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 .
The status of the 08/11/2026 claims, is as follows: Claims 11, 15, and 18-19 have been amended; Claim 14 has been canceled; and claims 1-13, and 15-23 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiang (US 20160143359) in view of Hu (US 20230138171)
Regarding Claim 1, Xiang discloses a power control system (figs. 1-2) for an aerosol-generating device (electronic cigarette), the power control system comprising:
at least one processor (microprocessor 100); and
a memory (memory associated with the microprocessor 100) coupled to the at least one processor and storing instructions;
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to cause the power control system (figs. 1-2) to,
determine whether a first power (actual heating voltage to the heating wire) to be applied to a heater of the aerosol-generating device (heating wire) exceeds a power threshold (standard heating voltage) (para. 0026 and 0032; step S3 fig. 4),
in response to the first power exceeding the power threshold (“if the actual heating voltage detected is greater than the standard heating voltage”), apply a second power to the heater (“lowers the actual heating voltage to the heating wire”), the second power not exceeding the power threshold (standard heating voltage) (para. 0026, 0034-0036. It is noted when the actual heating voltage is higher than the standard heating voltage, the actual heating voltage is lowered to be equal to the standard heating voltage), and
in response to the first power not exceeding the power threshold, apply the first power (actual heating voltage) to the heater (para. 0026, 0034-0036) (it is noted when the actual heating voltage is equal to the standard heating voltage, the actual heating voltage is applied to the heating wire).
Xiang does not disclose the first power being based on a desired heater temperature.
However, Hu discloses power to the heater 130 is controlled such that the heater is heated to desired predetermined temperature (para. 0029).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the processor of Xiang to provide the first power that is based on the desired heater temperature as taught by Hu, such that the desired temperature is achieved, thereby enhance the user’s experience.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 2 would be allowable for disclosing “increment a power-exceeded variable by a time interval when the first power exceeds the power threshold, the power-exceeded variable corresponding to a total amount of time the first power exceeds the power threshold,
monitor the power-exceeded variable against a power-exceeded threshold, and
in response to the power-exceeded variable exceeding the power- exceeded threshold, end the session.”
The prior art Xiang (US 20160143359) teaches when the actual heating voltage detected is greater than the standard heating voltage, the voltage adjusting module 300 lowers the actual heating voltage such that the actual heating voltage is equal to the standard heating voltage. When the actual heating voltage detected is lower than the standard heating voltage, the voltage adjusting module 300 increases the actual heating voltage such that the actual heating voltage is equal to the standard heating voltage (para. 0026 and 0034-0036). Xiang is silent with regards to:
“increment a power-exceeded variable by a time interval when the first power exceeds the power threshold, the power-exceeded variable corresponding to a total amount of time the first power exceeds the power threshold,
monitor the power-exceeded variable against a power-exceeded threshold, and
in response to the power-exceeded variable exceeding the power- exceeded threshold, end the session” as required by claim 2.
There is no teaching, reasonable and/or obvious suggestion, and/or reasonable and/or obvious motivation to combine or modify the teaching of Xiang to arrive at the claimed invention of claim 2.
Claims 3-10 would be allowable for their dependency from claim 2.
Claims 11-13, and 15-23 are allowed because:
The prior art of record does not anticipate or render fairly obvious in combination to teach all the additional elements of the claimed invention such as “wherein the session includes different phases and the power threshold varies based on the phase of the session,”
The prior art of record Yan teaches the controller 102 is configured to:
increment a power-exceeded variable (smoking duration) by a time interval when the power (real-time voltage Vr) exceeds a power threshold (preset voltage threshold V1) (para. 0089-0090; step S33 and S34 fig. 7), the power-exceeded variable (smoking duration, step S34-S35 fig. 7) corresponding to a total amount of time the power (real-time voltage Vr) exceeds the power threshold (preset voltage threshold V1),
monitor the power-exceeded variable (smoking duration) against a power- exceeded threshold (preset duration threshold) (step S37 fig. 7), and
in response to the power-exceeded variable (smoking duration) exceeding the power-exceeded threshold (preset duration threshold), end the session (the heater 103 is controlled to stop heating, step S39).
However, Yan does not teach the power threshold (i.e. preset voltage threshold V1) varies based on the phase of the session. In fact, the power threshold of Yan is a predetermined constant value i.e. 1.5 V-2.5 V. It does not vary based on phase of the session.
Yan teaches there is a pre-heating phase and a smoking phase. The comparison between the power applied to the heater and the power threshold is made during the smoking phase to determine whether the user smokes (para. 0085-0087; steps S32-S34; fig. 7). There is no such comparison in the pre-heating phase to determine whether the user smokes.
Yan is silent regarding the power threshold varies based on the phase of the session.
There is no teaching, reasonable and/or obvious suggestion, and/or reasonable and/or obvious motivation to modify the power threshold of Yan to vary based on the phase of the session to arrive at the claimed invention recited in claim 11.
Response to Amendment
With respect to 112b rejections: since amendments made to the claims, therefore 112b rejections are withdrawn.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed on 08/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are respectfully not persuasive because:
Applicant’s Arguments: with respect to claim 1 on p. 9-11 of the Remarks “The Office, on page 5 of the Office Action, asserts that Xiang discloses the
"determine whether a first power exceeds a power threshold." Applicants disagree.
Specifically, the Office cites paragraphs [0026], [0032] and [0034] - [0036] of
Xiang as disclosing "actual heating voltage to the heating wire" and "standard heating
voltage." Applicants note that Paragraph [0026] of Xiang discloses "detecting actual
heating current and heating voltage to the heating wire." Xiang discloses "obtaining the
actual heating current ... and determining a standard heating voltage according to the
actual heating current ... [and] comparing the standard heating voltage with the actual
heating voltage detected." Thus, Xiang discloses determinations based on voltage, not "power" as recited by claim 1. Therefore, the Office Action fails to establish that Hu remedies the deficiency of Xiang.
Implicit Official Notice of Facts Unsupported
The Office, on page 5 of the Office Action, asserts that Xiang discloses "actual
heating voltage to the heating wire" and "standard heating voltage." The Office asserts
that Xiang's disclosures related to voltage disclose features in the instant claim related
to power. Applicants disagree.
To the extent that the Office is taking Official Notice that Xiang's discussion of
"voltage" discloses "power," Applicants respectfully traverse this implicit taking of Official Notice as being unsupported by any documentary evidence.
Applicants submit that no such support has been provided in this case. The
Office Action asserts, without explanation, that Xiang's discussion of "voltage" discloses
the features of the present claim reciting "power," but Applicants do not believe that the
facts implicitly asserted by the Office as well-known are capable of instant and
unquestionable demonstration as being well-known. If the Office continues to believe
that the above-recited features are well known in the art, Applicants respectfully request
that the Office provide a reference or references in the next Office Action allegedly offering evidence that this is the case.
To the extent that the Office is not taking Official Notice, Applicants submit that
the Office has failed to make a valid prima facie case of obviousness with respect to
claim 1 over Xiang in view of Hu. The Office appears to concede that Xiang and Hu do
not disclose at least the features related to "power" as required by claim 1, and the Office
does not positively cite any evidence, either from Xiang or Hu or any other references,
that demonstrates how the features related to "power" as required by claim 1 would be
obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the application.
In sum, without conceding as to any of the Office's assertions that are not
explicitly addressed, Applicants note that the cited references fail to disclose or fairly
suggest, individually or in combination, at least the "determine whether a first power exceeds a power threshold."
Examiner’s Responses:
The applicant’s arguments are respectfully not persuasive because Xiang discloses the processor 100 is configured to supply power to the heater and to obtain the actual heating voltage and compare the actual heating voltage with the standard heating voltage (para. 0026 and 0030). The processor 100 is configured to adjust the actual heating voltage such that the actual heating voltage is equal to the standard heating voltage in order to make heating power to the heater be equal to the preset constant power (para. 0026).
The standard heating voltage of Xiang is obtained by calculation P = U * I, wherein P is the preset constant power, I is the actual heating current (para. 0027-0032).
Xiang discloses if the actual heating voltage is greater than the standard heating voltage, it illustrates that the heating power is higher than the preset constant power, it is needed to lower the actual heating voltage to make the heating power be reduced to the preset constant power (para. 0034-0036).
If the actual heating voltage is less than the standard heating voltage, it illustrates that the heating power is less than the preset constant power, it is needed to increase the actual heating voltage to make the heating power be increased to the preset constant power (para. 0034-0036).
There is known relationship between the “voltage” and “power”, as disclosed in para. 0034-0036 and by the equation P = U * I. If the voltage increases, the power increases. If the voltage decreases, the power decreases.
Xiang establishes the well-known relationship between power and the voltage. Power can described in voltage and vice versa based on relationship P = U * I.
The processor of Xiang is configured to determine whether the first power (i.e. actual heating voltage) exceeds a power threshold (i.e. standard heating voltage), in response to the first power exceeding the power threshold, apply a second power (i.e. lower the actual heating voltage). In response to the first power not exceeding the power threshold (i.e. the actual heating voltage being equal to the standard heating voltage), apply the first power (i.e. the actual heating voltage).
Applicant’s Arguments: with respect to claim 1 on p. 11-12 of the Remarks
No Motivation to Combine
The Office, on page 5 of the Office Action, asserts that "it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art ... to configure the process of Xiang to provide the
first power that is based on the desired heater temperature as taught by Hu, such that
the desired temperature is achieved." Applicants note that the mere existence of a
relationship, as previously discussed, between power and voltage is insufficient to
establish a motivation to restructure the disclosures of Xiang regarding "voltage" to
reach the claimed features regarding "power." See, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 418 (2007) (an obviousness finding requires more than that the elements were
"independently known," rather that there must be "an apparent reason to combine the
known elements in the fashion claimed.")
Here, the Office fails to provide a rationale why one of ordinary skill in the art
would abandon Xiang's disclosures regarding "voltage" and substitute a power- threshold determination in its place. Absent such a rationale, the mere existence of a
relationship alone is insufficient to sustain a valid primafacie case of obviousness.
Similarly, the Office Action fails to establish that a person having ordinary skill
in the art would have a reasonable expectation that the substitution would succeed and
yield predictable results. Xiang's disclosures regarding voltage are structured around
the relationship between current and expected voltage under normal operating
conditions. Replacing the disclosed comparison with an absolute power threshold alters
not only the parameters being evaluated but also the nature of the threshold itself: from
a dynamic, current-dependent expected value to a power limit. The Office Action fails to
establish that this is a trivial substitution and does not represent a predictable variation
of Xiang's disclosed approach.
For at least the above given reasons, a valid primafacie case of obviousness over
Xiang in view of Hu cannot be established with respect to claim 1. Accordingly,
Applicants request the Office to reconsider and withdraw the above rejection.
Examiner’s Responses:
The applicant’s arguments are respectfully not persuasive because Xiang establishes the well-known relationship between power and the voltage. Power can described in voltage and vice versa based on relationship P = U * I.
Xiang is silent regarding the limitation “the first power being based on a desired heater temperature”, however Hu discloses power (or voltage because of its well-known relationship to power) to the heater 130 is controlled such that desired predetermined temperature is achieved (para. 0029).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the processor of Xiang to provide the power (i.e. heating voltage because of its well-known relationship) to the heater that is based on the desired heater temperature as taught by Hu, such that the desired temperature is achieved, thereby enhance the user’s experience.
For the above reasons, the rejections to all of the claims are respectfully sustained by the Examiner.
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 extension fee 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 BONITA KHLOK whose telephone number is (571)270-7313. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00am-6pm.
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, IBRAHIME ABRAHAM can be reached on (571) 270-5569. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BONITA KHLOK/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
