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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16-19, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Freeman1 et al. 2019/0343184
.Regarding claim 16 Freeman1 discloses a portable loose-leaf material vaporizer (Abstract states: “An inhalation device for inhaling a vaporized substance”) comprising:
a heating chamber (Reservoir 310) for housing a loose leaf material and vaporizing one or more active agents from the loose-leaf material (Paragraph 0008 states “a reservoir, wherein the substance in unvaporized form is stored;”)
a mouthpiece for withdrawal of the one or more active agents vaporized from the loose- leaf material (0008 states “The inhalation device can further include a mouthpiece, from which a user can inhale a vaporized substance.”),
and a processing unit (Processor 304), wherein the processing unit is configured to control temperature of the heating chamber (0038 states that “The processor 304 can store information on different rates of inhalation to adjust, for example, the temperature of the heating element 312.”), and to estimate a dosage of the one or more active agents withdrawn from the vaporizer based on a mathematical model (0055 states “According to another variation, the inhalation cartridge 600 processor 604 may be configured to incorporate data from the timer and from the various sensors described in the embodiments detailed above to calculate the dosage information.”), wherein the mathematical model relates a plurality of vapor generating time (0055 states that the timer information is used to calculate this dosage amount. 0048 states that “The inhalation cartridge 600 according to this embodiment is configured to use a processor 604 and a timer 606 (which may be part of or separate from the processor) to control the amount of time the heater 612 is activated when a user inhales through the cartridge. the processor 604 starts the timer 606 and heater 612 to vaporize the substance within the reservoir tank 610. In this manner, the processor and timer function to control the time duration over which the heater 606 is activated.”) and loose-leaf material properties (0055 states that use of the vapor intensity/density to calculate the dosage amount. 0049 further states that “This predetermined timing can be, for example, 3 seconds in duration based on empirical evidence with known materials, vapor densities, heater characteristics and flows. However, this timing can be varied depending on the substance to be vaporized and the amount/concentration/strength of drug, etc.,”) to the dosage of the one or more active agents withdrawn or to be withdrawn from the vaporizer wherein the plurality of vapor generating time and loose-leaf material properties includes one or more of a mass of the loose-leaf material, a percentage concentration of the one or more active agents (0049 states “This predetermined timing can be, for example, 3 seconds in duration based on empirical evidence with known materials, vapor densities, heater characteristics and flows. However, this timing can be varied depending on the substance to be vaporized and the amount/concentration/strength of drug, etc., contained in the substance, and in some embodiments, a drug-vapor-density factor”), a production rate based on a temperature and time profile (0051 states “The predetermined time threshold may be set in advance, or alternatively, the predetermined time threshold may be variable based on considerations such as the initial temperature of the heater, the type or concentration of material to be vaporized in the reservoir, etc. As the materials containing the various substances may vaporize at different rates”), an inhalation duration, and an empirical effects factor.
Regarding claim 17, Freeman1 discloses the portable loose-leaf material vaporizer of claim 16, wherein the estimation is performed continuously (Paragraph 0037 states that “In other words, the processor 304 will collect the data from the sensor 316 (e.g., every 0.1 seconds) on the vapor factor to determine when 3 mg has been consumed by the user.” Since the processor is constantly collecting data, it is continuously performing the estimation.).
Regarding claim 18, Freeman1 discloses the portable loose-leaf material vaporizer of claim 16, wherein the processing unit is configured to determine, based on the mathematical model, one or more of the following:
(i) a vapor generating time until a predetermined dosage is available for withdrawal from the vaporizer and/or
(ii) a temperature of a temperature profile of the heating chamber so that a predetermined dosage is available within a predetermined vapor generating time for withdrawal from the vaporizer (0053 states “additionally, as the initial temperature of the heater may vary, it is also possible to modify the set predetermined limit to compensate for the time required for the heater to reach a vaporization temperature for the material in the reservoir “ This paragraph talks about the relationship between the measured temperature and the time it takes to reach a vaporizable temperature, and the potential adjustment of the temperature and the impact it would have on the vaporization point.) and/or
(iii) a number of draws until a predetermined dosage is withdrawn from the vaporizer (0052 states that “The processor 604 can determine a total dosing amount based on accumulating the amounts of doses delivered by the inhalation device 600.”);
Regarding claim 19, Freeman1 discloses the portable loose-leaf material vaporizer of claim 16, wherein the processing unit is configured to stop heating of the heating chamber and/or start cooling of the heating chamber when the processing unit determines that a predetermined dosage is available for withdrawal from the vaporizer (0048 states that “When this time duration reaches a predetermined time limit, the processor 604 deactivates the heater 612 to end the vaporization of any further material from the reservoir tank 610.” The predetermined dosage is based on this predetermined time limit as seen in paragraph 0051.).
Regarding claim 21, Freeman1 discloses the portable loose-leaf material vaporizer of claim 16, wherein the mathematical model further relates a temperature of the heating chamber to the dosage of the one or more active agents withdrawn or to be withdrawn from the vaporizer (0051 states that “The predetermined time threshold may be set in advance, or alternatively, the predetermined time threshold may be variable based on considerations such as the initial temperature of the heated;”).
Regarding claim 22, Freeman1 discloses a portable loose-leaf material vaporizer (Abstract states: “An inhalation device for inhaling a vaporized substance”) comprising:
a heating chamber (Reservoir 310) for housing a loose leaf material and vaporizing one or more active agents from the loose-leaf material (Paragraph 0008 states “a reservoir, wherein the substance in unvaporized form is stored;”),
a mouthpiece for withdrawal of the one or more active agents vaporized from the loose- leaf material (0008 states “The inhalation device can further include a mouthpiece, from which a user can inhale a vaporized substance.”),
a processing unit (Processor 304),
and a flow detector for detecting flow through the vaporizer (0041 states that “The sensor 422 can be any suitable airflow sensor”),
wherein the processing unit (Processor 304) is configured to control temperature of the heating chamber (0038 states that “The processor 304 can store information on different rates of inhalation to adjust, for example, the temperature of the heating element 312.”), and estimate a dosage of the one or more active agents withdrawn from the vaporizer based on a mathematical model (Paragraph 0055 states “According to another variation, the inhalation cartridge 600 processor 604 may be configured to incorporate data from the timer and from the various sensors described in the embodiments detailed above to calculate the dosage information), and wherein the mathematical model relates a plurality of vapor generating time (0055 states that the timer information is used to calculate this dosage amount. 0048 states that “The inhalation cartridge 600 according to this embodiment is configured to use a processor 604 and a timer 606 (which may be part of or separate from the processor) to control the amount of time the heater 612 is activated when a user inhales through the cartridge. the processor 604 starts the timer 606 and heater 612 to vaporize the substance within the reservoir tank 610. In this manner, the processor and timer function to control the time duration over which the heater 606 is activated.”) and looseleaf material properties (0055 states that use of the vapor intensity/density to calculate the dosage amount. 0049 further states that “This predetermined timing can be, for example, 3 seconds in duration based on empirical evidence with known materials, vapor densities, heater characteristics and flows. However, this timing can be varied depending on the substance to be vaporized and the amount/concentration/strength of drug, etc.,”) to the dosage of the one or more active agents withdrawn or to be withdrawn from the vaporizer wherein the plurality of vapor generating time and loose-leaf material properties includes one or more of a mass of the loose-leaf material, a percentage concentration of the one or more active agents (0049 states “This predetermined timing can be, for example, 3 seconds in duration based on empirical evidence with known materials, vapor densities, heater characteristics and flows. However, this timing can be varied depending on the substance to be vaporized and the amount/concentration/strength of drug, etc., contained in the substance, and in some embodiments, a drug-vapor-density factor”), a production rate based on a temperature and time profile (0051 states “The predetermined time threshold may be set in advance, or alternatively, the predetermined time threshold may be variable based on considerations such as the initial temperature of the heater, the type or concentration of material to be vaporized in the reservoir, etc. As the materials containing the various substances may vaporize at different rates”), an inhalation duration, and an empirical effects factor.
Regarding claim 23, Freeman1 discloses the portable loose-leaf material vaporizer of claim 22, wherein the flow detector is arranged outside a flow path connecting the heating chamber and the mouthpiece (Figure 4 depicts sensor 422 to be placed outside the flow path within that wall), wherein the flow detector is preferably arranged in a dead-end branch branching from the flow path connecting the heating chamber and the mouthpiece (The wall structure that sensor 422 is in acts as dead end branching and is located within the flow path connection area of the chamber to the mouthpiece as seen in figure 4).
Regarding claim 24, Freeman1 discloses the portable loose-leaf material vaporizer of claim 22, wherein the flow detector is selected from the group consisting of differential pressure sensors, capacitive air flow sensors, spinning fans/turbines, moving flap-type sensors, temperature sensors and thermal flow sensors (0041 states that “The sensor 422 can be any suitable airflow sensor including, but not limited to, any combination or stand-alone of the following: a pressure sensor, a propeller, a microphone or a piezoelectric sensor.”).
Regarding claim 25, Freeman1 discloses the portable loose-leaf material vaporizer of claim 22, wherein the mathematical model further relates a temperature of the heating chamber to the dosage of the one or more active agents withdrawn or to be withdrawn from the vaporizer (0051 states that “The predetermined time threshold may be set in advance, or alternatively, the predetermined time threshold may be variable based on considerations such as the initial temperature of the heated;”).
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman1, in view of Wilson et al. 2020/0077706
Regarding claim 20, Freeman1 discloses the portable loose-leaf material vaporizer of claim 16. Freeman1 fails to disclose wherein the processing unit is configured to indicate to the user when a predetermined dosage is available for withdrawal from the vaporizer. Wilson discloses an analogous inhalant dispensing system that does teach wherein the processing unit (processor 235) is configured to indicate to a user when a predetermined dosage is available for withdrawal from the vaporizer (0067 states that “The indicating module 612 may be configured to convey various types of information related to the inhalation device 600 to the user, such as, e.g., error messages related to operation of the cartridge, the battery, and/or other aspects of the device 600, a current operating mode (e.g., ready to use, in preparation, dose complete, etc.)). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination to include wherein the processing unit is configured to indicate to a user when a predetermined dosage is available for withdrawal from the vaporizer as this provides the user with a visual indication of the dose being ready for withdrawal.
Claims 26, 28-29 and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman1, further in view of Freeman2 et al. 2019/0335817 and Woods et al. 2022/0001119
Regarding claim 26, Freeman 1 discloses a portable loose-leaf material vaporizer (Abstract states: “An inhalation device for inhaling a vaporized substance”) comprising:
a heating chamber (Reservoir 310) for housing a loose-leaf material and vaporizing one or more active agents from the loose-leaf material (Paragraph 0008 states “a reservoir, wherein the substance in unvaporized form is stored;”),
a mouthpiece for withdrawal of the one or more active agents vaporized from the loose- leaf material (0008 states “The inhalation device can further include a mouthpiece, from which a user can inhale a vaporized substance.”),
and a flow detector for detecting flow through the vaporizer (0041 states that “The sensor 422 can be any suitable airflow sensor”),
wherein the processing unit (Processor 304) is configured to control temperature of the heating chamber (0038 states that “The processor 304 can store information on different rates of inhalation to adjust, for example, the temperature of the heating element 312.”), and estimate a dosage of the one or more active agents withdrawn from the vaporizer based on a mathematical model (Paragraph 0055 states “According to another variation, the inhalation cartridge 600 processor 604 may be configured to incorporate data from the timer and from the various sensors described in the embodiments detailed above to calculate the dosage information), and wherein the mathematical model relates a plurality of vapor generating time (0055 states that the timer information is used to calculate this dosage amount. 