Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moloney et al. (WO 2019185744).
Regarding claim 1, Moloney discloses a vaporizer configured to be connected to a consumable container for vaporizing a consumable contained in the consumable container, the vaporizer comprising a detector configured to detect at least two magnetic properties of the consumable container located at different regions of the consumable container when the vaporizer is connected to the consumable container, and determine information about the consumable container based on the detected magnetic properties, wherein the detector comprises at least two hall sensors (pages 6-7, 13 and fig. 3). Moloney discloses an example wherein the one or more sensors 122a, 122b configured to sense the market 126 may be arranged adjacent to one side of the chamber 112 and may have a limited detection range (page 8). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the hall sensors positioned along an axis transverse to an insertion direction of the consumable container into the vaporizer, each of which is configured to detect one of the magnetic properties to improve the detection range. Furthermore, the sensors can either be positioned along an axis transverse to an insertion direction of the consumable container into the vaporizer or positioned along the insertion direction (in order for the sensor to be just on one side along the insertion direction, the marker elements need to extend all the way around the perimeter of the article so that the sensors can sense the marker irrespective of the particular orientation of the article within the apparatus (page 8)); therefore it would have been obvious to try either having the sensors along one side of the insertion direction (with the marker going around the perimeter of the article) or the sensors positioned along an axis transverse to an insertion direction (with marker anywhere on the perimeter of the article).
Regarding claim 2, Moloney discloses wherein the at least two hall sensors (hall sensors detect magnetic fields by responding to magnetic flux) are configured to read information about the consumable container from a combination of the detected magnetic properties of the consumable container.
Regarding claim 3. Molony discloses wherein the detector (hall sensors detect magnetic fields corresponding to the claimed region) is configured to detect a region in which a magnet or a ferritic unit made of ferritic material of a predetermined magnetic property is located in the consumable container.
Regarding claim 4, Moloney discloses wherein the magnetic property is a magnetic flux density (hall sensors detect magnetic fields by responding to magnetic flux density).
Regarding claim 5, Moloney discloses wherein the at least two hall sensors are arranged in the proximity of a surface of the consumable container being connected to the vaporizer when the vaporizer is connected to the consumable container (pages 6-7, 13 and fig. 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant essentially argues that independent claim 1 is not obvious over the cited art because the preferred embodiment of Moloney discloses the sensors along a longitudinal axis of the heating chamber to detect one or more marker elements such as lines, may extend par of the way around the perimeter or circumference of the article or all the way around the perimeter of the article; further Moloney discloses that the sensors that are arranged adjacent to one side of the chamber may have limited detection range and providing market elements that extend all of the way around the perimeter of the article facilitates the sensing of the marker by one or more sensors irrespective of the particular orientation of the article. Therefore, Moloney does not teach or suggest detector comprises at least two hall sensors positioned along an axis transverse to an insertion direction of the consumable container into the vaporizer. This argument is not persuasive because the reference of Moloney recognizes that the hall sensors on one side of the longitudinal axis has limited range that would require the marker to extends all the way around the perimeter of the article for the one or more hall sensors to sense the market; therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the one or more hall sensors can be arranged around an axis transverse to an insertion direction of the article so that the hall sensors can have better sensing range and the marker does not have to extend all the way around the perimeter of the article.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHU H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5931. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Michael H Wilson can be reached at 5712703882. 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.
/PHU H NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights