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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 2, 5, 7, 9 and 11-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:.
Claim 2 recites an improper Markush grouping. In the last line, the word “or’ should be amended to read “and.”
Claim 5 recites the limitation “further comprising an atomizer and a motor are operably controlled by the signal of a flow sensor.” The limitation makes no sense as written. It is suggested that the limitation be amended to read ”further comprising an atomizer and a motor, which are operably controlled by the signal of a flow sensor.”
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the air-flow sensor including a logical output and connected to a buffer.” The limitation makes no sense as written. An appropriate amendment is not clear due to indefiniteness caused by the recitation. See further explanation in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the operational amplifier including an output that is same as an input with higher driving capability.” It is suggested that the text “an output that is same” should be amended to read “an output that is the same.”
Claim 11 recites the limitation “when the transistor is turn on, the voltage applies on the DC motor.” It is suggested that the limitation be amended to read “when the transistor is turned on, the voltage is applied to the DC motor” or similar language. Also see further discussion of the limitation in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below.
In claim 12, line 1, a hyphen should be inserted between the words “air” and “flow”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 5-16 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 5 recites the limitation “the signal of a flow sensor” in Claim 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the haptic motor” in Claim 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the air-flow sensor including a logical output and connected to a buffer.” It is not clear if the air-flow sensor is connected to a buffer or if the logical output is connected to a buffer.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the transistor” in Claim 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the voltage” in Claim 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “an NPN transistor.” It is not clear if the NPN transistor is intended to be the transistor recited earlier in the claim, or a different transistor
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the battery charger is operably coupled to a battery protection.” It is not clear what a battery protection is intended to mean.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the received samples” in Claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is also not clear what the term “samples” is intended to mean.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “since the battery charger and the battery protection remain the same”. It is not clear what is intended by tis limitation.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the motor operably coupled to a MOSFET control including a first MOFSET and a second MOFSET; the atomizer is operably coupled to a first switch and the motor is operably coupled to a second switch; the atomizer and the motor share an input control of the first MOSFET and the second MOSFET.” It is not clear if the first switch and second switch that the atomizer is operatively coupled to are the same as the first MOSFET and the second MOSFET or if they are additional switches.
Claims 6, 8-10 and 15-16 depend from and inherit the indefiniteness of a rejected claim and are also rejected.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
reference character “230” has been used to designate both a battery protection system and a battery protection chip.
reference character “316” has been used to designate both a battery protection and a battery protection device.
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. 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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al (US 2021/0401061).
Claim 1: Davis discloses a vape or vaporizing device (reads on a dispensing device) (Abs, [0002], [0015], [0155]) comprising a common housing suitable for grasping by a user [0155], which corresponds to a shell; and output display devices, such as indicator lights, alphanumeric display screens, audio speakers, surface heaters, vibration devices, and any other forms of tactile feedback devices as well known to those skilled in the art [0164], which correspond to electromechanical feedback devices and provide the means to relay information relating to the operation of vape device to a user [0426].
In disclosed embodiments, the device comprises a draw sensor that can be used as a simple “switch” to produce an electrical signal in response to when a user inhales or draws on mouthpiece, wherein the electrical signal can cause electric current from battery to flow through the atomizer. Therefore the switch is obviously connected to a battery, accepts an input (ser inhales or draws) and opens a power gateway allowing power to flow from the battery to the device and the electromechanical feedback devices [0159], such as lights within the shell that may illuminate when the device is activated and display feedback to a user during use of the device [0426].
The features of the claim are disclosed in embodiments of Davis et al or, at least, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a dispensing device configured as claimed from the disclosure.
Claim 2: The output display devices, such as indicator lights, alphanumeric display screens, audio speakers, surface heaters, vibration devices, and any other forms of tactile (electromechanical) feedback devices are well known to those skilled in the art [0164], preferably LED lights [0426].
Claim 3: a draw sensor, considered to read on a puff sensor, is disclosed as a suitable switch [0159].
.
Claim(s) 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al in view of Xiang (US 2016/0226286).
As discussed above, Davis et al discloses LED lights as preferred electromechanical feedback devices, but fails to disclose a battery charger operably coupled to the first LED light, a second LED light, and a battery protection system; the first LED light turns on when a power source is plugged into the battery charger; and the second LED light turns on when the battery charging is finished.
Xiang discloses an electronic cigarette case is used for charging an electronic cigarette battery rod. The case comprises: a microprocessor, a Hall sensor module, a battery rod charging interface and a charging circuit. The Hall sensor module is connected to the microprocessor. The charging circuit is connected to and controlled by the microprocessor. The battery rod charging interface is connected to the charging circuit (Abs, [0006]-[0008], [0010]). Preferably, the charging circuit further includes a charging management and over-voltage protection circuit, an overcurrent and full-charge detection circuit, and a boosting circuit [0011], all of which read on a battery protection circuit. The microprocessor is also connected to and controls four LEDs in the charging circuit [0110], which include a first LED light and a second LED light. Various working states or abnormal state of the charging can be indicated by LEDs ([0071], [0106]). The device therefore comprises a circuit including a battery charger (battery charging circuit) operably coupled to the first LED light, a second LED light, and a battery protection system.
The LEDs can be used to indicate a variety of working state and abnormal state, and the display mode can be set [0106]. An LED can be used for indicating a signal representing charging the battery, or one of more LEDs can indicate the power level of the battery, and provide a signal representing that the battery is full charged [0106]. Since the display mode can be set, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to set one LED to indicate when the battery is being charged (when a power source is plugged into the battery charger, or battery charging circuit) and a second LED to indicate that the battery is full charged.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the vaporizing device of Davis et al with the charging circuit of Xiang to do so in order to adequately indicate to the user of the device as to the battery status of the device.
Regarding Claim 13, the charging circuit of Xiang constitutes an electrochemical feedback device circuit including a first LED light operably coupled to a battery charger; the battery charger is operably coupled to a power source to show the charging status through the first LED light; the battery charger is operably coupled to a battery protection and the battery, and provides the claimed battery protection.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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, 4-8 and 13-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 and 9-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,016,400. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the patent recite overlapping limitations to those of the instant claims, although with slightly different language.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Upon filing and acceptance of a terminal disclaimer as required in this Office Action, Claims 5-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of potentially allowable subject matter: Davis et al and Xiang are the nearest prior art. The prior art fails to disclose or reasonably suggest a dispensing device comprising the claimed configurations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS R CORDRAY whose telephone number is (571)272-8244. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 PM (EST).
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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.
/DENNIS R CORDRAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748