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 the Claims
Claims 1-6 are pending and are subject to this office action. This is the first Office Action on the merits of the claims.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a cartridge being attachable to each of said at least two inlets, each of said cartridges for containing a different substrate" in lines 7-8. It is unclear whether the claim requires one or a plurality of cartridges. For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted as a plurality of cartridges.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "a storage device" in lines 2-3. It is unclear whether the claim requires the storage device is comprised within the inhaler or if it is a separate element designed to be plugged into the inhaler. For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted as a separate element.
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.
(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.
PNG
media_image1.png
382
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-2, and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kessler (US 20210195957 A1).
PNG
media_image2.png
522
672
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Kessler, directed to an electronic inhaler (27, Fig.1 and Fig.2, [0040]), discloses:
A main unit (20), which may represent a first chamber, comprising a mouthpiece (not shown, [0020]), a plurality of attachable carriers (2) further comprising at least two liquid interfaces (47, Fig.4, [0051]) that serve as inlets for connecting said carriers to at least one of their liquid reservoirs (37A-B) by electrically controlling their corresponding metering valves (15, [0061]).
A controller (21, Fig.1 and Fig.2) for controlling every valve, heater (evaporator), and sensor ([0004]). It also serves to adjust the ratio at which individual substances are evaporated from each cartridge (19). Additional controller devices (4, Fig.1) are disposed on the cartridges, and when connected to the first chamber, they are referred to as control device (56, [0045]).
A plurality of cartridges (19A-C, Fig.2), each containing a different substance ([0057]) and attachable to the main unit (20) through the carriers (2), which connect through their electrical interfaces (7, 22, [0085]) to be controlled by a controller (21).
Regarding claim 2, Kessler discloses a memory (14) within the cartridge embodiment (19) that, when connected to the first chamber (20) through the inlets (22), the electronic controller (21) reads an identifier that calls up the control data associated with this identifier from the database to adjust each ratio ([0048]).
Regarding claim 4, Kessler discloses individual evaporators (heating element, 3, Fig.2) within the attachable cartridges (19) that may be controlled individually or in group by the electronic control device (56) in order to evaporate any liquid present in contact with the heater ([0041-0043]).
Regarding claim 5, Kessler discloses an embodiment in which the controller (21) adjustable element (metering valves, 12) can influence the flow through the inhaler, particularly the speed and temperature of air flowing into the device and through the cartridges (19, [0030]).
Regarding claim 6, Kessler discloses multiple cartridges (19A-C, Fig.2), along with their corresponding liquid reservoirs (37A-C) and inlets (47). Therefore, at least one of them may serve for the insertion of a dissolving substance ([0057, 0077-0078]).
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.
PNG
media_image3.png
482
872
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kessler (US 20210195957 A1) in view of Batista (WO 2020245338 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Kessler discloses an inhaler (27, Fig.1) comprising a first chamber (20), and secondary units that serve the purpose of cartridges (19), each with their own memory, heater, and valve, that when connected to the main body create a control device (56).
Kessler does not explicitly disclose a second chamber in communication with the first chamber through a Venturi neck.
However, Batista, directed to an aerosol-generating device (10, Fig.1, [page 23, lines 29-36]), discloses:
A two-piece Venturi portion, comprising an inlet portion (22), a constricted airflow channel (20) arranged in the main body (12), and an outlet portion (24) arranged in the mouthpiece (14, [page 24, lines 1-3]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kessler, in view of Batista, by providing a mixing unit in the form of a second chamber connected to the first chamber by a sudden constriction (or Venturi portion) as taught by Batista; because both Kessler and Batista are directed to atomizing/aerosol-generating devices, Batista teaches the effect of a Venturi portion to optimize the aerosol formation due to the increase of fluid velocity caused by the low pressure of a sudden constriction ([page 24, lines 11-14]) to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIO E OCANA-ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-0806. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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 Y LOUIE can be reached at (571) 270-1241. 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.
/J.E.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights