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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendment filed 3/19/2026 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-17 are pending. Claims 12-17 are withdrawn. Claim 1 is amended. No new matter is added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited art supplies the first battery information while also supplying the second battery information. Claim 1 requires that the first battery information is indicated while the second battery information is not transmitted.
Examiner notes that this feature was not previously required, and thus not previously considered.
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.
______________________________________________________________________
Claim(s) 1-6 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAMERON (US 2021/0345681) in view of FARINE et al. (US 2017/0027234) and FINKE et al. (US 2020/0193806)
With respect to claim 1, CAMERON discloses an electronic vapor device (Abstract) that generates a vapor for inhalation (Paragraph [0070]). The device comprises a network access device, 106 or 112 (Paragraphs [0050] and [0061]; Figure 1) that wirelessly (via Wi-Fi or Bluetooth) (Paragraphs [0043], [0050, [0057], [0061], [0094], [0145]) to a user’s smartphone (e.g., another device). The device further includes a vaporizer, 108 (Paragraph [0052]) comprising a wick, 204, coupled to a heater (or even a heated wick) (Paragraph [0101]). The aerosol forming liquid is transported through the wick to the heater for vaporization (Paragraphs [0062], [0048], [0185], [0214]).
The wick represents the claimed substrate containing an aerosol source that is heated by the heater to generate an aerosol.
The heater is heated by a power supply, 120, (such as a battery) (Paragraph [0047]) for storing and supplying power to the device (Paragraph [0047] and [0048]). A first controller, 102, (Paragraph [0046]) that performs to transmit battery information, such as the remaining battery to the user’s smartphone (Paragraphs [0059], [0061], [0129]; Figure 14).
CAMERON does not explicitly disclose that the controller transmits a plurality of kinds of battery information with a first battery information indicating degradation of the power supply over second battery information.
FARINE et al. discloses an aerosol generating device (Abstract) in which a battery is used to power the device (Abstract). The device’s control circuit is configured to compare a measured voltage across the battery to a threshold voltage and generate and error signal to update the usage record if the measured voltage is less than the threshold voltage during an operation cycle and is further configured to access the usage record and to activate a replacement indicator depending on the status of the record (Paragraph [0011]). As the battery ages, its internal resistance will increase, resulting in a decrease in battery capacity (e.g., battery degradation). Thus, even if the battery is fully charged, a decreased capacity can result in a voltage drop that is large enough to prevent the heater from heating the aerosol source above its volatilization temperature. Thus, the device is configured to prevent power from being supplied to the heater if the battery drops below the threshold voltage (Paragraphs [0017] and [0018]). The user is notified when the battery has degraded to the point of replacement (Paragraph [0018]-[0024]). The replacement indicator may be a display that includes a user interface that displays battery power and replacement indicator (Paragraph [0038]). Moreover, the control circuit is configured to immediately display the replacement indicator to the user (Paragraph [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the controller of CAMERON to monitor the life of the battery in the manner taught by FARINE et al., so that when the battery has degraded to the point of no longer being serviceable, the user is immediately notified of the required replacement of a defective battery.
According to the teaching of CAMERON, the remaining battery life is displayed to the user (e.g., second battery information) and if the battery becomes defective, this message is immediately displayed to the user through the smart phone according to the teachings of FARINE et al. The immediate display of the first battery information (replacement indicator) represents the claimed preferentially displayed first information of battery degradation over the second battery information of remaining battery life. It isn’t explicitly disclosed that the second battery information isn’t transmitted upon submission of the first. FINKE et al. discloses an aerosol device (Abstract; Title). The device includes a controller that includes data mode switching that includes selective switching of the processing of measurement signals and data is generated with higher priority. This includes to not immediately transmit a part of the data , which is instead cached or buffered for power savings (Paragraph [0050]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform data mode switching in CAMERON, as taught by FINKE et al. so that when transmitting the replacement indicator data to the user, the second battery information is not transmitted and is instead cached for power savings.
With respect to claim 2, CAMERON discloses that the second battery information is the remaining amount of energy in the power supply (Paragraph [0049]).
With respect to claim 3, FARINE et al. discloses that the control circuitry is configured to compare a measured voltage across the battery to a threshold voltage and generate and error signal to update the usage record if the measured voltage is less than the threshold voltage during an operation cycle and is further configured to access the usage record and to activate a replacement indicator depending on the status of the record (Paragraph [0011]). As the battery ages, its internal resistance will increase, resulting in a decrease in battery capacity (e.g., battery degradation). Thus, even if the battery is fully charged, a decreased capacity can result in a voltage drop that is large enough to prevent the heater from heating the aerosol source above its volatilization temperature. Thus, the device is configured to prevent power from being supplied to the heater if the battery drops below the threshold voltage (Paragraphs [0017] and [0018]). The user is notified when the battery has degraded to the point of replacement (Paragraph [0018]-[0024]). The replacement indicator may be a display that includes a user interface that displays battery power and replacement indicator (Paragraph [0038]). Moreover, the control circuit is configured to immediately display the replacement indicator to the user (Paragraph [0038]).
With respect to claim 4, FARINE et al. discloses that if the battery has degraded, the control circuitry prohibits heating by the heater (Paragraphs [0026]; Abstract).
With respect to claim 5, FARINE et al. discloses that the determination of the degradation is determined based on cycle count (Paragraphs [0017], [0025]).
With respect to claim 6, According to the teaching of CAMERON, the remaining battery life is displayed to the user (e.g., second battery information) and if the battery becomes defective, this message is immediately displayed to the user through the smart phone according to the teachings of FARINE et al. The immediate display of the first battery information (replacement indicator) represents the claimed preferentially displayed first information of battery degradation over the second battery information of remaining battery life (See rejection of claim 1).
With respect to claims 9 and 10, FARINE et al. discloses that the replacement indicator is activated when the device is connected to, or disconnected from, a charging station (Paragraph [0038]).
With respect to claim 11, CAMERON discloses a memory that stores log information about the use of the device by a user (Paragraphs [0049], [0050], [0140]). FARINE et al. discloses that the information includes information identifying a time segment from start to end of a process of generating the aerosol (Paragraph [0015]) and the information needed to determine degradation of the battery during said time (Paragraphs [0016]-[0021]).
_________________________________________________________________________
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAMERON (US 2021/0345681) in view of FARINE et al. (US 2017/0027234) and FINKE et al. (US 2020/0193806) as applied to claims 1-6 and 11 above, and further in view of HENRY et al. (US 2015/0224268).
With respect to claim 9, modified CAMERON does not explicitly disclose that starting of charging triggers the controller to determine whether the power supply is degraded. HENRY et al. discloses a charging assessor for an aerosol delivery device (Abstract). When the charging accessory device is connected to the aerosol delivery device, and electrical connection is made in order to charge the battery (Paragraph [0059]; Figure 3). The charging device includes a graphic display and interface to provide indications to the user (Paragraph [0063]) and communicates data received from the charging device such as diagnostic data of the aerosol device including power levels of the battery and charging status of the battery (Paragraphs [0066]-[0070] [0079] and [0092]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a charging device as taught by HENRY et al. to charge the device of modified CAMERON, so that once connected to the charging device (start of charging as a trigger), the charging device can perform a diagnostic on the battery (degradation of the battery as taught by FARINE et al.) and relay that information to the user.
With respect to claim 10, modified CAMERON does not explicitly disclose that starting of charging triggers the controller to determine whether the power supply is degraded. HENRY et al. discloses a charging assessor for an aerosol delivery device (Abstract). When the charging accessory device is connected to the aerosol delivery device, and electrical connection is made in order to charge the battery (Paragraph [0059]; Figure 3). The charging device includes a graphic display and interface to provide indications to the user (Paragraph [0063]) and communicates data received from the charging device such as diagnostic data of the aerosol device including power levels of the battery and charging status of the battery (Paragraphs [0066]-[0070] [0079] and [0092]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a charging device as taught by HENRY et al. to charge the device of modified CAMERON, so that once connected to the charging device, and after the device has been charged (end of charging as a trigger), the charging device can perform a diagnostic on the battery (degradation of the battery as taught by FARINE et al.) and relay that information to the user.
Moreover, even by performing the diagnostic upon completion of charging, the fully charged battery can have its voltage tested against a voltage drop to determine the final state of degradation prior to using the device. Thus, further information is known at the end of a subsequent charge which can be compared to the start of a charge to determine the amount of degradation that occurs during each charge cycle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
FARINE et al. indicates that the replacement indicator may be activated by a button (Paragraph [0038]). While CAMERON discloses an opening, at 202, in which the vaporizer can be placed, (Paragraph [0098]; Figure 2), there isn’t necessarily a lid. Even having a lid in the art, there isn’t necessarily a teaching that the controller would recognize the lid as the trigger to perform diagnostics, rather than the simple connection of the vaporizer to a charger or other device, or a simple button, per se.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ALEX B EFTA whose telephone number is (313)446-6548. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Philip Tucker can be reached at 571-272-1095. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEX B EFTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights