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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 5 and 7 are cancelled. Claims 13 and 14 are amended. Claims 1-4, 6 and 8-20 are presently examined.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of 6/23/2026 are overcome.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under nonstatutory double patenting have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of 6/23/2026 are overcome.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 8/14/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent No. 12,016,400 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because portions of figures 2A, 2B, and 3 are shaded in ways that obscure the structure of the shown elements in violation of 37 CFR 1.84(m), and because portions of figures 2B and 3 have shaded and not white backgrounds as required by 37 CFR 1.84(e). 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is shorter than 50 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The words “Dispensing” (line 1), “Device” (line 1), “Electromechanical” (line 3), “Feedback” (line 3), “Device” (line 3), “Electromechanical” (line 6), “Feedback” (line 6), “Device” (line 6), “Electromechanical” (line 7), “Feedback” (line 7), “Device” (line 7), “Amplifier” (line 11) and “Buffer” (line 11) are capitalized despite not being proper nouns nor appearing at the beginning of a sentence. The word “comprising” is used where “comprises” would be grammatically correct (line 7).
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: The words “Claim” (line 1), “Armature” (line 2) and “Controlled” (line 2) are capitalized despite not being proper nouns nor appearing at the beginning of a sentence.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: The words “Claim” (line 1) and “Switch” (line 1) are capitalized despite not being proper nouns nor appearing at the beginning of a sentence.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: The word “Claim” is capitalized despite not being proper nouns nor appearing at the beginning of a sentence (line 1).
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: The word “Claim” is capitalized despite not being proper nouns nor appearing at the beginning of a sentence (line 1).
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: The word “Claim” is capitalized despite not being proper nouns nor appearing at the beginning of a sentence (line 1).
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: The word “Claim” is capitalized despite not being proper nouns nor appearing at the beginning of a sentence (line 1).
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: The word “Claim” is capitalized despite not being proper nouns nor appearing at the beginning of a sentence (line 1).
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: The word “Claim” is capitalized despite not being proper nouns nor appearing at the beginning of a sentence (line 1).
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: The word “Claim” is capitalized despite not being proper nouns nor appearing at the beginning of a sentence (line 1).
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: The words “Claim” (line 1), “Electromechanical” (line 2), “Feedback” (line 2), and “Device” (line 2) are capitalized despite not being proper nouns nor appearing at the beginning of a sentence.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: The words “Electromechanical” (line 2), “Feedback” (line 2), “Device” (line 2), “Electromechanical” (line 5), “Feedback” (line 6), and “Device” (line 6) are capitalized despite not being proper nouns nor appearing at the beginning of a sentence.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: The word “Claim” is capitalized despite not being proper nouns nor appearing at the beginning of a sentence (line 1).
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: The word “Claim” is capitalized despite not being proper nouns nor appearing at the beginning of a sentence (line 1).
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: The word “Claim” is capitalized despite not being proper nouns nor appearing at the beginning of a sentence (line 1).
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: The word “Claim” is capitalized despite not being proper nouns nor appearing at the beginning of a sentence (line 1).
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: The word “Claim” is capitalized despite not being proper nouns nor appearing at the beginning of a sentence (line 1).
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: The word “Claim” is capitalized despite not being proper nouns nor appearing at the beginning of a sentence (line 1).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4 is 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.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites the limitation “when battery is plugged into the battery charger,” however, applicant’s specification uses the term “plugged” only in references to a USB power source that is plugged in [0033] to the battery charger [0037], not the battery itself. Furthermore, the battery charger (figure 2A, reference numeral 210) is operatively coupled directly to a battery protection system, but are physically separate ([0033], figure 2A, reference numeral 230). Although the battery itself is not shown, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it is associated with the battery protection circuity. No connection port where the battery could be plugged into the battery charger is shown, and such an arrangement would contradict the disclosure of applicant’s specification since the battery protection circuit is shown distanced from the battery charger. Furthermore, how could the battery protection circuitry perform its function if it the battery were to be directly plugged into the battery charger, bypassing the protection circuit? The claim therefore does not meet the written description requirement.
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 3-4, 6 and 8-20 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 claims recite the pairs of limitations “an ASIC” and “an ASIC connected to a transducer,” “a ROM chip” and “a ROM chip connected to a transducer,” and “a puff sensor” and “a puff sensor connected to a transducer.” For each pair, it is unclear whether the second limitation serves to limit the claim or whether the second limitation is merely exemplary language with respect to the first limitation. It is therefore unclear whether the claim is in compliance with MPEP § 2173.05(d), rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the claim will be interpreted as if only the first limitation of each claim were recited.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites the limitation “an overcharging circuit,” “an over-discharging circuit,” “an overcurrent circuit,” and “a short circuit.” In each of these cases, the limitations are associated with a battery protection circuit, however, each of these conditions would cause damage to a battery rather than protecting a battery. The claim is therefore indefinite since it is unclear whether the individual circuits of the battery protection unit are in fact protecting the battery or causing damage to it. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will not be considered to limit claim 1. Claims 4, 6 and 9-12 are indefinite by dependence.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites the limitation “the operation amplifier including an output that is the same as an input with higher driving capability.” It is unclear what parameter is being buffered, how the operational amplifier “includes” its output since the output must leave the amplifier, or what properties would be associated with a higher driving capability. The claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will not be considered to limit the claim. Claims 10-12 are indefinite by dependence.
Regarding claim 11, it is unclear what is required by the limitation “when a transistor is turned on.” Does this require that the transistor have a separate switch that activates it, or does it merely require that the transistor be in the same circuit as the haptic motor, and therefore be activated whenever the haptic motor is activated? The claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it required the transistor to be in the same circuit as the haptic motor.
It is unclear what is required by the limitation “the transistor works as a switch to provide a voltage drop to protect the DC motor by working under a rated voltage.” Does it require the transistor to switch power on and off, to reduce the voltage below a specified rated voltage, or to provide power itself? The claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the claim will be interpreted as if it required a transistor that lowers the voltage. Claim 12 is indefinite by dependence.
Regarding claim 12, the term “output high level” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “output high level” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification provides literal support for the term “output high level” [0040], but does not state what values would be considered high, or even what units are associated with the term. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it required the sensor to produce an output indicating that a user is sucking on the device.
It is unclear what is required by the limitation “when sucking.” Does that refer to the sucking of a user, or to the sucking of a device component? The claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it referred to the sucking of a user on the device.
The term “output low level” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “output low level” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification provides literal support for the term “output low level” [0040], but does not state what values would be considered high, or even what units are associated with the term. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it required the sensor to produce an output indicating that a user is sucking on the device.
It is unclear what is required by the limitation “a sucking strength that is not configurable.” What about the sucking strength is not configurable? Is no inhalation occurring? Is the inhalation outside some detection range? Is the sensor not functioning properly? Is it a combination of any of these factors? The claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will not be considered to limit the claim.
Regarding claim 13, it is unclear what is required by the limitations “the battery protection device provides a safety level of the received samples, since the battery charger and the battery protection device remain the same.” What does providing a safety level mean? What does it mean that the battery charger and battery protection device remain the same? Are they not after all two different components? The claim is therefore indefinite. It is also noted that there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the received samples” in the claim, rendering the claim indefinite for an additional reason. For the purposes of this Office action, the indicated limitations will not be considered to limit the claim.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites the limitation “an atomizer and the Electromechanical Feedback Device is a motor.” It is unclear whether this limitation requires the atomizer and the electromechanical feedback device to both be the same motor, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the claim will be interpreted as if it required the electromechanical feedback device to include a motor and an atomizer.
It is unclear what is required by the limitation “the atomizer and the motor share an input control of the first MOSFET and the second MOSFET.” What is being inputted into the MOSFET’s? How do the atomizer and motor, which are not control components releasing control signals, even input some sort of control to the MOSFET’s? The claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the indicated limitation will not be considered to limit the claim. Claims 13 and 15-20 are indefinite by dependence.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites the limitation “the operation amplifier including an output that is the same as an input with higher driving capability.” It is unclear what parameter is being buffered, how the operational amplifier “includes” its output since the output must leave the amplifier, or what properties would be associated with a higher driving capability. The claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will not be considered to limit the claim. Claims 18-20 are indefinite by dependence.
Regarding claim 19, it is unclear what is required by the limitation “when a transistor is turned on.” Does this require that the transistor have a separate switch that activates it, or does it merely require that the transistor be in the same circuit as the haptic motor, and therefore be activated whenever the haptic motor is activated? The claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it required the transistor to be in the same circuit as the haptic motor.
It is unclear what is required by the limitation “the transistor works as a switch to provide a voltage drop to protect the DC motor by working under a rated voltage.” Does it require the transistor to switch power on and off, to reduce the voltage below a specified rated voltage, or to provide power itself? The claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the claim will be interpreted as if it required a transistor that disconnects the load when an overvoltage occurs. Claim 20 is indefinite by dependence.
Regarding claim 20, the term “output high level” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “output high level” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification provides literal support for the term “output high level” [0040], but does not state what values would be considered high, or even what units are associated with the term. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it required the sensor to produce an output indicating that a user is sucking on the device.
It is unclear what is required by the limitation “when sucking.” Does that refer to the sucking of a user, or to the sucking of a device component? The claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it referred to the sucking of a user on the device.
The term “output low level” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “output low level” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification provides literal support for the term “output low level” [0040], but does not state what values would be considered high, or even what units are associated with the term. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it required the sensor to produce an output indicating that a user is sucking on the device.
It is unclear what is required by the limitation “a sucking strength that is not configurable.” What about the sucking strength is not configurable? Is no inhalation occurring? Is the inhalation outside some detection range? Is the sensor not functioning properly? Is it a combination of any of these factors? The claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will not be considered to limit the claim.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marangos (US 2012/0199146) in view of Clark (US 3,522,581) and Nielsen (US 2009/0283103) and Kannan (US 8,036,790).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Marangos discloses an electronic cigarette (abstract) in the form of a first hollow cylindrical member in the form of a tube (figure 2, reference numeral 4), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an external shell, that contains a batter ([0030], figure 2, reference numeral 12) that is used to power electronic circuitry of the device ([0032], figure 2, reference numeral 14), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an electromechanical feedback device. The electronic circuitry includes a pressure sensor that senses pressure changes applied by a user to the mouthpiece (figure 4, reference numeral 42) and activates a heater when a pressure change is detected ([0033], figure 4, reference numeral 46), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an atomizer. The heater is enabled by a solid state switch, which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a switch, and a MOSFET Q2 [0033], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a MOSFET. The signal from the pressure sensor to the microcontroller is considered to meet the claim limitation of a logical output. A timer turns off the heater if a safety limit greater than a pre determined time limit is reached [0034]. The microcontroller has a safety time that shuts off the heater is pre selected time duration is reached [0034], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a logical circuit. Marangos does not explicitly disclose (a) the timer being an RC timer (b) a motor and (c) an amplifier/buffer on the same circuit as the motor.
Regarding (a), Clark teaches timers that control energization of a load (column 1, lines 30-32), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a logical circuit, that uses an electronic timer in the form of an RC unijunction relaxation oscillator circuit (column 3, lines 38-45).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the RC timer of Clark as the timer of Marangos. One would have been motivated to do so since Clark teaches a timer that controls activation of an electrical load.
Regarding (b), Nielsen teaches an electronic vaporizing device (abstract) having a microprocessor that controls a small vibration motor that provides feedback to a user by vibrating the device [0037].
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device and circuitry of Marangos with the vibration motor of Nielsen. One would have been motivated to do so since Nielsen teaches a vibration motor that provides user feedback.
Regarding (c), Kannan teaches an electronic control device (abstract) having a power supply circuit that contains a buffer amplifier to protect the circuit against short circuiting and ensure a constant voltage is supplied to the circuit (column 18, lines 61-67, column 19, lines 1-9).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the motor circuit of modified Marangos with the buffer amplifier of Kannan. One would have been motivated to do so since Kannan teaches a buffer amplifier that protects against short circuits and ensures a constant voltage is supplied.
Regarding claim 9, the motor and associated circuit of modified Marangos are considered to meet the claim limitation of a haptic motor circuit since the motor emits vibrations. The buffer amplifier of modified Marangos is considered to meet the claim limitation of an operational amplifier set as a buffer.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marangos (US 2012/0199146) in view of Clark (US 3,522,581) and Nielsen (US 2009/0283103) and Kannan (US 8,036,790) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamaguchi (US 5,107,155).
Regarding claim 2, modified Marangos teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Marangos does not explicitly teach the vibration motor being a DC motor.
Yamaguchi teaches a small dc vibrator motor for use in a wireless device (abstract) that has a simple and low cost construction and only requires low power consumption (column 2, lines 33-37).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the dc motor of Yamaguchi as the motor of modified Marangos. One would have been motivated to do so since Yamaguchi teaches a vibration motor that has a simple and low cost construction and only requires low power consumption.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marangos (US 2012/0199146) in view of Clark (US 3,522,581) and Nielsen (US 2009/0283103) and Kannan (US 8,036,790) and Yamaguchi (US 5,107,155) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Broker (US 9,178,447).
Regarding claim 3, modified Marangos teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Marangos does not explicitly teach the switch being an ASIC.
Broker teaches a control circuit (abstract) in which an ASIC controls the operation of a solid state switch (column 6, lines 52-67).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the switch of modified Marangos with the ASIC of Broker. One would have been motivated to do so since Broker teaches controlling a switch in a circuit using an ASIC.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marangos (US 2012/0199146) in view of Clark (US 3,522,581) and Nielsen (US 2009/0283103) and Kannan (US 8,036,790) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu (US 2022/0015444).
Regarding claim 6, modified Marangos teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Marangos does not explicitly teach a specific predetermined time limit.
Liu teaches an electronic cigarette comprising an atomization assembly and a battery assembly that has an overwork protection unit that shuts off the power supply to a control panel when the cigarette works continuously for over a preset time [0003]. The set time limit is 10 seconds [0004]. The control panel supplies power in turn to the atomization assembly [0005].
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the set time limit of Liu in the device of modified Marangos. One would have been motivated to do so since Liu teaches a suitable time limit for shutting off heating of an electronic cigarette.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marangos (US 2012/0199146) in view of Clark (US 3,522,581) and Nielsen (US 2009/0283103) and Kannan (US 8,036,790) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Suilmann (US 6,779,776).
Regarding claim 10, modified Marangos teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Marangos does not explicitly teach a freewheeling diode.
Suilmann teaches an electronic protective circuit (abstract) having a freewheeling diode that protects against voltage peaks (column 2, lines 16-39).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of modified Marangos with the electronic protective circuit of Suilmann. One would have been motivated to do so since Suilmann teaches a protective circuit that protects against high voltage.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marangos (US 2012/0199146) in view of Clark (US 3,522,581) and Nielsen (US 2009/0283103) and Kannan (US 8,036,790) and Suilmann (US 6,779,776) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Yamaguchi (US 5,107,155) and Bixby (US 2,994,029).
Regarding claim 11, modified Marangos teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Marangos does not explicitly teach (a) the haptic motor being a DC motor and (b) a transistor.
Regarding (a), Yamaguchi teaches a small dc vibrator motor for use in a wireless device (abstract) that has a simple and low cost construction and only requires low power consumption (column 2, lines 33-37).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the dc motor of Yamaguchi as the motor of modified Marangos. One would have been motivated to do so since Yamaguchi teaches a vibration motor that has a simple and low cost construction and only requires low power consumption.
Regarding (b), Bixby teaches a current supply apparatus (column 1, lines 9-11) that protects a load against excessive current (column 1, lines 37-51) and reducing the load across a load voltage (column 1, lines 15-18) by using a series regulating transistor that reduces the load voltage supply (column 1, lines 37-51).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the motor circuit of modified Marangos with the transistor of Bixby. One would have been motivated to do so since Bixby teaches a current supply apparatus that protects a load against excessive current.
Regarding claim 12, Marangos discloses that the electronic cigarette has LED indicators that indicate usage of the electronic cigarette [0001] that are associated with the circuitry [0014].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marangos (US 2012/0199146) in view of Nielsen (US 2009/0283103) and Fujita (US 11,918,052) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Monsees (US 9,408,416) and Henry, Jr. (US 10,500,600).
Regarding claim 13, modified Marangos teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Marangos additionally discloses that the battery is recharged through a screw terminal [0032], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a battery charger. Modified Marangos does not explicitly teach (a) an LED that shows the charging status of the device and (b) a battery protection device.
Regarding (a), Monsees teaches an electronic vaporization device (abstract) having a rechargeable battery (column 8, lines 48-59) and an LED that indicates a charging state of the battery (column 11, lines 47-67, column 12, lines 1-6).
It would therefore have been obvious to combine the device of modified Marangos with the LED indicating a charging state of Monsees. One would have been motivated to do so since Monsees teaching indicating a charging state to a user.
Regarding (b), Henry, Jr. teaches an aerosol delivery device (abstract) having a rechargeable battery (column 4, lines 11-35) that includes a battery protection circuit that protects the battery from short circuit and under voltage conditions (column 7, lines 47-59).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the battery of modified Marangos with the battery protection circuit of Henry, Jr. One would have been motivated to do so since Henry, Jr. teaches a battery protection circuit that protects the battery from short circuit and under voltage conditions.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marangos (US 2012/0199146) in view of Nielsen (US 2009/0283103) and Fujita (US 11,918,052).
Regarding claim 14, Marangos discloses an electronic cigarette (abstract) in the form of a first hollow cylindrical member in the form of a tube (figure 2, reference numeral 4), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an external shell, that contains a batter ([0030], figure 2, reference numeral 12) that is used to power electronic circuitry of the device ([0032], figure 2, reference numeral 14), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an electromechanical feedback device. The electronic circuitry includes a pressure sensor that senses pressure changes applied by a user to the mouthpiece (figure 4, reference numeral 42) and activates a heater when a pressure change is detected ([0033], figure 4, reference numeral 46), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an atomizer. The heater is enabled by a solid state switch, which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a first switch, and a MOSFET Q2 [0033], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a MOSFET. Marangos does not explicitly disclose (a) a motor and (b) the motor having a separate switch and MOSFET.
Regarding (a), Nielsen teaches an electronic vaporizing device (abstract) having a microprocessor that controls a small vibration motor that provides feedback to a user by vibrating the device [0037].
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device and circuitry of Marangos with the vibration motor of Nielsen. One would have been motivated to do so since Nielsen teaches a vibration motor that provides user feedback.
Regarding (b), Fujita teaches a control unit for a heating apparatus (abstract) a first switch that includes a MOSFET (column 1, lines 60-61).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the microprocessor and motor of modified Marangos with the switch and MOSFET of Fujita. One would have been motivated to do so since Fujita teaches a control arrangement for a circuit. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2143, A.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marangos (US 2012/0199146) in view of Nielsen (US 2009/0283103) and Fujita (US 11,918,052) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Kannan (US 8,036,790).
Regarding claim 15, modified Marangos teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Marangos additionally discloses that the electronic circuitry includes a pressure sensor that senses pressure changes applied by a user to the mouthpiece (figure 4, reference numeral 42) and activates a heater when a pressure change is detected ([0033], figure 4, reference numeral 46), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an atomizer. It is evident that there must be a comparator associated with the pressure sensor since the controller would otherwise be unable to determine what the output of the pressure sensor was. Modified Marangos does not explicitly teach an amplifier
Kannan teaches an electronic control device (abstract) having a power supply circuit that contains a buffer amplifier to protect the circuit against short circuiting and ensure a constant voltage is supplied to the circuit (column 18, lines 61-67, column 19, lines 1-9).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the motor circuit of modified Marangos with the buffer amplifier of Kannan. One would have been motivated to do so since Kannan teaches a buffer amplifier that protects against short circuits and ensures a constant voltage is supplied.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, the amplifier of Kannan is considered to be a dual operation amplifier since it is also a buffer.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marangos (US 2012/0199146) in view of Nielsen (US 2009/0283103) and Kannan (US 8,036,790) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Suilmann (US 6,779,776).
Regarding claim 18, modified Marangos teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Marangos does not explicitly teach a freewheeling diode.
Suilmann teaches an electronic protective circuit (abstract) having a freewheeling diode that protects against voltage peaks (column 2, lines 16-39).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of modified Marangos with the electronic protective circuit of Suilmann. One would have been motivated to do so since Suilmann teaches a protective circuit that protects against high voltage.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marangos (US 2012/0199146) in view of Nielsen (US 2009/0283103) and Kannan (US 8,036,790) and Suilmann (US 6,779,776) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Yamaguchi (US 5,107,155) and Bixby (US 2,994,029).
Regarding claim 19, modified Marangos teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Marangos does not explicitly teach (a) the motor being a DC motor and (b) a transistor.
Regarding (a), Yamaguchi teaches a small dc vibrator motor for use in a wireless device (abstract) that has a simple and low cost construction and only requires low power consumption (column 2, lines 33-37).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the dc motor of Yamaguchi as the motor of modified Marangos. One would have been motivated to do so since Yamaguchi teaches a vibration motor that has a simple and low cost construction and only requires low power consumption.
Regarding (b), Bixby teaches a current supply apparatus (column 1, lines 9-11) that protects a load against excessive current (column 1, lines 37-51) and reducing the load across a load voltage (column 1, lines 15-18) by using a series regulating transistor that reduces the load voltage supply (column 1, lines 37-51).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the motor circuit of modified Marangos with the transistor of Bixby. One would have been motivated to do so since Bixby teaches a current supply apparatus that protects a load against excessive current.
Regarding claim 20, Marangos discloses that the electronic cigarette has LED indicators that indicate usage of the electronic cigarette [0001] that are associated with the circuitry [0014].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSSELL E SPARKS whose telephone number is (571)270-1426. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5 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, Philip 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.
/RUSSELL E SPARKS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights