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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/24/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 16, 20-23, and 26-30 are currently pending and are subject to this office action. Claim 16 is amended. Claims 1-15, 17-19, and 24-25 are canceled. Claims 27-30 are withdrawn. This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 02/24/2026.
Response to Amendments
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed on 02/24/2026 containing amendments and remarks to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, on pages 6-11, filed 02/24/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Applicant has amended claim 16 to include a limitation that was previously presented in canceled claims 17 and 19, specifically, “wherein the first electrical contact on the front face of the mouthpiece is accessible to a tip of a tongue of a user and wherein the second electrical contact on the lateral surface of the mouthpiece is accessible to a lip of the user”. The Applicant argues that Murray does not teach lip contact and that the electrodes of Murray are intended to contact the tongue.
The Examiner agrees. Murray describes electrodes positioned at a distal end of the mouthpiece that are configured to interact with the user’s tongue. While accidental contact with other portions of the mouth may occur during user, Murray does not teach or suggest that the electrodes are intended to contact a user’s lips. Thus, the Applicant’s argument is persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Krasnow (US 20200147327 A1).
The following are modified rejections based on Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 17: “a tip of a tongue of a use and” should read “a tip of a tongue of a user and”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 16, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray (WO 2020161328 A1), and further in view of Krasnow (US 20200147327 A1, as cited in IDS dated 11/14/2022).
PNG
media_image1.png
388
317
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 16, Murray, directed to a mouthpiece for a smoking substitute apparatus, teaches (i) a mouthpiece (Fig. 1C: #109) that draws air through a passage (Fig. 1C: #106) to an outlet (Fig. 1C: #108, Pg. 15, Lines 9-11) at the top of the device. (ii) The mouthpiece includes an electrode (Fig. 1C: #120) that may be disposed on a forward-facing surface (Fig. 1C: #124) of the mouthpiece (Pg. 5, Line 20) for electrically stimulating a user’s tongue (Pg. 16, Line 27). (iii) The forward-facing structure of the mouthpiece may be a surface oriented towards the user, meeting the claim limitation of the front face being a surface extending perpendicular or angular to a longitudinal direction of the mouthpiece.
(iv) A second electrode (Fig. 1C: #122) may be disposed on a lateral-facing surface (Fig. 1C: #126) of the mouthpiece (Pg. 5, Line 24) for electrically stimulating a user’s tongue (Pg. 16, Line 27). (v) The electrodes may be arranged on opposite sides of the mouthpiece (Pg. 5, Line 16-17) while on a lateral-facing surface, meeting the claim limitation of the lateral surface being a peripheral surface of the mouthpiece. (v) The mouthpiece may comprise a temperature actuator for varying a temperature of the one or more electrodes used to stimulate a user’s tongue (Pg. 6, Lines 1-2), meeting the claim limitation of a temperature unit. (vi) A Peltier module may be used to vary the temperature of the electrodes, enabling both heating and cooling of the electrodes (Pg. 6, Lines 7-10). (vii) The first electrode (Fig. 1C: #120) contacts a user's tongue to stimulate flavor deliver (Pg. 16, Line 27). Murray teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however Murray is silent to:
Wherein the second electrical contact on the lateral surface of the mouthpiece is accessible to a lip of the user
Krasnow, directed to inhaler devices, teaches one or more electrodes on a mouthpiece, where one electrode can be contacted by a user's lip and the other electrode can be contacted by a user's tongue [0048]. The mouthpiece may have an electrode disposed along one of the longitudinal sides of the mouthpiece [0048]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the electrodes of Murray to be contacted by both a user's tongue and lip to help detection of when a user is properly engaged with a mouthpiece [0046] and preventing accidental triggers of aerosol [0047].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the second electrical contact on the lateral surface of the mouthpiece of Murray to be accessible to a lip of the user because both Murray and Krasnow are directed to improving detection of a user during use of an aerosol delivery device. Murray teaches an electrode that can be contacted by a user's lips to help detection of when a user is properly engaged with a mouthpiece [0046] and preventing accidental triggers of aerosol [0047] and this merely involves the use of a known user contact technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
PNG
media_image1.png
388
317
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 20, Murray teaches wherein the mouthpiece may comprise one or more electrodes with different electrode arrangements depending on the type of simulate used (Pg. 4, Lines 31-32). A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the second electrode (Fig. 1C: #122) of the mouthpiece to be split into two separate electrode portions on a lateral-facing surface of the mouthpiece to increase the contact area of a user’s mouth relative to the mouthpiece, such as a user’s tongue and lips, to enhance flavors received by a user (Pg. 4, Lines 10-11).
With regard to Claim 21, Murray teaches wherein the cartridge (Fig. 1C: #103) comprising the mouthpiece (Fig. 1C: #109) can be disengaged or engaged with a main body (Fig. 1B: #102, Pg. 14, Lines 21-23) and in the form of a battery (Pg. 16, Line 1). The electrodes receive power from the battery through power supplied to electrical contacts (Fig. 1C: #128, Pg. 16, Lines 27-28).
With regard to Claim 22, Murray teaches wherein the controller (Pg. 16, Lines 3-4), powered by the battery, may send pulse frequencies between 50 Hz and 1200 Hz through the user’s tongue to simulate flavor (Pg. 17, Lines 10-12).
PNG
media_image1.png
388
317
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 23, Murray teaches wherein current having a magnitude between 20 µA and 200 µA may be passed through the user’s tongue to simulate flavor (Pg. 17, Lines 10-11). A person of ordinary skill in the art would realize that the range of Murray significantly overlaps with the range of the claimed invention. The claimed current range is a predictable value that one could routinely optimize based on user comfort (MPEP 2144.05).
With regard to Claim 26, Murray teaches a temperature actuator for varying a temperature of the one or more electrodes arranged to thermally stimulate the user’s tongue (Pg. 6, Lines 1-2) in temperatures between 20 °C and 35 °C (Pg. 17, Lines 30-31).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUWATOSIN O DIYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0789. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 am - 6 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.
/O.O.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755