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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim 11 is 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.
It is not clear how the power source would be detachable from the outside of the housing if made cylindrical. This configuration is not discussed in the specification or shown in the drawings. The power source connecting to the outer surface of the housing, in claim 1, would seem to exclude the embodiment of claim 11.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-10, 14-15, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen et al (US 2009/0283103) in view of Defant et al (US 2007/0046258).
Regarding claims 1, 9-10 and 18, Nielsen discloses, A disposable vapor device (See Fig 1 and abstract…it should be noted, there is no specific structure, in claim 1, directed toward a vapor device or the device being disposable) comprising: a housing (housing 102);
a removable power source detachably engageable with housing (a battery 118 is removable and detachable from the housing, See Paragraph [0030]); and
a microprocessor contained within the housing (microprocessor, Paragraph [0037]) and configured to cause the disposable vapor device to produce an aerosol from an aerosol precursor composition, the microprocessor configured to switchably direct power from the removable power source to power the disposable vapor device and produce the aerosol, (the microprocessor switchably activates a heating element, by providing power from the battery, which in turn causes the device to produce an aerosol. See Paragraph [0025], as well as swapping between the two batteries)
wherein the housing comprises a volume defined at least in part by a first dimension, second dimension, and third dimension, wherein the first dimension is longer than the second dimension, and the third dimension is shorter than both the first dimension and the second dimension. (Fig 1 shows three dimensions where a height is longer than the width, which are both longer than the thickness.)
Nielsen fails to disclose the power source detachably engaged with the outer surface of the housing.
Defant discloses a device having a housing of similar size and shape with a battery 30 detachable engaged with the outer surface of the housing 10. (See Abstract) It would have been obvious to adapt Nielsen in view of Defant to provide the power source detachably engaged with the outer surface of the housing for removing a first battery and attaching a second battery while the first battery is charging.
Nielsen discloses, regarding claim 3, Figs 1a-1f show the housing having a face with dimensions as claimed. Regarding claim 4, the mouthpiece 100 protrudes from the housing and is disposed along a longitudinal axis. Regarding claim 5, Fig 1 shows the box shaped housing with the off-center mouthpiece. Regarding claim 6, the charger 150 is shown as charging the removable battery when attached. (See Paragraph [0030])
Regarding claims 7 and 19, Defant discloses a charging interface on the battery, coupleable with a charging component. It would have been obvious to provide a charging interface on the removable battery for removing a first battery and attaching a second battery while the first battery is charging. Regarding claim 8, Defant discloses a lithium battery. (See Paragraph [0021]) It would have been obvious to provide a lithium-ion battery as this is an obvious variant for a battery to be used in a rechargeable device.
Nielsen discloses, regarding claim 14, a chamber 120 stores a liquid precursor. (See Paragraph [0026]) Regarding claim 15, the housing contains multiple batteries. (See Paragraph [0030]) Regarding claim 20, the charging port may be a USB. (See Paragraph [0032])
Claim(s) 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen et al (US 2009/0283103) in view of Defant et al (US 2007/0046258) in view of Sears (US 2014/0209105).
The teachings of Nielsen have been discussed above. Nielsen fails to disclose a flow sensor positioned within the housing and configured to detect a flow of air through the housing, wherein the microprocessor is further configured to switchably direct the power to an atomizer within the housing, based on signals from the flow sensor, to generate the aerosol.
Sears discloses, a flow sensor 30 and a switch 20 or control component for activating the heating element to produce the aerosol when a puff is detected. (See Paragraph [0049]) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to adapt Lui in view of Sears to provide a flow sensor positioned within the housing and configured to detect a flow of air through the housing, wherein the microprocessor is further configured to switchably direct the power to an atomizer within the housing, based on signals from the flow sensor, to generate the aerosol for only cycling the heating element and battery when a user is taking a puff.
Claim(s) 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen et al (US 2009/0283103) in view of Defant et al (US 2007/0046258), Sears (US 2014/0209105) and Fleishauer et al (US 6,040,560).
The teachings of Nielsen have been discussed above. Nielsen fails to disclose an indicator on the housing, the indicator being configured to display an indicator or indicia to a user when the flow sensor detects a flow of air through the housing.
Fleishhauer discloses a display 51 for displaying an indicator in the form of a LCD display to reflect when a puff has been taken. (See Column 5, Line 60 - Column 6, Line 25) It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to adapt Nielsen in view of Fleishhauer to provide the indicator being configured to display an indicator or indicia to a user when the flow sensor detects a flow of air through the housing to indicate how many "puffs" are remaining in the device.
Regarding claim 16, Nielsen discloses a second power source, but fails to disclose the second power source comprises a capacitor. However, Fleishhauer discloses sources of power include a rechargeable battery or capacitor. (See Column 5, Lines 20-35) It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to adapt Nielsen in view of Fleishhauer to provide the capacitor as Fleishhauer shows the capacitor is an obvious variant for a power source in an aerosol device.
Claim(s) 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen et al (US 2009/0283103) in view of Defant et al (US 2007/0046258) in view of Liu (US 2015/0164138).
Regarding claims 17-18, Nielsen discloses the processor as discussed above. Nielsen fails to disclose, the microprocessor is configured to switchably direct power from the removable power source and the second power source to power the disposable vapor device and produce the aerosol and direct power from the second power source to power the disposable vapor device, and switch to the removable power source to power the disposable vapor device only after the second power source has discharged by at least a threshold amount.
However, Liu '138 discloses an electronic cigarette (see title) that utilizes a primary power source (battery rod 6, Fig. 1) and a secondary power source (first battery 311, Fig. 2, acting as a backup power source to charge the primary power source/battery rod 6, see at least para. 0045, 0049, and the abstract).
Liu '138 is silent to any feature of a control component being configured to switchably direct power from the primary power source or secondary power source, however, it's the Examiner's position that a control mechanism is implied to be present, since if the battery rod 6 runs out of power, and is then charged by the first battery 311, then a switching mechanism is likely present. Moreover, it's the Examiner's position that this type of claimed control switching mechanism is well-known and expedient in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Nielsen by further applying the teachings of Liu '138, and what is already well-known in the art, to Nielsen, so that the power source is a secondary power source, and the control body further comprises a primary power source within the housing, the control component being configured to direct power from the power source includes being configured to switchably direct power from the primary power source or secondary power source, so that a user can smoke for longer periods of time.
The combination of Lui and Lui discloses the control body of Claim 17, as set forth above, wherein the control component being configured to switchably direct power includes being configured to direct power from the primary power source, and switch to the secondary power source only after the primary power source has discharged by at least a threshold amount (i.e. an amount of discharged power from the primary source that would no longer enable power of the smoking article, and require a switchable connection from the primary power source to the secondary power source, as explained in the rejection to claim 17, above).
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen et al (US 2009/0283103) in view of Defant et al (US 2007/0046258) in view of Lui et al (US 2014/0020697).
Nielsen fails to disclose, the removable power source is inductively coupleable with the charging component and the charging component is configured to wirelessly charge the removable power source.
Lui discloses a removable battery which is chargeable via wireless charging 7. It would have been obvious to adapt Nielsen and Defant in view of Lui to provide the charging component is configured to wirelessly charge the removable power source to charge without cables for removing the issues associated with twisting cables.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 BRIAN W JENNISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5930. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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.
/BRIAN W JENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 5/14/2026
Prosecution Insights