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Claims 14-15 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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.
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 11/03/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the unity of invention is lacking because the reference relied upon by Examiner does not teach all of the limitations of claim 1, and therefore does not establish that the claimed subject matter lacks a common special technical feature.. This is not found persuasive because a unity of invention restriction requirement does not require the reference to teach or anticipate all limitations of an independent claim, but rather requires a showing that the identified technical feature alleged to confer unity is not special. In this case the reference discloses that the aerosol generation device is configured to carry out a battery level checking function comprising displaying a charge level of a battery of the device (pg. 32 lines 23-30).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without reciting significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong One - Judicial Exception
The claim recites the following core operations:
Determining a remaining battery charge value (Y);
Determining a second charge value after use (X);
Subtracting X from Y to obtain a charge usage value (Z);
Dividing a remaining charge value by Z to calculate a number of consumable articles.
These limitations collectively amount to collecting numerical data, and performing mathematical calculations, which corresponds to mathematical relationships, mental processes, and information processing.
Step 2A, Prong Two - Practical Application
The claim further recites that the calculation is performed in the context of a battery-powered aerosol generating device, with optional transmission to a smartphone or electronic device for display. There is an attempt to integrate the abstract idea with the “displaying” step. This is an insignificant post solution activity that would not be considered a particular practical application. This could also be considered generally linking the abstract idea to the field of endeavor, similar to the alarm in Parker v Flook, adding an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception MPEP2106.05(g) and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use 2106.05(h)
Step 2B - Inventive Concept
The additional elements recited (battery, display, electronic device, smartphone, charging case, data storage, averaging, and division) are all well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when considered individually and in combination.
No element amounts to an unconventional technical solution, and the claim merely implements the abstract calculation using generic electronic components. Accordingly, the claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
Further as noted above the act of displaying information is an insignificant post solution activity which also would not be considered significantly more.
Therefore, claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fard et al. (US 2021/0037893), and further in view of Kersey et al. (US 2020/0060347).
Regarding Claim 1:
Fard teaches a smoking substitute device/aerosol-generating device configured to monitor battery status and usage information of the device, and to communicate such information to a user via a display or external electronic device [Fard ¶¶[0002]–[0004], [0045]–[0047], Fig. 4].
Fard further teaches:
determining an amount of charge remaining in a battery
Fard discloses monitoring and determining remaining battery charge of a smoking substitute device, including determining battery status information such as remaining charge and battery-related properties [Fard ¶¶[0045]–[0047], [0103]–[0106]].
calculating a predicted available usage based on the determined amount of charge remaining
Fard teaches calculating predicted available usage information based on battery-related information and historical usage data, including predicting remaining activation events or usage cycles that may be performed with the remaining battery charge (Fard ¶¶[0046]–[0047], [0104]–[0109]).
displaying information indicating the calculated remaining usage
Fard further teaches displaying or transmitting information indicative of the calculated remaining usage to a user via an electronic device, such as a smartphone or application interface (Fard ¶¶[0047], [0108]–[0110]; Fig. 6).
Fard is silent as to expressing the calculated remaining usage specifically as a number of consumable articles that can be fully used.
Instead, Fard expresses remaining usage in terms of activation events, usage events, or general predicted usage, without tying the calculated battery usage directly to complete consumable articles.
However, Kersey teaches an aerosol delivery device operating with consumable articles having a finite usable capacity, and discloses monitoring device operation and battery usage in relation to the use of consumable components (Kersey ¶¶[0022]–[0024], [0062]–[0065]).
Kersey further teaches associating battery power consumption and usage characteristics with the consumption of discrete consumable articles, and communicating information indicative of remaining consumable usability to a user (Kersey ¶¶[0051]–[0052]). Thus, Kersey teaches quantifying remaining device operation in terms of consumable articles, rather than abstract usage events.
Accordingly, Kersey remedies the deficiency of Fard by teaching how remaining battery charge and usage information may be expressed as a number of consumable articles that can be fully used.
Fard and Kersey are in the same field of endeavor, namely aerosol-generating / smoking substitute devices that monitor device usage, battery status, and consumable operation in order to provide feedback to a user. Both references address the problem of informing a user of remaining device usability based on battery and usage characteristics.
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 Fard to express the calculated remaining usage as a number of consumable articles that can be fully used, as taught by Kersey. Doing so merely substitutes one known unit of usage (activation events) with another known and predictable unit of usage (consumable articles), yielding the predictable benefit of providing clearer and more intuitive information to the user regarding remaining device operation.
Regarding claim 2, Fard teaches determining a battery state prior to device usage, including measuring an amount of remaining battery charge before a usage session begins (Fard ¶¶[0045]–[0047], 0103]).
Fard discloses determining battery-related information at the start of device operation and storing such information for subsequent calculations (Fard ¶¶[0104]–[0106]).
Thus, Fard teaches determining a first value (Y) for an amount of charge remaining in the battery before a consumable article is used, as required by claim 2.
Accordingly, claim 2 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Fard in view of Kersey for the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Fard teaches monitoring battery charge both before and after device usage and calculating battery consumption associated with usage events (Fard ¶¶[0106]–[0109]). Fard further teaches determining battery depletion attributable to a usage session and storing battery usage data in memory for subsequent processing (Fard ¶¶[0046], [0107]).
Additionally, Kersey teaches associating battery power consumption with the full use of a consumable article and storing usage-related values for later calculations (Kersey ¶¶[0022]–[0023], [0062]–[0065]).
Thus, Fard teaches determining first and second battery values and calculating a difference corresponding to battery consumption, while Kersey teaches associating that consumption with a fully used consumable article and storing the determined value, thereby remedying any deficiency in Fard regarding consumable-specific usage.
Accordingly, claim 3 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Fard in view of Kersey.
Regarding claim 4, Fard teaches continuously monitoring battery usage over repeated usage cycles and updating stored battery-related data as device operation progresses (Fard ¶¶[0106]–[0109]).
Kersey teaches that consumable usage values may be repeatedly tracked and updated over successive consumable use cycles (Kersey ¶¶[0062]–[0065]).
Thus, the combination of Fard and Kersey teaches repeatedly determining and storing the charge required to fully use a consumable article each time the consumable is used, as recited in claim 4.
Accordingly, claim 4 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Fard in view of Kersey.
Regarding claim 5, Fard teaches calculating predicted available usage based on remaining battery charge and previously stored battery consumption values (Fard ¶¶[0047], [0108]–[0109]).
Kersey teaches expressing remaining device usability in terms of complete consumable articles and correlating battery capacity with consumable usage quantities (Kersey ¶¶[0022]–[0023], [0051]–[0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to calculate the number of consumable articles remaining by dividing a remaining battery value by a stored per-consumable consumption value, as this represents a straightforward mathematical relationship yielding predictable results.
Accordingly, claim 5 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Fard in view of Kersey.
Regarding claim 6, Fard teaches determining battery consumption over multiple usage events and using stored historical battery usage data to calculate predicted available usage information (Fard ¶¶[0106]–[0109]).
Fard further teaches processing battery usage data over time to generate more accurate predictive calculations (Fard ¶¶[0047], [0108]).
Kersey teaches that consumable usage may vary across use cycles and that usage-related parameters may be averaged over multiple consumable uses to determine remaining usability (Kersey ¶¶[0022]–[0023], [0062]–[0065]).
Thus, Fard teaches dividing remaining battery charge by a consumption-related value to determine predicted available usage, and Kersey teaches averaging consumable-related usage values, thereby teaching the calculation of an average charge value per consumable article and dividing a remaining battery value by that average.
Accordingly, claim 6 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Fard in view of Kersey.
Regarding claim 7, Fard teaches transmitting battery-related information from a smoking substitute device to an external electronic device, such as a mobile device or server, via a wireless communication interface (Fard ¶¶[0035]–[0037], [0099]–[0100]).
Fard further teaches that battery-related calculations may be performed remotely on the electronic device based on transmitted battery data (Fard ¶¶[0100]–0102]).
Thus, Fard teaches transmitting remaining battery charge to an electronic device and performing calculations on the electronic device, as required by claim 7.
Accordingly, claim 7 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Fard in view of Kersey.
Regarding claim 8, Fard explicitly teaches that the external electronic device may be a smartphone or other portable electronic device capable of wireless communication with the smoking substitute device (Fard ¶¶[0036]–[0037], [0099]).
Fard further teaches communication with charging accessories associated with the smoking substitute device (Fard ¶¶[0037], [0101]).
Thus, Fard teaches the electronic device being a smartphone or charging case, as recited in claim 8.
Accordingly, claim 8 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Fard in view of Kersey.
Regarding claim 9, Fard teaches displaying battery-related information and predicted usage information to a user via a display of the smoking substitute device or an external electronic device (Fard ¶¶[0041] [0045]–[0047], [0100[–0102]). Fard teaches displaying calculated numerical values indicative of remaining usability (Fard ¶¶[0047, 0108]).
Kersey teaches presenting information to a user indicative of remaining consumable usage (Kersey ¶¶[0051–[0052]).
Thus, Fard teaches displaying calculated numerical information, and Kersey teaches displaying remaining consumable-related usage, which together teach displaying the calculated number of consumable articles.
Accordingly, claim 9 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Fard in view of Kersey.
Regarding claim 10, Fard teaches an aerosol generating device including a control unit and memory configured to store and process usage-related data of a consumable article (¶¶ [0078]–[0079]). Fard further discloses that the control unit may calculate information related to usage of the consumable, including remaining consumable material and operational status (¶¶ [00100]–[0102]).
Fard further discloses an optional light (LED 126) disposed on the main body of the device, which is configured to illuminate to provide information to a user regarding operation of the smoking substitute device (¶ [0070]). The illumination of the LED is controlled based on device status determined by the control unit (¶¶ [0070], [0078]–[0080]).
Accordingly, Fard teaches determining an illumination pattern for an indicator based on calculated usage information and a predetermined condition, as recited in claim 10.
Claim(s) 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fard et al. (US 2021/0037893), and Kersey et al. (US 2020/0060347) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Murison et al. (US 2017/0045994).
Regarding claim 11, Fard in view of Kersey hereinafter modified Fard does not explicitly teaches determining a number of indicators to be illuminated from a predetermined number of indicators.
Murison remedies this deficiency. Murison explicitly discloses an electronic vaporiser including a series of LEDs arranged along a face of the device (¶ [0052]). Murison further discloses that multiple LEDs may be illuminated simultaneously to visually represent consumption information, such as remaining e-liquid or number of puffs taken (¶ [0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Fard’s device to include a predetermined number of indicators as taught by Murison, and to illuminate a selected number of those indicators based on calculated consumable usage, in order to provide clearer and more intuitive feedback to the user regarding remaining consumable articles.
Thus, claim 11 is obvious over modified Fard in view of Murison.
Regarding claim 12, Fard teaches illumination of an indicator based on device status but modified Fard does not explicitly disclose determining a color of illumination based on calculated consumable usage and a predetermined threshold.
Murison remedies this deficiency by explicitly disclosing that the LEDs may illuminate in different colours and that the colour and brightness of the LEDs are adjusted according to usage information, including consumption of e-liquid and remaining capacity (¶¶ [0052]–[0053]). Murison further teaches altering the colour of illumination to communicate different usage states to the user (¶ [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Murison’s color-based LED indication into Fard’s device to enhance user understanding of consumable usage relative to a threshold, as both references are directed to aerosol generating devices and address user feedback regarding consumable consumption.
Therefore, claim 12 is obvious over modified Fard in view of Murison.
Regarding claim 13, Fard discloses only a single optional LED indicator (¶ [0070]) and does not disclose a predetermined number of indicators arranged on the device being four.
Murison explicitly discloses a vaporiser including six LEDs arranged along a face of the device (¶ [0052]). This disclosure teaches that multiple indicators may be arranged in a predetermined number on the device to convey usage information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a subset of Murison’s disclosed LEDs, such as four indicators, as a matter of routine design choice, to achieve predictable results in visually representing consumable usage in Fard’s device. The selection of a particular number of indicators involves only routine optimization and does not result in a new or unexpected function.
Accordingly, claim 13 is obvious over modified Fard in view of Murison.
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