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 the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending and are subject to this Office Action. This is the first Office Action on the merits of the claims.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the first/second liquid delivery channels and switch component as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Woods et al (Publication No. US20220046985A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Woods discloses an electronic vaporization device (600), comprising:
a first storage unit (Secondary chamber 620), configured to store a first vaporization substance (i.e., liquid) (Figs. 6-7; Abstract, [0195, 0200]);
a second storage unit (Primary chamber 604), configured to store a second vaporization substance (i.e., liquid) (Figs. 6-7; Abstract, [0193]);
a vaporization unit (Atomizer 612), configured to vaporize the liquid to produce an aerosol for a user to inhale (Figs. 6-7; [0200]);
a first liquid delivery channel (Stem 622), which is fluidly communicated with the first storage unit (620) and the vaporization unit (612) to accordingly deliver the first liquid to the vaporization unit (Figs. 6-7; [0195, 0200-0202]; the chamber unit is in communication with the stem and atomization unit via intake hole 626);
a second liquid delivery channel (Stem 610), which is fluidly communicated with the second storage unit (604) and the vaporization unit (612) to accordingly deliver the first liquid to the vaporization unit (Figs. 6-7; [0195, 0198-0199]; the chamber unit is in communication with the stem and atomization unit via intake hole);
the first liquid delivery channel (622) and the second liquid delivery channel (610) being configured to deliver the corresponding liquid to the vaporization unit (612) at different times ([0198, 0202-0203]; the channels/stems for each section are designed to individually open/close via valves on the intake holes; the valve control system implies that delivery of each liquid can be delivered at different times).
Regarding Claim 15, Woods further discloses wherein the first storage unit (620) and the second storage unit (610) are fluidly communicated with each other (see Figs. 6-18; [0219-0222]; discloses that the first storage unit can be designed to be coupled with the second storage unit to yield a two-chamber vaporization device for mixing different liquids; the coupling implies a fluid communication between parts);
wherein the first liquid can be delivered to the second storage unit (610) and to the vaporization unit (612) through the second liquid delivery channel (622), forming the first liquid delivery channel (610) (see Figs. 6-18; [0219-0222]; discloses that in the coupling design, the stems of each chamber can be configured to engage with the stem of the primary chamber; since the primary chamber’s stem is the second channel, engaging the secondary stems to the primary is considered equivalent to the second channel forming the first channel; when the first liquid flows downwards into the second channel/stem 610, it is considered equivalent to being delivered to the second chamber unit 604 since the channel 610 is inside the second chamber unit itself).
Woods does not explicitly disclose the first liquid delivery channel is opened in order after the second liquid delivery channel. However, it should be noted that Woods discloses that the channels/stems for each chamber are designed to be individually opened/closed via valves on the intake holes disposed on each stem [0198, 0202-0203].
Therefore, one ordinarily skilled in the art based on Woods’ disclosure would reasonably conclude that the first liquid delivery channel (622) can be is opened after the second liquid delivery channel (610) as each channel/stem has its own intake hole/valve (626/614) that can operate individually from each other, wherein one could potentially operate the first valve (626) to open the first channel (622) after the valve (614) for the second channel (610) is opened.
Regarding Claim 16, Woods discloses that the delivery channels/passageways are designed to be opened/closed by the user when the mouthpiece is attached [0198-0203]. Therefore, one ordinarily skilled in the art would implicitly understand that the second delivery channel (610) can be kept in an open state by simply operating the valve (614) to stay in an open state.
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 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cole (Publication No. US20190167922A1) in view of Menting et al (Publication No. US20150223521A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Cole discloses an electronic vaporization device [0028], comprising:
a first storage unit (Tank 26), configured to store a first liquid (Figs. 2-3; [0028]);
a second storage unit (Tank 27), configured to store a second liquid (Figs. 2-3; [0028]);
a vaporization unit (Wick and Heating element 28/30), configured to vaporize the liquid to produce an aerosol for a user to inhale (Figs. 2-3; [0005]);
a first liquid delivery channel (Supply passageway 33), which is fluidly communicated with the first storage unit (26) and the vaporization unit (28/30) to accordingly deliver the first liquid to the vaporization unit (see Figs. 2-3; [0028]; each storage tank has its own channel to communicate liquid to the vaporization unit);
a second liquid delivery channel (Supply passageway 33), which is fluidly communicated with the second storage unit (27) and the vaporization unit (28/30) to accordingly deliver the second liquid to the vaporization unit (see Figs. 2-3; [0028]; each storage tank has its own channel to communicate liquid to the vaporization unit).
Cole further discloses that the tanks (26/27) are connected to the vaporizing unit (28/29) and mouthpiece via additional delivery tubes (74/75) which are closed by valves when the mouthpiece is not attached (Figs. 5, 8A, 9A; [0039]). Cole does not disclose the first liquid delivery channel (26) and the second liquid delivery channel (27) being configured to deliver the corresponding liquid to the vaporization unit at different times.
However, Menting, directed to a vaporization device, discloses a cartridge comprising multiple liquid containers (20) (i.e., liquid storage units) for vaporizing and delivering an aerosol, wherein each container comprises a passage (56) (i.e., delivery channel) (Fig. 1; Abstract, [0021]). Menting further discloses an adjusting mechanism comprising a static plate (50) which works in conjunction with a rotatable plate (70), suction nozzle (72) and check valve (48) to disengage and change liquid containers while preventing leaks by establishing a new passage from the container to the mouthpiece via the nozzle (72) (see Fig. 3; [0028-0031]; changing containers implies that only one container is in connection at a time which indicates that the liquids in each container is delivered at different times).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the delivery tubes and valve disclosed by Cole to incorporate a static and rotatable plate along with a singular nozzle/delivery tube as disclosed by Menting, as both are directed to a vaporization device, where one ordinarily skilled in the art can reasonably apply Menting’s disclosure of an adjusting mechanism for a multi-container vaporizing device to a similar multi-container vaporizing device disclosed by Cole, and predictably yield a device capable of swapping liquid containers without leakage, resulting in the liquids in each container being delivered at different times.
Regarding Claim 2, Modified Cole further discloses the first storage unit (26) and the second storage unit (27) are independent of each other so that the first liquid is not delivered to the second storage unit and the second liquid is not delivered to the first storage unit (Cole, see Fig. 5; the storage units are separate and are guided upwards to a vaporization unit; see Claim 1 Rejection for modifying Cole with Menting’s adjustment mechanism; the adjustment mechanism physically disconnects one passage while connecting to another via the valve and delivery tube/nozzle; implies that liquid is prevented from going from one container to another).
Regarding Claim 3, Modified Cole further discloses the first liquid delivery channel (33) and the second liquid delivery channel (33) are independent of each other so that the first liquid is not delivered through the second liquid delivery channel and the second liquid is not delivered through the first liquid delivery channel (Cole, see Fig. 5; the liquid channels are separate and are guided upwards to a vaporization unit; see Claim 1 Rejection for modifying Cole with Menting’s adjustment mechanism; the adjustment mechanism replaces the individual delivery tubes for each channel with a singular delivery tube that alternates between each container via the rotatable plate; implies that liquids from each container cannot flow to the other container).
Regarding Claim 4, Modified Coleman further discloses first liquid delivery channel (33) and the second liquid delivery channel (33) are partially shared so that the first liquid or the second liquid are delivered through a shared portion of the liquid delivery channel (72) (Cole, see Fig. 5; see Claim 1 Rejection for modifying Cole with Menting’s adjustment mechanism; the first and second liquid passages share a delivery tube/nozzle via the adjustment mechanism which means that both the first and second liquid will flow through that shared portion the delivery tube).
Regarding Claim 5, Modified Coleman further discloses the first liquid delivery channel (33) and the second liquid delivery channel (33) are opened or closed in an expected or predetermined manner (see Claim 1 Rejection for modifying Cole with Menting’s adjustment mechanism; Menting, [0028-0031]; the valve acts as a seal that closes the container in an expected manner when said container is disengaged by the adjusting mechanism to connect with another container).
Regarding Claim 7, Modified Cole further discloses the first storage unit (26) and the second storage unit (27) are configured to rotate about a length direction of the electronic vaporization device (see Claim 6 Rejection for rotatable storage unit modification; modification can be applied to both storage units).
Regarding Claim 8, Modified Cole does not explicitly disclose at least a part of the first liquid delivery channel (33) and at least a part of the second liquid delivery channel (33) are configured to be moved simultaneously to open or close the liquid delivery channel.
However, it should be noted that this is merely a manner of operating the device since Modified Cole already discloses that the storage units are rotatable relative to the adjustment plates for engaging/disengaging the first/second channels (33) from the delivery tube (72) (see Claim 1 rejection for adjustment mechanism modification; see Claim 7 for the rotatable storage unit modification).
Since the storage units is already capable of rotatable movement to move the delivery tube (72) from one channel to another, one ordinarily skilled in the art would implicitly understand that said storage units can be partially rotated such that the delivery tube has not yet engaged with either storage units and their respective channels/passage (i.e., both channels are simultaneously closed).
Regarding Claim 9, Cole further discloses the electronic vaporization device further comprises a valve (i.e., switch component) configured to open or close the liquid delivery channel (Figs. 5, 8A, 9A; [0028]).
Regarding Claim 10, Modified Cole does not explicitly disclose the first liquid delivery channel (33) and the second liquid delivery channel (33) are configured to be able to be closed simultaneously.
However, it should be noted that this is merely a manner of operating the device since Modified Cole already discloses that the storage units are rotatable relative to the adjustment plates for engaging/disengaging the first/second channels (33) from the delivery tube (72) (see Claim 1 rejection for adjustment mechanism modification; see Claim 7 for the rotatable storage unit modification).
Since the storage units is already capable of rotatable movement to move the delivery tube (72) from one channel to another, one ordinarily skilled in the art would implicitly understand that said storage units can be partially rotated such that the delivery tube has not yet engaged with either storage units and their respective channels/passage (i.e., both channels are simultaneously closed).
Regarding Claim 11, Modified Cole does not explicitly state that the first liquid delivery channel is configured to be in a normally open state. However, it should be noted that the delivery channels/passageways are designed to be open when the mouthpiece is attached (Cole, [0028]). Furthermore, when the channel is modified to include an adjustment mechanism (see Claim 1 Rejection for full modification), the channel/passageway is designed to be in fluid communication with the mouthpiece when engaged with the delivery tube/nozzle.
Therefore, one ordinarily skilled in the art would implicitly understand that when Modified Cole’s first liquid delivery channel/passageway is engaged with the adjustment nozzle/delivery tube when the mouthpiece is attached, it is considered to be configured to be in a normally open state.
Regarding Claim 12, Modified Cole further discloses the second storage unit (27) is configured to be moved to open or close the second liquid delivery channel (33) (see Claim 6 Rejection for rotatable storage unit modification; rotating the storage unit to disengage said unit from the delivery tube is equivalent to opening/closing the delivery channel of said storage unit).
Regarding Claim 13, Cole further discloses the electronic vaporization device further comprises a buffer unit (Outlet port 42), and the first liquid or the second liquid is delivered to the vaporization unit (28/30) through the buffer unit (Figs. 2-3; [0028]; the outlet port serves as a component holding the vaporization unit and therefore, delivering liquid to the vaporization unit is equivalent to delivering liquid through the buffer unit).
Regarding Claim 14, Cole further discloses the vaporization unit (28/30) is placed at least partially in the buffer unit (42) (Figs. 2-3; [0028]; the outlet port component is shown to house the vaporization unit).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cole (Publication No. US20190167922A1) in view of Menting et al (Publication No. US20150223521A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Hejazi et al (Publication No. US20190289909A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Modified Cole does not explicitly disclose the first storage unit (26) and the second storage unit (27) are configured to be moved simultaneously to open or close the liquid delivery channel (72).
However, Hejazi, directed to an aerosol delivery system, discloses a system comprising a flavor reservoir (522) with multiple flavor sections (560) (Fig. 5; [0070-0072]; each section is disclosed to be a reservoir that can store a liquid flavorant; considered equivalent to a first and second liquid storage unit). The system can include a mask (524) which is rotatable relative to the flavor reservoir so that air flow is only permitted to exit from a desired flavor section/reservoir ([0076, 0079]; the mask is considered equivalent to the adjustment plate mechanism disclosed in Modified Cole, see Claim 1 rejection; selective airflow communication implies that the storage unit is opening/closing relative to other storage units via the mask/plate).
Though Hejazi primarily details the mask being rotatable, it is explicitly noted that in other implementations, one or more of the described components may be able to move relative to the other components without affecting the operation of the device. As such, one ordinarily skilled in the art would reasonably conclude from Hejazi’s disclosure that other components such as the storage unit/reservoir can be made rotatable relative to the mask instead to create the same result of selective interaction whilst maintaining the device’s function.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the storage units and adjustment plates disclosed by Modified Cole so that the rotatable component is the storage units instead of the plates as disclosed by Hejazi, as both are directed to an aerosol/vaporizing device, where this involves applying a known rotatable mechanism selection part (i.e., the mask/plate) to another rotatable mechanism part (i.e., the storage units) to predictably yield a device capable of opening/closing the liquid delivery channel to a storage unit via rotating said storage units.
Claim 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woods et al (Publication No. US20220046985A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Woods does not explicitly disclose the first storage unit (620) is configured to be moved to open or close the first liquid delivery channel (622).
However, it should be noted that Woods discloses that the vaporization device can be configured such that the first storage unit (i.e., secondary chamber 620) must be coupled to the second storage unit (i.e., primary chamber 604) for the device to activate and/or operate [0216]. This implies that the two storage units and their subsequent stems/channels are separable and movable, wherein operation of the valves to open/close the stems/channels is a function of the device reliant on the coupling (i.e., movement) of the first storage/secondary chamber.
Therefore, one ordinarily skilled in the art, based on Woods disclosure, would reasonably broadly conclude that the first storage/secondary chamber is configured to be movable/separable, wherein the device can only operate to open/close the first liquid delivery channel (via the valves) when the first/secondary chamber is moved to couple with the second/primary chamber.
Regarding Claim 18, Woods does not explicitly disclose the first storage unit is configured to rotate about the length direction of the electronic vaporization device.
However, it should be noted that in a separate but similar embodiment, Woods discloses that the chambers (i.e., first liquid storage unit) is a component of the vaporization device’s main body (302), wherein the main body can be rotatable relative to a mouthpiece (308) ([0154-0155, 0219]; note that Woods discusses combining various features from other embodiments into the device disclosed in Figure 6 and thus, each embodiment can be considered equivalent to each other).
Since Woods already discloses that the first liquid storage unit (620) can be separable from the other components of the overall vaporization device (see Claim 17 rejection), it would imply that the rotatable feature of the device main body can be applied to the storage unit (620) as said unit is also similarly attached to a mouthpiece (602) (see Fig. 6; [0201).
Therefore, one ordinarily skilled in the art, based on Woods disclosure, could reasonably design the first liquid storage unit to be a rotatable piece relative to the mouthpiece (and subsequently the vaporization device) along the length direction to predictably yield a device that has a liquid chamber capable of coupling to the said device through rotatable means.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woods et al (Publication No. US20220046985A1) as applied to Claim 17 above, and further in view of Smith et al (Publication No. US20180368475A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Woods does not explicitly disclose the first storage unit is configured to be moved up and down along the length direction of the electronic vaporization device.
However, Smith, directed to an electronic smoking device (i.e., vaporization device), discloses said device comprising a plurality of cavities where a plurality of liquid reservoirs (334) can be inserted into said cavities (see Fig. 5; [0033]; the reservoirs are shown to be movable along the X’ direction of the device which is equivalent to the length direction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the storage units disclosed by Woods to be removable as disclosed by Smith, as both are directed to an electronic smoking/vaporizing device, where one ordinarily skilled in the art can reasonably apply Smith’s teaching of movable reservoirs/storage units for a vaporization device, to another similar device disclosed by Modified Wood, to predictably yield a device capable of having its storage unit/reservoirs be rotatable and also movable along the length of device.
Regarding Claim 20, Woods further discloses the electronic vaporization device (100/600) further comprises an outer housing (104/604) (see Figs. 1, 6; [1034-1035, 0158, 0219]; different embodiments are considered equivalent as they are similar in illustration and Woods additionally discloses that device 600 can incorporate features from other embodiments; the chamber is equivalent to the outer housing);
the outer housing (104/604) has at least one visual window through which the user can observe the amount of the liquid stored in the first storage unit and/or the second storage unit (see Figs. 1, 6; [0135]; the chambers are shown and disclosed to be made of translucent glass which is equivalent to a visual window).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bless et al (Publication No. US20190200673A1) – Aerosol generating device comprising a plurality of flavorant reservoirs and a flavor selection disc.
Newton (Publication No. US20130228191A1) – Aerosol generating device with an outer housing comprising a visual window to view liquid levels in a liquid reservoir.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vu P Pham whose telephone number is (703)756-4515. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th (7:30AM-4:00PM EST).
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.
/V.P./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights