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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Over 1000 documents have been submitted in the IDSs received through 1/29/2026. Although a cursory consideration has been performed, a thorough consideration of all the documents presented is not possible in the time allotted for examination. The examiner suggests the applicant indicate references that are particularly applicable to the claimed subject matter.
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 32 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. While the specification discloses “at least one pressure sensor” it does not disclose a first pressure sensor in the pressure reduction space and a second pressure sensor, “in fluid communication with the normal pressure space.” In particular, the specification provides a structure where a single pressure sensor is in fluid communication with a pressure reduction space and a “second end” of the pressure sensor is in fluid communication with the normal pressure space [0007].
In addition, the arrangement disclosed in the specification enables the functional limitations of claim 1 that, “the pressure sensor detects a reduced pressure in the pressure reduction space relative to the pressure in the normal space”. However, the inclusion of a second sensor in communication with the normal pressure space is not disclosed in the specification.
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 25-44 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 25 recites the limitation "the pressure sensor" in the third to last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This raises confusion as to whether a single pressure sensor is located in the pressure reduction space.
Claim 26 recited the limitation, “wherein the body end includes a wall and the connector end has a central opening therethrough”. The body end has antecedent basis in claim 25, to “a coupler having a body end in engagement with the proximal end of the shell and having an opposing connector end…” It is unclear to what the term “therethrough” is referring. Therethrough typically means an opening that goes through a structure and it is unclear if the central opening passes through the coupler or just, “through” the connector end. However, it is not clear the connector end is a structure that anything can go through as no structural elements are claimed. Furthermore, drawings appear to show both possible interpretations. Figure 1 has a coupling portion (124) that has a central opening through the coupler (both body end and connector end). Figure 2, also shows a similar structure where connector end has a “cavity” structure labeled (225). However, figure 7, has air inlets and passages that do not extend through the connector from the connector end to the body end and therefore do not appear to have “a central opening therethrough”. The examiner suggests that the applicant amend the claim to replace “central opening” with “cavity” to more accurately describe the structure.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 requires “the pressure sensor” to “detect a reduced pressure in the pressure reduction space relative to the pressure in the normal pressure space.” Claim 32 requires the pressure of the reduced pressure space to be measured by a second pressure sensor. Therefore, the either pressure sensor is not detecting a reduced pressure relative to the pressure in the other space as they are separate sensors and only detect one property in one location. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 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 25-31, 33, 36-38, and 41-44, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchberger (US 2011/0226236) in view of Monsees et al. (US 9,549,573) and Terry et al. (US 9,259,035).
Regarding claims 25, 30, 41, and 42, Buchberger discloses a control body (see figure 4, below) for an electronic smoking article with a connector that releasably engages a cartridge with a heater and aerosol precursor. The control body contains an outer housing (10) having a longitudinal axis, and contains an electrical power source (battery, [0112]), electronic circuit board with microprocessors (11), a pressure sensor (99) which is directly attached to the housing (10) with adhesive and the pins (101) are soldered directly on the printed circuit board (11, see [0152]) while the pressure sensor is spaced apart from the circuit board. The system operates the device in response to air drawn through the device. The circuit area is separated from the rest of the device [0112]. In other words, the circuit area in the interior of the outer housing is separated by a wall from the area that contains the pressure sensor creating two different pressure spaces (a reduction space near the sensor and a normal pressure space where the circuit board is).
PNG
media_image1.png
451
475
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As shown in figure 9 (below) the top wall of the housing (10) has two openings that fluidly connect an air pathway with an air source and the pressure sensor. One air
PNG
media_image2.png
504
324
media_image2.png
Greyscale
pathway is labeled in the drawing as A. The second opening exposes the pressure sensor to air path A and is located as shown (see also, bore 102 [0152]).
The device disclosed by Buchberger does not have a cavity formed by the control body and instead protrudes and is accepted by a cavity in the cartridge. However, it is well known in the art to have a cavity in either the control body or the cartridge. For instance, Monsees et al. disclose an analogous electronic smoking device with the cartridge being accepted into a cavity in the control body (see figure 12, below). Terry et al. also show an analogous electronic smoking device with a protrusion in the cartridge accepted by the control body (see figure 76F, below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to reverse engagement so that the control body of Buchberger has a cavity as disclosed by Monsees et al. or Terry et al. instead of forming the cavity in the cartridge. In addition to the prior art, this is notoriously well known as male and female connectors. Making a male connection into a female connection is within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art. Doing so is well known in the art and would yield to predictable results and may be more acceptable to consumes expecting the cartridge to be accepted by the control body.
PNG
media_image3.png
473
290
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
413
160
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 26 and 31, Buchberger illustrate a physical barrier (i.e. wall or seal) substantially surrounding the perimeter of the pressure sensor (see element 10 and 99 in figures 4 and 9 above) and isolating one end of the sensor (the top) from the normal air pressure space where the circuit board is located and a central opening (29).
Regarding claims 27 and 33, the coupler has an air inlet channel in fluid communication with the central opening (i.e. passage connected to the opening 29) and the channel is entirely formed within the coupler.
Regarding claim 28, the coupler containing part of the pressure sensor of Buchberger is in fluid communication with a pressure reduction space (28, see figure 9 above) through an opening (see figure 9 above) and second end of the pressure channel is in communication with the pressure reduction space.
Regarding claim 29, the electronic circuit board of Buchberger is parallel with the central axis that passes through the proximal and distal ends (see figure 9 above).
Regarding claims 36-38, Buchberger discloses two LEDs (106) attached to the circuit board and light depending on the charge state and status of the inhalator component [0157]. Although not expressly disclosed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill that the light of the LEDs would be controlled by the microprocessor because Buchberger indicates that a counter is used. The LEDs are located proximate to the distal end of the control housing (10, Figure 8).
Regarding claim 43, Buchberger does not expressly disclose that at least a portion of the coupler is light transmissive such that the light from the LED is visible through the coupler. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to rearrange the parts of Buchberger so that the LED indicator lamps would be located on a coupling portion. Change the position of the indicator lamp and transparent material to allow viewing of a LED would not have modified the operation of the device and would have been an obvious matter of design choice (see MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C)).
Regarding claim 44, Buchberger does not expressly disclose that light transmissive portions of the outer housing allow the LEDs to be visible through the housing. However, the outside of the housing is shown in figure 3, with squares that correspond with the LEDs shown in figure 8 (106). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing that the squares in figure 3 are light transmissible windows to allow users to see the LEDS shown in figure 8 and described as communicating usage and status information [0157].
Claims 34 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchberger (US 2011/0226236), Monsees et al. (US 9,549,573) and Terry et al. (US 9,259,035) as applied in claim 25 above, and further in view of Newton (US 8,499,766 B1).
Regarding claims 34 and 35, Buchberger do not disclose air inlets and air flow pathways from an exterior surface of a coupler to the atomizer (i.e. central opening). However, it is known in the art to place air inlets on a coupler between a cartridge and a electronic cigarette body. For instance, Newton illustrates ad coupler (Figure 1, element 14) and an air inlet located on the exterior of the coupler (16). Airflow paths can be seen in figure 4a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to form the invention of Buchberger in the shape and arrangement of the smoking device of Newton. The device of Newton resembles a conventional cigarette and may be aesthetically pleasing to some consumers.
Claims 39 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchberger (US 2011/0226236), Monsees et al. (US 9,549,573) and Terry et al. (US 9,259,035) as applied in claim 25 above, and further in view of Xiao (US 20110226266 A1).
Regarding claims 39 and 40, Buchberger does not disclose that an input element that is light transmissive. However, lighted switches are well-known in the art. Xiao discloses a smoking article and a switch that can be illuminated and serve as an indicator and, “For example, upon depression, the switch 112 can be illuminated to indicate that the laser diode is active.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use the switch of Xiao in the invention of Buchberger to enable powering on the device and indicating various modes of the device (as disclosed by Buchberger). Doing so would simplify the device by allowing input and indication in the same component.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J FELTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4805. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Thursday-Friday 7:00-4:30, Wednesday 7:00-1:00.
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, Michael H Wilson can be reached on 571-270-3882. 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.
/Michael J Felton/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights