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 Claims
The present Office action is responsive to the Remarks and Amendments filed on 01-08-2026. As directed, no claims have been amended, no claims have been cancelled, and new claims 11-17 have been added. Thus, claims 1-17 are currently pending examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant requests, see Remarks as filed page 5, that the double patenting rejections of record be held in abeyance as the claims at issue are presently being prosecuted.
The double patenting rejections of record will be updated to address any of claims 11-17 as appropriate, but will not be held in abeyance. It is understood that preemptive filing of a Terminal Disclaimer before final disposition of the subject matter of claims 1-17 is undesirable, and upon allowance of any independent claims, the double patenting rejections will be reassessed for their propriety.
Applicant argues, see Remarks as filed pages 6-8, that Batista fails to anticipate the subject matter of claim 1. Applicant argues that the interpretation of the capsule in Batista as the comprisal of substrate 1 and mesh 2 with the liquid of Batista as the claimed material is factually incorrect, as Batista defines the structure as a heater assembly that is separate from the Batista cartridge that contains the liquid. Applicant contends that the heater assembly provides a planar attachment face for the cartridge which contains the liquid, and concludes that the heater assembly does not include the liquid substrate regarded as the claimed material which is instead included in the cartridge.
Applicant additionally argues that the clamps 3 of Batista should not be equated to the claimed electrode arrangement configured to move with respect to the main body to electrically engage the capsule. Applicant asserts that such an interpretation is “non-enabling” because the clamps are used to mechanically fix mesh 2 to substrate 1 to form the heater assembly, and because the combination of mesh 2 and substrate 1 has not been shown to fairly coincide with the claimed term “capsule”. Applicant further argues that clamps 3 are not configured to move relative to the main body, since they act to securely clamp the mesh 2 in slits 4 to support the planar arrangement of the mesh.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As an initial note, Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary is cited herein for the various dictionary definitions associated with the term “capsule”. As used in the claims, the term “capsule” is recited as a noun. Pursuant to this, below are the asserted dictionary definitions for the term “capsule” employed as a noun:
PNG
media_image1.png
728
766
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Given the context of heating a material to produce a vapor, the definitions of 1A-B, 2A-B, 4, 5, and 6B each seem to be reasonably unapplicable to the present claim set. The definitions that limit a capsule to include “a shell usually of gelatin for packaging something (such as a drug or vitamins); also: a usually medicinal or nutritional preparation for oral use consisting of the shell and its contents” or “a compact often sealed and detachable container or compartment” seem to be the closest, reasonable definitions applicable to the present claim set. Search and consideration of Applicant’s instant specification does not result in any indication that the capsule as disclosed is coated in gelatin or some similar matter. Further, the capsule is not meant to be orally ingested, it is to be heated and vaporized (claim 1, lines 1-3; page 2, lines 5-10). In addition, the only method of coating the capsule that is found in the instant specification is by coating, i.e. covering, with a metallic mesh (page 6, lines 23-24; page 9, lines 4-6; page 10, lines 1-2; page 12, line 16; see mesh 84 in Fig. 4B) or coating with a phase-change material (page 19, lines 17-18; Examiner notes that while the phase-change material is functionally described in the excerpt which includes page 19, lines 17-25, it does not appear that any specific material for the phase-change material is given in the instant specification). For these reasons, in light of the plain meaning of the term capsule as well as what can be gleaned from Applicant’s own specification, while the capsule may not be properly limited to be an orally administered, gelatin-coated shell, it seems reasonable that the capsule could reasonably be a shell for packaging something, as a drug or vitamin, given that the capsule is claimed to include a plant material, and/or the capsule could also be fairly interpreted to be a compact, possibly sealed and/or detachable, container or compartment, given that the capsules in the instant specification are moved and contain the plant material. It is also noteworthy to look to Figures 4A-D and page 14, lines 23-25, which show and describe capsules of the disclosed invention which include plant material 82, meshes 84, central portion 86, adhesive 88, and spacing elements 90 (see pages 24-25). Hence, given Applicant’s own instantly disclosed capsule, it is unclear why the comprisal of substrate 1 and mesh 2 of Batista fail to anticipate the claimed capsule, particularly when Applicant’s own capsule can include a mesh, and the identified capsule of Batista fairly meets the plain meaning of the term capsule to include a compact often sealed and detachable container or compartment, since the mesh 2 is contained on the planar face of substrate 1 and additionally descends into slits 4 by clamps 3 and includes the liquid for aerosolization (abstract, lines 3-5 for filament arrangement of the mesh 2, paragraph 53, lines 1-7, where capillary material containing liquid-aerosolizable material extends into the interstices of the filament of the mesh 2; Figs. 1-2).
Further, Batista has been relied on for an electrode arrangement (see both clamps 3) configured to move relative to the main body (“electrically-operated smoking system”) to electrically engage with the capsule (1 containing mesh 2), the electrode arrangement (see both clamps 3) configured to default to a biased position against the capsule (1 containing mesh 2) (paragraphs 27, lines 1-9 and paragraph 28, lines 1-9 for the resilient material, to include leaf springs of the clamping means 3; paragraph 73, lines 3-4 and 13-19 where the clamps contact the heating assembly via electrical connection to the battery, and note that clamps 3 are electrically conductive per paragraph 74, lines 1-2, and are thus regarded as the claimed electrodes). Of the previous citations, each of paragraphs 27-28 define the clamps to include resilient leg portions. Given this resiliency, it is understood that the legs of the clamps would be configured to move relative to the main body. In addition, the clamps (3) are also given to be configured for creating an electrical connection between a battery and the mesh, and are described as being made from conductive (metal) material (paragraph 73, lines 3-4 and 13-19), and are thus understood to direct current into the mesh and act as the claimed electrode arrangement.
For these reasons, Batista will be maintained in the rejections of claims 1-2 and 6-10 below.
Applicant argues, see Remarks as filed pages 8-10, that Davidson, employed to anticipate claims 1 and 3-9, does not meet every limitation of claim 1. applicant argues that Davidson does not contemplate the electrode arrangement configured to default to a biased position against the capsule because Davidson merely discloses clamping members that hold electrodes 2330A-B in place via pressing contact when in a closed position. Specifically, Applicant takes issue with the notion that Davidson does not require a larger opposing force to transition the clamping members to an open position that the closed position.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. It was specifically qualified in the previous rejection of record that Davidson discloses an electrode arrangement (2330A and 2330B) configured to move relative to the main body (2320) to electrically engage with the capsule (2300), the electrode arrangement (2330A and 2330B) configured to default to a biased position against the capsule (2300) (paragraph 204, lines 1-8; paragraph 211, lines 1-15, where the clamps 2310 move relative to the back portion of 2320 to secure the capsule 2300 therein, and when the clamps are closed, the electrodes default to a position in connection with 2300 as seen in Fig. 7B). Thus, it was already provided that the biased default position of the electrodes in press-contact with the capsule is specifically read when the clamping portions are in the closed position, as it takes work/effort to move the clamping portions out of the closed position thereafter (paragraph 211, lines 1-15; paragraph 212, lines 9-12). In the closed position, by virtue of the clamping portions being closed, both the clamping portions 2310A-B and the electrodes 2330A-B carried thereon are defaulted to a biased position against the cartridge. For these reasons, the rejections employing Davidson will be maintained herein below.
Claim Objections
Claims 16-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
At claim 16, line 1, it is suggested that “the” be added before “electrode arrangement” for clarity.
At claim 17, line 1, it is suggested that “the” be added before “electrode arrangement” for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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 1-2, 6-11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Batista (US 2016/0338410).
Regarding claim 1, Batista discloses an apparatus (“aerosol-generating system” of the abstract) for heating a material to generate a vapor (abstract, lines 1-6; Fig. 1), comprising:
a capsule (1 containing mesh 2) including the material (“liquid”) (abstract, lines 3-5 for filament arrangement of the mesh 2, paragraph 53, lines 1-7, where capillary material containing liquid-aerosolizable material extends into the interstices of the filament of the mesh 2);
a main body (“electrically-operated smoking system”) configured to receive the capsule (1 containing mesh 2) (paragraph 1, lines 1-6, where the capsule is for use within the smoking system); and
an electrode arrangement (see both clamps 3) configured to move relative to the main body (“electrically-operated smoking system”) to electrically engage with the capsule (1 containing mesh 2), the electrode arrangement (see both clamps 3) configured to default to a biased position against the capsule (1 containing mesh 2) (paragraphs 27, lines 1-9 and paragraph 28, lines 1-9 for the resilient material, to include leaf springs of the clamping means 3; paragraph 73, lines 3-4 and 13-19 where the clamps contact the heating assembly via electrical connection to the battery, and note that clamps 3 are electrically conductive per paragraph 74, lines 1-2, and are thus regarded as the claimed electrodes).
Regarding claim 2, Batista discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as discussed above.
Batista further discloses wherein the electrode arrangement (see both clamps 3) is configured to slide across a face (see interior face of slit 4 within substrate 1) of the capsule (1 containing mesh 2) while in physical contact with the capsule (1 containing mesh 2) (paragraph 75, lines 1-10; see the arrows in Fig. 1 indicating the pressing direction of the clamps 3 into slits 4).
Regarding claim 6, Batista discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as discussed above.
Batista further discloses wherein the capsule (1 containing mesh 2) further includes an internal heating element (2), and the electrode arrangement (see both clamps 3) is configured to drive a current into the internal heating element (2) within the capsule (1 containing mesh 2) (paragraph 73, lines 1-3 and 13-19).
Regarding claim 7, Batista discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as discussed above.
Batista further discloses wherein the electrode arrangement (see both clamps 3) includes a first electrode (see left 3 in Fig. 1) and a second electrode (see right 3 in Fig. 1) (paragraph 73, lines 3-4; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Batista discloses the apparatus of claim 7, as discussed above.
Batista further discloses wherein the first electrode (see left 3 in Fig. 1) and the second electrode (see right 3 in Fig. 1) are configured to contact a same side of the capsule (1 containing mesh 2) (paragraph 73, lines 13-19; see portions 31 of clamps 3 contacting the top surface of the capsule in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Batista discloses the apparatus of claim 7, as discussed above.
Batista further discloses wherein the electrode arrangement (see both clamps 3) is configured to drive a current through an outer surface of the capsule (1 containing mesh 2) from the first electrode (see left 3 in Fig. 1) to the second electrode (see right 3 in Fig. 1) (paragraph 3, lines 1-4 and 13-19, where the current is understood to move along the electrically conducting mesh between the two electrodes 3; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Batista discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as discussed above.
Batista further discloses wherein the electrode arrangement (see both clamps 3) includes contact portions in a form of blades (paragraph 76, lines 1-9, see “barbs”; Fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 11, Batista discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as discussed above.
Batista further discloses wherein the capsule (1 containing mesh 2) defines a cavity (either of slits 4 or filaments within mesh 2) containing the material (“liquid”) (abstract, lines 3-5 for filament arrangement of the mesh 2, paragraph 53, lines 1-7, where capillary material containing liquid-aerosolizable material extends into the interstices of the filament of the mesh 2; paragraph 73, lines 1-12; Figs. 3A-B).
Regarding claim 17, Batista discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as discussed above.
Batista further discloses wherein the electrode arrangement (see both clamps 3) includes a spring configured to facilitate the default to the biased position (paragraphs 27, lines 1-9 and paragraph 28, lines 1-9 for the resilient material, to include leaf springs of the clamping means 3; paragraph 73, lines 3-4 and 13-19 where the clamps contact the heating assembly via electrical connection to the battery, and note that clamps 3 are electrically conductive per paragraph 74, lines 1-2, and are thus regarded as the claimed electrodes).
Claims 1, 3-9, and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Davidson (US 2017/0095624).
Regarding claim 1, Davidson discloses an apparatus (“inhaler device” of paragraph 4, lines 1-3, see analogous inhaler device 2321 in paragraph 204, lines 1-5) for heating a material to generate a vapor (paragraph 4, lines 1-6; Fig. 7A), comprising:
a capsule (2300) including the material (2304) (paragraph 148, lines 1-2; see Fig. 5C and 7A);
a main body (2320) configured to receive the capsule (2300) (paragraph 204, lines 1-5; Figs. 7A-B); and
an electrode arrangement (2330A and 2330B) configured to move relative to the main body (2320) to electrically engage with the capsule (2300), the electrode arrangement (2330A and 2330B) configured to default to a biased position against the capsule (2300) (paragraph 204, lines 1-8; paragraph 211, lines 1-15, where the clamps 2310 move relative to the back portion of 2320 to secure the capsule 2300 therein, and when the clamps are closed, the electrodes default to a position in connection with 2300 as seen in Fig. 7B).
Regarding claim 3, Davidson discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as discussed above.
Davidson further discloses wherein the electrode arrangement (2330A and 2330B) includes at least one mobile electrode (2330A) and at least one stationary electrode (2330B) (paragraph 211, lines 1-15 and Figs. 7A-B; note that top electrode 2330A is mobile by virtue of its movement when the clamps move, and 2330B is stationary with respect to its positioning on clamp 2310B).
Regarding claim 4, Davidson discloses the apparatus of claim 3, as discussed above.
Davidson further discloses wherein the at least one mobile electrode (2330A) and the at least one stationary electrode (2330B) are configured to be on opposite sides of the capsule (2300) when the capsule (2300) is electrically engaged with the electrode arrangement (2330A and 2330B) (paragraph 211, lines 1-5; Fig. 7B, where 2330A and 2330B are oriented on opposite top and bottom sides of 2300).
Regarding claim 5, Davidson discloses the apparatus of claim 3, as discussed above.
Davidson further discloses wherein the electrode arrangement (2330A and 2330B) further includes a hinge, and the at least one mobile electrode (2330A) in configured to undergo a pivoting about the hinge to electrically engage the capsule (2300) (paragraph 211, lines 1-15; see the hinging motion of the clamp 2310A in Figs. 7A and 7B, and note that the hinge is the pin near 2320 about which the clamp rotates).
Regarding claim 6, Davidson discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as discussed above.
Davidson further discloses wherein the capsule (2300) further includes an internal heating element (2306), and the electrode arrangement (2330A and 2330B) is configured to drive a current into the internal heating element (2306) within the capsule (2300) (paragraph 151, lines 1-2; Fig. 5A; paragraph 211, lines 1-10; Fig. 7B).
Regarding claim 7, Davidson discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as discussed above.
Davidson further discloses wherein the electrode arrangement (2330A and 2330B) includes a first electrode (2330A) and a second electrode (2330B) (paragraph 211, lines 1-15; Figs. 7A-B).
Regarding claim 8, Davidson discloses the apparatus of claim 7, as discussed above.
Davidson further discloses wherein the first electrode (2330A) and the second electrode (2330B) are configured to contact a same side of the capsule (2300) (Figs. 7A-B, where the electrodes contact the left side of the capsule 2300).
Regarding claim 9, Davidson discloses the apparatus of claim 7, as discussed above.
Davidson further discloses wherein the electrode arrangement (2330A and 2330B) is configured to drive a current through an outer surface of the capsule (2300) from the first electrode (2330A) to the second electrode (2330B) (paragraph 211, lines 1-15).
Regarding claim 11, Davidson discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as discussed above.
Davidson further discloses wherein the capsule (2300) defines a cavity (2303) containing the material (2304) (paragraph 155, lines 1-8; Fig. 5A).
Regarding claim 12, Davidson discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as discussed above.
Davidson further discloses wherein the material (2304) is a plant material (paragraph 148, lines 1-2; see Fig. 5C and 7A; see “botanical substance” in paragraph 111, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 13, Davidson discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as discussed above.
Davidson further discloses wherein the main body (2320) is configured to move the capsule (2300) in a longitudinal direction within the main body (2320), the longitudinal direction extending along a length of the main body (2320) (paragraph 204, lines 1-8 and Fig. 6D, where the figure shows the direction that a capsule 2300 is pulled from the carousel 2322 into main body 2320, this direction is regarded as the longitudinal direction along the horizontal length of 2320).
Regarding claim 14, Davidson discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as discussed above.
Davidson further discloses wherein the main body (2320) is configured to move the capsule (2300) in a lateral direction within the main body (2320), the lateral direction extending along a width of the main body (2320) (paragraph 204, lines 1-8 and Fig. 6D, where the figure shows the direction that a capsule 2300 is pulled from the carousel 2322 into main body 2320, this direction is regarded as the lateral direction along the horizontal width of 2320).
Regarding claim 15, Davidson discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as discussed above.
Davidson further discloses wherein the electrode arrangement (2330A and 2300B) is part of the main body (2320) (paragraph 211, lines 1-8; Figs. 7A-B).
Regarding claim 16, Davidson discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as discussed above.
Davidson further discloses wherein the electrode arrangement (2330A and 2300B) is configured to disengage from the capsule (2300) after generating the vapor so as to permit displacement of the capsule (2300) (paragraph 208, lines 9-11; paragraph 216, lines 13-17; paragraph 230, lines 1-7).
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4 and 6-10 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-6, and 8-10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,696,989 to Raichman, hereinafter referred to as Raichman ‘989. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following claim mapping.
Regarding claim 1, Raichman ‘989 discloses an apparatus for heating a material to generate a vapor (claim 1, lines 1-2), comprising:
a capsule including the material (claim 1, line 3);
a main body configured to receive the capsule (claim 1, line 4); and
an electrode arrangement configured to move relative to the main body to electrically engage with the capsule, the electrode arrangement configured to default to a biased position against the capsule (claim 1, lines 5-14).
Regarding claim 2, Raichman ‘989 discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as discussed above.
Raichman ‘989 further discloses wherein the electrode arrangement is configured to slide across a face of the capsule while in physical contact with the capsule (claim 3, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 3, Raichman ‘989 discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as discussed above.
Raichman ‘989 further discloses wherein the electrode arrangement includes at least one mobile electrode and at least one stationary electrode (claim 4, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 4, Raichman ‘989 discloses the apparatus of claim 3, as discussed above.
Raichman ‘989 further discloses wherein the at least one mobile electrode and the at least one stationary electrode are configured to be on opposite sides of the capsule when the capsule is electrically engaged with the electrode arrangement (claim 5, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 6, Raichman ‘989 discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as discussed above.
Raichman ‘989 further discloses wherein the capsule further includes an internal heating element, and the electrode arrangement is configured to drive a current into the internal heating element within the capsule (claim 6, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 7, Raichman ‘989 discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as discussed above.
Raichman ‘989 further discloses wherein the electrode arrangement includes a first electrode and a second electrode (claim 7, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 8, Raichman ‘989 discloses the apparatus of claim 7, as discussed above.
Raichman ‘989 further discloses wherein the first electrode and the second electrode are configured to contact a same side of the capsule (claim 8, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 9, Raichman ‘989 discloses the apparatus of claim 7, as discussed above.
Raichman ‘989 further discloses wherein the electrode arrangement is configured to drive a current through an outer surface of the capsule from the first electrode to the second electrode (claim 9, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 10, Raichman ‘989 discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as discussed above.
Raichman ‘989 further discloses wherein the electrode arrangement includes contact portions in a form of blades (claim 10, lines 1-2).
Claims 11-16 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,696,989 to Raichman, hereinafter referred to as Raichman ‘989 in view of Davidson (US 2017/0095624).
Regarding claim 11, Raichman ‘989 discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as discussed above.
Raichman ‘989 fails to disclose wherein the capsules defines a cavity containing the material.
However, Davidson teaches wherein the capsule (2300) defines a cavity (2303) containing the material (2304) such that the material can be held in a flat form (paragraph 155, lines 1-8; Fig. 5A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Raichman ‘989 to include a cavity containing the material, as taught by Davidson, in order to allow the material to be held in a flat form.
Regarding claim 12, Raichman ‘989 discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as discussed above.
Raichman ‘989 fails to disclose wherein the material is a plant material.
However, Davidson teaches wherein the material (2304) is a plant material as a known substance for vaporizing (paragraph 148, lines 1-2; see Fig. 5C and 7A; see “botanical substance” in paragraph 111, lines 1-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Raichman ‘989 to include plant material as the vaporized material, as taught by Davidson, as a known material for vaporizing and inhaling.
Regarding claim 13, Raichman ‘989 discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as discussed above.
Raichman ‘989 fails to disclose wherein the main body is configured to move the capsule in a longitudinal direction within the main body, the longitudinal direction extending along a length of the main body.
However, Davidson teaches wherein the main body (2320) is configured to move the capsule (2300) in a longitudinal direction within the main body (2320), the longitudinal direction extending along a length of the main body (2320) in order to facilitate replacement of the capsule (paragraph 204, lines 1-8 and Fig. 6D, where the figure shows the direction that a capsule 2300 is pulled from the carousel 2322 into main body 2320, this direction is regarded as the longitudinal direction along the horizontal length of 2320; paragraph 208, lines 9-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Raichman ‘989 to include wherein the main body is configured to move the capsule in a longitudinal direction within the main body, the longitudinal direction extending along a length of the main body, as taught by Davidson, in order to facilitate replacement of the capsule.
Regarding claim 14, Raichman ‘989 discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as discussed above.
Raichman ‘989 fails to disclose wherein the main body is configured to move the capsule in a lateral direction within the main body, the lateral direction extending along a width of the main body.
Davidson teaches wherein the main body (2320) is configured to move the capsule (2300) in a lateral direction within the main body (2320), the lateral direction extending along a width of the main body (2320) (paragraph 204, lines 1-8 and Fig. 6D, where the figure shows the direction that a capsule 2300 is pulled from the carousel 2322 into main body 2320, this direction is regarded as the lateral direction along the horizontal width of 2320).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Raichman ‘989 to include wherein the main body is configured to move the capsule in a lateral direction within the main body, the lateral direction extending along a width of the main body, as taught by Davidson, in order to facilitate replacement of the capsule.
Regarding claim 15, Raichman ‘989 discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as discussed above.
Raichman ‘989 fails to disclose wherein the electrode arrangement is part of the main body.
However, Davidson teaches wherein the electrode arrangement (2330A and 2300B) is part of the main body (2320) for facilitating electric heating of the capsule (2300) when the capsule is place and secured in the main body (2320) (paragraph 211, lines 1-8; Figs. 7A-B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the main body to include the electrode arrangement, as taught by Davidson, in order to facilitate electric heating of the capsule when the capsule is place and secured in the main body.
Regarding claim 16, Raichman ‘989 discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as discussed above.
Raichman ‘989 fails to disclose wherein the electrode arrangement is configured to disengage from the capsule after generating the vapor so as to permit displacement of the capsule.
However, Davidson teaches wherein the electrode arrangement (2330A and 2300B) is configured to disengage from the capsule (2300) after generating the vapor so as to permit displacement of the capsule (2300) for replacement with a fresh capsule (2300) (paragraph 208, lines 9-11; paragraph 216, lines 13-17; paragraph 230, lines 1-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordainry skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Raichman ‘989 to include wherein the electrode arrangement is configured to disengage from the capsule after generating the vapor so as to permit displacement of the capsule, as taught by Davidson, for enablement of the replacement of the used capsule with a fresh capsule.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,696,989 to Raichman, hereinafter referred to as Raichman ‘989 in view of Batista (US 2016/0338410).
Regarding claim 17, Raichman ‘989 discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as discussed above.
Raichman ‘989 fails to disclose wherein the electrode arrangement includes a spring configured to facilitate the default to the biased position.
However, Batista teaches wherein the electrode arrangement (see both clamps 3) includes a spring configured to facilitate the default to the biased position by resilient members (paragraphs 27, lines 1-9 and paragraph 28, lines 1-9 for the resilient material, to include leaf springs of the clamping means 3; paragraph 73, lines 3-4 and 13-19 where the clamps contact the heating assembly via electrical connection to the battery, and note that clamps 3 are electrically conductive per paragraph 74, lines 1-2, and are thus regarded as the claimed electrodes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrode arrangement of Raichman ‘989 to include a spring for facilitating the default to the biased position, as taught by Batista, in order to resiliently bias the electrode arrangement against the capsule to secure the capsule in place.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAIGE K. BUGG whose telephone number is (571)272-8053. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/PAIGE KATHLEEN BUGG/Examiner, Art Unit 3785