DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 5, “a nicotine containing item” should be replaced with “the nicotine containing item”. In line 7, “and” should be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voges (US 6,637,430) in view of Alelov (US 2012/0048266).
Regarding claim 1, Voges teaches handheld electronic nicotine delivery system 10 [Fig. 1] that includes (i) a recharging unit 100 (device with a power source), a top surface, and side surfaces and (ii) an inhaler 14 (nicotine containing item) [col. 7, l. 3-19; col. 2, l. 1-7]; in which the device comprises a channel 110 with side walls, the channel running parallel to the side surfaces, the channel including an opening in the top surface that is configured to receive, from an end-user, a nicotine containing item that is slid by the end-user downwards through the opening and into the channel in the device [Fig. 1 and 5-6; col. 12, l. 14-33]; and in which the device includes a liquid reservoir 116 and the nicotine containing item is configured to be refillable from the liquid reservoir [col. 12, l. 52 to col. 3, l. 5].
Voges teaches ejecting nicotine droplets via a piezoelectric element [col. 3, l. 31-57]. Voges does not teach the nicotine containing item is in use heated by power derived from the power source to generate heat to create nicotine vapor. Alelov teaches an inhalation device wherein in use, as an alternative to a piezoelectric element, the nicotine containing item is heated by power derived from the power source to generate heat to create nicotine vapor [0021-0023]. As it is prima facie obvious to substitute art recognized equivalents known for the same purpose, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Voges such that the nicotine containing item is in use heated by power derived from the power source to generate heat to create nicotine vapor to achieve predictable results, e.g. providing nicotine for inhalation to the user.
Regarding claims 2, Voges teaches the channel 110 includes side walls including curved portions [Fig. 5].
Regarding claims 4-6, Voges teaches the device is a liquid refill and recharging device [col. 11, l. 63-68]. The device is interpreted as being both a desktop device and a portable device. These limitations do not impart any required structure to the claims to distinguish from the device of Voges. In any case, see In re Lindberg, 194 F.2d 732, 93 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1952) (Fact that a claimed device is portable or movable is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected results.).
Regarding claim 7, Voges teaches the nicotine containing item includes a rechargeable battery 74 [col. 11, l. 10-12] and a medicament container 46 (liquid reservoir) [col. 8, l. 64-65].
Regarding claim 8, Voges does not teach in which the liquid reservoir is a liquid container that is configured to be attached to the device by an end user. However, this is a matter of making the liquid reservoir of Voges separable from the device. See In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is "press fitted" and therefore not manually removable. The court held that "if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose."). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the liquid reservoir separable from the device, and thus a liquid container that is configured to be attached to the device by an end user, to achieve predictable results, e.g. allowing for replacement of the liquid reservoir.
Regarding claim 9, Voges teaches the device includes a mechanism to pump or transfer liquid from the liquid reservoir to a smaller liquid reservoir in the nicotine containing item [col. 5, l. 22-26].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voges and Alelov as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Roszyk (US 3,840,795).
Voges teaches the channel 110 includes side walls with cylindrical sections [Fig. 1 and 5]. Modified Voges does not teach the cylindrical sections are concentric with sections of the outer surface of the device. Roszyk teaches a charging device wherein channel 14 for receiving rechargeable unit 12 is concentric with sections of the outer surface of the charging device 11, as shown in Fig. 1 and 4. As this is a conventional location known in the art for a channel in a recharging device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply to the system of Voges to achieve predictable results. It is prima facie obvious to substitute art recognized equivalents known for the same purpose, see MPEP 2144.06. In the instant case, the equivalents are the locations of a channel in a charging device for receiving a rechargeable unit.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voges and Alelov as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lord (US 2015/0257448).
Modified Voges does not teach the system includes a power mode switch, that is operable to increase the amount of vapour produced by the nicotine containing item, compared to normal, by increasing the temperature reached in the nicotine containing item. Lord teaches an electronic inhalation device wherein a selected menu option enables a vapour boost which provides increased power to the heating element [0028], i.e. includes a power mode switch, that is operable to increase the amount of vapour produced by the nicotine containing item, compared to normal, by increasing the temperature reached in the nicotine containing item. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply this configuration to modified Voges to allow to user to receive more vapor upon selection.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voges and Alelov as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Monsees (US 2013/0042865).
Modified Voges does not teach the device is configured to provide an indication to a user, through a haptic signal, when the device has reached the correct operating temperature. Monsees teaches a vaporization device wherein the device is configured to provide an indication to a user, through vibration (haptic signal), when the device has reached the correct operating temperature [0038, 0089]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply this configuration to modified Voges to notify the user when the device has reached the correct operating temperature.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voges and Alelov as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Spinka (US 2015/0272220).
Modified Voges does not teach the device is further configured to provide an indication to a user, through a haptic signal, when the device is due to cease to operate after it has vaporised nicotine substantially equivalent to a single combustible cigarette. Spinka teaches a PV configured to display an indication to the user when the device has vaporized nicotine substantially equivalent to smoking a single combustible cigarette [0045] which may correspond with the PV ceasing to operate [0047]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply this configuration to the system of modified Voges to alert of excessive usage. A haptic signal is an alternative type of signal well known in the art as taught by Monsees [0038] that would have been obvious to use of ordinary skill in the art to use instead of a light signal to achieve the same, predictable result of alerting the user.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voges and Alelov as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Conley (US 2013/0220315).
Modified Voges teaches the nicotine containing item is in use heated by a heating element 118 that (i) draws power from a power source and (ii) is oriented along a long axis of the nicotine containing item 100 [Alelov 0021-0023; Fig. 1]. Modified Voges does not teach the power source in inductive. However, this is a conventional type of power source known in the art as taught by Conley [0026, 0057] and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply to the power source of modified Voges to achieve predictable results, e.g. powering the heating element.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voges and Alelov as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hearn (US 2013/0037042).
Voges teaches the opening in the top surface is configured to have an open position in which the nicotine containing item can be slid by the end-user downwards through the opening [Fig. 1]. Modified Voges does not teach the opening in the top surface is configured to have a closed position in which the opening is sealed shut; and in which the top surface of the device remains exposed when the opening is in both the open and also the closed positions. However, this configuration is known in the art as taught by Hearn via pivotally mounted drawer 8 [Fig. 1-3]. When the drawer is in the closed position as shown in Fig. 3, the opening is sealed shut. The top surface of the device (by reference number 3) remains exposed when the opening is in both the open [Fig. 2] and also the closed [Fig. 3] positions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply this configuration to the system of modified Voges to conceal the opening as well as the nicotine containing open when provided therein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC YAARY whose telephone number is (571)272-3273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
/ERIC YAARY/Examiner, Art Unit 1755