DETAILED ACTION
Examiner acknowledges receipt of amendment to application 17/996,331 filed on February 23, 2026. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 23, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 6-15, 17-19 and 22-28 are still pending, with claims 1 and 15 being currently amended. Claims 2-5, 16 and 20-21 are cancelled.
Status of Objections and Non-Prior Art Rejections
I. 35 USC § 112 Rejections
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 4-15, 17-22, 24-26 and 28 are accepted. The 112(b) rejections of claims 1, 4-15 and 17-28 are therefore withdrawn.
Applicant has cancelled claims 2-3 and 16. The 112(a)(b) rejections of claims 2-3 and 16 are therefore moot.
Response to Arguments
On pages 7-8 of the remarks filed September 17, 2025, Applicant argues:
Independent claim 1 has been amended to recite the adaptive charging module is configured to set the first threshold. Independent claim 15 has been amended to recite charging the battery of the aerosol generating device in a second mode of operation at a second charging rate, lower than the first charging rate, when the charge level of the battery at a second charging rate is above the first threshold. Neither of these features is taught or suggested by any of the cited references, alone or in combination.
Akao teaches that if battery falls below a threshold, and the constant is above that threshold, constant voltage charging is used. While the Examiner states that the decision to use constant current or constant voltage operation is an example of adaptive charging, Akao does not teach or suggest how adaptive charging actually refers to the configuring of the first threshold in claim 3 in the present invention. Furthermore, even though Akao suggests a switch voltage, it fails to teach adaptively setting the voltage. Additionally, adaptive charging also sets the threshold based on learned charging and/or usage patterns. Accordingly, Akao fails to teach or suggest that the adaptive charging module is configured to set the first threshold as recited in independent claim 1. Thus, independent claim 1 is patentable over Akao.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Akao teaches that the charging controller contains a module which is “adaptive” since the charging method changes based on the charge level of the battery (from CC to CV charging) and also teaches “adapting” the charge method based on the history of the battery (fig. 11, step 302, “has V_batt been deep-discharged?”). Furthermore, Akao teaches “setting the first threshold” in cited paragraph 166:
[0166] In the case that the voltage of the electric power source 10 is equal to or higher than the discharge cutoff voltage, the processor 250 judges whether the voltage of the electric power source 10 is equal to or higher than a switch voltage (step S306). The switch voltage is a threshold value for separating a section for constant current charging (CC charging) and a section for constant voltage charging (CV charging). The switch voltage may be within the range of 4.0 V-4.1 V, for example.
The processor 250 sets a “switch voltage” within a range of 4.0 to 4.1 V, which is used a threshold value for switching between CC charging and CV charging. For step 306 of cited fig. 11 to function the threshold must be set to a value. Examiner notes that the claim requires only that the adaptive module is configured to set threshold, which it must in order to operate as indicated in fig. 11, but the claim does not require that the module be configured to change the threshold. If Applicant intends for the claims to indicate that the adaptive charging module can change the set threshold, the claims should be amended to reflect this.
On pages 7-8 of the remarks filed February 23, 2026, Applicant argues:
As an initial matter, this invention is directed to a battery charging arrangement for an aerosol provision device having a fast and slow charging mode. At its broadest, the fast charging mode is used when the charge level of the battery is below a threshold, and the slower charge mode is used when the charge level of the battery is above the threshold. FIG. 4 shows the basic algorithm and FIGS. 5 to 7 shows various example charging shapes. The charging threshold may be adaptive (see claims 2 and 3); for example, adaptive charging may be based on device usage (see claim 5 and FIG. 10) and/or charging patterns (see claim 4 and FIG. 11).
In this regard, independent claim 1 has been amended to recite the adaptive charging module is configured to learn charging patterns of the aerosol generating device, wherein the first threshold is set depending, at least in part, on the learnt charging patterns; and/or the adaptive charging module is configured to learn usage patterns of the aerosol generating device, wherein the first threshold is set depending, at least in part, on the learnt usage patterns.
In a similar manner, independent claim 15 has been amended to recite that the method comprises learning charging patterns of the aerosol generating device, wherein the first threshold is set depending on the learnt charging patterns; and learning usage patterns of the aerosol generating device, wherein the first threshold is set depending on the learnt usage patterns.
The Office Action admits, and Applicants agree, that Akao fails to teach or suggest the aforementioned features of independent claims 1 and 15. In this regard, Akao teaches the charging of a rechargeable battery of an e-cigarette or similar device using mains power (see FIG. 6). FIG. 11 shows how a control module of the e-cigarette device can be used to control the charging process. According to the Examiner, steps S306 onwards are of relevance to the present invention which state that, if the battery voltage is below a threshold, constant current charging is used (step S308) and if the battery voltage is above that threshold, constant voltage charging is used (step S310). Additionally, the Examiner indicates that constant voltage charging implicitly has a lower charging rate than constant current charging.
Moreover, the Examiner also suggests that the decision regarding whether to use the constant current or constant voltage mode of operation is an example of "adaptive charging" as originally claimed in claim 2, and as now recited in claim 1. However, "adaptive charging" is actually the configuring of the first threshold as claimed in claim 3, which is not taught by Akao. Nevertheless, a further feature of adaptive charging is the setting the threshold based on learned charging and/or usage patterns.
In this regard, to cure the aforementioned deficiency of Akao, the Examiner cites Lee. However, Lee does not disclose that the first/charging threshold is based on learnt device usage and/or learnt charging patterns as recited in independent claims 1 and 15. Accordingly, Applicants respectfully submit that independent claims 1 and 15 are patentable of Akao and Lee, alone or in combination.
Examiner respectfully notes that the adaptive function, originally claimed in claim 2, was met by the Lee reference, for which Applicant provides no arguments. Akao, as previously contended in the Final Rejection mailed December 22, 2025 and reproduced above teaches general “adapting” and “setting the threshold”.
As for the “learning” charging patterns, these functions are taught by the Lee reference. Lee indeed teaches adapting the threshold according user usage/configuration patterns (setting the charge voltage, setting the power-of voltage, pattern of usage at lunch time (par. 82)). Thus, the amendments made by Applicant entire comprise the incorporation of previously rejected limitations of claims 4 and 5. Thus, the claims would have been properly rejected on the ground and art of record in the next Office Action had they been entered prior to filing the RCE. The claims are also patently indistinct from the claims previously entered December 22, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 6-7, 12-15, 17 & 22-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akao et al. US PGPUB 2020/0237006 in view of Lee et al. US PGPUB 2016/0141893.
Regarding claim 1, Akao discloses the apparatus comprising a charging controller [fig. 1 & 6] and an adaptive charging module [fig. 6, IC 250; pars. 166-168; fig. 11], wherein:
the charging controller is configured to control charging of a battery at a first charging rate when a charge level of the battery is below a first threshold [fig. 6 & 11; pars. 166-167; charging IC 250 controls charging when a charge level of battery is below the first threshold (“switch threshold”) to be a first rate (the first stage of CC-CV charging which is CC-charging; par. 166) as indicated in steps 306 /308; CC-CV charging for a li-ion battery (par. 76) involves using a higher constant current initially and then switching to a constant voltage in which the current tapers off]; and
the charging controller is configured to control charging of the battery at a second charging rate, lower than the first charging rate, when the charge level of the battery is above the first threshold [fig. 6 & 11; pars. 166-168; after V_batt passes the switch voltage CC charging is ended and a CV charging stage is entered in which the current level is lower]; and
the adaptive charging module is configured to set the first threshold [fig. 6, IC 250 sets a switching voltage which used in a comparison with Vbatt; pars. 166-168; fig. 11].
Though Akao discloses the aerosol generating device [fig. 1], Akao does not explicitly disclose wherein the adaptive charging module is configured to learn charging patterns of the device, wherein the first threshold is set depending, at least in part, on the learnt charging patterns.
Furthermore, Akao does not explicitly disclose wherein the adaptive charging module is configured to learn usage patterns of the device, wherein the first threshold is set depending, at least in part, on the learnt usage patterns.
However, Lee discloses a battery management system [fig. 1; abs] wherein the adaptive charging module is configured to learn charging patterns of the device, wherein the first threshold is set depending, at least in part, on the learnt charging patterns [fig. 4B; pars. 80-83; based on the usage pattern of the device, the “charge voltage” (the first threshold) which is the voltage at which the device switches from CC to CV charging can be changed; the charging patterns are also usage patterns (par. 82)].
Lee further discloses wherein the adaptive charging module is configured to learn charging patterns of the device, wherein the first threshold is set depending, at least in part, on the learnt charging patterns [fig. 4B; pars. 80-83; based on the usage pattern of the device, the “charge voltage” (the first threshold) which is the voltage at which the device switches from CC to CV charging can be changed].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Akao to further include wherein the adaptive charging module is configured to learn charging patterns of the device, wherein the first threshold is set depending, at least in part, on the learnt charging patterns for the purpose of matching user preferences, as taught by Lee (par. 82).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Akao to further include wherein the adaptive charging module is configured to learn usage patterns of the device, wherein the first threshold is set depending, at least in part, on the learnt usage patterns for the purpose of matching user preferences, as taught by Lee (par. 82).
Regarding claim 6, Akao does not explicitly disclose wherein the adaptive charging module is implemented using a machine-learning module.
However, Lee discloses a battery management system [fig. 1; abs] wherein the adaptive charging module is implemented using a machine-learning module [par. 8-9 & 80-83; a processor analyzes the usage pattern and determines rules, thus machine-learning].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Akao to further include wherein the adaptive charging module is implemented using a machine-learning module for the purpose of matching user preferences, as taught by Lee (par. 82).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Akao discloses the aerosol generating device [fig. 1].
Akao does not explicitly disclose wherein the first threshold is set dependent on a usage level of the device.
However, Lee discloses a battery management system [fig. 1; abs] wherein the first threshold is set dependent on a usage level of the device [fig. 4B; pars. 80-83; based on the usage pattern of the device, which is based the level of voltage, thus a usage level, the “charge voltage” (the first threshold) which is the voltage at which the device switches from CC to CV charging can be changed; the charging patterns are also usage patterns (par. 82)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Akao to further include wherein the first threshold is set dependent on a usage level of the device for the purpose of matching user preferences, as taught by Lee (par. 82).
Regarding claims 12 and 22, Akao discloses wherein the first threshold is set dependent on one or more of:
a current day of the week;
a current time of day;
first user habits as input by the user;
second user habits as determined through use;
one or more properties of an aerosol generating material;
one or more battery properties [pars. 76 & 166; the voltage at which CC changes to CV is based on a typical such voltage for an Li-Ion battery; furthermore, the change occurs according to the battery properties in step 306 of fig. 11]; and
one or more user settings.
Regarding claim 13, Akao discloses further comprising said battery [par. 76].
Regarding claim 14, Akao discloses further comprising an aerosol generator [fig. 2, 120; par. 64].
Regarding claim 15, Akao discloses a method [figs. 1 & 6] comprising:
charging a battery of an aerosol generating device at a first charging rate when a charge level of the battery is below a first threshold [fig. 6 & 11; pars. 166-167; charging IC 250 controls charging when a charge level of battery is below the first threshold (“switch threshold”) to be a first rate (the first stage of CC-CV charging which is CC-charging; par. 166) as indicated in steps 306 /308; CC-CV charging for a li-ion battery (par. 76) involves using a higher constant current initially and then switching to a constant voltage in which the current tapers off]; and
charging the battery of the aerosol generating device at a second charging rate, lower than the first charging rate, when the charge level of the battery is above the first threshold [fig. 6 & 11; pars. 166-168; after V_batt passes the switch voltage CC charging is ended and a CV charging stage is entered in which the current level is lower]; and
setting the first threshold [fig. 6, IC 250 sets a switching voltage which used in a comparison with Vbatt; pars. 166-168; fig. 11].
Though Akao discloses the aerosol generating device [fig. 1], Akao does not explicitly disclose wherein the adaptive charging module is configured to learn charging patterns of the device, wherein the first threshold is set depending, at least in part, on the learnt charging patterns.
Furthermore, Akao does not explicitly disclose wherein the adaptive charging module is configured to learn usage patterns of the device, wherein the first threshold is set depending, at least in part, on the learnt usage patterns.
However, Lee discloses a battery management system [fig. 1; abs] wherein the adaptive charging module is configured to learn charging patterns of the device, wherein the first threshold is set depending, at least in part, on the learnt charging patterns [fig. 4B; pars. 80-83; based on the usage pattern of the device, the “charge voltage” (the first threshold) which is the voltage at which the device switches from CC to CV charging can be changed; the charging patterns are also usage patterns (par. 82)].
Lee further discloses wherein the adaptive charging module is configured to learn charging patterns of the device, wherein the first threshold is set depending, at least in part, on the learnt charging patterns [fig. 4B; pars. 80-83; based on the usage pattern of the device, the “charge voltage” (the first threshold) which is the voltage at which the device switches from CC to CV charging can be changed].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Akao to further include wherein the adaptive charging module is configured to learn charging patterns of the device, wherein the first threshold is set depending, at least in part, on the learnt charging patterns for the purpose of matching user preferences, as taught by Lee (par. 82).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Akao to further include wherein the adaptive charging module is configured to learn usage patterns of the device, wherein the first threshold is set depending, at least in part, on the learnt usage patterns for the purpose of matching user preferences, as taught by Lee (par. 82).
Regarding claim 23, Akao discloses a non-combustible aerosol generating device comprising an apparatus as claimed in claim 1 [fig. 2, 120; par. 64].
Regarding claim 24, Akao discloses wherein the aerosol generating device is configured to receive a removable article comprising an aerosol generating material [par. 71, cartridge 130; fig. 2].
Regarding claim 25, Akao discloses wherein said aerosol generating material comprises an aerosol generating substrate and an aerosol forming material [fig. 2; various substrates and materials for generating/forming the aerosol; pars. 66-68].
Regarding claim 26, Akao discloses wherein the apparatus comprises a tobacco heating system [par. 69].
Regarding claim 27, Akao discloses a kit of parts comprising an article for use in a non-combustible aerosol generating system, wherein the non-combustible aerosol generating system comprises an aerosol generating device as claimed in claim 23 [fig. 2; various parts form the device].
Regarding claim 28, Akao discloses a kit of parts as claimed in claim 27, wherein the article is a removable article comprising an aerosol generating material [fig. 1-2; 120 is removable and helps generate aerosol; pars. 63-64 & 71-72].
Claim 8, 10-11 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akao et al. US PGPUB 2020/0237006 in view of Lee et al. US PGPUB 2016/0141893 and further in view of Baker et al. US PGPUB 2018/0271155.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Akao discloses the aerosol generating device [fig. 1].
The combination of Akao and Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the first threshold is set at a level at which a defined number of operations of the device can be actuated and/or a defined anticipated usage time of the aerosol generating device can be achieved.
However, Baker discloses a battery powered aerosol generator [abs.; fig. 1], wherein the first threshold is set at a level at which a defined number of operations of the device can be actuated [par. 60-65; a threshold for charging the battery is set a number that can provide a defined number of inhalations in particular period] and/or a defined anticipated usage time of the aerosol generating device can be achieved.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Akao and Lee to further include wherein the first threshold is set at a level at which a defined number of operations of the device can be actuated and/or a defined anticipated usage time of the aerosol generating device can be achieved for the purpose of ensuring the battery amount is sufficient for usage, as taught by Baker (pars. 60-65).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Akao and Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the first threshold is set to enable an expected level of operation until a next anticipated charging time.
However, Baker discloses a battery powered aerosol generator [abs.; fig. 1], wherein the first threshold is set to enable an expected level of operation until a next anticipated charging time [pars. 60-65; the battery threshold can be set according to the amount of time until a predicted recharge].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Akao and Lee to further include wherein the first threshold is set to enable an expected level of operation until a next anticipated charging time for the purpose of ensuring the battery amount is sufficient for usage, as taught by Baker (pars. 60-65).
Regarding claims 11 and 19, the combination of Akao and Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the first threshold is dependent on a determined normal user operation of the aerosol generating device.
However, Baker discloses a battery powered aerosol generator [abs.; fig. 1], wherein the first threshold is dependent on a determined normal user operation of the aerosol generating device [pars. 57-65; typical usage is record and used to set a battery threshold for recharging or alerts].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Akao and Lee to further include wherein the first threshold is dependent on a determined normal user operation of the aerosol generating device for the purpose of ensuring the battery amount is sufficient for usage, as taught by Baker (pars. 60-65).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akao et al. US PGPUB 2020/0237006 in view of Lee et al. US PGPUB 2016/0141893, and further in view of Wensley et al. US PGPUB 2016/0213065.
Regarding claim 9, Akao discloses the first threshold.
The combination of Akao and Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein a threshold is set to enable one day of expected operation of the aerosol generating device.
However, Wensley discloses a battery powered aerosol generator [abs.], wherein a threshold is set to enable one day of expected operation of the aerosol generating device [par. 43; a full charge threshold would provide enough battery for the full day].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Akao and Lee to further include wherein a threshold is set to enable one day of expected operation of the aerosol generating device for the purpose of user convenience, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 DAVID V HENZE whose telephone number is (571)272-3317. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am to 7pm.
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, Taelor Kim can be reached at 571-270-7166. 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.
/DAVID V HENZE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859