0048 states that “The inhalation cartridge 600 according to this embodiment is configured to use a processor 604 and a timer 606 (which may be part of or separate from the processor) to control the amount of time the heater 612 is activated when a user inhales through the cartridge. the processor 604 starts the timer 606 and heater 612 to vaporize the substance within the reservoir tank 610. In this manner, the processor and timer function to control the time duration over which the heater 606 is activated.”), and looseleaf material properties (0055 states that use of the vapor intensity/density to calculate the dosage amount. 0049 further states that “This predetermined timing can be, for example, 3 seconds in duration based on empirical evidence with known materials, vapor densities, heater characteristics and flows. However, this timing can be varied depending on the substance to be vaporized and the amount/concentration/strength of drug, etc.,”) to the dosage of the one or more active agents withdrawn or to be withdrawn from the vaporizer wherein the plurality of vapor generating time and loose-leaf material properties includes one or more of a mass of the loose-leaf material, a percentage concentration of the one or more active agents (0049 states “This predetermined timing can be, for example, 3 seconds in duration based on empirical evidence with known materials, vapor densities, heater characteristics and flows. However, this timing can be varied depending on the substance to be vaporized and the amount/concentration/strength of drug, etc., contained in the substance, and in some embodiments, a drug-vapor-density factor”), a production rate based on a temperature and time profile (0051 states “The predetermined time threshold may be set in advance, or alternatively, the predetermined time threshold may be variable based on considerations such as the initial temperature of the heater, the type or concentration of material to be vaporized in the reservoir, etc. As the materials containing the various substances may vaporize at different rates”), an inhalation duration, and an empirical effects factor.
Freeman1 fails to explicitly teach a flow regulating element configured to exert a first resistance among a plurality of resistances against flow through the vaporizer, wherein the mathematical model relates the one resistance exerted by the flow regulating element against the flow through the vaporizer to the dosage of the one or more active agents withdrawn or to be withdrawn from the vaporizer.
Freeman2 discloses an analogous vaporizer that does teach a flow regulating element configured to exert a first resistance against flow through the vaporizer (0082 states that “The vaporizer unit may be designed so that the airflow rate is known by design. For example, the design may limit the flow rate by restricting the airflow to a known airflow rate, perhaps by directing the flow through a narrow channel.” The resistance comes from the narrow channel walls, which would lead to a fixed airflow rate.) and wherein the mathematical model relates at least one resistance exerted by the flow regulating element against the flow through the vaporizer to the dosage of the one or more active agents withdrawn or to be withdrawn from the vaporizer (0082 states that “the known airflow rate could be combined with other factors, such as duration (time) of inhale and other vaporization characteristics, to determine the quantity of drug consumed.”). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Freeman1 to further include a flow regulating element configured to exert a resistance against flow through the vaporizer and wherein the mathematical model preferably relates the one resistance exerted by the flow regulating element against the flow through the vaporizer to the dosage of the one or more active agents withdrawn or to be withdrawn from the vaporizer as this would allow for the use of a known airflow rate to be combined with other measured values of the vaporizer unit to determine consumption information such as dosage (0083).
The combination of Freeman1 and Freeman2 fails to explicitly teach a plurality of resistances exerted by the flow regulating element. Woods discloses an analogous vaporization device that does teach a plurality of resistances exerted by a flow regulating element (Valve 540 in figure 5, paragraph 0152 states that “a valve 540 is controllable to regulate or otherwise control the flow of vapor to the mouthpiece 542. A valve has the ability to allow differing amounts of flow through based on its positioning, which in turn provides a plurality of possible resistances.). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the teachings of Freeman 1 and 2 to include a plurality of resistances exerted by a flow regulating element as this provides the apparatus with a form of dosage control (0152).
Woods can be applied to the combination of Freeman 1 and 2 and now teach a flow regulating element configured to exert a first resistance among a plurality of resistances against flow through the vaporizer, wherein the mathematical model relates a plurality of vapor generating time and loose-leaf material properties and at least one resistance of the plurality of resistances exerted by the flow regulating element against the flow through the vaporizer, to the dosage of the one or more active agents withdrawn or to be withdrawn from the vaporizer as the plurality of resistances that can be exerted from the valve concept of Woods can now be implemented into the mathematical model taught by Freeman 1 and 2.
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Freeman 1, 2, and Woods teaches the portable loose-leaf material vaporizer of claim 26. Woods further discloses wherein the processing unit is further configured to control the flow regulating element to select a second resistance from among the plurality of resistances against the flow through the vaporizer (0152 states that “The controller 530 could adjust the valve 540 to provide a form of dosage control, for example.”). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination to include wherein the processing unit is further configured to control the resistance exerted by the flow regulating element to select a second resistance from among the plurality of resistances against the flow through the vaporizer as this provides for a form of dosage control through the flow rate.
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Freeman 1, 2, and Woods teaches the portable loose-leaf material vaporizer of claim 26, further comprising: a sensor for determining the first resistance exerted by the flow regulating element against the flow through the vaporizer (0077 of Freeman 2 states that “Air pressure sensors setup to measure the pressure at various positions in the inhale tube. These measurements can be compared to each other and based on the distance between the sensors and diameter of tube, the airflow rate and/or volume may be determined”).
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Freeman 1, 2, and Woods teaches the portable loose-leaf material vaporizer of claim 26. Freeman 1 further discloses wherein the vaporizer further comprises: an interface for receiving sensor data and/or user input data (0059 states “the inhalation devices described herein can be connected to a mobile device such as a smartphone or tablet and interfaced with a software application. The software application can record the doses that the user has inhaled and record the user's dosage experience”), wherein the interface for receiving user input data is optionally a user interface (“the user could also enter personal information such as ailments, pains, weight and food intake. The information recorded can be used to accurately monitor a user's intake details and may be submitted to a doctor for review and/or improvement”).
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Freeman 1, 2, and Woods teaches the portable loose-leaf material vaporizer of claim 26, wherein the mathematical model further relates a temperature of the heating chamber to the dosage of the one or more active agents withdrawn or to be withdrawn from the vaporizer (0051 of Freeman 1 states that “The predetermined time threshold may be set in advance, or alternatively, the predetermined time threshold may be variable based on considerations such as the initial temperature of the heated;”).
Claims 30 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman1, Freeman2, and Woods, further in view of Bowen et al. 2016/0157524
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Freeman 1, 2, and Woods discloses the portable loose-leaf material vaporizer of claim 26. The combination fails to teach further comprising: one or more temperature sensors, wherein the one or more temperature sensors are preferably located adjacent to the heating chamber and/or adjacent to the mouthpiece. Bowen does disclose further comprising: one or more temperature sensors (0093 states that “In this example, the heater 360 may be used as a temperature sensor as described above and herein, Alternatively or additionally, a separate temperature sensor (e.g., thermistor, etc.) that is in thermal contact with the heater and/or vaporizable material may be used), wherein the one or more temperature sensors are located adjacent to the heating chamber and/or adjacent to the mouthpiece (Figure 1b discloses heater 360 located adjacent the heating chamber and near the mouthpiece). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination to include further comprising: one or more temperature sensors, wherein the one or more temperature sensors are located adjacent to the heating chamber and/or adjacent to the mouthpiece as the use of temperature sensors allows for the temperature of the heater to be controlled by a controller (0093).
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Freeman 1, 2, and Woods teaches the portable loose-leaf material vaporizer of claim 26. Freeman1 further discloses wherein a sensor data and/or a user input data include one or more of the following:
(i) a predetermined dosage of the one or more active agents to be withdrawn from the vaporizer (0051 states “The predetermined time threshold may be set in advance, or alternatively, the predetermined time threshold may be variable based on considerations such as the initial temperature of the heater, the type or concentration of material to be vaporized in the reservoir, etc. As the materials containing the various substances may vaporize at different rates, the inhalation cartridge 600 may incorporate a switch, slider or dial device, for example, to enable a user to select a type of material, or an intended predetermined timing, to maintain consistency of the dose.” The predetermined time contains a desired dose by definition); and/or
(ii) a number of draws to be taken from the vaporizer (0052 states that “The processor 604 can determine a total dosing amount based on accumulating the amounts of doses delivered by the inhalation device 600.”); and/or
(iii) the loose-leaf material properties (0055 states that “and vapor intensity/density in combination with the timer information to calculate a dosage amount.”);
The combination fails to disclose:
wherein a sensor data and/or a user input data include one or more of the following:
(iv) the first resistance exerted by the flow regulating element against the flow through the vaporizer; and/or
(v) a temperature of the heating chamber.
Woods does disclose wherein a sensor data and/or a user input data include one or more of the following:
The first resistance exerted by the flow regulating element against the flow through the vaporizer (0125 states that “Such control of vaporization substance flow regulators could be indirect as shown in FIG. 5, in the sense that the user input device(s) 534 provide input(s) to a controller 530, and the controller controls the regulators”. 0152 states “a valve 540 is controllable to regulate or otherwise control the flow of vapor to the mouthpiece 542. The controller 530 could adjust the valve 540” Based on this it is reasonable for the user input to include the exerted resistance of the flow by way of the % openness of the valve);
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination to include wherein a sensor data and/or a user input data include the first resistance exerted by the flow regulating element against the flow through the vaporizer as this provides the apparatus with a form of direct dosage control (0152).
The combination still fails to teach wherein a sensor data and/or a user input data include one or more of the following:
(v) a temperature of the heating chamber
Bowen does teach wherein a sensor data and/or a user input data include one or more of the following:
a temperature of the heating chamber (0093 states that “In this example, the heater 360 may be used as a temperature sensor as described above and herein, Alternatively or additionally, a separate temperature sensor (e.g., thermistor, etc.) that is in thermal contact with the heater and/or vaporizable material may be used). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination to include wherein a sensor data and/or a user input data include a temperature of the heating chamber as the use of temperature sensors allows for the temperature of the heater to be controlled by a controller (0093).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman1, Freeman2, and Woods, further in view of Vincent et al. KR20190104616
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Freeman 1, 2, and Woods teaches the portable loose-leaf material vaporizer of claim 26. The combination fails to disclose wherein the flow regulating element comprises a rotatable disk having at least a first section, which when rotated into a flow path of the vaporizer defines a first effective cross sectional flow area, and a second section, which when rotated into the flow path of the vaporizer defines a second effective cross sectional flow area different from the first cross sectional flow area. Vincent discloses an analogous electric vapor device that does disclose wherein the flow regulating element comprises a rotatable disk having at least a first section (Dial 41), which when rotated into a flow path of the vaporizer defines a first effective cross sectional flow area, and a second section, which when rotated into the flow path of the vaporizer defines a second effective cross sectional flow area different from the first cross sectional flow area (As highlighted in the attached translation “If the central shaft 45 is also used as an air flow channel, the dial will support one or more obstructing sections 47 protruding into the air flow channel 48 by an amount depending on the rotational position of the dial 41.”).The rotatable dial includes the potential for two cross sectional flow areas as described. The dial can be rotated to define a desired air flow, meaning that each potential dial position will include its own cross sectional flow area, this is aided by obstructing sections 47, which protrude into the airflow channel 48. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination to include wherein the flow regulating element comprises a rotatable disk having at least a first section, which when rotated into a flow path of the vaporizer defines a first effective cross sectional flow area, and a second section, which when rotated into the flow path of the vaporizer defines a second effective cross sectional flow area different from the first cross sectional flow area as this provides the user with a method of controlling the flow of vapor.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 16, 22, and 26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 ROHAN DEEP PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-5538. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 5:30 AM - 3:00 PM PST.
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, Brandy S Lee can be reached at (571) 2707410. 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.
/ROHAN PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/BRANDY S LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785