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
Claims 1 and 17-19 are amended. Claims 15 and 16 are cancelled. Claims 19 and 20 are withdrawn. Claims 1-14 and 17-18 are presently examined.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the objection to the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of 9/15/2025 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the objection to the specification for allegedly incorporating new matter have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of 9/15/2025 is withdrawn. It is noted, however, that the Office action of 9/15/2025 did not object to the specification for improper use of trade names and/or marks used in commerce, but merely indicated instances in which applicant permissibly and properly used such names and/or marks.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the interpretations under 35 USC 112(f) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The interpretation of 9/15/2025 with respect to claim 17 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under 35 USC 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of 9/15/2025 are overcome.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of 9/15/2025 are overcome.
Specification
The use of the terms Bluetooth (page 19, second paragraph), Wi-Fi (page 19, second paragraph), which are trade names or marks used in commerce, have been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized wherever they appear or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites the limitation “means for wireless transfer of electrical power,” which is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). A review of applicant’s specification indicates that the corresponding structure is a charging pad (page 10, fifth paragraph, page 11, first paragraph).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 18 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.
Regarding claim 18, the contains the trademarks/trade names Bluetooth and Wi-Fi. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe wireless communications protocols and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the claim will be interpreted as if it required any wireless communications protocol.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-12 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Bowen (US 2018/0093054) in view of Bellinger (US 10,362,803).
Regarding claim 1, Bowen discloses a vaporizer that establishes wireless communication with a dedicated piece of hardware such as a remote control device [0044], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a user interface module. The remote control device has an outer limit ([0061], figure 3, reference numeral 305), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a housing. The device has a network interface that effectuates wireless communications ([0236], figure 22, reference numeral 2240) with an aerosol provision device [0061], and a display (figure 22, reference numeral 2230) and user interface ([0237], figure 22, reference numeral 2250), which together are considered to define a user interface module. The user interacts with the user interface to control the vaporizer [0241]. Bowen additionally discloses that the memory includes instructions that are executed on a processor [0236] to provide for user control of the vaporizer [0235]. The user device includes memory in the form of a solid state memory [0236], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of internal computer memory. The wireless communications occur via first communication hardware in the user device, which are considered to meet the claim limitation of components of the user-interface module, that communicate with second communication hardware of the vaporizer [0151]. The device controls operation of the vaporizer through the input received from a user [0152]. Bowen does not explicitly disclose the instructions on the memory being provided by the user.
Bellinger teaches an electronic vaporizer (abstract) having a memory that stores device temperature parameters that are configured by a user (column 5, lines 19-33) so that the user can customize their experience (column 2, lines 48-60).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the memory of Bowen with the temperature parameters of Bellinger. One would have been motivated to do so since Bellinger teaches that storing parameters in memory allows a user to customize their experience.
Regarding claim 2, Bowen discloses that the display displays information regarding vaporizer operation to a user [0237].
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Bowen discloses that the display has touchscreen integrated with it [0237].
Regarding claim 6, Bowen discloses that the user input may be received by a cursor button on a screen [0044], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a button.
Regarding claim 7, Bowen discloses that feedback may be provided to a user in the form of auditory feedback [0253].
Regarding claim 8, Bowen discloses that feedback may be provided to a user in the form of tactile feedback [0253].
Regarding claim 9, Bowen discloses that the input from the user may be received in acoustic form [0253].
Regarding claim 10, Bowen discloses that input from the user may be received in tactile form [0253].
Regarding claim 11, Bowen discloses that the remove device has a power source [0238], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an internal power supply.
Regarding claim 12, Bowen discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Bowen additionally discloses that the vaporizer itself has a power source in the form of a rechargeable battery [0050]. Bowen does not explicitly disclose the power source of the remote device being in the form of a rechargeable battery.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the power source of the remote device of Bowen be the rechargeable battery of Bowen. One would have been motivated to do so since Bowen discloses that rechargeable batteries are suitable power sources.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Bowen discloses that the device communicates the with vaporizer via Bluetooth [0062], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a wireless communications protocol.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowen (US 2018/0093054) in view of Bellinger (US 10,362,803) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cronin (US RE 50,572).
Regarding claim 3, modified Bowen teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Bowen does not explicitly teach the display being an LED display.
Cronin teaches a display device in the form of an LED display that communicates a displayable image (column 17, lines 20-37).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the display of modified Bowen for the LED display of Cronin. One would have been motivated to do so since Cronin teaches an LED display that produces a displayable image. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See MPEP § 2143, B.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowen (US 2018/0093054) in view of Bellinger (US 10,362,803) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Bagai (US 11,103,013).
Regarding claim 13, modified Bowen teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Bowen does not explicitly teach the power source of the remote device supplying power to the vaporizer.
Bagai teaches an e-cigarette that receives current transmitted from an external battery or other electronic device (column 5, lines 21-34) so that charging of the e-cigarette can be facilitated (column 1, lines 48-60).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the remote device of modified Bowen with the external battery of Bagai. One would have been motivated to do so since Bagai discloses a separate electronic device that facilitates charging an e-cigarette. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See MPEP § 2143, C.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowen (US 2018/0093054) in view of Bellinger (US 10,362,803) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eweidah (US 11,140,920).
Regarding claim 14, modified Bowen teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Bowen additionally discloses that the vaporizer itself has a power source in the form of a rechargeable battery [0050]. Modified Bowen does not explicitly teach (a) the power source of the remote device being in the form of a rechargeable battery and (b) the battery of the remote device being wirelessly recharged.
Regarding (a), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the power source of the remote device of modified Bowen be the rechargeable battery of Bowen. One would have been motivated to do so since Bowen discloses that rechargeable batteries are suitable power sources.
Regarding (b), Eweidah teaches a compact vaping device (abstract) that has a rechargeable battery that powered via a wireless charging pad that uses an induction coil feature (column 4, lines 42-59).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recharge the rechargeable battery of modified Bowen using the wireless charging pad of Eweidah. One would have been motivated to do so since Eweidah teaches that wireless charging pads are suited for charging batteries.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 112(b), the rejection of claim 18 for improperly using a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product is maintained since applicant inadvertently omitted any response to this specific grounds of rejection.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues (a) that Bellinger does not teach storing the claimed information in a memory and (b) that the dependent claims are allowable due to dependence on an allowable claim.
Regarding (a), the limitations that discuss what information is stored by the user-interface module and how that data is communicated to the vaporizer are disclosed by Bowen. Bellinger is relied upon only for its teaching of storing data of any sort to a memory. Applicant’s arguments regarding the specific type and purpose of data stored to memory in Bellinger are therefore not relevant to the propriety of the combination.
Regarding (b), all examined claims, including the examined independent claim, are rejected as set forth above.
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 RUSSELL E SPARKS whose telephone number is (571)270-1426. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5 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, 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.
/RUSSELL E SPARKS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights