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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 4/1/2024, 1/31/2025, 3/12/2025, 10/15/2025 have been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 line 3 should read “…corresponding to the plurality of operation modes” to be clear that this is referring to the same plurality introduced in claim 1.
Claim 3 line 4 should read “…wherein the plurality of operation modes are different from each other…” to be clear that this is referring to the same plurality introduced in claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an aerosol-generating device comprising a controller configured to “determine a type of the battery, from among a plurality of types of batteries, based on an input provided by the protection circuit module”.
Claim 1 is rejected based on the following analysis:
Step 2A, Prong One: Identify the law of nature/natural phenomenon/abstract ideas.
The examiner finds that the quoted section of claim 1 (“determining”) recites a mental process. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Determining the type of the battery based on received data is an evaluation.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Has the abstract idea been integrated into a particular practical application?
While the final two lines of the claim do recite “set an operation mode… based on the determined type of the battery”, this is not considered to be an integration of the exception into a practical application of the exception. "Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception". MPEP 2106.05(g). An example of "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. An example of a post-solution activity is "an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent" MPEP 2106.05(g). The claims in this case are an example of "extra-solution activity" which are insignificant post-solution steps. The addition of the limitations of setting the operation mode dependent upon the determination are merely post-solution activities that are not integrated to the claim as a whole, in the same way that the printer merely outputs the result of the fraudulent transactions.
As detailed in MPEP 2106.05(g), the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). In Flook, the Court reasoned that "[t]he notion that post-solution activity, no matter how conventional or obvious in itself, can transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process exalts form over substance. A competent draftsman could attach some form of post-solution activity to almost any mathematical formula". 437 U.S. at 590; 198 USPQ at 197; Id. (holding that step of adjusting an alarm limit variable to a figure computed according to a mathematical formula was "post-solution activity"). In a similar way, the instant applications limitations tied to setting the operation mode based upon the evaluation of determining the type of battery is considered post-solution activity which does not transform this unpatentable principle into a patentable process.
As detailed in MPEP 2106.05(f), using the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception is not indicative of integration into a practical application. In this case, the final limitation of “set an operation mode… based on the determined type of the battery” is akin to using the words of “applying” the operation mode which is determined based upon the evaluation step regarding the type of the battery.
As detailed in MPEP 2106.05(h), the general linking of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of integration into a practical application. The recitation of the generic aerosol-generating device components of a heater, battery, and protection circuit module involves the general linking of the judicial exception (the determining the type of battery via the evaluation made) to that of an aerosol-generating device without any further transformative elements.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite any elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea?
No. As noted above, the extra elements in the claim (setting an operation mode, and the generic aerosol-generating device components) do not lend itself to being significantly more. The claims do not include additional elements which are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are considered to be merely adding an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception MPEP2106.05(g), or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use 2106.05(h). And further, the additional recited elements are all conventional and well-known in the art. See Liu (CN209846170U), for example, which teaches an aerosol-generating device with a battery that supplies power to the device, wherein the operation mode changes dependent upon the type of battery that is determined based on signals from the controller/module [pgs. 4-5 of machine translation].
Regarding claim 2, the claim is directed towards storing a plurality of temperature profiles and having the controller adjust the power according to these temperature profiles. The temperature profile data would be data which is an abstract idea, and the heating according to the profile would be considered post-solution activity that merely links the abstract idea to the art, and which is well-known and conventional, see Robert (US2020/0037668A1). This limitation does not rise to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 3, the claim requires the batteries to be different from each other, the plurality of modes to be different from each other, and for the controller to “determine one or more modes available to be set to the operation mode, among the plurality of modes, based on the determined type of the battery”. This determine step is an additional abstract idea under Step 2A prong one with no application under Step 2A prong two, and it does not impart elements significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 4, this claim requires for the protection circuit module to comprise an integrated circuit and output signals. These are generic computing devices that are well-known and conventional in the art (see Liu pgs. 4-5 of machine translation), such that this does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 5, this claim requires a memory to store data on battery specifications, and for the controller to “determine a specification… that corresponds to the determined type of the battery”. This determine step is an additional abstract idea under Step 2A prong one with no application under Step 2A prong two, and it does not impart elements significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 6, this claim requires a charging circuit to supply power based on the determined type of battery. This is merely adding an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception MPEP2106.05(g), or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use 2106.05(h). And additionally, these limitations are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. See Amir (US2015/0027472A1), wherein the different charging currents are supplied to the battery dependent upon the type of battery detected [0024-0025, 0032-0033].
Regarding claim 7, this claim recites an additional abstract idea of “determine a temperature of the battery” which is linked to the abstract idea in claim 1, and this does not amount to significantly more.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN209846170U) in view of Lin (CN110547515A, citing to English Equivalent US2022/0278618A1).
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches an aerosol generating device (electronic cigarette): comprising:
A battery configured to supply power to the heater (the device includes a battery which supplies power to the device [abstract]).
Liu does not explicitly state that its electronic cigarette comprises a heater to heat an aerosol-generating substance. However, such components are ubiquitous within the field of electronic cigarettes/aerosol-generating substances so as to create the aerosol/vapor for the user to smoke without combustion. Lin, for example, teaches the existing (conventional) electronic cigarettes typically heat and vaporize the electronic cigarette liquid by means of the vaporizer, to produce vapor for the smoker [0002], such that the electronic cigarettes would necessarily comprise a heater so as to vaporize the aerosol-generating substance. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include these conventional aspects of a heater to heat aerosol-generating substances as suggested by Lin. One would have been motivated so as to ensure that the vapor product can be generated, and wherein the product would be improved as it would not include tobacco tar and would be less harmful to the human body [Lin, 0003].
Modified Liu further suggests a protection circuit module electrically connected to the battery (the device includes a detection module 101 which is electrically connected to the main circuit board [Liu, pg. 4 of machine translation]. The detection module detects the battery to supply power for generating induction current, such that through the battery power controls the power of the device and controlled to ensure normal power supply and avoid battery overheating or risk of exploding [Liu, pg. 2, 4 of machine translation]. As such, the protection circuit module would reasonably be considered to be the detection module 101 which prevents the battery from overheating/exploding).
Optionally applied regarding the protection circuit module, Lin teaches electronic cigarettes [0001-0002], wherein the device includes an internal circuit protection module which is electrically connected [0015] (such that it would necessarily be connected to a device battery powering the device). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize an internal circuit protection module, as suggested by Lin, and one would have been motivated to provide over and under voltage protection, overcurrent protection, and over-temperature protection [0015, 0032, 0051].
Modified Liu further suggests a controller (Liu’s device includes a main control board which is connected to the detection module and to the battery [abstract, pgs. 2-3 of machine translation) configured to:
Determine a type of battery, from among a plurality of types of batteries, based on an input provided by the protection circuit module, and set an operation mode, from among a plurality of operation modes, of the aerosol-generating device based on the determined type of battery (Liu’s invention allows for batteries with many different specifications to be used, such that there would clearly be a plurality of types, wherein the conditions applied to the device depend on the battery utilized [abstract, pg. 1-2 of machine translation]. The detection module obtains the size of the battery depending on the detection of the size in electrical signal from the main control board [pgs. 4-5 of machine translation]. Based off of these results, the power supply is then adjusted or limited to the device, to ensure that the battery can supply power to normal working conditions dependent upon the battery size [pgs. 4-5 of machine translation], which ensures that the battery is not overloaded, that the power supply remains stable, and prevents abnormal conditions [pgs. 4-5 of machine translation]. The different operation modes are thus considered to be the different amount of power that is supplied dependent upon the battery type determined (wherein the battery type is determined based on the electrical signals sensed).
Regarding claim 3, modified Liu suggests a device wherein each of the plurality of types of batteries are different from each other in at least one of a battery charge capacity or a battery output (Liu details that a variety of batteries with different specifications may be used [pgs. 1-2 of machine translation]. As the batteries are measured the size of the battery may be determined [pgs. 4-5 of machine translation], such that batteries with different specifications and/or different sizes would necessarily have at least one of a charge capacity or output different from each other. And as the electrical signal is sense to determine the size/type of battery [pg. 4-5 of machine translation], this would clearly also correlate to different battery characteristics having difference charge capacities or outputs as indicated by the different values of electric signals),
Wherein the plurality of operation modes are different from each other in at least one of power supplied to the heater or maximum number of puffs (dependent upon the size/type of battery determined, different amounts of power will be output [pgs. 4-5 of machine translation], such that the power supplied to the heater would clearly be different in these different modes for the different batteries),
Determine one or more modes available to be set for the type of battery and set the determined mode to the operation mode (as also in the rejection of claim 1 above, the mode available to be set may be considered to be the determination made regarding the proper amount of power supplied dependent upon the type/size of the battery that is determined, wherein this is considered to be the at least one mode that is set [pgs. 4-5 of machine translation]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Liu suggests a device wherein the protection circuit module comprises an integrated circuit configured to output a signal in response to the application of power to the protection circuit module (Liu suggests that the device may include an integrated circuit chip and/or an application specific integrated circuit which has processing capabilities of the signal [pgs. 4-5 of machine translation], wherein these signals are passed between the battery/controller so as to supply power to the device in the proper amounts [pgs. 4-5 of machine translation], such that modified Liu clearly suggests the claimed features).
Regarding claim 5, modified Liu suggests a device wherein a memory configured to store data related to a plurality of battery specifications corresponding to one of the types of batteries (Liu suggests that “the main control board 102 is provided with a memory, according to the storage of the electric signal corresponding to the electric power supply” [pg. 4-5 of machine translation]. And further, “power supply power of the main control board 102 processing the power supply measuring data according to a preset program, so as to obtain the battery 201, determining the electronic device 10 the highest power output, thereby realizing the adjustment of output power to the electronic device 10 or to limit” [pgs. 4-5 of machine translation]. In other words, the device has a memory which may store the data of how power is to be supplied from the battery type to the device, and that this information may then be preset so as to activate when a battery type/size is detected. The plurality of battery specifications may be considered the size/type/charge/etc., and the specification may be the preset memory which may store the different characteristics tied to the batteries).
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN209846170U) in view of Lin (CN110547515A, citing to English Equivalent US2022/0278618A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Robert (US2020/0037668A1).
Regarding claim 2, Liu suggests that “the main control board 102 is provided with a memory, according to the storage of the electric signal corresponding to the electric power supply” [pg. 4-5 of machine translation]. And further, “power supply power of the main control board 102 processing the power supply measuring data according to a preset program, so as to obtain the battery 201, determining the electronic device 10 the highest power output, thereby realizing the adjustment of output power to the electronic device 10 or to limit” [pgs. 4-5 of machine translation]. In other words, the device has a memory which may store the data of how power is to be supplied from the battery type to the device, and that this information may then be preset so as to activate when a battery type/size is detected. Liu does not explicitly state that its memory stores a plurality of temperature profiles where the controller adjusts the power based on the temperature profile. However, such controls are known within the art and would have been obvious to apply to the device of Liu. Robert, for example, teaches an aerosol-generating device [title]. Robert teaches that it is well known in the art that the temperature of the battery is tied to the resistance/current/output of the battery [0005]. Robert’s method for delivery power to the device from the battery comprises measuring the temperature of the battery and adjusting the current supplied dependent upon the temperature [Claim 16, abstract, 0013, 0092, 0112].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the device of Liu so as to adjust the power supplied based on the temperature profile as suggested by Robert. One would have been motivated so as to allow maximum power to be extracted to heat quickly while also maintaining a sufficient safety margin [Robert, 0113]. And as Liu details how it may have preset programs based on variables and current supplied, when Liu is modified by Robert it would clearly have a plurality of temperature profiles for the different types/sizes of batteries and would have different power supplied dependent upon the measured temperatures in these profiles.
Regarding claim 7, Liu does not explicitly state that its protection circuit module includes a thermistor. However, it is incredibly common to include thermistors in electronic cigarettes for temperature monitoring purposes. Robert, for example, teaches an aerosol-generating device [title] which includes a battery wherein the battery may include a thermistor to obtain a measure of the temperature of the battery [0013, 0087]. The thermistor is connected to the main controller and memory systems [0087]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the device of Liu so as to have a thermistor to measure the temperature of the battery as suggested by Robert. One would have been motivated so as to provide an analogue measurement of temperature [0087] which would provide additional data for that of Liu as temperatures are tied to the resistance/currents of the battery [Robert, 0005] such that this would be an imperative data set to have given the teachings and goals of Liu’s invention. And as the thermistor would be connected to the controller/memory/etc., this would clearly also be obvious to connected with the protection circuit module as this is the system for ensuring that the battery does not get too excessively hot.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN209846170U) in view of Lin (CN110547515A, citing to English Equivalent US2022/0278618A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Amir (US2015/0027472A1).
Regarding claim 6, Liu does not explicitly detail the charging circuit details to its battery. Amir, which is similarly tied to electronic cigarettes [title], details the charging circuit as in Fig. 2. The charging circuit is provided, with a charger, so as to charge the electronic cigarette [0024-0025]. The charging circuits may be optimized to be used with different types of batteries [0024-0025], wherein in charging the current/voltage would clearly be adjusted to supply charge to the battery. Based on the resistance measured, the battery type may be detected [0032]. In detecting the battery type, different charging currents may be supplied to the battery dependent upon the type of the battery, such that smaller batteries may be supplies with lower currents [0033].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the device of Liu so as to have the charging circuit as detailed in Amir. One would have been motivated so as to allow charging of the vaping device, and so as to tailor the charging characteristics to the specific type of battery utilized to meet the manufacturer’s recommendations, which would be especially useful for Liu given that different types and sizes of batteries may be used [Amir, 0020, 0024-0025, 0032-0033]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS F SCHNEIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-4857. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/T.F.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights