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 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.
Claims 3-7 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 3, lies 2-3, recites, “at least one program on the memory”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the memory” It is not clear this memory is component of which limitations of claim 2 or claim 1. And it is not clear what types of program is loaded in the memory, and hence it is vague and indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 4, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In claims 4 and 7, recites, “at least one program” however, a computer program product would reasonably be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art as software per se. This subject matter is not limited to that which falls within a statutory category of invention (i.e. it is not a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter). Software is functional descriptive material and functional descriptive material is non-statutory subject matter.
Computer programs claimed as computer per se, i.e., the description or expressions of the programs, are not physical “things.” They are neither computer components nor statutory processes., as they are not “acts” being performed. Such claimed computer programs do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and other claimed elements of a computer which permit the computer program’s functionality to be realized. In contrast, a claimed computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program is a computer element which defines structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and the rest of the computer which permit the computer program’s functionality to be realized, and is thus statutory. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1583-842 32 USPQ2d at 1035.
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 1, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Di Carlo (US 20160353800).
Regarding claim 1, De Carlo discloses an electronic cigarette 100 comprising: at least one heater 202; a controller 210; a user control 106 comprising a rotary dial (see paragraph [0020] as rotating wheel); wherein the controller 210 is configured to control at least one heater according to a setting based on an input from the user control 106.
Regarding claim 14, De Carlo discloses, a display 104, the display 104 comprising a number of light elements (as display is light up by some lighting elements).
Regarding claim 15, De Carlo discloses, the controller 210 is configured to control heater activation times for each of the at least one heater 202.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Carlo in view of Achtien et al. (US 2020/0352249) hereafter Achtien (having priority date of Provisional application (US 62/590107) (PCT Pub. Date of No. 21,2018) WO 2019/104227).
Regarding claim 2, De Carlo discloses, all the claimed limitations except for the at least one heater includes a plurality of heaters.
Achtien, discloses the vaporizer 200 may include one or more heaters 210 that heat an oven 220 or other heating chamber.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the at least one heater includes a plurality of heaters as taught by Achtien in order to expedite and control the heating process for heating the material at different temperatures at different times.
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, De Carlo (and Achtien), discloses, the controller 210 is configured to selectively control activation of each of the plurality of heaters according to at least one program on the memory 803. (it is to be noted that Achtien also discloses the controller 205 is configured to selectively control activation of each of the plurality of heaters 218 according to at least one program on the memory 225.
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, (both) De Carlo (and Achtien), discloses, the at least one program is located on the memory on a main body of the electronic cigarette.
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, (De Carlo as modified by) Achtien, discloses the at least one program comprises include a plurality of heating profiles, each of the plurality of heating profiles comprising information which one of the plurality of heaters is to be heated to which temperature or temperatures when and how long, or which one of the plurality of the heaters is usable together with one or more heating profiles stored separately in the memory.
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, (De Carlo as modified by) Achtien, discloses all the claimed limitations except for the activation times of the at least two of the plurality of heaters overlap for at least 10% of either activation time.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the activation times of the at least two of the plurality of heaters overlap for at least 10% of either activation time in order to loss of heating during and before the next cycle.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, (De Carlo as modified by) Achtien, discloses the at least one program is based on a sensor input (of sensor 217 see fig. 2A, 6A, 6B).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, De Carlo (as modified by) Achtien), discloses the electronic cigarette further comprises a timer 105, wherein the timer is configured to regulate a time during which each of the plurality of heaters is activated.
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, De Carlo (as modified by) Achtien), discloses all the claimed limitations except for at least two of the plurality of heaters can be activated at separate times or at least two of the plurality of heaters can be activated at the same time.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least two of the plurality of heaters can be activated at separate times or at least two of the plurality of heaters can be activated at the same time in order to maintain desired temperature for having desire vapour quantity.
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, De Carlo (as modified by) Achtien), discloses each of the plurality of heaters comprises a temperature sensor 237 configured to sense a temperature of corresponding one of the plurality of heaters and provide a heater temperature sensor signal to the controller.
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, (De Carlo as modified by) Achtien, discloses the controller 205 is configured to heat each of the plurality of heaters based on the corresponding heater temperature sensor (237) signal 217 (fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, (De Carlo as modified by) Achtien, discloses an interface 107, 207 configured to enable the user, when changing parameters, to extend or shorten a duration of a heater activation time of one or more of the heaters and/or shift the heater activation time of at least one heater forward or backward in time with respect to at least one other heater activation time.
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, (De Carlo as modified by) Achtien, discloses the interface is configured to provide the user a list of options and is configured to translate an input received from the user into corresponding settings within at least one program and/or heating profile.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARSHAD C PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8289. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00 am - 5.00 pm (EST).
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, Abdullah A Riyami 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.
/HARSHAD C PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights