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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 3-8 and 10-23 are pending and are subject to this Office Action. Claims 12-23 have been withdrawn. Claim 3 is amended.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed on 1/27/2026 containing
amendments and remarks to the claims.
The objection to claim 3 is withdrawn due to the claim amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-13, filed 1/27/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 3 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Applicant has amended claim 3 to require re-indicating the battery charge level using one or more indicators on the aerosol-generating device in response to expiration of the change time period, whereas previously re-indication was only required after expiration of the change time period. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of previously applied art and newly found art.
The following is a modified rejection made based on amendments made to the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 3-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hepworth (US2020/0154770) in view of Liu (WO2020/019122, citations will refer to the English equivalent US2021/0345671) and Leung (US2015/0335074).
Regarding claim 3, Hepworth teaches:
An aerosol-generating device (e-cigarette 1, figure 4) comprising: a single power button (a single button, [0057]); a heating element to generate aerosol using an aerosol generating article (heater 48, [0025]); a controller (control circuitry 18) comprising one or more processors (power supply control circuitry 22) and operatively coupled to the single power button and the heating element ([0033]).
The controller configured to: provide a plurality of different power levels used with a heating element to generate aerosol using the aerosol-generating device (a user may program the control circuitry 18, and more particularly the logical component of the control circuitry comprising the user programming circuitry 22, to associate each activation sensor with a different user-defined power level setting, [0033]).
Provide a selected power level of the plurality of different power levels that the aerosol-generating device is presently configured to use with the heating element to generate aerosol ([0056], the power supply control circuitry 22 is configured to supply power to the heater in accordance with the first user-defined power level setting or the second user-define power level setting).
Change the selected power level to a different power level of the plurality of different power levels in response to a user pressing the single power button ([0057], a user may thus indicate the user-defined power setting they wish to use based on whether they press the button once or twice).
Hepworth does not appear to explicitly disclose (I) indicate a battery charge level using one or more indicators on the aerosol-generating device and (II) indicating a power level change using the one or more indicators on the aerosol-generating device for a change time period after changing the selected power level to the different power level of the plurality of different power levels in response to the user pressing the single power button and (III) re-indicate the battery charge level using one or more indicators on the aerosol-generating device in response to expiration of the change time period.
In regard to (I), Hepworth teaches the aerosol-generating device may indicate a battery charge level [0031].
Leung, directed to a vaporizing device, teaches:
An e-cigarette 10 with an LED light 140 that may display various colors and flashing sequences of lights to denote dosage, battery level, or other functional parameters of the e-cigarette. For example, light sequences may be “green” for full battery charge, “yellow” for about half charge, and “red” when the battery requires re-charge [0028]. The LED light and light sequences defines one or more indicators of an aerosol-generating device.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the vaporizing device of Hepworth to display the battery level through different light sequences of an LED light as taught by Leung, and thus indicate a battery charge level using one or more indicators on the aerosol-generating device, because both Hepworth and Leung are directed to aerosol-generating devices that indicate the battery charge level, and this merely involves incorporating a known way to indicate the battery charge level (i.e. through light sequences of an LED light) to a similar aerosol-generating device to yield predictable results.
In regard to (II), Liu, directed to an electric heating cigarette, teaches:
A controller comprising a temperature adjusting device for adjusting the working temperature, the temperature adjusting device setting the heating device at one of at least two working temperatures [0007].
After a long press the heating temperature adjusting button for 2 seconds (or pressing twice), one indicator light of indicators 4 flashes 5 times, indicating that the first working temperature is set…. After a long press the heating temperature adjusting button for 3 seconds (or pressing 3 times), the two indicator lights of indicators 4 flash 5 times, indicating that the setting is the second working temperature [0024].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the LED light of modified Hepworth to provide a visual indication of a setting change such as one indicator light flashing 5 times after a setting change as taught by Liu, and thus indicate a power level change using the one or more indicators on the aerosol-generating device for a change time period after changing the selected power level to the different power level of the plurality of different power levels in response to the user pressing the single power button, because both Hepworth and Liu are directed to aerosol-generating devices that may have control settings adjusted by pressing a button, Liu teaches this indicates which setting is selected, and this merely involves use of a known technique (i.e. indicator lights flashing after a setting change) to a similar aerosol generating device to yield predictable results.
In regard to (III), modified Hepworth has the LED light visually indicate the battery charge level through the color of the light, and further has the LED light flashing 5 times to indicate a power level change. Therefore, once the LED light has flashed 5 times, the LED light would continue to indicate the charge level through the light color, and thus re-indicate the battery charge level using one or more indicators on the aerosol-generating device in response to expiration of the change time period.
Regarding claim 4, Hepworth further teaches wherein the user pressing the single power button comprises the user pressing the single power button a number of times within an engagement time period ([0057], a user pressing the button with multiple presses in a predetermined time).
Regarding claim 5, Hepworth further teaches its second activation sensor is triggered by a user pressing the button with multiple presses in a predetermined time [0057]. Hepworth does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the number of times within the engagement time period that the user presses the single power button is 3.
Liu further teaches after a long press, or pressing 3 times, the setting chosen is the second working temperature [0024].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to make the multiple presses be 3 as taught by Liu, because both Hepworth and Liu are directed to aerosol-generating devices that may have temperature control settings adjusted by pressing a button, and this merely involves incorporating a known about of time to press a button (i.e. 3) to a similar aerosol generation device to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, Hepworth further teaches the engagement time is a predetermined time and gives an example of one second [0057]. Hepworth does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the engagement period is two seconds.
However, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to try making the engagement period be two seconds as this merely involves choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success. See MPEP § 2143, E.
Regarding claim 7, Hepworth further teaches wherein the plurality of different power levels comprises only a first power level and a second power level different from the first power level ([0056], the first power level to correspond to the lower of their two desired power level settings and to set the second power level to correspond to the higher of their two desired power level settings).
Regarding claim 8, Hepworth further teaches a user may define the desired power level setting in terms of indicating a specific number of watts [0037]. Hepworth does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the first power level is 5.5 Watts and the second power level is 4.5 Watts. However, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to try making the first power level be 5.5 Watts and the second power level be 4.5 Watts as this merely involves choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success. See MPEP § 2143, E.
Regarding claim 10, modified Hepworth further teaches:
Wherein indicating the power level change using the one or more indicators on the aerosol-generating device comprises: rapidly increasing and subsequently decreasing the brightness of a first set of the one or more indicators for the change time period indicating the power level change to a first power level of the plurality of different power levels (Liu, one indicator light of indicators 4 flashes 5 times, indicating that the first working temperature is set [0024]).
Rapidly increasing and subsequently decreasing the brightness of a second set of the one or more indicators for the change time period indicating the power level change to a second power level of the plurality of different power levels (Liu, the two indicator lights of indicators 4 flash 5 times, indicating that the setting is the second working temperature [0024]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hepworth (US2020/0154770) in view of Liu (WO2020/019122, citations will refer to the English equivalent US2021/0345671) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Harden (US2022/0256934).
Regarding claim 11, modified Hepworth has the change time period be the duration of the indicators flashing five times (Liu, [0024]). However, modified Hepworth does not define how many seconds this change time period is.
Harden, directed to an aerosol delivery device, teaches:
Preferably, the controller is configured to cause the visual feedback element to illuminate in a pulsed/flashing operation (e.g., at 3 second intervals [0151].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to make the indicators flash at 3 second intervals as taught by Harden, and thus the change time period is 3 seconds, because both modified Hepworth and Harden are directed to aerosol generation devices with flashing light indicators and this merely involves incorporating a known amount of time to flash lights as a visual indication to a similar device to yield predictable results.
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 Nicole A Szumigalski whose telephone number is (703)756-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00 - 4:30 EST.
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.
/N.A.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 1755
/PHILIP Y LOUIE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights