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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “the first side surface” and “the second side surface,” whereas the previously introduced surfaces are the “first and second opposing side surfaces.” . Appropriate correction is required. It is suggested that “the first side surface” and “the second side surface” be amended to “the first opposing side surface” and “the second opposing side surface,” respectively.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 15–34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7–19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,121,059 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims recite the same vaporizer-cartridge arrangement including a storage compartment, a mouthpiece, a heating chamber, a vapor tube, and a seal having inclined interior surfaces configured to direct vaporizable material toward the heating chamber.
In particular, claim 15 of the instant application recites a seal comprising first and second interior surfaces inclined in a direction from the first end of the body to the second end of the body and inclined toward each other to form a funnel directed at the heating chamber. Claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,121,059 B1 recites the same cartridge arrangement having a seal with interior surfaces inclined toward the heating chamber and configured to funnel vaporizable material toward the heating chamber, and claim 12 further recites that the interior surfaces comprise first and second inclined surfaces inclined toward each other to form a funnel directed at the heating chamber.
Thus, claim 15 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,121,059 B1 in view of claim 12 thereof.
Claim 16 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 7, 8, and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,121,059 B1 because claim 8 further recites that the heating element comprises a wick.
Claim 17 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 7, 9, and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,121,059 B1 because claim 9 further recites that the second end of the body has a rectangular cross-section externally bounded by two opposing side surfaces, a front surface, and a rear surface.
Claim 18 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 7, 10, and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,121,059 B1 because claim 10 further recites that the body is formed as a one-piece plastic molding.
Claim 19 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 7 and 10–12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,121,059 B1 because claim 11 further recites that the one-piece plastic molding is a matte black, translucent material.
Applicant’s attention is drawn to MPEP § 804, wherein it is explained that the specification may be used as a dictionary to determine the meaning of a term in a patented claim. In re Boylan, 392 F.2d 1017, 1022, 157 USPQ 370, 374 (CCPA 1968). Further, those portions of the specification that provide support for the patented claims may be examined and considered when determining whether a claim in an application defines an obvious variation of an invention claimed in the patent. In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 441–442, 164 USPQ 619, 622 (CCPA 1970). Consistent with MPEP § 804, attention is drawn to column 5, lines 13–34 and FIGS. 6 and 8–10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,121,059 B1, which teach the electrical-contact pins and air inlets discussed below, and FIGS. 7–8, which show the relative positioning of the first and second inclined interior surfaces.
Claim 20 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 7–12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,121,059 B1 because the embodiment supporting the patented claims includes two pins at the mating region of the cartridge that conduct electricity to the heating element (col. 5, ll. 13–18; FIGS. 6, 8, and 9). Thus, expressly reciting electrical contacts electrically communicating with the heating element defines an obvious variation of the cartridge claimed in the ’059 patent.
Claim 21 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 7–12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,121,059 B1 because the embodiment supporting the patented claims includes two air holes at the second end of the cartridge that serve as air inlets and guide airflow toward the heating element (col. 5, ll. 13–34; FIGS. 6 and 9–10). Thus, expressly reciting one or more air inlets at the second end defines an obvious variation of the cartridge claimed in the ’059 patent.
In particular, claim 22 of the instant application recites a seal comprising first and second inclined interior surfaces that are mirror images of one another and are configured to direct a flow of vaporizable material toward the heating chamber. Claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,121,059 B1 recites the same cartridge arrangement having a seal with inclined interior surfaces configured to funnel vaporizable material toward the heating chamber, and claim 19 further recites that the interior surfaces are mirror images of one another.
Thus, claim 22 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,121,059 B1 in view of claim 19 thereof.
Claim 23 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 7, 8, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,121,059 B1 because claim 8 further recites that the heating element comprises a wick.
Claim 24 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 7, 9, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,121,059 B1 because claim 9 further recites the rectangular cross-section externally bounded by two opposing side surfaces, a front surface, and a rear surface.
Claim 25 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 7, 10, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,121,059 B1 because claim 10 further recites that the body is formed as a one-piece plastic molding.
Claim 26 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 7, 10, 11, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,121,059 B1 because claim 11 further recites that the one-piece plastic molding is a matte black, translucent material.
Claim 27 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 13 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,121,059 B1 because the embodiment supporting the patented claims includes two pins at the mating region of the cartridge that conduct electricity to the heating element (col. 5, ll. 13–18; FIGS. 6, 8, and 9). Thus, expressly reciting electrical contacts electrically communicating with the heating element defines an obvious variation of the cartridge claimed in the ’059 patent.
Claim 27 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 13 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,121,059 B1 because the embodiment supporting the patented claims includes two pins at the mating region of the cartridge that conduct electricity to the heating element (col. 5, ll. 13–18; FIGS. 6, 8, and 9). Thus, expressly reciting electrical contacts electrically communicating with the heating element defines an obvious variation of the cartridge claimed in the ’059 patent.
Claim 28 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 13 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,121,059 B1 because the embodiment supporting the patented claims includes two air holes at the second end of the cartridge that serve as air inlets and guide airflow toward the heating element (col. 5, ll. 13–34; FIGS. 6 and 9–10). Thus, expressly reciting one or more air inlets at the second end defines an obvious variation of the cartridge claimed in the ’059 patent.
Claim 29 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 13, 15, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,121,059 B1. Claim 13 recites the cartridge body, heating chamber, vapor tube, seal, and inclined interior surfaces configured to funnel vaporizable material toward the heating chamber; claim 15 further recites that the body has a rectangular cross-section externally bounded by two opposing side surfaces, a front surface, and a rear surface; and claim 19 further recites that the first and second interior surfaces are mirror images of one another. The embodiment supporting these patented claims shows the first inclined interior surface positioned closer to the first opposing side surface and the second inclined interior surface positioned closer to the second opposing side surface (FIGS. 7–8). Thus, expressly reciting the relative positioning shown in the embodiment supporting the patented claims defines an obvious variation of the cartridge claimed in the ’059 patent.
Claim 30 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 29 as rejected above and claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,121,059 B1 because claim 14 further recites that the heating element comprises a wick.
Claim 31 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 29 as rejected above and claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,121,059 B1 because claim 16 further recites that the body is formed as a one-piece plastic molding.
Claim 32 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 29 as rejected above and claims 16–17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,121,059 B1 because claim 17 further recites that the one-piece plastic molding comprises a matte-black translucent material.
Claim 33 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 29 as rejected above because the embodiment supporting the patented claims includes two pins at the mating region of the cartridge that conduct electricity to the heating element (col. 5, ll. 13–18; FIGS. 6, 8, and 9). Thus, expressly reciting electrical contacts electrically communicating with the heating element defines an obvious variation of the cartridge claimed in the ’059 patent.
Claim 34 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 29 as rejected above because the embodiment supporting the patented claims includes two air holes at the second end of the cartridge that serve as air inlets and guide airflow toward the heating element (col. 5, ll. 13–34; FIGS. 6 and 9–10). Thus, expressly reciting one or more air inlets at the second end defines an obvious variation of the cartridge claimed in the ’059 patent.
Claims 15–34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,161,160 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims recite the same vaporizer-cartridge arrangement including a storage compartment, a mouthpiece, a heating chamber, a vapor tube, and a seal having inclined interior surfaces configured to direct vaporizable material toward the heating chamber.
In particular, claim 15 of the instant application recites a seal comprising first and second interior surfaces inclined in a direction from the first end of the body to the second end of the body and inclined toward each other to form a funnel directed at the heating chamber. Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,161,160 B2 recites the same cartridge arrangement having a seal with interior surfaces inclined from a distal end toward the heating chamber and configured to funnel vaporizable material toward the heating chamber, and claim 3 further recites that the interior surfaces are mirror images of one another. The mirror-image inclined surfaces positioned on opposite sides of the heating chamber and directing the vaporizable material toward the heating chamber provide the same funnel arrangement recited in claim 15.
Thus, claim 15 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,161,160 B2 in view of claim 3 thereof.
Claim 16 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 1, 3, and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,161,160 B2 because claim 4 further recites that the heating element comprises a wick.
Claim 17 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 1, 3, and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,161,160 B2 because claim 5 further recites that the second end of the body has a rectangular cross-section externally bounded by two opposing side surfaces, a front surface, and a rear surface.
Claim 18 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 1, 3, and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,161,160 B2 because claim 6 further recites that the body is formed as a one-piece plastic molding.
Claim 19 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 1, 3, and 6–7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,161,160 B2 because claim 7 further recites that the one-piece plastic molding is a matte black, translucent material.
Applicant’s attention is drawn to MPEP § 804, wherein it is explained that “the specification can always be used as a dictionary to learn the meaning of a term in a patent claim.” In re Boylan, 392 F.2d 1017, 1022, 157 USPQ 370, 374 (CCPA 1968). Further, those portions of the specification that provide support for the patented claims may also be examined and considered when addressing whether a claim in an application defines an obvious variation of an invention claimed in the patent. In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 441–442, 164 USPQ 619, 622 (CCPA 1970). Consistent with MPEP § 804, attention is drawn to column 5, lines 10–31 and FIGS. 6 and 8–10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,161,160 B2, which teach the electrical-contact pins and air inlets discussed below, and FIGS. 7–8, which show the relative positioning of the first and second inclined interior surfaces.
Claim 20 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 1 and 3–7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,161,160 B2 because the embodiment supporting the patented claims includes two pins at the mating region of the cartridge that conduct electricity to the heating element (col. 5, ll. 10–14; FIGS. 6, 8, and 9). Thus, expressly reciting electrical contacts electrically communicating with the heating element defines an obvious variation of the cartridge claimed in the ’160 patent.
Claim 21 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 1 and 3–7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,161,160 B2 because the embodiment supporting the patented claims includes two air holes at the second end of the cartridge that serve as air inlets and guide airflow toward the heating element (col. 5, ll. 10–31; FIGS. 6 and 9–10). Thus, expressly reciting one or more air inlets at the second end defines an obvious variation of the cartridge claimed in the ’160 patent.
In particular, claim 22 of the instant application recites a seal comprising first and second inclined interior surfaces that are mirror images of one another and are configured to direct a flow of vaporizable material toward the heating chamber. Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,161,160 B2 recites the same cartridge arrangement having a seal with inclined interior surfaces configured to funnel vaporizable material toward the heating chamber, and claim 3 further recites that the interior surfaces are mirror images of one another.
Thus, claim 22 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,161,160 B2 in view of claim 3 thereof.
Claim 23 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 1, 3, and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,161,160 B2 because claim 4 further recites that the heating element comprises a wick.
Claim 24 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 1, 3, and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,161,160 B2 because claim 5 further recites the rectangular cross-section externally bounded by two opposing side surfaces, a front surface, and a rear surface.
Claim 25 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 1, 3, and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,161,160 B2 because claim 6 further recites that the body is formed as a one-piece plastic molding.
Claim 26 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 1, 3, and 6–7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,161,160 B2 because claim 7 further recites that the one-piece plastic molding is a matte black, translucent material.
Claim 29 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 13–14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,161,160 B2. Claim 13 recites a cartridge having a rectangular body externally bounded by a front surface, a rear surface, and two opposing side surfaces, wherein the width between the opposing side surfaces is smaller than the width of the front and rear surfaces, together with a seal having first and second inclined interior surfaces configured to funnel vaporizable material toward the heating chamber. Claim 14 further recites that the first and second interior surfaces are mirror images of one another. The embodiment supporting these patented claims shows the first inclined interior surface positioned closer to the first opposing side surface and the second inclined interior surface positioned closer to the second opposing side surface (FIGS. 7–8). Thus, expressly reciting the relative positioning shown in the embodiment supporting the patented claims defines an obvious variation of the cartridge claimed in the ’160 patent.
Claim 30 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 29 as rejected above and claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,161,160 B2 because claim 15 further recites that the heating element comprises a wick.
Claim 31 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 29 as rejected above and claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,161,160 B2 because claim 16 further recites that the body is formed as a one-piece plastic molding.
Claim 32 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 29 as rejected above and claims 16–17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,161,160 B2 because claim 17 further recites that the one-piece plastic molding comprises a matte-black translucent material.
Claim 33 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 29 as rejected above because the embodiment supporting the patented claims includes two pins at the mating region of the cartridge that conduct electricity to the heating element (col. 5, ll. 10–14; FIGS. 6, 8, and 9). Thus, expressly reciting electrical contacts electrically communicating with the heating element defines an obvious variation of the cartridge claimed in the ’160 patent.
Claim 34 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 29 as rejected above because the embodiment supporting the patented claims includes two air holes at the second end of the cartridge that serve as air inlets and guide airflow toward the heating element (col. 5, ll. 10–31; FIGS. 6 and 9–10). Thus, expressly reciting one or more air inlets at the second end defines an obvious variation of the cartridge claimed in the ’160 patent.
Claims 15-34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,419,351 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims recite the same vaporizer-cartridge arrangements having inclined interior surfaces forming a funnel or mirror-image inclined interior surfaces directing vaporizable material toward the heating chamber.
In particular, claim 15 of the instant application recites a seal comprising first and second interior surfaces inclined in a direction from the first end of the body to the second end of the body and inclined toward each other to form a funnel directed at the heating chamber. Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,419,351 B2 recites the same cartridge arrangement having a seal with inclined interior surfaces configured to funnel vaporizable material toward the heating chamber, and claim 4 further recites first and second inclined surfaces inclined toward each other to form a funnel directed at the heating chamber.
Thus, claim 15 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,419,351 B2 in view of claim 4 thereof.
Claim 16 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,419,351 B2 because the embodiment supporting the patented claims teaches that the heating element may comprise a traditional wick made of cotton, silica, wood fiber, ceramic material, or another material, including a wick wrapped around a heating coil (col. 4, ll. 38–50; FIGS. 4A–4C). Thus, expressly reciting that the heating element comprises a wick defines an obvious variation of the cartridge claimed in the ’351 patent.
Claim 17 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 1, 4, and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,419,351 B2 because claim 6 further recites that the second end of the body has a rectangular cross-section externally bounded by two opposing side surfaces, a front surface, and a rear surface.
Claim 18 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 1, 4, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,419,351 B2 because claim 19 further recites that the body is formed as a one-piece plastic molding.
Claim 19 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 1, 4, and 19–20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,419,351 B2 because claim 20 further recites that the one-piece plastic molding is a matte black, translucent material.
Claim 20 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,419,351 B2 because the embodiment supporting the patented claims includes two pins at the mating region of the cartridge that conduct electricity to the heating element (col. 5, ll. 10–14; FIGS. 6, 8, and 9). Thus, expressly reciting electrical contacts electrically communicating with the heating element defines an obvious variation of the cartridge claimed in the ’351 patent.
In particular, claim 22 of the instant application recites a seal comprising first and second inclined interior surfaces that are mirror images of one another and are configured to direct a flow of vaporizable material toward the heating chamber. Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,419,351 B2 recites the same cartridge arrangement having a seal with inclined interior surfaces configured to funnel vaporizable material toward the heating chamber, and claim 3 further recites that the interior surfaces are mirror images of one another.
Thus, claim 22 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,419,351 B2 in view of claim 3 thereof.
Claim 23 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 1 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,419,351 B2 because the embodiment supporting the patented claims teaches that the heating element may comprise a traditional wick made of cotton, silica, wood fiber, ceramic material, or another material, including a wick wrapped around a heating coil (col. 4, ll. 38–50; FIGS. 4A–4C). Thus, expressly reciting that the heating element comprises a wick defines an obvious variation of the cartridge claimed in the ’351 patent.
Claim 24 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 1, 3, and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,419,351 B2 because claim 6 further recites the rectangular cross-section externally bounded by two opposing side surfaces, a front surface, and a rear surface.
Claim 25 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 1, 3, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,419,351 B2 because claim 19 further recites that the body is formed as a one-piece plastic molding.
Claim 26 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 1, 3, and 19–20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,419,351 B2 because claim 20 further recites that the one-piece plastic molding is a matte black, translucent material.
Claim 27 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 1 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,419,351 B2 because the embodiment supporting the patented claims includes two pins at the mating region of the cartridge that conduct electricity to the heating element (col. 5, ll. 10–14; FIGS. 6, 8, and 9). Thus, expressly reciting electrical contacts electrically communicating with the heating element defines an obvious variation of the cartridge claimed in the ’351 patent.
Claim 28 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 1 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,419,351 B2 because the embodiment supporting the patented claims includes two air holes at the second end of the cartridge that serve as air inlets and guide airflow toward the heating element (col. 5, ll. 10–31; FIGS. 6 and 9–10). Thus, expressly reciting one or more air inlets at the second end defines an obvious variation of the cartridge claimed in the ’351 patent.
Claim 29 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 9 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,419,351 B2. Claim 9 recites a cartridge having a rectangular body externally bounded by a front surface, a rear surface, and first and second opposing side surfaces, wherein the width between the opposing side surfaces is smaller than the width of the front and rear surfaces, together with a seal having first and second inclined interior surfaces configured to direct vaporizable material toward the heating chamber. Claim 16 further recites that the first and second interior surfaces are mirror images of one another. The embodiment supporting these patented claims shows the first inclined interior surface positioned closer to the first opposing side surface and the second inclined interior surface positioned closer to the second opposing side surface. Thus, expressly reciting the relative positioning shown in the embodiment supporting the patented claims defines an obvious variation of the cartridge claimed in the ’351 patent.
Claim 30 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 29 as rejected above because the embodiment supporting the patented claims teaches that the heating element may comprise a traditional wick made of cotton, silica, wood fiber, ceramic material, or another material, including a wick wrapped around a heating coil (col. 4, ll. 38–50; FIGS. 4A–4C). Thus, expressly reciting that the heating element comprises a wick defines an obvious variation of the cartridge claimed in the ’351 patent.
Claim 31 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 29 as rejected above and claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,419,351 B2 because claim 19 further recites that the body is formed as a one-piece plastic molding.
Claim 32 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 29 as rejected above and claims 19–20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,419,351 B2 because claim 20 further recites that the one-piece plastic molding comprises a matte-black translucent material.
Claim 33 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 29 as rejected above because the embodiment supporting the patented claims includes two pins at the mating region of the cartridge that conduct electricity to the heating element (col. 5, ll. 10–14; FIGS. 6, 8, and 9). Thus, expressly reciting electrical contacts electrically communicating with the heating element defines an obvious variation of the cartridge claimed in the ’351 patent.
Claim 34 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 29 as rejected above because the embodiment supporting the patented claims includes two air holes at the second end of the cartridge that serve as air inlets and guide airflow toward the heating element (col. 5, ll. 10–31; FIGS. 6 and 9–10). Thus, expressly reciting one or more air inlets at the second end defines an obvious variation of the cartridge claimed in the ’351 patent.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER KESSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-7739. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am - 5:00pm.
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 at (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.
/JENNIFER A KESSIE/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights