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 .
Remarks
This office action fully acknowledges Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed 09 March 2026.
Claims 62, 65, 68-72, and 90-100 are pending.
Claims 1-61, 63-64, 66-67, and 73-89 are cancelled.
No claims are withdrawn.
No new claims are added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 62, 65, 68-72, 90-91, and 100 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamada et al. (US 2013/0019862 A1), hereinafter “Yamada”.
Regarding Claim 62, Yamada teaches a device for microfluidic pressure equalization comprising:
a first capillary channel 106 fluidically coupled to a vent 100 (Fig. 3);
a second capillary channel 48 fluidically coupled to a storage chamber 14 (Figs. 1 and 3 and [0048]: “The inhalation pressure opens the outflow valve 26 and the inflow valve 58, and causes the flavor solution L to be sucked out from the supply port 49 of the supply pipe 48 into the inhalation passage 4.”);
and a high-drive channel 86 including an upper wall and a lower wall, the high-drive channel 86 originating at a constriction point (into which spring 46 is inserted) and diverging outwardly between the upper wall and the lower wall toward the first capillary channel and the second capillary channel (See the annotated Fig. 3 below.),
wherein the first capillary channel 106 fluidically couples the high-drive channel 86 to an overflow channel 104 (See para. [0061-0064] and Fig. 4 showing the grooves/capillary channels 106 fluidically connecting the overflow channel 104 to the high-drive channel 86 through the openings B20, B21, and A21.),
wherein the overflow channel 104 fluidically couples the first capillary channel 106 to the vent 100 (Fig. 3 shows the overflow channel 104 fluidically coupling (forming a fluidic path between) the first capillary channel 106 to the vent 100.),
wherein the constriction point (interpreted as referring to the “a constriction point” – see the 35 USC 112 section above) is located in a path of the overflow channel 104 and is fluidically coupled to the storage chamber 14 (Fig. 3 shows the constriction point into which spring 46 is inserted as located in a path of the overflow channel 104, and fluidically coupled to the storage chamber through the supply pipe 48 (Figs. 1 and 3).), and
wherein the constriction point prevents air from passing through the high-drive channel 86 (See paras. [0037-0039] discussing the constriction point configured with the ball 44 and spring 46 acting as an outflow check valve (Fig. 2) to ensure only liquid flow from the supply pipe 48 enters the high drive channel 86. -- Examiner further notes that the recitation “prevents air from passing through the high-drive channel” is drawn to a process recitation. As the claims are drawn to a device, such process recitation is not afforded patentable weight when the prior art device is capable of performing the claimed process. "Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. – MPEP 2114(II). The constriction point of Yamada is commensurately structured as in the instant claims as a mere constriction; as such, the prior art constriction commensurately arranged as in the claimed fluidic architecture would be expected to commensurately prevent air from passing through thew high-drive channel. Applicant may wish to amend the claim to recite “wherein the constriction point is configured to prevent air from passing through the high-drive channel” and provide the particular structural configuration appended to the constriction point which gives it the ability to block air from entering the high-drive channel.),
as in Claim 62.
PNG
media_image1.png
1022
1474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 65, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 62 as discussed above. Further, Yamada teaches the pressure equalization device discussed above wherein the constriction point fluidically couples to the high-drive channel and the storage chamber (Fig. 3 shows that the constriction point (into which spring 46 is inserted) fluidically connects the high drive channel 86 to the storage chamber 14 via the second capillary channel 48.), as in Claim 65.
Regarding Claim 68, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 62 as discussed above. Further, Yamada teaches the pressure equalization device discussed above wherein a single channel forms the high-drive channel (Fig. 3 shows that the high-drive channel 86 is formed as a single channel.), as in Claim 68.
Regarding Claim 69, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 62 as discussed above. Further, Yamada teaches the pressure equalization device discussed above wherein the high-drive channel is free of obstructions therein (Fig. 3 shows the high-drive channel 86 as an open tube free from obstructions therein.), as in Claim 69.
Regarding Claim 70, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 62 as discussed above. Further, Yamada teaches the pressure equalization device discussed above wherein the upper wall extends from the constriction point to the second capillary channel (Fig. 3 shows the upper wall of the high-drive channel 86 extends to the second capillary channel 48 via the constriction point into which spring 46 is inserted.), as in Claim 70.
Regarding Claim 71, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 62 as discussed above. Further, Yamada teaches the pressure equalization device discussed above wherein the lower wall extends from the constriction point to the first capillary channel (Fig. 3 shows the lower wall of the high-drive channel 86 extends to the first channel 106 via opening A21.), as in Claim 71.
Regarding Claim 72, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 62 as discussed above. Further, Yamada teaches the pressure equalization device discussed above wherein the high-drive channel is configured to seal the first capillary channel and the second capillary channel with a liquid after a pressure equalization event releasing a bubble of gas into the storage chamber ([0087]: “In the second embodiment, there is the possibility that dust enters the connecting passage through the air vent 100, and thus that the flavor solution L gets contaminated with the dust or the like. To avoid this, the liquid tank 14 of the second embodiment may further include plug liquid 110 which is poured into the reservoir channel 68 (through-holes 104) and blocks the reservoir channel 68, as shown in FIG. 8.”), as in Claim 72.
Examiner further notes that the recitation “a pressure equalization event releasing a bubble of gas into the storage chamber” is drawn to a process recitation. As the claims are drawn to a device, such process recitation is not afforded patentable weight. As discussed above, the cited prior art of Yamada provides to commensurately disclose the positively claimed structural arrangement/functionality of the pressure equalization device as claimed and is thus fully capable of and expected to release a bubble of air into the storage tank 14 to replace the volume of aerosol precursor removed through second capillary channel 48 in as much as presently recited and required herein.
Regarding Claim 90, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 62 as discussed above. Further, Yamada teaches the pressure equalization device discussed above wherein the first capillary channel 106 is separated from the second capillary channel 48 by a channel divider 92 (Fig. 3 shows the seal plate 92 as partitioning off the first capillary channel 106.), as in Claim 90.
Regarding Claim 91, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 62 as discussed above. Further, Yamada teaches the pressure equalization device discussed above wherein the high-drive channel is filled with air from the overflow channel and through the first capillary channel during a pressure equalization event ([014]: “Unless the differential pressure is generated, the flavor solution in the reservoir channel receives the atmosphere pressure through the supply port and the air vent.”), as in Claim 91.
Examiner further notes that the recitation “during a pressure equalization event” is drawn to a process recitation. As the claims are drawn to a device, such process recitation is not afforded patentable weight. As discussed above, the cited prior art of Yamada provides to commensurately disclose the positively claimed structural arrangement/functionality of the pressure equalization device as claimed and is thus fully capable of filling the high-drive channel with air from the overflow channel and through the first capillary channel in as much as presently recited and required herein.
Regarding Claim 100, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 72 as discussed above. Examiner further notes that the recitation “the liquid forms a contact angle in a range of about 70 to 90 degrees on a surface of the upper wall or a surface of the lower wall” is drawn to a process recitation. As the claims are drawn to a device, such process recitation is not afforded patentable weight. As discussed above, the cited prior art of Yamada provides to commensurately disclose the positively claimed structural arrangement/functionality of the pressure equalization device as claimed and is thus fully capable of holding a liquid wherein the liquid forms a contact angle in a range of about 70 to 90 degrees on a surface of the upper wall or a surface of the lower wall of the high-drive channel in as much as presently recited and required herein.
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 92 and 94-96 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Giri et al. (US 2009/0047440 A1), referred to hereinafter as “Giri”. Yamada has been discussed above.
Regarding Claim 92, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 64 as discussed above. Further, Yamada does not specifically teach the pressure equalization device discussed above wherein the overflow channel tapers in size, as in Claim 92.
However, Giri teaches a fluid delivery system for microfluidic applications wherein a fluid delivery channel 28 is tapered toward an outlet 30 for fluid delivery, wherein capillary forces are stronger on the narrower portion. Giri further teaches the benefit of this arrangement as promoting air bubbles to naturally and more easily be expelled at the outlet 30 of the channel 28 ([0029]).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the overflow channel of Yamada to be a tapered channel, such as suggested by Giri, so as to promote air bubbles to naturally and more easily travel through the channels and preventing clogging, given that Yamada is similarly interested in airflow and fluid flow though microfluidic channels, and would have a reasonable expectation of success in Yamada.
Regarding Claim 94, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 62 as discussed above. Further, Yamada does not specifically teach the pressure equalization device discussed above wherein the high-drive channel tapers in size, as in Claim 94.
However, Giri teaches a fluid delivery system for microfluidic applications wherein a fluid delivery channel 28 is tapered toward an outlet 30 for fluid delivery, wherein capillary forces are stronger on the narrower portion. Giri further teaches the benefit of this arrangement as promoting air bubbles to naturally and more easily be expelled at the outlet 30 of the channel 28 ([0029]).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the high-drive channel of Yamada to be a tapered channel, such as suggested by Giri, so as to promote air bubbles to naturally and more easily travel through the channels, given that Yamada is similarly interested in airflow though microfluidic channels, and would have a reasonable expectation of success in Yamada.
Regarding Claim 95, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 94 as discussed above. Further, Yamada does not specifically teach the pressure equalization device discussed above wherein the upper wall and the lower wall of the high-drive channel form a taper angle having a vertex proximate to the constriction point, as in Claim 95.
However, Giri teaches a fluid delivery system for microfluidic applications wherein a fluid delivery channel 28 is tapered toward an outlet 30 for fluid delivery, wherein capillary forces are stronger on the narrower portion. Giri further teaches the benefit of this arrangement as promoting air bubbles to naturally and more easily be expelled at the outlet 30 of the channel 28 ([0029]). By this, it is seen in Giri that the vertex of the taper is the direction in which air bubbles travel, given that narrowing of the channel results in higher capillary forces.
Thus, given that air in Yamada is taken in through the vent 100 and expelled through the second capillary channel 48 to replace a volume of inhalable precursor drawn up through the second capillary channel 48, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to form the high-drive channel 86 of Yamada with a taper angle, such as suggested by Giri, having a vertex proximate to the third constriction point so as to drive airflow from the high-drive channel 86 to the second capillary channel 48 to replace the volume of inhalable precursor removed from the storage tank 14.
Regarding Claim 96, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 95 as discussed above. Further, Yamada does not specifically teach the pressure equalization device discussed above wherein the taper angle ranges from about 0 to 25 degrees, as in Claim 96.
However, Giri teaches a fluid delivery system for microfluidic applications wherein a fluid delivery channel 28 is tapered toward an outlet 30 for fluid delivery, wherein capillary forces are stronger on the narrower portion. Giri further teaches the benefit of this arrangement as promoting air bubbles to naturally and more easily be expelled at the outlet 30 of the channel 28 ([0029]). Herein, Giri Fig. 4 shows the taper having an angle of 10 degrees.
As Giri's teaching of the point 10 degrees falls completely within the instant claimed range of 0-25 degrees, the claimed range is anticipated by Giri.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the high-drive channel of Yamada to be a tapered channel having a taper angle of about 10 degrees, such as suggested by Giri, so as to promote air bubbles to naturally and more easily travel through the channels, given that Yamada is similarly interested in airflow though microfluidic channels, and would have a reasonable expectation of success in Yamada.
Claim 93 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Giri, as applied to Claims 92 and 94-96 above, and in further view of Goodman et al. (US 2013/0199528 A1), referred to hereinafter as “Goodman”.
Regarding Claim 93, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 92 as discussed above. Further, while Yamada/Giri teaches a tapered overflow channel as in Claim 93, Yamada/Giri does not teach the untapered end of said overflow channel as fluidically coupled with a wick housing, as in Claim 93.
However, Goodman teaches an inhalable medicant delivery system wherein an overflow channel containing a vaporizing coil 222 is fluidically coupled to a wick housing 220. Goodman further describes the benefit of this arrangement as providing a structure capable of delivering both airflow and liquid inhalant precursor to the vaporizing coil 222, allowing the inhalant precursor to be vaporized and delivered to a user ([0100-0102]).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the pressure equalization device taught by Yamada/Giri with the overflow channel fluidly coupled with a wick housing, such as suggested by Goodman, so as to provide a structure capable of delivering both airflow and liquid inhalant precursor to the vaporizing coil 222, allowing the inhalant precursor to be vaporized and delivered to a user, wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would further find it obvious to fluidically couple the untampered end of the overflow channel with the wick housing so as to drive airflow from the vent to the wick housing to mix with the vaporized inhalant precursor and carry the vapor to a user.
Claims 97-98 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Goodman et al. (US 2013/0199528 A1), referred to hereinafter as “Goodman”. Yamada has been discussed above.
Regarding Claim 97, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 62 as discussed above. Further, Yamada does not specifically teach the pressure equalization device discussed above wherein the first capillary channel terminates at a pinch-off point, as in Claim 97.
However, Goodman teaches an inhalable medicant delivery system wherein a first capillary channel terminates at a pinch-off point 209, enabled by a button/pinch-off arm 208, to temporarily close off the first capillary channel ([0101]). Goodman further teaches the benefit of this arrangement as allowing a user to modulate and control the amount of inhalable precursor that is dispensed to a heating coil and vaporized ([0080-0083]). -- See also the annotated Goodman Fig. 20 below.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the pressure equalization device of Yamada to include a pinch-off point, such as suggested by Goodman, so as to allow a user to modulate and control the amount of inhalable precursor that is dispensed to a heating coil, vaporized, and inhaled.
Regarding Claim 98, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 97 as discussed above. Further, Yamada does not specifically teach the pressure equalization device discussed above wherein the second capillary channel originates at the pinch-off point and terminates at the storage chamber, as in Claim 98.
However, Goodman teaches an inhalable medicant delivery system wherein a second capillary channel terminates at a pinch-off point 209, enabled by a button/pinch-off arm 208, to temporarily close off the second capillary channel ([0101]). The second capillary channel is fluidically connected to the inhalable precursor liquid storage reservoir 234. Goodman further teaches the benefit of this arrangement as allowing a user to modulate and control the amount of inhalable precursor that is dispensed from the liquid storage reservoir 234 to a heating coil and vaporized ([0080-0083]). -- See also the annotated Goodman Fig. 20 below.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the pressure equalization device of Yamada to include a pinch-off point, such as suggested by Goodman, so as to allow a user to modulate and control the amount of inhalable precursor that is dispensed to a heating coil, vaporized, and inhaled.
PNG
media_image2.png
380
1032
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 99 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Goodman, as applied to Claims 97-98 above, and in further view of Giri.
Regarding Claim 99, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 94 as discussed above. Further, while Yamada/Goodman teaches the pressure equalization device discussed above wherein the high-drive channel terminates at a pinch-off point, Yamada/Goodman does not specifically teach a tapered high-drive channel wherein the taper results in an increased capillary drive towards the pinch-off point, as in Claim 99.
However, Giri teaches a fluid delivery system for microfluidic applications wherein a fluid delivery channel 28 is tapered toward an outlet 30 for fluid delivery, wherein capillary forces are stronger on the narrower portion. Giri further teaches the benefit of this arrangement as promoting air bubbles to naturally and more easily be expelled at the outlet 30 of the channel 28 ([0029]).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the high-drive channel of Yamada to be a tapered channel, such as suggested by Giri, so as to promote air bubbles to naturally and more easily travel through the channels, given that Yamada is similarly interested in airflow though microfluidic channels, wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would further find it obvious to position the taper such that the capillary drive increases toward the pinch-off point such that air bubbles are more easily expelled through the pinch-off point, and would have a reasonable expectation of success in Yamada. Further, given that the applied prior art provides a tapered high-drive channel structured and arranged as commensurately recited herein, such tapered high-drive channel is said to result in an increase[d] drive towards the pinch-off point in as much as recited and required herein.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 112
Applicant’s amendments sufficiently overcome the rejection of Claim 62 and its dependents as indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) for failing to provide a term with proper antecedent basis. As such, the rejection of Claim 62 and its dependents under 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn.
35 USC 102
Applicant’s arguments are on the alleged grounds that Yamada does not teach the particular arrangement of the claimed constriction point in that the high drive channel does not diverge outwardly toward the first and second capillary channels from said constriction point. Applicant further alleges that the grooves 106 and supply pipe 48 of Yamada are not in a connecting path so as to afford such an outwardly diverging configuration of the high drive channel.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because the constriction point of Yamada is interpreted as the point at which the supply pipe 48 and the high drive channel 86 meet, not the entire encircled portion shown by Applicant’s annotated Fig. 3 containing the entire spring 46 and ball 44. The diverging portion of the walls of the portion containing those elements 46/44 is interpreted as a portion of the high-drive channel 86 thereby satisfying the claim limitations as said portion diverges outwardly. Applicant may wish to amend the claims to describe the entirety of the high drive channel as diverging outwardly so as to overcome a claim interpretation wherein only a portion of the channel is outwardly diverging.
Further, the grooves 106 and supply pipe 48 of Yamada are in a connecting path ([0061] and Fig. 4) wherein the high drive 86 of Yamada diverges outwardly in both directions in view of the interpretation above given that a constriction exists between the circled portion of Applicant’s annotated Fig. 3 and the supply pipe 48, and a constriction exists between the circled portion of Applicant’s annotated Fig. 3 and the straight portion of the high drive channel 86. Applicant may wish to further describe the particular channel configuration of the instant drawings Fig. 9 wherein the high drive channel diverges outwardly in only one direction and branches into the capillary channels.
See MPEP 2111 -- During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) expressly recognized that the USPTO employs the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard.
Applicant additionally argues on the alleged grounds that the constriction point of Yamada is not in a fluidic path of the overflow channel as the through holes 104 allegedly do not provide such a fluidic connection. Applicant alleges the through holes 104 of Yamada instead connect the air vent 100 to the pipe 86.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because the grooves 106 (first capillary channels) of Yamada provide fluid communication between the constriction point and the overflow channel (Figs. 3 and 4 and [0064]: “As is apparent from arrows added to the dashed lines in FIG. 4, the through-holes 104 and the grooves 106 and 108 form a single connecting passage connecting the throttle hole 102 to the connecting pipe 86.). Further note that a throttle hole 102 connects the air vent 100 to the overflow channel 104, thus remaining as providing fluid communication even under Applicant’s interpretation.
Thus, Examiner maintains the rejection of Claims 62, 65, 68-72, 90-91, and 100 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamada.
35 USC 103
Applicant argues that as Claims 92-99 depend from the allegedly allowable Claim 62, that Claims 92-99 are allowable through their dependence. However, as discussed above, Claim 62 remains rejected under 35 USC 102 as anticipated by Yamada. Thus, Claims 92-99 are not allowable merely for their dependence on Claim 62.
Thus, Examiner respectfully maintains the rejection of Claims 92-99 under 35 USC 103 as discussed above in the body of the action.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BENJAMIN KASS whose telephone number is (703)756-5501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Capozzi, can be reached at telephone number (571)270-3638. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
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 https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
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 visit 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 need assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/B.J.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/NEIL N TURK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights