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Claims 12-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 11/04/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 11/04/2025 is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended independent claim 1 to incorporate the limitation previously recited in dependent claim 4, namely that “the controller is configured to activate the battery status indicator upon detection of the lid changing from a closed position to an open position.” Applicant argues that the reference Greim does not teach or suggest this limitation. This argument is not persuasive.
Greim discloses a device including a lid-position detection system (e.g., via sensors such as a Hall-effect arrangement) used by a controller to govern operation of the device, including enabling or disabling power and controlling device modes (see, e.g., ¶¶ [0075]–[0078]). Greim further discloses battery status indicators (e.g., indicators 120, 122, 124) configured to indicate battery status, and a controller (e.g., control electronics 108) configured to control such indicators (¶¶ [0071]–[0075]).
Although Greim does not explicitly disclose activating the battery status indicator specifically upon detection of the lid changing from a closed position to an open position, Greim teaches (i) detecting lid position (including open and closed states), (ii) using such detected conditions to control device operation via a controller, and (iii) controlling battery status indicators via the same controller.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to configure the controller of Greim to activate the battery status indicator upon detection of the lid transitioning from a closed position to an open position. Such a modification merely involves using a known detected event (lid opening) as a trigger for activating a known user interface output (battery status indication), which constitutes a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide battery status information at a time when the user accesses the device (i.e., upon opening the lid), thereby improving usability and conserving power by avoiding unnecessary continuous display of battery status. Such optimization of when to present information to a user is a routine design choice yielding predictable results.
Claim Objections
Claim 5-6 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being incomplete because it depends from a cancelled claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). For the purpose of this Office Action said claim has been treated as if depending from claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greim (US 2014/0348495 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Greim teaches a case 100 for an aerosol delivery device, the case comprising:
“a lid having an open position and a closed position;”
Greim teaches a lid configured to move between a first (closed) position and a second (open) position [0068]–[0069]
“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;”
Greim teaches a magnet provided in the lid and a Hall Effect transducer adjacent the cavity, where the magnet activates the Hall-effect transducer when the lid is in the first position, thereby providing a signal indicative of lid position [0008].
“and a controller configured to receive a signal from the hall sensor indicative of whether the lid is in the open position or the closed position.”
Greim teaches control electronics that receive the signal from the Hall-effect transducer to determine lid position and control power to the aerosol-generating device accordingly [0004]–[0009].
Greim teaches the case as claimed in claim 1 further comprising:
“a battery status indicator”
Greim teaches indicators 120, 122, 124 configured to indicate a status of the battery of the aerosol delivery device. [0071]–[0073]
“wherein the controller is configured to activate the battery status indicator”
Greim teaches a controller (control electronics 108, CPU of the primary device) configured to control the indicators and display battery status [0071]–[0075]
“upon detection of the lid changing from the closed position to the open position.”
Greim teaches that lid position changes (first/closed, second/open, and intermediate positions) are detected and used to control operational modes of the device. [0075]–[0078]
Greim does not expressly teach activation of the battery status indicator specifically upon detection of the lid changing from the closed position to the open position.
However, Greim already teaches that lid-position transitions are detected via sensors and used by the controller to change device operating modes, enable/disable electrical power, and initiate communication functions ([0075]–[0078]).
2. Greim already teaches battery status indicators controlled by the same controller ([0071]–[0073]).
3. Using the already-detected lid-opening event as a trigger to display battery status would have been a predictable use of a known sensor (lid-position detector) for a known purpose (user-interface indicator activation).
4. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Greim’s system so that the controller activates the battery status indicator upon detection of the lid transitioning from the closed to the open position, because: Incorporating this behavior constitutes a routine design choice and simple UI optimization, yielding predictable results, consistent with KSR v. Teleflex.
Regarding claim 2, Greim teaches “the magnet is provided in the lid” [0008].
Regarding claim 3, Greim teaches the Hall Effect transducer positioned adjacent the opening of the cavity within the primary device, i.e., the main body of the case [0008].
Regarding claim 6, Claim 6 further recites: “…wherein the battery status indicator is configured to indicate a status of a battery of an aerosol delivery device mounted within the case.”
Greim teaches indicators (120, 122, 124) that indicate a status of the battery of the aerosol device received in the case, including battery level, readiness, and cleaning status (Greim ¶¶ [0071]–[0074]). Thus, Greim discloses a battery status indicator configured to indicate the status of the battery of the aerosol device that is mounted within the case.
Regarding claim 7, Greim teaches a case 100 comprising: electrically heated aerosol-generating device that heats an aerosol-forming substrate without combustion [0033], [0034], [0035] reading on the limitation wherein the aerosol delivery device is a non-combustible aerosol provision device.
Regarding claim 8, Greim teaches secondary device 102 housed within the cavity of the primary device 100 [0067], FIG. 1(b) reading on a case comprising a further comprising the aerosol delivery device.
Regarding claim 9, Greim teaches secondary device 102 configured to receive removable smoking article 104 comprising aerosol-forming substrate [0070], [0053], [0054], [0055], [0057] reading on a case comprising wherein the aerosol delivery device is configured to receive a removable article comprising an aerosolizable material.
Regarding claim 10, Greim teaches a case comprising wherein the aerosolizable material is present on a substrate such as aerosolizable materials (tobacco, propylene glycol, glycerin) present on a substrate such as pellets, granules, sheets, fiber bundles, strips, meshes [0054], [0055], [0056], [0057].
Regarding claim 11, Greim teaches secondary device configured to heat aerosol-forming substrate comprising tobacco [0031], [0033], [0040], [0041] thereby reading on wherein the aerosol delivery device comprises a tobacco heating system.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Greim (US 2014/0348495 A1) in view of Bouchuiguir (US 2022/0225675 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Greim teaches a battery status indicator, including indicators 120, 122, and 124, configured to indicate battery charge state, readiness state, and cleaning state [0071]–[0073], reading on the limitation of “wherein the battery status indicator comprises one or more light emitting diodes.”
Greim only discloses that indicator 124 is illuminated, without specifying LEDs.
[0081] but does not teach: that the battery status indicator comprises one or more light emitting diodes (LEDs).
However, Bouchuiguir teaches the missing limitation: Bouchuiguir teaches that the battery status indicator comprises an array of LEDs, wherein the LEDs illuminate to indicate the battery charge level [0201].
Greim and Bouchuiguir are both directed to aerosol-generating or aerosol-delivery electronic devices having housings, closures, indicators, and electronic control systems, and thus are in the same field of endeavor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery status indicators of Greim to comprise one or more light emitting diodes, as taught by Bouchuiguir, because LEDs were a known, reliable, low-power, and predictable indicator technology used in handheld aerosol delivery devices. Substituting LEDs for Greim’s unspecified illuminated indicator would have been a simple substitution of one known indicator type for another, yielding predictable results.
Therefore, claim 5 would have been obvious over Greim in view of Bouchuiguir.
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 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