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
This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendments filed 02/27/2026.
Claims 1-13 are pending and are subject to this Office Action.
Claims 1, 4-5 and 7 are amended.
Claims 12-13 are previously withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-7, filed 02/27/2026, with respect to the 103 rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite that “the article control circuitry is configured to control the electrical power supplied to the aerosol generator based on a value of a counter stored in a memory of the article control circuitry". However, Malamud is still considered to teach the newly presented limitations. Malamud teaches that the article control circuitry is configured to control the electrical power supplied to the aerosol generator based on a value of a counter (such as an e-liquid estimation counter or usage parameter (total number of cycles of activating/deactivating the heating element, amount of usage of the cartomizer)) stored in a memory (memory device 220; [0071]) of the article control circuitry ([0073-0075], [0081], [0084]).Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
The Examiner notes that Malamud does not anticipate claim 7 as amended. However, Malamud is found to make obvious claim 7.
The following is a modified rejection based on Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Malamud et al. (US 2015/0208731).
Malamud teaches an article for an aerosol provision system (Figure 1A, replaceable cartridge 70 for e-vaping device 60, [0062]) comprising:
an aerosol generator (Figure 1A, heater 14 and wick 28 form vaporizer, [0064]);
article control circuitry (Figure 3A, at least first switch 230A and memory device 220 form control circuitry, [0079]-[0080], see also [0083] for control of heater);
and one or more connectors electrically coupled to the aerosol generator and the article control circuitry (Figure 3A, connector 210/215 shown as part of circuitry, [0076]),
wherein, in use, the article control circuitry and the aerosol generator receive electrical power via the one or more connectors (Figure 3A, first and second connectors 210 and 215 from electrical connection between first and second sections 70 and 72 and same set of wires that transfer power to energize heating coil may be used to communicate with memory device 220, [0076]), and
wherein the article control circuitry is configured to control the electrical power supplied to the aerosol generator based on a value of a counter (such as an e-liquid estimation counter or usage parameter (total number of cycles of activating/deactivating the heating element, amount of usage of the cartomizer)) stored in a memory (memory device 220; [0071]) of the article control circuitry ([0073-0075], [0081], [0084]).
Regarding claim 2, Malamud teaches the article of claim 1, wherein the aerosol generator and the article control circuitry are electrically connected in parallel (Figure 3A, capacitor 240 connected in parallel to resistor 14 and first switch 230A, [0079]).
Regarding claim 4, Malamud teaches the article of claim 1, wherein, in use, data is transferred, using the one or more connectors, between the article control circuitry and a device coupled to the article (signals communicated (i.e. data transferred) from connectors to energize heating coil can communicate with memory 220 that may be on the cartomizer (i.e. article), [0076]).
Regarding claim 5, Malamud teaches the article of claim 1, further comprising one or more data connectors electrically coupled to the article control circuitry, wherein, in use, data is transferred, using at least one of the one or more connectors or the one or more data connectors, between the article control circuitry and a device coupled to at least one of the one or more connectors or the one or more data connectors (signals communicated (i.e. data transferred) from connectors to energize heating coil can communicate with memory 220 that may be on the cartomizer (i.e. article), [0076]).
Regarding claim 6, Malamud teaches the article of claim 1, further comprising a switch, wherein the article control circuitry is configured to control the electrical power supplied to the aerosol generator by actuating the switch (Figure 3A, switch 230A controls heating coil 14, [0086]).
Regarding claim 8, Malamud teaches the article of claim 6, wherein the switch is in series with the aerosol generator (Figure 3A, switch 230A in series with heating coil 14, [0086]).
Regarding claim 10, Malamud teaches an aerosol provision system comprising the article of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above and article is part of e-vaping device 60 (see Figure 1A and [0062])).
Regarding claim 11, Malamud teaches the aerosol provision system of claim 10, further comprising an aerosol provision device (Figure 1A, reusable fixture 72, [0062], also according to the as filed specification at least on page 1, this appears to be the same as the claimed system/device (an article attached to a battery containing part)).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malamud et al. (US 2015/0208731) in view of Xiang (US 2015/0075545, cited in IDS dated April 21, 2023).
Regarding claim 3, Malamud discloses the article of claim 1, as set forth above. Malamud fails to disclose the article further comprising a pull-down resistor to modify a voltage of the electrical power supplied to the article control circuitry.
Xiang teaches a similar electronic cigarette with control circuitry (see Figures 4 and 5) comprising a pull-down resistor to modify a voltage of the electrical power supplied to the article control circuitry (electric signal (which can be voltage value) generated using a pull-down resistor [0097] and see [0100]-[0101] and Figure 5 for function of pull-down resistor). Xiang also teaches that the pull-down resistor forms a bleeder circuit and helps to determine the electric level of the and to determine if the level is too high or too low for the atomizing device, making sure that power is not sent to the device at least when the atomizer is not connected to the unit [0101]-[0102].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Malamud to incorporate the teachings of Xiang to incorporate a pull-down resistor at least because it would help to determine the electric level of the and to determine if the level is too high or too low for the atomizing device, making sure that power is not sent to the device at least when the atomizer is not connected to the unit, as recognized by Xiang [0101]-[0102].
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malamud et al. (US 2015/0208731).
Regarding claim 7, Malamud teaches that usage and remaining amount of e-liquid are tracked to control power supply ([0084]).
Malamud does not explicitly teach that the value of the counter indicates a number of inhalations or puffs performed on the article or the value corresponds to a number of activations of the aerosol generator.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Malamud by making the value of the counter indicate a number of inhalations or puffs performed on the article or a number of activations of the aerosol generator because one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the number of activations (total number of cycles of activating/deactivating the heating element) may be used in place of and/or in addition to the e-liquid estimation to better operate the device to prevent burning of overused or dry heaters, and this involves applying known reasoning in the art to a known device to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 9, Malamud discloses the article of claim 6, as set forth above. Malamud fails to disclose wherein the switch is integrated into the article control circuitry, but does disclose both of these features (Figure 3A, at least first switch 230A and memory device 220 form control circuitry, [0079]-[0080]). However, see MPEP 2144.04.V.B. “In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.")”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Malamud by integrating the first switch into the control circuitry would be a matter of obvious engineering choice. See MPEP 2144.04.V.B.
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 Charlotte Davison whose telephone number is (703)756-5484. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-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, 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.
/C.D./ Examiner, Art Unit 1755
/PHILIP Y LOUIE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights