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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 6/16/2026.
Claims 1, 7-8, 16, 18, and 20 are amended.
Claims 3 and 11-12 are cancelled.
Claims 1-2, 4-10, and 13-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Applicant notes that claim 1 has been amended to recite “a first pair of opposing sides” and “a second pair of opposing sides” wherein “each side of the second pair of opposing sides is transverse to the first side and the second side…” (p. 6). The Applicant argues that Verleur does not teach or suggest the claimed housing, particularly the “first pair of opposing sides extending vertically form the base and parallel to a first axis, a second pair of opposing sides extending vertically form the base, and the first pair of opposing sides transition at curved upper shoulder regions” and “each side of the second pair of opposing sides is transverse to the first side and the second side of the first pair of opposing sides” (p. 7).
The Examiner agrees with Applicant that Verleur does not teach or suggest the amended claimed housing identified above. However, “[o]ne cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.” MPEP 2145(IV). Here, the Examiner relies on McAdam and Zinovik to teach the above limitations. Specifically, McAdam is relied upon to teach the curved upper shoulder regions (see annotated Fig. 5B) and Zinovik is relied upon to teach a rectangular cross sectional cartridge ([0099]). One of skill in the art would appreciate that a rectangular cross-sectional cartridge (i.e., four walls spaced at right angles) must include a first pair of opposing sides, a second pair of opposing sides, wherein each of the second pair of opposing sides is transverse to the first side and the second side of the first pair of opposing sides.
Second, Applicant argues that McAdam does not cure the deficiencies of Verleur (p. 7). Applicant argues that McAdam does not disclose any distinct regions corresponding to the “first of the curved upper shoulder regions” and “a second of the curved upper shoulder regions” because there is no round (p. 8).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. However, in order to expedite prosecution, the Examiner has added Tarrant (US 3796223) to further address such a limitation. As further evidence Tarrant illustrates that round mouthpieces (Fig. 10) still have distinct side surfaces (18) and upper and lower surfaces (6).
Applicant argues that McAdam does not teach or suggest “a pair of opposing sides extending vertically form the base and parallel to a first axis, a second pair of opposing sides extending vertically from the base… each side of the second pair of opposing sides is transverse to the first side and second side of the first pair of opposing sides” (p. 8).
The Examiner agrees with Applicant that McAdam does not teach or suggest the claimed language identified above. However, “[o]ne cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.” MPEP 2145(IV). Here, the Examiner relies on Zinovik to teach such limitations. Specifically, as discussed above, Zinovik teaches these limitations.
Lastly, Applicant argues that Zinovik does not cure the deficiencies of Verleur and McAdam (p. 9). Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill would not change the body 208 and mouthpiece 220 of Verleur (the contended housing) to have a rectangular shape as the battery housing segment of Verleur is circular and there is no motivation to make the change of shape of the battery housing segment (p. 9).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Zinovik specifically teaches that “it is of course possible to form cartridge housings with other shapes, such as rectangular cross section” and that such “housing shapes ensure a desired orientation within the corresponding shaped cavity to ensure the electrical connection between the device and the cartridge” ([0099]). Thus, Zinovik also suggests changing the corresponding cavity shape, which would still provide the benefit of ensuring a desired orientation to ensure the electrical connection between the device and the cartridge.
Applicant argues that McAdam makes clear that the circular and contoured shape of the mouthpiece component is ergonomically suited to be received by a user’s lips during use. Applicant argues that because any motivation to adjust the body 208 and mouthpiece 220 of Verleur in view of Zinovik would have to extend to modifications of Verleur in view of McAdam, which would render McAdam unsatisfactory for its intended purpose (i.e., being ergonomically suited to be received by a user’s lips) (p. 10).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that Applicant has confused the rejection. Specifically, the Examiner is using Zinovik to modify only the body 208 and the corresponding cavity, and using McAdam to only modify the mouthpiece 220, which is a part of the housing. The Examiner is not modifying the mouthpiece 220 with teachings of Zinovik.
Applicant disagrees with the Examiner’s contention that “there is nothing to support Applicant’s position that modifying the housing of Verleur would necessarily require altering the shape of the mouthpiece” (p. 10).
Because Applicant has provided no reasoning or evidence to the contrary, the Examiner maintains the position that Zinovik’s teachings, drawn to the cross sectional shape of the cartridge housing, are not being applied to the mouthpiece.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a vaporizer unit configured to vaporize the liquid from the reservoir” in claims 1 and 13;
“a liquid delivery means configured to convey the liquid from the reservoir to the heater for vaporization” in claim 4;
“a power supply unit for supplying electrical power to the cartridge when it is connected to the elongate body portion” in claims 14 and 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The claims limitations have been interpreted as follows:
“a vaporizer unit configured to vaporize the liquid from the reservoir” has been interpreted as a heater (see claim 4, p. 5, ll. 5-6) and equivalent thereof.
“a liquid delivery means configured to convey the liquid from the reservoir to the heater for vaporization” has been interpreted as a structure that uses capillary action to move the liquid (p. 11, ll. 22-24) and equivalent thereof
“a power supply unit for supplying electrical power to the cartridge when it is connected to the elongate body portion” has been interpreted as a battery (p. 4, ll. 27-28) and equivalents thereof.
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.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 13-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verleur et al. (US 2015/0128971; of record) in view of Zinovik et al. (US 2016/0353801; of record), McAdam et al. (US 2018/0279679; of record) and/or Tarrant (US 3796223), and Cropper (GB 2515562; of record).
Regarding claims 1, 13-14, and 16, Verleur discloses an electronic cigarette or vaporizer (abstract; 10; “personal vaporizer device”) comprising:
a battery housing segment (102; “elongate body portion”) connectable with a cartomizer ([0030]; “to which the cartridge is connected”) comprising:
a battery (110; “power supply unit”) which provides current flow to the heating element ([0031] and [0039]; “supplying electrical power to the cartridge”) via pogo pins (124; “electrical contacts”); and
a battery end indicator (114; “one or more indicators”) having one or more colors that indicate a status of the electronic cigarette such as the power remaining of the battery (“available power supply”), an activation state of the electronic cigarette, the heating level of an inserted cartomizer, or any other status which may be desirable to communicate to the user of the electronic cigarette through a light color (“operational status”) ([0032]); and
the cartomizer (abstract; 200A; Fig. 1; “cartridge”) comprising:
a body (208) and mouthpiece (220) (collectively interpreted as “housing”) for holding a freestanding fluid (300A; see Fig. 1; [0038]; “reservoir”) to be vaporized ([0039]);
a heating element (214; “vaporizer unit”) for vaporizing the fluid ([0039]);
the mouthpiece (220; the top surface is considered “mouthpiece”) arranged at the top of the cartomizer (see Fig. 1); and
an inhalation tube (222; “airflow channel”) being in fluid connection with the heating element and with one or more holes or ducts provided in an outer shell (106) to permit air flow through the cartomizer body to allow a user to inhale vaporized fluid through a mouthpiece ([0039]; “configured to guide vapor to the mouthpiece for inhalation by a user”),
wherein the body includes an insertion end (210) which is flat (Fig. 1; see also Fig. 2; “flat base”), and sides extending vertically and parallel to a first axis (see annotated Fig. 1 below),
wherein the inhalation tube extends centrally through the body to the mouthpiece (see Fig. 1) such that a user may inhale the vapor through an inhalation tube and out through the mouthpiece ([0049]),
wherein a cross-section of the housing, taken perpendicular to the first axis at a first point along the sides having a width and a depth (Fig. 1A; [0008]),
wherein the heating element is arranged between the mouthpiece and the insertion end (see Fig. 1) and is arranged closer to the insertion end than the mouthpiece (see Fig. 1; see also Fig. 10), and
wherein the body is composed of a translucent or substantially translucent material, such as glass or plastic, so that a user may see fluid held within ([0038]; “housing is configured such that a user can determine visually how much liquid remains in the reservoir”).
PNG
media_image1.png
818
425
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Verleur is silent as to a first pair of opposing sides extending vertically from the base and parallel to a first axis, a second pair of opposing sides extending vertically from the base, wherein each side of the second pair of opposing sides is transverse to the first side and second side of the first pair of opposing sides, wherein a cross-section of the housing taken perpendicular to the first axis at a point along at least one of the sides has a width is greater than the depth. Specifically, Verleur’s width and depth appear to be equal to each other since the cross-section of the housing is circular (see Fig. 1A).
Zinovik teaches an aerosol-generating system (abstract) comprising a cartridge housing (24) that have a substantially circular cross section (Fig. 2; [0099]), but it is possible to form cartridge housing with other cross sectional shapes, such as rectangular cross sections, within a corresponding shaped cavity ([0099]).
It would have been obvious to said skilled artisan to have modified Verleur’s e-cigarette (including the cartridge housing and a corresponding cavity) to have a rectangular cross section as in Zinovik because such a modification (a) ensures a desired orientation within a correspondingly shaped cavity to ensure the electrical connection between the device and the cartridge (Zinovik; [0099]) and (b) involves the mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV). Such a modification would have involved modifying the cross-section of Verleur’s housing 220 to be rectangular, which one of skill in the art would appreciate has a width that is greater than a depth, and two sets of opposing sides being spaced at right angles and extending vertically.
Moreover, Verleur is silent as to the first pair of opposing sides transition at curved upper shoulder regions, wherein a first of the curved upper shoulder regions tapers from a first side of the first pair of opposing sides towards airflow channel and a second of the curved upper shoulder regions tapers from a second side of the first pair of opposing sides towards the airflow channel.
McAdam teaches an aerosol provision cartridge (abstract), the cartridge (see Fig. 5B-C) comprising a housing component (510) including a main housing component (512) and a mouthpiece component (514; “curved upper shoulder regions”), wherein the mouthpiece component includes a contoured shape on the lefthand side (“first of the curved upper shoulder regions”) and a contoured shape on the righthand side (“second of the curved upper shoulder regions”) see annotated Fig. 5B below) contoured to provide a transition from the shape of the main housing to a shape which is ergonomically suited to be received by a user's lips during use (para. 64; “tapers from the first/second of the sides towards an airflow channel”).
PNG
media_image2.png
383
384
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Verleur’s mouthpiece to include a contoured transition as in McAdam in order provide a more ergonomic shape for receiving a user’s lips (McAdam; para. 64).
If McAdam is not considered to teach two upper curved shoulder regions, Tarrant teaches a mouthpiece (11) having a mouthpiece bit (13) (Figs. 1-2, 6-10) comprising a side surfaces (18) and upper and lower surfaces (6), the upper and lower surfaces having a curved taper towards from a left side towards a mouthpiece bore (26) (see Fig. 2, interpreted as the region between elements 9 and 13; col. 6, ll. 15-35).
PNG
media_image3.png
346
569
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Additionally or alternatively, it would have been obvious to said skilled artisan to have modified Verleur’s mouthpiece to include the upper and lower surfaces of Tarrant in order to permit the mouthpiece to be held stationary between the teeth of a user with the least pressure on the teeth and correspondingly the least abrasion of the teeth and the bit (Tarrant; col. 6, ll. 21-27).
Lastly, Verleur is silent as to the airflow channel extends from the base.
Cropper teaches a known atomizer (40; Fig. 3; similar to Verleur’s cartomizer) having a demerit such that the vaporizing unit is designed to be removed but cannot be removed without first emptying all of the e-liquid form the reservoir thus wasting e-liquid and is messy and undesirable for draining and refilling the vaporizing unit (p. 2, para. 1-2). Cropper further teaches a vaporizer unit for an atomizer of an electronic cigarette (abstract), the atomizer (60; Fig. 4-5; “cartridge”) comprising: a fluid reservoir (64; “housing”) enclosing a first reservoir (90) and second reservoir (92) filled with an unabsorbed e-liquid surrounding the vaporizer unit (p. 8, ll. 3-11; see also Fig. 4-5); a heating coil (74; “vaporizer unit”) for vaporizing the e-liquid from the fluid reservoir (p. 1, ll.10-12); and an air flow passage (66; “airflow channel”) wherein air enters an air inlet (68), passes over the heating elements and through the wicks to carry vaporized e-fluid along the passage to the outlet of the vaporizer unit such that air may be sucked or blown through the passage (p. 8, ll. 17-21; “configured to guide vapor to the mouthpiece for inhalation by a user”), wherein the fluid reservoir has a flat base (see annotated Fig. 4), vertically extending sides (see annotated Fig. 4), and an upper shoulder region (see annotated Fig. 4), wherein the air flow passage extends centrally through the fluid reservoir from the base to the outlet end (see annotated Fig. 4). Cropper teaches various location features (94) and securement features (96) for securing the vaporizer unit within the second reservoir to make the vaporizer unit removably mounted to the reservoir structure (p. 7, para. 3).
PNG
media_image4.png
666
634
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have (1) modified Verleur’s fluid reservoir to include location and securement features as in Cropper and (2) modifying Verleur’s inhalation tube and heating element to be a removable vaporizing unit including an airflow passage that extends from the base to the mouthpiece as in Cropper because (a) it has been held that making the apparatus parts separable is obvious if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of prior art’s device (see MPEP 2144.04(V)(C)) and (b) such a modification results in a replaceable vaporizer unit with the added benefit of improving convenience to the user and saving e-liquid retained in the reservoir when replaced (Cropper; p. 9, para. 2-3).
Regarding claim 2, modified Verleur discloses the inhalation tube (222) is surrounded by the fluid reservoir (300A). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a “tube” is a hollow elongated cylinder (see Merriam-Webster definition 1a) as therefore has a circular cross section. Moreover, the modified inhalation tube includes the wall (Cropper; 73; see Fig. 4) which has a circumference (Cropper; p. 6, ll. 1-8) and is surrounded by the fluid reservoir (see Fig. 4-5 of Cropper).
Regarding claim 4, modified Verleur discloses the vaporizer unit comprises the heating element (214; “heater”) for heating the fluid to an optimal vaporizing temperature ([0039]; “for heating the liquid to be vaporized to generate the vapour to be inhaled”) and a wicking element (216; “liquid delivery means”) for absorbing the liquid from the reservoir ([0029]; see also Fig. 1; “configured to convey liquid form the reservoir to the heater”).
Regarding claim 5, modified Verleur discloses the body (“side region of the housing”) is composed of translucent material so that a user may see fluid held within ([0038]; “window”).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, modified Verleur discloses that the cartomizer is inserted (“push-on/pull-off type mechanical connection”) into the cartomizer chamber (108; “end region of an elongate body portion of a personal vaporizer device” ([0037]-[0038]) such that the insertion end of the cartomizer may ultimately contact or be positioned proximate to connector (120) of battery portion (100) such that contact pins (122) establish an electrical connection ([0033] and [0039]; “push-on/pull-off type electrical connection”).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, modified Verleur discloses a first magnet (124; “magnetic connector element provided at an end region of an elongate body portion of a personal vaporizer device”) may be provided in or proximate to a chamber such that a second magnet (202; “magnetic connector element provided in the cartridge”) of opposing polarity to the first magnet secures the cartomizer within the chamber when the first and second magnets contact each other ([0035]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Verleur discloses electrical contacts (218) provided below the base of the insertion end (see Fig. 1B; see also Fig. 11).
Regarding claims 15 and 20, modified Verleur discloses wherein the cartomizer is inserted into an cartomizer chamber (108; “end region of the elongate body portion”), and wherein the cartomizer chamber includes pins (122; “electrical connectors”) for establishing an electrical connection between electrical receivers provided on the cartomizer ([0033]; see also electrical contacts 218 in Fig. 1B and 11; “complementary electrical connectors provided on the cartridge”).
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verleur et al. in view of McAdam et al., Cropper, and Zinovik et al. as applied to claims 6 and 17 above, and further in view of Hawes et al. (US 2016/0360789; of record).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, modified Verleur discloses the cartridge as discussed above with respect to claims 6 and 17.
However, modified Verleur is silent as to where sides of the housing include resilient or flexible members having projecting lugs that are configured for mechanical connection to an end region of an elongate body portion of a personal vaporizer device.
Hawes teaches an e-vapor apparatus (abstract) a pod assembly (abstract; “cartridge”) comprising: a pod trim (310, 410), first cap (304, 404), and second cap (314, 414) (see Fig. 15-19; collectively “housing”), wherein the pod assembly is inserted into the through-hole (114; “end region”) of a dispensing body (104; “elongate body portion”) (para. 40; “configured for push-on/pull off…connection”) such that a mating member is formed on the side wall and a corresponding recess (para. 51; “mechanical connection”) and electrical contacts (416) allow communication between the dispensing body and the pod assembly (para. 76; “electrical connection”) the mating member is formed on a side surface of the pod assembly with a corresponding recess on the side wall of the dispensing body (para. 51; “projecting lugs” since the mating member has to be inserted into the recess), the mating member may be spring-loaded so as to retract when the pod assembly is inserted into the through hole (para. 51; “resilient member”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Verleur’s cartomizer and battery portion with Hawes’ mating member in order to align the mating member in the corresponding recess to create an audible click when properly secured and positioned to notify the user when the cartridge is properly aligned (Hawes; para. 51), thus improving the user’s experience while also supplying a method of supplying power to the heater of the cartridge (Hawes; para. 7).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verleur et al. in view of McAdam et al., Cropper, and Zinovik et al. as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Monsees et al. (US 2014/0366898; of record).
Regarding claim 10, modified Verleur discloses the cartridge as discussed above with respect to claim 6, wherein the electrical contacts (218) are provided below the base of the housing (Fig. 1B; see also Fig. 11) and has magnets (Verleur; 202, 124) of opposing polarity are placed on the surface of the cartomizer and chamber respectively to secure the cartomizer within the chamber (Verleur; para. 35).
However, modified Verleur is silent as to wherein the electrical contacts are provided in the sides of the housing.
Monsees teaches a cartridge for use with a vaporization device (abstract) comprising a detachable cartridge (14), a body (18; “elongate body portion”) and a first connection mechanism (19) and second connection mechanism (19) (see Fig. 4-8; para. 81) wherein the connection mechanism that is a threaded connection (24a, 24b; Fig. 6), tapered connection (25a, 25b; Fig. 7; “push-on/pull-off mechanical and electrical connection”), magnetic connection (23a, 23b; Fig. 8; “push-on/pull-off mechanical and electrical connection”) spring-loaded connection, spring detent connection, snap-fit connection, compression connection, or any combination thereof (para. 9, 82), wherein the magnetic connection (Monsees; 23a, 23b; Fig. 8) wherein the contacts (Monsees; 10a) are inserted into mating connections (Monsees; 10b) of the attachable body are provided a below the base of the housing (Monsees; para. 89) and the tapered connection (Monsees; (25a, 25b; Fig. 7) wherein the contacts are provided at sides of the cartridge (see Monsees; 10a; Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted modified Verleur’s magnetic connection for Monsees’ tapered connection with contacts provided at the side of the cartridge because such a modification involves substituting equivalents known for the same purpose of connecting a detachable cartridge to a body (Monsees; para. 81). See MPEP 2144.06(II).
Conclusion
The art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lee (US 2024/0196966) teaches a cartridge (10; Fig. 3) having a rectangular cross sectional shape, and a mouthpiece (160) having four curved upper shoulder regions (Fig. 3). However, Lee is not considered prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SONNY V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8294. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM 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 Y 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.
/SONNY V NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights