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 .
Reissue Applications
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35
U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
Claim Status
Patent claims 1-18 are pending.
Defective Consent
This application is objected to under 37 CFR 1.172(a) as lacking the written consent of all assignees owning an undivided interest in the patent. The consent of the assignee must be in compliance with 37 CFR 1.172. See MPEP § 1410.01.
A proper assent of the assignee in compliance with 37 CFR 1.172 and 3.73 is required in reply to this Office action.
The Consent filed 9 May 2024 has been signed by Sara de Sousa, Head of Patents. The Head of Patents is not a person having apparent authority in the organization to act on behalf of the assignee. See MPEP 325 V, which explains that in foreign countries, a person who holds the title "Manager" or "Director" is normally an officer and is presumed to have the authority to sign on behalf of the organization. A person having a title that does not clearly set forth that person as an officer of the assignee is not presumed to have authority to sign the submission on behalf of the assignee. Thus, “Head of Patents” is not presumed to have the required authority.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2017/0245547 to Lipowicz (hereinafter Lipowicz).
Lipowicz teaches a smoking substitute device having a control unit 116; a battery 110 configured to supply power to the smoking substitute device; a movement sensing component 502,504 (paras [0090, 0101]) configured to sense movement of the smoking substitute device; and a battery level indicator 105 configured to, when activated,
PNG
media_image1.png
302
588
media_image1.png
Greyscale
provide a visual indication of charge remaining in the battery (paras [0058, 0059, 0102-0104]); wherein the control unit is configured to activate the battery level indicator, when a predetermined movement of the smoking substitute device is detected using the movement sensing component (paras [0102-0103]); wherein the predetermined movement detected using the movement sensing component includes a sequence of taps of the smoking substitute device performed within a predetermined tap sequence length of time (paras [0102, 0104]).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 5, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipowicz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2018/0027878 to Dendy et al. (hereinafter Dendy).
As to claims 2 and 3, Lipowicz does not disclose activating the battery level indicator for no more than a predetermined length of time, such as 10 seconds or less. Dendy teaches an electronic vaping device wherein a sensor 300 senses movement (e.g. tapping) of the device for initiating an indication of battery level. An LED display provides an indication state corresponding to varying amounts of charge remaining in the battery. The LED is activated for 5 seconds in all instances except for an indication of no remaining charge, when it will be activated for 0.5 second on and 0.5 second off. See Table 1. As Lipowicz recognizes that illumination of the battery level indicator consumes power (para [0106]) and that steps should be taken in order to conserve power (para [0091]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to limit the time the indicator is illuminated to 5 seconds or less in order to conserve battery power.
With respect to claims 5 and 15, Lipowicz discloses the indicator includes “a light of a second color when the power supply 110 is running low” (para [0058]) but does not teach the battery level indicator is configured to, when activated, provide an indication of charge remaining in the battery by operating in one of a plurality of indication states, wherein each indication state corresponds to a different amount of charge remaining in the battery. Dendy teaches an LED display provides a plurality of indication states relating to the remaining in the battery. See Table 1; paras [0143-0146]. In order to provide the user with the most accurate indication of remaining battery power, it would have been obvious to use multiple LEDs in the manner disclosed by Dendy.
As to claims 13 and 14, Lipowicz discloses the indicator includes “a light of a second color when the power supply 110 is running low” (para [0058]) but does not teach wherein the control unit is configured to, when it determines that there is less than the threshold amount of charge remaining in the battery, activate the battery level indicator to provide the low battery indication state when a user activates the smoking substitute device. However Dendy, in a similar device, discloses indicator LEDs indicating a charge level below 10% and 0%, as shown in Table 1. In order to provide the user with the most accurate indication of remaining battery power, it would have been obvious to use multiple LEDs in the manner disclosed by Dendy.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipowicz and Dendy as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of US 9,820,509 to Newton et al. (hereinafter Newton).
The combination of Lipowicz with Dendy is silent as to each indication state corresponding to a different estimated number of remaining activations that can be performed by the smoking substitute device before the smoking substitute device becomes inoperable due to a lack of battery charge. Newton, in an electronic smoking device, teaches equating battery life to the number of “puffs” (i.e. activations) remaining in the battery charge. See col.9, lines 30-48. It would have been obvious to modify Lipowicz and Dendy with Newton so as to provide the user with a meaningful expected life of the battery.
Claim(s) 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipowicz as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Newton.
As to claims 8-11, Lipowicz discloses a low battery indicator but the control unit does not use configuration information stored on the smoking substitute device, wherein the configuration information stored on the smoking substitute device provides a relationship between one or more measurements indicative of charge remaining in the battery and the plurality of indication states.
Newton discloses equating battery life to the number of “puffs” (i.e. activations) remaining on the battery charge. See col.9, lines 30-48. Further, Newton states that “the duration of each puff greatly influence [sic] the number of puffs a battery can support” and accordingly, collects and updates usage data related to the duration of the user’s puffs so as to improve “the prediction of expected life” of the device, including the battery. See col.9, lines 30-48. It would have been obvious to modify Lipowicz with Newton so as to provide the user with a more accurate expected life of the battery.
With respect to claim 12, Lipowicz is silent to including an application on a mobile device wirelessly connected to the smoking substitute device, wherein the application on the mobile device has prepared the new/updated configuration information based on an analysis of data concerning how the smoking substitute device has been used by a user of the smoking substitute device. Newton teaches that the limited user interface of a typical electronic cigarette prevents adequate accumulation, analysis, and display of information. Newton discloses wireless communication between the controller of the electronic cigarette and an outside processor, such as a smartphone running a suitable application that can process and display received information. See col.4, lines 22-42. One would have found it obvious to connect the controller of Lipowicz to a mobile app in the same manner in order to overcome the obstacles identified by Newton.
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipowicz in view of Newton.
Lipowicz teaches a system for managing a smoking substitute device, the system including a smoking substitute device, wherein the smoking substitute device has a control unit 116; a battery 110 configured to supply power to the smoking substitute device; a movement sensing component 502,540 (paras [0090, 0104]) configured to sense movement of the smoking substitute device; and a battery level indicator 105 configured to, when activated, provide an indication of charge remaining in the battery; wherein the control unit is configured to activate the battery level indicator, when a predetermined movement of the smoking substitute device is detected using the movement sensing component; wherein the predetermined movement detected using the movement sensing component includes a sequence of taps of the smoking substitute device performed within a predetermined tap sequence length of time. See paras (paras [0058, 0059, 0102-0104]). Lipowicz fails to disclose a mobile device, wherein the smoking substitute device is configured to communicate wirelessly with an application installed on the mobile device.
Newton teaches that the limited user interface of a typical electronic cigarette prevents adequate accumulation, analysis, and display of information. Newton discloses wireless communication between the controller of the electronic cigarette and an outside processor, such as a smartphone running a suitable application that can process and display received information. See col.4, lines 22-42. The application 8 is configured to display on a screen of the mobile device 4 information concerning the
PNG
media_image2.png
334
598
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
372
284
media_image3.png
Greyscale
battery of the smoking substitute device 2, based on one or more measurements indicative of charge remaining in the battery obtained by the smoking substitute device that have been wirelessly communicated by the smoking substitute device to the application on the mobile device. See col.9, lines 30-48; Fig. 10. Further, based on collected and updated user data, Newton teaches equating battery life to the number of “puffs” (i.e. activations) remaining on the battery charge. Newton states that “the duration of each puff greatly influence [sic] the number of puffs a battery can support” and accordingly, collects and updates usage data related to the duration of the user’s puffs so as to improve “the prediction of expected life” of the device, including the battery. See col.9, lines 30-48. It would have been obvious to modify Lipowicz with Newton so as to provide the user with a more accurate expected life of the battery. Moreover, one would have found it obvious to connect the controller of Lipowicz to a mobile app in the same manner in order to overcome the obstacles identified by Newton relating to accumulation, analysis, and display of information collected by the electronic smoking device.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2021/0037893 to Fard et al. teaches monitoring usage data to determine battery life and displaying battery life on a mobile device.
US 2015/0257445 to Henry, Jr. et al. discloses collecting user input through taps wherein the input may be used by the control module to provide a battery status.
Related Proceedings
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to
timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which Patent No.
11,771,141 is or was involved. These proceedings would include any trial before the
Patent Trial and Appeal Board, interferences, reissues, reexaminations, supplemental
examinations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to
timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the
claims under consideration in this reissue application. These obligations rest with each
individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See
also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH L MCKANE whose telephone number is 5.
The examiner can normally be reached on 6:30am-4:30pm (ET) Mon-Thurs.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
supervisor Timothy Speer can be reached on 313-446-4825. The fax phone number for
the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained at
https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/. Should you have questions on access to the Patent
Center system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or
access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA)
or 571-272-1000.
/ELIZABETH L MCKANE/Specialist, Art Unit 3991
Conferees:/LEE E SANDERSON/ /Patricia L Engle/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3991 SPRS, Art Unit 3991