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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-15 are pending and are subject to this Office Action.
Claims 14-15 are withdrawn.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed on 8/11/2026 containing
remarks to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-11, filed 8/11/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of previously applied art and newly found art. The action has been made Non-Final due to the new grounds of rejection.
The following is the modified rejection.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4-9, and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akao (US2020/0136415) in view of Lee (WO2021/118312, citations will refer to the English equivalent US2024/0079892), Du (US2020/0371163) and Kieckbusch (US2014/0299137).
Regarding claim 1, Akao teaches:
An aerosol generation device (inhaler 1) configured to aerosolise an aerosol generating consumable (first cartridge 20 and second cartridge 30, figure 1, [0035]-[0042]), the aerosol generation device comprising:
a battery (power supply 12 that is a rechargeable battery, [0024]) configured to provide a power flow to a heater (the load 21 atomizes the aerosol source 22 by power supplied from the power supply 12, [0038]); and
a controller (micro control unit 50) configured to determine a voltage level of the battery (MCU 50 is connected to a voltage sensor 16 for measuring the voltage of the power supply 12, [0032]).
Akao does not appear to explicitly disclose (I) wherein the voltage level of the battery is determined as a measured voltage of the battery when an elapsed time after a charging power flow to the battery has been inhibited is greater than or equal to a time threshold, (II) wherein the voltage level of the battery is determined as the measured voltage of the battery adjusted by a compensation factor when the elapsed time is less than the time threshold; and (III) wherein the controller is further configured to control an indicator to indicate a number of remaining aerosolisation sessions that can be powered by the battery based upon the determined voltage level.
In regard to (I), Akao further teaches the notification unit 54 calculates the state of charge (SOC) and the notifying unit notifies the calculated SOC ([0065]).
Lee, directed to a battery management system, teaches:
Accurately determining a State of Charge (SOC) of a battery while the battery is resting by changing an Open Circuit Voltage (OCV) curve defining a relationship between OCV and SOC, according to the period of time during which the battery is kept in the rest state after the battery's shift from the cycle state to the rest state ([0010]).
The control circuit 150 may determine the SOC at the predetermined time interval based on the curve 202 from a time point when a standby time Δt.sub.R2 has passed since the time point T.sub.10, and may determine the SOC at the predetermined time interval based on the curve 203 from a time point when the second shift time Δt.sub.C2 has passed since the time point T.sub.10 ([0071]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify calculating the state of charge of the battery of Akao by configuring the calculating to use the relationship between the battery voltage and time elapsed after charging as taught by Lee, because both Akao and Lee are directed to calculating the state of charge of a battery with a voltage measurement, Lee teaches this accurately determines the state of charge of a battery while the battery is resting, and this merely involves incorporating a known way to calculate the state of charge of a battery to a similar battery to yield predictable results.
As shown in figure 4, after a time threshold the battery voltage approaches a constant value of V2. As such it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that past this time threshold the measured voltage of the battery is the voltage level of the battery, and thus wherein the voltage level of the battery is determined as a measured voltage of the battery when an elapsed time after a charging power flow to the battery has been inhibited is greater than or equal to a time threshold.
In regard to (II) Du, directed to a method for correcting a state of charge of a battery, teaches:
When the state data of the battery cell meets the preset trustable parameter condition, an unsteady-state OCV is calculated. The unsteady-state OCV is a difference of a voltage of the battery cell at an ending moment of a current standing time period and a polarization voltage compensation value ([0070-71]). As such Du teaches the voltage lever of the battery (unsteady state OCV) is determined as the measured voltage of the battery (voltage of the battery cell at an enfing moment of a current standing time period) adjust by a compensation factor (polarization voltage compensation value).
This reduces time required for acquisition of the steady-state OCV and in turn increasing a chance of correction of SOC so that applicability of an open circuit voltage method can be improved ([0076]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to apply to modified Akao determining the voltage of the battery during an unsteady-state period by measuring the voltage of the battery adjusted by a compensation factor as taught by Du, because both modified Akao and Du are directed to determining the SOC of a battery by measuring the voltage of the battery, Du teaches this reduces the time required for acquisition of the steady-state voltage, and this merely involves incorporating a known way to find the voltage of a battery to a similar battery system to yield predictable results.
As Lee teaches the unsteady-state period of the battery voltage occurs before a certain time period (fig. 4) it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to apply this voltage determination method when the elapsed time is less than the time threshold, as Lee teaches the unsteady-state period occurs before this time threshold, and Du teaches applying this method during the unsteady-state period.
In regard to (III), Akao further teaches the notification control unit notifies a variety of information including the timing to replace the first and second cartridge on the basis of the number of puff actions and the cumulative time for which power has been supplied ([0062]).
Akao does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the controller is further configured to control an indicator to indicate a number of remaining aerosolisation sessions that can be powered by the battery based upon the determined voltage level.
Kieckbusch, directed to an electronic cigarette and method for controlling, teaches:
A display that could indicate how many user puffs remain (i.e. number of aerosolisation sessions that can be powered by the battery) based on the charge remaining on the battery ([0038]).
As the battery charge of modified Akao is determined from the voltage level, configuring Akao to display how many puffs remain based on the charge of the battery would also be determined based on the determined voltage level.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to configure the controller of Akao to control an indicator to indicate a number of remaining aerosolisation sessions that can be powered by the battery as taught by Kieckbusch, because both Akao and Kieckbusch are directed to aerosol generation devices with displays that notifies information on the basis of the number of puff actions, and this merely involves applying a known technique (i.e. indication of the number of remaining of aerosolization session that can be powered by the battery) to a similar device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 4-6, modified Akao further teaches:
Determining the number of aerosolisation sessions that remain based on the charge remaining on the battery (Kieckbusch, [0038]).
A first voltage threshold (calculated SOC larger than 66% and smaller than 100%, [0066]), a second voltage threshold (equal to or larger than 0% and smaller than 33%, [0066]), and a third voltage threshold calculated SOC equal to or larger than 33% and smaller than 66% [0066]).
As the number of aerosolisation sessions corresponds to the charge level of the battery which corresponds to the voltage level of the battery, modified Akao would have the indicator configured to indicate a first number of remaining aerosolisation sessions when the controller determines that the voltage level of the battery is greater than or equal to a first voltage threshold (i.e. larger than 66% and smaller than 100%), a second number of remaining aerosolisation sessions when the controller determines that the voltage level of the battery is less than a second voltage threshold, wherein the second voltage threshold is lower than the first voltage threshold (i.e. equal to or larger than 0% and smaller than 33%), and a third number of remaining aerosolisation sessions when the controller determines that the voltage level of the battery is less than the first voltage threshold and greater than or equal to the second voltage threshold (i.e. equal to or larger than 33% and smaller than 66%).
As the power level of the battery directly corresponds to the number of remaining aerosolization sessions that can be powered, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the second number of remaining aerosolisation sessions is less than the first number of remaining aerosolisation sessions and the third number of remaining aerosolisation sessions is less than the first number of aerosolisation sessions and greater than the second number of aerosolisation sessions.
Regarding claim 7, modified Akao further teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to determine the voltage level of the battery as: a measured voltage of the battery when a second elapsed time after the battery is at least partially discharged is greater than or equal to a second time threshold (as taught by Lee and discussed previously, the battery voltage approaches a constant value and thus past this time threshold the measured voltage of the battery is the voltage level of the battery).
and the measured voltage of the battery adjusted by a second compensation factor when the second elapsed time is less than the second time threshold (as taught by Du and discussed previously, Du teaches the voltage lever of the battery (unsteady state OCV) is determined as the measured voltage of the battery (voltage of the battery cell at an enfing moment of a current standing time period) adjust by a compensation factor (polarization voltage compensation value), [0070-71]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Akao further teaches:
wherein the controller is further configured to determine whether the battery has been fully charged (as the charging of the power supply is considered completed when the power supply has reached the predetermined charge state [0166], and therefore the predetermined charge state is considered to define when the battery has been fully charged).
and to indicate by the indicator the first number of remaining aerosolisation sessions when it is determined that the battery has been fully charged (as the number of aerosolisation sessions that remain are determined based on the charge remaining on the battery, Kieckbusch, [0038]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Akao further teaches wherein the controller is configured to determine that the battery has been fully charged by determining that a control parameter is set to a state indicative of a full charge (predetermined charge state, [0166]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Akao further teaches a pulse width modulation module connected to the controller, wherein the pulse width modulation module is configured to convert the power flow from the battery to the heater to a pulse width modulated power flow ([0069], pulse width modulation control).
Regarding claim 13, modified Akao further teaches wherein the aerosol generating consumable is a tobacco rod, and the aerosol generation device is configured to heat without burning the tobacco rod to produce an aerosol in an aerosolisation session (as the second cartridge 30 may contain tobacco, which is heated by the heated aerosol [0043]).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akao (US2020/0136415) in view of Lee (WO2021/118312, citations will refer to the English equivalent US2024/0079892), Du (US2020/0371163), and Kieckbusch (US2014/0299137) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu (US2021/0007400).
Regarding claim 2, Akao further teaches:
wherein the device comprises a handpiece (power supply unit 10) and an external power supply 60 connectable to the handpiece ([0028]).
wherein the handpiece comprises the battery (power supply 12) and the controller (MCU 50) and is configured to aerosolise the aerosol generating consumable ([0038]).
and wherein the external power supply 60 is configured to charge the battery of the handpiece when the handpiece is connected to the external power supply 60 ([0027] an external power supply 60 capable of charging the power supply 12).
Akao does not appear to disclose wherein the external power supply 60 is a charging case.
Liu, directed to an electric heating smoking device, teaches a power supply assembly comprising a battery that is charged by a main power supply case or an external power supply ([0013]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the battery of the power supply of Akao be a charging case connectable to the handpiece and configured to charge the battery as taught by Liu, because both Akao and Liu are directed towards electric heating smoking devices, and this merely involves use of a known technique (i.e. charging case to charge a battery) to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claim 3, modified Akao further teaches wherein the controller is configured to determine the elapsed time after the charging power flow has been inhibited (as Lee teaches determining the predetermined time interval after charging to determine the SOC, [0071]) based upon an elapsed time after the handpiece has been disconnected from the charging case (as the charging case charges the battery (Liu, [0013]) and thus disconnecting would start the predetermined time interval after charging).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akao (US2020/0136415) in view of Lee (WO2021/118312, citations will refer to the English equivalent US2024/0079892), Du (US2020/0371163), and Kieckbusch (US2014/0299137) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jeong (US2021/0161212).
Regarding claim 10, Akao further teaches the battery is preferable a lithium-ion battery.
Akao does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the battery is a lithium iron phosphate battery.
Jeong, directed to an aerosol generating device, teaches:
A battery that may supply a direct current to an aerosol generating device and wherein the battery may be a lithium iron phosphate battery ([0052]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery of Akao to be a lithium iron phosphate battery as taught by Jeong, because both Akao and Jeong are directed to aerosol generating devices comprising lithium ion batteries, Jeong teaches a type of lithium ion battery for an aerosol generating device, and this merely involves simple substitution of one known element (i.e. lithium ion battery) for another (i.e. lithium iron phosphate battery) to obtain predictable results.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akao (US2020/0136415) in view of Lee (WO2021/118312, citations will refer to the English equivalent US2024/0079892), Du (US2020/0371163) and Kieckbusch (US2014/0299137) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lau (US20220015426).
Regarding claim 11, modified Akao further teaches:
A user input means operable in a first manner to trigger the aerosol generation device to aerosolise the aerosol generating consumable (operation unit 14 composed of a button type switch, a touch panel, or the like [0029]).
Modified Akao does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the user input means is operable in a second manner to trigger controller to determine the voltage level of the battery and control the indicator to indicate the number of remaining aerosolisation sessions that can be powered by the battery based upon the determined voltage level.
Lao, directed to an e-vaping device, teaches:
Pressing the button 372 of the e-vaping device once may display the battery level. In another instance, successively pressing the button 372 in a short period of time may result in a different function or display ([0100]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the user input means of Akao to be operable in a second manner to display the battery level as taught by Lao, because both Akao and Lao are directed to electronic vaporization devices, and this merely involves use of a known technique (i.e. a user input means operable in a second manner to trigger the battery level) to improve a similar electronic vaporization device in the same way to obtain predictable results.
As the battery level of the device of modified Akao is determined from the voltage level of the battery and the display of modified Akao shows the number of remaining aerosolization session remaining based on the battery level, the user input means being operable to display the battery level would thus be operable in a second manner to trigger controller to determine the voltage level of the battery and control the indicator to indicate the number of remaining aerosolisation sessions that can be powered by the battery based upon the determined voltage level.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicole A Szumigalski whose telephone number is (703)756-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00 - 4:30 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, 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.
/N.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights