DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/6/2026 with respect to the rejections of claims 1-2 and 6-8 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “the Specification uses "pulse" to denote a discrete, temporally bounded electrical signal. Paragraph [0015] explains that a capacitor may be charged "for a period of time equal to the width of the pulse" and that the pulse may be a square wave. Paragraph [0040] likewise describes the computer sending an electrical pulse to the battery assembly terminals as part of a connection check, including controlling the power cell to supply a pulse of current to the first battery assembly terminal and measuring current reaching the second battery assembly terminal. These disclosures establish that, in the context of the claimed invention, a "pulse" is not merely any delivery of electrical energy that occurs over some finite time. Rather, it is a distinct electrical signal having a pulse width and used to interrogate the terminal path to determine whether the vaporizer is connected. The Examiner's interpretation effectively treats any application of energy for any duration as an "electrical pulse." That interpretation reads the word "pulse" out of the claims and encompasses ordinary continuous power delivery merely because it begins and ends. It also disregards the Specification's repeated use of the term to describe a discrete test signal having a pulse width. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the Office's interpretation extends beyond the broadest reasonable interpretation under MPEP § 2111 and should be withdrawn.”
The Examiner disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant essentially argues that the limitations of claims 3 and 4 are required by claim 1 despite those limitations not being present in claim 1. This is not the case. There is a reason that Applicant has included claims 3 and 4 and this because those limitations are not required by claim 1. Claim 1 does not require any determination of the vaporizer being connected associated with the electrical pulse. The Examiner maintains that the rejection of claim 1 does not extend beyond the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 3-5 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 3-5 have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 6, and 8 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 (b) as anticipated by McCafferty (US 5,372,148), or, in the alternative, under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over McCafferty in view of Conley (US 2013/0220315)
Regarding claims 1 and 8, McCafferty teaches a control apparatus for an electrically powered smoking article (electronic vapor provision device body comprising a battery assembly) [col. 3, l. 12-29] comprising a power supply (power cell) and a microcontroller (computer comprising a computer processor, a memory and an input-output means) [col. 3, l. 30-51], and configured to be releasably connectable to a load array (vaporizer) [col. 3, l. 52-64]; wherein the computer is configured to check whether the vaporizer is connected to the battery assembly, and if the vaporizer is connected to the battery assembly, to enter or remain in a normal operation mode [col. 4, l. 20-66]. McCafferty teaches the computer is configured to cause a predetermined amount of energy over a predetermined time (electrical pulse) to be supplied to the vaporizer [col. 5, I. 49-53].
Although McCafferty does not explicitly teach terminals, in order for an electrical connection to be formed between the battery assembly and the vaporizer, the body is interpreted to inherently comprise first and second battery assembly terminals configured such that when the vaporizer is connected to the body, the first battery assembly terminal is connected to a first vaporizer connection terminal and the second battery assembly terminal is connected to a second vaporizer connection terminal. Thus, the pulse is supplied to the battery assembly terminals. Alternatively, Conley teaches an electronic vaporizer wherein when the cartridge is coupled to a power source, the conductive element is electrically coupled to a negative terminal of the power source and the center post 218 (and thus the electrical isolator 220) is electrically coupled to a positive terminal of the power source [0032]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply this configuration to the device of McCafferty such that comprise first and second battery assembly terminals configured such that when the vaporizer is connected to the body, the first battery assembly terminal is connected to a first vaporizer connection terminal and the second battery assembly terminal is connected to a second vaporizer connection terminal, to achieve the same, predictable result of establishing an electrical connection between the body and the vaporizer. The method of operating the device of McCafferty, or McCafferty in view of Conley, thus reads on the claimed method.
Regarding claim 2, McCafferty teaches the computer is configured to control the power cell to supply the electrical pulse to the first battery assembly terminal [col. 5, I. 49-53].
Regarding claim 6, McCafferty teaches the computer is configured such that if the computer determines that the vaporizer is not connected to the battery assembly, then the computer enters a dormant (sleep) mode [col. 4, l. 54-66].
Claim 7 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over McCafferty and optionally Conley as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Malik.
McCafferty does not teach during the sleep mode, the computer is configured to wake after a pre-determined time and check whether the vaporizer is connected to the battery assembly and, if the vaporizer is still connected, the computer is configured to enter sleep mode. Malik teaches the computer is configured to wake from the sleep mode after a predetermined sleep time to determine whether the load is connected to the battery assembly, wherein the computer is configured to re-enter the sleep mode if the load is not connected to the battery assembly [0043, 0046, 0050; Fig. 7]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply this configuration to the computer of McCafferty so that computer is not required to constantly look for the connection throughout the sleep mode, thus saving power.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 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: Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ERIC YAARY whose telephone number is (571)272-3273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
/ERIC YAARY/Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights