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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 4, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by BAILEY (US 2016/0360787).
Bailey teaches an aerosol generation device comprising a power system comprising a first supercapacitor module (16) and a second supercapacitor module (18); and a controller (26), wherein the controller is configured to: control a power flow of the first supercapacitor module to power a heater associated with the aerosol generation device (para. 0028); and control a power flow of the second supercapacitor module to charge the first supercapacitor module (para. 0029 “A super capacitor auto balancing”).
Regarding claim 5, Bailey teaches the power flow of the first supercapacitor module is a pulse width modulated power flow (para. 0015, 0026) comprising one or more pulse width modulation cycles each having an on period and an off period; and wherein the controller is further configured to: control the power flow of the second supercapacitor module to charge the first supercapacitor module during the pulse width modulation cycle off period (para. 0029, claim 11).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BAILEY (US 2016/0360787) in view of FERNANDO et al. (US 2009/0230117).
Bailey teaches an aerosol generation device comprising a power system comprising a first supercapacitor module (16) and a second supercapacitor module (18); and a controller (26), wherein the controller is configured to: control a power flow of the first supercapacitor module to power a heater associated with the aerosol generation device (para. 0028); and control a power flow of the second supercapacitor module to charge the first supercapacitor module (para. 0029).
Fernando teaches an aerosol generation device comprising a power system comprising a first supercapacitor module and a second supercapacitor module (abstract); and a controller (111 in figure 1, 215 in figure 2), wherein the controller is configured to control a power flow of the first supercapacitor module to power a heater associated with the aerosol generation device (para. 0055, 0058). Fernando teaches an embodiment where an electrical connection (207 in figure 2) for a charging component comprising a battery module (205), and wherein the power system does not comprise a battery (figure 2) and an embodiment where the power system does comprise a battery (figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aerosol generation device of Bailey to comprise an electrical connection for a charging component comprising a battery module and the power system does not comprise a battery because although Bailey teaches that the power system comprises a battery (14 in figure 1), Fernando teaches that an electrical connection for a charging component and an external battery is a known equivalent of a power system that comprises a battery (see figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 4, Fernando teaches the first supercapacitor module and second supercapacitor module are connected in parallel (para. 0013), and the power system further comprises a first switching (S4 in figure 4) means connected between the first supercapacitor module and the second supercapacitor module, and a second switching means (S5) configured to be arranged between the first supercapacitor module and the heater, wherein the second switching means is configured to be controlled by the controller to control a power flow from the first supercapacitor module to the heater (para. 0062).
Regarding claim 10, Fernando teaches the aerosol generation device charging component is a charging case configured to accommodate the aerosol generation device (para. 0014), and to charge the second supercapacitor module when connected to the aerosol generation device (para. 0014).
Regarding claim 11, Fernando teaches the aerosol generation device charging component comprises a battery module configured to provide charge to the power system of the aerosol generation device (para. 0014).
Regarding claim 12, Fernando teaches a system comprising the aerosol generation device connectable to the aerosol generation device, wherein the aerosol generation device charging component is a charging case configured to accommodate the aerosol generation device, and to charge the second supercapacitor module when connected to the aerosol generation device (para. 0014).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BAILEY (US 2016/0360787) in view of SUR et al (US 2017/0112191).
Bailey teaches an aerosol generation device comprising a power system comprising a first supercapacitor module (16) and a second supercapacitor module (18); and a controller (26), wherein the controller is configured to: control a power flow of the first supercapacitor module to power a heater associated with the aerosol generation device (para. 0028); and control a power flow of the second supercapacitor module to charge the first supercapacitor module (para. 0029). Bailey teaches the first supercapacitor module comprises at least one supercapacitor (16).
Sur teaches an aerosol generation device comprising a power system comprising a first supercapacitor module and a second supercapacitor module (para. 0069); and a controller (102), wherein the controller is configured to control a power flow of the first supercapacitor module to power a heater associated with the aerosol generation device (abstract). Sur teaches that the supercapacitor is hybrid capacitor (para. 0069). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use hybrid supercapacitors as the supercapacitors of Bailey because Sur teaches hybrid capacitors such as the LIC generally have features of a battery (high voltage and high energy density), and have a longer lifetime and cycle life as compared to other options, and is more environmentally friendly (para. 0070).
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BAILEY (US 2016/0360787) in view of LEE (US 2020/0329776).
Bailey teaches an aerosol generation device comprising a power system comprising a first supercapacitor module (16) and a second supercapacitor module (18); and a controller (26), wherein the controller is configured to: control a power flow of the first supercapacitor module to power a heater associated with the aerosol generation device (para. 0028); and control a power flow of the second supercapacitor module to charge the first supercapacitor module (para. 0029).
Lee teaches an aerosol generation device comprising a power system (11) and a controller (12) having a pulse width modulator (para. 0126-0127). Lee teaches the power system is operable in a float mode, wherein in the float mode the controller is configured to control the first supercapacitor module to apply the pulse width modulated power flow to the heater with a first duty cycle regime to maintain the heater substantially at an aerosol generation temperature (para. 0105).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to operate the power system of Bailey in a float mode because Bailey teaches the power flow of the first supercapacitor module is a pulse width modulated power flow (para. 0015, 0026).
Regarding claim 7, Lee teaches the power system is operable in a pre-heating mode, wherein in the pre-heating mode the controller is configured to control the first supercapacitor module to apply the pulse width modulated power flow to the heater with a second duty cycle regime, different to the first duty cycle regime, during the pre-heating mode before the float mode to heat the heater to the aerosol generation temperature (para. 0105).
Regarding claim 8, figures 8A-8C show the first duty cycle regime comprises one or more pulse width modulation cycles with a first duty cycle ratio D1; wherein the second duty cycle regime comprises one or more pulse width modulation cycles with a second duty cycle ratio D2;wherein D2 = D1 x K, where K is a coefficient that is ≥1 (para. 0105).
Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches the power system is operable in a post-float mode, wherein in the post-float mode the controller is configured to: disable the power flow to the heater following the float mode for a remaining time period in the aerosolization session (para. 0151). Bailey teaches the controller is configured to control the second energy storage module to charge the first energy storage module para. 0029 “A super capacitor auto balancing”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CYNTHIA SZEWCZYK whose telephone number is (571)270-5130. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/CYNTHIA SZEWCZYK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741