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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/12/2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-11, and 23-30 are pending. Claims 1, have been amended. Claim 30 is new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5 of Remarks filed 12/12/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 7 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Applicant has amended the claims to address the rejections Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5 of Remarks filed 12/12/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 23-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. While Applicant amended claim 23 to address one of the reasons for the rejection, Applicant did not fully address the indefinite issues within claim 23, as discussed in the rejection below.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-7 of Remarks filed 12/12/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-4, 6-7, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and the rejection of claims 8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Applicant has amended claim 1 to include limitations that were not previously presented and are not anticipated by the previous mapping of Cormack. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments are made in view of a new mapping of the components of Cormack, as discussed in the rejections below.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 7-8 of Remarks filed 12/12/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 23-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant alleges that Cormack does not disclose certain features of claim 23. However, the features in claim 23 upon which Applicant relies are directed to indefinite language, as discussed in the rejections below. Cormack discloses the relevant limitations after accounting for the indefinite language, as discussed in the rejections below. As such, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
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 23-29 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 23, the claim recites both “the bottom cap comprising an opening” and “a plug welded to the bottom cap to thereby seal the opening”, implying that there is no longer an opening. As such, it is unclear to one having ordinary skill in the art what structural limitations are required for a vaporizer device to read on claim 23. For the purpose of this Office action, “the bottom cap comprising an opening through which the electrolyte was injected; and a plug welded to the bottom cap to thereby seal the opening” in claim 23 is interpreted as “the bottom cap comprising a side which may be open or closed”.
Claims 24-29 are indefinite due to their dependence from claim 23.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 11, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cormack (US 2015/0077981 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cormack discloses a vaporizer device (“personal vaporizer”, Fig. 15, ¶ 0066) comprising:
a shell (combination of “non-FPCB shells or casings 70” and “FPCB shell 24”, Fig. 15, ¶ 0066) comprising,
a chamber (chamber formed by “array 92”, Fig. 16, ¶ 0071), the chamber having an anode, an anode current collector, a cathode, a cathode current collector, a separator, and an electrolyte disposed therein (“current collector, anode, cathode, electrolyte, and separator”, ¶ 0022, 0079, where there is a separate cathode current collector and anode current collector, “the anode and cathode can be printed onto current collectors that are themselves printed directly onto the FPCB 24 substrate”, ¶ 0077), the chamber including the anode, the anode current collector, the cathode, the cathode current collector, and the electrolyte forming a battery (“battery”, ¶ 0022, 0079) serving as a power source (“power source”, ¶ 0071) for the vaporizer device,
a receptacle (receptacle in “proximal end seal bulkhead 16”, not labeled in Fig. 16 but corresponding to labeled component 16 in Fig. 3) configured to receive a vaporizable material (“proximal end seal bulkhead 16 has an airway aperture 44 to allow air and vapour to be drawn out of the atomizer area”, ¶ 0052), the receptacle being downstream of the chamber (Fig. 16); and
a top cap (combination of “proximal end seal bulkhead 16”, “liquid absorbent wadding 20”, “atomizer 12”, and “bulkhead 14”, ¶ 0051, components not labeled in Fig. 16 but corresponding to labeled components in Fig. 3) sealed to the shell and positioned between the chamber and the receptacle (Fig. 16), wherein the top cap is electrically coupled to a first electrical contact of the battery (first electrical contact of the battery not labeled in Fig. 16 but corresponding to the component identified in Fig. 4 below, annotated by examiner), the first electrical contact positioned within the chamber, wherein the top cap includes a feed-through mechanism (opening in which the second electrical contact of the battery extends therethrough, see Fig. 4 below, annotated by examiner) in which a second electrical contact of the battery (second electrical contact of the battery not labeled in Fig. 16 but corresponding to the component identified in Fig. 4 below, annotated by examiner) extends therethrough to provide an electrical connection from the battery through the top cap such that the electrical connection can be accessed outside of the chamber (see Fig. 4 below, annotated by examiner).
PNG
media_image1.png
440
809
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 of Cormack, Annotated by Examiner
Regarding claim 2, Cormack discloses the vaporizer device of claim 1, as stated above. Cormack further discloses that the shell comprises a distal end (“distal end 30”, Fig. 15, ¶ 0054) and a proximal end (“proximal end 28”, Fig. 15, ¶ 0054), wherein the distal end is opposite to the proximal end (Fig. 15), and wherein the shell further comprises an end cap (“distal end seal bulkhead 22”, Fig. 15, ¶ 0051) coupled to the distal end (Fig. 15).
Regarding claim 3, Cormack discloses the vaporizer device of claim 1, as stated above. Cormack further discloses that the separator is interposed between the anode and cathode (“separator . . . will be applied between the anode and cathode”, ¶ 0077), and wherein the anode, the cathode, and the separator are wound to form a jellyroll (“FPCB 24 substrate is rolled up similar to a ‘jelly roll’”, ¶ 0076).
Regarding claim 4, Cormack discloses the vaporizer device of claim 3, as stated above. Cormack further discloses that the jellyroll is inserted into the shell through an opening (“aperture 81”, Fig. 14, ¶ 0068) in a distal end (“distal end 80”, Fig. 14, ¶ 0068) of the shell (“FPCB 24 can be inserted into casing 70 through aperture 81”, ¶ 0068).
Regarding claim 6, Cormack discloses the vaporizer device of claim 1, as stated above. Cormack further discloses that first electrical contact and the second electrical contact include a positive terminal (“anode”, ¶ 0077) and negative terminal (“cathode”, ¶ 0077).
Regarding claim 7, Cormack discloses the vaporizer device of claim 1, as stated above. Cormack further discloses wherein the vaporizer device further comprises:
a bottom cap (“OLED 99”, Fig. 16, ¶ 0073) coupled to the battery at a distal end of the battery (Fig. 16), the distal end opposite of a proximal end of the battery (Fig. 16), and the bottom cap having an opening (in the final product, the bottom cap formed by “OLED 99” wraps around the exterior of battery cell “array 92” to form a ring, the center of said ring being an opening, Fig. 16).
With regard to the opening being “for which the electrolyte was injected into the chamber”, this limitation refers to the specific process used to make the product. Therefore, as Cormack teaches the product resulting from these process steps, the claim is unpatentable. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." (In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); MPEP § 2113(I)).
Regarding claim 11, Cormack discloses the vaporizer device of claim 1, as stated above. Cormack further discloses a venting feature (“airway apertures 26”, ¶ 0054, not labeled in Fig. 16 but corresponding to labeled component 26 in Fig. 3) formed through a wall of the chamber (“various elements can be incorporated in the FPCB such as airway apertures 26 that allow airflow”, ¶ 0054), the venting feature configured to allow pressure equalization between the chamber and ambient conditions (“airflow”, ¶ 0054) while preventing passage of water or other environmental contaminants into the chamber (such contaminants prevented by the “non-FPCB shells or casings 70”, Figs. 14-15, ¶ 0066).
Regarding claim 30, Cormack discloses the vaporizer device of claim 1, as stated above. Cormack further discloses wherein the top cap defines a base end of the receptacle (Fig. 16).
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 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cormack (US 2015/0077981 A1) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, Cormack discloses the vaporizer device of claim 7, as stated above.
Cormack does not explicitly disclose that the top cap and the bottom cap are coupled to the battery using laser welding. However, Cormack discloses affixing components to the shell (“affixed to the FPCB”, ¶ 0012) and that components may be affixed by means of laser welding (“laser welding”, ¶ 0012). There was a benefit to using laser welding in that it creates a secure bond. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use laser welding to affix the top cap and the bottom cap to the shell for this benefit. In the resulting configuration, there will be a first seam (the weld line) between the shell and the top cap.
Regarding claim 10, Cormack discloses the vaporizer device of claim 8, as stated above.
Cormack does not explicitly disclose a second seam between the shell and the bottom cap created by laser welding. However, Cormack discloses affixing components to the shell (“affixed to the FPCB”, ¶ 0012) and that components may be affixed by means of laser welding (“laser welding”, ¶ 0012). There was a benefit to using laser welding in that it creates a secure bond. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use laser welding to affix the bottom cap to the shell for this benefit. The laser welding would therefore create a second seam (the weld line) between the shell and the bottom cap. In such a configuration, the first seam and the second seam form the chamber by sealing a portion of the shell between the first seam and the second seam.
Claims 23-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cormack (US 2015/0077981 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Cormack discloses a vaporizer device (“personal vaporizer”, Fig. 15, ¶ 0066) comprising:
a shell (combination of “non-FPCB shells or casings 70” and “FPCB shell 24”, Fig. 15, ¶ 0066) including
a chamber (chamber formed by “array 92”, Fig. 16, ¶ 0071), the chamber having an anode, an anode current collector, a cathode, a cathode current collector, a separator, and an electrolyte disposed therein (“current collector, anode, cathode, electrolyte, and separator”, ¶ 0022, 0079, where there is a separate cathode current collector and anode current collector, “the anode and cathode can be printed onto current collectors that are themselves printed directly onto the FPCB 24 substrate”, ¶ 0077), the chamber including the anode, the anode current collector, the cathode, the cathode current collector, and the electrolyte forming a battery (“battery”, ¶ 0022, 0079) serving as a power source (“power source”, ¶ 0071) for the vaporizer device; and
a bottom cap (“OLED 99”, Fig. 16, ¶ 0073) coupled to the shell at a distal end of the battery (Fig. 16), the distal end opposite of a proximal end of the battery (Fig. 16), and the bottom cap comprising a side which may be open or closed (Fig. 16).
Cormack does not explicitly disclose that the bottom cap is coupled to the shell using welding. However, Cormack discloses affixing components to the shell (“affixed to the FPCB”, ¶ 0012) and that components may be affixed by means of welding (“laser welding”, ¶ 0012). There was a benefit to using welding in that it creates a secure bond. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use welding to affix the bottom cap to the shell for this benefit.
Regarding claim 24, Cormack discloses the vaporizer device of claim 23, as stated above. Cormack further discloses that the shell comprises a distal end (“distal end 30”, Fig. 15, ¶ 0054) and a proximal end (“proximal end 28”, Fig. 15, ¶ 0054), wherein the distal end is opposite to the proximal end (Fig. 15), and wherein the shell further comprises an end cap (“distal end seal bulkhead 22”, Fig. 15, ¶ 0051) coupled to the distal end (Fig. 15).
Regarding claim 25, Cormack discloses the vaporizer device of claim 23, as stated above. Cormack further discloses that the separator is interposed between the anode and cathode (“separator . . . will be applied between the anode and cathode”, ¶ 0077), and wherein the anode, the cathode, and the separator are wound to form a jellyroll (“FPCB 24 substrate is rolled up similar to a ‘jelly roll’”, ¶ 0076).
Regarding claim 26, Cormack discloses the vaporizer device of claim 25, as stated above. Cormack further discloses that the jellyroll is inserted into the shell through an opening (“aperture 81”, Fig. 14, ¶ 0068) in a distal end (“distal end 80”, Fig. 14, ¶ 0068) of the shell (“FPCB 24 can be inserted into casing 70 through aperture 81”, ¶ 0068).
Regarding claim 27, Cormack discloses the vaporizer device of claim 23, as stated above. Cormack further discloses that the battery further comprises one or more electrical contacts (“The FPCB shell 24 can employ electrical contacts”, ¶ 0067).
Regarding claim 28, Cormack discloses the vaporizer device of claim 27, as stated above. Cormack further discloses wherein the one or more electrical contacts include a positive terminal (“anode”, ¶ 0077) and negative terminal (“cathode”, ¶ 0077).
Regarding claim 29, Cormack discloses the vaporizer device of claim 23, as stated above. As discussed in the rejection of claim 23, welding the shell and the bottom cap would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. As such, the welding would create a second seam (the weld line) formed between the shell and the bottom cap.
Conclusion
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