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’s arguments filed 03/31/2026 have been fully considered but are moot because applicant amended claim 1 to add limitations requiring that a control unit determine the amount of charge remaining in the battery, calculate the number of consumable articles that can be fully used with the determined amount of charge remaining, and output for display information indicating that calculated number. These added limitations change the scope of claim 1. Accordingly, the present rejection addresses the amended claim language and relies on new prior art not previously addressed by applicant’s arguments.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-15 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/03/2025.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1–6 and 9–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ferrie et al. (EP 3 711 510 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ferrie teaches:
A method of indicating a battery level of a battery of an aerosol generating device for generating an aerosol from an aerosol generating substance contained in a consumable article (smoking substitute system including device 201, battery 205, controller 208, and consumable 202) (¶[0118]).
Determining, by a control unit, an amount of charge remaining in the battery (controller operatively connected to the battery to determine remaining stored energy) (¶[0044]).
Calculating, by the control unit, a number of consumable articles that can be fully used with the determined amount of charge remaining in the battery (controller 208 determining a remaining number of operating cycles available based on a puffing-pattern characteristic and the amount of energy stored in battery 205) (¶[0123]).
Outputting for displaying, by the control unit, information, said information indicating the calculated number of consumable articles that can be fully used with the determined amount of charge remaining in the battery (output means receiving output signals from the controller) (¶[0048]); (user interface providing a prediction of remaining cycles on a screen or by LEDs) (¶[0049]).
Ferrie does not expressly teach that the determined remaining number of operating cycles is a number of consumable articles that can be fully used with the determined amount of charge remaining in the battery.
However, Ferrie teaches that an operating cycle may correspond approximately to the period required to consume an aerosol-forming article (¶[0021]), that the controller controls the length of each operating cycle (¶[0027]), and that the controller may alter the length of subsequent operating cycles based on the determined remaining number of operating cycles (¶[0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set Ferrie’s operating-cycle length to the intended use duration of the consumable article. One would have been motivated to do so because Ferrie teaches controlling and adjusting operating-cycle length in connection with its remaining-cycle determination.
Regarding claim 2, Ferrie, as modified as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, teaches:
Determining a first value (Y) for the amount of charge remaining in the battery before a consumable article is used (controller 208 determining the amount of energy stored in battery 205 for determining a remaining number of operating cycles available) (¶[0123]).
Ferrie teaches that an operating cycle may be a period for which a consumable is used and replaced (¶[0044]). Because Ferrie determines the remaining number of operating cycles available from the amount of energy stored in battery 205 before those remaining operating cycles are performed, Ferrie teaches determining the first value for the amount of charge remaining in the battery before a consumable article is used.
Regarding claim 3, Ferrie, as modified as set forth in the rejection of claim 2, teaches:
Determining a second value (X) for the amount of charge remaining in the battery after the consumable article is fully used (controller determining the amount of energy stored in the battery) (¶[0044]).
Determining an amount of charge required to fully use one consumable article based on the first value (Y) and the second value (X) (for each completed operating cycle, identifying a puffing-pattern characteristic and assigning a value indicative of energy required for the operating cycle) (¶[0025]).
Storing the amount of charge required to fully use one consumable article in a memory (storing information indicative of the energy required for each completed operating cycle in memory) (¶[0025]).
Ferrie does not expressly teach determining the energy-required value for a completed operating cycle from the difference between a first stored-energy value before the operating cycle and a second stored-energy value after the operating cycle. However, Ferrie teaches determining stored battery energy (¶[0044]) and assigning and storing an energy-required value for each completed operating cycle (¶[0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the energy required for a completed operating cycle from the change in stored battery energy over that operating cycle. One would have been motivated to do so because the change in stored battery energy provides the energy consumed during the completed operating cycle and thus provides the energy-required value Ferrie assigns and stores for that operating cycle.
Regarding claim 4, Ferrie, as modified as set forth in the rejection of claim 3, teaches:
Repeating the determining and storing steps each time a consumable article is fully used (for each completed operating cycle, identifying a puffing-pattern characteristic, assigning a value indicative of energy required for the operating cycle, and storing information indicative of that value in memory) (¶[0025]).
Ferrie teaches that the energy-required information is assigned and stored for each completed operating cycle. Because Ferrie’s operating cycles are associated with use of a consumable article, Ferrie teaches repeating the determination and storage process for successive consumable articles.
Regarding claim 5, Ferrie, as modified as set forth in the rejection of claim 3, does not expressly teach determining the number of consumable articles that can be fully used by dividing the first value (Y) by the last stored amount of charge required to fully use one consumable article.
However, Ferrie teaches determining a remaining number of operating cycles based on stored battery energy (controller determining the remaining number of operating cycles based on a puffing-pattern characteristic and the amount of energy stored in the battery) (¶[0123]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the remaining number of operating cycles by dividing the stored battery energy by the last stored energy-required value for an operating cycle. One would have been motivated to do so because this provides Ferrie’s remaining-cycle determination using the most recently determined energy-required value for a completed operating cycle.
Regarding claim 6, Ferrie, as modified as set forth in the rejection of claim 3, teaches:
Determining an average amount of charge required to fully use one consumable article based on the amounts of charge required to fully use a plurality of consumable articles (using an average energy required per operating cycle when determining the remaining number of operating cycles) (¶[0025]).
Determining the number of consumable articles that can be fully used by dividing the first value (Y) by the average amount of charge required to fully use one consumable article (controller determining the remaining number of operating cycles based on the amount of energy stored in the battery) (¶[0123]).
Ferrie teaches using an average energy-required value for completed operating cycles when determining the number of remaining operating cycles.
Regarding claim 9, Ferrie, as modified as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, teaches:
Wherein the step of displaying information indicating the calculated number of consumable articles that can be fully used with the determined amount of charge remaining in the battery comprises displaying a calculated number (the determined number of remaining operating cycles displayed to the user) (¶[0124]).
Regarding claim 10, Ferrie, as modified as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, teaches:
Wherein the step of displaying information indicating the calculated number of consumable articles that can be fully used with the determined amount of charge remaining in the battery comprises a step of illuminating one or more indicators based on said calculated number (user interface providing a prediction of remaining cycles by LEDs) (¶[0049]).
Claims 7–8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ferrie et al. (EP 3 711 510 A1) in view of Fard et al. (US 2021/0037893 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Ferrie, as modified as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, does not teach transmitting the amount of charge remaining in the battery to an electronic device such that the calculation of the number of consumable articles is performed by the electronic device.
Fard is in the same field of endeavor, namely smoking-substitute devices that monitor battery status and communicate battery-related information to an external electronic device. Fard teaches:
Transmitting the amount of charge remaining in the battery to an electronic device (smoking-substitute device transmitting a battery data log to a mobile device after a wireless connection is established) (¶[0103]).
Such that the step of calculating the number of consumable articles is performed by the electronic device (the mobile device using received battery data as input to an algorithm for determining battery-related information, including remaining charge) (¶[0104]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ferrie to transmit its battery-energy information to Fard’s mobile device and perform Ferrie’s remaining-operating-cycle calculation at the mobile device. One would have been motivated to do so because Fard teaches using battery data received by a mobile device to determine battery-related information remotely.
Regarding claim 8, Ferrie in view of Fard, hereinafter modified Ferrie, as set forth in the rejection of claim 7, teaches:
Wherein the electronic device is a smartphone or a charging case (portable communication terminal comprising a smartphone) (Fard, ¶[0037]).
Claims 11–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ferrie et al. (EP 3 711 510 A1) in view of Murison et al. (US 2017/0045994 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Ferrie, as modified as set forth in the rejection of claim 10, does not teach a predetermined number of indicators arranged on the aerosol-generating device and determining an illumination pattern for the indicators based on the calculated number of consumable articles and a predetermined threshold.
Murison is in the same field of endeavor, namely electronic vaporiser systems, and teaches a predetermined plurality of indicators arranged on the vaporiser (a series of six LEDs arranged on one face of the vaporiser) (¶[0052]). Murison further teaches determining an illumination pattern based on an amount remaining (all six LEDs illuminated at the beginning of a vaping session and progressively turning off as the vaping session progresses to indicate the amount left in the vaporiser) (¶[0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ferrie to provide its remaining-cycle indication using Murison’s predetermined plurality of LEDs arranged on the aerosol-generating device and illuminated according to the calculated remaining-cycle value and the predetermined threshold. One would have been motivated to make the modification because Murison teaches that progressively illuminated indicators provide a visual indication of an amount remaining, which is compatible with Ferrie’s remaining-cycle indication.
Regarding claim 12, Ferrie in view of Murison, hereinafter modified Ferrie, as set forth in the rejection of claim 11, does not teach determining a colour of illumination based on the calculated number of consumable articles and the predetermined threshold.
Murison teaches determining a number of indicators to be illuminated of a predetermined number of indicators based on an amount remaining, wherein a series of six LEDs progressively turns off as the vaping session progresses to indicate the amount remaining in the vaporiser (¶[0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine a colour of illumination for Murison’s LEDs based on Ferrie’s calculated remaining number of operating cycles and predetermined threshold. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a further visual distinction between the remaining-cycle states already indicated by Murison’s varying number of illuminated LEDs.
Regarding claim 13, Ferrie in view of Murison, hereinafter modified Ferrie, as set forth in the rejection of claim 11, does not teach that the predetermined number of indicators arranged on the aerosol-generating device is four.
Murison teaches a series of small LEDs arranged on the vaporiser for indicating an amount remaining, wherein progressively fewer LEDs are illuminated as the amount is consumed. Murison further teaches that, when the reservoir is full, for example, five or six LEDs may be illuminated (¶[0879]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide four LEDs as the predetermined number of indicators. One would have been motivated to do so because Murison teaches that the number of LEDs used for the remaining-amount indication is selectable, with five or six LEDs disclosed as examples. Selecting four LEDs would have provided the same progressive visual indication of the amount remaining.
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 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