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 .
Note: This action is final since all the claims filed are the same claims as filed in the rejected application 17/201656.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fornarelli (US 11038360) in view of Verleur et al (US 2015/0128976).
Per claim 1 and 11, Fornarelli teaches a system, comprising: a vaporizer pen including a rechargeable battery (Fig. 1 teaches a vaporizer pen 10 having a rechargeable battery 1) ;
a housing (Fig. 1-3 and col. 1, lines 45-60 teaches a housing 106).
But, Fornarelli does not explicitly teach at least one magnet disposed in one of the vaporizer pen or the housing, the at least one magnet configured to apply a retentive force between the vaporizer pen and the housing when the vaporizer pen is attached to the housing.
In an analogous art, Verleur teaches a vaporizer (abstract and Fig. 1). Verleur further teaches at least one magnet disposed in one of the vaporizer pen or the housing, the at least one magnet configured to apply a retentive force between the vaporizer pen and the housing when the vaporizer pen is attached to the housing (paragraph 0050, 0039 and 0054 teaches a vaporizer having a magnet in order to be attached to the housing using the magnetic force and having a USB interface electrically coupled to the rechargeable battery). Therefore, before the effective filling date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for Fornarelli to use the magnetic connection of Verleur. The rationale would be to secure the vaporizer to the housing for secure connection.
Per claim 2 and 12, Fornarelli teaches wherein the vaporizer pen further includes a sensor configured to detect a charge level of the rechargeable battery (col. 4, lines 23-40 teaches detecting charge level and if it’s full charge. Col. 5, lines 32-50 teaches how the processor and PCB are operational contact with battery and sensors).
Per claim 3 and 13, Fornarelli teaches at least one light emitting diode (LED), the system configured to illuminate the at least one LED to indicate the charge level of the rechargeable battery (col. 4, lines 23-40 teaches LEDs having different patterns for determining charge level of the battery).
Per claim 4 and 14, Fornarelli teaches at least one light emitting diode (LED), the system configured to illuminate the at least one LED to indicate that the vaporizer pen is being charged (col. 4, lines 23-40 teaches LEDs for determining the vaporizer is being charged).
Per claim 5 and 15, Fornarelli teaches in the above paragraphs teaches plurality of LEDs for different indications. But, Fornarelli doesn’t explicitly teach LEDs to indicate date is transferred.
However, Fornarelli in col. 4, lines 23-40 and col. 6, lines 51-62 teaches LEDs having different pattern for various feedback and indications. Therefore, examiner will take Official Notice that before the effective filling date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use LEDs to indicate data transmission since Fornarelli already teaches LEDs for feedback and indication for various operations. The rationale would be to provide visual confirmation to the user of data transfer.
Per claim 6 and 16, Fornarelli teaches at least one light emitting diode (LED), the system configured to illuminate the at least one LED in a predetermined pattern (col. 4, lines 23-40 and col. 6, lines 51-62 teaches LEDs having different pattern for various feedback and indications).
Per claim 7 and 17, Fornarelli teaches wherein the predetermined pattern includes at least one of sequence of colors of illumination or a sequence of frequencies of illumination (col. 6, lines 51-62 teaches LEDs having different pattern, colors/sequence for various feedback and indications).
Per claim 8 and 18 see rejection of claim 1.
Per claim 9 and 19, Fornarelli teaches wherein at least one of the vaporizer pen or the housing includes medical grade plastic (Fig. 2-4 teaches cover 112 made from medical grade plastic).
Per claim 10 and 20, Fornarelli teaches wherein the vaporizer pen further includes at least one reservoir portion (abstract teaches reservoir).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Memari et al (US 2015/0245668) paragraph 0539 teaches sensor for detecting charge level of a vaporizer.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 OMEED ALIZADA whose telephone number is (571)270-5907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 am until 5:30 pm.
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, Steven Lim can be reached on 571-270-1210. 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.
/OMEED ALIZADA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights