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 Claims
Claims 19-38 are pending. Claims 1-18 are cancelled.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: [0314] line 6 recites: “These locking determent may be a ridge, pin, or other projection (including spring-loaded members).” “These locking determent” should be replaced with “The locking detents”.
Appropriate correction is required.
The Specification is further objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claim 32 requires: The electronic vaporization device of claim 21, wherein the liquid vaporizable material comprises a nicotine salt formulation comprising nicotine and at least one organic acid. Paragraph of the present Specification discloses, “The cartridge may include any appropriate vaporizable material, such as a nicotine salt solution.” ([0017]). Antecedent support could not be found in the present Specification for the limitation requiring at least one organic acid to be included in the nicotine salt formulation. Thus, the present Specification lacks antecedent basis for this limitation.
To overcome this objection, Applicant is required to identify which of the references incorporated by reference into the Specification, see ([0003]), which supports the claimed subject matter, as well as where in the reference the support is contained. It is noted that support for the at least one organic acid in the nicotine salt formulation was not found in either of the continuation applications to which the present application claims priority. Applicant is further required to amend the present Specification to include the claimed subject matter, while avoiding the addition of new matter. In the alternative, the claim may be amended to avoid the inclusion of subject matter for which there is no antecedent support (removing at least one organic acid), or cancelled.
Claim Objections
Claims 27 and 28 objected to because of the following informalities: line 1 of both claims 27 and 28 recite the word “storge” but should recite “storage”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 32 requires in part, “the liquid vaporizable material comprises a nicotine salt formulation comprising nicotine and at least one organic acid.” Support could not be found in the present Specification for the limitation requiring at least one organic acid to be included in the nicotine salt formulation.
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 31 is 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 31 requires that each of the first locking detent and second locking detent are disposed within 5 mm of the bottom of the first end of the cartridge. Claim 31 depends on claims 30, 21-20, and ultimately on claim 19. Claim 19 requires the detents to be disposed on the interior receptacle walls, rather than the cartridge. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the location of the locking detents will be considered to be within 5 mm of the bottom of the cartridge receptacle that receives the cartridge.
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) 19-22, 26-31, and 33-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verleur et al. (US 2015/0305409 A1) cited in one of the IDS of 3/16/2021 of Con 16/864007 cite ED and the IDS of 3/5/2018 of Con 15/430357 cite ZP, in view of Ademe et al. (US 2015/0313282 A1) cited in the IDS of 3/5/2018 of Con 15/430357 on pg 40 row 29, and Scatterday (US 2015/0327595 A1) cited in one of the IDS of 3/16/2021 of Con 16/864007 cite EH and the IDS of 3/5/2018 of Con 15/430357 on pg 49 row 16.
Regarding claims 19, 30, 35, and 38, Verluer discloses:
An electronic vaporization device, ([0005]), comprising:
a cartridge, ([0005] cartomizer) having a first end and a second end opposite the first end, the cartridge comprising: an aerosol outlet proximate the second end of the cartridge, ([0005] describing a mouthpiece fluidly communicable with the basin when the cartomizer is inserted in the chamber of the device to receive vaporizable substance, vaporized by the heater);
a fluid storage compartment holding a liquid vaporizable material, ([0005] a basin dimensioned to hold a vaporizable substance);
a heater configured to heat the liquid vaporizable material, ([0046] a heating element and a wicking element provided within the cartomizer body); and
a first pair of electrical contacts configured to provide power to the heater, ([0005] cartomizer electrical contacts provided on the exterior of the cartomizer), the first pair of electrical contacts exposed proximate a bottom of the first end of the cartridge, ([0040] describing pogo connectors that compress when the first end of the cartomizer is inserted into the chamber of the device to establish an electrical circuit between the device and the cartomizer); and
a device body comprising:
a cartridge receptacle configured to insertably receive the first end of the cartridge, ([0005] a vaporizer having a shell having a battery segment and a cartomizer receiving segment defining a chamber);
a power source, ([0005] describing a battery segment); and a second pair of electrical contact configured to contact the first pair of electrical contacts of the cartridge, the second pair of electrical contact configured electrically couple to the first pair of electrical contacts to power the heater via the battery, ([0040] describing a system to provide electrical connection between the inserted cartomizer and device using pogo pins and contacts to form an electrical circuit between the two).
Verleur describes that various features may be further provided to secure and align the cartomizer within the cartomizer chamber, ([0042]). Several means of securing the cartomizer in the chamber including snap-fit connectors, friction fit, and any other suitable method of securing the two together known or to be developed in the art, ([0042]). Thus, while Verleur does not explicitly disclose a locking detent and gap system for securing the cartomizer and device together, the reference is open to this modification if it is known in the art.
Verleur generally depicts the device and cartomizer as circular or oval, see for instance cross-sections Fig 1A-1C, 2A-2B, Fig 4-7, Fig 12 (oval). But Verleur in Fig 15, Verleur depicts a device body with opposing walls that form a generally rectangular exterior shape. Verleur does not depict or describe a cartomizer with a first exterior cartridge wall comprising a first locking gap; a second exterior cartridge wall comprising a second locking gap; nor the receptacle having a first interior receptacle wall comprising a first locking detent configured to couple with the first locking gap; and a second interior receptacle wall comprising a second locking detent configured to couple with the second locking gap, wherein coupling the first and second locking detent to the first and second locking gap secures the first end of the cartridge within the cartridge receptacle.
Ademe teaches aerosol delivery devices, where the device can be formed of a plurality of bodies, ([0004]), and is thus within the inventor’s field of endeavor. Ademe teaches that the aerosol delivery device may comprise a housing and a separable cartridge that further comprises a heater, a reservoir, ([0005]). Adele teaches that the aerosol gelivery device may be substantially rod-like, tubular shaped, cylindrically shaped, but that in other embodiments other shapes are contemplated such as a rectangular or triangular cross-section, ([0044]). Ademe traches that the cartridge may be adapted to engage the control body through a press fit engagement between a control body projection and the cartridge, to facilitate a stable connection between the cartridge and control body, ([0051]). Ademe does not specify that the press fit connection is a locking detent and gap connection.
Scatterday teaches a vaporizing device comprising two components that are connectable and removable from each other, ([0003]), and is thus within the inventor’s field of endeavor. Scatterday teaches that to assist in securing the two components together the elements may include a locking mechanism, configured to increase friction, and comprising a spring or deformable element to exert a force, ([0018]). Scatterday further describes a first inner member that receives a spring or deformable element, to inhibit movement between the components once they are connected, ([0024] Fig 2 showing an exemplary configuration that reasonably disclose a locking detent and locking gap reproduced below).
PNG
media_image1.png
455
765
media_image1.png
Greyscale
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the device and cartridge of Verleur according to the teachings of Ademe and Scatterday.
First, it would be obvious to modify the shape of the cartridge of Verleur according to the teachings of Ademe, which discloses that the cartridge may have a rectangular cross-section. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is a rationale that supports a conclusion of obviousness. MPEP 2143 I. Example of Rationales (B). Here, Verleur disclosed a prior art device which differed from the claimed device in that the shape of the cartridge was not disclosed as rectangular. Ademe teaches that it was known to form the cartridge such that the cross-section is rectangular. Additionally, changes in shape are considered a matter of choice which one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious, MPEP 2144.04 IV. B. Here, one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily appreciated that configuring the device as a round cylinder would result in the device being capable of rolling, and potentially falling to the ground if it was set down, potentially dirtying the mouthpiece or causing breakage of the device. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the shape taught by Ademe for the shape disclosed in Verleur, and the results would have been predictable – a cartridge that comprised the same function as in Verleur but incapable of rolling when separated from the base device. A cartridge with a rectangular cross-section is understood to have a first exterior cartridge wall and a second exterior cartridge wall opposing the first exterior cartridge wall. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the cartridge walls would need to be configured to securely fit within and and align the cartomizer within the cartomizer chamber, but neither Verleur nor Ademe explicitly teach or disclose locking detent and gaps located on the walls and surfaces of the cartridge and cartridge receptacle.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to further modify Verleur according to the teachings of Scatterday, to apply the known technique of using locking detents and gaps according to Scatterday, to the known device of modified Verleur, ready for an improved coupling system, to yield predictable results, See MPEP 2143 I. Examples of Rationales (D). Modified Verleur can be seen as a base device, where the locking detent and gap can be seen as an improvement, providing a secure attachment means capable of coupling and decoupling the cartridge from the base. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found that the structures of Scatterday were applicable to the device of modified Verleur, especially in light of Verleur suggesting that any suitable means could be used to secure the cartridge to the base device would work. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Scatterday to the modified Verleur would have yielded predictable results and an improved system, with the locking detents and gaps of Scatterday enhancing the means by which a user could reliably couple and decouple the cartridge from the base. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that by providing a pair of locking gaps on the opposite exterior wall surfaces of the cartridge configured to mate with a pair of locking detents provided on opposite interior wall surfaces of the cartridge receptacle, the cartridge would predictably be held securely within the base device when the cartridge was coupled to the device.
Regarding claim 20, modified Verluer discloses the electronic vaporization device of claim 19.
Modified Verleur couples the first and second locking detent to the first and second locking gap, when the cartridge is coupled to the device, which causes the first pair of electrical contacts exposed proximate a bottom of the first end of the cartridge to bias against a pair of electrical contacts in the form of pogo pins on the device base, ([0040]).
Regarding claim 21-22, modified Verluer discloses the electronic vaporization device of claim 20. Verleur discloses a heater configured to heat the liquid vaporizable material, ([0046] a heating element and a wicking element provided within the cartomizer body, where the wicking element transports the liquid to the resistive heating element). Verleur further comprises a heater chamber and a resistive heating element disposed at least partially within the heater chamber see selection below reproduced from Fig 1.
PNG
media_image2.png
173
388
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 26-29 and 36-37, modified Verluer discloses the electronic vaporization device of claims 21 and 35. Modified Verluer discloses the cartridge has a first exterior cartridge wall, each having surfaces, where the rectangular cross section is provided by the opposite walls joined to third and fourth opposite walls, each also having surfaces, forming a contained volume which holds the vaporizable liquid. Verleur discloses the cartridge receptacle depicted as generally rectangular, and reasonably disclosing four interior walls, in pairs opposite to each other, where at least a portion of the fluid storage compartment is disposed within the cartridge is secured within the cartridge receptacle, see Fig 15.
Regarding claim 31, modified Verluer discloses the electronic vaporization device of claims 30 and 35. Although modified Verleur discloses that the first and second locking detent may comprise a spring loaded member, the modifying reference Scatterday does not require a particular location on the device base for the locking detents.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Verleur to provide the locking detents at a location disposed within 5 mm of the bottom of the cartridge receptacle. Modified Verleur comprises the locking detents at a location on the cartridge receptacle walls, but does not disclose that the locking detents are within 5 mm of the bottom of the wall. Rearrangement of Parts is considered to be an obvious matter of design choice, MPEP 2144.04 VI. C. Here one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the locking detents to function similarly regarding their location, provided that the matching locking gap is appropriately located to mate with the locking detent when the cartridge is fully inserted and seated within the device base/receptacle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select any number of workable locations, including within 5 mm of the bottom of the receptacle wall, to facilitate manufacturing or protect the locking detent from accidental contact and potential damage by a user, to ensure the cartridge is largely immobilized before it is seated.
Regarding claims 33 and 34, modified Verluer discloses the electronic vaporization device of claim 21. Verleur further discloses the cartridge further comprises an air channel disposed within the fluid storage compartment and through the liquid vaporizable material, wherein the air channel is configured for passage of vaporized material from the resistive heating element towards the mouthpiece which comprises the aerosol outlet, ([0005] see also Fig 1).
Claim(s) 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verleur et al. (US 2015/0305409 A1) cited one of the IDS of 3/16/2021 of Con 16/864007 cite ED and the IDS of 3/5/2018 of Con 15/430357 cite ZP, in view of Ademe et al. (US 2015/0313282 A1) cited in the IDS of 3/5/2018 of Con 15/430357 on pg 40 row 29, and Scatterday (US 2015/0327595 A1) cited in one of the IDS of 3/16/2021 of Con 16/864007 cite EH and the IDS of 3/5/2018 of Con 15/430357 on pg 49 row 16, as applied to claim 22 above, and in further view of Novak, III et al. (US 2014/0261495 A1) cited in one of the IDS of 3/16/2021 of Con 16/864007 cite BH and the IDS of 3/5/2018 of Con 15/430357 cite NN.
Regarding claims 23-24, modified Verluer discloses the electronic vaporization device of claim 21. Verleur does not disclose the cartridge further comprises a pair of machined or stamped metal contacts configured to secure free ends of the resistive heating element.
Novak teaches a cartridge for an aerosol delivery device comprising a reservoir substrate and an atomizer configured to atomize the aerosol precursor, ([0005]), and is thus within the inventor’s field of endeavor. Novak further teaches that the atomizer and a connector end are configured to releasably engage a control body, ([0005]). Novak teaches a first heater terminal and a second heater terminal, ([0068]-[0069] with Fig 10 depicting heater terminals comprising tabs that support and suspend the heater, see Refs 436a, 436b, heating element ref 440). Novak teaches that the heater terminals may be stamped or otherwise formed from a sheet of metal material, ([0069]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have simply substituted one known element for another to obtain predictable results, MPEP 2143, I. Examples of Rationales (B). Here the prior art of modified Verleur contained a device which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of a heater comprising the teachings of Novak, which include the stamped contacts configured to secure the ends of the resistive heating element. One of ordinary skill in the art would have known the function of the substituted components, and substituted the contacts and configuration of the heater as provided for in Verleur with the contacts and configuration of the heater as provided for in Novak, and such substitution would have been predictable, resulting in a workable heater connectable to the battery in the base device via the pogo connectors in the base of Verleur to receive power and vaporize the vaporizable material to produce an aerosol for inhalation.
Regarding claim 25, modified Verluer discloses the electronic vaporization device of claim 23. Novak teaches the cartridge further comprises an enclosure configured to couple the heater to the first end of the cartridge, and wherein the enclosure further comprises openings through which each of the first electrical contacts extend, ([0078] Fig 11, refs 450a, 450b). It is further considered obvious to arrange the electrical contacts in separate openings to prevent inadvertent contact between the two electrical contacts, to avoid shorting the circuit.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verleur et al. (US 2015/0305409 A1) cited in one of the IDS of 3/16/2021 of Con 16/864007 cite ED and the IDS of 3/5/2018 of Con 15/430357 cite ZP, in view of Ademe et al. (US 2015/0313282 A1) cited in the IDS of 3/5/2018 of Con 15/430357 on pg 40 row 29, and Scatterday (US 2015/0327595 A1) cited in one of the IDS of 3/16/2021 of Con 16/864007 cite EH and the IDS of 3/5/2018 of Con 15/430357 on pg 49 row 16, as applied to claim 21 above, and in further view of Anderson et al. (US 2015/0313275 A1) cited in the IDS of 3/5/2018 of Con 15/430357 cite ZR.
Regarding claim 32, modified Verluer discloses the electronic vaporization device of claim 21.
Ademe teaches that the aerosol precursor may include ingredients that exhibit acidic characteristics, for example organic acids, which are part of an aerosol precursor formulation comprising nicotine, ([0071]). Ademe does not teach that the nicotine formulation comprises a nicotine salt.
Anderson teaches an e-vaping device, ([0007]), and is thus within the inventor’s field of endeavor. Anderson teaches an e-vaping device configured to provide a pleasant sensory experience for adult smokers, ([0009]), and that a liquid aerosol formulation includes an aerosol former, nicotine, and an acid, where the formulation is configured to provide a majority amount of protonated nicotine in the aerosol and a minority amount of unprotonated nicotine in the aerosol, ([0011]). Anderson teaches that the acid is operative on the aerosol so as to reduce an amount of nicotine content in the gas phase of the aerosol in comparison to the aerosol formed in the absence of the acid, ([0012]), which reduces the amount of throat harshness in comparison to aerosols formed without the acid, ([0013]), listing several organic acids that are workable, ([0025]). Anderson further suggests that the nicotine may be added to the formulation as a salt, ([0142]).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Verleur according to the teachings of Anderson on the basis of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, MPEP 2143 I. Examples of Rationales, (B). Verleur disclosed a prior art device with a liquid vaporizable composition, but did not disclose tat the liquid composition comprised an organic acid and nicotine salt. Ademe and Anderson both disclose organic acids combined with nicotine, with Anderson further disclosing that the nicotine may be provided in the form of a salt within the formulation. Anderson also teaches the function of the acid in the formulation, to reduce the perceived throat harshness from aerosolizing the formulation. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the known formulation comprising an organic acid and nicotine salt for the formulation in Verleur, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable, a liquid vapor composition that produces less perceived throat harshness compared to a formulation without the acid.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 19-38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 19, 33-35 of U.S. Patent No. 10104915. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 19 and 35, 10104915 discloses:
a cartridge having a first end and a second end opposite the first end, claim 34 disclosing a cartridge having a bottom end and a top end opposite the bottom end along a first dimension;
an aerosol outlet proximate the second end of the cartridge, claim 34 disclosing an aerosol outlet at the top end of the cartridge;
a fluid storage compartment holding a liquid vaporizable material, claim 34 disclosing a storage compartment configured to hold a material, which is aerosolizable by the heating element;
a first exterior cartridge wall comprising a first locking gap, claim 34 disclosing a first locking gap disposed proximate the bottom end of the storage compartment and formed within the first exterior wall,
a second exterior cartridge wall comprising a second locking gap, claim 34 disclosing a second locking gap disposed proximate the bottom end of the storage compartment and formed within the second exterior wall,
a heater configured to heat the liquid vaporizable material, claim 34 disclosing a heating element proximate to the bottom end of the cartridge, the heating element configured to aerosolize the material;
a first pair of electrical contacts configured to provide power to the heater, claim 34 disclosing a first electrical contact and a second electrical contact configured and disposed to couple and complete an electrical circuit with the third electrical contact and the fourth electrical contact, the electrical circuit configured to provide power to the heating element;
a device body comprising, claim 34 disclosing a vaporizer device comprising,
a cartridge receptacle configured to insertably receive the first end of the cartridge claim 34 disclosing a receptacle,
a first interior receptacle wall comprising a first locking detent configured to couple with the first locking gap, a second interior receptacle wall comprising a second locking detent configured to couple with the second locking gap claim 34 disclosing a first locking detent and a second locking detent within the receptacle,
wherein coupling the first and second locking detent to the first and second locking gap secures the first end of the cartridge within the cartridge receptacle, claim 34 contemplating this outcome based on the expected configuration of the structures
a power source, claim 34 disclosing the electrical circuit configured to provide power to the heating element;
a second pair of electrical contact configured to contact the first pair of electrical contacts of the cartridge, claim 34 disclosing a third electrical contact and a fourth electrical contact disposedwithin the receptacle;
the second pair of electrical contact configured electrically couple to the first pair of electrical contacts to power the heater via the battery, claim 34 disclosing a first electrical contact and a second electrical contact configured and disposed to couple and complete an electrical circuit with the third electrical contact and the fourth electrical contact, the electrical circuit configured to provide power to the heating element; the electrical circuit is interpreted as including a battery consistent with the specification [0139];
where further claim limitations requiring dimensional/relational limitations comprising design choices considered to be obvious under MPEP 2144.04, such as the requirement that the first pair of electrical contacts are exposed proximate to a bottom of the first end of the cartridge..
Claims 20-34, and 36-38 are further rejected based on 10104915 claim 19-48, along with interpretations of claim limitations described in the reference Specification, such as ([0319]-[0320] pogo pins), ([203] forming integral contacts by stamping), ([0041] disclosing the particular arrangement), ([0311] interpreting locking gap, ([0314] interpreting locking detent), ([0017] suggesting that the vaporizable material may include any suitable vaporizable material, such as a nicotine salt solution, the technique of modifying a nicotine salt solution with organic acid being known (see Anderson in the rejections above) to improve the sensory effect of the aerosol, and further modifications by design choices considered obvious see MPEP 2144.04, Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale I-VI, such as duplication of parts, rearrangement of parts, and making parts integral.
All of the claims of the present Application are obvious variants of the claimed subject matter of issued patent US 10104915.
Claims 19-38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-80 of U.S. Patent No. 10638792. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 19 and 35, 10638792 discloses:
a cartridge having a first end and a second end opposite the first end, claim 59 disclosing a cartridge having a first end and a second end opposite the first end along a longitudinal dimension;
an aerosol outlet proximate the second end of the cartridge, claim 59 disclosing a mouthpiece disposed at the first end reasonably interpreted as including an aerosol outlet;
a fluid storage compartment holding a liquid vaporizable material, claim 59 disclosing a storage compartment configured to hold a liquid vaporizable material;
a first exterior cartridge wall comprising a first locking gap, claim 59 disclosing a first locking gap disposed proximate the bottom end of the storage compartment and formed within the first exterior wall,
a second exterior cartridge wall comprising a second locking gap, claim 59 disclosing a second locking gap disposed proximate the bottom end of the storage compartment and formed within the second exterior wall,
a heater configured to heat the liquid vaporizable material, claim 59 disclosing a heating element proximate to the bottom end of the cartridge, the heating element configured to aerosolize the material;
a first pair of electrical contacts configured to provide power to the heater, claim 59 disclosing a a pair of electrical contacts electrically coupled to the heating element, the pair of electrical contacts configured to provide power to the heating element;
a device body comprising, claim 59 disclosing a vaporizer device comprising,
a cartridge receptacle configured to insertably receive the first end of the cartridge claim 59 disclosing a receptacle,
a first interior receptacle wall comprising a first locking detent configured to couple with the first locking gap, a second interior receptacle wall comprising a second locking detent configured to couple with the second locking gap claim 59 disclosing a first locking detent and a second locking detent within the receptacle,
wherein coupling the first and second locking detent to the first and second locking gap secures the first end of the cartridge within the cartridge receptacle, claim 59 contemplating this outcome based on the expected configuration of the structures;
a power source, claim 59 disclosing the pair of electrical contacts configured to provide power to the heating element when electrically coupled to the pair of receptacle contacts, reasonably disclosing a power source, (see also Specification [0035]);
a second pair of electrical contact configured to contact the first pair of electrical contacts of the cartridge, claim 59 disclosing a pair of receptacle contacts within the receptacle;
the second pair of electrical contact configured electrically couple to the first pair of electrical contacts to power the heater via the battery, claim 59 disclosing a pair of electrical contacts electrically coupled to the heating element, the pair of electrical contacts configured to provide power to the heating element when electrically coupled to the pair of receptacle contacts; interpreted as including a battery consistent with the specification ([0035]);
where claim limitations requiring further dimensional/relational limitations comprising design choices considered to be obvious under MPEP 2144.04, Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale I-VI.
Claims 20-34, and 36-38 are further rejected based on 10638792 claims 1-80, along with interpretations of claim limitations described in the reference, such as ([claim 60], Specification [0319]-[0320] pogo pins), ([203] forming integral contacts by stamping), ([0041] disclosing the particular arrangement), ([0311] interpreting locking gap, ([0314] interpreting locking detent), ([0017] suggesting that the vaporizable material may include any suitable vaporizable material, such as a nicotine salt solution, the technique of modifying a nicotine salt solution with organic acid being known (see Anderson in the rejections above) to improve the sensory effect of the aerosol, and further modifications by design choices considered obvious, see MPEP 2144.04, Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale I-VI, such as duplication of parts, rearrangement of parts, and making parts integral.
All of the claims of the present Application are obvious variants of the claimed subject matter of issued patent US 10638792.
Claims 19-38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21-42 of U.S. Patent No. 10070669. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 19 and 35, 10070669 discloses:
a cartridge having a first end and a second end opposite the first end, claim 33;
an aerosol outlet proximate the second end of the cartridge, claim 33 disclosing a mouthpiece reasonably interpreted as including an aerosol outlet;
a fluid storage compartment holding a liquid vaporizable material, claim 33;
a first exterior cartridge wall comprising a first locking gap, claim 38,
a second exterior cartridge wall comprising a second locking gap, claim 38 disclosing the first locking gap, MPEP 2144.04 I-VI, rearrangement/duplication of parts is obvious, Specification ([0017] suggesting a pair of locking gaps on lateral sides of the cartridge), rendering a second locking gap obvious),
a heater configured to heat the liquid vaporizable material, claim 33;
a first pair of electrical contacts configured to provide power to the heater, claim 39;
a device body comprising, claim 33 disclosing a vaporizer device comprising,
a cartridge receptacle configured to insertably receive the first end of the cartridge claim 33,
a first interior receptacle wall comprising a first locking detent configured to couple with the first locking gap, claim 38;
a second interior receptacle wall comprising a second locking detent configured to couple with the second locking gap claim 38 disclosing the first locking detent, MPEP 2144.04 I-VI, rearrangement/duplication of parts is obvious, Specification ([0017] suggesting a pair of locking detents on lateral sides of the receptacle), rendering a second locking detent obvious),
wherein coupling the first and second locking detent to the first and second locking gap secures the first end of the cartridge within the cartridge receptacle this outcome based on the expected configuration of the structures;
a power source, claim 39;
a second pair of electrical contact configured to contact the first pair of electrical contacts of the cartridge, claim 39;
the second pair of electrical contact configured electrically couple to the first pair of electrical contacts to power the heater via the battery, claim 39 the power source interpreted as including a battery consistent with the specification ([0053]);
where claim limitations requiring further dimensional/relational limitations comprising design choices considered to be obvious under MPEP 2144.04, Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale I-VI.
Claims 20-34, and 36-38 are further rejected based on 10070669 claims 21-42, along with interpretations of claim limitations described in the reference, such as Specification 0020] pogo pins), ([225] forming integral contacts by stamping), (the Specification describing many possible arrangements for the cartridge and device, not limited to[0015]-[0017], [0028]), ([0333] interpreting locking gap, ([0336]] interpreting locking detent), ([0019] suggesting that the vaporizable material may include any suitable vaporizable material, such as a nicotine solutions, the technique of modifying a nicotine salt solution with organic acid being known (see Anderson in the rejections above) to improve the sensory effect of the aerosol, and further modifications by design choices considered obvious, see MPEP 2144.04, Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale I-VI, such as duplication of parts, rearrangement of parts, and making parts integral.
All of the claims of the present Application are obvious variants of the claimed subject matter of issued patent US 10070669.
Claims 19 and 36-38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 6-7, 19-20, 165-166, 168-177, 194-199, 201-203, 206-208, and 210-216 of U.S. Patent No. 11452177 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 19 and 35, 11452177 discloses:
a cartridge having a first end and a second end opposite the first end, claim 194;
an aerosol outlet proximate the second end of the cartridge, claim 194;
a fluid storage compartment holding a liquid vaporizable material, claim 194;
a first exterior cartridge wall comprising a first locking gap, claim 215 snap fit reasonably interpreted to include two locking gaps and locking detents, see Spec [0200] as well as Fig 9 depicting a snap fit comprising a gap and a protrusion,
a second exterior cartridge wall comprising a second locking gap, claim 215 snap fit reasonably interpreted to include two locking gaps and locking detents, see Spec [0200] as well as Fig 9 depicting a snap fit comprising a gap and a protrusion,
a heater configured to heat the liquid vaporizable material, claim 194;
a first pair of electrical contacts configured to provide power to the heater, claim 196;
a device body comprising, claim 194 disclosing a vaporizer device comprising,
a cartridge receptacle configured to insertably receive the first end of the cartridge claim 33,
a first interior receptacle wall comprising a first locking detent configured to couple with the first locking gap, claim 215, snap fit reasonably interpreted to include two locking gaps and locking detents, see Spec [0200] as well as Fig 9 depicting a snap fit comprising a gap and a protrusion;
a second interior receptacle wall comprising a second locking detent configured to couple with the second locking gap claim 215, snap fit reasonably interpreted to include two locking gaps and locking detents, see Spec [0200] as well as Fig 9 depicting a snap fit comprising a gap and a protrusion,
wherein coupling the first and second locking detent to the first and second locking gap secures the first end of the cartridge within the cartridge receptacle this outcome based on the expected configuration of the structures;
a power source, claim 194;
a second pair of electrical contact configured to contact the first pair of electrical contacts of the cartridge, claim 216;
the second pair of electrical contact configured electrically couple to the first pair of electrical contacts to power the heater via the battery, claims 194, 216 the power source interpreted as including a battery consistent with the specification ([0079]);
where claim limitations requiring further dimensional/relational limitations comprising design choices considered to be obvious under MPEP 2144.04, Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale I-VI.
Claims 36-38 are further rejected based on 11452177 claims 1-2, 6-7, 19-20, 165-166, 168-177, 194-199, 201-203, 206-208, and 210-216, along with interpretations of claim limitations described in the reference Specification, see MPEP 2144.04, Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale I-VI, such as duplication of parts, rearrangement of parts, and making parts integral.
Claims 19 and 36-38 of the present Application are obvious variants of the claimed subject matter of issued patent US 11452177.
Claims 19-38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-37 of U.S. Patent No. 10159282. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 19 and 35, 10159282 discloses:
a cartridge having a first end and a second end opposite the first end, claim 1;
an aerosol outlet proximate the second end of the cartridge, claim 1 disclosing a mouthpiece reasonably interpreted as including an aerosol outlet;
a fluid storage compartment holding a liquid vaporizable material, claim 1
a first exterior cartridge lateral wall and a second exterior cartridge lateral wall each comprising a locking gap, claim 1 disclosing a mating region that mates with a detent on each of a pair of lateral sides, reasonably disclosing a pair of locking gaps,
a heater configured to heat the liquid vaporizable material, claim 1;
a first pair of electrical contacts configured to provide power to the heater, claim 1;
a device body comprising, claim 1 disclosing a vaporizer device comprising,
a cartridge receptacle configured to insertably receive the first end of the cartridge claim 1,
a first interior receptacle lateral wall and a second receptacle lateral wall each comprising a locking detent configured to couple with the locking gaps (regions) on the cartridge, claim 1;
wherein coupling the first and second locking detent to the first and second locking gap secures the first end of the cartridge within the cartridge receptacle this outcome based on the expected configuration of the structures;
a power source, considered inherent for a device with a resistive heater;
a second pair of electrical contact configured to contact the first pair of electrical contacts of the cartridge, claim 1;
the second pair of electrical contact configured electrically couple to the first pair of electrical contacts to power the heater via the battery, interpreted as part of the inherent power source, which includes obvious variants including a battery consistent with the specification ([0055]);
where claim limitations requiring further dimensional/relational limitations comprising design choices considered to be obvious under MPEP 2144.04, Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale I-VI.
Claims 20-34, and 36-38 are further rejected based on 10159282 claims 1-37, along with interpretations of claim limitations described in the reference, such as Specification [0341] pogo pins), ([227] forming integral contacts by stamping), (the Specification describing many possible arrangements for the cartridge and device, not limited to[0015]-[0018], [0027]-[0029]), ([0335] interpreting locking gap, ([0338]] interpreting locking determent (detent)), ([0021] suggesting that the vaporizable material may include any suitable vaporizable material, such as a nicotine solutions, the technique of modifying a nicotine salt solution with organic acid being known (see Anderson in the rejections above) to improve the sensory effect of the aerosol, and further modifications by design choices considered obvious, see MPEP 2144.04, Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale I-VI, such as duplication of parts, rearrangement of parts, and making parts integral.
All of the claims of the present Application are obvious variants of the claimed subject matter of issued patent US 10159282.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL E VAKILI whose telephone number is (571)272-5171. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 4:30 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, Michael H. Wilson can be reached at (571) 270-3882. 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.
/D.E.V./Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/KATHERINE A WILL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1747