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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-18, in the reply filed on 08/03/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 19 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/03/2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: It is unclear from the instant specification if “three-way check valve” or “three-way check value” is correct. Both are used near-interchangeably and u instead of v is a common OCR error.
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.
Claim 8 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.
In the instant case, it is unclear if “three-way value” should be “value” or “valve”. See Objection to the Specification, above. For purposes of examination “three-way value” will be read as “three-way valve” as that is more clearly structure that would allow the transfer of aerosol-generating material in and out of a syringe.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 11, and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murison et al. (US 2017/0099878) in view of Memari et al. (US 2015/0245654).
Regarding claim 1, Murison teaches an electronic vaporizer system comprising automatic filling from a fluid reservoir (a refilling device for refilling an article from a reservoir (Murison abstract). The refilling device, comprising: a hinged personal vaporizer (PV) holder which is loaded with a electronic vaporizer PV (1 + 2, an article interface configured to receive the article); a fluid reservoir (3, a reservoir interface configured to receive the reservoir); a plunger that reduces internal volume of the reservoir (a plunger configured, in use, to engage with the reservoir) (Murison Fig. 3; para 941).
Murison does not explicitly teach the use of a motor configured to drive a cam mechanism coupled toe ach the article interface, the reservoir interface, and the plunger, such that the reservoir and the plunger move in a coordinated manner such that aerosol-generating material is transferred from the reservoir to the article. However, Murison does teach the use of a rotary end cap/rotary cam that thread external to the reservoir that when turned it drives the plunger forward and moves the aerosol-generating material from the reservoir to the article (Murison para 0942-0944).
Memari teaches a similar personal vaporizer electronic device that automatically refills from a fluid reservoir with a hinged personal vaporizer (PV) holder (Memari abstract; Fig. 8). The fluid in the reservoir may be moved to the PV device via a motor as a method of automatically moving the fluid from the fluid reservoir to an article interface (Memari para 742, 743).
Murison and Memari are in the corresponding field of electronic personal vaporizers comprising similar structure which aim to automatically move fluid from a reservoir to an article. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a motor configured to drive the cam mechanism of Murison to provide an automatic and efficient way to push the aerosol-generating material from the reservoir to the article as taught by Memari.
Regarding claim 2, Murison and Memari teach the refilling device required by claim 1. Murison further teaches a filling stem (4, a nozzle block) between the article interface and the reservoir interface (Murison Fig. 3; para 66).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Murison and Memari teach the refilling device required by claim 2. Murison further teaches the coordinated manner includes 1) the article interface (2) moving towards the nozzle block (4, the filling stem) as the filling stem (4) engages into an aperture of the PV (1) when it is loaded; 2) the reservoir interface moving towards the nozzle block as said hinged article interface (2) is closed; 3) the plunger engaging and pushing on a surface of the reservoir as it pushes reduces the internal volume of said reservoir when activated which then forces the fluid out of said filling stem (Murison para 66-68 and 0942-0945).
Regarding claim 5, Murison and Memari teach the refilling device required by claim 2. Murison further teaches the filling stem (4, the nozzle block) is integrated with the article interface (2) as it is attached to said where it engages the aperture of the PV when loaded onto said interface (2) (Murrison: para 66-68).
Regarding claim 6, Murison and Memari teach the refilling device required by claim 2. Murison further teaches the filling stem (4, the nozzle block) may comprise what may be considered a syringe as liquid may be pressed through said filling stem is also described as a tube in which liquid may be sucked into and pressed through said stem into the PV cartridge via a spring system (Murison para 112, 116).
Regarding claim 7, Murison and Memari teach the refilling device required by claim 6. Murison further teaches the cam mechanism is configured to move the plunger in a reciprocating motion comprising a first direction and a second direction opposite the first direction (as the plunger of course is pushed back and forth between said reservoir and article interface) via a rotary cam which pushes the aerosol-generating material to be transferred from the reservoir to the syringe, and the plunger moves in a second direction away from the nozzle block to cause the aerosol-generating material to be transferred from the syringe to the article (Murison para 941-948).
Regarding claims 9 and 11, Murison and Memari teach the refilling device required by claim 1. Murison further teaches the rotary cam rotates an end-cap (a cam plate) that pushes the plunger forward with the cam plate (Murison para 943, 944). Thus, the cam plate would be attached to plunger to some degree as they are pushed forward together.
Regarding claims 12-14, Murison and Memari teach the refilling device required by claim 9. Murison further teaches the reservoir interface and the article interface may be respectively coupled together via a rack (a cam plate) and a pinion system (which comprises pins and linkages in a pin-based cog system) that are configured such that the crack (cam plate) can move whilst the reservoir and article interface are stationary as only the plunger is moved by the action of the pinion/rack system (Murison para 941-942).
Regarding claim 15, Murison and Memari teach the refilling device required by claim 1. Murison further teaches the plunger may be considered integrated with the reservoir interface as it directly interacts with said interface to transfer the aerosol-generating material from said reservoir (Murison para 942-944).
Regarding claim 16-18, Murison and Memari teach the refilling device required by claim 1. Murison further teaches a control circuitry (a microcontroller) is configured to control the system which moves the liquid from the reservoir to the PV cartridge wherein the controller is configured to be able to continuously and regularly monitor efficiency and optimum pumping performance such as refilling by detecting the article has been received and to alter the speed of the motor based on the position of the plunger (Murison para 68, 111, 132-134, 150, 164-0171).
While Murison is silent towards the use of a motor, it would be obvious to utilize a motor in place of the automatic system of Murison as taught by Memari as explained in the rejection of claim 1 and would thus be obvious to configure the controller of Murison to achieve the disclosed functions to achieve the desired function and capabilities taught by Murison as Memari does teach the use of controllers and processers in conjunction with the device (Memari para 125, 0528).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA B FIGG whose telephone number is (571)272-9882. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9a-6p Mountain.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/LAURA B FIGG/Examiner, Art Unit 1781 9/30/26
Prosecution Insights