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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Holzherr fails to disclose “detecting, by the temperature sensor, initiation of operation of the electric heater,” and further asserts that Holzherr employs two allegedly independent control loops, i.e. one for charging and one for heater operation, that do not interact. This argument is not persuasive.
Holzherr discloses control electronics coupled to a temperature sensor that evaluate ambient temperature conditions and selectively enable or disable heater operation based on whether the measured temperature is within an operational range (see, e.g., ¶¶ [0101]–[0103]). Heater operation is initiated only after this temperature-based determination is made. Thus, initiation of heater operation necessarily occurs as a result of temperature sensing and evaluation by the control electronics. The claims do not require a separate or dedicated “heater initiation sensor,” nor do they require that the temperature sensor be used exclusively for heater control. Accordingly, Holzherr teaches detecting initiation of heater operation using temperature-based sensing and control logic.
Applicant further argues that Holzherr does not disclose detecting whether the battery is in a charging state at the initiation of heater operation. While Holzherr may not explicitly describe detecting a charging state via a charging sensor, Holzherr expressly discloses logic for preventing charging when the electric heater is in operation in order to avoid battery damage (¶¶ [0098]–[0103]). This disclosure evidences that Holzherr’s control electronics are aware of heater operation and selectively permit or prevent charging based on operating conditions. The absence of an explicit charging sensor in Holzherr does not render the reference deficient for purposes of obviousness.
Applicant also argues that Weigensberg does not disclose detecting whether the battery is in a charging state at the initiation of heater operation, asserting that Weigensberg merely detects inhalation or USB connection. This argument is not persuasive. Weigensberg discloses detecting charger connection and selectively enabling or disabling charging based on device operation, including whether the aerosol-generating device is activated (see, e.g., ¶¶ [0089]–[0094], [0100]–[0102]). Detecting whether charging is enabled or disabled based on charger connection and system conditions constitutes detection of a charging condition or charging state under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. The claims do not require monitoring of battery current, voltage, or state-of-charge.
Applicant further asserts that combining Holzherr with Weigensberg would impermissibly change the principle of operation of Holzherr. This argument is not persuasive. Holzherr already discloses disabling charging based on operating conditions to protect the battery, and Weigensberg merely provides an additional, well-known input such as charger connection status for determining whether charging should be enabled. The proposed modification does not alter Holzherr’s fundamental purpose or operation, but instead predictably improves coordination between heater operation and battery charging. Such integration of known power-management techniques represents a routine and predictable design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4-5, and 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holzherr (US 2017/0033568) and further in view of Weigensberg et al. (US 2015/0020831).
Regarding claim 1, 4-5 and 10-11, Holzherr teaches a method for controlling an aerosol-generating system comprising an electric heater (heater 134) configured to vaporize an aerosol-forming substance (¶ [0080]), a battery (battery 126) configured to power the electric heater (¶ [0080]), a temperature sensor (temperature sensor 131), and control circuitry (control electronics 128) connected to the temperature sensor (¶ [0102]).
Holzherr further teaches detecting, by the temperature sensor, the initiation of operation of the electric heater based on a change in ambient temperature exceeding a threshold (¶ [0051]).
Holzherr also teaches logic for controlling charging and heater activation to prevent concurrent operation that might damage the battery, and teaches preventing charging of the battery based on detecting that the electric heater is in operation (¶¶ [0098]–[0103]).
Holzherr does not expressly disclose detecting, by a charging sensor, whether the battery is in a charging state at the initiation of operation of the electric heater. However, Holzherr discloses control logic that prevents charging of the battery when the electric heater is in operation in order to avoid battery damage (¶¶ [0098]–[0103]). Thus, Holzherr teaches that the control electronics determine whether charging is permitted or prevented based on heater operation and operating conditions.
Weigensberg discloses an aerosol-generating system in which a rechargeable battery is charged via a USB interface, and control circuitry detects whether a charger is connected and selectively enables or disables charging based on device operation (see, e.g., ¶¶ [0089]–[0094], [0100]–[0102]). In Weigensberg, charging is permitted or prevented depending on whether the device is in use, thereby determining whether the battery is in a charging condition.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Holzherr’s system to incorporate the charger-connection-based charging control taught by Weigensberg in order to improve coordination between heater operation and battery charging. Both references are directed to rechargeable aerosol-generating devices and address preventing unsafe or undesirable concurrent charging and heater operation. Incorporating Weigensberg’s charging-permission logic into Holzherr’s system would have predictably resulted in a system that determines whether charging is enabled or disabled at the time heater operation is initiated.
Such a modification would not change the principle of operation of Holzherr. Holzherr already discloses disabling charging based on operating conditions to protect the battery, and Weigensberg merely provides an additional, well-known input for determining whether charging should be permitted. The combination represents a predictable integration of known power-management techniques commonly used in portable electronic devices (see MPEP § 2143(I)). Accordingly, the combination of Holzherr and Weigensberg renders the subject matter of claims 1, 4–5, and 10–11 obvious.
Regarding claim 7, Holzherr discloses a method for operating an aerosol-generating device comprising an electric heater and a rechargeable battery (¶0094–¶0095). Holzherr explicitly teaches that control electronics (128) are configured to both control the charging of the battery (126) and to control the use of the device depending on charging and ambient temperature conditions (¶0094). When the user initiates charging of the aerosol-generating device, the control electronics are configured to determine whether the battery may be charged (¶0095–¶0096), and in doing so, Holzherr prevents operation of the heater during charging to avoid conflicts between heater operation and charging, which are mutually exclusive (¶0094, ¶0092).
Thus, Holzherr reading on the limitation of “preventing operation of the electric heater based on the detecting that the battery is in the charging state.”
Regarding claim 9, Holzherr teaches a method for controlling an aerosol-generating system including an electric heater powered by a battery, a temperature sensor, and control electronics configured to control power delivery to the heater based on various charging and safety states (e.g., ¶¶ [0083]–[0092]). Holzherr also discusses detecting ambient temperature to regulate heater operation and prevent charging or heater activation when certain conditions are met.
However, Holzherr does not explicitly disclose using a current sensor to detect initiation of heater operation, as required by claim 9.
Weigensberg teaches detection of current flow and initiation of operation in aerosol-generating systems (see FIG. 25, ¶¶ [0081]–[0083]) through components such as control switches and sensor assemblies (e.g., switch 225 detects power supply connection and controls heater activation). The use of such control circuitry inherently relies on sensing current or voltage changes, suggesting the use of current sensing circuitry to detect activation events (i.e., initiation of heater operation).
Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Holzherr to include the use of a current sensor as taught by Weigensberg to detect the initiation of heater operation. Doing so would provide additional monitoring or fail-safe triggering conditions, improving safety and control—goals aligned with both references.
Regarding claim 12-13, Holzherr discloses a method for controlling an aerosol-generating system including an electric heater (para. [0105], [0107]) configured to vaporize an aerosol-forming substance, a battery (126) configured to power the heater, a temperature sensor (131), and control circuitry (108) connected to the sensor and battery (see paras. [0083]–[0093]). Holzherr further teaches detecting, by the temperature sensor, the initiation of operation of the electric heater (see paras. [0086]–[0091]).
However, Holzherr does not explicitly disclose preventing charging of the battery based on the initiation of operation of the electric heater.
Weigensberg discloses a control circuit for an electronic cigarette (see para. [0081]) that enables either charging of the battery or operation of the electric heater, but not both simultaneously. Specifically, Weigensberg teaches a control switch 225 and control circuitry 223 configured to disable charging when a user initiates puffing, thereby activating the heating element (see para. [0083]). This teaches the concept of preventing charging based on operation of the heater.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Holzherr to include the control configuration of Weigensberg that disables charging during operation of the electric heater, in order to avoid simultaneous charging and heating, which can overload the power supply or reduce performance, as taught by Weigensberg.
Regarding claim 8 and 14, Holzherr teaches a method for controlling the operation of an electric heater in an aerosol-generating device based on the battery charging state and ambient temperature (¶¶0094–0095). Holzherr discloses that when the battery is charging, the aerosol-generating device is disabled, thus inherently preventing operation of the electric heater (¶0094).
However, Holzherr does not explicitly disclose preventing operation of the electric heater after the initiation of heater operation, based on detecting a charging state.
Weigensberg teaches that during charging, “it is desirable to disable the aerosol generating device or otherwise eliminate it from the charging circuit” to prevent current leakage or defeat of the charging function (¶0074). This implies that heater operation may need to be interrupted or ceased if the battery begins charging, regardless of whether the heater has already been activated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Holzherr’s control logic in view of Weigensberg’s teaching to prevent operation of the electric heater after its initiation upon detecting the battery is in a charging state. The motivation would be to protect battery integrity, prevent competing power loads, and ensure proper charging operation, as explicitly taught by Weigensberg (¶0074).
Claims 2 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holzherr (US 2017/0033568) and Weigensberg et al. (US 2015/0020831) as applied to claim 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Flick (US 2013/0319435).
Regarding claim 2 and 17, Holzherr also describes an aerosol-forming liquid substrate retained in a structure connected to the battery portion (¶ [0064], Fig. 1A), but does not disclose that this structure is replaceable or that charging is prevented based on cartridge connection.
Flick discloses a replaceable cartridge (liquid storage portion) containing aerosol-forming substrate, used with an electric heater and control circuitry that monitors cartridge status and estimates remaining liquid (Abstract; ¶¶ [0010], [0014]). Flick explains that cartridge replacement is advantageous when the liquid is depleted, clearly teaching a replaceable cartridge and detection of its operational state.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Holzherr to incorporate Flick’s replaceable cartridge and connection detection logic to improve usability and safety by ensuring proper cartridge presence before charging.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JENNIFER KESSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-7739. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Michael H Wilson can be reached on (571) 270-3882. 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.
/JENNIFER A KESSIE/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747