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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/6/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 17–25 and 29–30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ALLER US 20200113240 (“ALLER”) (of record) in view of DICK US 20200205478 (“DICK”).
As to claim 17, ALLER makes obvious a vaping system including (i) a first vaping device body and a second vaping device body (Figs. 1–2; ¶51), each with a different shape (Figs. 1–2) and (ii) an e-liquid pod (Figs 5–7) that is configured to interchangeably slide, snap or fit into both the first vaping device body and the second vaping device body (¶63). The pod includes a heater 319 (¶63). The aerosol delivery devices disclosed by Aller comprise at least one control component (e.g., means for actuating, controlling, regulating and ceasing power for heat generation, such as by controlling electrical current flow the power source to other components of the article—e.g., a microcontroller or microprocessor) (¶48)
ALLER further teaches, albeit in not expressly within a single embodiment, each of the first vaping device body and the second vaping device body have a different rechargeable battery capacity (¶85 and claim 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of ALLER different battery capacity for the benefit of a vaporization system with differing aspects/power (as taught by ALLER at ¶85).
ALLER fails to explicitly disclose in which the e-liquid pod includes a chip or memory that stores data including at least one of a unique number, a batch number, or a liquid type and wherein a controller located in at least one of the first or second vaping device bodies is configured to (a) read the data from the chip or memory and (b) regulate at least one of a power, a current or a voltage provided by the rechargeable battery to the heating atomizer depending on the read data.
DICK teaches an interchangeable pod (Fig. 1, 17/21; ¶77) that includes a chip or memory (53) that stores data defining the type or chemical composition of the e-liquid in the pod (¶77). The pod further comprises a heating element 36 (heating atomizer) that is actuated by the control assembly 29 (Figs 1-3; ¶48). The chip or memory (information store 53) stores information regarding the ingredients, i.e. the composition of the liquid stored in the liquid tank 18; information regarding the process profile, in particular power/temperature control (regulate power based data from the chip or memory); data regarding state monitoring or system checking, for example leak testing; data relating to copy protection and forgery protection, in particular comprising an ID for unique information regarding the consumption unit 17 or cartridge 21; serial number, date of manufacture and/or expiry date; and/or drag number (number of inhalation drags by the user) or usage time (¶77). There is advantageously an electrical connection 54 between the consumption unit/cartridge 17/21 and the energy supply unit 12 which is used to exchange data between the consumption unit/cartridge 17/21 and the energy supply unit 12 (read data from the chip or memory) and to supply electricity to the consumption unit 17 or the cartridge 21 by means of the electrical energy store 14 (¶78).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of DICK into the disclosure of ALLER for the benefit of enabling the vaping system regulate the amount of energy supplied from the battery to the e-liquid pod (as taught by DICK at ¶¶ 78–79) based upon the type of liquid in the pod.
As to claim 18, ALLER and DICK make obvious the vaping system of Claim 17.
ALLER further discloses in which the first vaping device body has a shape with a width that is substantially the same width as the e-liquid pod (Fig. 1); and
the second vaping device body has a shape that is substantially wider than the e-liquid pod (Fig. 2).
ALLER fails to explicitly disclose the second vaping device body has a larger battery capacity than the first vaping device body.
Again, ALLER further teaches, albeit in not expressly within a single embodiment, each of the first vaping device body and the second vaping device body have a different rechargeable battery capacity (¶85 and claim 3).
ALLER also illustrates that the second vaping device (Fig. 2) is larger than the first vaping device (Fig. 1).
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of ALLER different battery capacity and the larger vaping device and arrive at the second vaping device body has a larger battery capacity than the first vaping device body for the benefit of a vaporization system with differing aspects/power (as taught by ALLER at ¶85).
For the sake of compact prosecution, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to arrive at “which the first vaping device body has a shape with a width that is substantially the same width as the e-liquid pod” as an obvious matter of change in design/size/proportion/shape changes because ALLER’s first vaping device would not perform/operate in a materially different manner if its body was modified. See MPEP 2144.04(I) (explaining “matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.”), MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (explaining “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.”), and MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) (explaining matters of design choice are obvious absent persuasive evidence that the claimed configuration is significant).
As to claim 19, ALLER and DICK make obvious the vaping system of Claim 17.
ALLER further discloses in which the first vaping device body is configured to require the e-liquid pod to be positioned in a recess that runs along the centre-line of the top face of the first vaping device body (Fig. 1); and
the second vaping device body is configured to require the e-liquid pod to be positioned in a recess at one side of the top face of the second vaping device body (Fig. 2).
ALLER fails to explicitly disclose the second vaping device body has a larger battery capacity than the first vaping device body.
ALLER further teaches, albeit in not expressly within a single embodiment, each of the first vaping device body and the second vaping device body have a different rechargeable battery capacity (¶85 and claim 3).
ALLER also illustrates that the second vaping device (Fig. 2) is larger than the first vaping device (Fig. 1).
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of ALLER different battery capacity and the larger vaping device and arrive at the second vaping device body has a larger battery capacity than the first vaping device body for the benefit of a vaporization system with differing aspects/power (as taught by ALLER at ¶85).
As to claim 20, ALLER and DICK make obvious the vaping system of Claim 17.
ALLER further discloses in which the first vaping device body has a rectangular bar format shape (Fig. 1 meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a rectangular bar format shape” because it is generally consistent with curved rectangular bar format shape illustrated in Applicant’s Fig. 1 item 3) ; and
the second vaping device body is substantially wider than the first vaping device body (Figs. 1–2).
ALLER fails to explicitly disclose the second vaping device body has a larger battery capacity than the first vaping device body.
Again, ALLER further teaches, albeit in not expressly within a single embodiment, each of the first vaping device body and the second vaping device body have a different rechargeable battery capacity (¶85 and claim 3).
ALLER also illustrates that the second vaping device (Fig. 2) is larger than the first vaping device (Fig. 1).
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of ALLER different battery capacity and the larger vaping device and arrive at the second vaping device body has a larger battery capacity than the first vaping device body for the benefit of a vaporization system with differing aspects/power (as taught by ALLER at ¶85).
For the sake of compact prosecution, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to arrive at “the first vaping device body has a rectangular bar format shape” as an obvious matter of change in design/size/proportion/shape changes because ALLER’s first vaping device would not perform/operate in a materially different manner if is body was modified. See MPEP 2144.04(I) (explaining “matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.”), MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (explaining “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.”), and MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) (explaining matters of design choice are obvious absent persuasive evidence that the claimed configuration is significant).
As to claim 21, ALLER and DICK make obvious the vaping system of Claim 17.
ALLER further discloses in which each shape of vaping device body is generally rectangular (Figs. 1–2 are generally consistent with the curved rectangular shape of in Applicant’s Fig. 1).
For the sake of compact prosecution, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to arrive at “each shape of vaping device body is generally rectangular” as an obvious matter of change in design/size/proportion/shape changes because ALLER’s vaping device would not perform/operate in a materially different manner if the shape of the devices bodies were modified. See MPEP 2144.04(I) (explaining “matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.”), MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (explaining “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.”), and MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) (explaining matters of design choice are obvious absent persuasive evidence that the claimed configuration is significant).
As to claim 22, ALLER and DICK make obvious the vaping system of Claim 17.
ALLER further discloses a USB charging port (Figs. 3–4, 106a/206a) of the both the first vaping device body and the second vaping device body (¶96).
As to claim 23, ALLER and DICK make obvious the vaping system of Claim 17.
ALLER further discloses in which the e-liquid pod is configured to magnetically latch into both the first vaping device body and the second vaping device body (¶83).
As to claim 24, ALLER and DICK make obvious the vaping system of Claim 17.
ALLER further discloses in which the e-liquid pod includes a mouthpiece (Figs. 5–8, 309/409) and a pod body (303/403), and the pod body is configured to slide into and out of a recess (112/212) in both the first vaping device body and the second vaping device body (¶92), and the pod body is longer than the mouthpiece (Figs. 5–8).
As to claim 25, ALLER and DICK make obvious the vaping system of Claim 17.
ALLER further discloses in which the e-liquid pod includes a pod body (303/403), and the pod body is configured to slide into a recess with curved sides in both the first vaping device body and the second vaping device body, and the pod body has curved sides corresponding to the curved sides in both the first vaping device body and second vaping device body (Figs. 1–8; ¶92).
As to claim 29, ALLER and DICK make obvious the vaping system of Claim 17.
ALLER further discloses the pod (Figs. 5–8) includes a heating atomiser (319/419; ¶68) that is positioned approximately 20 mm up from a base of the pod (¶69 explains that the outer wall of the tank 303/403 spanning from base 307/407 to proximal end 305/405 and just below the heater 319/419 is about 20mm). MPEP 2144.05 (“In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.)
For the sake of compact prosecution, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to arrive at “approximately 20-25mm up from a base of the pod” as an obvious matter of change in design/size/proportion/shape changes because ALLER’s vaping device would not perform/operate in a materially different manner if the shape of the heating assembly/liquid reservoir were modified to be longer. See MPEP 2144.04(I) (explaining “matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.”), MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (explaining “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.”), and MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) (explaining matters of design choice are obvious absent persuasive evidence that the claimed configuration is significant). That is, the pod would just hold more liquid.
As to claim 30, ALLER and DICK make obvious the vaping system of Claim 17.
ALLER further discloses in which the e-liquid pod is configured to be pre-filled with liquid at a factory, or to be user re-fillable (Figs. 7–8, illustrate that liquid 323/423 is filled in the pod. One of ordinary skill in the art understands that this meets at e-liquid pod is configured to be pre-filled with liquid at a factory, or to be user re-fillable because it is a structure which may be filled by a user or at a factory).
Claim(s) 22 and 26–28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ALLER US 20200113240 (“ALLER”) and DICK US 20200205478 (“DICK”), as applied in the rejection of claim 17 above, and in further view of NETTENSTROM US 20190099567 (of record).
As to claim 22, ALLER and DICK remain applied in the rejection of claim 22 above because the structure cited meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “USB port.” However, since ALLER’s USB port is not a typical USB port, following rejection is made to advance compact prosecution.
ALLER and DICK make obvious the vaping system of Claim 17.
ALLER further discloses a USB charging port (Figs. 3–4, 106a/206a) of the both the first vaping device body and the second vaping device body (¶96) that receives a USB whip extension (Fig. 9).
NETTENSTROM teaches a vaping device body (Figs. 1–2) with USB charging port (Fig. 5A, 37; ¶41).
One of ordinary skill in the art understands that both ALLER and NETTENSTROM’s ports are used to power the battery within the vaping device (as taught by ALLER at ¶96 and NETTENSTROM at ¶41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of NETTENSTROM into the disclosure of ALLER as either simple substitution or modification for the predictable benefit of allowing a user to charge the vaping device (as taught by NETTENSTROM at ¶41).
As to claim 26, attention is drawn to the above objection to the drawings for failing to clearly identify “unit that runs centrally up through a long axis of the pod.”
ALLER and DICK make obvious the vaping system of Claim 17.
ALLER discloses the pod includes an e-liquid reservoir (Figs. 7–8, 323/423; ¶69) and a heating atomizer (319/419; ¶72) centrally located along a long axis of the pod, but above the e-liquid reservoir.
Accordingly, ALLER fails to disclose the e-liquid pod includes an e-liquid reservoir that surrounds a heating atomiser, and the heating atomiser is positioned in a unit that runs centrally up through a long axis of the pod.
DICK fails to remedy the above deficiency.
NETTENSTROM teaches an e-liquid reservoir (Fig. 1, liquid within 21; ¶40) that surrounds a heating atomizer (¶22), and the heating atomiser is positioned in a unit (inner walls of 21, or 17/18; ¶40) that runs centrally up through a long axis of the pod (Fig. 1).
One of ordinary skill in the art understands that both ALLER and NETTENSTROM’s atomizing assemblies are used to vaporize e-liquid juice within the vaping device (as taught by ALLER at ¶74 and NETTENSTROM at ¶40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of NETTENSTROM’s atomizing assembly into modified ALLER as either simple substitution for or modification of ALLER’s atomizing assembly for the predictable benefit of heating and vaporing the e-liquid juice (as taught by NETTENSTROM at ¶40).
As to claim 27, ALLER, DICK, and NETTENSTROM make obvious the vaping system of Claim 26.
ALLER teaches a wick (Figs. 321/421) is positioned to receive e-liquid and provide e- liquid to the heating atomizer (¶63).
ALLER fails to disclose the unit that runs centrally up through the long axis of the pod includes a pair of opposite facing holes; and a wick is positioned to receive e-liquid through those holes and provide e- liquid to the heating atomiser.
DICK fails to remedy the above deficiency.
NETTENSTROM further teaches the unit that runs centrally up through the long axis of the pod includes a pair of opposite facing holes (where 23 inters 21); and a wick (23) is positioned to receive e-liquid through those holes and provide e- liquid to the heating atomizer (¶40).
One of ordinary skill in the art understands that both ALLER and NETTENSTROM’s atomizing assemblies (and their wicking assemblies) are used to vaporize e-liquid juice within the vaping device (as taught by ALLER at ¶74 and NETTENSTROM at ¶40).
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of NETTENSTROM’s wicking/hole arrangement into modified ALLER as either simple substitution for or modification of ALLER’s atomizing assembly for the predictable benefit of transporting liquid from a reservoir surrounding the atomizing to the atomoizer and vaporing the e-liquid juice (as taught by NETTENSTROM at ¶40).
As to claim 28, ALLER, DICK, and NETTENSTROM make the vaping system of Claim 26.
ALLER fails to disclose the unit that runs centrally up through the long axis of the pod includes concentric outer and inner walls, with the outer wall facing the e-liquid reservoir and the inner wall containing the atomizer.
DICK fails to remedy the above deficiency.
NETTENSTROM further teaches the unit that runs centrally up through the long axis of the pod includes concentric outer (outer wall of 21) and inner walls (inner wall of 21), with the outer wall facing the e-liquid reservoir and the inner wall containing the atomizer (Fig. 1).
One of ordinary skill in the art understands that both ALLER and NETTENSTROM’s atomizing assemblies (and their units) are used to retain e-liquid juice and supply the same to the vaporizer (as taught by ALLER at ¶74 and NETTENSTROM at ¶40).
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of NETTENSTROM’s inner/outerwall arrangement into modified ALLER as either simple substitution for or modification of ALLER’s atomizing assembly for the predictable benefit of retaining e-liquid juice and transporting from a reservoir surrounding the atomizing to the atomoizer and vaporing the e-liquid juice (as taught by NETTENSTROM at ¶40).
Claim(s) 31–32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ALLER US 20200113240 (“ALLER”) (of record) and DICK US 20200205478 (“DICK”), as applied in the rejection of claim 17 above, and in further view of ANDERSON US 20200000143 (“ANDERSON”).
As to claim 31, ALLER and DICK make obvious the vaping system of Claim 17.
ALLER and DICK fail to disclose/teach in which the e-liquid pod includes a counter in a memory chip that is configured to change its value when a defined type of event affects the e-liquid pod, so that when the counter reaches a limit or other value, the pod is locked from further use.
ANDERSON teaches an e-liquid pod (Fig. 1E) includes a counter in a memory chip ([0274]’s “EEPROM”) that is configured to change its value ([0320] “the vaporizer may periodically (e.g., after each puff, etc.) write to the memory in the cartridge identity circuit”) when a defined type of event affects the e-liquid pod ([0281]), so that when the counter reaches a limit or other value ([0281] “may determine that the usage of the pod exceeds a threshold for a number of puff that could be taken for the vaporizable material in the pod”), the pod is locked from further use ([0281]’s “This may indicate that the pod was refilled and the vaporizer system may disable functionality of the pod and/or vaporizer device.” This is consistent with Specification [0179–0183]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of ANDERSON into the disclosure of modified ALLER for the benefit of tracking usage of the pod and determining if the usage is consistent with a pod that has been tampered with, refilled, reused, and/or the like (as taught by ANDERSON at [0281]).
As to claim 32, ALLER, DICK, and ANDERSON make obvious the vaping system of Claim 17.
ALLER and DICK fail to disclose/teach the limit that the counter reaches is zero.
ANDERSON further teaches disabling the pod when the usage of the pod exceeds a threshold for a number of puffs that could be taken for the vaporizable material in the pod ([0281]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate these additional teachings of ANDERSON into the disclosure of modified ALLER for the benefit of tracking usage of the pod and determining if the usage is consistent with a pod that has been tampered with, refilled, reused, and/or the like (as taught by ANDERSON at [0281]).
The obvious combination above makes obvious disabling the pod by counting up to certain number of usages and/or counting down to zero from a total number usages allowed because both would “exceed a threshold” (albeit counting down to zero would “exceed a threshold” in a negative direction).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Aller fails to teach the e-liquid pod including a chip or memory that stores data including at least one of a unique number, a batch number, or a liquid type and wherein the controller located in at least one of the first or second vaping device bodies is configured to (a) read the data from the chip or memory and (b) regulate at least one of a power, current, or voltage provided by the rechargeable battery to the heating atomizer depending on the read data such that the same e-liquid pod is configured to operate with different vaping device bodies. Applicant argues that Dick fails to disclose a controller located in at least one of the first or second device vaping bodies is configured to (a) read the data from the chip or memory and (b) regulate at least one of a power, current, or voltage provided by the rechargeable battery to the heating atomizer depending on the read data such that the same e-liquid pod is configured to operate with different vaping device bodies.
Examiner disagrees, as the aerosol delivery devices disclosed by Aller comprise at least one control component (e.g., means for actuating, controlling, regulating and ceasing power for heat generation, such as by controlling electrical current flow the power source to other components of the article—e.g., a microcontroller or microprocessor) (¶48). Furthermore, Dick is relied upon for its disclosure of pod comprising a chip or memory (information store 53) which stores information regarding the ingredients, i.e. the composition of the liquid stored in the liquid tank 18; information regarding the process profile, in particular power/temperature control (regulate power based data from the chip or memory); data regarding state monitoring or system checking, for example leak testing; data relating to copy protection and forgery protection, in particular comprising an ID for unique information regarding the consumption unit 17 or cartridge 21; serial number, date of manufacture and/or expiry date; and/or drag number (number of inhalation drags by the user) or usage time (¶77). There is advantageously an electrical connection 54 between the consumption unit/cartridge 17/21 and the energy supply unit 12 which is used to exchange data between the consumption unit/cartridge 17/21 and the energy supply unit 12 (read data from the chip or memory) and to supply electricity to the consumption unit 17 or the cartridge 21 by means of the electrical energy store 14 (¶78).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katherine A Will whose telephone number is (571)270-0516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00AM-6:00PM(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, Michael 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.
/KATHERINE A WILL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights