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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/19/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 6/19/2026.
Claims 21, 26, 32, and 38 are amended.
Claims 1-20, 22, 28, 33, and 35 are cancelled.
Claims 39-41 are newly added.
Claims 21, 23-27, 29-32, 34, and 36-41 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see pages 6-8, filed 6/19/2026, with respect to the rejections of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lancaster, claims 26-27 and 37 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lancaster in view of Brisbane, and claims 32, 34, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lancaster in view of Brisbane and Breiwa have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Applicant has amended claim 21 to include the limitation “the heat dissipation feature terminating adjacent to the second end of the vaporization chamber.” Lancaster fails to disclose such a limitation. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Moreover, Applicant has amended claims 26, 32, and 38 to include the limitation “a cap…surrounding the vaporization chamber.” Lancaster, as modified by Brisbane, fails to disclose such a limitation. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly cited prior art (see below).
Priority
As discussed in the Final Rejection dated 1/13/2025, claims 21, 23-27, 29-32, 34, and 36-41 are being examined with an effectively filed date of 12/18/2015.
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.
Claims 39 and 41 are 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 claims 39 and 41, the claim limitation “the open end of the vaporization chamber” lacks antecedent basis. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as “the opening to the vaporization chamber,” which is recited in both claims 32 and 38.
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.
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.
Claims 21, 26, 37, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawamura (EP 0040252).
Regarding claim 21, Kawamura discloses a device for removing noxious substances in the smoke of tobacco in a cigarette holder or pipe (abstract; “tip for an exothermal vaporizer”) comprising:
a metallic cooling-chamber tube (3; “tip body”) having a first end (see annotated Fig. 1; interpreted as the right end of the metallic cooling-chamber tube) and a second end spaced from the first end (see annotated Fig. 1; interpreted as the left end of the metallic cooling-chamber tube) and detachable to a mouthpiece (1; p. 1, ll. 23-24; “body of the exothermal vaporizer”), a socket (5; “vaporization chamber”) having an opening (see annotated Fig. 1; interpreted as the opening of the socket) having a first end (see annotated Fig. 1; interpreted as the right end of the socket) and a second end (see annotated Fig. 1; interpreted as the left end of the socket), the first end of the metallic cooling-chamber tube aligned with the first end of the socket (see annotated Fig. 1), and where in the first end of the socket is open for receipt of a cigarette (6; p. 1, ll. 18-20); and
outer cooling fins (2; “heat dissipation feature comprising one or more fins”) on an exterior of the metallic cooling-chamber tube (Fig. 1) having a first end (see annotated Fig. 1; interpreted as the right end of the outer cooling fins) and a second end spaced from first end (see annotated Fig. 1; interpreted as the left end of the outer cooling fins), the first end terminating adjacent to the second end of the vaporization chamber (see annotated Fig. 1) such that the outer cooling fins are located between the socket and the second end of the metallic cooling-chamber tube (Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
336
684
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 26, Kawamura discloses, in a second embodiment (Figs. 1 and 3; used with a bowl), a device for removing noxious substances in the smoke of tobacco in a cigarette holder or pipe (abstract; “assembly for an exothermal vaporizer”) comprising:
a metallic cooling-chamber tube (3; “tip having a tip body”) having a socket (5; “opening” forming a “vaporization chamber”) extending longitudinally through the metallic cooling-chamber tube (Fig. 1), the socket having an open end (Fig. 1; interpreted as the right end of the socket) located on a first end of the metallic-cooling chamber (see annotated Fig. 1) open for receipt of a cigarette (6; p. 1, ll. 18-20); outer cooling fins (2; “heat dissipation feature comprising one or more fins”) on an exterior of the metallic cooling-chamber (Fig. 1); and a second end of the metallic cooling-chamber tube spaced from the first end (see annotated Fig. 1; interpreted as the left end of the metallic cooling-chamber tube); and
a bowl (8; Fig. 3; “cap,” which is defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary as a “fitting for closing the end of a tube” in definition 3b) that is attached and the assemblage used as a tobacco pipe (p. 1, ll. 22-23; “removably seated”), the bowl being positioned over the open end of the socket and surrounding the socket (Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
779
704
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 37, modified Kawamura discloses the outer cooling fins (2) are located between the socket (5) and the second end of the metallic cooling-chamber tube (2) (see annotated Figs. 1 and 3 of the Second Embodiment above).
Regarding claim 40, modified Kawamura discloses bowl (8) extends from the open end of socket (5; see annotated Fig. 3) to a second end of socket (see annotated Fig. 3).
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.
Claims 23-24 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura as applied to claims 21 and 26 above, and further in view of Trevvapor GBR (DE 202014000343; of record; see machine translation; hereby “Trevvapor”).
Regarding claims 23-24 and 29-30, Kawamura discloses the tip and assembly as discussed above with respect to claims 21 and 26, wherein the second end of the metallic cooling-chamber tube (3) is detached from the mouthpiece (1) and reattached (p. 1, ll. 23-26).
However, Kawamura is silent as to the second end of the tip body comprises an elastomeric member, and wherein the elastomeric member comprises one or more O-rings on the second end of the tip body.
Trevvapor teaches an inhalation device (abstract) comprising a mouthpiece module (16) and a steam inlet part (32) including a two sealing rings (40) in the form of O-rings (p. 6, second to last para.) and sealing ring (44), the sealing rings located on ends of the steam inlet part (see Figs. 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added sealing rings in the form of O-rings as in Trevvapor to Kawamura’s metallic cooling-chamber tube in order to form a plug connection with the benefit of preventing leakage from the interior thereof or ingress of dirt (Trevvapor, p. 7, para. 5).
Claims 25 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura as applied to claims 21 and 26 above, and further in view of Breiwa et al. (US 2014/0186015; of record).
Regarding claims 25 and 31, Kawamura discloses the tip and assembly as discussed above with respect to claims 21 and 26.
However, Kawamura is silent as to one or more grooves on an interior wall of the vaporization chamber and a circumferential compression fit diffuser disc.
Breiwa teaches a volatizer (abstract) comprising a chamber (14; Figs. 2-3; “vaporization chamber”) comprising tube (11; “interior wall”) with a groove (27; see also Fig. 16; “one or more grooves”) and a diffuser disc (26), wherein the convex shape of the diffuser disc permits a secure placement in the internal grooves with increasing force of engagement as pressure is applied ([0048]; “circumferential compression fit”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a groove and diffuser disc as in Breiwa to Kawamura’s metallic cooling-chamber tube in order to obtain the benefit of retaining tobacco and/or regulating the distribution of heat and airflow within the chamber (Breiwa, [0048]).
Claims 26-27, 31-32, 34, 36-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura (EP 0040252) in view of Breiwa et al. (US 2014/0186015; of record).
Regarding claims 26-27, Kawamura discloses, in a first embodiment (Fig. 1 and 2; used without a bowl), a device for removing noxious substances in the smoke of tobacco in a cigarette holder or pipe (abstract; “assembly for an exothermal vaporizer”) comprising:
a metallic cooling-chamber tube (3; “tip having a tip body”) having a socket (5; “opening” forming a “vaporization chamber”) extending longitudinally through the metallic cooling-chamber tube (Fig. 1), the socket having an open end (Fig. 1; interpreted as the right end of the socket) located on a first end of the metallic-cooling chamber (see annotated Fig. 1) open for receipt of a cigarette (6; p. 1, ll. 18-20); outer cooling fins (2; “heat dissipation feature comprising one or more fins”) on an exterior of the metallic cooling-chamber (Fig. 1); and a second end of the metallic cooling-chamber tube spaced from the first end (see annotated Fig. 1; interpreted as the left end of the metallic cooling-chamber tube).
However, Kawamura’s first embodiment is silent as to a cap removably seated over the open end of and surrounding the vaporization chamber, wherein the cap is a temperature indicating cap.
Breiwa teaches a volatizer (abstract) comprising a volatizer body (11) with a chamber (14; Figs. 2-3; “vaporization chamber”) and a cap (15) having a collar (20) to securely engage the cap with the body ([0046]; “removably seated”) over and surrounding an entry port (16; Figs. 2-3 and 6; [0039] and [0046]; “open end of the vaporization chamber”), wherein the cap further includes a thermo-indicator (28; [0043]; “temperature indicating cap”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added a cap with a thermos-indicator as in Breiwa to the first embodiment of Kawamura to achieve the predictable result of indicating when the vaporization chamber is heated to a predetermined temperature (Breiwa; [0042]), which would help the user prevent over applying heat to vaporization chamber resulting in the release of undesired compounds (Breiwa; [0004]).
Regarding claim 31, Kawamura discloses the assembly as discussed above with respect to claim 26.
However, Kawamura is silent as to one or more grooves on an interior wall of the vaporization chamber and a circumferential compression fit diffuser disc.
Breiwa further teaches the chamber (14; Figs. 2-3; “vaporization chamber”) comprising tube (11; “interior wall”) with a groove (27; see also Fig. 16; “one or more grooves”) and a diffuser disc (26), wherein the convex shape of the diffuser disc permits a secure placement in the internal grooves with increasing force of engagement as pressure is applied ([0048]; “circumferential compression fit”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a groove and diffuser disc as in Breiwa to Kawamura’s metallic cooling-chamber tube in order to obtain the benefit of retaining tobacco and/or regulating the distribution of heat and airflow within the chamber (Breiwa, [0048]).
Regarding claim 32, Kawamura discloses, in a third embodiment (Fig. 1 and 2; used without a bowl, recharacterizing the first and second ends of the tip body), a device for removing noxious substances in the smoke of tobacco in a cigarette holder or pipe (abstract; “assembly for an exothermal vaporizer”) comprising:
a metallic cooling-chamber tube (3; “tip having a tip body”) comprising: a first end (Fig. 1; interpreted as the left end of the metallic cooling-chamber tube) of the metallic cooling-chamber tube (3) is detachably attached to a mouthpiece (1; p. 1, ll. 23-26; “body of an exothermal vaporizer”), a socket (5; “hollow interior” forming a “vaporization chamber”), and a second end (Fig. 1; interpreted as the right end of the metallic cooling-chamber tube) having an opening to the socket (Fig. 1), the metallic cooling-chamber tube further comprising outer cooling fins (2; “heat dissipation feature comprising one or more fins”) on an exterior of the metallic cooling-chamber (Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
336
684
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, Kawamura’s third embodiment is silent as to a cap positionable over the opening and surrounding the vaporization chamber and removable from the tip; and a non-electric temperature indicator configured to signal a predetermined temperature.
Breiwa teaches a volatizer (abstract) comprising a volatizer body (11) with a chamber (14; Figs. 2-3; “vaporization chamber”) and a cap (15) having a collar (20) to securely engage the cap with the body ([0046]; “removably seated”) over and surrounding an entry port (16; Figs. 2-3 and 6; [0039] and [0046]; “open end of the vaporization chamber”), wherein the cap further includes a thermo-indicator (28; [0043]; “non-electric temperature indicator”) for indicating when the activation temperature has been reached ([0042]-[0043]; “signal a predetermined temperature”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added a cap with a thermos-indicator as in Breiwa to the first embodiment of Kawamura to achieve the predictable result of indicating when the vaporization chamber is heated to a predetermined temperature (Breiwa; [0042]), which would help the user prevent over applying heat to vaporization chamber resulting in the release of undesired compounds (Breiwa; [0004]).
Regarding claim 34, modified Kawamura discloses the assembly as discussed above with respect to claim 26.
However, modified Kawamura is silent as to the tip includes a diffuser therein.
Breiwa further teaches the chamber (14; Figs. 2-3; “vaporization chamber”) comprising tube (11; “tip”) with a groove (27; see also Fig. 16; “one or more grooves”) and a diffuser disc (26), wherein the convex shape of the diffuser disc permits a secure placement in the internal grooves with increasing force of engagement as pressure is applied ([0048]; “circumferential compression fit”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a groove and diffuser disc as in Breiwa to Kawamura’s metallic cooling-chamber tube in order to obtain the benefit of retaining tobacco and/or regulating the distribution of heat and airflow within the chamber (Breiwa, [0048]).
Regarding claim 36, modified Kawamura discloses the outer cooling fins (2) are located between the socket (5) and the first end of the metallic cooling-chamber tube (2) (see annotated Fig. 1 of the Third Embodiment above).
Regarding claim 37, modified Kawamura discloses the outer cooling fins (2) are located between the socket (5) and the second end of the metallic cooling-chamber tube (2) (see annotated Fig. 1 of the First Embodiment above).
Regarding claim 38, Kawamura discloses, in a first embodiment (Fig. 1 and 2; used without a bowl) and a third embodiment (Fig. 1 and 2; used without a bowl, recharacterizing the first and second ends of the tip body), a device for removing noxious substances in the smoke of tobacco in a cigarette holder or pipe (abstract; “assembly for an exothermal vaporizer”) comprising:
a metallic cooling-chamber tube (3; “tip having a tip body”) comprising: a first end (see Fig. 1 in the First Embodiment and the Third Embodiment) and a second end (see Fig. 1 in the First Embodiment and the Third Embodiment), a socket (5; “hollow interior” forming a “vaporization chamber”) wherein the first end has an opening to the vaporization chamber (see Fig. 1 in the First Embodiment) or the second end has an opening to the vaporization chamber (see Fig. 1 in the Third Embodiment), and outer cooling fins (2; “heat dissipation feature comprising one or more fins”) on a minimized cross-sectional area of an exterior of the metallic cooling-chamber (Fig. 1).
However, Kawamura’s third embodiment is silent as to a cap positionable over the opening and surrounding the vaporization chamber and removable from the tip; and a non-electric temperature indicator configured to signal a predetermined temperature.
Breiwa teaches a volatizer (abstract) comprising a volatizer body (11) with a chamber (14; Figs. 2-3; “vaporization chamber”) and a cap (15) having a collar (20) to securely engage the cap with the body ([0046]; “removably seated”) over and surrounding an entry port (16; Figs. 2-3 and 6; [0039] and [0046]; “open end of the vaporization chamber”), wherein the cap further includes a thermo-indicator (28; [0043]; “non-electric temperature indicator”) for indicating when the activation temperature has been reached ([0042]-[0043]; “signal a predetermined temperature”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added a cap with a thermos-indicator as in Breiwa to the first embodiment of Kawamura to achieve the predictable result of indicating when the vaporization chamber is heated to a predetermined temperature (Breiwa; [0042]), which would help the user prevent over applying heat to vaporization chamber resulting in the release of undesired compounds (Breiwa; [0004]).
Regarding claims 39-41, modified Kawamura discloses the cap (Breiwa; 15; Figs. 2-3) extends from the entry port (Breiwa; 16) past the diffuser disc (Breiwa; 26; “second end of the vaporization chamber”).
Claims 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura in view of Breiwa et al. as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Trevvapor GBR (DE 202014000343; of record; see machine translation; hereby “Trevvapor”).
Regarding claims 29-30, modified Kawamura discloses the tip assembly as discussed above with respect to claim 26, wherein the second end of the metallic cooling-chamber tube (3) is detached from the mouthpiece (1) and reattached (p. 1, ll. 23-26).
However, Kawamura is silent as to the second end of the tip body comprises an elastomeric member, and wherein the elastomeric member comprises one or more O-rings on the second end of the tip body.
Trevvapor teaches an inhalation device (abstract) comprising a mouthpiece module (16) and a steam inlet part (32) including a two sealing rings (40) in the form of O-rings (p. 6, second to last para.) and sealing ring (44), the sealing rings located on ends of the steam inlet part (see Figs. 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added sealing rings in the form of O-rings as in Trevvapor to Kawamura’s metallic cooling-chamber tube in order to form a plug connection with the benefit of preventing leakage from the interior thereof or ingress of dirt (Trevvapor, p. 7, para. 5).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SONNY V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8294. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM EST.
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 Y 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.
/SONNY V NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1755
/ERIC YAARY/Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights