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 .
The previous office action has been withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Claims 49, 50, vaporize contact pins that require elimination of any spring driven
feature or that have solid structure that does not require relative movement of
conductive pin parts. If prevent those items should be pointed out by figure number and
numeral. 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.
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.
Claims 45, 47, 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a,1) as being anticipated by
Nettenstrom (U. S. Patent 11,123,501).
Regarding claims 45, 47, 48, Nettenstrom, see figures 1, 4, discloses a vaporizer
device comprising an electrical contact pin (spring) at 35 for electrical coupling with a
contact 212A, 212B of a cartridge 200 (see figure 1) configured to be insertably
received within a cartridge-receiving receptacle of a vaporizer device body 300, the
electrical contact pin (spring) at 35 comprising a liquid-resistant feature. Since such
feature as broadly stated in specification (paragraph 0089) may include a "structure
feature (modified construction)" does not define over the reference contact spring as disclosed. The limitation is readable on any selected structural features (thickness, length, material) of the spring. Claims 47, 48, references spring is readable as including
"a structural feature" meet by spring on pin 35 as discussed above.
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.
Claims 44-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Nettenstrom in view of Kim (U. S. Patent 9780475).
For claims 44, 45, Nettenstrom, see figure 4, electrical spring contact pin (pogo
pins) 35 are for coupling to contacts 212A, 212B of a cartridge 200 (figure 1) configured
to be insertably received within a receptacle of a vaporizer body 300. The contact pin
does not specifically disclose the contact pin to include "a liquid resistant feature". Kim,
column 2, lines 50-60 disclose spring pin use in which the pin may be: 1) formed of
nonconductive material or 2) formed of metal coated with a dielectric. It would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to modify Nettenstrom to form pins 35 in either such manners (1 or 2), either of these changes are to avoid damage to the spring and are each one readable
as forming a liquid-resistant feature".
Regarding claim 46, Nettenstrom discloses the liquid-resistant feature comprises
a spring for urging a plunger of the electrical contact pin 35, the spring being formed of
and/or coated with a material that has a reduced conductivity relative to the plunger
and/or to a barrel within which the plunger moves. Use of the spring pin formed as
discussed for claim 45 rejections would meet claim 46 with such pin would have lower
reduced conductively relative to plunger and/or barrel relative to the spring. Claims 47
and 48 also meet by the spring so formed, the changes each readable as a structural
feature.
Claims 49 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Nettenstrom in view of Paul (U. S. Patent 7,070,434).
For claims 49 and 50, Nettenstrom pin contacts 35 lacks teaching of pin that
require elimination of spring driven feature and (for claim 50) lacks use of rigid contact
that does not require movement of conductive parts relative to each other. Paul
discloses at figure 7, use mating contacts 434, 756 with contact 756 being rigid and
requires no spring feature or relative movement of conductive parts. It would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed
invention to modify Nettenstrom to provide such features as taught by Paul because this
would enable omission of complex pogo pin contacts on the vaporizer body receptacle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 31-43 are allowed.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
None of the references discloses a vaporizer device comprising; a vaporizer device body shell; an internal skeleton disposed within the vaporizer device body shell; and a gasket configured to prevent passage of liquids between a volume within a cartridge e-receiving receptacle of a vaporizer device body and a volume within the vaporizer device body shell containing internal electronic circuitry, wherein the gasket comprises a connective feature via which a pressure sensing device that is connected to part of the internal electronic circuitry is exposed to air pressure in the cartridge- receiving receptacle, and the gasket comprises a supportive rib positioned to be compressed between the vaporizer device body shell and a part of the internal skeleton.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later
than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably
accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on
Statement of Reasons for Allowance."
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to PHUONG K DINH whose telephone number is
(571)272-2090. The examiner can normally be reached M-F from 8:30 am - 5:30 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, Riyami A Abdullah can be reached at 571-270-3119. 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.
/PHUONG K DINH/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights