DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Gault operates by directing power to the atomizer in response to a user action (actuating the start switch) and later rescinds that action if the fluid level is low. In contrast, the present apparatus requires that the first and second control components communicate to direct power to the aerosolization component only after (i) the cartridge is validated as authentic and (ii) the amount of aerosol precursor composition meets a threshold value. Power is then provided to generate aerosol following another user action (sensor configured to detect user demand on the smoking article). Thus, validation and threshold confirmation occur prior to the user action that triggers aerosolization” (emphasis added). The Examiner disagrees. The term “only” is not present in the claims. The instant claims do not exclude aerosolization from occurring prior to threshold confirmation. The Examiner maintains that Conley in view of Popescu and Gault reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims.
Applicant argues Gault does not teach or suggest the first control component being configured to validate the cartridge body is authentic. Gault is not relied upon for this limitation. Popescu is relied upon for this limitation. Applicant argues there is no reason for the Popescu device to assess an amount of a composition in the reservoir within the cartridge. It is the device of Conley, not the device of Popescu, that is being modified in the rejection to assess an amount of a composition in the reservoir within the cartridge, as suggested by Gault. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-3, 6, 14-15, 17, and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Conley (US 2013/0220315) in view of Popescu (US 2010/0000980) and Gault (US 5,452,711).
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 20, Conley [Fig. 9] teaches an electronic vaporizer 900 (smoking article) comprising: a housing 904 (control body) [0052] including a control body engagement portion [0018], a first control component 912 [0053], control circuitry [0037, 0053], and at least one LED (indicator) [0020]; and a second housing 918 (cartridge body) [0053] including a cartridge body engagement portion [0018], a reservoir 916 [0023] configured to retain a liquid solution (aerosol precursor composition), a heating element 914 (aerosolization component) powerable to aerosolize the aerosol precursor composition to form an aerosol [0037, 0053], and a second control component 928 [0063]; wherein the control body engagement portion is configured to removably engage the cartridge body engagement portion so that, responsive to engagement of the control body with the cartridge body, the first control component and the second control component communicate [0070]. Conley teaches the control body includes a sensor configured to detect user demand on the smoking article and the control circuitry configured to direct power from the electrical power source to the aerosolization component to aerosolize the aerosol precursor composition in response to the user demand [0053, 0055].
Conley teaches a handshaking protocol takes place between the two controllers [0070] but does not explicitly teach that this involves validating that the cartridge body is authentic. Popescu teaches a heating system wherein a handshaking protocol that takes place between a cartridge and the component the cartridge is coupled to (in this case, a heating unit) involves ID verification to ensure the cartridge will work with the heating unit [0090], i.e. validating that the cartridge body is authentic. The system is designed to power down unless a compatible cartridge is detected [0016]. In other words, the system is enabled to function is response to the cartridge being validated as authentic. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply this configuration to apply this concept to the smoking article of Conley such the first control component and the second control component communicate to validate that the cartridge body is authentic and in response to the cartridge being validated as authentic, power is enabled to be directed from an electrical power source to the aerosolization component. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to ensure the cartridge will work with the component the cartridge is coupled to (in this case, a control body) and to enhance safety as suggested by Popescu [0017, 0090]. Furthermore, as Popescu teaches a user interface (indicator) to display system alerts [0089], it would have been obvious to configure the control components of Conley to cause the indicator of Conley to produce indicia that is based on whether the cartridge body is validated as authentic for the purpose of alerting the user.
Modified Conley does not teach the first and second control components communicate to assess an amount of the aerosol precursor composition in the reservoir. Gault teaches an atomizer wherein there is a communication involving a controller to assess an amount of fluid and the device is caused to activate in response to the amount of fluid being at least a threshold value [col. 4, l. 17-64]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply this concept to the article of Conley in view of Popescu such that responsive to engagement of the control body with the cartridge body the first and second control components communicate to assess an amount of the aerosol precursor composition in the reservoir, and such that in response to the amount of the aerosol precursor composition being at least a threshold value, power is enabled to be directed from an electrical power source to the aerosolization component, to prevent the article from being used after determining an insufficient amount of aerosol precursor composition.
Regarding claims 2 and 15, modified Conley teaches the second control component is further configured to provide authentication indicia (via RFID) to the first control component, and the first control component is configured to validate the cartridge body is authentic based on the authentication indicia [Popescu 0053, 0090-0091].
Regarding claims 3, 6, and 17, Conley teaches the at least one indicator comprises a LED [0020]. The limitation of a plurality of LEDs is considered a duplication of parts that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve predictable results. The Courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). For the same reasons as applied to claim 1 above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to configure the first control component to cause one or more of the plurality of LEDs to be lit in response to the cartridge body being validated as authentic for the purpose of alerting the user.
Claims 4, 5, 7, 16, and 18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Conley, Popescu, and Gault as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Goodman (US 2013/0199528).
Conley does not teach the first control component is further configured to cause the at least one indicator to produce indicia indicating the level of the aerosol precursor composition remaining. Goodman teaches a medicant delivery system wherein an indicator produced indicia indicated the level of substance or medicant remaining [0064]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the control component of Conley to cause the at least one indicator to produce indicia indicating the level of the aerosol precursor composition remaining to inform the user. Conley teaches the at least one indicator comprises a LED [0020]. The limitation of a plurality of LEDs is considered a duplication of parts that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve predictable results. In view of Goodman, modified Conley thus teaches the first control component is configured to cause one or more of the plurality of LEDs to be lit based on the amount of the aerosol precursor composition in the reservoir. Furthermore, Gault teaches the controller is configured to cause the indicator to produce indicia indicating the liquid amount is below a threshold value [col. 4, l. 17-34]. It would have which been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the first control component of modified Conley to cause the at least one indicator to produce indicia indicating that the amount of the aerosol precursor composition is below a threshold value in order to alert the user.
Claim 8 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Conley, Popescu, and Gault as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fernando (US 2010/0313901).
Modified Conley does not teach a sound indicator. However, an audible (sound) indicator is known in the smoking art as taught by Fernando [0096] and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include with the smoking article of modified Conley to achieve the same, predictable result of providing notifications to the user.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Conley, Popescu, and Gault as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takeuchi (US 6,155,268).
Conley teaches the cartridge body further comprises a memory 926 [0064; Fig. 9]. A sensor operably engaged with the reservoir and configured to determine the amount of aerosol precursor composition in the reservoir is not disclosed. Takeuchi teaches a flavor generating device comprising sensor operably engaged with the reservoir and configured to determine the amount of liquid flavor source in the reservoir [col. 6 l, l. 63 to col. 7, l. 9]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the cartridge body of modified Conley a sensor operably engaged with the reservoir and configured to determine the amount of aerosol precursor composition in the reservoir for monitoring the remaining amount. As Takeuchi teaches the sensor is connected to the control circuit so as to be operated under control of the control circuit, this suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art that in modified Conley he second control component may be configured to monitor the sensor to determine the amount of aerosol precursor composition in the reservoir based on readings from the sensor. Furthermore, as Conley teaches a memory associated with the aerosol precursor composition [0064], one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to configure the second control component to store the amount of aerosol precursor composition in the reservoir in the memory for keeping track of the remaining amount.
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 ERIC YAARY whose telephone number is (571)272-3273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Philip Louie can be reached at (571)270-1241. 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.
/ERIC YAARY/Examiner, Art Unit 1755