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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/18/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 11/18/2025.
Claims 1 and 13 are amended.
Claims 10, 18, 20, and 22 are cancelled.
Claims 1-9, 11-17, 19, 21, and 23-24 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see page 7, filed 11/18/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-2, 4-8, 13-14, 16-17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Aoun in view of Nettenstrom have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended claims 1 and 13 to include the limitation “a vaporizer cartridge containing…an atomizer.” The prior art of record fails to disclose such a limitation. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly cited prior art.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of Aoun and Nettenstrom fail to teach at least “a receptacle configured to receive a vaporizer cartridge containing a vaporizable material…” (p. 6). Applicant notes that the Examiner relies on [0011] and [0013] for support for the removable cartridge/container, which is shown in figures 1-3, but relies on figure 4 to teach the claimed features (p. 6). Applicant argues that there is no suggestion in Aoun that the features relied upon by the Examiner would be applicable to all embodiments (p. 6).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the Examiner notes that [0011] and [0013] in Aoun do no particularly relate to any embodiment, contrary to Applicant’s unsupported assertion, because the paragraphs are located in the summary section of the Aoun. “A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety.” MPEP 2141.02(VI). “A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art.” MPEP 2123(I). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Aoun’s undescribed element 409 is the container/cartridge that holds the liquid, and that the space occupied by element 409 amounts to a “cartridge receptacle” based on Aoun’s broader disclosure.
Second, Aoun specifically discloses that “[r]eference numerals for those components and features of the example described by reference to FIG. 1 have the same reference numeral but increased by 400” ([0065]). Furthermore, Aoun teaches that the container 9 for holding of containing liquid 10 is a discrete container that may be disposable so that the user replaces the liquid 10 by fitting a new container with liquid in the housing ([0042]). One of ordinary skill considering these two teachings in Aoun would understand that element 409 in Fig. 4 is a container and may have the feature of being removable.
Applicant argues that the embodiment in figure 4 is clearly not a two-piece device with a removable cartridge and Aoun does not provide any suggestion of such a configuration with reference to this figure (p. 6). Applicant further argues that to replace/remove the “cartridge” 409 (as interpreted by the Examiner), a POSITA would have to break the device to even reach the removable component, rendering Aoun non-functional (p. 6-7).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As an initial matter, the Examiner finds Applicant’s statement that figure 4 is clearly not a two-piece device is unsupported by any objective evidence. “Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record.” MPEP 2145(I).
Second, as discussed above, Aoun discloses that the components and features of the example in Fig. 1 also apply to Fig. 4 ([0065]). Aoun further discloses that mouthpiece 4 is removable by a user from the housing ([0041]). One of ordinary skill in the art, considering these two teachings in Aoun, would understand that mouthpiece 404 is removable. Thus, Applicant’s argument that a POSITA would have to break the device to reach element 409 is inapplicable to Aoun’s combined teachings of a removable mouthpiece.
Applicant further argues that even if the embodiment could be considered a two-piece device, in order to remove or replace the cartridge/container, a POSITA would first have to remove the atomizer to even reach the cartridge/container (p. 7). Applicant argues that this scenario would have not have been obvious to a POSITA due to the unsafe nature of interacting with the atomizer (p. 7).
The Examiner has noted Applicant’s argument but finds it unpersuasive. As discussed above, Aoun specifically contemplated the feature of making the cartridge removable (see [0042] and [0065]).
Applicant argues that the combination of Aoun and Nettenstrom fail to teach at least “the second portion of the shell having a second external width that is greater than a first external width of the first portion of the shell.” Applicant notes that, based on Examiner’s annotation of Fig. 1 in Nettenstrom, the Examiner interprets a width of a removable cartridge as being analogous to the claimed first portion of a shell that forms a receptacle (p. 8). Applicant argues that the width of the cartridge is irrelevant and does not necessarily provide an indication of the shell width (p. 8).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the Examiner does not interpret the width of the cartridge as being analogous to the claimed first portion of a shell that forms a receptacle. Rather, the Examiner interprets the housing 33 in annotated Fig. 1 as having the first portion having a first external width, and a second portion having a second external width, which are analogous to the claimed first portion of a shell that forms a receptacle.
Applicant further argues that even if it is alleged that the rounded shape of the shell of Nettenstrom would be sufficient to teach the claimed relationship, there is no indication of different thickness of the two portions such that there is a transition region as claimed (p. 8).
The Examiner finds Applicant’s argument unpersuasive.
First, Applicant attacks Nettenstrom alone, whereas the rejection is based on the combination of Aoun and Nettenstrom. “One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.” MPEP 2145(IV). Here, Aoun is relied upon for the claimed transition region, as illustrated in annotated Fig. 4 of Aoun.
Moreover, the Examiner notes that the claimed “transition region” is not positively recited due to the presence of the phrase “and/or” in the claim. Thus, Applicant’s argument is inapplicable because Nettenstrom is not required to have “a transition region between the first portion of the shell and the second portion of the shell” as Applicant argues.
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, 4-8, 13-14, 16-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoun et al. (US 2017/0347706; of record) in view of Nettenstrom et al. (US 2019/0099567; of record) and Mironov et al. (US 2016/0345630).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Aoun discloses an apparatus for generating an inhalable medium (abstract; “vaporizer device”) comprising:
a housing (402; “shell”) formed from a continuous piece of a material (Fig. 4), the housing having a first portion (see annotated Fig. 4) and a second portion (see annotated Fig. 4), the first portion of the shell extending around a liquid (410; “vaporizable material”) contained in container (element 409; see [0045] and [0065], describing that reference numerals for those components and features of the example described with reference to FIG. 1 have the same reference numeral but increased by 400, and that container 9 is a discrete container that may be disposable so that the user replaces the liquid by fitting a new container with liquid in the housing; “extending at least partially around a perimeter of a receptacle configured to receive a vaporizer cartridge”), and the second portion of the housing containing a battery ([0041]; see undescribed element 407; “receive at least a portion of a power source”), and the second portion having a second wall thickness (see annotated Fig. 4) that is less than a first wall thickness of the first portion of the housing (see annotated Fig. 4) and having a transition region between the first portion and the second portion of the housing (see annotated Fig. 4).
Moreover, Aoun discloses that the housing is generally cylindrical (see [0041], [0053], [0059]).
However, Aoun is silent as to the second portion of the shell having a second external width that is greater than a first external width of the first portion of the shell. Rather, Aoun appears to teach that the second external width is the same as the first external width (see Fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
354
782
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nettenstrom teaches a vapor provision device (abstract) wherein it is known that prior electronic cigarette comprise a generally cylindrical configuration ([0006]) and that these existing electronic cigarettes have recognized drawbacks concerning the ease and comfort of handling and restrictions on the available space for internal components ([0007]). Nettenstrom addresses these drawbacks by designing an electronic cigarette (100) having a housing (33; Fig. 1) defining a first portion (see annotated Fig. 1) extending around a perimeter of a receptacle (see Fig. 1) configured to receive a cartomizer (200; “vaporizer cartridge”) and a second portion (see annotated Fig. 1) configured to receive a re-chargeable cell or battery (31; “power source”), wherein the electronic cigarette has a thickness (T) that is significantly less than both the length (L) and width (W) (see Figs. 2-5; [0058]) and has a shape that is generally rounded and smooth ([0058]) such that the second portion has an external width that is greater than a first external width of the first portion (see annotated Fig. 1, see also Figs, 6-7, and 10-11).
PNG
media_image2.png
523
528
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 Aoun’s housing to have a thickness significantly less than the length and width and have a generally smooth/rounded shape as in Aoun because (1) such a modification would provide a more comfortable grip (Aoun; [0074]-[0075]), and such a modification 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).
Moreover, Aoun discloses that reference numerals for components and features of the example described with reference to Fig. 1 have the same reference numeral but increased by 400 for the embodiment in Fig. 4 ([0065]), and that heater (11; “atomizer”) is provided with an annular wick (12).
However, Aoun is silent as to the vaporizer cartridge containing the atomizer. Specifically, the heater 411 in Aoun is located outside of the container 409.
Mironov teaches an aerosol generating system (abstract) wherein known cartridge configurations typically comprise a coil of a heater wound around an elongate wick socked in a liquid aerosol-forming substrate ([0002]) and this arrangement has the drawback of being relatively expensive to produce because manufacturing the wick and coil is difficult and electrical contacts between the coil of the heater wire and electrical contacts through which electrical current is delivered must be delicately handled during manufacture ([0003]). Mironov solves this problem by providing a cartridge (20. Fig. 1a-b) comprising a housing (24), a capillary material (22) soaked in a liquid aerosol-forming substrate ([0117]), and a heater assembly (30; “vaporizer cartridge containing…an atomizer”) fixed to an open end of the housing ([0118]), wherein the cartridge is removably coupled to the device ([0012]).
It would have been obvious said skilled artisan to have modified Aoun’s cartridge with a heater wound around a wick to be configured like Mironov’s cartridge comprising a housing, substrate, and heater assembly in order to provide a cartridge that is less expensive to produce, is more robust, and is more efficient that prior heater assemblies (Mironov; [0004]).
Regarding claims 2 and 14, modified Aoun discloses the second portion of the housing has a larger inner cross-sectional dimension than the first portion of the shell (see annotated Fig. 4).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, modified Aoun discloses the second thickness is less than the first thickness (see annotated Fig. 4) such that the second section has a larger inner cross-sectional dimension than the first portion (annotated Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 5-6 and 17, modified Aoun discloses the housing having a length and a width (annotated Fig. 4), wherein the length of the housing is much greater than the width of the housing (see annotated Fig. 4).
However, modified Aoun does not explicitly teach wherein the length of the shell is greater than 8 times the width of the shell, or the length of the shell is 11-12 times the width of the shell.
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 the proportion of the length to width of Aoun’s housing such that the length of the housing is 11-12 times the width of the housing because such a modification involves a change in the relative dimensions of the length and width of the housing. “[W]here 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.” MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claims 7-8 and 19, regarding the claim limitations “wherein the shell is formed by subjecting a hollow slug of the material to impact” and “wherein the shell is formed by subjecting a solid slug of the material to impact,” these claim limitations have been considered and interpreted as a product-by-process claim. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." MPEP 2113(I).
As discussed above (see rejection of claim 1), Aoun’s housing (402) has the same structure as claimed. Moreover, the product-by-process steps do not appear to impart any structure differences to the claimed shell. Thus, the claim limitations are not patentable over Aoun’s housing. “Once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a prior art rejection is made, the burden shifts to the Applicant to show a nonobvious difference.” MPEP 2113(II).
Claims 3, 9, 15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoun et al. in view of Nettenstrom et al. and Mironov et al. as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Trzecieski (US 2019/0166913; of record).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, modified Aoun discloses the vaporizer device and shell as discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 13.
However, modified Aoun does not explicitly teach wherein the material comprises a metal or metal alloy. Specifically, Aoun does not disclose what material the housing is made out of.
Trzecieski teaches a vaporization device (abstract) comprising a base (104; Fig. 2; “shell formed from a continuous piece of material”), wherein the base can be manufactured using a metal or metallic material, for example using a metal injection molding process to form a unitary base ([0022], [0247]; “metal or metal alloy”).
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 Aoun’s housing to be made out of a metallic material as in Trzecieski because the “selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use support[s] a prima facie obviousness determination.” MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claims 9 and 21, modified Aoun discloses the vaporizer device and shell as discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 13 above.
However, modified Aoun is silent to the shell includes one or more apertures configured to allow visualization of one or more light emitting diodes.
Trzecieski further teaches the base (104) comprising an opening on a first device end (102A; Fig. 2; “aperture”) and indicator lights positioned proximate the first device end ([0230]) the indicator lights include a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) 130 ([0231]) and configured such that the indicator lights may be visible form the exterior of the vaporizer device ([0230]).
It would have been obvious to said skilled artisan to have added an opening and LEDs as in Trzecieski to the end of Aoun’s housing in order to obtain the predictable result of viewing the indicator lights from the exterior of the vaporizer device (Trzecieski; [0230]) such that a user would be able to read information or feedback on various aspects of the device operation (Trzecieski; [0228]) thus improving the user’s experience.
Claims 11 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoun et al. in view of Nettenstrom et al. and Mironov et al. as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Simpson et al. (US 2020/0376210; of record).
Regarding claims 11 and 23, modified Aoun discloses the vaporizer device and shell as discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 13. Modified Aoun further discloses the apparatus is arranged to heat the liquid to form an aerosol ([0009]), wherein an aerosol is a colloid of fine solid particles or liquid droplets in air or another gas ([0040]).
However, modified Aoun is silent as to wherein the first portion of the shell includes a first air inlet configured to form a fluid coupling with a second air inlet in the vaporizer cartridge when the vaporizer cartridge is coupled with the vaporizer device, and wherein the second air inlet in the vaporizer cartridge is configured to allow air entering the first inlet to further enter the vaporizer cartridge. The Examiner notes that while Aoun teaches forming an aerosol, Aoun does not appear to teach any structure that would allow air to enter the device to form such an aerosol.
Simpson teaches a vapor provision system (abstract) comprising a control unit (4) comprising an outer housing (10; “shell”) including a receptacle wall (12; “first portion”) having two control unit air inlet openings (14; “first air inlet”) positioned to align with an air inlet (50; “second air inlet”) for a cartridge (2; “vaporizer cartridge”) when the cartridge is coupled to the control unit ([0026]; “fluid coupling”) and thus allow for air to enter the cartridge ([0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added air inlet openings and an air inlet as in Simpson to Aoun’s housing and cartridge respectively in order to obtain the predictable result of aligning the air inlet openings with the air inlet (Simpson; [0026]) and thus allow air to enter the cartridge (Simpson; [0052]) and form an aerosol as suggested by Aoun ([0009], [0040]; see also Simpson [0052], describing air mixing with vapor to form a condensation aerosol).
Claims 12 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoun et al. in view of Nettenstrom et al. and Mironov et al. as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Qiu (US 2022/0022538; of record).
Regarding claims 12 and 24, modified Aoun discloses the vaporizer device and shell as discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 13, comprising the receptacle and cartridge (annotated Fig. 4; [0011]), wherein the cartridge contacts the receptacle on three sides (see Fig. 4; “cartridge interface” and “sidewall of the cartridge interface”).
However, modified Aoun is silent as to at least one sidewall of the cartridge interface includes a notch where a material forming the cartridge interface is at least partially removed to accommodate the vaporizer cartridge.
Qiu teaches a battery housing (21; Fig. 3; “shell”) comprising a cartridge mounting groove (213; “receptacle”) provided with an engaging groove (2131; “at least one sidewall…includes a notch”) corresponding to an engaging protrusion (113) of a cartridge (10), such that when the cartridge is inserted into the battery housing, the engaging protrusion is matched with the engaging groove ([0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added an engaging groove and an engaging protrusion as in Qiu to Aoun’s receptacle and cartridge respectively in order to obtain the predictable result of matching the engaging protrusion to the engaging groove with the benefit of stabilizing the connection between the cartridge and the power supply device (Qiu; [0049]).
Conclusion
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