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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendment filed 3/18/2026 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-10, 12 and 20 are cancelled. Claims 11, 13-19 and 21-32 are pending. Claim 11 is amended. Claims 25-32 are new. No new matter is added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 11 has been amended to recite “wherein the received data characterizing the flow rate of air past the resistive heating element is determined based on one or more measured characteristics representative of air restriction of the vaporizer device”. The cited art does not teach this feature.
Examiner notes that this feature was part of a list of options previously recited in claim 12, but is now explicitly required. This feature will now be considered hereinafter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 11, 15-17, 21, 22, 24, 27-29 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowen (US 2016/0157524) in view of Hatton et al. (US 2017/0231281)
With respect to claims 11, 22 and 24, Bowen teaches a vaporizer device (Abstract) and method (Paragraph [0081]) comprising: a resistive heating element, 106, (Paragraphs [0084] and [0085]); circuitry configured to control delivery of electrical power to the resistive heating element from a power source (Paragraphs [0083]-[0085]), the resistive heating element operates to provide heat to a vaporizable material to cause vaporization of the vaporizable material (Paragraph [0088]-[0093]) into a flowing air stream to form an entrained aerosol; and data is then sent to the controller (e.g., receiving data) from the heating element that characterizes the temperature and the temperature profile of the heating element during the user’s puff, the amount of power (e.g., power delivery to the heating element) (Paragraph [0083]). Upon receiving this data, the controller then predicts the amount of vapor to be generated by the vaporization material that is delivered to the user (Abstract; Paragraphs [0048], [0083]) by determining the partial dose amount produced during a puff, and the total amount dose of vapor produced (Paragraph [0087]).
The partial and total doses measured that are delivered to the user, are first located at the heating element, given that the heating element generates the vapor. Thus, the determined doses are also measured at the heater (See also, Paragraph [0114]; temperature of vaporizable material near the heater is measured)
Based on the prediction, the controller then controls the amount of vaporization of the material to achieve a desired dose (Paragraph [0083], [0134]; Figures 10) by controlling the power to the heater (e.g., in watts; see above) (Paragraphs [0113]-[0117]) by either increasing or decreasing said power (Figures 5 and 6; Paragraph [0124]) to achieve a total dose (e.g., target yield). Specifically, as seen in figure 5 and 6, the watts are increased or decreased, according to the equations in paragraphs [0099]-[0102]).
The “flow rate” data of claim 11 is listed among a plurality of optional data. Regardless, Bowen discloses measuring flow rate with a flow sensor (Paragraphs [0090], [0124]). Bowen does not explicitly disclose that the received data characterizing the flow rate is determined based on one or more measured characteristics representative of air restriction of the device. Hatton et al. discloses a vaporizer that includes a sensor that can distinguish a difference between internal pressure and air pressure. A static plate is used with sensor gauge pressures measures the air flow restriction between the inlet and pressure sensor (Paragraph [0309]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the device with a plate and sensor so that as the user inhales in Bowen, the internal pressure and air pressure can be relatively measured by measuring the gauge pressure (as required by claim 24) of the air flow restriction, as taught by Hatton et al.
With respect to claims 15 and 27, Bowen discloses that the target yield comprises a constant, a, b or c (Paragraphs [0100]-[0102]).
With respect to claims 16 and 28, the “use-adjustable parameter” of claim 15 is listed among a plurality of optional selections. Claim 16 does not explicitly require the use of “user-adjusted parameter” amongst the optional selections. Thus, limitations related to said user-adjusted parameters are still optional.
Regardless, Bowen discloses a user-adjusted parameter such as time period (Paragraph [0110]).
With respect to claims 17 and 29, Bowen discloses adjusting the present vapor amount threshold (e.g., target yield) from one puff to the next based on the user’s prior puff (Paragraph [0048]).
With respect to claims 21 and 32, Bowen discloses that the device comprises a resistive heating element, 106, (Paragraphs [0084] and [0085]); circuitry configured to control delivery of electrical power to the resistive heating element from a power source (Paragraphs [0083]-[0085]), the resistive heating element operates to provide heat to a vaporizable material to cause vaporization of the vaporizable material (Paragraph [0088]-[0093]) into a flowing air stream to form an entrained aerosol.
____________________________________________________________________
Claim(s) 13, 14, 23, 25 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowen (US 2016/0157524) in view of Hatton et al. (US 2017/0231281) as applied to claims 11, 15-17, 21, 22, 24, 27-29 and 32above, and further in view of Huang et al (US 2016/0255878).
With respect to claims 13, 14 and 23¸ Bowen does not explicitly disclose that the target yield is proportional to flow rate. Huang teaches an electronic vaporizer similar to Bowen including using inputs to control the power of the heater to increase or decrease the power delivery to the heating element in order to arrive at a target aerosol yield (Paragraph [0009]; where the flow rate is used to adjust the power to the heater to adjust the amount of vaporization to arrive at a target amount of vapor). The heating power adjustment is done proportionally (e.g., as a function of the flow rate, as required by claim 14) to flow rate (Paragraphs [0007]- [0008]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bowen with the teachings of Huang to adjust the amount of vaporization using the heater in order to provide precise measurement of the inhalation process.
With respect to claims 25 and 26¸ Bowen does not explicitly disclose that the target yield is proportional to flow rate. Huang teaches an electronic vaporizer similar to Bowen including using inputs to control the power of the heater to increase or decrease the power delivery to the heating element in order to arrive at a target aerosol yield (Paragraph [0009]; where the flow rate is used to adjust the power to the heater to adjust the amount of vaporization to arrive at a target amount of vapor). The heating power adjustment is done proportionally (e.g., as a function of the flow rate, as required by claim 14) to flow rate (Paragraphs [0007]- [0008]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bowen with the teachings of Huang to adjust the amount of vaporization using the heater in order to provide precise measurement of the inhalation process.
____________________________________________________________________
Claim(s) 18, 19, 30 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowen (US 2016/0157524) in view of Hatton et al. (US 2017/0231281) as applied to claims 11, 15-17, 21, 22, 24, 27-29 and 32 above, and further in view of Cochand et al. (US 2014/0020693).
With respect to claims 18 and 19, Bowen does not explicitly disclose controlling the power delivery to the resistive heating element is further in response to an amount of power required to maintain a predefined temperature of the resistive heating element and selecting the power delivery such that the heating element temperature remains under a predetermined temperature.
Cochand teaches an electronic vaporizer similar to Bowen including maintaining the temperature of the heating element at a predetermined temperature and below a maximum temperature (Paragraph [0092]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bowen with the teachings of Cochand to include the temperature limits in order to avoid unwanted chemical degradation and maintain a vaporization amount.
With respect to claims 30 and 31, Bowen does not explicitly disclose controlling the power delivery to the resistive heating element is further in response to an amount of power required to maintain a predefined temperature of the resistive heating element and selecting the power delivery such that the heating element temperature remains under a predetermined temperature.
Cochand teaches an electronic vaporizer similar to Bowen including maintaining the temperature of the heating element at a predetermined temperature and below a maximum temperature (Paragraph [0092]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bowen with the teachings of Cochand to include the temperature limits in order to avoid unwanted chemical degradation and maintain a vaporization amount.
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 ALEX B EFTA whose telephone number is (313)446-6548. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST M-F.
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 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.
/ALEX B EFTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights