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Claims 17-28 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 1-16 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 limitations previously recited in claims 2–3, including that the controller is configured to activate first diagnostics when the lid signal indicates a change from the lid being open to the lid being closed, and that the first diagnostics include one or more of device health diagnostics, session data, and fault information. Applicant contends that Frake et al. (US 2022/0160051) does not teach these limitations. These arguments are not persuasive.
Frake teaches a controller configured to initiate operations in response to the lid being moved into a closed position, including taking readings from detector 518, determining residue level, comparing the detected residue to a threshold, and determining whether a cleaning cycle is required (Frake ¶¶ [0220]–[0222]). Such operations constitute evaluation and analysis of device condition and therefore reasonably correspond to “diagnostics,” as broadly recited. The claim does not require any particular nomenclature or specialized form of diagnostics beyond functional evaluation of device status.
With respect to the limitation that diagnostics are activated when the lid signal indicates a change from open to closed, Frake discloses that the controller begins these operations after the lid is moved into the closed position (Frake ¶¶ [0218]–[0222]). Activation of such operations upon reaching the closed position is responsive to the change in lid state and thus meets the claimed requirement.
Regarding the recited “device health diagnostics, session data, and fault information,” the claim requires that the diagnostics include “one or more of” these categories. Frake’s determination of residue level, comparison to a threshold, and evaluation of whether cleaning is required constitute assessments of device condition, which reasonably correspond to device health diagnostics and fault-related determinations. Because the claim is satisfied by inclusion of at least one of the recited categories, Frake’s disclosures are sufficient.
Applicant’s argument that Frake is limited to a specific embodiment directed to residue detection is not persuasive, as the cited disclosures already teach the claimed diagnostic functionality. Further, Applicant’s assertion that one of ordinary skill in the art would lack motivation to modify Frake is not relevant to the present rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102, which is based on what is disclosed rather than on modification.
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Frake et al. (US 2022/0160051).
Regarding claim 1, Frake teaches a case 500 for an aerosol delivery device comprising:
a lid 505 movable between an open and a closed position (Frake ¶¶ [0211], [0218]);
a detector 518 configured to provide a lid signal indicative of whether the lid is open or closed, as the detector arranged on lid 505 provides detector information to the controller only after the lid is moved into the closed position (Frake ¶¶ [0218], [0219], [0220]); and
a controller 510 configured to activate diagnostics depending on the lid signal, as the controller initiates detector readings, residue determination, threshold comparison, and cleaning initiation when the lid reaches the closed position (Frake ¶¶ [0220]–[0222]).
1. Frake teaches a case 500 for an aerosol delivery device comprising:
2. a controller 510 configured to activate first diagnostics when the lid transitions from open to closed, as the controller begins diagnostic operations after lid 505 is moved into the closed position, including taking readings from detector 518, determining residue level, comparing the detected residue to a threshold, and evaluating whether cleaning is required. These operations correspond to the claimed “first diagnostics” (Frake ¶¶ [0220]–[0222]); and
3. first diagnostics including device-health diagnostics, as determining residue acceptability, heater readiness, and the need for a cleaning cycle constitute device-health diagnostics (Frake ¶¶ [0220]–[0222], [0214]).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Frake teaches a case 500 for an aerosol delivery device comprising:
a controller 510 configured to activate second diagnostics when the lid transitions from the closed position to the open position, as opening lid 505 changes the sensing arrangement of detector 518 and prompts the system to evaluate readiness conditions, including whether residue is below threshold, whether heater operation may proceed, and whether a cleaning cycle is required before the next use (Frake ¶¶ [0218], [0221]–[0222]); and
second diagnostics including device-readiness diagnostics, as determining whether residue is acceptable, whether heater use is permitted, and whether a cleaning cycle should be initiated constitute device-readiness determinations (Frake ¶¶ [0221]–[0222]).
Regarding claim 6, Frake teaches a case (500) comprising:
a detector (residue detector 700) comprising a switch 716, which actuates the detection operation (see [0237]).
Regarding claim 7, Frake teaches a case (500) comprising:
a display for providing information relating to diagnostic conditions, where Frake discloses that the case “may further comprise a graphical display at an outer surface of the case housing 502… configured to display residue amount information” (see [0225]).
Regarding claim 8, Frake teaches the case (500) of claim 7 further comprising:
a display comprising one or more LEDs, where Frake describes visual indicator 716 in the form of “an LED on an external surface of the detector housing 702” (see [0237], [0238]).
Regarding claim 9, Frake teaches a case (500) comprising:
a communications module, where Frake discloses that case controller 510 includes a communication interface “using Bluetooth protocol to communicate with an external device or server,” and is “configured to communicate with a user’s smartphone” (see [0216], [0224]).
Regarding claim 10, Frake teaches the case of claim 9 wherein the communication module communicates one or more of (i) a change in lid position or (ii) an output of diagnostics to a user device or remote application. Specifically, Frake teaches:
a communication interface for two-way communication with a user device (¶[0216]).
Communication of diagnostic output (residue signal) from the case controller to a user’s smartphone over the communications link ( ¶[0223]–[0224]).
Because claim 10 requires only one of the recited communications (“or”), and Frake teaches diagnostic output communication, Frake anticipates claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, Frake teaches the case of claim 9 (and claim 10) wherein the communication module receives instructions relating to operation of the case from the user device or remote application. Specifically, Frake teaches:
A communication interface configured for two-way communication between the case controller and a user’s smartphone or external server (¶[0216]).
The communication link enables the external device to send instructions or data to the case controller (¶[0216]), which necessarily includes sending operational instructions to the case.
Frake’s bidirectional communication interface explicitly teaches receiving instructions from an external device, satisfying the limitation.
Regarding claim 12, Frake teaches a non-combustible aerosol-generating device is electrically heated (not combusted) to release aerosol from aerosol-forming substrate (¶[0013]–[0016], [0207]–[0208]).
Regarding claim 13, Frake teaches a case that further comprises the aerosol-generating device 100. Frake expressly shows device 100 received in case cavity 504 (¶[0210]–[0211]).
Regarding claim 14, Frake teaches an aerosol-generating device configured to receive a removable article containing aerosol-forming material. Frake describes a removable rod-shaped aerosol-generating article inserted into the device (¶[0016]).
Regarding claim 15, Frake teaches that the aerosol-generating article includes both:
an aerosol-generating substrate (tobacco, herbs, or other solid substrate) (¶[0013], [0015]); and
an aerosol-forming material (e.g., glycerine, propylene glycol) (¶[0014]).
Regarding claim 16, Frake teaches an aerosol-generating device comprising a tobacco-heating system. Frake describes heating tobacco-containing aerosol-forming substrate using heater 106 (¶[0013], [0016], [0207]–[0208]).
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