DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
In view of amendment filed 3/6/2026, the 112 rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made as detailed below.
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 18-19 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.
Claims 18-19 recite the limitation "the four e-liquid cartridges". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as “four e-liquid cartridges”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-13, 17-20, 24-28, and 30-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Farrow (US 2015/0090253).
Regarding claim 1, Farrow [Fig. 3-5] teaches an electronic vaping system that includes a power source, a body that contains the power source [0042] and that is configured to receive and store at the same time multiple e-liquid cartridges 18/20 or 218/220 [0046]; a selector system configured to: enable a user to select liquid from any one of the e-liquid cartridges for atomization; and mechanically regulate a variable extent of flow of e-liquid from the selected cartridge through the actuation of the selector system [0038, 0044, 0047, 0048].
Regarding claims 2-3, Farrow teaches a mouthpiece that is configured to be removable from the body [0037], i.e. lifted up from the body by a user.
Regarding claim 4, the interior of the body where the cartridges 18/20 or 218/220 are located in Fig. 3 and 5 is interpreted as a compartment that is configured to receive and store cartridges when those cartridges are inserted into the compartment
Regarding claims 5-7, Farrow teaches the body has a long axis and is configured to receive and store cartridges 18/20 or 218/220 when those cartridges are inserted into the body in a direction parallel to that long axis [Fig. 3 and 5]. Each e-liquid cartridge is adjacent to at least one other e-liquid cartridge and the cartridges occupy substantially the entire width of the body.
Regarding claim 8, Farrow teaches the system is configured to enable an inhaled vapour to be created using liquid from a single specific user-selected e-liquid cartridge inserted into the body [0037, 0038, 0046].
Regarding claim 9, Farrow teaches the system is configured to enable an inhaled vapour to be created using liquid from two or more user-selected e-liquid cartridges inserted into the body [0037, 0044, 0047].
Regarding claims 10-11, Farrow teaches the e-liquid cartridges are each pre-filled and separately replaceable [0037, 0040], i.e. individually user insertable into the body, pre- filled and are not user re-fillable
Regarding claim 12, Farrow teaches the e-liquid cartridges are user re- fillable [0037, 0040].
Regarding claim 13, in view of the outlet connection of the cartridges 18/20 as shown in Fig. 3, each liquid cartridge is interpreted as configured to be insertable into the body in only a single orientation.
Regarding claim 17, Farrow teaches e-liquid cartridge has a generally rectangular shape when seen from the side [Fig. 3].
Regarding claims 18-19, Farrow teaches four e- liquid cartridges are positioned in the body and each cartridge is configured to provide e-liquid for atomisation and for atomised vapour to flow into a mouthpiece for inhalation, or one user-selected cartridge provides e-liquid for atomisation and for atomised vapour to flow into a mouthpiece for inhalation [0037, 0038, 0044, 0046].
Regarding claim 20, in view of Fig. 5, the power source is interpreted as being positioned in base 250, at one end of the body, and the cartridges 218/220 are positioned towards the opposite end of the body.
Regarding claim 24, Farrow teaches each e-liquid cartridge is configured to be pre-filled with one specific substance, or a predetermined mixture of two or more substances [0037].
Regarding claim 25, Farrow teaches the selector system is configured to enable a user to select liquid from two or more of the e-liquid cartridges simultaneously for atomization to create a blended vapor [0037, 0044, 0047].
Regarding claim 26, Farrow teaches the means of selecting a desired container formulation utilizes electronic controls, where the selecting component is electrically controlled by a user interface [0045], i.e. the selector system is configured to enable flow regulation to be controlled by a processor responsive to user input.
Regarding claim 27, Farrow teaches selecting a desired unique formulation from mixing various different formulation [0044, 0047], i.e. the selector system is configured to regulate a continuously variable extent of flow of e-liquid from the selected cartridge through the actuation of the selector system.
Regarding claim 28, Farrow teaches the selector system is a mechanical or electro-mechanical selector [0038, 0043, 0045].
Regarding claim 30, Farrow teaches a user input for the selector system allows for the adjustment of relative proportions of e-liquid from the two or more selected cartridges when creating a blended vapor [0044, 0045, 0047].
Regarding claim 31, Farrow teaches the cartridges are separately replaceable [0037, 0040], i.e. individually user insertable into the body. In view of the outlet connection of the cartridges 18/20 as shown in Fig. 3, each cartridge is interpreted as configured to be insertable in only a single orientation.
Regarding claim 32, Farrow teaches a digital display on the body to show the selection status of the cartridges [0043].
Regarding claims 33-34, the system of Farrow is interpreted as being both portable and desktop-based. These limitations do not impart any required structure to the claims to distinguish from the system of Farrow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 21 and 35 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farrow as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Duke (US 2013/0168880).
Farrow does not teach power source is rechargeable and the body includes a power socket. Duke teaches an electronic vaporizing device wherein the power source is rechargeable and the body includes a charging port (power socket) [0029], which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply to the device of Farrow to allow for recharging. The system would thus be operable with a desktop-based charging station.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farrow as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Levitz (US 2014/0224267).
Farrow does not teach the body has a flat base and the body is configured to rest facing up when the body is positioned on a flat surface. Levitz teaches an electronic cigarette having a flat surface to prevent it from rolling when placed on a flat surface [0031]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the body of Farrow with a flat surface to prevent it from rolling when placed on a flat surface. The interior of Farrow is a compartment that is configured to receive and store the e-liquid cartridges when the cartridges are inserted into the compartment [Fig. 1-3; 0030]. Modified Farrow is considered to read on the limitations of “facing up” and “lowered vertically down” as this simply depends on the orientation of the vaping system.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farrow as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Scatterday (US 2014/0261494).
Farrow does not teach the body includes an indicator to display the battery level. Scatterday teaches an electronic vaporizing device comprising an indicator to display the battery level [0026]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the body of Farrow with an indicator to display the battery level to inform the user of the battery level.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farrow as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hopps (US 2015/0047662).
Farrow does not teach the selector system comprises one or more liquid flow control valves. Hopps teaches an aerosol generating device wherein a selector system comprises one or more liquid flow control valves [0038, 0046, 0047]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply this configuration to the selector system of Hopps to achieve the same, predictable result of controlling the flow of liquid from the cartridges for vaporization.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC YAARY whose telephone number is (571)272-3273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Philip Louie can be reached at (571)270-1241. 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.
/ERIC YAARY/Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights