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 § 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) 1-10, 13, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Counts et al. (US 5,479,948).
Regarding claim 1, Counts et al. disclose a reloading unit that houses a plurality of cartridges (see figure 4, element 44 “portions”) with each portion containing a compound for vaporization. The vaporization unit reversibly engages with the reloading unit (i.e. web 43 reversibly engages the vaporizer (46, 45) because it is capable of being removed from the vaporizer. The vaporizer receives a capsule (i.e. portion) of the capsules housed by the reloading unit.
PNG
media_image1.png
193
336
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
247
448
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the vaporizing unit has a second end (49) and an opposing first end that is a mouthpiece (31, 32) that releases vapor.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the second end engages with the reloading unit (i.e. wall adjacent the vents (49) and the vaporizing unit is seated within the reloading unit when engaged (all the time) while the mouthpiece remains exposed as illustrated.
Regarding claims 6, 7, and 9, the vaporizing unit as illustrated by Counts et al. in figure 7 shows that the vaporizing unit having an opening between the first and second ends configured to receive the capsules, with the capsule being entirely within the vaporizing unit and the opening is within the reloading unit.
PNG
media_image2.png
247
448
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, as illustrated in figures 7, 4, and 1, the walls and other features (gears, mouthpiece) as show are the cross section and are inherently the full thickness in one direction of the device. In other words, the gears, mouthpiece are illustrated as being the entire thickness and as illustrated the gaps and walls would also be present for the entire thickness.
Regarding claim 10, the capsules are received in a direction orthogonal to the longitudinal axis.
Regarding claim 13, the vaporization unit separated from the reloading unit lacks a side wall, resulting in a groove. This groove would inherently facilitate the insertion and alignment of the vaporization unit with the reloading unit.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, the reloading unit has a first receptacle with new capsules (supply roll gear, 40) and a second receptacle for used capsules (up reel 41).
Regarding claim 18, Counts incorporates by reference US 5,060,671 (Counts et al.) that discloses more detail about tobacco flavor material, including that it contains nicotine (col. 2, line 60 – col. 3, line 20).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 12, 14, and 15 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:
Regarding claims 11 and 12, the closest prior art as discussed (Counts et al.) above does not anticipate or make obvious to connect an electrical supply to each portion of Counts et al. because it is taught that each segment should not have a separate heating element. In addition, there would be no need to bias electrodes to contact capsules/portions.
Regarding claim 14, the portions of Counts et al. are wound on a spindle and not stacked. It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to stack the portions of Counts et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J FELTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4805. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Thursday-Friday 7:00-4:30, Wednesday 7:00-1:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael H Wilson can be reached at 571-270-3882. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Michael J Felton/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights