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 .
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 5 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 5 recites the limitation "the side wall" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by RADO (US 2019/0373954).
With respect to claim 1, RADO discloses a personal vaporizer (Abstract) comprising a cartridge, 50, (Paragraphs [0050], [0053]; Figure 4). The cartridge comprises a first container, 60, comprising a first chamber, 140, for storing a liquid (Paragraph [0057]); a second container, 70 (Paragraphs [0051] and [0052]) coupled to the first container (Paragraph [0051]). The second container comprises a second chamber, 110, (Paragraph [0053]; Figure 4). The cartridge further comprises a wick, 170, disposed in the second chamber and in fluid communication with the first chamber (Paragraph [0060]); a heater configured to heat the wick (Paragraph [0053], [0074]); a cartridge inlet, 84, (Paragraphs [0052], [0071]) formed in an outer wall of the second container (Figure 4); a connection passage, “A”, formed in the second container configured to provide a passage between the cartridge inlet and the second chamber (Paragraph [0074]; Figure 4); and a blocking wall, 204, formed in the connection passage and positioned in front of the cartridge inlet, when viewed from the mouth end, 152 (Figure 4).
[AltContent: textbox (Bottom of connection passage)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Viewed in this direction, the blocking wall, 204, is in front of the cartridge inlet, 84.)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
686
308
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, when the cartridge is held as shown in figure 4 above, the cartridge inlet of RADO is higher than a bottom of the connection passage (See annotated figure 4, above).
With respect to claim 3¸ RADO discloses that the second container comprises a lower case, 66 and 80 (Paragraph [0052]) coupled to the first container (Paragraph [0051]) and a frame, 90, accommodated in the lower case and partitions by wall, 92, an inside of the lower case to define the second chamber, 110, and the connections passage, “A”, inside 96 (Paragraph [0053]; Figure 4). The frame comprises a chamber inlet, 114 (Paragraph [0055], [0071]).
With respect to claim 4¸ RADO discloses that the chamber inlet, 114, is formed on bottom side wall (Paragraph [0051], [0071]), at a position higher that includes higher than the bottom of the second chamber (Figure 4).
[AltContent: textbox (Portion of inlet above bottom of chamber, 92)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval]
PNG
media_image1.png
686
308
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 5, RADO discloses that a lower wall, 92, forms a bottom of the second chamber and is indirectly, through 64, support by a bottom of the lower case (Paragraph [0052]; Figure 4).
[AltContent: textbox (Bottom surface of lower case supporting 64, and indirectly 92)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Upper surface of 64 supports bottom wall of second chamber)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Bottom wall, 92, of second chamber)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
686
308
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A side wall, 94, of the second chamber extends upwards from the lower wall to define a side portion of the second chamber (Figure 4).
With respect to claim 6¸ RADO discloses that the blocking wall, 204, extends higher than a position of the cartridge inlet, 84 (Figure 4).
[AltContent: textbox (Cartridge inlet)][AltContent: textbox (Blocking wall)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
686
308
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 7, when positioned with the mouth piece, 152, downward, the blocking wall extends higher than the position of the chamber inlet, 114.
[AltContent: textbox (Blocking wall)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Chamber inlet)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
686
308
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 9¸ RADO shows that the frame comprises a round surface defining a portion of the connection passage, at 114, and disposed adjacent an upper end of the blocking wall, and the round surface extends towards the inlet side of the chamber inlet (Figure 4). Cambridge dictionary defines “adjacent” as being very near, next to or touching. Thus, the round surface, while not necessarily touching, is the nearest surface of the frame to the upper side of the blocking wall.
[AltContent: textbox (Round surface extending towards inlet side of chamber inlet and nearest surface to the blocking wall, 202)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
686
308
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 11, RADO discloses an aerosol generating device (Abstract) comprising the cartridge of claim 1 (See rejection of claim 1) and a body, 20, (Paragraph [0045]; Figures 1 and 2) configured to allow the cartridge to be coupled thereto (Paragraphs [0047] and [0048]).
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) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RADO (US 2019/0373954) in view of AMPOLINI et al. (US 2016/0262453)
With respect to claim 12¸ RADO does not explicitly disclose the claimed sensor.
AMPOLINI et al. discloses an aerosol delivery device (Abstract). The body comprises a sensor, 410, mounted in the body (Figure 5; Paragraphs [0069], [0070]) adjacent to cartridge receiving cavity, 432 (Paragraph [0070]) so that air flow can be detected passing through the cartridge (e.g., cartridge inlet of RADO). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a sensor mounted into the body of RADO, in the manner taught by AMPOLINI et al. so that airflow into the cartridge inlet can be detected.
Given that the mount, 30, of RADO houses air inlets, 47, 52 and 71, the sensor is also adjacent to the inlets of the cartridge when mounted.
With respect to claim 13, RADO discloses that the body comprises an upper body above a lower body, 24 (Paragraphs [0045]-[0047]; Figures 1 and 2). The upper body comprising a mount, 30 (Paragraphs [0047] and [0048]) configured to receive the cartridge (and thus the second container as well).
[AltContent: textbox (Lower body)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Upper body )][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
230
474
media_image2.png
Greyscale
RADO does not explicitly disclose that the mount comprises a sensor accommodation portion formed at a side wall of the mount for holding the sensor.
AMPOLINI et al. discloses that the mount, 402 and 434 includes a sensor accommodation portion that holds the sensor (Paragraphs [0070]-[0071]; Figure 5).
With respect to claim 14, AMPOLINI et al. shows that the sensor accommodation portion within 434, is part of the connector (Figure 5). Cambridge dictionary defines “adjacent” as being very near, next to or touching. Thus, as being a part of the connector which contains the cartridge, in 432, the sensor is very near the cartridge and its second container.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The frame of RADO does not form the bottom of the first chamber, per se.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX B EFTA whose telephone number is (313)446-6548. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Philip Tucker can be reached at 571-272-1095. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEX B EFTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745