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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-3, and 5-21 are pending and are subject to this office action. Claim 4 is cancelled, and claims 1 and 6 are currently amended. Claims 9-21 are new.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s response filed on 11/26/2025 containing amendments and remarks to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 6-8, filed 11/26/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended claim 1 require that the electrical resistor has a hole at a central portion thereof, where the physically manipulating includes increasing a length of the hole, which was not previously presented. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of a combination of previously applied prior art and newly found prior art.
The prior art rejections below are maintained and modified where necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newton (US 20150101625 A1, as cited on IDS dated 01/23/2023) in view of McGuinness (US 20070063813 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Newton discloses a cartridge (5) for an electronic cigarette (3, Fig. 1, [0033]), comprising
An electrical circuit (14) comprising a pair of resistors mounted to the cartridge and a reservoir (66) for e-liquid (“pre-vapor formulation storage element”, Fig. 4A, [0041, 0042])
The value of the first resistor (78, 84) corresponds to the flavor and the value of the second resistor (80, 86) corresponds to the nicotine concentration ([0044-0046], Fig. 6, Fig. 7, Fig. 8). The resistance value of the resistors is indicative of the pre-vapor formulation substrate/e-liquid in the reservoir (66).
Newtown does not explicitly disclose the method of manufacturing the cartridge comprising mounting a resistor that is indicative of a pre-vapor formulation to a cartridge. However, Newtown discloses resistors mounted to a cartridge (5) which reasonably suggests the resistors were mounted to the cartridge during manufacturing of the electronic cigarette.
Newton discloses varying the resistance values to identify the flavor and nicotine concentration of the cartridge (Table 8, [0044-0046]).
Newton is silent to how the resistors with different resistance values are obtained.
However, McGuinness, directed to a method of trimming a film resistor (5, Fig. 18, abstract, [0034]), the method comprising:
Providing a resistive film (7, Fig. 18, [0066]),
Forming a trimming slot (34, 35, “a hole”) in a central portion of the resistive film (7) to achieve a desired resistance, where the resistance of the thin film resistor (5) increases as the length of the slot (34, 35) increases (Fig. 18, [0069, 0101-0103]),
The length of the slot (34, 35) is increased until the desired resistance is achieved ([0069, 0101-0103]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Newton by substituting the pair of resistors with the resistors disclosed by McGuiness and manufacturing the resistors with the method disclosed by McGuiness because both Newton and McGuiness are directed to electrical resistors having a specified resistance, Newton discloses an electronic cigarette having resistors with varying resistance values that identify the e-liquid in the cartridge but is silent to how the different resistance values are obtained, McGuiness disclose a method for obtaining resistors with different resistances values by physically manipulating the resistor, and one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to manufacturing methods of similar resistors for ways to obtain different resistance values, and this involves applying a known method for obtaining resistors with different resistance values to a similar manufacturing method to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, McGuiness discloses a resistive film (7, “sheet resistor”) formed of a metal such as nickel-chrome ([0073]).
Regarding claim 5, McGuiness discloses the resistor (5) has a rectangular shape (Fig. 18).
Regarding claim 6, McGuiness discloses the trimming slot (34, 35) is formed by laser cutting which is considered to be cutting or deforming of the electrical resistor ([0078-0079, 0102]).
Regarding claim 7, Newton discloses an electrical circuit (14) comprising a pair of resistors mounted inside the cartridge (5, Fig. 4A, [0042]).
Regarding claim 10, Newtown discloses resistors mounted to a cartridge (5) which reasonably suggests the resistors were mounted to the cartridge during manufacturing of the electronic cigarette. McGuiness discloses a method trimming a film resistor (5, Fig. 18) comprising forming a trimming slot (34, 35) in a central portion of the resistive film (7) to achieve a desired resistance (Fig. 18, [0101-0103]). As the resistor is mounted in the cartridge, the manufacture of the resistor is considered to be performed during manufacture of the cartridge.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newton (US 20150101625 A1, as cited on IDS dated 01/23/2023) in view McGuinness (US 20070063813 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thorens (WO 2011160788 A1, as cited on IDS dated 01/23/2023).
Regarding claim 8, Newton discloses an electrical circuit (14) comprising a pair of resistors mounted inside the cartridge (5, Fig. 4A, [0042]).
Newton does not explicitly disclose mounting a resistor on the outside of the cartridge.
However, Thorens, directed to an aerosol generating system (100), discloses:
A liquid storage portion identification system (229) for allowing the aerosol generating system (100) to distinguish between different types of liquid storage portions (113) inserted into the aerosol generating system (100, Fig. 1, Fig. 4, pg. 14 lines 19-26).
The liquid storage portion identification system (229) may be mounted to the exterior of the liquid storage portion (113) to keep the subsystem and liquid in the storage portion separate (Fig. 1, Fig. 4, pg. 14 lines 19-26).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Newton, in view of McGuiness, by mounting the resistor on the exterior of the reservoir of the cartridge as taught by Thorens because both Newton and Thorens are directed to aerosol generating devices, Thorens teaches mounting an identifications system to the outside of the cartridge keeps the system separate from the liquid, and this involves mounting an electronic component for identification in a known manner in a similar device to yield predictable results.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newton (US 20150101625 A1, as cited on IDS dated 01/23/2023) in view of McGuinness (US 20070063813 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Takeuchi (US 4580030 A).
Regarding claim 9, McGuiness discloses a method trimming a film resistor (5, Fig. 18) to achieve a desired resistance.
McGuiness does not explicitly disclose the trimming is performed after the resistor is mounted.
However, Takeuchi, directed to a method of trimming film resistors (title, col. 1 lines 8-10), discloses:
Providing a thick film resistor (20) mounted on a printed circuit board (30, Fig. 4, Fig. 6, col 6 lines 43-47),
Removing a portion (51) of a resistor body (24) with a laser, which increases the resistance of the thick film resistor (20) to a desired resistance (Fig. 6, col. 7 lines 12-48).
When the thick film resistor is assembled on the printed circuit board together with other circuit parts, it is necessary to finely adjust the resistance of the thick film resistor so that the circuit as a whole has a predetermined characteristic in relation to the other circuit parts.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Newton, in view of McGuiness, by performing the trimming/physical manipulation after mounting the resistor to the cartridge as taught by Takeuchi because both Newton and Takeuchi are directed to electrical resistors having a specified resistance, Takeuchi discloses trimming the resistor after it is mounted in order to account for the resistance value in relation other components in the circuit, and this involves applying resistor trimming in a known sequence to a similar manufacturing method to yield predictable results.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newton (US 20150101625 A1, as cited on IDS dated 01/23/2023) in view of Murata (US 4841275 A).
Regarding claim 11, Newton discloses a cartridge (5) for an electronic cigarette (3, Fig. 1, [0033]), comprising:
An electrical circuit (14) comprising a pair of resistors mounted to the cartridge and a reservoir (66) for e-liquid (“pre-vapor formulation storage element”, Fig. 4A, [0041, 0042])
The value of the first resistor (78, 84) corresponds to the flavor and the value of the second resistor (80, 86) corresponds to the nicotine concentration ([0044-0046], Fig. 6, Fig. 7, Fig. 8). The resistance value of the resistors is indicative of the pre-vapor formulation substrate/e-liquid in the reservoir (66).
Newtown does not explicitly disclose the method of manufacturing the cartridge comprising mounting a resistor that is indicative of a pre-vapor formulation to a cartridge. However, Newtown discloses resistors mounted to a cartridge (5) which reasonably suggests the resistors were mounted to the cartridge during manufacturing of the electronic cigarette.
Newton discloses varying the resistance values to identify the flavor and nicotine concentration of the cartridge (Table 8, [0044-0046]).
Newton is silent to how the resistors with different resistance values are obtained.
However, Murata, directed a method of manufacturing a resistor (abstract), the method comprising:
Cutting (“physically manipulating”) a notch (30, “a lateral recess”) into a resistor (26) and elongating the notch (30, “increasing a width of the at least one lateral recess”) until a desired resistance is achieved (Fig. 1, col 3 lines 30-50).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Newton by substituting the pair of resistors with the resistor disclosed by Murata and manufacturing the resistors with the method disclosed by Murata because both Newton and Murata are directed to electrical resistors, Newton discloses an electronic cigarette having resistors with varying resistance values that identify the e-liquid in the cartridge but is silent to how the different resistance values are obtained, Murata disclose a method for obtaining resistors with different resistances values by cutting a notch/lateral recess and elongating the notch to achieve a desired resistance, and one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to manufacturing methods of similar resistors for ways to obtain different resistance values, and this involves applying a known method for obtaining resistors with different resistance values to a similar manufacturing method to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 12, Murata discloses the resistor (26) is rectangular (Fig. 1, col. 3 line 15)
Regarding claim 13, Murata discloses cutting a notch (30, “a lateral recess”) into a resistor (26, Fig. 1, col 3 lines 30-50) which is considered to be cutting or deforming.
Regarding claim 14, Murata discloses the resistor (26) comprises ruthenium oxide (col. 3 lines 10-15). Ruthenium oxide comprises ruthenium and is therefore considered to be a metallic material.
Claim 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newton (US 20150101625 A1, as cited on IDS dated 01/23/2023) in view of Takeuchi (US 4580030 A).
Regarding claim 15, Newton discloses a cartridge (5) for an electronic cigarette (3, Fig. 1, [0033]), comprising:
An electrical circuit (14) comprising a pair of resistors mounted to the cartridge and a reservoir (66) for e-liquid (“pre-vapor formulation storage element”, Fig. 4A, [0041, 0042])
The value of the first resistor (78, 84) corresponds to the flavor and the value of the second resistor (80, 86) corresponds to the nicotine concentration ([0044-0046], Fig. 6, Fig. 7, Fig. 8). The resistance value of the resistors is indicative of the pre-vapor formulation substrate/e-liquid in the reservoir (66).
Newtown does not explicitly disclose the method of manufacturing the cartridge comprising mounting a resistor that is indicative of a pre-vapor formulation to a cartridge. However, Newtown discloses resistors mounted to a cartridge (5) which reasonably suggests the resistors were mounted to the cartridge during manufacturing of the electronic cigarette.
Newton discloses varying the resistance values to identify the flavor and nicotine concentration of the cartridge (Table 8, [0044-0046]).
Newton is silent to how the resistors with different resistance values are obtained.
However, Takeuchi, directed to a method of trimming film resistors (title, col. 1 lines 8-10), discloses:
Providing a thick film resistor (20) mounted on a printed circuit board (30, Fig. 4, Fig. 6, col 6 lines 43-47),
Removing a portion (51) of a resistor body (24) with a laser beam (“physically manipulating”), which increases the resistance of the thick film resistor (20) to a desired resistance (Fig. 6, col. 7 lines 12-48).
When the thick film resistor is assembled on the printed circuit board together with other circuit parts, it is necessary to finely adjust the resistance of the thick film resistor so that the circuit as a whole has a predetermined characteristic in relation to the other circuit parts.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Newton, by substituting the pair of resistors with the resistors disclosed by Takeuchi and performing the trimming/physical manipulation to achieve a desired resistance after mounting the resistor to the cartridge as taught by Takeuchi because both Newton and Takeuchi are directed to electrical resistors having a specified resistance, Newton discloses an electronic cigarette having resistors with varying resistance values that identify the e-liquid in the cartridge but is silent to how the different resistance values are obtained, Takeuchi discloses trimming the resistor to achieve a desired resistance after it is mounted in order to account for the resistance value in relation other components in the circuit, and this involves applying resistor trimming in a known sequence to a similar manufacturing method to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 18, Takeuchi discloses the resistor body (24) is rectangular (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 19, Takeuchi discloses removing a portion (51) of a resistor body (24) with a laser beam (Fig. 6, col. 7 lines 12-48) which is considered to be cutting or deforming.
Regarding claim 20, Newton discloses an electrical circuit (14) comprising a pair of resistors mounted inside the cartridge (5, Fig. 4A, [0042]).
Claim 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newton (US 20150101625 A1, as cited on IDS dated 01/23/2023) in view Takeuchi (US 4580030 A), as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of McGuinness (US 20070063813 A1),
Regarding claim 16, Takeuchi is silent to the material used for the resistor body (24, Fig. 6).
However, McGuinness, directed to a method of trimming a film resistor (5, Fig. 18, abstract, [0034]), the method comprising:
Providing a resistive film (7, [0066], Fig. 18) formed of a metal such as nickel-chrome ([0073]),
Removing a portion (51) of a resistor body (24) with a laser, which increases the resistance of the thick film resistor (20) to a desired resistance (Fig. 6, col. 7 lines 12-48).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Newton, in view of Takeuchi, by forming the resistor of metal such as nickel-chrome as taught by McGuiness because both Newton and McGuiness are directed to electrical resistors, Takeuchi discloses a method of trimming a resistor body (24) but is silent to the material used, McGuiness discloses a method for obtaining resistors with different resistances values by physically manipulating the resistor where the resistor is formed of nickel-chrome, and one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to manufacturing methods of similar resistors for materials to use, and this involves applying a known material to a similar manufacturing method to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 17, McGuiness discloses a resistive film (7, “sheet resistor”) formed of a metal such as nickel-chrome ([0073]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newton (US 20150101625 A1, as cited on IDS dated 01/23/2023) in view Takeuchi (US 4580030 A), as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Thorens (WO 2011160788 A1, as cited on IDS dated 01/23/2023).
Regarding claim 20, Newton discloses an electrical circuit (14) comprising a pair of resistors mounted inside the cartridge (5, Fig. 4A, [0042]).
Newton does not explicitly disclose mounting a resistor on the outside of the cartridge.
However, Thorens, directed to an aerosol generating system (100), discloses:
A liquid storage portion identification system (229) for allowing the aerosol generating system (100) to distinguish between different types of liquid storage portions (113) inserted into the aerosol generating system (100, Fig. 1, Fig. 4, pg. 14 lines 19-26).
The liquid storage portion identification system (229) may be mounted to the exterior of the liquid storage portion (113) to keep the subsystem and liquid in the storage portion separate (Fig. 1, Fig. 4, pg. 14 lines 19-26).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Newton, in view of Takeuchi, by mounting the resistor on the exterior of the reservoir of the cartridge as taught by Thorens because both Newton and Thorens are directed to aerosol generating devices, Thorens teaches mounting an identifications system to the outside of the cartridge keeps the system separate from the liquid, and this involves mounting an electronic component for identification in a known manner in a similar device to yield predictable results.
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 MORGAN FAITH DEZENDORF whose telephone number is (571)272-0155. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-430pm 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 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.
/M.F.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755