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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/15/2026 has been entered.
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 13 and 18 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.
The control process recited in claim 13 is not clear. Claim 13 recites “in response to determining there is a depletion based on the comparison between the monitored parameter and the first threshold” a second non-zero level of power is supplied to the vaporizer. In the next clause, the claim states that once the control circuitry determines there is depletion on the basis of the first threshold, the control circuitry compares to a second threshold, if there is a depletion based on the second threshold, the control circuitry supplies “a third non-zero level of power to the vaporizer.” So it is not clear if a second or third level of power is being supplied, as the claim appears to state that both are being supplied to the vaporizer. The claims seem to need some kind of conditional clause stating that both comparisons are made, and if there is no depletion based on the second threshold, a second level of power is supplied, while if there is depletion based on the second threshold, a third level of power is supplied.
Claim 18 is indefinite as it depends from an indefinite base and fail to cure the deficiencies of said claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, 13, 15 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2019/0269176 to DAHLMANN.
With regard to claim 1, DAHLMANN teaches a vapor provision system ([0011]) comprising: a vaporizer for generating vapor from a vapor precursor material (atomizer 5); a reservoir storing vapor precursor material (liquid reservoir 4); and control circuitry (control unit) configured to:
(a) supply a first, non-zero level of power to the vaporizer to generate vapor from at least a portion of vapor precursor material ([0017)]; (b) determine a depletion condition of the vapor precursor material based on monitoring a parameter indicative of a quantity of at least a portion of the vapor precursor material (fluid level) and comparing the monitored parameter to a plurality of thresholds, including a first threshold, wherein each of the thresholds is indicative of a different degree of depletion of the at least a portion of the vapor precursor material ([0017]); and
(c) subsequent to (b) in response to the control circuitry determining there is depletion based on the comparison between the monitored parameter and the first threshold, (i) begin supplying a second, non-zero level of power to the vaporizer instead of the first non-zero level of power, the second level of power being lower than the first level of power and (ii) begin comparing the monitored parameter to a second threshold ([0017]); and (d) subsequent to (c), in response to the control circuitry determining there is depletion based on the comparison between the monitored parameter and the second threshold, (i) being supplying a third non-zero level of power to the vaporizer, instead of the second non-zero level of power, the third level of power being lower than the second level of power, and wherein each of the thresholds corresponds to one of a plurality of different non-zero power levels configured to be output by the control circuitry ([0017]).
With regard to claim 2, DAHLMANN teaches the second level of power can be less than 70% of the first level of power ([0017]).
With regard to claim 3, DAHLMANN teaches that control method prevents overheating ([0017]) which is what would occur when there was no liquid left in the reservoir, thus the second level of power in DAHLMANN is set such that the vapor provision system can continue to generate vapor even after the control circuitry determines there is depletion of the at least a portion of the vapor precursor material.
With regard to claim 5, DAHLMANN teaches the system further comprises an indicator, and wherein the control circuitry is configured to activate the indicator when the control circuitry determines that there is depletion based on the comparison between the monitored parameter and the first threshold (optical or acoustical signal [0018]).
With regard to claim 8, DAHLMANN teaches the vaporizer comprises an electrically heated heating element, and wherein the parameter indicative of the quantity of at least a portion of the vapor precursor material is the electrical resistance of the heating element, and wherein the control circuitry is further configured to determine the electrical resistance of the heating element ([0019] and [0047]).
With regard to claim 9, DAHLMANN teaches the control circuitry is configured to repeatedly compare the monitored parameter to the first threshold ([0017]).
With regard to claim 10, DAHLMANN teaches continually monitoring and adjusting the power level ([0017]) and thus the control circuitry supplies the second level of power to the vaporizer, the control circuitry is configured to compare the monitored parameter to the first threshold and supply the first level of power when the control circuitry determines there is no longer depletion based on the comparison between the monitored parameter and the first threshold.
With regard to claim 13, DAHLMANN teaches control circuitry ([0017]), for use in a vapor provision system for generating a vapor from a vapor precursor material, the vapor provision system comprising a vaporizer for generating vapor from a precursor material ([0017]), wherein the control circuitry is configured to: supply a first, non-zero level of power to the vaporizer to generate vapor from at least portion of vapor precursor material ([0017]); determine a depletion condition of the vapor precursor material based on monitoring a parameter indicative of a quantity of at least a portion of the vapor precursor material ([0017]); compare the monitored parameter to a plurality of thresholds, including a first threshold, wherein each of the thresholds is indicative of a degree of depletion of the at least a portion of the vapor precursor material ([0017]); and in response to the circuitry determining there is depletion based on the comparison between the monitored parameter and the first threshold, supply a second, non- zero level of power to the vaporizer, the second level of power being lower than the first level of power ([0017]), and wherein once the control circuitry determines there is depletion on the basis of the first threshold, the control circuitry is configured to compare the monitored parameter to a second threshold and, when the control circuitry determines there is depletion based on the comparison between the monitored parameter and the second threshold, supply a third non-zero level of power to the vaporizer ([0017]), the third level of power being lower than the second level of power ([0017]), wherein each of the thresholds corresponds to one of a plurality of different non-zero power levels configured to be output by the control circuitry ([0017]).
With regard to claim 15, DAHLMAN teaches a method of operating control circuitry for a vapor provision system ([0017]) comprising a vaporizer (atomizer 5) for generating vapor from a vapor precursor material and a reservoir storing vapor precursor material (liquid reservoir 4), wherein the method comprises: (a) supplying, via the control circuitry, a first, non-zero level of power to the vaporizer to generate vapor from at least a portion of vapor precursor material ([0017]); (b) determining, via the control circuitry, a depletion condition of the vapor precursor material based on monitoring a parameter indicative of a quantity of at least a portion of the vapor precursor material and comparing the monitored parameter to a plurality of thresholds, including a first threshold, wherein each of the thresholds is indicative of a respective degree of depletion of the at least a portion of the vapor precursor material ([0017]); and (c) subsequent to (b) in response to the circuitry determining there is depletion based on the comparison between the monitored parameter and the first threshold, (i) supplying, via the control circuitry, a second, non-zero level of power to the vaporizer, the second level of power being lower than the first level of power instead of the first, non-zero level of power ([0017]), and (ii) wherein once the control circuitry determines there is depletion on the basis of the first threshold, the control circuitry is configured to begin comparing the monitored parameter to a second threshold ([0017]); and (d) subsequent to (c), in response to the control circuitry determining there is depletion based on the comparison between the monitored parameter and the second threshold, (i) begin supplying a third non-zero level of power to the vaporizer, the third level of power being lower than the second level of power ([0017]), wherein each of the thresholds corresponds to one of a plurality of different non-zero power levels configured to be output by the control circuitry ([0017]).
With regard to claims 17-19, DAHLMANN teaches the depletion condition of the vapor precursor material is an indication of the quantity of vapor precursor material within the reservoir ([0017]).
With regard to claim 20, DAHLMANN teaches the second level of power is less than 50% of the first level of power ([0017]).
With regard to claim 21, DAHLMANN teaches the second level of power is less than 30% of the first level of power ([0017]).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0269176 to DAHLMANN in view of US 2015/0128967 to ROBINSON ET AL.
With regard to claim 4, DAHLMANN does not teach the control circuitry is configured to supply power to the vaporizer using pulse width modulation, and wherein the first and second power levels are an average power over one duty cycle of the pulse width modulation. However, it is known in the art to use pulse-width modulated signals to supply power to the heating element of a vaporizer ([0045]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the vaporizing device of DAHLMANN to incorporate the teachings of ROBINSON by configuring the control circuitry to utilize pulse with modulation for supplying electrical power to the heating element, ensuring that the first and second power levels represent average power over one duty cycle of the pulse width modulation. Doing so would enable the supply of multiple levels of power to the heating element quickly and accurately.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0269176 to DAHLMANN in view of US 2014/0020693 to COCHAND.
With regard to claim 6, DAHLMANN does not teach the vapor precursor transport element configured to transport the vapor precursor material from the reservoir to the vaporizer. However, it is known in the art to be advantageous use a wick to transport the vaporizable liquid from a reservoir to the vaporizer, as taught by COCHAND ([0058] and [0062]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of DAHLMANN to include a wick as taught by COCHAND to bring the vaporizable liquid closer to the heating element and concentrate the liquid near the vaporizer.
With regard to claim 7, COCHAND teaches that the wick should always be wet [0022] during operation. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art when modifying DAHLMANN to include the wick of COCHAND to have the depletion condition of the vapor precursor material (vaporizable liquid) to be indicative of the quantity of vapor precursor material within the wick to ensure that the wick stays wet during operation and does not dry out.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 112b rejection of claim 13 is not persuasive as applicant alleges the claims have been amended to address the 112b issue; however, claim 13 has not been amended. Thus the rejection is maintained for the reasons set forth above.
As such, claims 1-10, 13, 15 and 17-21 stand rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATELYN W SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-5545. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
KATELYN W. SMITH
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749