DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-2 and 19-20 have been amended.
Response to Amendments
The Examiner acknowledges Applicant's response filed on 6/23/2025 containing amendments and remarks to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the mechanical agitation disclosed by Galloway is not explicitly stated by Galloway as enhancing saturation of the wick. This argument is not persuasive as Galloway discloses mechanical agitation, as discussed in the rejection below, and Applicant discloses that “mechanical agitation causes the air bubbles . . . to be expelled from the wick . . . . This action increases wick saturation” (¶ 0108 of Applicant’s Specification). As such, the preponderance of evidence of record indicates that even though Galloway does not explicitly state that saturation of the wick is enhanced, this enhancement of saturation of the wick is inherent, as Galloway discloses the necessary mechanical agitation (MPEP § 2114(I)).
Regarding claim 2, Applicant further argues that Galloway does not explicitly disclose that the mechanical agitation of the cartridge aids at least in part releasing one or more air bubbles that form in the wick. This argument is not persuasive as Galloway discloses mechanical agitation, as discussed in the rejection below, and Applicant discloses that “mechanical agitation causes the air bubbles . . . to be expelled from the wick” (¶ 0108 of Applicant’s Specification). As such, the preponderance of evidence of record indicates that even though Galloway does not explicitly state air bubbles are released, this aid in releasing one or more air bubbles that form in the wick is inherent as Galloway discloses the necessary mechanical agitation (MPEP 2114(I)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-7, 9-10, 13-15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atkins et al. (US 2018/0042306 A1) in view of Galloway et al. (US 2015/0020825 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Atkins discloses a vaporizer device (“vaporizer device 500”, Fig. 5, ¶ 0053), comprising:
at least one data processor (“microcontroller 505”, Fig. 5, ¶ 0053, which corresponds to “microcontroller 910”, Fig. 9, ¶ 0076); and
at least one memory (“storage system” such as “memory”, ¶ 0121-0122) storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one data processor, cause operations comprising:
detecting an end of a user puff (“end of the puff 230”, Fig. 2, ¶ 0041-0042) on a cartridge (“cartridges”, ¶ 0074) of the vaporizer device, the cartridge including a vaporizable material (“vaporizable material”, ¶ 0053-0054, 0074); and
applying, in response to the detection of the end of the user puff, a standby temperature setting (“standby temperature”, ¶ 0042) to a heating element (“heating element 503”, Fig. 5, ¶ 0053) of the vaporizer device;
wherein the heating element is in thermal contact with a wick (“wick 502”, Fig. 5, ¶ 0053-0054) configured to convey from a reservoir (“reservoir 501”, Fig. 5, ¶ 0054) the vaporizable material to a part of the cartridge in which the heating element is contained (Fig. 5, ¶ 0053-0054), wherein the vaporizable material is vaporized by heat delivered from the heating element (¶ 0053).
However, Atkins does not disclose applying a mechanical agitation by a haptics system of the vaporizer device.
Galloway, in the same field of endeavor, teaches applying a mechanical agitation (“waveforms”, ¶ 0007) by a haptics system (“haptic feedback component”, ¶ 0007) of a vaporizer device (“electronic smoking article”, ¶ 0007) to define a status of the device (¶ 0007). Galloway also teaches a benefit of applying a mechanical agitation by a haptics system in that it can enhance the user experience with the device (¶ 0043). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied a mechanical agitation by a haptics system, as taught by Galloway, to define a status of the vaporizer device taught by Atkins, in order to achieve this benefit. A status of the vaporizer device taught by Atkins is the standby status achieved at the detection of the end of the user puff when the standby temperature setting is applied to the heating element of the vaporizer device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the mechanical agitation when the standby temperature setting is applied in response to the detection of the end of the user puff.
Galloway does not explicitly disclose that the mechanical agitation enhanced a saturation of the wick. However, Applicant discloses that “mechanical agitation causes the air bubbles . . . to be expelled from the wick . . . . This action increases wick saturation” (¶ 0108 of Applicant’s Specification). As such, the preponderance of evidence of record indicates that even though Galloway does not explicitly state that saturation of the wick is enhanced, this enhancement of saturation of the wick is inherent, as Galloway discloses the necessary mechanical agitation (MPEP § 2114(I)).
Regarding claim 2, Atkins in view of Galloway teaches the vaporizer device of claim 1, as stated above. Atkins further discloses wherein the instructions, when executed, cause operations further comprising:
detecting a user puff on the cartridge (“start of a puff 130”, Fig. 1A, ¶ 0035, 0039); and
enabling the heating element of the vaporizer device to reach a vaporization temperature (“vaporization temperature”, ¶ 0035, 0039, 0053).
Galloway does not explicitly disclose that the mechanical agitation of the cartridge aids at least in part releasing one or more air bubbles that form in the wick. However, Applicant discloses that “mechanical agitation causes the air bubbles . . . to be expelled from the wick” (¶ 0108 of Applicant’s Specification). As such, the preponderance of evidence of record indicates that even though Galloway does not explicitly state air bubbles are released, this aid in releasing one or more air bubbles that form in the wick is inherent, as Galloway discloses the necessary mechanical agitation (MPEP § 2114(I)).
Regarding claim 3, Atkins in view of Galloway teaches the vaporizer device of claim 2, as stated above. Atkins further discloses wherein the standby temperature setting provides a standby temperature of the heating element that is lower than the vaporization temperature and higher than an ambient temperature (¶ 0031).
Regarding claim 4, Atkins in view of Galloway teaches the vaporizer device of claim 1, as stated above. Atkins further discloses wherein re-saturation settings define one or more characteristics of the standby temperature setting (“the standby temperature should not be so hot that it may cause vaporization or degradation of the vaporizable material”, ¶ 0031; therefore, the standby temperature is set based on the composition of the vaporizable material, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the composition of the vaporizable material determines re-saturation of the wick).
Regarding claim 5, Atkins in view of Galloway teaches the vaporizer device of claim 4, as stated above. Atkins further discloses wherein the one or more characteristics of the standby temperature setting are based on properties of the vaporizable material (“the standby temperature should not be so hot that it may cause vaporization or degradation of the vaporizable material”, ¶ 0031; therefore, the standby temperature is set based on the composition of the vaporizable material).
Regarding claim 6, Atkins in view of Galloway teaches the vaporizer device of claim 4, as stated above. Atkins further discloses wherein the one or more characteristics of the standby temperature setting comprises a length of time for the standby temperature setting to be applied (Atkins discloses that the standby temperature setting is applied for the length of time until the vaporizer device is switched to an OFF state; ¶ 0051).
Regarding claim 7, Atkins in view of Galloway teaches the vaporizer device of claim 1, as stated above. Galloway further teaches that a characteristic of the mechanical agitation comprises a defined intensity (“Such waveforms may define relatively simple patterns, such as short pulses of constant intensity, or relatively complex patterns, such as pulses of increasing and decreasing intensity.”, ¶ 0042).
Regarding claim 9, Atkins in view of Galloway teaches the vaporizer device of claim 4, as stated above. Atkins further discloses wherein the re-saturation settings are based on properties of the vaporizable material (“the standby temperature should not be so hot that it may cause vaporization or degradation of the vaporizable material”, ¶ 0031; therefore, the standby temperature is set based on the composition of the vaporizable material, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the composition of the vaporizable material determines re-saturation of the wick).
Regarding claim 10, Atkins in view of Galloway teaches the vaporizer device of claim 9, as stated above. Regarding the limitation “wherein the use data comprises a number of puffs taken from the cartridge, a duration of the puffs taken, time the puffs were taken, time between successive puffs, an amount of total particulate matter generated by the puffs taken, or a combination thereof”, this limitation only further limits the option in which the re-saturation settings are based on use data. As Atkins in view of Galloway teaches the option in which the re-saturation settings are based on properties of the vaporizable material, and claim 10 does not further limit or prohibit the option in which the re-saturation settings are based on properties of the vaporizable material, claim 10 is taught by Atkins in view of Galloway.
Regarding claim 13, Atkins in view of Galloway teaches the vaporizer device of claim 1, as stated above. Atkins further discloses wherein the standby temperature setting is consistent with a power setting predefined by the vaporizer device (“the microcontroller can instruct the power supply to decrease power to the heating element to the level for maintaining the standby temperature”, ¶ 0042).
Regarding claim 14, Atkins in view of Galloway teaches the vaporizer device of claim 1, as stated above. Galloway further teaches that the haptics system comprises an eccentric rotating mass motor (“eccentric rotating mass (ERM) motor”, ¶ 0007).
Regarding claim 15, Atkins in view of Galloway teaches the vaporizer device of claim 1, as stated above. Atkins further discloses wherein the standby temperature setting is applied in between user puffs at a predetermined schedule of frequency (“when a puff is not detected (and optionally when one has not been detected for a set period of time and/or according to some other criteria), the heating element can be maintained at a first temperature, which can be referred to as a standby temperature”, ¶ 0028).
Regarding claim 19, Atkins discloses a method, comprising:
detecting an end of a user puff (“end of the puff 230”, Fig. 2, ¶ 0041-0042) on a cartridge (“cartridges”, ¶ 0074) of a vaporizer device (“vaporizer device 500”, Fig. 5, ¶ 0053), the cartridge including a vaporizable material (“vaporizable material”, ¶ 0053-0054, 0074); and
applying, in response to the detection of the end of the user puff, a standby temperature setting (“standby temperature”, ¶ 0042) to a heating element (“heating element 503”, Fig. 5, ¶ 0053) of the vaporizer device;
wherein the heating element is in thermal contact with a wick (“wick 502”, Fig. 5, ¶ 0053-0054) configured to convey from a reservoir (“reservoir 501”, Fig. 5, ¶ 0054) the vaporizable material to a part of the cartridge in which the heating element is contained (Fig. 5, ¶ 0053-0054), wherein the vaporizable material is vaporized by heat delivered from the heating element (¶ 0053).
However, Atkins does not disclose applying a mechanical agitation by a haptics system of the vaporizer device.
Galloway, in the same field of endeavor, teaches applying a mechanical agitation (“waveforms”, ¶ 0007) by a haptics system (“haptic feedback component”, ¶ 0007) of a vaporizer device (“electronic smoking article”, ¶ 0007) to define a status of the device (¶ 0007). Galloway also teaches a benefit of applying a mechanical agitation by a haptics system in that it can enhance the user experience with the device (¶ 0043). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied a mechanical agitation by a haptics system, as taught by Galloway, to define a status of the vaporizer device taught by Atkins, in order to achieve this benefit. A status of the vaporizer device taught by Atkins is the standby status achieved at the detection of the end of the user puff when the standby temperature setting is applied to the heating element of the vaporizer device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the mechanical agitation when the standby temperature setting is applied in response to the detection of the end of the user puff.
Galloway does not explicitly disclose that the mechanical agitation enhanced a saturation of the wick. However, Applicant discloses that “mechanical agitation causes the air bubbles . . . to be expelled from the wick . . . . This action increases wick saturation” (¶ 0108 of Applicant’s Specification). As such, the preponderance of evidence of record indicates that even though Galloway does not explicitly state that saturation of the wick is enhanced, this enhancement of saturation of the wick is inherent, as Galloway discloses the necessary mechanical agitation (MPEP § 2114(I)).
Regarding claim 20, Atkins in view of Galloway teaches the method of claim 19, as stated above. Atkins also discloses the method further comprising:
detecting a user puff on the cartridge (“start of a puff 130”, Fig. 1A, ¶ 0035, 0039); and
enabling the heating element of the vaporizer device to reach a vaporization temperature (“vaporization temperature”, ¶ 0035, 0039, 0053).
Galloway does not explicitly disclose that the mechanical agitation of the cartridge aids at least in part releasing one or more air bubbles that form in the wick. However, Applicant discloses that “mechanical agitation causes the air bubbles . . . to be expelled from the wick” (¶ 0108 of Applicant’s Specification). As such, the preponderance of evidence of record indicates that even though Galloway does not explicitly state air bubbles are released, this aid in releasing one or more air bubbles that form in the wick is inherent, as Galloway discloses the necessary mechanical agitation (MPEP § 2114(I)).
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atkins et al. (US 2018/0042306 A1) in view of Galloway et al. (US 2015/0020825 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Bowen et al. (US 2018/0043114 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Atkins in view of Galloway teaches the vaporizer device of claim 4, as stated above. However, Atkins does not explicitly disclose wherein the re-saturation settings are based on a maximum viscosity value.
Bowen, in the same field of endeavor, teaches storing the viscosity of a vaporization material in a memory of a cartridge of a vaporizer (¶ 0109). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that there was a benefit to having this information because the viscosity affects the re-saturation of the wick and varies between specific vaporization material compositions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have based the re-saturation settings on a maximum viscosity value of the vaporization material in order to optimize the re-saturation of the wick.
Regarding claim 11, Atkins in view of Galloway teaches the vaporizer device of claim 4, as stated above. However, Atkins does not explicitly disclose wherein the instructions, when executed, cause operations further comprising: receiving, through the cartridge, the re-saturation settings.
Bowen, in the same field of endeavor, teaches storing properties of a vaporization material including thermal properties, viscosity, and suggested vaporization temperatures in a memory of a cartridge of a vaporizer (¶ 0109). Bowen also teaches an advantage of providing settings through the cartridge in that it allows the vaporizer to be modified or controlled based on the information received from the cartridge (¶ 0043, 0046). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that this means that the vaporizer could optimize the vaporizing experience based on the specific vaporizable material stored in the cartridge, which may vary between cartridges (e.g., cartridges with different flavors and compositions). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the cartridge taught by Atkins to include a memory storing the re-saturation settings, as taught by Bowen, in order to achieve these benefits.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atkins et al. (US 2018/0042306 A1) in view of Galloway et al. (US 2015/0020825 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Katayama et al. (US 2018/0077971 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Atkins in view of Galloway teaches the vaporizer device of claim 4, as stated above. Katayama, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a vaporizer device wherein re-saturation settings are determined such that a total particulate matter generation for second and subsequent puffs is within a predefined range of a first total particulate matter generation for a first puff (power output of the device taught by Katayama is regulated to keep the amount of aerosol within a desired range, e.g., target value of 2.0 mg with desired range of 1.5 mg to 2.5 mg, Fig. 4, ¶ 0081; therefore, the first total particulate matter generation for the first puff would be in the desired range, and the total particulate matter generation for second and subsequent puffs would also be in the desired range, which is a predefined range). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood a benefit of each puff generating total particulate matter within a predefined range in that it would provide a more consistent vaporizing experience for the user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the vaporizer device taught by Atkins to include settings to keep the total particulate matter generation within a predefined range as taught by Katayama in order to achieve this benefit.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atkins et al. (US 2018/0042306 A1) in view of Galloway et al. (US 2015/0020825 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bowen et al. (US 2018/0043114 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Atkins in view of Galloway teaches the vaporizer device of claim 1, as stated above. However, Atkins does not explicitly disclose wherein the instructions, when executed, cause operations further comprising: receiving, through the cartridge, information relating to the vaporizable material.
Bowen, in the same field of endeavor, teaches storing properties of a vaporization material including thermal properties, viscosity, and suggested vaporization temperatures in a memory of a cartridge of a vaporizer (¶ 0109). Bowen also teaches an advantage of providing information through the cartridge in that it allows the vaporizer to be modified or controlled based on the information received from the cartridge (¶ 0043, 0046). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that this means that the vaporizer could optimize the vaporizing experience based on the specific vaporizable material stored in the cartridge, which may vary between cartridges (e.g., cartridges with different flavors and compositions). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the cartridge taught by Atkins to include a memory storing the re-saturation settings, as taught by Bowen, in order to achieve these benefits.
Regarding claim 17, Atkins in view of Galloway and Bowen teaches the vaporizer device of claim 16, as stated above. Bowen further teaches wherein the information relating to the vaporizable material comprises at least a viscosity of the vaporizable material (“viscosity”, ¶ 0109), and wherein one or more characteristics of the standby temperature setting are provided via one or more look-up tables utilizing the viscosity of the vaporizable material (“reference number may be used to look up the relevant information”, ¶ 0109).
Regarding claim 18, Atkins in view of Galloway and Bowen teaches the vaporizer device of claim 17, as stated above. Bowen further teaches wherein the one or more look-up tables are accessible through memory of the vaporizer device, a controller of the vaporizer device via signaling with one or more remote devices, or a combination thereof (¶ 0109).
Conclusion
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 COURTNEY G CULBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-0874. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-4pm.
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, Michael H Wilson can be reached at (571)270-3882. 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.
/C.G.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747