CTFR 16/613,037 CTFR 84371 Detailed Office Action The communication dated 2/18/2026 has been entered and fully considered. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 1-18 are pending with claims 15-16 withdrawn from consideration. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Arguments Applicant argues that REXROAD fails to specifically disclose the three transitions (i)-(iii). Specifically the applicant points to Figure 5 which shows M1-M4. The applicant argues that this shows a sequential (serial) transition between each mode. The Examiner agrees that Figure 5 shows a sequential transfer between modes. However, Figure 5 is for a single button press operation only [0038-0039]. This is only one embodiment of REXROAD. REXROAD also teaches an operation where there is an inhalation sensor that activates an on-mode and a button that can activate a different on-mode [0004, 0008]. This is shown in Figure 6 where either one of the sensor, the button or both can be activated which turns on a specific output voltage [0041 “alternatively or in addition to”]. Figure 6 can be a continuous loop [0041] therefore both sensors are being monitors and as such pressing the button while inhalation mode voltage has been activated would switch to the single press button mode until time out. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 07-31-01 Claims 1-14 and 17-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The applicant amended claim 1 to have the three transitions (i), (ii), and (iii). The Examiner agrees the applicant has support for (i) and (ii) specifically in instant Figure 3. Figure 3 shows going directly from standby mode (T1) to one of the first or second on-states associated with the first and second user-defined on power state (T3). Figure 4 also shows going from (T3) directly back to (T1). However, the Examiner does not find support for claimed transition (iii) going from the first on-state to the second on-state directly and vice versa. Claims 2-14 and 17-18 depend from claim 1 and are similarly rejected. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-8, 10-14, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2017/0150756 REXROAD et al., hereinafter REXROAD, in view of U.S. 2017/0245547 LIPOWICZ, hereinafter LIPOWICZ . As for claims 1, 5, 10, 12, and 13, REXROAD discloses an e-cigarette [abstract] with a power supply [abstract; Figure 3 (battery 204) and voltage regulator (324)]. REXROAD discloses two activation sensors [0004]. REXROAD discloses that the voltages can be user configurable [0022, 0027] via a user input device [0031], when the user is inputting values/settings this is a programming mode. “The control electronics generally include components necessary to regulate an amount of voltage and/or current provided by the battery in accordance with a user-selected value and/or a user-selected duration. That is, a user may first set a desired voltage level of the power source 100 such that upon activation, an output of the desired voltage level is provided” The first activation sensor is an airflow sensor [0004] and the second activation sensor is a button [0004]. REXROAD discloses that each activation sensor causes a different voltage to be supplied [0004,0008]. When the voltage is supplied in either case this is an “on-state”. In paragraph [0022] it is explained that the user sets the derived voltage. Then upon activation the voltage is supplied. The language “ user may first set ” mirrors the instant claimed language of “ user-defined setting”. It is clear that the pressing of an activation button or inhaling both selects and activates two different power states [see e.g. claim 2, 0222]. PNG media_image1.png 97 350 media_image1.png Greyscale REXROAD further discloses a display which displays various power level modes entered [0031 and Table 1]. REXROAD further discloses the substances to be vaporized [0028]. REXROAD teaches an off-state but fails to a standby state. As per the instant claim an off state is not a standby state. Further during the standby state no power is supplied to the heater. LIPOWICZ teaches a standby mode in addition to an active and sleep mode [0091]. LIPOWICZ discloses during active mode energy is supplied to the heater [00981]. LIPOWICZ discloses that during standby mode the pressure sensor is still monitored [0091]. At the time of the invention, it would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to add the standby mode of LIPOWICZ to the e-cigarette of REXROAD. The person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so by LIPOWICZ to save power while still being able to monitor the pressure sensor such that the e-cigarette could be monitored for a user puff [0091]. The person of ordinary skill in the art would expect success from the combination as both REXROAD and LIPOWICZ teach e-cigarettes and REXROAD has a pressure sensor that needs to be monitored. The person of ordinary skill in the art would expect the e-cigarette of REXROAD to save power by not having to heat the heater while still being able to monitor the pressure sensor. REXROAD discloses that upon inhalation the first sensor activates the a first on-state mode [0004]. As combined with LIPOWICZ n e-cigarette can wait in standby mode till a sensor is activated [0091]. When the sensor (air/pressure) is no longer activated it goes back to standby mode [Figure 6 of REXROAD shows once a sensor is deactivated the e-cigarette turns off, S640->S628; however as combined with LIPOWICZ a standby mode can be used]. REXROAD discloses that by pushing a button a second on-state mode can be entered [0004]. As combined with LIPOWICZ n e-cigarette can wait in standby mode till a sensor is activated [0091]. When the sensor (button) is no longer activated it goes back to standby mode [Figure 6 of REXROAD shows once a sensor is deactivated the e-cigarette turns off, S640->S628; however as combined with LIPOWICZ a standby mode can be used]. REXROAD can cycle between the first on-state and the second on state [abstract “Further, a control circuit is provided and is configured to cycle through a plurality of voltage output modes in accordance with input received at the input receiving device, wherein a voltage between the first electrical contact and the second electrical contact is different for at least two of the plurality of voltage output modes.”]. REXROAD shows a continuous loop control [Figure 6] that either inhalation sensor (140) or/and button (344) is activated the voltage is activated to the specific parameter assigned [Figure 6]. As it is continuous a continuous loop the current mode selection can wait for a different input. As for claims 2-4, REXROAD discloses a first activation sensor which is an airflow sensor and a second activation sensor which is a button as per above. REXROAD does not disclose that both activation sensors are buttons. However, REXROAD states that the activation “may” be by airflow detection. At the time of the invention, it would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one known activation sensor for another known activating sensor absent evidence of unexpected results. In the instant case the person of ordinary skill in the art would expect a different button to be able to activate the first mode instead of the airflow sensor. Even, a single press is a sequence(off-on-off) and therefore both buttons meet the claim. Furthermore, REXROAD discloses that the activation button modes can be affected by sequences within a specific timeout condition [0005, 0028]. In paragraph [0031] REXROAD gives an example of how many times the switch is pressed. That is pressing the switch once goes into an output mode while two quick oppresses in succession goes to the programming mode. The Examiner also notes that REXROAD only states that the switch “may” be used for switching to programming mode “may be the same as or similar” [0031]. Further, LIPOWICZ discloses that the standby mode transitions into the normal mode not that a programming mode is entered. As for claim 6, 17 and 18, REXROAD discloses that the voltage or duration can be changed via various activations. REXROAD discloses that there can be multiple voltage settings that are user defined [0022]. REXROAD further discloses that just an inhalation can set a voltage [0022] or an inhalation and a button can set a voltage [0022]. At the time of the invention, it would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to start a voltage with a single inhalation as suggested by REXROAD and then change it to a second voltage once the button was also pressed. This would allow for a different heating profile to be switched while operating. REXROAD specifically states that the pushing of the button can change the voltage. [0039]. REXROAD already states that the voltage can be changed an incremented through steps by pressing a button [0037]. The argued combination simply makes inhalation a first step increment and the button pressing the second, third, fourth increments. The person of ordinary skill in the art would expect success as inhalation alone can be used for a setting and inhalation plus a button can be used for a setting. As for claims 7 and 8, REXROAD discloses the features as per above including programmable voltages based on the use of a first or second sensor which operates a first or second mode. REXROAD further, discloses that the device can require activation of two sensors. REXROAD does not explicitly state that the activation of both sensors would enter a third mode. REXROAD discloses multiple output modes including a third output mode [0038]. At the time of the invention, it would be obvious to assign the combined activation of both sensors to an additional mode. Each mode requires a different way of activating (whether that be an individual sensor or pattern with one or more sensors). The person of ordinary skill in the art would expect success as REXROAD already states there are multiple modes and discloses that a combination of both sensors can be switch on a mode [0022]. As for claim 11, REXROAD discloses the features as per above. REXROAD discloses multiple output modes including a third output mode [0038]. REXROAD disclose “an activation sensor” which means one or more activation sensors [claim 2]. Therefore, REXROAD can have multiple activation buttons. At the time of the invention, it would be obvious to assign an additional button to an additional mode. Each mode requires a different way of activating (whether that be an individual sensor or pattern with one or more sensors). The person of ordinary skill in the art would expect success as REXROAD already states there are multiple modes and claims one or more activation buttons [0022]. As for claim 14, REXROAD discloses the features as per above. REXROAD a vapor provision system with a reusable part (100) comprising a first activation sensor (140), the power supply control circuitry (324), power supply (204) and the user programming circuitry (308) [Figure 3]. REXROAD discloses a cartridge (304) part comprising the vaporizable material (336) and the cartridge is removable coupled. REXROAD disclose the second activation sensor is on the cartridge part (344) [Figure 3] not on the reusable part. At the time of the invention, it would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to change the location of the button from the cartridge part to the reusable part. It is typically prima facie obvious to change the location of a switch/button [MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C)]. Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) Further, REXROAD, already disclose additional switches (320) already which could be used as a user input . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2-4, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2017/0150756 REXROAD et al., hereinafter REXROAD, and U.S. 2017/0245547 LIPOWICZ, hereinafter LIPOWICZ, in further view of U.S. 2017/0071257 LIN, hereinafter LIN . As for claims 2-4, REXROAD discloses a first activation sensor which is an airflow sensor and a second activation sensor which is a button as per above. REXROAD does not disclose that both activation sensors are buttons. However, REXROAD states that the activation “may” be by airflow detection. The Examiner therefore made an argument for obviousness without the LIN reference below. In the alternative, LIN discloses an e-cigarette type device with two buttons (k1/k2) [Figure 1]. Each button can activate a different power mode (low or high voltage). At the time of the invention, it would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one known activation sensor (puff sensor of REXROAD) with another known activating sensor (second button of LIN). The person of ordinary skill in the art would expect success as both disclose using activation sensors to control voltage of an e-cigarette. In addition to the above as for claims 3 and 4, even a single press is a sequence(off-on-off) and therefore both buttons meet the claim. Furthermore, REXROAD discloses that the activation button modes can be affected by sequences within a specific timeout condition [0005, 0028]. As for claim 7, REXROAD discloses the features as per above including programmable voltages based on the use of a first or second sensor which operates a first or second mode. REXROAD further, discloses that the device can require activation of two sensors. REXROAD does not explicitly state that the activation of both sensors would enter a third mode. LIN discloses that upon activation of both buttons the device shuts-off (a third power mode) [abstract]. As for claim 8, LIN assigns the pressing of 2 buttons to a shut-down mode. However, REXROAD discloses more than 3 modes. At the time of the invention, it would be obvious to assign a third mode to the dual press option of REXROAD . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2017/0150756 REXROAD et al., hereinafter REXROAD and U.S. 2017/0245547 LIPOWICZ, hereinafter LIPOWICZ, in further view of U.S. 2011/0036346 COHEN et al., hereinafter COHEN . REXROAD does not disclose using the puff sensor for a user input mechanism. In the same art of e-cigarettes COHEN discloses that a puff sensor with a series of puffs (inhale/exhale) can be used to make settings in an e-cigarette [0035, 0045]. At the time of the invention, it would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute using the puff sensor of REXROAD to make program settings for other controllers as suggested by COHEN. The person of ordinary skill in the art would expect success as COHEN states that the puff sensor can be used for programming. Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ANTHONY J CALANDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:45 AM -4:15 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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at (571)270-7457. 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. ANTHONY J. CALANDRA Primary Examiner Art Unit 1748 /Anthony Calandra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748 Application/Control Number: 16/613,037 Page 2 Art Unit: 1748 Application/Control Number: 16/613,037 Page 3 Art Unit: 1748 Application/Control Number: 16/613,037 Page 4 Art Unit: 1748 Application/Control Number: 16/613,037 Page 5 Art Unit: 1748 Application/Control Number: 16/613,037 Page 6 Art Unit: 1748 Application/Control Number: 16/613,037 Page 7 Art Unit: 1748 Application/Control Number: 16/613,037 Page 8 Art Unit: 1748 Application/Control Number: 16/613,037 Page 9 Art Unit: 1748 Application/Control Number: 16/613,037 Page 10 Art Unit: 1748 Application/Control Number: 16/613,037 Page 11 Art Unit: 1748 Application/Control Number: 16/613,037 Page 12 Art Unit: 1748 Application/Control Number: 16/613,037 Page 13 Art Unit: 1748
Prosecution Insights