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 claims 3-20 in the Telephonic restriction filed on 08/15/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-2 are hereby withdrawn.
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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 3-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips (US 20220183362 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Phillips teaches a method of manufacturing a mouthpiece for a vaping device, the method comprising: selecting a core of a mold, the core comprising a front side and a back side, the back side having zero draft angle such that a back wall of the mouthpiece will be parallel to the direction of the mold opening and closing; selecting a cavity of the mold, the cavity comprising a front side and a back side, the back side having zero draft angle such that the back wall of the mouthpiece will be parallel to the direction of the mold opening and closing; inserting the core into the cavity, forming a space between the core and the cavity; injecting a material into the space between the core and the cavity; allowing the material to cool and solidify; and ejecting the material from the mold (P0005, P0059-60, fig.18-19). While Phillips does not explicitly teach selecting a core and cavity of a mold, the figures 18 and 19 show what would be the result of the chosen mold as claimed.
Regarding claims 4-7, Phillips teaches injecting molten plastic into the injection mold to produce a molded plastic case structure (P0005) and injection molded modular mouthpiece as described above. While Phillips does not explicitly state the molding steps, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the cavity to have a proximal end and a distal end, and wherein the step of injecting the material into the space between the core and the cavity comprises injecting material at the proximal end; where the front side and the back side of the cavity are separable portions of the cavity; where the front side of the cavity is removable vertically from the mold and the back side of the cavity is removably laterally from the mold; and clamping the cavity and the core of the mold shut before injection molding. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). It would be obvious to try injecting at a proximal end and closing or opening a mold in these manners as there are limited ways to do these in a molding process.
Regarding claim 8, Phillips teaches the front side of the cavity is formed with a degree of draft (fig.18-19).
Regarding claim 9, Phillips teaches the core of the mold defines one or more internal compartments of the mouthpiece (P0005-0006, P0059, fig.18-19).
Regarding claim 10, Phillips teaches the one or more internal compartments comprises an internal vapor pathway (P0006).
Regarding claim 11, Phillips teaches the cavity of the mold further comprises a convex portion at a proximal end of the cavity, the convex portion forming a concave portion at a corresponding proximal end of the mouthpiece (fig.18-19).
Regarding claim 12, Phillips teaches the concave portion at the proximal end of the mouthpiece is substantially smooth, with no excess material (fig.18-19).
Claims 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips (US 20220183362 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Phillips teaches a method of manufacturing a mouthpiece for a vaping device, the method comprising: selecting a core, the core comprising a front side and a back side, the back side having zero draft angle such that a back wall of the mouthpiece will be parallel to the direction of a mold opening and closing; selecting a cavity, the cavity comprising a first portion with a front side and a second portion with a back side, the back side having zero draft angle such that the back wall of the mouthpiece will be parallel to the direction of the mold opening and closing; inserting the core into the cavity, forming a space between the core and the cavity; injecting a material into the space between the core and the cavity; allowing the material to cool and solidify (P0005, P0059-60, fig.18-19).
While Phillips does not explicitly state removing the first portion of the cavity vertically from the core and removing the second portion of the cavity laterally from the core, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the cavity to do so. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). It would be obvious to try removing the first portion of the cavity vertically from the core and removing the second portion of the cavity laterally from the core as there are limited ways to remove them.
Regarding claim 14, Phillips teaches injecting molten plastic into the injection mold to produce a molded plastic case structure (P0005) and injection molded modular mouthpiece as described above. While Phillips does not explicitly state clamping the cavity and the core of the mold shut before injection molding. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). It would be obvious to try clamping a mold in these manners as there are limited ways to secure a mold in a molding process.
Regarding claim 15, Phillips teaches the front side of the first portion of the cavity is formed with a degree of draft (fig.18-19).
Regarding claim 16, Phillips teaches the core of the mold defines one or more internal compartments of the mouthpiece (P0005-0006, P0059, fig.18-19).
Regarding claim 17, Phillips teaches the one or more internal compartments comprises an internal vapor pathway (P0006).
Regarding claim 18, Phillips teaches injecting molten plastic into the injection mold to produce a molded plastic case structure (P0005) and injection molded modular mouthpiece as described above but is not specific to injecting a material into the space between the core and the cavity comprises injecting the material into a proximal end of the cavity. While Phillips does not explicitly state the molding steps, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the cavity to have a proximal end and a distal end, and wherein the step of injecting the material into the space between the core and the cavity comprises injecting material at the proximal end. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). It would be obvious to try injecting at a proximal end as there are limited places to introduce plastic in an injection molding process.
Regarding claim 19, Phillips teaches the cavity of the mold further comprises a convex portion at a proximal end of the cavity, the convex portion forming a concave portion at a corresponding proximal end of the mouthpiece (fig.18-19).
Regarding claim 20, Phillips teaches the concave portion at the proximal end of the mouthpiece is substantially smooth, with no excess material (fig.18-19).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erica Funk whose telephone number is (571)272-3785. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 5712707001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/E.H.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/JaMel M Nelson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743