure. The cover exposes a cigarette insertion hole when it is moved (column 9, lines 49-53). Lim does not explicitly disclose also activating the communication module when the cover is not open.
Baker teaches an electronic vapor provision system that is in communication with a mobile communication device (abstract) in which wireless communications are prevented when the heater is activated (column 8, lines 1-12), indicating that such communication is not prevented when the heater is not activated, which is considered to meet the claim limitation of enabled. Baker additionally teaches that this arrangement prevents disruption of the heater control by the wireless communication signals (column 8, lines 13-26).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Lim with the preventing of wireless communication during heating of Baker. One would have been motivated to do so since Baker teaches preventing communication during heating to prevent disruption to heating control and operation.
Regarding claim 2, Lim discloses that the Bluetooth communication is activated when the operational mode of the aerosol generating device is in an ON mode triggered by opening the cover (column 12, liens 45-50) and deactivates the Bluetooth communication device when the operational mode of the aerosol generating device is an OFF mode triggered by closing the cover (column 13, lines 48-54).
Regarding claim 3, the claim does not have limitation that is being given patentable weight as set forth above with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 112(b).
Regarding claim 4, Lim discloses that the cover moves along a rail (column 9, lines 54-58, figure 8, reference numeral 16).
Regarding claim 5, Lim discloses that the cigarette is inserted into the cigarette insertion hole covered by the cover (column 9, lines 49-53). It is evident that the cigarette could extend out of the insertion hole since there are no obstructions above the top of the insertion hole (figure 7).
Regarding claim 7, the heater of Lim (column 11, lines 26-37, figure 9, reference numeral 52) is controlled by a controller (column 11, lines 55-65, figure 9, reference numeral 70) that supplies power to the heater (column 12, lines 18-28). The operational mode is set based on whether a cigarette insertion hole is open or closed (column 12, lines 29-33). It is therefore evident that the state of the heater is controlled by an aerosol generating state since aerosol is generated when the heater is activated (column 5, lines 46-58).
Regarding claim 19, modified Lim teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Lim additionally discloses that the cigarette is inserted into the cigarette insertion hole covered by the cover (column 9, lines 49-53), and that other configurations are possible (column 10, lines 43-50). In a different embodiment, the cigarette sticks out from the aerosol generating device when inserted (column 4, lines 63-67, figure 1, reference numeral 12000), indicating that the cover could not close when the cigarette is inserted. Modified Lim does not explicitly teach the cigarette sticking out of the insertion hole in the relied upon embodiment.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the two embodiments of Lim such that a cigarette extends outside of the insertion hole in all embodiments. One would have been motivated to do so since Lim discloses that other configurations are possible in the relied upon embodiment.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (US 11,744,287) in view of Baker (US 10,369,308) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Presta (US 2023/0113936).
Regarding claim 6, modified Lim teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Lim does not explicitly teach the cover being biased towards the closed position.
Presta discloses a charger for an aerosol generating device that includes a cavity to receive the device to be charged (abstract) that is covered by a cover ([0134], figure 6, reference numeral 110) having an opening (figure 2a, reference numeral 126) that aligns with a cavity opening in the open position ([0117], figure 2a, reference numeral 124). The cover is biased towards a closed position so that a user does not need to manipulate the device [0053] so that the cover is closed to protect the device from dust and dirt of the surroundings [0011].
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to bias the cover of modified Lim closed. One would have been motivated to do so since Presta teaches that biasing a cover closed allows a cavity to be protected from dust and dirt without requiring any action by a user.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (US 11,744,287) in view of Baker (US 10,369,308) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eksouzian (US 9,877,514).
Regarding claim 8, modified Lim teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Lim additionally discloses that the device has a temperature detecting sensor (column 7, lines 6-18). Modified Lim does not explicitly teach controlling the heater based on the detected temperature.
Eksouzian teaches a vaporizer that has a pan that is heated to a desired temperature to vaporize but not combust a substance to be vaporized (abstract) having a heating element that is controlled to achieve based on the temperature measured by the temperature sensor (column 4, lines 28-37).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the temperature sensor of modified Lim with the control of Eksouzian. One would have been motivated to do so since Eksouzian teaches controlling a temperature so that material is vaporized but not burned.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (US 11,744,287) in view of Baker (US 10,369,308) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Henry, Jr. (US 10,015,987).
Regarding claim 9, modified Lim teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Lim does not explicitly teach transmitting device status information.
Henry, Jr. teaches an aerosol delivery device comprising a communication interface that uses wireless communication to broadcast information when a flow of air is detected (abstract) from a user taking at least one puff (column 13, lines 66-67, column 14, lines 1-12). The flow of air from the user taking a puff is considered to be a current phase of an aerosol generation session. Henry, Jr. additionally teaches that the transmission of the detection of a puff is the trigger to broadcast an advertisement (column 3, lines 12-26) that the device is available for Bluetooth connectivity (column 14, lines 51-60) and to form a Bluetooth bond (column 3, lines 1-11).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Bluetooth of modified Lim with the transmission of information indicating that a puff has been taken of Henry, Jr. One would have been motivated to do so since Henry, Jr. teaches a device that establishes a Bluetooth bond when a puff is detected.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (US 11,744,287) in view of Baker (US 10,369,308) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Krietzman (US 2023/0036069).
Regarding claim 13, modified Lim teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Lim does not explicitly teach the control circuitry being configured to enable communication when the heater is inactive.
Kreitzman teaches a portable vaporizer (abstract) having a control system that is connected to a smart phone via Bluetooth to allow control and monitoring of the device [0046]. The device is activated when an on/off control that is in communication with the controller is activated [0011]. It is evident that deactivation of the communication function is delayed until the session, which includes the entire monitoring period, is completed.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to activate the Bluetooth system of modified Lim at all times. One would have been motivated to do so since Kreitzman teaches that a vaporizer can be activated from an inactive by a smart phone using a Bluetooth connection to the inactive device.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (US 11,744,287) in view of Baker (US 10,369,308) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tremblay (US 10,440,999).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, modified Lim teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Lim does not explicitly teach transmitting data to a remote device and then controlling the device based on received information from the remote device.
Tremblay teaches an electronic vaping device that communicates with an external communication device (abstract) by transmitting a signal indicative of vaping activity. The mobile communication device then runs software that sends a command to the electronic cigarette to disable vaping when a certain amount of time has elapsed since the last vape (column 18, lines 53-67, column 19, lines 1-8) so that the device is disabled by default (column 27, lines 54-67, column 28, lines 1-3).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of modified Lim with the external communication device and communication of Tremblay. One would have been motivated to do so since Tremblay teaches an external communication device that shuts down an electronic cigarette by default if no vaping occurs over a specified time period.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (US 11,744,287) in view of Baker (US 10,369,308) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Alarcon (US 11,744,965).
Regarding claim 14, modified Lim teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Lim does not explicitly teach a communication indicator.
Alarcon teaches a vaporizer article having control device (column 5, lines 3-33) with an indicator light that indicates the status of communication by illuminating in a steady color when the communication link is established and being off when communication is off (column 6, lines 33-44).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of modified Lim with the indicator light of Alarcon. One would have been motivated to do so since Alarcon teaches an indicator light that indicates whether communication is active.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejections are entered as set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSSELL E SPARKS whose telephone number is (571)270-1426. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5 pm.
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 Louie can be reached at 571-270-1241. 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.
/RUSSELL E SPARKS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights