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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Figures 1-3, 5, and 8-11 utilize black shading. This is inappropriate, see 37CFR1.84(m).
Figure 4 and 6, the border lines, conductors, and signal lines are undifferentiated leading to lack of clarity.
Figure 9 shows elements 400 and 500 abutted with no discriminating line or shading indicating two structures, giving the appearance of two lead lines pointing to the same element.
Figure 10 features protrusions from elements 400 and 500 identified respectively with a “+” and “-“ symbol. There are no reference numbers, lead lines, or mention of these elements in the specification. It is unclear what they represent.
The “external power supply” of claim 3 is not shown in any drawings or provided a reference number.
Paragraph 54 utilizes the reference numeral 700 to describe a conductive material and the entirety of the insert. i.e. same number for two different parts.
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 Objections
Claims 8 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 8, “wherein the insert comprises a sheet-shaped structure” should read “wherein the insert further comprises a sheet-shaped structure”
In claim 9, “wherein the insert comprises an insulator” should read “wherein the insert further comprises an insulator”
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a charge module” in claim 4, “a control module” in claim 4, and “a switch module” in claim 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The claim limitations will thus be interpreted as follows:
Claim 4, “a charge module” The corresponding structure provided in the disclosure [49] is the charge module (310) turns on the first switch (330) and turns off the second switch (340) through the switch control module (350). The disclosure further details [50] the first switch (330) and the second switch (340) may both be MOS transistors. Because the corresponding disclosure is strictly functional, it does not provide sufficient structure for the claim limitation. Therefore, “a charge module” will be interpreted broadly as anything capable of turning a MOS transistor on/off through the switch control module. This may include input channel of a processing device, software, logic, or any equivalents thereof.
Claim 4, “a control module” The corresponding structure provided in the disclosure [49] is the control module (320) senses atmospheric pressure change through a sensor, turns off the first switch (330) and the second switch (340) through the switch control module (350). Because the corresponding disclosure is strictly functional, it does not provide sufficient structure for the claim limitation. Therefore, “a control module” will be interpreted broadly as anything capable of receiving a signal from a sensor and turning a MOS transistor on/off through the switch control module. This may include input channel of a processing device, software, logic, or any equivalents thereof.
Claim 4, “a switch control module” The corresponding structure provided in the disclosure is: the charge module (310) turns on the first switch (330) and turns off the second switch (340) through the switch control module (350) [49]; the control module (320) senses atmospheric pressure change through a sensor, turns off the first switch (330) and the second switch (340) through the switch control module (350) [49]; and the switch control module (350) may be a MOS control module [50]. Because the corresponding disclosure is strictly functional, it does not provide sufficient structure for the claim limitation. Therefore, “a switch control module” will be interpreted broadly as anything capable of receiving a signal from the control module or charge module and sending an on/off signal to the MOS transistor gate. This may include output channel of a processing device, software, logic, or any equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 3-5 are 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.
Common ground connections, specifically those connecting the comprising internal structure of the controller to the negative electrode of the battery, are not shown or described in sufficient detail anywhere in the disclosure. Figures 1-3 and 5 show a diagram of the circuit layout of the electronic vaporization device, including a common ground connected to the vaporizer, battery, and controller. Figures 4 and 6 show a schematic of the internal circuit structure of the controller in the form of a single line diagram. These drawings (Fig. 4 and 6) fail to show specific ground locations on the circuit as well, instead illustrating a ground connection on the line representing the general borders of the controller. While single line diagrams are a useful way abbreviate documentation by eliminating the full illustration of a common ground conductor, they still must provide context indicated through standard circuit symbols or notes. Without a source to ground path, structure supporting the functions of the controller and its comprising components, is unclear and unspecified.
Regarding claim 3, the functional limitation is stated “the external power supply is configured to charge the battery through the controller”. In light of the deficiencies of the specification detailed above, it remains unclear how the external power supply is configured to charge the battery through the controller. There is no connection shown between any part of the internal structure of the controller and the negative electrode of the battery, which would be necessary in order to provide a charging voltage across the battery. Therefore, the disclosure fails to provide adequate written description supporting the function stated in the claim.
Regarding claim 4, information is provided detailing the comprising internal structure of the controller. However, as stated above, the disclosure fails to provide any information on the location of ground connections within the controller, critical for clearly understanding how the controller functions with the rest of the device.
Further, the claim limitation “a charge module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function of claim, reciting only “a charge module” and its function. Further, as disclosed in the specification, the "charge module" may be exclusively software without any new physical structure added to the previously claimed controller. This is inappropriate
Additionally, the claim limitation “a control module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function of claim, reciting only “a charge module” and its function. Further, as disclosed in the specification, the "control module" may be exclusively software without any new physical structure added to the previously claimed controller. This is inappropriate.
Finally, the claim limitation “a switch control module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While the specification states “The switch control module 350 may be a MOS control module” providing further limitation to function, the disclosure remains devoid of any structure that performs the function of claim. Further, as disclosed in the specification, the "switch control module" may be exclusively software without any new physical structure added to the previously claimed controller. This is inappropriate.
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.
Claims 3-5 and 9 are 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 3, the functional limitation is stated “the external power supply is configured to charge the battery through the controller”. The claim does not detail how the external power supply is specifically configured to charge the battery through the controller. Additionally, it is unclear how the external power supply would achieve a charging voltage across the battery while connected to the first and second electrode without also applying a voltage across the vaporizer. Sufficient supporting structure for the claimed function is not disclosed in the claim.
Further regarding claim 3, as claimed the first and second electrodes are required to be connected to the external power source at all times. This renders the claim indefinite because the preamble indicates the claim is exclusively directed to the vaporization device and not the combination of the vaporization device and an external power source.
Regarding claim 4, the claim limitation “a charge module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function of claim, reciting only “a charge module” and its function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “a control module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function of claim, reciting only “a charge module” and its function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “a switch control module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While the specification states “The switch control module 350 may be a MOS control module” providing further limitation to function, the disclosure remains devoid of any structure that performs the function of claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding Claim 9, it states “the insert comprises an insulator and a conductor embedded in the insulator”. Claim 7 states “an insert comprising a conductive material”. Claim 9 is dependent of claim 7, it is unclear whether “a conductor” is a new element or just the “conductive material” of claim 7. Further, the specification states “an insert 700 including a conductive material 700” (Paragraph 54). Two separate elements are described, but only one reference number and illustration are provided (Figure 11). The specification continues (Paragraph 55) “the insert 700 includes an insulator 710 and a conductor 720 embedded in the insulator 710” further itemizing the comprising elements of the insert to include the conductor (720) of claim 9, illustrated and labelled distinctly from the insert (700) as a whole (Figures 12 and 13). With no information disclosed relating the conductor of claim 9 to the conductive material of claim 7, the limitation is rendered unclear and therefore the claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the limitations “conductor” and “conductive material” will be treated as the same.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Flick (US Patent No. 10,045,561), hereinafter Flick.
Regarding claim 1, Flick teaches (Figure 2) an electronic vaporization device (smoking system 100) comprising a vaporizer (heater 119), a battery (battery 107, +Vbatt, GND), and a controller (microcontroller 203), wherein a first and second electrode (contacts 221), that are separable, are arranged between any two of the vaporizer, the battery, and the controller.
Regarding claim 2, Flick teaches (Figure 2) the electronic vaporization device (smoking system 100) with the controller (microcontroller 203) with one end connected to the vaporizer (heater 119), another end connected to the positive electrode of the battery (+Vbatt), another end connected to the negative electrode of the battery (GND), and a second end of the vaporizer connected the negative electrode of the battery (GND).
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.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flick (US Patent No. 10,045,561), hereinafter, Flick, in view of Leadley et al (US Patent No. 11,026,448), hereinafter, Leadley.
Regarding claim 3, Flick teaches (Figure 2) the vaporizer (heater 119) connected to the battery (battery 107, +Vbatt, GND) through the first and second electrode (contacts 221). Flick does not teach an external power supply connected to the first and second electrode, configured to charge the battery through a controller.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the desirability of having a means for charging a battery-powered electronic vaporization device. Leadley teaches (Figure 2) it is known that an electronic vaporization device (e-cigarette 10) may be charged at a connection point (connectors 21A and 31A) between a vaporizer (cartomizer 30) and a controller (control unit 20) and/or through a socket elsewhere on the device (Col. 4, Ln. 15-25) at a finite number of suitable locations. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a means for charging the battery of an electronic vaporization device through connections and/or a socket on the device at any of a finite number of suitable locations, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. In turn, because the inclusion of the external power supply paired with the first and second electrodes configured as claimed has the properties predicted by the prior art, it would have been obvious to incorporate them into the electronic vaporization device.
Regarding claim 4, Flick teaches (Figure 2) the controller (109) comprising various subcomponents including the first (transistor T1) and second (transistor T2) switch, a means for switch control/transistor gate activation (digital output 205 and 211), and a means capable of executing vaporizer control logic and charging logic (microcontroller 203). Therefore, device of Flick teaches all of the invention of claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, the device of Flick teaches (Figure 2) the electrodes are sheet-shaped (generally rectangular). Therefore, device of Flick teaches all of the invention of claim 5.
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flick, in view of Brevick (US Patent No. 3,674,953), hereinafter Brevick, as evidenced by Krietzman (US Patent No. 12,324,882) hereinafter Krietzman.
Regarding claim 6, Flick teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above, including an insulating shell (housing 101). Flick does not teach the positioning element or fastener, wherein the first and second electrodes are arranged on the positioning element and fastener respectively and the electrodes are brought in contact with each other when the positioning element and fastener are buckled.
Brevick discloses a manual slide switch mechanism used in a powered electrical circuit (Figure 3).The switch mechanism includes: a shell (housing cover 15A); an insert comprising a conductor (sliding contact 24) embedded in an insulator (Col. 2, Ln. 14-18); the insert comprising sheet shaped structures (Figure 6; sliding contact 24 generally flat rectangle); a positioning element (contact carrier 31); a fastener (mating recess 34A); a groove where the insert is embedded (rectangular opening 22); a first and second electrode (fixed contacts 11,12, & 13) separately arranged in the groove (Col. 1, Ln. 66-72); the first and second electrode are sheet-shaped (Figure 2; generally flat rectangle); the insert being configured to connect the first and second electrode (Col. 2, Ln. 19-24); and wherein the first electrode is arranged on the positioning element, the second electrode is arranged on the fastener, and the first and second electrode are connected when the positioning element is buckled with the fastener (Col. 2, Ln. 13-26).
Further, Krietzman discloses (Figure 3) it is known to include a switch (heating on/off switch 5006) affixed to the exterior of an electronic vaporization device (Col. 7, Ln. 54-57) for the purpose of selectively initiating a heating cycle (Col. 3, Ln.48-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified the device of Flick to incorporate the teachings of Brevick as evidenced by Krietzman to include a known means for connecting and disconnecting electrodes within an electronic vaporization device by including an on/off power switch for the purpose of selectively initiating a heating cycle.
Additionally, while the term “switch” is not specifically stated in the language of the claims, both the function and structure described therein closely correspond to the those known for a common electrical switch, therefore examiner has interpreted it as such.
Regarding claim 7, the modified device of Flick, as applied in claim 6, teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above to include the insert comprising the conductive material wherein the insert is configured to connect the first and second electrode. Therefore, the modified device of Flick teaches the invention of claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, the modified device of Flick, as applied in claim 6, teaches all of the elements of the current inventions as stated above to include the insert comprising a sheet-shaped structure with the first and second electrode being connected when the insert is embedded into the shell of the electronic vaporization device. Therefore, the modified device of Flick teaches the invention of claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, the modified device of Flick, as applied in claim 6, teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above to include, the insert comprising a conductor embedded in an insulator, the shell of the electronic vaporization device comprising a groove where the insert is embedded, and the first and second electrode separately arranged in the groove. Therefore, the modified device of Flick teaches the invention of claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, the modified device of Flick, as applied in claim 6, teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above to include the first and second electrode being sheet-shaped. Therefore, the modified device of Flick teaches the invention of claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Anderson et al (US. Patent No. 10,888,125) teaches a variety of features directly related to battery-powered vaporizers, covering aspects of controls, charging, and structural details through comprehensive circuit schematics, module diagrams, and logic/process flow charts. Fu et al (US. Patents No. 11,638,443) similarly provide highly detailed technical disclosure covering a variety of vaporizer components.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS FREDRICK GAUTHIER whose telephone number is (571)272-8725. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, EDWARD LANDRUM can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
/NICHOLAS FREDRICK GAUTHIER/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights