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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2, 4, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 2 fails to further limit the claim upon which it depends. Claim 2 recites limitations that are already recited in claim 1 (see last 6 lines of claim 1).
Claim 4 fails to further limit the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 recites the second threshold is larger than the first threshold (see last line).
Claim 15 fails to further limit the claim upon which it depends. Claim 15 recites limitations that are already recited in claim 14 (see last 6 lines of claim 14).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-4, 8, 12-16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamb (US 2017/0251724) in view of Banner NPL (Theory and Terminology - Hysteresis and Threshold) and Matt's Tech Pages (A Simple Low Battery Detection Circuit with Hysteresis).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, Lamb discloses a controller for an inhalation apparatus that operates by electric power supplied from a chargeable power supply and includes a receptacle configured to hold an atomizer including a heater configured to heat an aerosol source (see aerosol delivery device 100 having control body 104 with control component 312, rechargeable battery, a cartridge 102 with heating element 224 for aerosol; [0033,0037-0043,0055]), the controller comprising:
a nonvolatile display configured to display an indicator concerning a remaining amount of the power supply (see electronic paper display 106 with battery charge icon 404, [0055,0064], Figs. 3, 4).
As to a "processor configured to change the indicator in a case where the remaining amount becomes smaller than a first threshold in discharging of the power supply, and to change the indicator in a case where the remaining amount becomes larger than a second threshold different from the first threshold in charging of the power supply," Lamb discloses the display is controllable to present information that indicates an amount of charge contained in or consumed from the power source and that the display is controlled by the control component ([0009,0013]; Lamb recites control component comprises a processor, [0050]). As to the thresholds, Lamb discloses the charge icon is divided into a number of segments that represent incremental percentages (e.g., 10-20%) of remaining charge in the power source ([0064]). While Lamb does not expressly disclose changing the indicator when the remaining amount is smaller than a first threshold when discharging and changing the indicator when the remaining charge is larger than a second threshold in charging of the power supply, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the processor to change the indicator at different thresholds when charging and discharging since:
(1) Lamb discloses the display provides segments representing incremental percentages of remaining charge--thus, suggesting the display changes when incremental percentages of remaining charge are met (i.e., different thresholds of remaining charge left) and
(2) Lamb discloses the power supply as rechargeable ([0055]) and one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to change the display during charging to indicate the charge level as certain incremental percentages are met.
As to the first and second thresholds being different, Lamb does not disclose the first and second thresholds as being different when going back and forth between a first and second indicator, Examiner notes that it is well known and conventional to intentionally add hysteresis to electronic circuits to prevent oscillations or chatter around a threshold point (see Banner NPL, wherein thresholds for on/off are 10-20% different to prevent oscillation near a threshold point). Matt NPL also discloses using a hysteresis function associated with the remaining charge of a battery wherein different voltage thresholds are used to turn a battery function on and off as voltage falls and rises (see pg 2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the incremental charge indicator of Lamb with different threshold values when switching between indicator states in view of Banner and Matt which disclose providing hysteresis between threshold points to avoid oscillations in the digital output around a threshold point (see Banner and Matt, pg 2). One would have been motivated to prevent the segments in the charge display of Lamb from rapidly turning on/off around a threshold point representing a remaining charge level.
Regarding claim 3, as to the switching between the second indicator and a third indicator based on third and fourth thresholds that are different, Lamb discloses multiple segments in the power supply icon to represent incremental amounts of remaining charge ([0064], Fig. 4). As the power supply is discharged, the power indicator would obviously change from 3 to 2 to 1 segments (represents first, second, and third indicators) and on recharge, the indicator would obviously change from 1 to 2 to 3 segments. Since the 1-2 segment transition represents less remaining charge than the 2-3 segment transition, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art for the third and fourth thresholds to be smaller than the first and second thresholds.
Regarding claim 8, Lamb discloses the segmented power icon as representing the amount of remaining charge ([0064], Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention for 0 segment remaining to represent insufficient power and 1 segment remaining to indicate sufficient power for device operation since the point of the power icon is to indicate to the user how much power is available for use.
Regarding claim 12, while Lamb does not expressly disclose the display showing an image representing a charging state, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the display to show a charging state since Examiner takes Official Notice that it is very well known and conventional in the electronics art to display a charging icon when a battery powered device is being charged. One would have been motivated to indicate to the user that the device is actively being charged.
Regarding claim 13, Lamb discloses a charging connector configured to be supplied with electric power for charging the power supply ([0039]). As to the processor changing a display of the nonvolatile display using electric power supplied via the charging connector, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the processor to change the display using power from the charging connector since Examiner takes Official Notice that it is very well known and conventional in the electronics art to change the display of a device to a charging icon when a battery powered device is being charged. One would have been motivated to indicate to the user that the device is actively being charged.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Lamb discloses an electronic control system for an aerosol generation device powered by a rechargeable battery, the electronic control system configured to be incorporated in a device having a receptacle configured to receive a heating cartridge containing a vapor-generating element for vaporizing an aerosol precursor source (see aerosol delivery device 100 having control body 104 with control component 312, rechargeable battery, a cartridge 102 with heating element 224 for aerosol; [0033,0037-0043,0055]), the electronic control system comprising:
a bistable visual display element configured to present a battery status indication reflecting a charge level of the rechargeable battery (see electronic paper display 106 with battery charge icon 404, [0055,0064], Figs. 3, 4).
As to "circuitry configured to modify the battery status indication when the charge level decreases below a first charge threshold during battery discharge operations, and to modify the battery status indication when the charge level increases above a second charge threshold different from the first charge threshold during battery charging operations," Lamb discloses the display is controllable to present information that indicates an amount of charge contained in or consumed from the power source and that the display is controlled by the control component ([0009,0013]; Lamb recites control component comprises circuitry, [0050]). As to the thresholds, Lamb discloses the charge icon is divided into a number of segments that represent incremental percentages (e.g., 10-20%) of remaining charge in the power source ([0064]). While Lamb does not expressly disclose changing the indicator when the remaining amount is smaller than a first threshold when discharging and changing the indicator when the remaining charge is larger than a second threshold in charging of the power supply, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the circuitry to change the indicator at different thresholds when charging and discharging since:
(1) Lamb discloses the display provides segments representing incremental percentages of remaining charge--thus, suggesting the display changes when incremental percentages of remaining charge are met (i.e., different thresholds of remaining charge left) and
(2) Lamb discloses the power supply as rechargeable ([0055]) and one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to change the display during charging to indicate the charge level as certain incremental percentages are met.
As to the first and second thresholds being different, Lamb does not disclose the first and second thresholds as being different when going back and forth between a first and second indicator, Examiner notes that it is well known and conventional to intentionally add hysteresis to electronic circuits to prevent oscillations or chatter around a threshold point (see Banner NPL, wherein thresholds for on/off are 10-20% different to prevent oscillation near a threshold point). Matt NPL also discloses using a hysteresis function associated with the remaining charge of a battery wherein different voltage thresholds are used to turn a battery function on and off as voltage falls and rises (see pg 2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the incremental charge indicator of Lamb with different threshold values when switching between indicator states in view of Banner and Matt which disclose providing hysteresis between threshold points to avoid oscillations in the digital output around a threshold point (see Banner and Matt, pg 2). One would have been motivated to prevent the segments in the charge display of Lamb from rapidly turning on/off around a threshold point representing a remaining charge level.
Regarding claim 16, as to the switching between the second indicator and a third indicator based on third and fourth thresholds that are different, Lamb discloses multiple segments in the power supply icon to represent incremental amounts of remaining charge ([0064], Fig. 4). As the power supply is discharged, the power indicator would obviously change from 3 to 2 to 1 segments (represents first, second, and third indicators) and on recharge, the indicator would obviously change from 1 to 2 to 3 segments. Since the 1-2 segment transition represents less remaining charge than the 2-3 segment transition, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art for the third and fourth thresholds to be smaller than the first and second thresholds.
Regarding claim 18, Lamb discloses electronic paper display ([0041]).
Regarding claim 19, Lamb discloses a charging connector configured to be supplied with electric power for charging the power supply ([0039]). As to the processor changing a display of the bistable display using power supplied via the charging connector, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the processor to change the display using power from the charging connector since Examiner takes Official Notice that it is very well known and conventional in the electronics art to change the display of a device to a charging icon when a battery powered device is being charged. One would have been motivated to indicate to the user that the device is actively being charged.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 are allowed.
Claims 6, 7, and 17 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:
Lamb (US 20170251724) discloses a controller for an inhalation apparatus having a power icon with incremental segments representing power level ([0064], Fig. 4). Bache (US 20180368474) also discloses a segmented power supply icon where segments are used to indicate instances of supported vapor generation ([0324-0328], Fig. 7A-7B). Banner NPL and Matt NPL are cited for disclosing hysteresis functions which provide differences between thresholds around a threshold point to reduce oscillations. Regarding claims 6, 7, and 17, the prior art of record fails to further teach or suggest a difference between the second threshold and the first threshold is larger than a change of the remaining amount caused by heating of the heater corresponding to at least one puff operation (claim 6) or heating sequence (claim 7), or inhalation cycle (claim 17). Regarding claims 9-11, the prior art of record fails to further teach or suggest a difference between a maximum value of the remaining amount and the second threshold is smaller than a difference between the second threshold and the first threshold. As disclosed in Banner NPL, hysteresis provides relatively small differences between threshold values.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Lamb's display is a passive segmented icon that maps the present remaining charge directly to a number of segments. Lamb has no comparator output and not threshold-comparison control to which the single-comparator hysteresis of Banner NPL or Matt NPL would be applied. Applicant argues that Lamb does not disclose sampling a fluctuating signal that would produce chatter.
Applicant's arguments are not persuasive. Lamb discloses a segmented icon for the power source that represents the incremental amount of remaining charge contained in the power source ([0064]). Lamb provides an example of the segments representing 10-20% of the remaining power ([0064]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Lamb's disclosure of charge increments and icon segments necessitate thresholds to determine when an increment condition is satisfied and thus an icon segment is turned on or off. As to the signal chatter, Examiner notes that Lamb is sampling the signal corresponding to the remaining charge. Matt NPL discloses determining battery charge based on voltage and applying a hysteresis function to threshold conditions based on the voltage of the battery (pg 2). Banner NPL also discloses that applying hysteresis to a threshold condition prevents the system from oscillating between on and off when the system is close to the threshold point. A person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have been motivated to apply a hysteresis function to the power indicator control in Lamb since Lamb discloses the segments of the power icon turn on/off depending on incremental percentages of the remaining charge and Matt and Banner NPL disclose providing hysteresis to threshold conditions to prevent the system from oscillating when close to the threshold point.
Regarding claims 6, 7, and 17, Applicant's arguments, see page 12, along with the claim amendments are persuasive. The obviousness rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding claims 12, 13, and 19, Applicant respectfully traverses the Office Action's assertion of Official Notice and requests the Examiner provide documentary evidence.
As stated in MPEP 2144.03(C): "To adequately traverse a finding based on official notice, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. A mere request by the applicant that the examiner provide documentary evidence in support of an officially-noticed fact is not a proper traversal." Applicant's response merely states that the assertions are traversed and requests documentary evidence. The request is not a proper traversal.
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 ROBERT C DYE whose telephone number is (571)270-7059. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Anna Momper can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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.
/ROBERT C DYE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights