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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/07/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-21 remains withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 11/04/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed July 7, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments directed to the prior rejection of claims 1–3 and 5–11 over Greim in view of Bouchuiguir are moot in view of the new ground of rejection set forth herein. The present Office action no longer relies on Bouchuiguir to supply the amended limitation of claim 1. Instead, claim 1 is newly rejected over Greim in view of Schennum, with Schennum relied upon for the limitation concerning activation of the battery-status indicator upon detection of the lid changing from the closed position to the open position and refraining from activation when the lid remains open or remains closed.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments concerning alleged deficiencies in the prior Greim/Bouchuiguir combination do not address the present ground of rejection and therefore do not overcome the newly applied rejection of claims 1–3 and 5–11.
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.
Claim 1—3 and 5—11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Greim (US 2014/0348495 A1) in view of Schennum (US 2017/0222468 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Greim teaches a case for an aerosol delivery device (primary device 100 comprising a charging unit configured to receive and charge electrically heated aerosol-generating secondary device 102; Greim, ¶ [0070]); a lid having an open position and a closed position (lid having a first, closed position and a second, open position; Greim, ¶ [0019]); a magnet and a Hall sensor pair configured to provide a signal indicative of whether the lid is in the open position or the closed position (magnet provided in the lid and Hall-effect transducer positioned in the primary device adjacent the cavity, wherein activation of the Hall-effect transducer depends on the lid position; Greim, ¶ [0008]); a controller (control electronics 108; Greim, ¶ [0070]); and a battery status indicator (indicator 120 configured to indicate the level of charge remaining in primary battery 106; Greim, ¶ [0071]).
Greim does not expressly teach the controller configured to receive the signal from the Hall sensor indicative of whether the lid is in the open position or the closed position, wherein the controller is configured to activate the battery status indicator upon detection of the lid changing from the closed position to the open position and is configured to refrain from activating the battery status indicator when the lid remains open or remains closed.
Schennum, like Greim, teaches a recharging pack for an aerosol delivery device having a movable lid, control electronics, and battery-status indicators. Schennum teaches that detection of the lid opening causes the control facility to initiate an active mode (Schennum, ¶ [0065]). Schennum further teaches that, as part of that active mode, battery-status LEDs that are generally off when the lid is closed are illuminated when the lid is opened to indicate the charging state of the pack battery, and are faded off after a predetermined interval (Schennum, ¶ [0070]). After expiration of the interval, the pack enters an inactive mode that is maintained until the lid is subsequently closed (Schennum, ¶ [0066]). Thus, Schennum teaches an event-responsive control scheme in which battery-status indication is activated upon a lid-opening event rather than repeatedly activated merely because the lid remains in an unchanged open or closed position.
It has been held that applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results supports a conclusion of obviousness. MPEP § 2143(I)(D).Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Greim’s control electronics 108 to receive the lid-position signal from Greim’s Hall-effect transducer and to use that signal, as taught by Schennum, to activate Greim’s battery status indicator 120 upon detecting a change of the lid from the closed position to the open position while refraining from activating the indicator merely because the lid remains open or remains closed, in order to provide battery-status information in response to user access to the charging case while avoiding unnecessary repeated activation during an unchanged lid condition, thereby predictably conserving power while presenting battery-charge information when relevant.
Regarding claim 2, modified Greim teaches the magnet is provided within the lid of the case (magnet provided in the lid; Greim, ¶ [0008]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Greim teaches the Hall sensor is provided within a main body of the case (Hall-effect transducer positioned in the primary device adjacent the opening of the cavity; Greim, ¶ [0008]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Greim teaches the battery status indicator comprises one or more light emitting diodes (indicator 120 is preferably an LED configured to indicate the percentage of charge remaining in primary battery 106; Greim, ¶ [0071]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Greim teaches the battery status indicator is configured to indicate a status of a battery of an aerosol delivery device mounted within the case (indicator 122 indicating that secondary aerosol-generating device 102 received in primary device 100 is fully charged, wherein the secondary device includes rechargeable battery 126; Greim, ¶ [0072]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Greim teaches the aerosol delivery device is a non-combustible aerosol provision device (secondary device is an electrically heated aerosol-generating device configured to heat an aerosol-forming substrate, which is heated but not burned; Greim, ¶¶ [0028], [0035]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Greim teaches the case further comprising the aerosol delivery device (primary device 100 receiving electrically heated aerosol-generating secondary device 102 within cavity 112; Greim, ¶ [0070]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Greim teaches the aerosol delivery device is configured to receive a removable article (secondary device 102 configured to receive smoking article 104, which is removable from secondary device 102; Greim, ¶¶ [0070], [0081]) comprising an aerosolizable material (smoking article 104 comprising an aerosol-forming substrate; Greim, ¶ [0070]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Greim teaches the aerosolizable material is present on a substrate (aerosol-forming substrate containing volatile tobacco flavor compounds released from the substrate upon heating; Greim, ¶ [0033]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Greim teaches the aerosol delivery device comprises a tobacco heating system (secondary device is an electrically heated aerosol-generating device configured to heat an aerosol-forming substrate that may comprise tobacco-containing material; Greim, ¶¶ [0028], [0033]).
Conclusion
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 at (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
Prosecution Insights