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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-7, 9, 11-15, and 38-40 in the reply filed on 03/06/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant’s cancellation of claims 17-22 and 26 is also entered. Claims 1-7, 9, 11-15, and 38-40 are pending and examined herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed 05/24/2023 appears to contain a typo in U.S. Patent Applications Publications at l. 2. The IDS lists US 2011/6033103 A1 to Cameron et al. published 2016-11-17, but the Examiner is unable to locate any US publication with this number and thus the reference has not been considered. The Examiner suspects that the Applicant intended to cite US 2016/0331036 A1, because this publication matches the inventor/publication date of Applicant’s IDS, and this publication was cited in the International Search Report but was not cited elsewhere in Applicant’s IDS. US 2016/0331036 A1 has been fully considered and is cited in the claim rejections below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 106, described as an “opening” at [0068-69]. It appears to the Examiner that 108 has been inadvertently repeated in Fig. 2 and one instance should be replaced with 106.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
at [0059], the specification recites “i.e., the second liquid odes not contain the active substance” which appears to be a typo of “i.e., the second liquid does not contain the active substance”.
at [0008, 0024, and 0060], the specification recites “nicotine slat” which appears to be a typo of “nicotine salt”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-7, 9, 11-15, and 38-40 are directed to a “portion of a vaporization device”. The claims also introduce a “cartridge” and sub-components thereof (e.g., first and second reservoir, first and second atomizer, first and second liquid), as well as a “power source” and an “air passageway”, but these are not positively recited components of the “portion of a vaporization device” in the claims (see also specification at [0056-0088] and Figs. 2-3, disclosing main portion 12, cartridge 14, and sub-components of each). The Examiner notes that the power source 42 is disclosed as part of the main portion 12 at [0058] and Fig. 2, and thus the claims could be amended to positively recite the “power source” without raising an indefiniteness or new matter issue. However, first and second passageways 80, 82 are disclosed as part of the cartridge 14 at [0066] and Fig. 2, and thus the claimed “air passageway” seems to be a part of the “cartridge” (compare with first and second conduct sections 122, 124 which are part of the main portion 12, disclosed at [0076], Fig. 3, and claim 14). For purposes of this office action, in claims 1-7, 9, 11-15, and 38-40, the recited “cartridge”, sub-components of the “cartridge”, the “power source”, and the “air passageway” are not considered to be structural components of the claimed “portion of a vaporization device” and are considered to have patentable weight only to the extent they dictate the structure of the claimed “portion of a vaporization device”. See MPEP 2115; see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935).
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following minor informalities:
Claim 3 is objected to because it recites “a nicotine slat” which appears to be a typo of “a nicotine salt”;
Claim 9 is objected to because it recites “according at least one control loop” which appears to be a typo of “according to at least one control loop”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cameron (US 2016/0331036 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cameron is directed to vaporizable material handling for electronic vapor device (Title). The electronic vapor device includes a vaporizer (the vaporizer and additional components of the device described below together read on a “portion of a vaporization device” as claimed) (Abstract):
The vaporizer 300 includes a housing (“body”) ([0048], Fig. 3). The vaporizer 300 includes two containers 202a,b (“cartridge-mating portion”) which receive and removably engage cartridges 206a,b [0091]. The claim language “the cartridge comprising a first reservoir containing a first liquid, a first atomizer for vaporizing the first liquid, a second reservoir containing a second liquid, and a second atomizer for vaporizing the second liquid” forms no structural part of the “portion of a vaporization device” as discussed above in Claim Interpretation. Nevertheless, Cameron discloses the two cartridge 206a,b which contain fluids to be vaporized, as well as wicks 204a,b and a heating element 214 ([0087, 0091], Fig. 3);
The electronic vapor device 100 includes a flow sensor 116 (“sensor” for measuring “pressure” of inflowing air) which can detect a resultant pressure when a user inhales [0062]. Cameron also discloses additional sensors 1516, 1518 which may include flow speed sensors [0149];
The device 100 includes a processor 102 (“controller”) which can include a microcontroller [0048]. The processor 102 can determine a vaporization rate for each vaporizable material based on data detected by the flow sensor 116, such as an amount of suction applied [0062, 0085] (which reads on the “determining” as claimed);
The processor 102 controls the vaporization rates based on data from the flow sensor 116 [0062, 0085, 0091] (which reads on the claimed “controlling” performed “when the cartridge is removably connected to the cartridge-mating portion”). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that such vaporizing is performed only when the cartridges 206a,b are coupled to the vaporizer 300.
PNG
media_image1.png
796
676
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2-3, the claim language recites features of the “cartridge” which forms no structural part of the claimed “portion of a vaporization device” (see Claim Interpretation above). Nevertheless, Cameron discloses that suitable fluids include nicotine [0140] and may be blended with other materials such as flavorants [0043] or non-vaporizable materials to control the concentration of nicotine [0143, 0156, 0174], and thus Cameron’s vaporizer 300 and device 100 are capable of operation with a cartridge “wherein the first liquid comprises an active substance and the second liquid is free from the active substance” per claim 2 and “wherein the active substance comprises one of a nicotine” per claim 3, for instance by including nicotine in the first cartridge 206a and a flavorant (without nicotine) in the second cartridge 206b.
Regarding claim 11, Fig. 3 illustrates an air input (“air inlet”), and Cameron describes air entering the device 100 [0070, 0073]. The device 100 includes an outlet 114 (“air outlet”) for exiting vapor ([0069], Figs. 1, 3). Fig. 3 illustrates an air path extending between the air input and an exhaust port 212 which is in communication with the outlet 114 [0091], and at least a portion of this air path may be considered the recited “air passageway” (the Examiner notes that the “air passageway” is not a required claim element, see Claim Interpretation above).
Regarding claim 13, the containers 202a,b are coupled to the vaporizer 300 via wicks 204a,b [0091], and Fig. 3 illustrates the portion of the air path (“air passageway”) intersecting the “interface” between the cartridges 206a,b and the vaporizer 300.
Regarding claim 14, Fig. 3 illustrates the air path extending between the air input and an exhaust port 212 which is in communication with the outlet 114 [0091], and the remainder of this air path may be considered the claimed “air conduct extending from the air passageway”. The flow sensor 116 is also in communication with the outlet 114 [0062] and is thus “in communication with the air conduct” as claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 4-5, 12, 15, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cameron (US 2016/0331036 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Cameron fails to specifically disclose the processor 102 being “configured for accessing a database comprising predefined vaporization rates and one of respective pressures and respective flow rates for determining the first vaporization rate and the second vaporization rate”. However, Cameron discloses using the processor 102 to determine and control the vaporization rates based on pressure data from the flow sensor 116 as set forth above in the discussion of claim 1. Cameron further discloses that the processor 102 can be coupled to a memory device 104 storing program instructions and data [0049], Cameron discloses a server that can provide one or more vaporization rates to the vapor device 100 to control the rate at which one or more vaporizable materials is vaporized [0051], Cameron discloses that the processor 102 can access a database in the memory device 104 [0080], and Cameron discloses a database 1214 storing files, user records, and other device info [0120, 0122, 0152]. Thus, it would be obvious to include “predefined vaporization rates” and “respective pressures” in the database of the memory device 104 “for determining the first vaporization rate and the second vaporization rate” as claimed, because Cameron generally discloses such functionality for various components and in various embodiments of the device 100.
Regarding claim 5, Cameron does not specifically discuss the heating temperature and thus fails to specifically disclose “the controller being configured for determining the first heating temperature and the second heating temperature based on the one of the measured pressure and the measured flow rate”. However, Cameron discloses a temperature sensor and discloses that the rate of vaporization may be controlled by controlling power to the heating element [0145]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a heating temperature is generally a function of the power supplied to a resistive heating element. Thus, it would be obvious to configure the processor 102 to determine appropriate heating temperatures for the cartridges 206a,b as part of the determination of the rates of vaporization and power supplied to the heating element, which reads on the claim language.
The Examiner further notes that the claim language “wherein the first vaporization rate is equivalent to a first heating temperature for the first liquid and the second vaporization rate is equivalent to a second heating temperature for the second liquid” merely describes a natural relationship between the liquids, their heating temperatures, and their vaporization rates, and thus does not limit the device.
Regarding claim 12, Cameron fails to specifically disclose the flow sensor 116 being “positioned along the air passageway so as to face the air inlet”. However, the flow sensor 116 detects pressure as a user draws on the outlet 114 [0062], and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the flow sensor 116 to be positioned somewhere along the air path. It would be a simple and obvious rearrangement of parts to position the flow sensor 116 facing the air input illustrated in Fig. 3. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C); see also In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); see also In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 15, Cameron fails to specifically disclose the flow sensor 116 including “one of an atmospheric sensor, a microphone, a piezoelectric pressure sensor and a pressure transducer” as claimed. However, Cameron discloses additional sensors 1516, 1518 to provide measurement feedback to the processor, and the sensors 1516, 1518 can include microphones (“microphone”) [0149]. Thus, it would be obvious to use a microphone for the flow sensor 116 which similarly provides data to the processor 102 as set forth above in the discussion of claim 1.
Regarding claim 40, Cameron fails to specifically disclose the flow sensor 116 including “one of an ultrasonic flow sensor and a machinal flow sensor” as claimed. However, Cameron discloses additional sensors 1516, 1518 to provide measurement feedback to the processor, and the sensors 1516, 1518 can include flow speed sensors (“machinal flow sensor”; the Examiner notes that the term “machinal flow sensor” is not a recognized type of flow sensor in the art, the word “machinal” is not defined in the specification and is generally understood as an adjective pertaining to machines, and thus a flow speed sensor in the prior art reads on the claim term) [0149]. Thus, it would be obvious to use a flow speed sensor for the flow sensor 116 which similarly provides data to the processor 102 as set forth above in the discussion of claim 1.
Claims 6-7 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cameron (US 2016/0331036 A1) in view of Atkins (US 2019/0124982 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 6, Cameron renders obvious the portion of the vaporization device of claim 5 because Cameron discloses a temperature sensor and discloses that the rate of vaporization may be controlled by controlling power to the heating element [0145], as set forth above. Cameron fails to specifically disclose the processor 102 being “configured for accessing a database comprising predefined temperatures and one of respective pressures and respective flow rates for determining the first heating temperature and the second heating temperature” as claimed. Cameron also discloses using the processor 102 to determine and control the vaporization rates based on pressure data from the flow sensor 116 as set forth above in the discussion of claim 1. Cameron further discloses that the processor 102 can be coupled to a memory device 104 storing program instructions and data [0049], Cameron discloses a server that can provide one or more vaporization rates to the vapor device 100 to control the rate at which one or more vaporizable materials is vaporized [0051], Cameron discloses that the processor 102 can access a database in the memory device 104 [0080], and Cameron discloses a database 1214 storing files, user records, and other device info [0120, 0122, 0152].
Atkins is directed to aerosol devices having compartmentalized materials (Title). Atkins discloses pre-set vaporization temperatures for heating two vaporizable materials and controlling heating elements to achieve such vaporization temperatures [0021, 0121, 0124]. Atkins further discloses using such temperature control to control the ratio of materials vaporized [0177, 0179-80]. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Cameron could similarly be configured to control vaporization rates based on pre-set vaporization temperatures.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Cameron’s processor 102 and memory 104 to store pre-set vaporization temperatures as taught by Atkins, and particularly to store such pre-set vaporization temperatures corresponding to measurements of the flow sensor 116 and resulting vaporization rates (which reads on the claim language), because Cameron and Atkins are both directed to vaporization devices, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Atkins’ teaching regarding pre-set vaporization temperatures could advantageously be applied to Cameron because both references teach controlling the vaporization rates using various sensor inputs, and this would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 7, Cameron renders obvious the portion of the vaporization device of claim 5 because Cameron discloses a temperature sensor and discloses that the rate of vaporization may be controlled by controlling power to the heating element [0145], as set forth above. Cameron fails to specifically disclose the processor 102 being “configured for determining the first resistance and the second resistance” as claimed. Cameron also discloses using the processor 102 to determine and control the vaporization rates based on pressure data from the flow sensor 116 as set forth above in the discussion of claim 1. Cameron further discloses that the processor 102 can be coupled to a memory device 104 storing program instructions and data [0049], Cameron discloses a server that can provide one or more vaporization rates to the vapor device 100 to control the rate at which one or more vaporizable materials is vaporized [0051], Cameron discloses that the processor 102 can access a database in the memory device 104 [0080], and Cameron discloses a database 1214 storing files, user records, and other device info [0120, 0122, 0152]. Cameron also discloses that an electric sensor can be configured to detect resistance [0078].
The Examiner further notes that the claim language “wherein the first heating temperature is equivalent to a first resistance for a first heating element of the first atomizer and the second heating temperature is equivalent to a second resistance for a second heating element of the second atomizer” merely describes a natural relationship between the heating elements, their heating temperatures, and their resistances, and thus does not limit the device.
Atkins is directed to aerosol devices having compartmentalized materials (Title). Atkins discloses pre-set vaporization temperatures for heating two vaporizable materials and controlling heating elements to achieve such vaporization temperatures [0021, 0121, 0124]. Atkins discloses that such temperature control can be achieved by using a temperature coefficient of resistance of the coil material to estimate coil temperature [0177, 0179]. Atkins further discloses using such temperature control to control the ratio of materials vaporized [0177, 0179-80]. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Cameron could similarly be configured to control vaporization rates based on pre-set vaporization temperatures and accompanying resistances.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Cameron’s processor 102 and memory 104 to store pre-set vaporization temperatures and accompanying resistances as taught by Atkins, and particularly to store such pre-set vaporization temperatures and resistances corresponding to measurements of the flow sensor 116 and resulting vaporization rates (which reads on the claim language), because Cameron and Atkins are both directed to vaporization devices, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Atkins’ teaching regarding pre-set vaporization temperatures could advantageously be applied to Cameron because both references teach controlling the vaporization rates using various sensor inputs, and this would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 38, in modified Cameron as applied to claim 7, it would be similarly obvious to configure the processor 102 and memory 104 to store pre-set vaporization temperatures and accompanying resistances as taught by Atkins, and particularly to store such pre-set vaporization temperatures and resistances corresponding to measurements of the flow sensor 116 and resulting vaporization rates (which reads on the claim language), for the same reasons as set forth above in the discussion of claim 7.
Claims 9 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cameron (US 2016/0331036 A1) in view of Atkins (US 2019/0124982 A1) as applied to claim 7, further in view of Parrott (US 2021/0219622 A1).
Modified Cameron discloses the portion of claim 7 as set forth above. Cameron discloses that its various illustrative logical blocks, modules, and circuits can be performed with a processor or other programmable logic device [0197], and Atkins discloses controlling the vaporization temperatures via controller including feedback logic [0110], but neither reference specifically discloses controlling “according at least one control loop” per claim 9 nor “wherein the at least one control loop comprises at least one proportional-integral-derivative loop” per claim 39.
Parrott is directed to a method of controlling a hot wire anemometer of a non-nicotine e-vaping device with first and second PID controllers (Abstract). A dual control loop architecture includes an outer PID control loop 2600 in conjunction with an inner PID control loop 2500, together capable of tracking ambient temperature changes of a flow sensor 2220A and adjusting a temperature setpoint 2512 accordingly [0188]. The outer PID control loop 2600 in particular can advantageously control the temperature setpoint 2512 without the need to implement a separate temperature sensor [0195]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this advantage could similarly be applied to Cameron’s processor 102 and flow sensor 116. Parrott explains that “PID” indicates a proportional term (P), an integral term (I), and a derivative term (D) in accordance with known methods [0178, 0189], and thus the dual control loop architecture reads on the “control loop” of claim 9 and the “proportional-integral-derivative loop” of claim 39.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Cameron by configuring the processor 102 and flow sensor 116 to include the dual control loop architecture as taught by Parrott, because Cameron, Atkins, and Parrott are all directed to vaporization devices, Parrott teaches that this advantageously allows temperature control without an additional temperature sensor, and this would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wong (GB 2524779 A, provided in IDS dated 05/24/2023) is considered particularly relevant to claim 1 and discloses a method of controlling an inhalation device, the inhalation device comprises a sensor 9a configured to generate data associated with a property of an atomised composition within a flow channel 9 of the inhalation device. The method comprises controlling atomisation of the composition based upon the generated data. The inhalation device may comprise a reservoir 4 for receiving the composition, an atomiser 5 associated with the reservoir and configured to atomise the composition, an aperture and a flow channel configured to carry the atomised composition from the atomiser to the aperture. Preferably the device includes a further reservoir 6, a further atomiser 7, a further flow channel 10 and a further sensor 10a. Advantageously the use of a sensor to generate data which is subsequently used in the control of the atomiser allows a quantity of active chemical delivered to the user within the composition to be accurately controlled, for example to deliver a predetermined dosage of the composition (Abstract).
Marubashi (US 2022/0095690 A1) is considered particularly relevant to claim 1 and discloses a power supply unit for an aerosol generation device through which flavored aerosol is inhaled includes: a power supply configured to discharge electricity to an atomizer configured to atomize an aerosol source and a heater configured to heat a flavor source that adds a flavor component to aerosol generated from the aerosol source; and a processing device configured to acquire a flow rate of inhalation of a user. When the inhalation of the user is detected, the processing device discharges electricity from the power supply to the atomizer so as to generate aerosol. The processing device controls power to be discharged to the heater based on the flow rate such that a concentration of a flavor component contained in a fluid inhaled by the user becomes a target value (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL PATRICK MULLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2373. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7 ET.
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.
/MICHAEL PATRICK MULLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/ERIC YAARY/Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights