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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claims 10-20) in the reply filed on 2-18-26 is acknowledged. Claims 1-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species II (Figure 14) in the reply filed on 9-29-25 is acknowledged – with Species I (Figure 13) being nonelected.
Claim Objections
Claims 20 is/are objected to because of the following informality: “of the sled” should be inserted after “body” (Ln3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 15 and 20 is/are 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 15, the antecedent of “the proximal end of the body” (Ln2) is not clearly defined in that two proximal-end-body-combinations have been previously recited: (a) claim 10, lines 3-4 and (b) claim 13, line 2.
Claim 20 is considered to be indefinite in that the claim does not particularly point out and distinctly claim what is intended by “exposed/external” (Ln3). Specifically, are “exposed” and “external” recited as alternatives or are both required by the claim. Also, when referring to “exposed”, it is not clear what is intended by not exposed “to the body” (of the sled) (L3).
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 (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 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) 10-12 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20160005323 A) in view of Guo (US 2017/0049153 A1) and patent ES51394U.
Claim 10, Kim teaches a vaporizing device (pg1 Abstract) comprising:
●a sled comprising:
●a body (comprising at least pieces 155 (pg5 para7 Ln1) and 135 (pg3 para7
Lns2-4)), a distal end of the body comprising protrusions (threads of “the threaded portion formed in the upper portion of the” body) (pg3 para8 Ln3; pg5 para7 Lns1-8) (Note: “for mating with a base” is recited as a method step wherein the base is not recited as being part of the vaporizing device – and does not provide a structural limitation to the claimed structure (vaporizing device)) and a proximal end of the body for mating with a distal end of a cartridge 11 (pg3 para7 Ln1) of the vaporizing device (pg5 para 7 Lns1-2; Fig1a);
●and at least one pair of electrodes (pg3 para8 Ln1; pg4 para7 Ln1; pg6 paras6-
7) disposed within opposing sides of the body (pg7 para1 Lns5-8; pg7 para2; Fig3), the at least one pair of electrodes for providing power to an atomizer 12 (comprising at least heater 141) (pg3 para7 Lns1-8) of the vaporizing device.
Other locations within reference may be included in the above recited locations (paragraphs, drawing, abstract, claims) to demonstrate further the features in the reference as claimed in the instant claims.
Claim 10, Kim does not teach that for mating of the proximal end of the body to the distal end of the cartridge 11 – such is done specifically using indentations at the proximal end of the body and distal prongs at the distal end of the cartridge 11.
However, it is conventional and well-known in the art (electronic vaporizing devices) to connect two separate pieces, of a vaporization device, together using indents on a first piece that mate with prongs on a second piece for secure locking the first and second pieces together. For example, Guo teaches that a top tubular portion (of a vaporizing device) has indents at its proximal end that are engaged with prongs (protrusions) of a lower tubular portion (of the vaporizing device) at its distal end for locking the upper and lower tubular portions together (para81).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have provided in Kim that mating of the body to the cartridge 11 is done specifically using indentations at the proximal end of the body and distal prongs at the distal end of the cartridge 11 in that such is conventional and well-known in the art, as demonstrated by Guo, for secure locking of the body to the cartridge 11 – wherein it is obvious to replace one secure locking mechanism (that of Kim) with another art recognized alternative secure locking mechanism (for example, that of Guo) where success results have been demonstrated.
Claim 10, Kim teaches that piece 135 is a lower connector of a fixating unit 13 (Abstract; pg3 para7 Lns2-4). However, Kim does not teach at least one pair of magnets embedded within opposing sides of the body (i.e. at the bottom side surface of the lower connector 135 of the fixating unit 13).
ES51394 teaches a package of cigarettes (Abstract Fig1 Fig2) having a fixating portion that allows one to place the package to a magnetic metallic surface – such as shown in Figures 3 and 4 – where the surface may be a dashboard of a vehicle or a surface on the inside of a door of the vehicle. The fixating portion comprises at least a magnet and ES51394 indicates that the magnet is not visible because it is housed between various parts of the materials making up the package (i.e. embedded). Also, the magnet is one which provides sufficient force to support the package.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have provided in Kim at least a first magnet embedded within a side of the body (i.e. at the bottom side surface of the lower connector 135 of the fixating unit 13) in that ES51394 teaches, in the smoking art, embedding a magnet in a fixating portion of a device which presents items for smoking allows secure placement of the device at a desired location wherein it is submitted that such placement allows easy access to the device relative to where one may be sitting.
With respect to the presence of a second magnet embedded within the side of the body (i.e. at the bottom side surface of the lower connector 135 of the fixating unit 13), opposing the first magnet, Kim modified does not teach this limitation. However, with respect to two magnets – it has been held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)). Also, with respect to the placement of the two magnets on opposing sides of the lower connector 135, the placement of the two magnets relates to a design feature which does not appear to provide a mechanical or structural improvement to the claimed invention and therefore cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the invention from the prior art. Repositioning or rearrangement of an element of an apparatus known and taught in the prior art is an obvious matter of design choice, as merely changing the location or position of the claimed magnets does not modify its function or operation (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have provided in Kim a second magnet embedded within the side of the body (i.e. at the bottom side surface of the lower connector 135 of the fixating unit 13), opposing the first magnet, as desired.
Claims 11-12, the claim limitations refer to a method step (or steps) of how to mate the cartridge with the sled – which does not (or do not) provide a structural limitation(s) to the claimed structure (a vaporization device).
Claim 15, the vaporization device comprises a mouthpiece 151 (pg5 para7 Lns1-4) wherein Kim does not teach that it is connectable to the body using the proximal end features (body indentations and distal prongs of the mouthpiece). However, given that connections between two pieces, in a vaporization device, are known to be connected using indentations-prongs-combination (as discussed above) one skilled in the art would be motivated – when in need of a way to connect – to use a type of connection that is known to them and that is well-known and conventional in the art.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have provided in Kim that the mouthpiece is connectable to the body using the proximal end features (body indentations and distal prongs of the mouthpiece) in that such is conventional and well-known in the art wherein it is obvious to replace one connecting mechanism with another art recognized alternative connecting mechanism where success results have been demonstrated.
Claim 16, the cartridge 11 comprises a hollow interior (pg3 para10 Ln1) (Note: “for receiving a center post and an oil to be vaporized” is recited as a method step wherein the center post and the oil are not recited as being part of the vaporizing device – and do not provide a structural limitation(s) to the claimed structure (vaporizing device)).
Claim 17, the vaporization device comprises the atomizer 12 (pg3 para7 Lns1-2) (Note: “is housed within a distal end of the center post” refers to the center post of claim 16 which is recited as being part of a method step wherein the center post and the oil are not recited as being part of the vaporizing device – and do not provide a structural limitation(s) to the claimed structure (vaporizing device)).
Claim 18, the vaporization device comprises a mouthpiece 151 (pg5 para7 Lns1-4) (Note: “connectable to a proximal end of the center post” refers to the center post of claim 16 which is recited as being part of a method step wherein the center post is not recited as being part of the vaporizing device – and does not provide a structural limitation to the claimed structure (vaporizing device)).
Claim 20, the at least one pair of electrodes are disposed within opposing sides of the sled such that no wiring or electrical connections are exposed/external to the body (pg3 para8 Ln1; pg4 para7 Ln1; pg6 paras6-7; pg7 para1 Lns5-8; pg7 para2; Fig3).
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20160005323 A) in view of Guo (US 2017/0049153 A1) and patent ES51394U, as applied to claims 10-12, 15-18, and 20 above, and further in view of Tucker (US 2013/0192615 A1).
Claims 13-14, Kim does not teach that the vaporizing device further comprises an external housing having a body extending between a proximal end and a distal end wherein the sled and the cartridge 11 are housed within the body of the external housing.
However, it is conventional and well-known in the art (electronic vaporizing devices) to provide an external housing, having a body extending between a proximal end and a distal end for housing internal pieces of a vaporizing device. For example, Tucker teaches an electronic vaporizing device having an external housing having a body extending between a proximal end and a distal end where the external housing houses a cartridge 11 (comprising at least a liquid supply region 22 (cartridge)) and a sled (comprising at least a body (comprising at least gasket 15) and a pair of electrodes 47a and 49a) (para26 para31 paras46-49 paras70-71).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have provided in Kim that the vaporizing device further comprises an external housing having a body extending between a proximal end and a distal end wherein the sled and the cartridge are housed within the body of the external housing in that such is conventional and well-known in the art, as demonstrated by Tucker, where an external housing will help to protect the internal pieces of the vaporizing device of Kim.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20160005323 A) in view of Guo (US 2017/0049153 A1) and patent ES51394U, as applied to claims 10-12, 15-18, and 20 above, and further in view of Mishra (US 2018/0368472 A1).
Claim 19, Kim does not teach that the cartridge 11 comprises an acrylic material.
However, it is conventional and well-known in the art (electronic vaporizing devices) that a cartridge may be of an acrylic material. For example, Mishra teaches a cartridge 70 (of a vaporizing device) made of acrylic in that such allows for viewing the inside of the cartridge 70, if desired (Abstract; para73).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have provided in Kim that the cartridge 11 comprises an acrylic material in that such is conventional and well-known in the art, as demonstrated by Mishra, for allowing viewing of the inside of the cartridge 70, if desired – wherein it is obvious to replace one material of a cartridge (that of Kim) with another art recognized alternative material (for example, that of Mishra) where success results have been demonstrated.
With respect to the center post comprising a metallic material, this claim limitation refers to the center post of claim 16 which is recited as being part of a method step wherein the center post and the oil are not recited as being part of the vaporizing device – and does not provide a structural limitation to the claimed structure (vaporizing device)).
Prior Art of Record
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s invention. Sheng connects two half tanks, of an electronic vaporizer, together using prongs and indentations. Lin connects pieces of an electronic vaporizer, one piece atop the other piece, together using prongs and indentations. Geiszler teaches a rotation mechanism of a cigarette using prongs and indentations. Nyerges teaches using a plurality of magnets 28 to secure a cigarette dispenser to a surface.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDA GRAY whose telephone number is (571) 272-5778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9 AM to 5:30 PM.
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, Phil Tucker can be reached at (571) 272-1095. 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.
/LINDA L GRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745