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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim Foreign priority to Application No. (CN202111651880.5) filed on the December 20, 2021.
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed as July 07, 2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 1-5, 7, and 11-12 have been amended, no claims have been canceled, and claim 13 has been added. Thus, claims 1-13 are presently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on page 7 of the remarks that the objection made on drawings should be withdrawn. Applicant response is not persuasive and the previous drawing objections still stand on the merit. Fig. 3 do not have an clear axes and specification and what the Fig. is showing are two different things.
Applicant argues on page 7 of the remarks that the objection made on claims should be withdrawn. Applicant’s response is persuasive; previous claim objections are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant argues on page 7 of the of the remarks that the 112(b)-rejection made on Claim shown be withdrawn. Applicant’s response is persuasive, previous 112(b)-rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant argues on page 8 of the remarks that the 103 rejections should be withdrawn. However, Applicant amended the claim to add new limitation from claim 1, “the processor is configured to calculate a target temperature during vaporization of the vaporizer based on the start time, the end time, and a vaporization temperature change curve stored in the memory.” that was not previously considered. Applicant has amended the claims and a new 103 rejection stated below addresses the new limitation of the claim.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) dependent from the independent claim have been considered but are not persuasive.
Claim 13 is added and rejected below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 3 show a graph that does not have the axes labeled and it is unclear what the x-axis is determining in terms of the temperature. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regrading Claim 1, 3, 5, 7, and 11, the claims have been amended to recite a “target temperature”. However, the specification, as originally filed, does not disclose or describe “target temperature”. Rather, the originally filed disclosure refers to accumulative temperature. The originally filed discourse does not establish that the accumulative temperature is a target temperature or otherwise describe the claimed target-temperature limitation. Accordingly, the specification, as originally filed, does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that the inventor has possession of the subject matter now claimed, and the amendment lacks adequate written-description support. Therefore, the limitations of the claim thus amount to new matter not supported by the written description of the application as originally filed.
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 4 and 13 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 4 recites the limitation "the temperature" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant recites that “the” temperature increase and/or decreases which is indefinite if it is the same as the “target” temperature recited in claim 1 or a different temperature.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the temperature" in lines 2 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant recites that “the” temperature increase and/or decreases for a period of time but it is unclear is if it is the “target” in claim 1 temperature that is increased or decreased.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-9, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 111246764 A) in view of Alelov et al. (US 20190191773 A1), and Takahashi (JP 2016109545 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Li discloses main unit (Fig. 1-3; 10; Pg. 4 para. 9-10, Pg. 5 para. 1-5, 8, 11) connected to a vaporizer (Fig. 1-3; 180, 130; Pg. 4 para. 9-12, Pg. 5 para. 1-5, 7-12),
the main unit (Pg. 4 para. 9-10, Pg. 5 para. 1-5, 8, 11) comprising:
a processor (Fig. 1-3; 110; Pg. 4; para. 9, 12), a memory (Fig. 5; 170; Pg. 8 para. 3-4, 10), a battery (Fig. 1-3; 120; Pg. 4 para. 12, Pg. 5 para. 1, 4-5, 7), a timer (Pg. 10; para. 5), and
the memory, the battery, the timer, being connected to the processor (Pg. 8; para. 10),
wherein the processor is configured to control the battery to provide energy for the vaporizer to vaporize an aerosol-generating substrate (Pg. 8; para. 3-12; Examiner notes: this limitation is functional),
Li does not disclose an airflow sensor and that the airflow sensor being connected to the processor, the processor is configured to obtain a start time and an end time for each inhalation of the vaporizer.
However, Alelov teaches an airflow sensor (Fig. 2; 240), that the airflow sensor being connected to the processor (224) and configured to obtain a start time and an end time for each inhalation of the vaporizer (para. 0037).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the main unit of Li to include the airflow sensor and processor is connected to the airflow sensor and the timer to obtain a start time and an end time for each inhalation of the vaporize as taught by Alelov for the purpose of measuring the duration of the airflow and the time for duration can be accumulated in a given period to activate a limit feature according to a substance distribution limit set in the control logic and monitor the usage along with counter can provide a more accurate estimate of the measurement of the total airflow (para. 0039-0040).
Modified Li does not disclose the processor is configured to calculate a target temperature during vaporization of the vaporizer based on the start time, the end time, and a vaporization temperature change curve stored in the memory (this limitation is functional).
However, Takahashi teaches system that has accumulating unit (21; para. 0013) that measures and stores accumulative value of temperature and processor (31, 32, 33; Para. 0025-0029) that can determine target temperature is based on vaporization temperature change curve by using data that is stored before in memory (Examiner notes: 31 receives data, 32 determines temperatures change within a certain time, 33 storages data and if the has been increase of heat it adds that amount to stored data calculating the target temperature; Fig. 2; reference profile 2P; para. 0020-0021, 0025-28, and 0060-0064; Examiner notes: BRI of target temperature could be any temperature that is set or calculated as the claim is very board on what “target” temperature could be read on ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the processor for vaporization of Li to be able to calculate target temperature based on temperature change curve that already stored in the memory as taught by Takahashi for the purpose of grasping the fluctuation of the heat consumption based on the stored integrated heat (para. 0063).
Regarding Claim 2, Modified Li discloses the main unit of claim 1, wherein the start time and the end time for each inhalation of the vaporizer are obtained via the airflow sensor (Fig. 2; 240; Alelov) and the timer (para. 0037; Alelov).
Regarding Claim 3, Modified Li discloses the main unit of claim 2, the vaporization (Pg. 8; para. 3-12; Li) temperature change curve (data storage of the temperature change 21, 31, 32, 33, in Takahashi; para. 0025-0029); wherein the processor (Fig. 1-3; 110; Pg. 4; para. 9, 12) is configured to calculate the target temperature during vaporization of the vaporizer based on the vaporization temperature change curve (Takahashi; para. 0025-0029).
Modified Li does not specifically teach that the temperature change curve comprises a temperature change curve for one inhalation of the vaporizer, and the target temperature during vaporization of the vaporizer is based on the vaporization temperature change curve and start time and the end time for each inhalation of the vaporizer.
However, Alelov teaches a temperature change curve for one inhalation of the vaporizer (para. 0029, 0037) and start time and the end time for each inhalation of the vaporizer (para. 0037).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of calculating a target temperature of Modified Li to include that the temperature change curve comprises a temperature change curve for one inhalation of the vaporizer and being able to determine start time and the end time for each inhalation of the vaporizer as taught by Alelov for the purpose of measuring the duration of the airflow and the time for duration can be accumulated in a given period to activate a limit feature according to a substance distribution limit set in the control logic and monitor the usage along with counter can provide a more accurate estimate of the measurement of the total airflow (para. 0039-0040).
Regarding Claim 4, Modified Li discloses the main unit of claim 3, wherein the vaporizer increases or decreases temperature based on the vaporization temperature change curve during an inhalation interval (Pg. 20 para. 9-11; Examiner notes: Li teaches that the value of temperature of the heater has a positive difference it will increase and if it has a negative value it will be reduced; Li; Fig. 17; Examiner is interpreting that the temperature limitation is directed to the target temperature in claim 1).
Regarding Claim 6, Modified Li discloses the main unit of claim 1, wherein a plurality of vaporization temperature change curves are stored in the memory (Fig. 5; 170; Pg. 8 para. 10, Pg. 14 para. 5-7) , and wherein the processor (Fig. 1-3; 110; Pg. 4; para. 9, 12; para. 0025-0029; Takahashi) is configured to obtain a parameter of the vaporizer (Fig. 1-3; 180, 130; Pg. 4 para. 9-12, Pg. 5 para. 1-5, 7-12) and obtain the vaporization temperature change curve (temperature profile) corresponding to the vaporizer based on the parameter of the vaporizer (Pg. 8 para. 10; Examiner notes: this limitation is functional; the processor is able to store different parameters and obtain those parameters based on vaporization).
Regarding Claim 7, Modified Li discloses the main unit of claim 1,
Modified Li does not specifically teach that the message is sent when the target temperature during vaporization is higher than a threshold temperature.
However, Li teaches a prompter (Fig. 5; 150; Pg. 8 para, 8) connected to the processor (Fig. 1-3; 110; Pg. 4; para. 9, 12), wherein the processor is configured to control the prompter (Examiner note: this limitation is functional) to send a first prompt message in response parameter or an alarm during vaporization of the vaporizer (Fig. 1-3; 180, 130; Pg. 4 para. 9-12, Pg. 5 para. 1-5, 7-12) (Pg. 8; para. 8; Examiner notes: display is able to display alarm messages when there is an issue).
Therefore, Li is considered to be in field of vaporizers. Due to an absence of the limitations of processor being configured to control the prompter to send a first prompt message in response to the target temperature during vaporization of the vaporizer being higher than a preset temperature, the claimed feature is interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation to encompass Li’s disclosure of processor sending a message in response to an error condition and/or when temperature is too high because it might destroy the device of overheat the device. Li already teaches the concept of monitoring a parameter and generating a message when needed, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to apply the same functionality to alternative forms of monitored data of the temperature that is calculated from Takahashi, as such variation represents predictable and routine modifications. Additionally, the limitation of the processor controlling the display to send a first message when value exceeds a predetermined threshold would have been reasonably encompassed by Li.
Regarding Claim 8, Modified Li discloses the main unit of claim 7, wherein the processor (Fig. 1-3; 110; Pg. 4; para. 9, 12; para. 0025-0029; Takahashi) is configured to control the prompter to send the first prompt message (with Fig. 5; 150) and control the battery (Fig. 1-3; 120; Pg. 4 para. 12, Pg. 5 para. 1, 4-5, 7) to stop providing energy for the vaporizer (Fig. 1-3; 180, 130; Pg. 4 para. 9-12, Pg. 5 para. 1-5, 7-12) ; (Pg. 8; para. 8; Examiner notes: this limitation is functional the control unit sends a messages and shuts off the device so it does not over heat).
Modified Li does not teach the battery is control to stop providing energy at the same time as the message.
Due to an absence of the limitations of processor being configured to control the battery to stop providing energy for the vaporizer at the same time, the claimed feature is interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation to encompass controlling the battery in response to a threshold condition. Li teaches that a processor sends a message when error condition and/or a temperature threshold is reached, thereby recognizing a condition requires some type of action. It would be obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to further configure the processor to stop the battery from supplying energy when such a preset condition is met and a message is sent, as disabling power in response to an error or unsafe condition is a well-known and routine safety measure. Such modification represents a predictable use of the prior art elements according to their established function. One would want the battery to stop providing energy at the same time as the message so the device does not get destroyed or overheats to dangerous temperatures (Pg. 8 para. 8).
Regarding Claim 9, Modified Li discloses the main unit of claim 7, processor (Fig. 1-3; 110; Li; para. 0025-0029; Takahashi).
Modified Li does not specifically teach further comprising: a detector connected to the processor, wherein the processor is configured to control the prompter to stop sending the first prompt message in response to detecting a reset signal of the main unit by the detector.
However, Li teaches wherein the processor (Fig. 1-3; 110) is configured to control the prompter to send the first prompt message (with Fig. 5; 150) when a threshold is reached.
Therefore, Li is considered to be in field of vaporizers. Due to an absence of the limitations of the a detector connected to the processor, wherein the processor is configured to control the prompter to stop sending the first prompt message in response to detecting a reset signal of the main unit by the detector, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, assuming the broadest interpretation of both the prior art and the instant claim, that “detector” would reasonably encompass the absent limitation of because detectors are commonly understood as components of monitor system conditions and provide signals to a processor based on these conditions. In system of timers, it routine for processor rely on such signals to control downstream actions including whether to send a prompter message on the display. Given that the stopping message transition is upon timer reset is predictable response tied to the triggering condition, one would be motivated to stop the message from being sent after detecting a restart of timer. Meaning configuring the detector to identify the timer rest and instruct the processor not to send the message would be an obvious design choice.
Regarding Claim 12, Modified Li discloses an electronic vaporization device, comprising: a vaporizer (Fig. 1-3; 180, 130; Pg. 4 para. 9-12, Pg. 5 para. 1-5, 7-12);
main unit (Pg. 4 para. 9-10, Pg. 5 para. 1-5, 8, 11) comprising:
a processor (Fig. 1-3; 110; Pg. 4; para. 9, 12), a memory (Fig. 5; 170; Pg. 8 para. 3-4, 10), a battery (Fig. 1-3; 120; Pg. 4 para. 12, Pg. 5 para. 1, 4-5, 7), a timer (Pg. 10; para. 5), and
the memory, the battery, the timer, being connected to the processor (Pg. 8; para. 10),
wherein the processor is configured to control the battery to provide energy for the vaporizer to vaporize an aerosol-generating substrate (Pg. 8; para. 3-12; Examiner notes: this limitation is functional),
Li does not disclose an airflow sensor and that the airflow sensor being connected to the processor, the processor is configured to obtain a start time and an end time for each inhalation of the vaporizer.
However, Alelov teaches an airflow sensor (Fig. 2; 240), that the airflow sensor being connected to the processor (224) and configured to obtain a start time and an end time for each inhalation of the vaporizer (para. 0037).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the main unit of Li to include the airflow sensor and processor is connected to the airflow sensor and the timer to obtain a start time and an end time for each inhalation of the vaporize as taught by Alelov for the purpose of measuring the duration of the airflow and the time for duration can be accumulated in a given period to activate a limit feature according to a substance distribution limit set in the control logic and monitor the usage along with counter can provide a more accurate estimate of the measurement of the total airflow (para. 0039-0040).
Modified Li does not disclose the target temperature during vaporization of the vaporizer based on the start time, the end time, and a vaporization temperature change curve stored in the memory.
However, Takahashi teaches system that has accumulating unit (21; para. 0013) that measures and stores accumulative value of temperature and processor (31, 32, 33; Para. 0025-0029) that can determine target temperature is based on vaporization temperature change curve by using data that is stored before in memory (Examiner notes: 31 receives data, 32 determines temperatures change within a certain time, 33 storages data and if the has been increase of heat it adds that amount to stored data calculating the target temperature; Fig. 2; reference profile 2P; para. 0020-0021, 0025-28, and 0060-0064; Examiner notes: BRI of target temperature could be any temperature that is set or calculated as the claim is very board on what “target” temperature could be read on).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the processor for vaporization of Li to be able to calculate target temperature based on temperature change curve that already stored in the memory as taught by Takahashi for the purpose of grasping the fluctuation of the heat consumption based on the stored integrated heat (para. 0063).
Regarding Claim 13, Modified Li discloses the main unit of claim 4, wherein the vaporizer (Fig. 1-3; 180, 130; Pg. 4 para. 9-12, Pg. 5 para. 1-5, 7-12) increases the temperature for a first period of time based on the vaporization temperature change curve after the start time of the inhalation, and the vaporizer decreases the temperature for a second period of time based on the vaporization temperature change curve after the end time of the inhalation (Pg. 20 para. 4-7; Li; Fig. 16).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li and Takahashi, Alelov, applied to claim 2, in view of Capuano (CN 103415222 A).
Regarding Claim 5, Modified Li discloses the main unit of claim 2, processor (Fig. 1-3; 110; Pg. 4; para. 9, 12; Li; para. 0025-0029; Takahashi).
Modified Li does not disclose wherein the processor is configured to obtain an interval duration between two adjacent inhalations of the vaporizer through the airflow sensor and the timer, wherein the processor is configured to control the timer to reset in response to the interval duration being longer than a first preset duration, and restart a calculation of the target temperature during vaporization of the vaporizer.
However, Capuano teaches the processor is configured to obtain an interval duration between two adjacent inhalations of the vaporizer through the airflow sensor and the timer, (para. 0020-0027; Capuano teaches one airflow sensor feedback in an electronic circuit to the control program, the airflow sensor be activated based on inhalation by a user and timer is able to measure the pause between the two inhalations; this limitation is functional); wherein the processor is configured to control the timer to reset in response to the interval duration being longer than a first preset duration, and restart a calculation of the target temperature during vaporization of the vaporizer (para. 0019; Examiner notes: Capuano teaches different modes that are predetermined and if user a long pause time between the suction, then preferably self-starting mode).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the processor of Modified Li to be able to obtain an interval duration between two adjacent inhalations of the vaporizer through the airflow sensor and the timer and control the timer to reset in response to the interval duration being longer than a first preset duration, and restart a calculation of the target temperature during vaporization of the vaporizer as taught by Capuano for purpose of improving the accuracy of the detecting the times of the different inhalation and power supplied is insufficient to cause excessive heat accumulation and/or components of the electronic cigarette of temperature rise (para. 0020).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, Alelov, and Takahashi, applied to claim 7, in view of Xiang (US 20140305450 A1)
Regarding Claim 10, Modified Li the main unit of claim 7, processor(Fig. 1-3; 110; Pg. 4; para. 9, 12; Li; para. 0025-0029; Takahashi)
Modified Li does not disclose specifically wherein the processor is configured to control the battery to stop providing energy for the vaporizer in response to a duration of the first prompt message sent by the prompter being longer than a second preset duration, and to control the prompter to send a second prompt message.
However, Xiang teaches wherein the processor (Fig. 1; 10) is configured to control the battery to stop providing energy for the vaporizer (para. 0020, 0077) in response to a duration of the first prompt message (Fig. 5; S12) sent by the prompter being longer than a second preset duration (S13), and to control the prompter to send a second prompt message (para. 0077).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the processor of Modified Li to include the to control the battery to stop providing energy for the vaporizer in response to a duration of the first prompt message sent by the prompter being longer than a second preset duration, and to control the prompter to send a second prompt message as taught by Xiang for the purpose of the number for smoking can be controlled to make the users use the electronic cigarette properly (para. 0078).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, Alelov, and Takahashi, applied to claim 1, in view of Kieckbusch (US 20140299137 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Modified Li the main unit of claim 1,
wherein the processor (Fig. 1-3; 110; Pg. 4; para. 9, 12; Li; para. 0025-0029; Takahashi) is configured to control the timer (Pg. 10; para. 5; Pg. 14 para. 8- Pg. 15 para 1),
Modified Li does not specifically disclose to reset the timer in response to the target temperature during vaporization of the vaporizer being not higher than a room temperature, and to restart a calculation of the target temperature during vaporization of the vaporizer.
However, Kieckbusch discloses to reset the timer in response to the temperature during vaporization of the vaporizer being not higher than a temperature (Fig. 7; para. 0057, 0068, 0073).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the processor of Modified Li to able to control the timer and restart the calculation of temperature after the restart as taught by Kieckbusch for the purpose of controlling the vaporizer and to prevent overheating or under-heating (para. 0168).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MAAP A ELLABIB whose telephone number is (571)272-5879. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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, KENDRA CARTER can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/MAAP ELLABIB/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/KENDRA D CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights