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
It is noted that the instant application is identified as a continuation of application No. 16/287,667, now U.S. Pat No. 11,565,059. The claim set of the instant application was originally restricted from the parent case, and as such, the instant application should be filed as a divisional. Please change the Application Data Sheet to reflect the correct relationship between the instant application and parent application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11, 12, 15-17, 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bowen (US 2016/0157524).
With respect to claim 11, 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]).
With respect to claim 12, the “flow rate” data of claim 11 is listed among a plurality of optional data. Claim 12 does not explicitly require the use of the flow rate, and thus, the limitations related to said flow rate in claim 12 are also still optional.
Regardless, Bowen discloses measuring flow rate with a flow sensor (Paragraphs [0090], [0124]).
With respect to claim 15, Bowen discloses that the target yield comprises a constant, a, b or c (Paragraphs [0100]-[0102]).
With respect to claim 16, 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 claim 17, 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 claim 20, Bowen discloses that the predicting including executing an algorithm using the received data (Paragraphs [0099]-[0103]).
With respect to claim 21, 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 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.
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) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowen (US 2016/0157524) in view of Huang et al (US 2016/0255878).
With respect to claims 13 and 14¸ 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 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowen (US 2016/0157524) 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.
Conclusion
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