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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/18/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made of the preliminary amendment(s) filed 10/18/2024 & 4/14/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
Claims 2 & 10 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.
Regarding claim 2 the limitation “...the first capacitor plate is substantially equal to an area of the second capacitor plate… “, is ambiguous and overly broad. With emphasis on the phrase “substantially equal”, this is a relative phrase; with respect to the structure and / or description of the claimed invention, the applicant has not clearly established (i.e dimensional characteristics etc) how “substantially” is defined. Therefore, the claim is rendered indefinite.
Suggested limitation:
“…the first capacitor plate is equal to an area of the second capacitor plate.”
Regarding claim 10 the limitation “…receive the article in a generally horizontal orientation …“, is ambiguous and overly broad. With emphasis on the phrase “generally horizontal”, this is a relative phrase; with respect to the structure and / or description of the claimed invention, the applicant has not clearly established (i.e dimensional characteristics etc) how “generally” is defined. Therefore, the claim is rendered indefinite.
Suggested limitation:
“…receive the article in a horizontal orientation …”
6. 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.
Claims 15 & 20 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.
Regarding claim 15 the recitation “wherein the size of the capacitance measurement volume is such that the article or reservoir is located wholly within the capacitance measurement volume when received in the interface.”. appears to be reflected in claim 1 and repetitive in nature with respect to the claimed component and structural relationship, therefore the recitation is NOT further limiting
Regarding claim 20 the recitation “…the interface is an article interface; and an article of an aerosol provision system, the article having a storage area for fluid which is located wholly within the capacitance measurement volume when the article is received in the article interface.”, appears to be reflect in claim 1 and repetitive in nature with respect to the claimed component and structural relationship, therefore the recitation is NOT further limiting.
Regarding claim 21 the recitation “…the interface is a reservoir interface; and a reservoir for filling an article of an aerosol provision system, the reservoir having a storage area for fluid which is located wholly within the capacitance measurement volume when the reservoir is received in the reservoir interface.”, appears to be reflect in claim 1 and repetitive in nature with respect to the claimed component and structural relationship, therefore the recitation is NOT further limiting.
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 § 102
7. 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 11-12, 15, 16, 18 -20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gretton et al (WO 2020074929 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 12, 15, 18, & 20 Gretton et al teaches an interface 7 8, the interface 7 8 being an article interface 7 8 for receiving an article of an aerosol provision system (Intended use recitation), the article having a storage area 11 5 for fluid, or a reservoir interface 11 5 for receiving a reservoir for filling an article of an aerosol provision system (Intended use recitation), the reservoir 11 5 having a storage area for fluid (Abstract)(Fig. 1); and a capacitive sensor 122 123 configured to measure a capacitance of the storage area 11 5 when the article 7 8 or reservoir 11 5 is received in the interface 7 8 ( fig. 1) ;wherein the capacitive sensor 122 123 comprises a first capacitor plate 122 and a second capacitor plate 123 arranged at opposite sides of the interface 7 8 to form a capacitance measurement volume (Abstract) in which the storage area of an article or reservoir is located when the article or reservoir is received in the interface (fig. 1 & Fig. 11), the capacitance measurement volume (Interpreted as interior of reservoir 11 5) being between the first 122 and second capacitor plates 123 and extending from a perimeter of the first capacitor plate 122 to a perimeter of the second capacitor plate 123, the capacitance measurement volume (Interpreted as interior of reservoir) being having a size such that the storage area of the article 11 5 or reservoir 11 5 received in the interface is located wholly within the capacitance measurement volume (interpreted 5 11 filing the volume of the device interface (Fig. 1, 12 & 15).
Regarding claim 2 Gretton et al teaches an area of the first capacitor plate 122 123 is substantially equal to an area of the second capacitor plate (Fig. 11 & 12).
Regarding claim 3 Gretton et al teaches an area of the first capacitor plate 122 is different from an area of the second capacitor plate 123 (figs. 11 -12).
Regarding claim 4 Gretton et al teaches the interface (Fig. 1) is an article interface 7 8, and one of the first capacitor plate 122 and the second capacitor plate 123 comprises one or more apertures 704 (interpreted as a slot) through which a fluid delivery nozzle and/or an air venting (fig. 1) nozzle can engage with the article to enable a filling action (Abstract) to deliver fluid into the storage area of the article.
Regarding claim 11 Gretton et al teaches the interface is an article interface 7 8, and the article interface 7 8 is configured such that a thickness of the article orthogonal to a longitudinal axis of the article is located along a direction extending between the first 122 and second capacitor plates 123. (Fig. 1, 11, 12 & 15).
Regarding claim 16 Gretton et al teaches the first capacitor plate 122 and the second capacitor plate 123 are located inside the interface. (Fig. 1, 11, 12 & 15).
Regarding claim 19 Gretton et al teaches a controller 304 configured to obtain capacitance measurements using the capacitive sensor, deduce an amount of fluid in the storage area of an article received in the article interface from one or more of the capacitance measurements, and control a filling action for filling the storage area from the reservoir based on the deduced amount of fluid. (Abstract)(Entire specification(Fig. 26)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
Claim(s) 10 & 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gretton et al (WO 2020074929 A1).
Regarding claim 10 Gretton teaches all of the basic features of the claimed invention. Gretton et al however does not teach the interface 7 8 is an article interface, and the article interface 7 8 is configured to receive the article 7 8 in a generally horizontal orientation such that a longitudinal axis of the article is horizontal or within 20 degrees of horizontal when the article is inserted in the article interface. Since Gretton et al discloses a vertical arrangement (see fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art vapor dispensing devices before the filling date of the claimed invention to orientate the components in any direction for the purpose of allowing the device to perform optimally. Moreover, the applicant has not shown that a horizontal orientation solves a particular problem or stated purpose.
Regarding claim 17 Gretton et al teaches the first capacitor plate and the second capacitor plate are located inside the interface (Fig. 1, 11, 12 & 15). Gretton et al does not teach the first capacitor plate and the second capacitor plate are located outside the interface. Regarding claim 10 Gretton teaches all of the basic features of the claimed invention. Gretton et al however does not teach the interface 7 8 is an article interface, and the article interface 7 8 is configured to receive the article 7 8 in a generally horizontal orientation such that a longitudinal axis of the article is horizontal or within 20 degrees of horizontal when the article is inserted in the article interface. Since Gretton et al discloses a vertical arrangement (see fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art vapor dispensing devices before the filling date of the claimed invention to orientate the capacitive plates on the interior or the exterior of an interface for the purpose of allowing the device to perform optimally. Moreover, the applicant has not shown that the capacitive plates being on the exterior of the interface verses the interior solves a particular problem or stated purpose.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, the cited prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious a cross-sectional area of the capacitance measurement volume in a plane midway between the first capacitor plate and the second capacitor plate is equal to or larger than a cross-sectional area of the storage area in the plane when the article or reservoir is received in the interface.
Claims 6-9 are objected based their dependency of claim 5.
Regarding claim 13 the cited prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious first and second capacitor plates each having a shielding layer external to the capacitance measurement volume and separated from the capacitor plate by an insulating layer.
Claim 14 is objected to due to its dependency of claim 5.
10. Claim 22 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The cited prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious a first capacitor plate and a second capacitor plate arranged at opposite sides of an interface to form a capacitance measurement volume in which a storage area of an article or reservoir is located when the article or reservoir is received in the article interface, the first capacitor plate having a first area and the second capacitor plate having a second area, the first area and the second area each being the range of 400 mm2 - 2000 mm2.
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.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
EP 4623717 A1 SYSTEM FOR REFILLING AEROSOL PROVISION DEVICE, DEVICE AND METHOD
US 12230452 B1 Apparatus for use with motors of air-conditioning systems, has case having elliptical cross-section capable of receiving set of capacitive devices, cover assembly having deformable cover mountable to case, and first conductor capable of electrically connecting first capacitor terminal of capacitor
EP 4480333 A1 AEROSOL GENERATING DEVICE AND SENSING CONTROL DEVICE THEREFOR
US 10342263 B2 E-cigarette personal vaporizer
US 10349681 B2 E-cigarette personal vaporizer
US 10357062 B2 E-cigarette personal vaporizer
US 10463079 B2 E-cigarette personal vaporizer
US 11083228 B2 E-cigarette personal vaporizer
US 10070662 B2 Electronic vaporiser system
US 20170071253 A1 Cartridge for aerosol-generating system, has sensor that is configured to measure capacitance of capacitor, in which measured capacitance relating to corresponding permittivity of aerosol-forming substrate held in storage portion
CN 121398702 A Aerosol supply device comprising a capacitive sensor
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE J ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2174. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9am-5PM.
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, Kristina M Deherrera can be reached at (303) 297-4237. 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.
/ANDRE J ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights