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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) were submitted on 11/05/2023, 03/13/2024, 06/18/2025 and 12/04/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 15 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15 line 8, “abnormality notification” should be -- abnormality notification;--.
Claim 20 line 4, “a negative pole” should be –a negative electrode--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Robinson (US 20150128967 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Robinson teaches an apparatus (abstract, vaporizer) for an aerosol generation device (abstract, vaporizing a botanical material), comprising:
a controller ([0044], Control electronics 720) configured to control supply of power ([0044], for controlling and powering vaporizer 100) to a heater ([0044], heating element 715) configured to heat an aerosol source ([0011], an electric heater configured to heat the botanical material) using the power supplied from a power supply and a charge of the power supply ([0045], battery 731 is a 7.4 V, 800 mAh with a discharge rate of 7 C … can provide time averaged voltages to heating element 715); and
circuitry configured to
measure a state of the power supply ([0063], a red light to indicate that battery power is low) (it is necessarily true that battery power is measured);
detect that the state of the power supply is an abnormal state ([0063], battery power is low); and
output an abnormality notification in response to the detection ([0063], a red light).
Regarding claim 2, Robinson teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the circuitry includes an interface ([0059], Processor 725) configured to provide state information about the state of the power supply to the controller ([0059], optionally monitor the voltage of the battery) in response to a request from the controller ([0058], control electronics 720 may also prevents the vaporizer body and internal components from overheating and causing damage to the battery).
Regarding claim 3, Robinson teaches the apparatus of according to claim 2, wherein
the controller is configured to execute a protection operation of protecting the power supply ([0058], control electronics 720 may also prevents the vaporizer body and internal components from overheating and causing damage to the battery) in accordance with the abnormality notification and the state information ([0035], power switch 201 may include several settings, such as … a low power setting).
Regarding claim 4, Robinson teaches the apparatus of according to claim 3, wherein the protection operation includes inhibiting charge of the power supply and inhibiting discharge from the power supply to the heater ([0065], With power switch 201 in the "off" setting, all electronics in vaporizer 100 are powered off).
Regarding claim 5, Robinson teaches the apparatus of according to claim 3, further comprising;
a user interface ([0063], Indicator lights 307) configured to output a notification that the power supply is abnormal ([0063], a red light to indicate that battery power is low).
Regarding claim 7, Robinson teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the circuitry is configured to output the abnormality notification in accordance with a discharge current from the power supply exceeding a second reference value ([0063], a red light to indicate that battery power is low).
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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson (US 20150128967 A1), and further in view of Rogers (US 5444378 A).
Regarding claim 20, Robinson substantially teaches the claim limitations as stated above in claims 1-3.
Robinson does not teach, circuitry configured to measure a state of the power supply using a resistor disposed in the second conductive path.
Rogers teaches in a similar field of endeavor of battery state of change monitor, circuitry (i.e. BSOC monitor 16, fig.1) configured to measure a state of the power supply (column 5 lines 36-37, a Battery State of Charge (BSOC)) using a resistor disposed in the second conductive path (e.g. shunt resistor 30, fig.1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optionally included the circuitry configured to measure a state of the power supply using a resistor disposed in the second conductive path in Robinson, as taught by Rogers, as it provides the advantage of measuring fault currents in a conventional manner, providing optimal design.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 8-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, Robinson (US 20150128967 A1) teaches the apparatus of claim 5.
Robinson does not teach, wherein the controller is configured to receive a reset command to reset the controller, and the protection operation is canceled by resetting the controller in response to receiving the reset command.
Prior art Ikeuchi (US 9935451 B2), Akao (US 20200212516 A1), Kim (US 20120021255 A1) and Gratton (EP 3618169 A1) have been considered to be the closest prior art.
However, none of the prior art, taken singly or in combination, teach “wherein the controller is configured to receive a reset command to reset the controller, and the protection operation is canceled by resetting the controller in response to receiving the reset command.”
Regarding claim 8, Robinson (US 20150128967 A1) teaches the apparatus of claim 2.
Robinson does not teach, wherein the controller is configured to acquire the state information from the circuitry via the interface in response to the output of the abnormality notification from the output unit, and the state includes at least one of information used to judge whether the power supply has permanently failed and information representing that the power supply has permanently failed.
Prior art Ikeuchi (US 9935451 B2), Akao (US 20200212516 A1), Kim (US 20120021255 A1) and Gratton (EP 3618169 A1) have been considered to be the closest prior art.
However, none of the prior art, taken singly or in combination, teach “wherein the controller is configured to acquire the state information from the circuitry via the interface in response to the output of the abnormality notification from the output unit, and the state includes at least one of information used to judge whether the power supply has permanently failed and information representing that the power supply has permanently failed.”
Claim 9 is indicated as allowable, as it depends on allowable claim 8.
Regarding claim 10, Robinson (US 20150128967 A1) teaches the apparatus of claim 2, further comprising:
a protection circuit ([0035], power switch 201 … a power off setting).
Robinson does not teach, configured to protect the power supply irrespective of control by the controller in response to the abnormality notification.
Prior art Ikeuchi (US 9935451 B2), Akao (US 20200212516 A1), Kim (US 20120021255 A1) and Gratton (EP 3618169 A1) have been considered to be the closest prior art.
However, none of the prior art, taken singly or in combination, teach “configured to protect the power supply irrespective of control by the controller in response to the abnormality notification.”
Claims 11-12 are indicated as allowable, as they depend on allowable claim 10.
Regarding claim 13, Robinson (US 20150128967 A1) teaches the apparatus of claim 2.
Robinson does not teach, wherein the controller is configured to
acquire first information concerning the state of the power supply from the interface by periodical polling;
acquire second information concerning the state of the power supply from the interface in response to the abnormality notification; and
execute an operation of protecting the power supply if the first information indicates that the power supply is in a first state; and
the circuitry is configured to output the abnormality notification if the power supply is set in a second state worse than the first state.
Prior art Ikeuchi (US 9935451 B2), Akao (US 20200212516 A1), Kim (US 20120021255 A1) and Gratton (EP 3618169 A1) have been considered to be the closest prior art.
However, none of the prior art, taken singly or in combination, teach “wherein the controller is configured to
acquire first information concerning the state of the power supply from the interface by periodical polling;
acquire second information concerning the state of the power supply from the interface in response to the abnormality notification; and
execute an operation of protecting the power supply if the first information indicates that the power supply is in a first state; and
the circuitry is configured to output the abnormality notification if the power supply is set in a second state worse than the first state.”
Claim 14 is indicated as allowable, as it depends on allowable claim 13.
Regarding claim 15, Robinson (US 20150128967 A1) teaches the apparatus of claim 2.
Robinson does not teach, wherein the controller is configured to
acquire first information concerning the state of the power supply via the interface by periodical polling;
acquire second information concerning the state of the power supply via the interface in response to the abnormality notification;
execute an operation of protecting the power supply if the first information indicates that at the time of the charge of the power supply, the state of the power supply satisfies one of conditions included in a first condition group; and
execute the operation of protecting the power supply if the first information indicates that at the time of discharge of the power supply, the state of the power supply satisfies one of conditions included in a second condition group, and
the number of conditions included in the first condition group is larger than the number of conditions included in the second condition group.
Prior art Ikeuchi (US 9935451 B2), Akao (US 20200212516 A1), Kim (US 20120021255 A1) and Gratton (EP 3618169 A1) have been considered to be the closest prior art.
However, none of the prior art, taken singly or in combination, teach “wherein the controller is configured to
acquire first information concerning the state of the power supply via the interface by periodical polling;
acquire second information concerning the state of the power supply via the interface in response to the abnormality notification;
execute an operation of protecting the power supply if the first information indicates that at the time of the charge of the power supply, the state of the power supply satisfies one of conditions included in a first condition group; and
execute the operation of protecting the power supply if the first information indicates that at the time of discharge of the power supply, the state of the power supply satisfies one of conditions included in a second condition group, and
the number of conditions included in the first condition group is larger than the number of conditions included in the second condition group.”
Regarding claim 16, Robinson (US 20150128967 A1) teaches the apparatus of claim 2.
Robinson does not teach, wherein the circuitry is configured to
acquire first information concerning the state of the power supply via the interface by periodical polling;
acquire second information concerning the state of the power supply via the interface in response to the abnormality notification;
execute an operation of protecting the power supply if the second information indicates that at the time of the charge of the power supply, the state of the power supply satisfies one of conditions included in a first condition group; and
execute the operation of protecting the power supply if the second information indicates that at the time of discharge of the power supply, the state of the power supply satisfies one of conditions included in a second condition group, and
the number of conditions included in the first condition group is smaller than the number of conditions included in the second condition group.
Prior art Ikeuchi (US 9935451 B2), Akao (US 20200212516 A1), Kim (US 20120021255 A1) and Gratton (EP 3618169 A1) have been considered to be the closest prior art.
However, none of the prior art, taken singly or in combination, teach “wherein the circuitry is configured to
acquire first information concerning the state of the power supply via the interface by periodical polling;
acquire second information concerning the state of the power supply via the interface in response to the abnormality notification;
execute an operation of protecting the power supply if the second information indicates that at the time of the charge of the power supply, the state of the power supply satisfies one of conditions included in a first condition group; and
execute the operation of protecting the power supply if the second information indicates that at the time of discharge of the power supply, the state of the power supply satisfies one of conditions included in a second condition group, and
the number of conditions included in the first condition group is smaller than the number of conditions included in the second condition group.”
Regarding claim 17, Robinson (US 20150128967 A1) teaches the apparatus of claim 2.
Robinson does not teach, wherein the abnormality notification includes a notification by a first abnormality signal and a notification by a second abnormality signal,
the first abnormality signal is provided to the controller, and the second abnormality signal is provided to the controller, and
the first abnormality signal is output from the circuitry if the state of the power supply is a first abnormal state, and the second abnormality signal is output from the circuitry if the state of the power supply is a second abnormal state different from the first abnormal state.
Prior art Ikeuchi (US 9935451 B2), Akao (US 20200212516 A1), Kim (US 20120021255 A1) and Gratton (EP 3618169 A1) have been considered to be the closest prior art.
However, none of the prior art, taken singly or in combination, teach “wherein the abnormality notification includes a notification by a first abnormality signal and a notification by a second abnormality signal,
the first abnormality signal is provided to the controller, and the second abnormality signal is provided to the controller, and
the first abnormality signal is output from the circuitry if the state of the power supply is a first abnormal state, and the second abnormality signal is output from the circuitry if the state of the power supply is a second abnormal state different from the first abnormal state.”
Claim 18 is indicated as allowable, as it depends on allowable claim 17.
Regarding claim 19, Robinson (US 20150128967 A1) teaches an apparatus (abstract, vaporizer) for an aerosol generation device (abstract, vaporizing a botanical material), the apparatus comprising:
processing circuitry ([0044], Control electronics 720) configured to control supplying power ([0044], for controlling and powering vaporizer 100) to a heater ([0044], heating element 715) configured to heat an aerosol source ([0011], an electric heater configured to heat the botanical material) using power supplied from a power supply ([0045], battery 731 is a 7.4 V, 800 mAh with a discharge rate of 7 C … can provide time averaged voltages to heating element 715).
Robinson does not teach, a resistor arranged in a path through which current output from the power supply flows;
a thermistor configured to measure a temperature of the power supply;
a plurality of thermistor connectors to which the thermistor is connected; and
circuitry configured to detect a state of the power supply using the resistor and measure the temperature of the power supply using the thermistor; and
a substrate on which the resistor, the plurality of thermistor connectors, and the circuitry are arranged, wherein a shortest distance between the plurality of thermistor connectors and the circuitry is smaller than a shortest distance between the resistor and the circuitry.
Rogers (US 5444378 A) teaches in a similar field of endeavor of battery state of charge monitor, a resistor (i.e. shunt resister 30, fig.1) arranged in a path through which current output from the power supply flows (e.g. 30 is in series with battery 20, fig.1);
a thermistor (column 5 lines 50-51, A temperature monitoring device 28, such as a thermistor) configured to measure a temperature of the power supply (column 5 lines 53-54, changes in temperature);
a plurality of thermistor connectors to which the thermistor is connected (e.g. connectors for thermistor 28 and monitor 16, fig.1); and
circuitry (i.e. BSOC monitor 16, fig.1) configured to detect a state of the power supply using the resistor (column 5 lines 36-37, a Battery State of Charge (BSOC)) and measure the temperature of the power supply using the thermistor (column 5 lines 54-55, temperature monitor device 28 is located in the BSOC monitor).
Robinson and Rogers do not teach, a substrate on which the resistor, the plurality of thermistor connectors, and the circuitry are arranged, wherein a shortest distance between the plurality of thermistor connectors and the circuitry is smaller than a shortest distance between the resistor and the circuitry.
Prior art Xiang (WO 2016115689 A1) and Chau (US 20200297028 A1) have been found to be the closest prior art.
However, none of the prior art, taken singly or in combination, teach “a substrate on which the resistor, the plurality of thermistor connectors, and the circuitry are arranged, wherein a shortest distance between the plurality of thermistor connectors and the circuitry is smaller than a shortest distance between the resistor and the circuitry.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SREEYA SREEVATSA whose telephone number is (571)272-8304. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm ET.
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, Thienvu V Tran can be reached at (571) 270-1276. 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.
/SREEYA SREEVATSA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838 02/13/2026