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Claims 33-36 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 04/02/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of 19-32 and 37-38 in the reply filed on 04/02/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 19- 21, 23, 26, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tremblay (US 2018/0289074 A1) in view of Colotte (US 2018/0301915 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Tremblay teaches an aerosol generating apparatus (electronic cigarette 100 / electronic vaping device 100) comprising:
an input interface (user interface 150 comprising outlet 152 and fluid-drawing detector 154) configured to receive an input operation from a user (detectable pattern of drawing/puffing on outlet 152 by the user) (¶ [0065], [0190]);
a heater (vapor producer 120, including vaporizer 126) configured to heat an aerosol source (container 124 storing vaporizable liquid/substance) (¶ [0060]); and
a controller comprising circuitry communicatively coupled to the input interface and the heater (controller 160 connected to user interface 150 and vapor producer 120) (¶ [0067]).
Tremblay teaches the controller configured to unlock a locked state of the apparatus in response to the input operation satisfying a user-defined unlock condition (controller 160 enabling the disabled-by-default vapor-providing capability of electronic cigarette 100 when the detectable pattern of drawing/puffing on outlet 152 satisfies a fluid-drawing passcode chosen/specified by the legitimate user) (¶ [0188]; ¶ [0197]).
Tremblay does not expressly teach prevent unlocking of the locked state in response to determining that the apparatus is in a predetermined state in which heating by the heater is unavailable.
Colotte supplements Tremblay by teaching a predetermined state in which heating by the heater is unavailable (battery 3 being in a charging state, where control unit 2 prevents operation/activation of electric heater 4 while battery 3 is on charge) (¶ [0042]). Colotte further teaches that, when a USB cable is connected or battery 3 is otherwise on charge, control unit 2 prevents electric heater 4 from heating even if a puff is detected, for as long as battery 3 is on charge (¶ [0046]). Colotte also teaches that, during charging, a further puff does not activate electric heater 4 because operation of electric heater 4 is prevented as long as battery 3 is on charge (¶ [0052]).
Colotte is in the same field of endeavor as Tremblay because both references are directed to aerosol/electronic vaping devices having a controller, battery, and heater for generating aerosol from an aerosol-forming substance.
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 Tremblay’s controller 160 to prevent unlocking/enabling of electronic cigarette 100 when the apparatus is in Colotte’s charging state, because Colotte teaches that heater operation should be prevented while the battery is being charged to prevent simultaneous charging and puffing/heating and reduce risk of battery damage (¶ [0043]).
The modification would predictably prevent Tremblay’s vapor-providing capability from being enabled in a state where heater operation is unavailable.
Regarding claim 20, Tremblay in view of Colotte teaches the aerosol generating apparatus of claim 19.
Tremblay teaches receiving an input operation through fluid-drawing detector 154 as part of the user-defined unlock condition (¶ [0190]). Tremblay does not expressly teach the controller is configured to not receive the input operation in a case where the apparatus is in the predetermined state at a start of the input operation.
Colotte supplements Tremblay by teaching that, during the charging state, heater operation is unavailable because electric heater 4 is prevented from heating even if a puff is detected, for as long as battery 3 is on charge (¶ [0046]). Thus, Colotte teaches a charging state in which a puff/input that would ordinarily activate heater operation is not acted upon because heater operation is unavailable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to configure Tremblay’s controller 160 to not receive/process the detectable drawing/puffing input when electronic cigarette 100 is already in the charging state at the start of the attempted input operation, because Colotte teaches preventing heater activation in response to a puff while the battery is on charge (¶ [0046]).
Regarding claim 21, Tremblay in view of Colotte teaches the aerosol generating apparatus of claim 19.
Tremblay teaches that the detectable pattern of drawing/puffing on outlet 152 is detected before the electronic cigarette is unlocked/enabled (¶ [0190]).
Tremblay does not expressly teach the controller is configured to not receive a portion of the input operation that occurs after the apparatus transitions into the predetermined state, in a case where the apparatus transitions into the predetermined state after a start of the input operation and before the input operation satisfies the user-defined unlock condition.
Colotte supplements Tremblay by teaching that, when battery 3 is on charge, control unit 2 prevents electric heater 4 from heating even if a puff is detected, for as long as battery 3 is on charge (¶ [0046]). Colotte further teaches that during charging, a further puff does not activate electric heater 4 because operation of electric heater 4 is prevented as long as battery 3 is on charge (¶ [0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to configure Tremblay’s controller 160 to not receive/process the portion of the detectable drawing/puffing pattern occurring after electronic cigarette 100 transitions into the charging state and before the passcode is completed, because Colotte teaches preventing heater activation in response to puff input while the device is in the charging state.
Regarding claim 23, Tremblay in view of Colotte teaches the aerosol generating apparatus of claim 19.
Tremblay teaches a chargeable power supply (battery 112) (¶ [0175]). Tremblay does not expressly teach the claimed predetermined state as modified in claim 19, namely, wherein the predetermined state includes a charging state in which the chargeable power supply is being charged, in connection with preventing unlocking of the locked state.
Colotte supplements Tremblay by teaching the predetermined state includes a charging state in which the chargeable power supply is being charged (battery 3 being on charge while control unit 2 prevents operation of electric heater 4) (¶ [0042]). Colotte further teaches that, while battery 3 is on charge, electric heater 4 is prevented from heating even if a puff is detected (¶ [0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to use Colotte’s charging state as the predetermined state in Tremblay’s lock/unlock control so that Tremblay’s device is not unlocked/enabled while the battery is being charged and heater operation is unavailable.
Regarding claim 26, Tremblay in view of Colotte teaches the aerosol generating apparatus of claim 19.
Tremblay teaches the controller is further configured to unlock the locked state in response to receiving an unlock signal from an external communication device with which initialization of a short range wireless communication has been performed (controller 160 enabling the vapor-providing capability of electronic cigarette 100 in response to an external VCA command from communication device 400 over communication link 440, where specific communication device 400 is paired with electronic cigarette 100 such that only signals from the specific communication device 400 are recognized as valid) (¶ [0147]; ¶ [0150]).
Colotte is relied upon for the claim 19 deficiency, namely, the predetermined heater-unavailable charging state in which heater operation is prevented (¶ [0042]; ¶ [0046]). Tremblay supplies the additional external-communication unlock feature of claim 26.
Regarding claim 27, Tremblay in view of Colotte teaches the aerosol generating apparatus of claim 19.
Tremblay teaches a controller and heater for generating vapor, but Tremblay does not expressly teach the predetermined state includes a heating control state in which the controller controls the heater to heat the aerosol source in the context of the claimed predetermined-state framework.
Colotte supplements Tremblay by teaching the predetermined state includes a heating control state in which the controller controls the heater to heat the aerosol source (control unit 2 controlling supply of electric power from battery 3 to electric heater 4 to activate/heat electric heater 4) (¶ [0068]).
Colotte further teaches that control unit 2 detects a puff and activates electric heater 4 only when battery 3 is not on charge (¶ [0069]). Colotte also teaches state-based prevention where, if the heater is activated before the charging cable is connected, charging of battery 3 is prevented during the heater-activation/puff state (¶ [0072]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Tremblay’s predetermined-state control to include Colotte’s heating control state, wherein the controller is controlling the heater to heat the aerosol source, so that the device avoids processing an unlock/enabling operation while the heater is already being controlled to generate aerosol.
Claim 22, 30, 32, 37, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tremblay (US 2018/0289074 A1) in view of Colotte (US 2018/0301915 A1) and further in view of Lee (US 2021/0161210 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Tremblay in view of Colotte teaches the aerosol generating apparatus of claim 21.
Tremblay and Colotte do not expressly teach the controller is further configured to discard a portion of the input operation received before the apparatus transitioned into the predetermined state.
Lee teaches resetting/discarding a previously entered portion of an unlock/password input during password input (controller 12 resetting an input number while password input is in progress) (¶ [0142]).
Lee is in the same field of endeavor as Tremblay and Colotte because Lee is directed to an aerosol generating device having a controller, heater, input interface, and lock/unlock control for controlling user access to aerosol generation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to configure Tremblay’s controller 160, as modified by Colotte, to discard/reset the portion of the detectable pattern of drawing/puffing received before the device transitions into the charging state, as taught by Lee, so that an incomplete or stale unlock input is not retained after the device enters a state in which heater operation is unavailable.
Regarding claim 30, Tremblay in view of Colotte teaches the aerosol generating apparatus of claim 19.
Tremblay and Colotte do not expressly teach the user-defined unlock condition comprises a sequence of operations including a first pressing operation of the input interface for a duration less than or equal to a predetermined time, and a second pressing operation of the input interface for a duration longer than the predetermined time.
Lee is in the same field of endeavor as Tremblay and Colotte because Lee is directed to aerosol/electronic smoking devices having a controller, heater, input interface, and lock/unlock control for controlling user access to aerosol generation.
Lee teaches a first pressing operation of the input interface for a duration less than or equal to a predetermined time (short input on input interface 16 for time period T1) (¶ [0125]). Lee teaches a second pressing operation of the input interface for a duration longer than the predetermined time (long input on input interface 16 for a time period longer than time period T1) (¶ [0140]). Lee further teaches that input interface 16 generates a short input signal or long input signal according to the duration of the user input (¶ [0092]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Tremblay’s user-defined fluid-drawing passcode, as modified by Colotte, to include Lee’s short-press and long-press input sequence, because Lee teaches a known aerosol-device password input arrangement in which input duration distinguishes different user inputs. The modification would predictably provide an alternative user-defined unlock sequence for Tremblay’s electronic cigarette using known short-press and long-press input operations to control access to vapor generation.
Regarding claim 32, Tremblay in view of Colotte teaches the aerosol generating apparatus of claim 19.
Tremblay and Colotte do not expressly teach the controller is further configured to, in response to determining that the input operation corresponds to a preset operation pattern associated with a function other than unlocking, execute the function corresponding to the preset operation pattern in preference to unlocking the locked state.
Lee teaches the input operation corresponds to a preset operation pattern associated with a function other than unlocking (long input/long press for a time period longer than the time period for short inputs, applied to reset an input number) (¶ [0140]). Lee teaches execute the function corresponding to the preset operation pattern in preference to unlocking the locked state (controller 12 resetting the input number and controlling output interface 17 to re-output password-input information instead of terminating the locking mode) (¶ [0142]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Tremblay’s controller 160, as modified by Colotte, to recognize Lee’s preset non-unlocking operation pattern and execute the corresponding reset function in preference to unlocking, so that an erroneous or unintended unlock input may be cleared during the password/unlock process before the locked state is terminated.
Regarding claim 37, Tremblay in view of Colotte teaches the aerosol generating apparatus of claim 19.
Tremblay and Colotte do not expressly teach a light source, wherein the controller is further configured to, in response to unlocking the locked state, provide visual feedback to the user by causing the light source to emit light according to a predetermined light pattern.
Lee teaches a light source (light emitting diode 17b of output interface 17) configured to output visual information (¶ [0094]). Lee teaches the controller is further configured to, in response to unlocking the locked state, provide visual feedback to the user by causing the light source to emit light according to a predetermined light pattern (controller 12 causing LED 17b to blink for a predetermined time in response to user input for unlocking) (¶ [0112]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Tremblay’s electronic cigarette, as modified by Colotte, to include Lee’s LED visual feedback after unlocking/enabling, because Lee teaches a known aerosol-device feedback arrangement for informing the user that an unlock input has been received. The modification would predictably notify the user of the unlocking/enabling state of Tremblay’s electronic cigarette using a known light-output pattern.
Regarding claim 38, Tremblay in view of Colotte and Lee teaches the aerosol generating apparatus of claim 37.
Tremblay and Colotte do not expressly teach a vibration generation subcomponent, wherein the controller is further configured to, in response to unlocking the locked state, provide tactile feedback to the user by causing the vibration generation subcomponent to vibrate according to a predetermined vibration pattern.
Lee teaches a vibration generation subcomponent (motor 17a of output interface 17) configured to output tactile information (¶ [0094]). Lee teaches the controller is further configured to, in response to unlocking the locked state, provide tactile feedback to the user by causing the vibration generation subcomponent to vibrate according to a predetermined vibration pattern (controller 12 causing motor 17a to vibrate for a predetermined time in response to user input for unlocking) (¶ [0112]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Tremblay’s electronic cigarette, as modified by Colotte, to include Lee’s tactile feedback arrangement, because Lee teaches a known aerosol-device feedback mechanism for informing the user that an unlock input has been received. The modification would predictably notify the user of the unlocking/enabling state of Tremblay’s electronic cigarette using a known vibration-output pattern.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tremblay (US 2018/0289074 A1) in view of Colotte (US 2018/0301915 A1) and further in view of Lakraa (US 2023/0248068 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Tremblay in view of Colotte teaches the aerosol generating apparatus of claim 19, including a chargeable power supply (battery 112 / battery 3).
Tremblay and Colotte do not expressly teach the predetermined state includes a low battery state in which a residual amount of the chargeable power supply is less than a predetermined value.
Lakraa is in the same field of endeavor as Tremblay and Colotte because Lakraa is directed to an aerosol/e-cigarette device having a controller, power source, user interface, and heater/heating element for generating aerosol.
Lakraa teaches a chargeable power supply (power source/battery 203) (¶ [0030]) and a low battery state in which a residual amount of the chargeable power supply is less than a predetermined value (battery level of battery 203 falling below a predetermined threshold level, e.g., less than 25%) (¶ [0056]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Tremblay’s predetermined unavailable-heating state, as supported by Colotte, to include Lakraa’s low battery state so that the aerosol-generating device avoids enabling vapor production when the remaining battery level is insufficient for efficient operation.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tremblay (US 2018/0289074 A1) in view of Colotte (US 2018/0301915 A1) and further in view of Achtien (US 2020/0352249 A1).
Regarding claim 25, Tremblay in view of Colotte teaches the aerosol generating apparatus of claim 19.
Tremblay and Colotte do not expressly teach communication circuitry configured for short range wireless communication, wherein the predetermined state includes a pairing state in which the apparatus is performing an initialization of the short range wireless communication with an external communication device.
Achtien is in the same field of endeavor as Tremblay and Colotte because Achtien is directed to vaporizer/electronic cigarette devices having a controller, power source, communication circuitry, and heater/vaporizer structure for controlling vapor generation.
Achtien teaches communication circuitry configured for short range wireless communication (controller circuitry including circuitry for Bluetooth, NFC, WiFi, ultrasound, ZigBee, RFID, etc.) (¶ [0057]). Achtien further teaches the predetermined state includes a pairing state in which the apparatus is performing an initialization of the short range wireless communication with an external communication device (communication device paired with the vaporizer at 2410 by establishing a wireless communication channel between first communication hardware of the device and second communication hardware of the vaporizer) (¶ [0261]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Tremblay’s aerosol generating apparatus, as modified by Colotte, to include Achtien’s short-range wireless communication circuitry and pairing state so that the vaporizer can establish communication with an external communication device before receiving data or commands from the external communication device.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tremblay in view of Colotte and further in view of Smayda (US 2018/0295890 A1).
Regarding claim 28, Tremblay in view of Colotte teaches the aerosol generating apparatus of claim 19.
Tremblay and Colotte do not expressly teach a panel detachably coupled to a housing, wherein the predetermined state includes a state in which the panel is detached from the housing.
Smayda is in the same field of endeavor as Tremblay and Colotte because Smayda is directed to vapor/electronic smoking devices having a housing, power/control electronics, and a heater for generating vapor/aerosol.
Smayda teaches a panel detachably coupled to a housing (removable panel 4 detachably coupled to vaporizer main body assembly 100 / outer shell 6) (¶ [0037]). Smayda further teaches the predetermined state includes a state in which the panel is detached from the housing (removable panel 4 removed from main body assembly 100) (¶ [0045]). Smayda further teaches that removable panel 4 includes an input/heater-control structure (biometric sensor/on-off button 402 connected to electronics assembly 200 and induction heating coil 202 for turning induction heating coil 202 on/off) (¶ [0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Tremblay’s electronic cigarette 100, as modified by Colotte, to include Smayda’s removable panel 4 detachably coupled to vaporizer main body assembly 100/outer shell 6, because Smayda teaches a known vaporizer arrangement in which a removable panel carries user-accessible activation/security control for the heater. Tremblay is open to the modification because Tremblay already uses user input and controller-based authorization to enable vapor-providing capability and does not require the input/control structure to be permanently fixed to the housing. The modification would predictably provide an additional predetermined state in which the control/input panel is detached, such that normal heater activation/unlocking is unavailable until the panel is attached.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tremblay in view of Colotte and further in view of Kimmel (US 2016/0106936 A1).
Regarding claim 29, Tremblay in view of Colotte teaches the aerosol generating apparatus of claim 19.
Tremblay and Colotte do not expressly teach the input interface comprises a first input interface and a second input interface different from the first input interface, and wherein the user-defined unlock condition comprises a sequence of operations including an operation of the first input interface and an operation of the second input interface.
Kimmel teaches the input interface comprises a first input interface and a second input interface different from the first input interface (first touch sensor 18 and second touch sensor 18 separated from the first touch sensor 18) (¶ [0029]). Kimmel teaches the user-defined unlock condition comprises a sequence of operations including an operation of the first input interface and an operation of the second input interface (predetermined series of touches including first sensor 18 touched twice, followed by three touches of second sensor 18, followed by two more touches of first sensor 18, before the controller controls atomizer 14 to vaporize the liquid material) (¶ [0029]). Kimmel further teaches that the sequence of operations is user-defined (user interface allowing the user to change the sequence and number of sensors that need to be engaged to satisfy the authorization condition) (¶ [0031]).
Kimmel is in the same field of endeavor as Tremblay and Colotte because Kimmel is directed to vapor/electronic smoking devices having a controller, power source, heater/atomizer, and lockout or authorization control for controlling access to vapor generation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Tremblay’s user-defined fluid-drawing passcode, as modified by Colotte, to include Kimmel’s user-changeable sequence of operations using first and second different input interfaces, because Kimmel teaches a known vaporizer safety-lockout arrangement in which a multi-sensor sequence is used to authorize vapor generation. The modification would predictably provide an additional user-configurable authorization sequence for enabling Tremblay’s vapor-providing capability and reducing unauthorized use.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tremblay (US 2018/0289074 A1) in view of Colotte (US 2018/0301915 A1) and further in view of Ouyang (US 2020/0057844 A1).
Regarding claim 31, Tremblay in view of Colotte teaches the aerosol generating apparatus of claim 19.
Tremblay and Colotte do not expressly teach the input interface comprises a touch panel, and the user-defined unlock condition includes at least one of a tap operation on the touch panel or a flick operation along a surface of the touch panel.
Ouyang teaches the input interface comprises a touch panel (display interface / password input interface of the electronic cigarette, where the user may input the password by touch screen number) (¶ [0081]). Ouyang teaches the user-defined unlock condition includes at least one of a tap operation on the touch panel (user inputting a password by touch screen number on the display/password input interface) (¶ [0081]). Ouyang further teaches the user-defined unlock condition (preset password set by the user) and unlocking/activation when the entered password is consistent with the preset password (¶ [0084]).
Ouyang is in the same field of endeavor as Tremblay and Colotte because Ouyang is directed to electronic cigarette/aerosol-generating devices having controller-based unlock control for controlling user access to aerosol generation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Tremblay’s user-defined fluid-drawing passcode, as modified by Colotte, to include Ouyang’s touch-panel password input, because Ouyang teaches a known electronic-cigarette unlocking arrangement in which a user enters a password through a touch screen to activate the electronic cigarette. The modification would predictably provide an alternative user-defined unlock input for Tremblay’s electronic cigarette using a known touch-panel input interface.
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