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
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 8/25/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 17 and 18 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/25/25.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The four (4) IDSes filed 2/16/23, 9/27/24, 2/27/25 and 9/23/25 have all been considered and made of record. The initialed copies are attached herewith.
Specification
The disclosure should be carefully reviewed to ensure that any and all grammatical, idiomatic, and spelling or other minor errors are corrected.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 1-8 contain nondescriptive boxes. The unlabeled rectangular boxes should be provided with descriptive text labels. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Re claim 5, the reference to the word “sufficient” in the limitation “sufficient power” is vague and indefinite. It does not define the “metes and bounds” of the claim.
Re claim 8, the last phrase “over directing electrical power from the first rechargeable battery to charge a rechargeable battery of the non-power source device” should have been “over directing electrical power from the second rechargeable battery to charge…” because claim 9 depends on claim 8, has “the second rechargeable battery to charge the rechargeable battery of the non-power source device.”
Re claim 9, the claim is indefinite because it depends on indefinite claim 8.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bagai et al. (US 2020/0077699) in view of Lee (US 2020/0358304).
Re claim 1, Bagai discloses a non-combustible aerosol provision system (figs 4A, 5A; e.g. an e-cigarette 10b) having, inter alia, a non-combustible aerosol provision device 10a/b comprising a first rechargeable battery 22 (para 37; fig 2); and a charging apparatus 50/80 for use with the non-combustible aerosol provision device and comprising: a housing 52/82, a second rechargeable battery 86 disposed within the housing, a first electrical connection port (para 44; e.g. plural connecting pins (not shown)) for connecting to the non-combustible aerosol provision device, a second electrical connection port 56 (para 39; fig 3) for connecting to an external power source 62 (mid para 41; connector 56 connects to external circuitry 62 such as… another battery), and control circuitry 54 (para 40-41).
However, Bagai does not disclose the limitations “wherein, in use, when the external power source is connected to the second electrical connection port and the non-combustible aerosol provision device is connected to the first electrical connection port, the control circuitry prioritizes directing electrical power from the external power source to the non-combustible aerosol provision device to charge the first rechargeable battery over directing electrical power from the external power source to charge the second rechargeable battery.” Lee teaches a supply to a battery in a heater (i.e. similar to an e-cigar heater) wherein the first path 140 supplied power to the battery 120 and the second path 150 supplied power to the module 130. Moreover, a control circuit (fig 2) prioritized directing power from external source to the module to charge the battery over directing power from the external source to charge a second battery (para 39; when power supplied from the external device 1000 is equal to or less than a preset value, only one of first path 140 and second path 150 may be activated). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have incorporated the teachings of Lee to Bagai to ensure the aerosol device is always properly charged.
Re claim 2, Bagai does not disclose “when the external power source is connected to the second electrical connection port and the non-combustible aerosol provision device is connected to the first electrical connection port, the control circuitry prioritizes directing electrical power from the external power source to charge the first rechargeable battery until a charge level of the first rechargeable battery reaches a pre-determined charge level whereafter the control circuitry is configured to direct electrical power from the external power source to charge the second rechargeable battery.” (note the similar language as in claim 1 ‘wherein’ clause except claim 2 is called for charging the battery until a charge level reaches a predetermined level). Lee, again, teaches charging the battery until the level reaches the preset level (para 39; when power supplied from the external device 1000 per unit time is equal to or less than a preset value, only the first path 140 may be activated to charge the battery 120). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have incorporated the teachings of Lee to Bagai to prevent overcharging the aerosol device.
Re claim 3, Lee is silent on having the predetermined charge level as fully charged. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have set the charge level to any value include full charge (100%), since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Re claim 10, Bagai discloses the control circuitry 54 is configured to direct electrical power from the second rechargeable battery 86 to charge the first rechargeable battery 22 when the non-combustible aerosol provision device is connected to the first electrical connection port and the second electrical connection port 56 is inactive (para 99; the electronic smoke device can be charged when the connector is connected to external circuitry. The battery of the electronic smoke device can be charged by the charging case battery when the connector is not connected to the external circuitry.).
Re claims 11-13, Bagai discloses the control circuitry 54 comprises a controller (para 40; MCU 54 can comprise… microcontroller) and a plurality of switches controlled by the controller, and wherein the controller configures the plurality of switches (para 75; switch can be configured to trigger an action by MCU 54). However, Bagai together with Lee do not disclose or teach a plurality of different selectable ON/OFF state configurations in order to direct power through the charging apparatus (claim 11), configs to direct power from at least one of a power supply connected to the second electrical connection port to charge the second rechargeable battery, or the external power source to charge the first rechargeable battery when the non-combustible aerosol provision device is connected to the first electrical connection port (claim 12), or direct power from the second rechargeable battery to charge the first rechargeable battery when the non-combustible aerosol provision device is connected to the a first electrical connection port (claim 13). Official notice is taken of the fact that a plurality of switches with different ON/OFF selectable stages may be used to control different electrical functions. It would have been obvious to have included a plurality of selectable ON/OFF state configs to ensure different combinations of desired to be met.
Re claims 14 and 15, Bagai discloses one or more indicators 106 arranged to indicate a charge status of the first rechargeable battery (para 74) and the one or more indicators comprises one or more light emitting diodes (mid para 74; charging status indicator, for example, an LED light).
Re claim 16, Bagai discloses the charging apparatus 50 is a portable carry case 112 for storing the non-combustible aerosol provision device 10D (para 79; fig 7B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9 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 AND to satisfy 112 requirements.
Re claims 4 and 5, the art made of record fails to disclose or suggest at least he control circuitry determines whether the external power source has sufficient power to charge the second rechargeable battery and the first rechargeable battery simultaneously and if the control circuitry determines that the external power source has insufficient power to charge the second rechargeable battery and the first rechargeable battery simultaneously, the control circuitry is configured to direct power from the external power source to the non-combustible aerosol provision device to charge the first rechargeable battery only.
Re claims 6 and 7, the art made of record fails to disclose or suggest at least when the external power source/non-power source is connected to the second electrical connection port and the first electrical connection port is inactive.
Re claims 8 and 9, the art made of record fails to disclose or suggest at least when the first electrical connection port is connected to the non-combustible aerosol provision device and the second electrical connection port is connected to the non-power source device, the control circuitry is configured to prioritize directing electrical power from the second rechargeable battery to charge the first rechargeable battery over directing electrical power from the second rechargeable battery to charge a rechargeable battery of the non-power source device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Harden et al. (US 2022/0256933) teaches a charging device for a smoking substitute kit having the kit connected to the first connection interface and to charge the external device when the device is connected to the second connection interface.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to the Examiner at the below-listed number. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu from 7:00am-5:00pm.
The Examiner’s SPE is Drew Dunn and he can be reached at 571.272.2312. The fax number for the organization where this application is assigned is 571.273.8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800.786.9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571.272.1000.
/EDWARD TSO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859 571.272.2087