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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09 December 2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 09 December 2025:
Claims 1 and 3-16 are pending
Claims 1 and 3 are amended
Claim 2 is cancelled
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments to the claims filed 09 December 2025 have been acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On Pages 5-7 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant has cancelled Claim 2 and incorporated its subject matter in Claim 1 while also further amending Claim 1 to include the first alternative recitation of Claim 3 which was not originally elected for consideration by the Examiner; specifically, the alternative states that “the triggered action is adjusting the control of the dispensing element for the amount of liquid to be vaporized or nebulized”. Applicant argues that the requiring the first alternative, which was originally optional, has now placed the application in allowance as the prior presented art does not disclose said recited feature.
Upon further consideration and review, Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the previously presented disclosure from Trzecieski provides details that would support the additional features recited in amended Claim 1 of Applicant’s disclosure.
The following is a modified rejection based on amendments to the claims.
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.
Claim 1 is 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.
Claim 1 is indefinite for reciting “the triggered action” because it is unclear if “the triggered action” is referring to the “suitable action” that was triggered by the control signal, or if it is referring to a different action that is being triggered by said control signal. If the term “the triggered action” is referring to an action different from the “suitable action”, then the phrase “the triggered action” would be indefinite for lacking antecedent basis in the claim.
Based on the Applicant’s specifications and previously filed claims, it would appear that “the triggered action” is referring to the “suitable action” triggered by the control signal.
For examination purposes, the phrase “the triggered action” will be interpreted as the “suitable action”.
Claims 3-16 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 12, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newberry et al (Publication No. US20170189629A1), in view of Trzecieski et al (Publication No. US20200187560A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Newberry discloses an inhaler comprising a housing (Fig. 1; Housing 114);
an air channel (112a/112b) extending between at least one air inlet opening (Air intake 142) and a suction opening (Mouthpiece 110) in the housing (Fig. 1; [0044-0047]; Air flow channel shown to extend between the intake and the mouthpiece);
a dispensing element (Heating element 214/Wick 106) for nebulizing or vaporizing liquid supplied to the dispensing element for admixture to air flowing in the air channel (Figs. 1-2; [0048-0049, 0053-0054, 0063]; Heating element is situated around the wick, wherein both components are considered as the dispensing element; wick is saturated with vaporizing liquid which is released when heated by the heating element; vapors mix with air in the airflow chamber 130; air intake flows from the channels 112a/b to the chamber).
an electronic control device (Fig. 7; [0069]; Processing circuit 702)
an electronic data memory (704) (Figs. 1, 7; [0047, 0069]);
a sensor system (Pressure Sensor 148) comprising a flow measuring device for measuring the airflow flowing through the air channel (Figs. 1, 7; [0047, 0069]; Sensor configured to measure air flow between the air intake and air channels);
the sensor (i.e., airflow measurement device) measures a first and second pressure (i.e., capture a plurality of airflow measurements) during inhalation and exhalation (i.e., duration of inhalation puff) to determine an inhalation period (i.e., inhalation puff) (Fig. 3; [0047, 0053]);
Newberry further discloses the control device (702) controls (i.e., output control signal) the heating system of the atomizer which is based on detecting an inhalation period from the sensor (148) (Fig. 7; [0063, 0069];
Newberry does not disclose the following:
The flow measuring device measures volumetric and/or mass flow of the airflow;
comparing the plurality of airflow measurement values to a puff profile stored in the data memory;
wherein a puff profile is a defined ideal time profile of an air or air-vapor flow and/or mass flow that flows through the inhaler during at least part or all of a user’s ideal inhalation puff;
and outputting a control signal based on comparing the plurality of airflow measurement values to a puff profile stored in the data memory;
wherein a defined deviation of the airflow measurement values from the stored puff profile, the control signal triggers a suitable action;
wherein the suitable action is adjusting the control of the dispensing element for the amount of liquid to be vaporized or nebulized.
Regarding (I), Trzecieski, directed to a vaporization device, discloses an airflow or puff sensor that can be used to detect airflow through an air intake manifold (410) (Fig. 109; [0474]). The sensor (442) can be a differential pressure and/or mass airflow sensor that is also capable of measuring airflow by measuring the air inhalation volume over time (i.e., volumetric flow rate) (Figs. 77-78; [0694]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the sensor disclosed by Newberry with the sensor disclosed by Trzecieski, as both are directed to a vaporizing/atomizing device, where one ordinarily skilled in the art can substitute one known pressure sensor disclosed by Newberry with another known pressure sensor (i.e., differential pressure sensor) disclosed by Trzecieski to a similar vaporizing device to predictable yield a device capable of measuring air flow based on volumetric and/or mass flow measurements.
Regarding (II-IV), Trzecieski further discloses a control device (Control circuit 242) and data memory module (254) that stores inhalation profiles containing a plurality of mass airflow datapoints from the user’s inhalation over a sample time (i.e., ideal time profile) ([0389, 0447, 0799]; air flow rates are used to determine puff/inhalation cycles).
The memory module can further store mass airflow calibration results (i.e., stored inhalation profiles), which are compared against real-time measured airflow/puff inhalations values/inhalation profiles to determine the closest matching stored inhalation/calibration profile [0747-0750]. After the comparison with the user inhalation values/inhalation profile is made, the matching stored inhalation profile is used trigger a corresponding pulse-width modulation (PWM) profile (i.e., output signal) to supply power to the heating element for longer inhalations (Fig. 77-78; [0694-0697, 0714, 0724-0725, 0745-0750]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the circuit/control device and memory module disclosed by Newberry to store pre-existing airflow/puff profiles and compare said pre-existing profiles to real-time data as disclosed by Trzecieski, as both are directed to a vaporizing/atomizing device, Trzecieski teaches the advantage of doing utilizing a comparative air flow control to only provide power during long inhalations/puffs instead of short ones [0694-0697]; this also involves applying a known technique/teaching to a similar device to yield predictable results.
Regarding (V-VI), Trzecieski, directed to a vaporization device, discloses several pre-set inhalation/puff profiles wherein an inhalation exceeds a threshold value (i.e., defined deviation) for a preset profile, it will signal the device to implement a correlated PWM profile to heat the device, wherein different PWM profiles will result in varying temperature heating adjustments (i.e., suitable action) being applied to a heating element (i.e., dispensing element) (Figs. 94a-95d, 99; [0694-0697, 0714-0716, 0728, 0747-0750]; different PWM profiles are used to change the heating of the heating/dispensing element; the heating control adjustments being made by the PWM profile to the heating element is considered equivalent to the suitable action being triggered by the control signal in response to the deviation/threshold value).
Trzecieski further discloses that the PWM profile used to operate the heating element (i.e., dispensing element) can be correlated with a specific vapor weight value and inhalation profile (see Fig. 98; [0131, 0662, 0723-0725]; when the threshold for an inhalation profile is exceeded, the device operates different PWM profiles for heating a liquid based on the weight/quantity of the dosage; the selection of PWM profiles is equivalent to adjusting control over the heater).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the circuit/control device disclosed by Newberry to trigger a suitable action (i.e., selecting and operating a PWM profile) to control a dispensing element (i.e., heating element) per a defined airflow-to-puff profile deviation based on the volume of liquid to be vaporized (i.e., dosage weight) as disclosed by Trzecieski, as both are directed to a vaporizing/atomizing device, Trzecieski teaches the advantage of utilizing a comparative air flow control for outputting signals to only provide power during long inhalations/puffs instead of short ones [0694-0697]; this also involves applying a known technique/teaching to a similar device to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 3, Trzecieski further discloses upon said defined deviation of the airflow measurement values from the stored puff profile signals a corresponding information (i.e., inhalation does not meet the threshold/deviation value) to a user by means of a signaling device (i.e., LEDs) [0767].
Regarding Claim 4, Trzecieski discloses the air flow sensor (i.e., flow measuring device) can be a differential pressure sensor/measuring device (Figs. 77-78; [0694]). Trzecieski also discloses the air flow sensor can be a hot wire mass air flow sensor (i.e., hot-wire measuring device) [0471].
Regarding Claim 12, Newberry further discloses the sensor system comprises a liquid quantity sensor (Fluid sensor 720) for capturing a residual liquid quantity in a liquid tank (Cartridge 100) of the inhaler (Fig. 7; [0070]).
Regarding Claim 13, Newberry further discloses the level sensor further comprising a capacitive sensor (Impedance sensor 142) (Fig. 7; [0056-0057; 0070]; impedance sensor is disclosed to measure capacitance).
Regarding Claim 15, Newberry does not disclose the control device is adapted to perform an initialization procedure prior to actual use.
However, Trzecieski, directed to a vaporization device, discloses a cartridge with a cartridge memory module (254) (i.e., data memory) and control device/circuit (242) that is adapted to perform a calibration (i.e., initialization) procedure ([0389, 0666]; cartridge and its memory/control circuit is adapted to a testing apparatus 1100 for calibration testing; calibrating a device implies performing this procedure prior to actual use) comprising the following steps:
measuring a plurality of airflow measurement values over one or more inhalation puffs using the fluid flow sensor (i.e., flow measurement device) (Figs. 80-85; [0669-0673]; plurality of measurements is taken to generate multiple puff/inhalation profiles);
comparison of the airflow measurement values with a theoretical puff profile ([0724-0725, 0745-0751]; user inhalation airflow measurements are compared to stored inhalation profiles within a lookup table using a least square fit algorithm);
determining a user-specific ideal puff profile from the comparison of the airflow measurement values with the theoretical puff/inhalation profile (Figs. 80-85; [0685, 0669-0673, 0724]; inhalation measurements/profiles are adjusted to preferred simulated user inhalation profiles);
and storing the user-individual ideal (i.e., calibrated) puff/inhalation profile in the data memory (Figs. 80-85; [0669-0673]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the circuit/control device and memory module disclosed by Newberry to store calibration profile data that can calculate the amount of vaporized active ingredient as disclosed by Trzecieski, as both are directed to a vaporizing/atomizing device, where one ordinarily skilled in the art could apply Trzecieski’s teaching of a control device configured to perform an initialization/calibration procedure to a similar device disclosed by Newberry, and reasonable expect a resulting vaporizing device capable of doing an initiating procedure without impacting its ability to deliver vaporized liquid.
Regarding Claim 16, Trzecieski further discloses the theoretical puff (i.e., calibration airflow results) is stored in the data memory/module [0669].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newberry et al (Publication No. US20170189629A1), in view of Trzecieski et al (Publication No. US20200187560A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Yan et al (Publication No. US20190387794A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Modified Newberry discloses the differential pressure sensor is configured to measure the air flow between the air intake (142) and air flow channels (142) (Fig. 1; [0047]). Modified Newberry does not disclose a first a first pressure sensor for measuring the atmospheric air pressure and a second pressure sensor for measuring the air pressure in the air channel.
However, Yan, directed to an electronic cigarette, discloses a first (3a) and second (2a) pressure sensor, wherein the second pressure sensor is in communication with ambient atmosphere (i.e., measures atmospheric air pressure) at an air inlet (i.e., air intake) and the first sensor is arranged in an air flow path (i.e., airflow channel) to measure air pressure in said flow path ([0036, 0073-0075]; Yan’s naming convention can be flipped so that the first sensor is known as the second sensor and vice versa without impacting their functionality). The sensors are configured with a controller to calculate a pressure differential between the two sensors (i.e., differential pressure sensing/sensor) which provides more consistent and reliable operating of the device without false triggers caused by tobacco liquid or condensed aerosol [0036].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the single differential pressure sensor disclosed by modified Newberry with two pressure sensors to measure atmospheric and channel air pressure as disclosed by Yan, as both are directed to a vaporizing/aerosolizing device where Yan teaches the advantage of using two (differential) pressure sensors to calculate pressure changes as such a configuration will not be impacted by tobacco liquid or condensed aerosol, thus making the cigarette operation more consistent and reliable [0036]; this also involves substitution of one known pressure sensor configuration with another known pressure sensor(s) configuration to a similar aerosolizing device to yield predictable results.
Claims 6-8, 10, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newberry et al (Publication No. US20170189629A1), in view of Trzecieski et al (Publication No. US20200187560A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Ricciardi et al (Patent No. US8382008B1).
Regarding Claim 6, Newberry discloses an impedance, liquid level, and float sensor for measuring/capturing the quantity of liquid in a cartridge (Fig. 7; [0070]).
Newberry does not explicitly disclose a vapor quantity sensor for capturing/measuring the amount of liquid vaporized during an inhalation puff.
However, Ricciardi, directed to an aerosol device, discloses an aerosol (i.e., vapor quantity) sensor which is capable of measuring an amount of aerosol/vapor to determine if a sufficient amount of aerosol has been generated and delivered to a targeted area, wherein a sufficient amount can be an aerosol quantity that gives a desired effect (Col. 110, Lines 32-49; Col. 114, Lines 50-69; a user’s mouth can be considered a targeted area).
It is noted that while Ricciardi does not explicitly state that the aerosol generation is during an inhalation puff, modified Newberry discloses that their inhalation device is powered up and heated based on measured inhalation data (i.e., inhalation puff), implying that aerosol will only be generated via heating during an inhalation puff detected by said device (see Claim 1 rejection). This indicates that when Ricciardi’s aerosol sensor is applied to Newberry’s inhalation device, aerosol generation will only occur during an inhalation puff.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the flow sensor disclosed by Newberry to include an additional aerosol/vapor quantity sensor as disclosed by Ricciardi, as both are directed to a vaporizing/aerosolizing device, where Ricciardi teaches the advantage of using an aerosol sensor to determine if the quantity of generated aerosols meets a threshold to trigger a desired effect; this also involves applying a known technique/teaching to a similar device to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 7, Ricciardi further discloses that the aerosol/vapor quantity sensor is a humidity sensor (Col. 110, Lines 32-67; Col. 111, Lines 1-8).
Regarding Claim 8, Modified Newberry discloses an air channel upstream the dispensing unit (Heating element 214/Wick 106) (See Fig. 1; upstream channel/compartment above baffles 18a/b);
and another air channel downstream the dispensing unit (214/106) (See Fig. 1; air flow channel 112 located in the channel/compartment below baffles 118c/d).
Modified Newberry further discloses that there can be one or more humidity sensors that are configured to send or receive signals to or from any component of the device (Ricciardi, Col. 65, Lines 18-44).
Modified Newberry does not explicitly disclose the following:
the humidity sensor comprises a first and second humidity sensing element
the first humidity sensing element is arranged in the air channel upstream of the dispensing element and a second humidity sensing element arranged in the air channel downstream of the dispensing element
Regarding (I), it should be noted that 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).
Ricciardi discloses that humidity sensors sense or measure humidity according to Ricciardi (Col. 65, Lines 18-20) which would imply that a humidity sensor is equivalent to a humidity sensing element. Since Ricciardi discloses that there can be more than one humidity sensor (i.e., sensing element) to sense or measure any humidity from any component of the device, one ordinarily skilled in the art could duplicate the humidity sensor to have a first and second humidity sensing element, with a reasonably expectation that the device will be able to take various humidity measurements from both humidity sensing elements.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the inhaling device disclosed by modified Newberry to include more than one humidity sensor (i.e., first and second sensors) as disclosed by Ricciardi, as both are directed to a vaporizing/aerosolizing device, and one ordinarily skilled in the art could reasonably add a plurality of humidity sensors taught by Ricciardi to a similar inhaling device taught by Newberry and expectedly yield a device capable of taking humidity measurements from different components of said device.
Regarding (II), it should be noted that rearrangement of parts without modifying the operation of the device is held to be an obvious matter of design choice that gives predictable results (see MPEP § 2144.04.VI.C).
Ricciardi discloses a plurality of humidity sensors/sensing elements which can be configured without any limitation to allow a control device (i.e., PLC) to receive any information or status of humidity detected in a targeted area or component (Col. 65, Lines 18-44). Since there is no limitation to how the pressure sensor is implemented to take humidity measurements, one ordinarily skilled in the art could take Ricciardi’s teachings to construct sensing elements on the upstream and downstream air channels of the device disclosed by modified Newberry, with a reasonable expectation that said sensing elements will sense and send humidity measurements to the control device regarding the humidity at the corresponding air channels.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to place the first and second humidity sensing elements as disclosed by modified Newberry, and place them at any location such as the air channel upstream as both are directed to a vaporizing/aerosolizing device, and expectedly yield a device capable of taking humidity measurements from specifically at the upstream and downstream air channels of said device.
Regarding Claim 10, Newberry further discloses the electronic control device (702) is adapted to compensate for a changing water content in the liquid during the emptying of the liquid tank (i.e., vaporizing the liquid) by determining the residual amount of liquid in the liquid tank by means of a level sensor (726) (Fig. 7; [0069-0070, 0075-0076]; water is a liquid/fluid, therefore change in fluid level also implies change in water level/content; device compensates for lowering fluid levels by deactivating the heating element 214).
Regarding Claim 11, Newberry does not disclose the electronic control device is adapted to calculate the vaporized amount of active ingredient from the determined vaporized amount of liquid.
However, Trzecieski, directed to a vaporization device, discloses that a calibration process can be performed to correlate a quantity of vaporized/emitted liquid and ingredients of interest such as THC, CBD, or nicotine (i.e., active ingredient), wherein the calibration data is stored in the cartridge memory module ([0389, 0447, 0669]; calibration data is treated the same way as air flow and PWM profile data; control device is implied as it is connected to the memory module; control circuit/device utilizes the data from the memory module).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the circuit/control device and memory module disclosed by Newberry to store calibration profile data that can calculate the amount of vaporized active ingredient as disclosed by Trzecieski, as both are directed to a vaporizing/atomizing device, where one ordinarily skilled in the art could apply Trzecieski’s teaching of using.
Regarding Claim 14, Newberry further discloses the atomizer is configured to determine a low fluid level based on the fluid sensor measurements and a predetermined threshold, to indicate when a cartridge needs to be replaced (Fig. 7; [0055, 0069]; control device/circuit 702 controls the atomizer and fluid sensor to make determinations).
Newberry does not explicitly disclose the control device is arranged to determine a duration until a cartridge change.
However, Ricciardi, directed to a vaporization device, discloses a controlling device (e.g., HMI or PLC) that can be programmed to determine a liquid quantity or time/duration of when a liquid can be used based on signals from various sensors (Col. 66, Lines 53-67; Col. 67, Lines 1-8 and Lines 61-63; Time that liquid can be utilized is considered to imply a time where there is still liquid and therefore does not require cartridge replacement).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the controller disclosed by Newberry to be capable of determining a time that the liquid can be utilized as disclosed by Ricciardi, as both are directed to a vaporizing/aerosol device, where one ordinarily skilled in the art can modify the controller disclosed by Newberry to measure liquid duration (i.e., time left for liquid utilization) based on liquid sensors as taught by Ricciardi, to yield a similar device that can predictably result in a device capable of determining a cartridge replacement based on a threshold duration value from said sensors.
Claim 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newberry et al (Publication No. US20170189629A1), in view of Trzecieski et al (Publication No. US20200187560A1) and Ricciardi et al (Patent No. US8382008B1) as applied to Claim 6 above, and further in view of Sur et al (Publication No. US20180070632A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Modified Newberry does not disclose the vapor quantity sensor is an optical sensor.
However, Sur, directed to an aerosol device, discloses an optical liquid-level sensor which determines the volume of an aerosol precursor/liquid around a heating element based on its light reflectance ([0015, 0073]; sensor is an absorption sensor as it determines liquid quantity based on the light absorption of said liquid to determine reflectance).
It is noted that while Sur does not explicitly state that the optical sensor detects a quantity of vapor, one ordinarily skilled in the art would reasonably understand that reduction of the liquid due to heating would increase the vapor quantity (i.e., there is an inverse relationship between liquid and vapor quantities). As such, one ordinarily skilled from the art can derive a vapor quantity from an optical sensor based on its liquid quantity measurement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the vapor quantity sensor disclosed by modified Newberry with the optical liquid sensor disclosed by Sur, as both are directed to a vaporizing/aerosol device, where one ordinarily skilled in the art can substitute one known vapor sensor disclosed by Newberry with another known vapor sensor (i.e., optical absorption liquid sensor) disclosed by Sur to a similar vaporizing device to predictable yield a device capable of measuring vapor quantity from the remaining liquid amount detected by the sensor based on the light absorbed by a liquid near the heating element.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Freeman et al (Publication No. US20200187564A1) – An inhalation device for delivering regulated amounts of nicotine to a user. The user can input a dosage volume amount and, based on the user inhalation rates detected by said device, control the heater output via temperature profiles associated with the inhalation rate to heat the substance volume selected by the user.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vu P Pham whose telephone number is (703)756-4515. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th (7:30AM-4:00PM 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.
/V.P./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755