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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 2-4 and 13 are cancelled. Claims 1 and 5-12 are presently examined.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of 4/7/2026 are overcome.
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 1 and 5-12 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 claim 1, it is unclear what is required by the limitation “based on a usage time, which is determined based on the input signal of the input device.” Does this limitation require that input signal itself to be the usage time, or does it refer to a time duration over which the input signal is received? Does the input signal cover the entire time that the heater is active, or only the time that the heater is being started? The claim is indefinite since it is unclear how the usage time is related to the input signal, and what the input signal itself is. For the purposes of this Office action, the claim will be interpreted as if it required a usage time that is based on some duration that the heater has been active. Claims 5-12 are indefinite by dependence.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 6-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karles (US 2018/0007965) in view of Moloney (US 2023/0000168).
Regarding claim 1, Karles discloses an e-vaping device ([0068], figure 1A, reference numeral 60), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an aerosol generating device, having a vaporizer assembly module ([0204], figure 10, reference numeral 1012), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a first cartridge, with a conduit that allows generated vapor to pass through ([0212], figure 10, reference numeral 1018), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a delivery hole. The vaporizer assembly module contains a vaporizer assembly ([0076], figure 10, reference numeral 22) that in turn contains a reservoir containing pre vapor formulation [0082], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a first material. The vaporizer assembly module is coupled to a flavor assembly module ([0204], figure 10, reference numeral 1002) that contains a flavor assembly compartment (figure 10, reference numeral 1003) and a flavor assembly ([0211], figure 10, reference numeral 24). The flavor assembly module has a conduit that is aligned with the both vapor assembly module and the flavor assembly, which is considered to meet the claim limitation of corresponding. The flavor assembly includes an exposure control mechanism (figure 4A, reference numeral 26), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a drive device, that adjustably exposes one or more flavor materials ([0170], figure 4B, reference numeral 28), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a second cartridge. The flavor assembly includes multiple separate flavor materials ([0179], figure 5, reference numeral 28), which are considered to meet the claim limitation of a second material, that are isolated from each other by partitions (figure 5, reference numeral 504), a post (figure 5, reference numeral 506), and a sheath that surround each flavor material separately ([0184], figure 5, reference numeral 508), indicating that each flavor material is contained in a chamber. The exposure control device is controlled by control circuitry [0018] that adjustably exposes the flavor [0020], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a controller, by using a drive motor that changes which flavor is exposed by the exposure control mechanism [0019]. A heater draws pre vapor formulation from the reservoir ([0086], figure 1B, reference numeral 36), and is therefore considered to meet the claim limitation of a heater. Karles does not explicitly disclose an input signal that corresponds to a usage time being used for controlling the drive motor.
Moloney teaches an aerosol provision system (abstract) having multiple portions of aerosol generating material [0028] in which a different gel portion is activated for heating if one portion becomes exhausted [0058]. The gel portions are rotated past a single heater [0062] when the duration of a user’s puff continues for a time which exceeds an amount of vapor which can be generated from a specific gel portion [0063], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a usage time. The device provides heating in response to a puff by detecting inhalation using an air flow detector [0042], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an input device, that communicates with a controller to control the device and activate the heater [0063], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an input signal for stating a heating operation. Moloney additionally teaches that this process enables the device to switch to a different gel portion when necessary to maintain an aerosol generation volume per unit time [0058].
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Karles with the rotational control of Moloney. One would have been motivated to do so since Moloney teaches a control method that automatically switches to a new aerosol source gel when one source gel becomes exhausted.
Regarding claim 6, Karles discloses that rotation of the flavor material is reduced from rotational movement of the screw mechanism [0164], indicating that some rotation of the flavor material is possible. The screw mechanism is part of the exposure control mechanism [0160]. The exposure control mechanism is contained within the flavor assembly [0149], indicating that it can operate even when coupled to the vaporizer assembly module. It is therefore evident that the exposure control mechanism can rotate the flavor material while the device is assembled, which is considered to meet the claim limitation of rotationally coupled.
Regarding claim 7, Karles discloses that the exposure control mechanism includes a screw mechanism [0160] that moves the flavor material while rotational motion of the flavor material is prevented [0163]. The exposure control mechanism is contained within the flavor assembly [0149], indicating that it can operate even when coupled to the vaporizer assembly module. It is therefore evident that the exposure control mechanism can linearly move the flavor material while the device is assembled.
Regarding claim 9, Karles discloses that one flavor material is exposed by rotation of a rotatable member ([0183], figure 4A, reference numeral 411) that is connected to the exposure control mechanism [0172] that is controlled by the control circuitry [0018].
Regarding claim 10, Karles discloses that more than one flavor material is exposed by rotation of a rotatable member ([0183], figure 4A, reference numeral 411) that is connected to the exposure control mechanism [0172] that is controlled by the control circuitry [0018]. The rotatable member defines a gap space that allows the exposure ([0183], figure 5, reference numeral 510), and it is evident that if two materials are exposed they must be adjacent since the gap space is a single continuous region.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karles (US 2018/0007965) in view of Moloney (US 2023/0000168) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tucker (US 2014/0261488).
Regarding claim 5, modified Karles teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Karles does not explicitly teach the reservoir made up of multiple separate reservoirs.
Tucker teaches an electronic smoking article (abstract) having two liquid supply reservoirs ([0012], figure 2, reference numerals 14a, 14b) that form two aerosols that are released through outlets (figure 2, reference numerals 16a, 16b), which are considered to meet the claim limitation of delivery holes, and subsequently mixed in a mixing chamber ([0016], figure 2, reference numeral 46). Tucker additionally teaches that the two reservoirs produce an aerosol having two different particle size distributions [0009] so that different particles can be delivered to the mouth as opposed to the lower respiratory tract [0010].
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to split the reservoir of modified Karles into the two reservoirs of Tucker that combine to a single outlet. One would have been motivated to do so since Tucker teaches providing two reservoirs produces an aerosol having two different particle size distributions so that different particles can be delivered to the mouth as opposed to the lower respiratory tract.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karles (US 2018/0007965) in view of Moloney (US 2023/0000168) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rogan (US 10,051,892).
Regarding claim 8, modified Karles teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Karles additionally discloses that the exposure control mechanism rotates [0154]. Modified Karles does not explicitly teach an information generator.
Rogan teaches an aerosol transferring adapter comprising a mouthpiece (abstract) having a mouthpiece that rotates relative to a liquid storage component and has alignment marks in the form of snaps that create an audible confirmation of the rotation position of the mouthpiece (column 7, lines 41-62).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the rotating exposure control mechanism of modified Karles with the snaps of Rogan. One would have been motivated to do so since Rogan teaches snaps that provide an audible confirmation of a rotation position.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lee (KR 20120003872, machine translation relied upon) in view of Karles (US 2018/0007965) and Moloney (US 2023/0000168).
Regarding claim 11, Lee discloses a portable electronic cigarette case for carrying and charging an electronic cigarette [0001]. The case has a fixing groove that extends in a longitudinal direction that accommodates an electronic cigarette ([0019], figure 2, reference numeral 21), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an accommodation passage. Lee does not explicitly disclose (a) the cigarette having the claimed structural features and (b) an input signal that corresponds to a usage time being used for controlling the drive motor.
Regarding (a), Karles teaches an e-vaping device ([0068], figure 1A, reference numeral 60), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an aerosol generating assembly comprising an aerosol generating device, having a vaporizer assembly module ([0204], figure 10, reference numeral 1012), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a first cartridge, with a conduit that allows generated vapor to pass through ([0212], figure 10, reference numeral 1018), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a delivery hole. The vaporizer assembly module contains a vaporizer assembly ([0076], figure 10, reference numeral 22) that in turn contains a reservoir containing pre vapor formulation [0082], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a first material. The vaporizer assembly module is coupled to a flavor assembly module ([0204], figure 10, reference numeral 1002) that contains a flavor assembly compartment (figure 10, reference numeral 1003) and a flavor assembly ([0211], figure 10, reference numeral 24). The flavor assembly module has a conduit that is aligned with the both vapor assembly module and the flavor assembly, which is considered to meet the claim limitation of corresponding. The flavor assembly includes an exposure control mechanism (figure 4A, reference numeral 26), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a drive device, that adjustably exposes one or more flavor materials ([0170], figure 4B, reference numeral 28), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a second cartridge. The flavor assembly includes multiple separate flavor materials ([0179], figure 5, reference numeral 28), which are considered to meet the claim limitation of a second material, that are isolated from each other by partitions (figure 5, reference numeral 504), a post (figure 5, reference numeral 506), and a sheath that surround each flavor material separately ([0184], figure 5, reference numeral 508), indicating that each flavor material is contained in a chamber. The exposure control device is controlled by control circuitry [0018] that adjustably exposes the flavor [0020], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a controller. The control circuitry controls the supply of power to the heater based on operation of a manually operable switch [0108], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an input device that receives an input operation and generates a signal, and stores a record of the cumulative duration of vapings of the device [0115], which is used to determine the amount of vapor generated [0113]. The exposure control mechanism is then controlled based on the amount of vapor generated [0110], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of based on a usage time since the amount of vapor generated is itself determined from the cumulative duration of vapings. A heater draws pre vapor formulation from the reservoir ([0086], figure 1B, reference numeral 36), and is therefore considered to meet the claim limitation of a heater. Karles additionally teaches that this arrangement allows the device to control flavorant elution into the generated vapor [0005] to prevent flavoring loss [0003].
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the electronic cigarette of Lee for the electronic cigarette of Karles. One would have been motivated to do so since Karles teaches an electronic cigarette that controls flavorant elution into the generated vapor to prevent flavoring loss. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See MPEP § 2143, B.
Regarding (b), Moloney teaches an aerosol provision system (abstract) having multiple portions of aerosol generating material [0028] in which a different gel portion is activated for heating if one portion becomes exhausted [0058]. The gel portions are rotated past a single heater [0062] when the duration of a user’s puff continues for a time which exceeds an amount of vapor which can be generated from a specific gel portion [0063], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a usage time. The device provides heating in response to a puff by detecting inhalation using an air flow detector [0042], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an input device, that communicates with a controller to control the device and activate the heater [0063], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an input signal for stating a heating operation. Moloney additionally teaches that this process enables the device to switch to a different gel portion when necessary to maintain an aerosol generation volume per unit time [0058].
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Lee with the rotational control of Moloney. One would have been motivated to do so since Moloney teaches a control method that automatically switches to a new aerosol source gel when one source gel becomes exhausted.
Regarding claim 12, Lee discloses that a connection terminal is formed to supply power to the electronic cigarette battery from the case [0006].
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection relying in part on Moloney are entered as set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSSELL E SPARKS whose telephone number is (571)270-1426. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5 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, Philip 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.
/RUSSELL E SPARKS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights