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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-19 are pending and are subject to this Office Action. Claims 16-19 have been withdrawn. Claims 1-15 have been amended.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/10/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed on 6/10/2025 containing
amendments and remarks to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8, filed 6/10/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Applicant has amended claim 1 to include a vape fluid cartridge system with a vape fluid cartridge and a protective sleeve, whereas previously only the protective sleeve was positively claimed. The previous rejection cited intended use of the protective sleeve, but now the claim requires more structure given the positively claimed vape fluid cartridge. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of previously applied art and newly found art.
The following is a modified rejection based on amendments made to the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tucker (US2013/0192615) in view of Chapman (US2015/0128968) and Monsees (US2016/0366947).
Regarding claim 1, Tucker teaches:
A vape fluid cartridge system with a protective sleeve (sleeve assembly 87) configured to be removably attached to a vape pen (sleeve assembly 87 removably positioned about a first section 70 of the electronic cigarette, [0100], figure 18), the protective sleeve comprising a vape fluid cartridge (replaceable cartridge or first section 70) and a protective sleeve (sleeve assembly 87) comprising:
A first open end (downstream end of sleeve assembly 87), a second open end (upstream end of sleeve assembly 87), and as the sleeve assembly surrounds first section 70, which is cylindrical (outer tube, [0031]), it is evident that the sleeve assembly has a cylindrical internal cavity having a diameter.
Wherein the sleeve is removably secured to the vape fluid cartridge via insertion of the vape fluid cartridge into the cylindrical internal cavity (as shown in figure 18, where the sleeve assembly 87 surrounds cartridge 70).
Tucker does not appear to explicitly disclose (I) the cylindrical internal cavity of the protective sleeve having a diameter the same as or smaller than a diameter of the vape fluid cartridge, (II) wherein the protective sleeve is configured with an overall length such that, when installed on the vape fluid cartridge, the vape fluid cartridge extends through the first open end and the second open end, and (III) an aperture within a side surface of the protective sleeve, exposing at least a portion of the vape fluid cartridge within the cylindrical internal cavity enabling viewing of a fluid level of fluid within the vape fluid cartridge.
In regard to (I), Chapman, directed to a mouthpiece for a smoking article, teaches:
Soft sleeves e.g. silicone tube/sleeve; a sleeve that may be stretch, pulled over the tube, then released to conform therearound ([0069]). As the silicone sleeve may be stretch and pulled over the tube, it is evident that the cylindrical internal cavity has a diameter that is the same as or smaller than the diameter of the tube.
Therefore as Tucker teaches the sleeve assembly is made of silicone or other pliable material to provide a soft mouthfeel to the smoker [0101], it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the sleeve of Tucker be stretched and pulled over the cartridge as taught by Chapman, and thus the cylindrical internal cavity of the protective sleeve having a diameter the same as or smaller than the diameter of the vape fluid cartridge, because both Tucker and Chapman are directed to sleeves for smoking devices, Chapman teaches silicone sleeves may be stretched, pulled over the tube, and then released to conform therearound, and this merely involves incorporating a known type of silicone sleeve to a similar sleeve for a smoking device to yield predictable results.
In regard to (II), Tucker further teaches that the sleeve assembly 87 insulates at least a portion of the first section 70 [0100]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the sleeve assembly may insulate only a portion of the vape fluid cartridge and thus the vape fluid cartridge extends through the first open end and the second open end of the protective sleeve.
In regard to (III), Monsees, directed to a vaporizer, teaches:
A mouthpiece that may fit over the top/end of the storage compartment (i.e. vape fluid cartridge) and may have a cut-out region on the distal end that is cut into a shape that may form a window into the tank to show the cartridge and fluid ([0013]-[0014]). As both Tucker and Monsees are related vaporization devices with exterior elements that fit around vape fluid cartridges, Monsees is considered to be analogous art.
The window of Monsees reads on an aperture exposing within a side surface of the mouthpiece, exposing at least a portion of the vape fluid cartridge enabling viewing of a fluid level of fluid within the vape fluid cartridge.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the protective sleeve of Tucker by incorporating a window as taught by Monsees, because both Tucker and Monsees are directed to vaporization devices with exterior elements that fit around vape cartridges, Monsees teaches the window allows viewing of the cartridge and fluid, and this merely involves incorporating a known element of a sleeve around a fluid cartridge (i.e. window) to a similar sleeve to yield predicable results.
The window of modified Tucker therefore defines an aperture within a side surface of the protective sleeve, exposing at least a portion of the vape fluid cartridge within the cylindrical internal cavity enabling viewing of a fluid level of fluid within the vape fluid cartridge.
Regarding claim 2, Tucker further teaches that the sleeve assembly may be formed in one piece ([0101]), and therefore has at least a portion of the exterior surface of the protective sleeve that extends continuously from the first open end to the second open end. Monsees further teaches that the cut-out region may be any appropriate shape (e.g., square, rectangular, oval, semi-circular, or combinations thereof) ([0014]), and therefore modified Tucker having the aperture be a cut-out region of the protective sleeve reads on wherein the aperture comprises a gap in an exterior surface of the protective sleeve.
Regarding claim 3, modified Tucker does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the aperture comprises one or more elongated channels formed in the protective sleeve surface, the elongated channels collectively facilitating perception of the fluid level. However, Monsees further teaches that the cut-out region may be any appropriate shape (e.g., square, rectangular, oval, semi-circular, or combinations thereof) ([0014]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aperture of modified Tucker to be rectangular shaped as Monsees teaches this is an appropriate shape of the cut-out region. The cut-out region being rectangular in shape defines an elongated channel, and therefore Tucker having the aperture being rectangular in shape reads on the claim limitation wherein the aperture comprises one or more elongated channels formed in the protective sleeve surface, the elongated channels collectively facilitating perception of the fluid level.
Regarding claim 4, modified Tucker does not appear to explicitly disclose where the aperture comprises: a first elongated channel extending from the first open end of the protective sleeve towards a sleeve center; a second elongated channel extending from the second open end of the protective sleeve towards the sleeve center; and a central portion of the protective sleeve, separating the first elongated channel from the second elongated channel.
However, Monsees further teaches that the that the cut-out region may be on the distal edge that is cut into a shape that may form a window into the tank to show the cartridge and fluid…the cut-out region may be any appropriate shape (e.g., square, rectangular) ([0014]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aperture of modified Tucker to be on the distal edge of the sleeve and rectangular shaped as Monsees teaches this is a known configuration and appropriate shape of the cut-out region. The cut-out region being on the distal edge of the sleeve and rectangular in shape defines where the aperture comprises a first elongated channel extending from the first open end of the protective sleeve towards a sleeve center.
Modified Tucker does not disclose a second elongated channel extending from the second open end of the protective sleeve towards the sleeve center. However, the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the aperture on a distal edge of a sleeve so that there is a second aperture on the other edge of the sleeve, reading on a second elongated channel extending from the second open end of the protective sleeve towards the sleeve center, as this merely involves the duplication of parts. The portion of the protective sleeve of Tucker between the first and second elongated channels reads on a central portion of the protective sleeve, separating the first elongated channel from the second elongated channel.
Regarding claims 7 and 9, Tucker further teaches wherein the protective sleeve is comprised of silicone ([0101]), which is an elastic material as defined by the applicant’s specification (see [0028]).
Regarding claim 8, Tucker does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the protective sleeve is comprised of a material selected from amongst: urethane, polyurethane, thermoplastic, polyethylene and elastomer. However Tucker further teaches that the protective sleeve may be formed of a variety of materials including plastics ([0101]), and teaches another part of the device (i.e. outer tube) may be formed of materials such as thermoplastics or polyethylene ([0030]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the protective sleeve of Tucker be comprised of thermoplastic or polyethylene, as Tucker teaches the protective sleeve may be formed of a variety of materials including plastics and that these are known plastic materials suitable for parts of a vaporization device. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claims 10-11, Tucker is silent to the thickness of the protective sleeve. However,, the courts have yielded that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV A.
Therefore, the recitation of the protective sleeve having a thickness of about 3 mm as recited in claim 10, and having a thickness ranging from 2.5 mm to 3.5 mm as recited in claim 11, does not render the claimed protective sleeve patentable distinct from Tucker.
Regarding claim 12, Tucker further teaches that the sleeve assembly surrounds first section 70 which is cylindrical (outer tube, [0031]), and therefore it is evident that the protective sleeve includes further having a cylindrical exterior surface.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tucker (US2013/0192615) in view of Chapman (US2015/0128968) and Tao (US2019/0168246).
Regarding claim 1, Tucker teaches:
A vape fluid cartridge system with a protective sleeve (sleeve assembly 87) configured to be removably attached to a vape pen (sleeve assembly 87 removably positioned about a first section 70 of the electronic cigarette, [0100], figure 18), the protective sleeve comprising a vape fluid cartridge (replaceable cartridge or first section 70) and a protective sleeve (sleeve assembly 87) comprising:
A first open end (downstream end of sleeve assembly 87), a second open end (upstream end of sleeve assembly 87), and as the sleeve assembly surrounds first section 70, which is cylindrical (outer tube, [0031]), it is evident that the sleeve assembly has a cylindrical internal cavity having a diameter.
Wherein the sleeve is removably secured to the vape fluid cartridge via insertion of the vape fluid cartridge into the cylindrical internal cavity (as shown in figure 18, where the sleeve assembly 87 surrounds cartridge 70).
Tucker does not appear to explicitly disclose (I) the cylindrical internal cavity of the protective sleeve having a diameter the same as or smaller than a diameter of the vape fluid cartridge, (II) wherein the protective sleeve is configured with an overall length such that, when installed on the vape fluid cartridge, the vape fluid cartridge extends through the first open end and the second open end, and (III) an aperture within a side surface of the protective sleeve, exposing at least a portion of the vape fluid cartridge within the cylindrical internal cavity enabling viewing of a fluid level of fluid within the vape fluid cartridge.
In regard to (I), Chapman, directed to a mouthpiece for a smoking article, teaches:
Soft sleeves e.g. silicone tube/sleeve; a sleeve that may be stretch, pulled over the tube, then released to conform therearound ([0069]). As the silicone sleeve may be stretch and pulled over the tube, it is evident that the cylindrical internal cavity has a diameter that is the same as or smaller than the diameter of the tube.
Therefore as Tucker teaches the sleeve assembly is made of silicone or other pliable material to provide a soft mouthfeel to the smoker [0101], it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the sleeve of Tucker be stretched and pulled over the cartridge as taught by Chapman, and thus the cylindrical internal cavity of the protective sleeve having a diameter the same as or smaller than the diameter of the vape fluid cartridge, because both Tucker and Chapman are directed to sleeves for smoking devices, Chapman teaches silicone sleeves may be stretched, pulled over the tube, and then released to conform thereround, and this merely involves incorporating a known type of silicone sleeve to a similar sleeve for a smoking device to yield predictable results.
In regard to (II), Tucker further teaches that the sleeve assembly 87 insulates at least a portion of the first section 70 [0100]. Therefore it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the sleeve assembly may insulate only a portion of the vape fluid cartridge and thus the vape fluid cartridge extends through the first open end and the second open end of the protective sleeve.
Tao, directed to an e-liquid bottle for an electronic cigarette, teaches:
An e-liquid bottle to be used in an atomizer of an electronic cigarette. The e-liquid bottle includes a main body 1 for receiving e-liquid therein. ([0030], figures 1-8).
The main body 1 further includes an outer housing 10 which includes a hollow structure 10a. The hollow structure 10a can not only form beautiful patterns on the outer housing 10, but also take as an observing window to observe the main body 1 through the inner housing 11 so that users can know the current remaining e-liquid quantity in the main body 1 at any time ([0037], figures 1-2).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the protective sleeve of Tucker by incorporating a hollow structure as taught by Tao, because both Tucker and Tao are directed to vaporization devices with exterior elements that fit around vape cartridges, Tao teaches the hollow structure allows users to know the current remaining e-liquid quantity, and this merely involves incorporating a known element of a sleeve around a fluid cartridge (i.e. hollow structure) to a similar sleeve to yield predicable results.
The hollow structure of modified Tucker therefore defines an aperture within a side surface of the protective sleeve, exposing at least a portion of the vape fluid cartridge within the cylindrical internal cavity enabling viewing of a fluid level of fluid within the vape fluid cartridge.
Regarding claim 2, modified Tucker further teaches wherein the aperture comprises a gap in an exterior surface of the protective sleeve (as defined by hollow structure), and tucker further teaches that the sleeve assembly may be formed in one piece ([0101]), and therefore has at least a portion of the exterior surface of the protective sleeve that extends continuously from the first open end to the second open end.
Regarding claim 3, the hollow structure of modified Tucker defines an elongated channel (as shown in figure 1) and therefore reads on wherein the aperture comprises one or more elongated channels formed in the protective sleeve surface, the elongated channels collectively facilitating perception of the fluid level.
Regarding claim 5, Tao further teaches wherein the aperture comprises an elongated channel (hollow structure 10a) having a first channel end separated from the first open end of the outer housing by a first end portion, and a second channel end separated from the second open end of the outer housing by a second end portion (as shown in figure 1 of Tao, see modified figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
298
422
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 1
As modified Tucker would have the same aperture structure but on the protective sleeve of Tucker, this reads on a first channel end proximate the first open end of the protective sleeve and a second channel end proximate the second open end of the protective sleeve.
Regarding claim 6, modified Tucker does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the aperture comprises a transparent or translucent material.
Tao further teaches:
The main body 1 further includes an outer housing 10, an inner housing 11 received in the outer housing 10 and a sealing member 110 connected between the outer housing 10 and the inner housing 11. The outer housing 10 includes a hollow structure 10a and the inner housing 11 is a transparent material structure, such as glass preferred. The hollow structure 10a can not only form beautiful patterns on the outer housing 10, but also take as an observing window to observe the main body 1 through the inner housing 11 so that users can know the current remaining e-liquid quantity in the main body 1 at any time. The sealing member 110 is configured to prevent the e-liquid inside the main body 1 from leaking between the outer housing 10 and the inner housing 11 ([0037], figures 1-2).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the protective sleeve of Tucker by incorporating an inner housing with a transparent material and a sealing member to connect the inner housing to the outer housing as taught by Tao, yielding the aperture comprising a transparent or translucent material, because both Tucker and Tao are directed to electronic cigarettes, Tao teaches this prevents the e-liquid inside the main body from leaking, and this merely involves incorporating a known type of material (i.e. translucent) to a similar aperture for viewing the fluid level within a vape fluid cartridge to yield predicable results.
Regarding claim 8, Tucker does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the protective sleeve is comprised of a material selected from amongst: urethane, polyurethane, thermoplastic, polyethylene and elastomer. However Tucker further teaches that the protective sleeve may be formed of a variety of materials including plastics ([0101]), and teaches another part of the device (i.e. outer tube) may be formed of materials such as thermoplastics or polyethylene ([0030]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the protective sleeve of Tucker be comprised of thermoplastic or polyethylene, as Tucker teaches the protective sleeve may be formed of a variety of materials including plastics and that these are known plastic materials suitable for parts of a vaporization device. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tucker (US2013/0192615) in view of Chapman (US2015/0128968) and Monsees (US2016/0366947) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Orvis (US2015/0007833).
Regarding claim 13, Tucker does not appear to explicitly disclose the protective sleeve further comprising an elevated section extending outwards from the cylindrical exterior surface of the protective sleeve, thereby inhibiting rolling of the protective sleeve when placed on a flat surface.
Orvis, directed to a smoking device, teaches:
A smoking device 10 that may further comprise a collar 70 ([0064], figure 6).
The flat surface 73 on the collar 70 makes it more difficult for the smoking device 10 to roll, twist, turn, rotate, or otherwise move ([0064], figure 6).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the protective sleeve of Tucker by incorporating a collar as taught by Orvis, yielding the protective sleeve to comprise an elevated section extending outwards from the cylindrical exterior surface of the protective sleeve, thereby inhibiting rolling of the protective sleeve when placed on a flat surface, because both Tucker and Orvis are directed to smoking devices, Orvis teaches the collar makes it difficult for the device to roll, twist, or move, and this merely involves incorporating a known component (i.e. collar) to a similar external housing of a smoking device to yield predicable results.
Regarding claim 14, modified Tucker further teaches:
The elevated section forms a flat surface generally rectangular in shape (as shown in figure 6 of Orvis, flat surface 73 is generally rectangular in shape).
Regarding claim 15, Tucker further teaches that the sleeve assembly can include graphics or other indicia ([0101]) which defines ornamentation, and therefore ornamentation may be on any portion of the sleeve assembly such as the elevated section of modified Tucker.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicole A Szumigalski whose telephone number is (703)756-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00 - 4:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Philip Louie can be reached at (571) 270-1241. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/N.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755