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 Amendment
The amendment and/or arguments submitted on 09/16/2026 is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claims 1-4, 6-21 are pending:
Claims 21 are new
Claims 5 are canceled
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the claim interpretation invoked via 35 USC 112f.
Applicant’s arguments and/or amendments, with respect to claim objection have been fully considered.
Applicant asserts, page 11, that Claim 19 “recites the connector connected to the heater without positively reciting the heater as a component of the apparatus, in the same manner as claim 1” and therefore claims 19/20 have different scopes with claim 20 being narrower.
The office respectfully and strongly disagrees. Both claims 1/19 recite “a connector connected to a heater configured to heat an aerosol source by consuming power supplied from [the power supply / the battery]”. Each of those recitations positively require a connector connected to a heater, the aerosol source is recited within the functional language and therefore the aerosol source is not positively required structure by the cited limitation, however both the connector and the heater are positively required structure. There is no possible valid interpretation of the cited limitation(s) where the heater is not a positively required structure.
Applicant’s arguments and/or amendments, with respect to 35 USC 102 art rejections by Anderson (US 10,888,125) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 102 art rejections of record has been withdrawn.
In particular the amendment of the indicated allowable subject matter of old claim 5 into independent claims 1/15/19.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 19. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 19 recites “a connector connected to a heater configured to heat an aerosol source by consuming power supplied from the battery”. This recitation positively require a connector connected to a heater, the aerosol source is recited within the functional language and therefore the aerosol source is not positively required structure by the cited limitation, however both the connector and the heater are positively required structure.
There is no possible valid interpretation of the cited limitation of Claim 19 where the heater is not a positively required structure. Claim 20 is a duplicate claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21
Limitation “the first protection control is completed, without an operation by the user, when the output value is a value indicating that the temperature of the case is equal to or lower than a third threshold which is lower than the first threshold; and the second protection control is completed in response to a reset of the circuitry performed by an operation of the user.” (office added emphasis) fails to comply with the written description requirement, as the cited limitation was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the cited limitation.
The closest support for the cited limitation is Spec Para184/185.
Para185 states that where the second protection control is “capable of being completed with more operations performed by a user that the first protection control” (Para185), which fails to disclose the second control is “completed in response to … by an operation of the user” nor discloses the first protection control being completed “without an operation by the user” as claimed. The office notes that the implied disclosure of ‘less user operations’ does not actually disclose “without an operation by the user”.
Para184 states that “an operation of the user is not required to complete the execution of the protection control” (office added emphasis) is not sufficient disclosure to support the negative limitation of “without an operation by the user” as an operation merely ‘not requiring a user’ is a different scope that still allows the possibility of operation due to a user action, as opposed to the claimed “without an operation by the user” which fully discounts a user operation.
EXAMINER'S NOTE
In response to applicant’s comment on page 11 of the remarks dated 09/16/2026, the office attempted multiple times with multiple voicemails to contact Applicant in order to resolve the instant issues of the instant office action. None of the phone calls or voicemails were returned to the office.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: .
Claim 1/15/19
The prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the limitations of the claim, and in particular “wherein: the protection control includes first protection control configured to be completed and second protection control configured to be completed with more operations performed by a user for completion than the first protection control; the first protection control is executed when the output value is a value indicating that the temperature of the case is equal to or higher than a first threshold; and the second protection control is executed when the output value is a value indicating that the temperature of the case is equal to or higher than a second threshold which is higher than the first threshold” in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Claim 2-4, 6-14, 16-18, 20-21 would be allowable over art based on dependency.
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 JOHN HUNTER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-5093. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-18.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/JOHN S HUNTER, JR/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights