DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species A1, Species B2, and Species C1 in the reply filed on 7/6/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention (as Group I, claims 1-12 and 17, was elected, Group II, claims 13-16, is withdrawn as being drawn to a nonelected invention), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/6/2026.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-17 are pending. Claims 13-16 are withdrawn. Claims 3-5, 8-12, and 15-16 have been amended.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use the word “means” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the word “means” is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: "control means", "emitting means", and "power means" in claim 17.
The limitation “control means” in claim 17 (A) uses the term “means”; (B) the term “means” is modified by functional language, “receiving signals and controlling an activation state of the aerosol provision device”, linked by the transition word “for”; and (C) the term “means” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The limitation “emitting means” in claim 17 (A) uses the term “means”; (B) the term “means” is modified by functional language, “send a signal to the control means of the aerosol provision device”, linked by the linking phrase “arranged to”; and (C) the term “means” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The limitation “power means” in claim 17 (A) uses the term “means”; (B) the term “means” is modified by functional language, “energy from the power means”; and (C) the term “means” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The corresponding structures for "control means", "emitting means", and "power means" are "control circuitry", "emitter", and "power source", respectively (see claim 1). Further, the emitting means may correspond to a “Bluetooth token”, and the “power means” may correspond to a “battery of a mobile telecommunications device” (see claim 12). The language in claim 17 will be interpreted as requiring the disclosed structure or equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
It is noted that claim 17 also includes the limitation “aerosol provision means” which does (A) use the term “means” but is not (B) modified by functional language and (C) the term “means” is modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts. Therefore, the limitation “aerosol provision means” in claim 17 is not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
"an authorised user" in lines 1-2 of claim 1 is repeated in lines 5 and 11 of claim 1, so "an authorised user" in lines 5 and 11 of claim 1 should be "the authorised user";
"an activation state" in line 4 of claim 1 is repeated in line 10 of claim 1, so "an activation state" in line 10 of claim 1 should be "the activation state";
"a signal" in line 5 of claim 1 is repeated in line 11 of claim 1, so "a signal" in line 11 of claim 1 should be "the signal".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
"an activation state" in lines 2 and 4 of claim 5 is duplicative with "an activation state" in line 4 of claim 1, from which claim 5 depends, so "an activation state" in lines 2 and 4 of claim 5 should be "the activation state";
"a default activation state" in line 3 of claim 5 is repeated in line 5 of claim 5, so "a default activation state" in line 5 of claim 5 should be "the default activation state".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
"an authorised user" in line 4 of claim 17 is repeated in line 10 of claim 17, so "an authorised user" in line 10 of claim 17 should be "the authorised user";
"an activation state" in line 3 of claim 17 is repeated in line 9 of claim 17, so "an activation state" in line 9 of claim 17 should be "the activation state";
"a signal" in line 4 of claim 17 is repeated in line 10 of claim 17, so "a signal" in line 10 of claim 17 should be "the signal".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of this Office action, “an antenna, for example, a patch antenna” in claim 4 is interpreted as “an antenna”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matischek et al. (US 2018/0020720 A1, provided on IDS filed 12/19/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Matischek discloses an aerosol provision arrangement (aerosol provision arrangement in Fig. 13) for providing an aerosol (“vaporized liquid”, ¶ 0003) to an authorised user (“user”, ¶ 0079), the aerosol provision arrangement comprising:
an aerosol provision device (“electronic cigarette 100”, Fig. 13, ¶ 0078) comprising control circuitry (“processor 110”, Fig. 13, ¶ 0079) for receiving signals (“communicate 1018”, Fig. 13, ¶ 0079) and controlling an activation state of the aerosol provision device (“start operation of the electronic cigarette 100”, ¶ 0079);
an emitter (“liquid container 1000”, Fig. 13, ¶ 0078) associated with the authorised user (“the liquid container 1000 may be configured, e.g. additionally or as a main function, to perform the age-verification”, ¶ 0079, and “operation of the electronic cigarette 100 may be permitted if the age-verification for the user is positive”, ¶ 0080), arranged to send a signal (“communicate 1018”, Fig. 13, ¶ 0079-0080) to the control circuitry of the aerosol provision device (Fig. 13, ¶ 0079-0080); and
a power source (power source of “communication device 1350, e.g. a smartphone”, Fig. 13, ¶ 0080, 0098),
wherein the emitter comprises energy reception circuitry (“wireless communication circuit 1008”, ¶ 0079) arranged to receive, indirectly, energy from the power source (“wireless communication circuit 1008 . . . may be included in or provided by an active or passive NFC-device 1312”, ¶ 0079, “the electronic cigarette 100 may be configured so that the energy is provided via NFC from the communication device . . .1350; therefore, the energy of the electronic cigarette battery 414 will not be consumed”, ¶ 0098; see Fig. 13), and
wherein the control circuitry is arranged to change the activation state of the aerosol provision device upon receiving the signal from the emitter associated with the authorised user (¶ 0079-0080).
Regarding claim 2, Matischek discloses an aerosol provision arrangement according to claim 1, as stated above. Matischek further discloses wherein the power source is separate to the emitter and the aerosol provision device (the power source of 1350 is separate to emitter 1000 and aerosol provision device 100, see Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 3, Matischek discloses an aerosol provision arrangement according to claim 1, as stated above. Matischek further discloses wherein the emitter comprises a main body (main body of “liquid container 1000” that allows it to be “configured to be inserted into an electronic cigarette”, ¶ 0081), the main body comprising the energy reception circuitry (“the liquid container 1000 may include a wireless communication circuit 1008”, ¶ 0079) and emitter circuitry (“verification circuit 1012”, ¶ 0079) for sending the signal to the control circuitry of the aerosol provision device (“verification circuit 1012 configured to communicate with a processor 110 of the electronic cigarette 100 to start operation of the electronic cigarette 100 upon receipt of a signal transmitted by the external communication device via the wireless communication circuit 1008”, ¶ 0082).
Regarding claim 4, Matischek discloses an aerosol provision arrangement according to claim 1, as stated above. Matischek further discloses wherein the energy reception circuitry comprises an antenna (“wireless communication circuit 1008 . . . configured in a similar or the same way as described herein with reference to the electronic cigarette 100”, ¶ 0079, where in “wireless communication circuit 108 . . . of electronic cigarette 100”, the “booster antenna structure 308 may be part of the wireless communication circuit 108”, ¶ 0052; therefore, energy reception circuitry 1008 may comprise an antenna as described for component 108, compare Fig. 3B to Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 5, Matischek discloses an aerosol provision arrangement according to claim 1, as stated above. Matischek further discloses wherein the control circuitry is arranged (“processer 110” communicates with “verification circuit 1012” which is “configured to perform an operation permission verification based on the received signal, as described before with reference to the verification circuit 112 of the electronic cigarette 100”, ¶ 0082-0083; in other words, “verification circuit 1012” can perform the verification process of “verification circuit 112” described in Fig. 2A, ¶ 0040-0048) to change the activation state of the aerosol provision device from a default activation state (i.e., non-operating state) to a first activation state (i.e., operating state) upon receiving a first signal (“processor 110 of the electronic cigarette 100 may further communicate 1018 with the liquid container 1000 and configured to only start operation of the electronic cigarette 100 if an age-verification for the user is positive”, ¶ 0079) from a first emitter (one of the “liquids containers”, ¶ 0078, as “every liquid container 1000 may have an individual passive NFC-chip”, ¶ 0097, and “verification circuit 1012 may be included in or provided by an active or passive NFC-device 1312”, ¶ 0079), and wherein the control circuitry is arranged to change the activation state of the aerosol provision device from the default activation state to a second activation state (i.e., blocked state) upon receiving a second signal (“in case a block 204n signal is received, the electronic cigarette 100 may not start for a predefined time duration or until an unblock processes is carried out”, Fig. 2A, ¶ 0043-0044) from a second emitter (another of the “liquids containers”, ¶ 0078, as “every liquid container 1000 may have an individual passive NFC-chip”, ¶ 0097, and “verification circuit 1012 may be included in or provided by an active or passive NFC-device 1312”, ¶ 0079), wherein the first signal is associated with a first user (“positive age-check” user, ¶ 0042) and the second signal is associated with a second user (“negative age-check (under-age)” user, ¶ 0042).
Alternatively regarding claim 5, Matischek discloses an aerosol provision arrangement according to claim 1, as stated above. Matischek further discloses wherein the control circuitry is arranged (“processer 110” communicates with “verification circuit 1012” which is “configured to perform an operation permission verification based on the received signal, as described before with reference to the verification circuit 112 of the electronic cigarette 100”, ¶ 0082-0083; in other words, “verification circuit 1012” can perform the verification process of “verification circuit 112” described in Fig. 2A, ¶ 0040-0048) to change the activation state of the aerosol provision device from a default activation state (i.e., non-operating state) to a first activation state (i.e., operating state) upon receiving a first signal (“processor 110 of the electronic cigarette 100 may further communicate 1018 with the liquid container 1000 and configured to only start operation of the electronic cigarette 100 if an age-verification for the user is positive”, ¶ 0079) from a first emitter (one of the “liquids containers”, ¶ 0078, as “every liquid container 1000 may have an individual passive NFC-chip”, ¶ 0097, and “verification circuit 1012 may be included in or provided by an active or passive NFC-device 1312”, ¶ 0079), and wherein the control circuitry is arranged to change the activation state of the aerosol provision device from the default activation state to a second activation state (i.e., operating state) upon receiving a second signal (“processor 110 of the electronic cigarette 100 may further communicate 1018 with the liquid container 1000 and configured to only start operation of the electronic cigarette 100 if an age-verification for the user is positive”, ¶ 0079) from a second emitter (another of the “liquids containers”, ¶ 0078, as “every liquid container 1000 may have an individual passive NFC-chip”, ¶ 0097, and “verification circuit 1012 may be included in or provided by an active or passive NFC-device 1312”, ¶ 0079), wherein the first signal is associated with a first user (first “positive age-check” user, ¶ 0042) and the second signal is associated with a second user (second “positive age-check” user, ¶ 0042, as the verification process can be performed for multiple “users of a predefined user group”, ¶ 0050, which in this case would correspond to users above a required age threshold).
Regarding claim 6, Matischek discloses an aerosol provision arrangement according to claim 5, as stated above. Matischek further discloses wherein the first user is a first authorised user (“positive age-check” user, ¶ 0042) and the first activation state is a first operating state (“allow 204y the start of an operation of the electronic cigarette 100”, ¶ 0043).
Alternatively regarding claim 6, Matischek discloses an aerosol provision arrangement according to the alternative rejection of claim 5, as stated above. Matischek further discloses wherein the first user is a first authorised user (first “positive age-check” user, ¶ 0042) and the first activation state is a first operating state (“allow 204y the start of an operation of the electronic cigarette 100”, ¶ 0043).
Regarding claim 8, Matischek discloses an aerosol provision arrangement according to claim 5, as stated above. Matischek further discloses wherein the second user is an unauthorised user (“negative age-check (under-age)” user, ¶ 0042) and the second activation state is a non-operating, locked state (“block 204n the start of the operation of the electronic cigarette 100”, ¶ 0043).
Regarding claim 9, Matischek discloses an aerosol provision arrangement according to claim 6, as stated above. Matischek further discloses wherein the default activation state is a non-operating state (“block 204n the start of the operation of the electronic cigarette 100 while not receiving a signal”, ¶ 0042).
Regarding claim 10, Matischek discloses an aerosol provision arrangement according to claim 1, as stated above. Matischek further discloses wherein the emitter is arranged to transmit signals up to a range of 15 meters (“the emitter is arranged to transmit signals up to a range of 15 meters” is interpreted to mean that the emitter is capable of transmitting signals a range, i.e. distance, of 0 to 15 meters; emitter “liquid container 1000” may include “NFC-device 1312”, Fig. 13, ¶ 0079, and “Near-field communication (NFC) may include a set of communication protocols that enable two electronic devices to establish communication by bringing them near to each other, e.g. within a distance less than about 10 cm, e.g. less than about 5 cm.”, ¶ 0026; the range less than 10 cm falls within the claimed range of 0 to 15 meters, see MPEP § 2131.03).
Regarding claim 11, Matischek discloses an aerosol provision arrangement according to claim 1, as stated above. Matischek further discloses wherein the emitter is arranged to transmit signals up to a range of 2 meters (“the emitter is arranged to transmit signals up to a range of 2 meters” is interpreted to mean that the emitter is capable of transmitting signals a range, i.e. distance, of 0 to 2 meters; emitter “liquid container 1000” may include “NFC-device 1312”, Fig. 13, ¶ 0079, and “Near-field communication (NFC) may include a set of communication protocols that enable two electronic devices to establish communication by bringing them near to each other, e.g. within a distance less than about 10 cm, e.g. less than about 5 cm.”, ¶ 0026; the range less than 10 cm falls within the claimed range of 0 to 2 meters, see MPEP § 2131.03).
Regarding claim 17, Matischek discloses an aerosol provision means (aerosol provision arrangement in Fig. 13) comprising:
an aerosol provision device (“electronic cigarette 100”, Fig. 13, ¶ 0078) comprising control means (“processor 110”, Fig. 13, ¶ 0079) for receiving signals (“communicate 1018”, Fig. 13, ¶ 0079) and controlling an activation state of the aerosol provision device (“start operation of the electronic cigarette 100”, ¶ 0079); and,
emitting means (“liquid container 1000”, Fig. 13, ¶ 0078) associated with an authorised user (“the liquid container 1000 may be configured, e.g. additionally or as a main function, to perform the age-verification”, ¶ 0079, and “operation of the electronic cigarette 100 may be permitted if the age-verification for the user is positive”, ¶ 0080), arranged to send a signal (“communicate 1018”, Fig. 13, ¶ 0079-0080) to the control means of the aerosol provision device (Fig. 13, ¶ 0079-0080),
power means (power source of “communication device 1350, e.g. a smartphone”, Fig. 13, ¶ 0080, 0098),
wherein the emitting means comprises energy reception circuitry (“wireless communication circuit 1008”, ¶ 0079) arranged to receive, indirectly, energy from the power means (“wireless communication circuit 1008 . . . may be included in or provided by an active or passive NFC-device 1312”, ¶ 0079, “the electronic cigarette 100 may be configured so that the energy is provided via NFC from the communication device . . .1350; therefore, the energy of the electronic cigarette battery 414 will not be consumed”, ¶ 0098; see Fig. 13), and
wherein the control means is arranged to change the activation state of the aerosol provision device upon receiving the signal from the emitting means associated with the authorised user (¶ 0079-0080).
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.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matischek et al. (US 2018/0020720 A1) as applied in the alternative rejection of claim 6 above, and further in view of Davis et al. (US 2021/0401061 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Matischek discloses an aerosol provision arrangement according to the alternative rejection of claim 6, as stated above. Matischek further discloses wherein the second user is a second authorised user (second “positive age-check” user, ¶ 0042, as the verification process can be performed for multiple “users of a predefined user group”, ¶ 0050, which in this case would correspond to users above a required age threshold) and the second activation state is a second operating state (“allow 204y the start of an operation of the electronic cigarette 100”, ¶ 0043).
However, Matischek does not explicitly disclose wherein the second operating state is different to the first operating state.
Davis, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an aerosol provision arrangement (“vape device 4000”, Fig. 40, ¶ 0532) comprising an aerosol provision device (“control assembly 4010”, Fig. 40, ¶ 0532) comprising control circuitry (combination of “microcontroller 4012” and “radio frequency identification (RFID) reader 4016”, Fig. 40, ¶ 0533) for receiving signals and controlling an activation state of the aerosol provision device (¶ 0534-0536); and an emitter (“cartridge 4020”, Fig. 40, ¶ 0532, with “RFID tag 4024”, Fig. 40, ¶ 0538) associated with an authorised user (“intended user”, ¶ 0541), arranged to send a signal to the control circuitry of the aerosol provision device (“data signals between RFID reader 4016 and RFID tag 4024”, ¶ 0551). Davis further teaches that different first and second emitters (“multiple disposable cartridges, such as cartridge 4020”, ¶ 0532) can result in different first and second operating states corresponding to different first and second authorized users (each emitter, “cartridge 4020”, can include “data stored in RFID tag 4024” including “information on an intended user . . . e.g. user information”, ¶ 0541, where “user information” may include “gender, age, and weight, as well as historical vape device usage information, to determine an appropriate dosage and/or metering of the vape device”, ¶ 0188). As Davis teaches the control circuitry is arranged to determine the operating state based on individual user information for each user contained within the first and second emitters (¶ 0188) and that individual user information between users can differ (e.g., different “gender, age, and weight, as well as historical vape device usage information”, ¶ 0188), the control circuitry of Davis is arranged to change an activation state of the aerosol provision device to first and second operating states wherein the second operating state associated with the second authorized user is different to the first operating state associated with the first authorized user (e.g., a different dosage is provided). Davis further teaches an advantage to having different operating states associated with different users in that each user receives the appropriate dosage (¶ 0188). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the aerosol provision arrangement taught by Matischek such that control circuitry can further have different operating states including a first operating state for the aerosol provision device and a second operating state for the aerosol provision device different from the first operating state (e.g., in that the delivered dosage is different), in order to obtain this benefit.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matischek et al. (US 2018/0020720 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Batista et al. (US 2017/0273358 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Matischek discloses an aerosol provision arrangement according to claim 1, as stated above. Matischek further discloses wherein
the emitter is a Bluetooth token (emitter “liquid container 1000” may include “NFC-device 1312”, Fig. 13, ¶ 0079, and “other wireless communication methods may be utilized in a similar way as described herein for the NFC-communication such as Bluetooth”, ¶ 0025; therefore, Matischek discloses that Bluetooth capabilities may be substituted in place of the NFC-device in the emitter),
the power source is of a mobile telecommunications device (power source of “communication device 1350, e.g. a smartphone”, Fig. 13, ¶ 0080, 0098),
wherein the emitter is arranged to abut the mobile telecommunications device (“tapping the smartphone to the electronic cigarette 100”, ¶ 0095, when the emitter “liquid cavity 1000 is inserted into the electronic cigarette 100”, ¶ 0096, see Fig. 13) and use energy in transmissions from the mobile telecommunications device to emit Bluetooth signals (emitter “liquid cavity 1000 (also referred to as liquid container 1000) may have a passive NFC-chip 1312”, Fig. 13, ¶ 0096, and “the electronic cigarette 100 may be configured so that the energy is provided via NFC from the communication device . . .1350; therefore, the energy of the electronic cigarette battery 414 will not be consumed”, ¶ 0098; “other wireless communication methods may be utilized in a similar way as described herein for the NFC-communication such as Bluetooth”, ¶ 0025; therefore, the emitter may use energy in transmissions from mobile telecommunications device to emit Bluetooth signals, similar to that described for NFC, as Bluetooth capabilities may be substituted in place of NFC).
However, Matischek does not explicitly disclose that the power source of the mobile telecommunications device is a battery.
Batista, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that a mobile telecommunications device can have a battery as a power source (“The various components within the smartphone are powered by an internal battery 38”, ¶ 0101). Batista also teaches a benefit to the smartphone having a battery as a power source in that it holds charge to power the various components within the device and can be recharged using a conventional charger (¶ 0101). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included a battery in the mobile telecommunications device, as taught by Batista, in order to obtain this benefit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY G CULBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-0874. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-4pm.
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, Michael H Wilson can be reached at (571)270-3882. 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.
/COURTNEY G CULBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights