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 .
Status of the Claims
This Office action is in response to Applicant’s amendments filed 01/27/2026.
Claims 1-6 and 8-28 are pending and are subject to this Office Action.
Claims 1-5, 8 and 14-15 are amended.
Claim 7 is cancelled.
Claims 27-28 are newly added.
Claims 17-24 are previously withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 9-11, filed 01/27/2026, with respect to the 102 rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 9-11, the Applicant argues that Conley does not appropriately teach a foreign cartridge comprising “the structural features Conley consistently associates with cartridges”, and alleges that Conley instead teaches a heating element (heating element 706) rather than the claimed cartridge.
The Examiner disagrees.
Conley teaches that an embodiment of the invention comprises a first cartridge 402 comprising the heating element and a second cartridge 404 that comprises a vaporization solution (Fig. 4; [0038]). This indicates that Conley considers a heating element portion to be a cartridge (e.g., first cartridge 402). Conley further teaches that a cartridge may be manufactured as a single assembly or as a multi-piece assembly ([0003]), and that many cartridge designs are possible ([0034]). It can therefore be expected that when Conley refers to heating element 706 in another embodiment, one having ordinary skill in the art would expect that heating element 706 may be considered to be a cartridge.
Furthermore, the Examiner notes that the recited claims do not require any particular elements of a cartridge. Therefore, the heating element 706 of Conley is sufficient to read on the claimed cartridge.
Thus, the rejection of claim 1 is maintained.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 12-13, filed 01/27/2026, with respect to the 103 rejection of claim 11 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 12-13 the Applicant argues that Conley does not appropriately teach that a plurality of adaptors could enable the power source to function with heating elements from a plurality of other manufacturers.
The Examiner disagrees.
Conley paragraphs [0004] and [0016] reference multiple adaptors of the invention, specifically noting that “the adapters described herein are configured to…couple power sources from a first manufacturer with a heating element from a second manufacturer” ([0004]). Based on this definition, it would be obvious that multiple adaptors may be developed to connect different configurations of first manufacturers and second manufacturers. While only one adaptor is depicted, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that multiple different adaptors would be possible. Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Conley by including a plurality of adaptors wherein the foreign cartridge interface of each adaptor of the plurality of adaptors has a different configuration than the foreign cartridge interface of every other adaptor of the plurality of adaptors, as one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this would enable use of the power source use with multiple different cartridge types, and this involves applying a known teaching to a known device to yield predictable results.
The applicant further argues that the heating element 706 of Conley does not appropriately teach a cartridge. The Examiner maintains that heating element 706 appropriately teaches a cartridge as claimed, as argued above.
Thus, the rejection of claim 11 is maintained.
Applicant's arguments, see page 14, filed 01/27/2026, with respect to the 103 rejection of claim 25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 14 the Applicant argues that Conley does not appropriately teach a power source that can be used with cartridges that employ different technologies to diffuse a substance.
The Examiner disagrees.
Conley teaches that different diffusing elements are usable/substitutable in the proprietary cartridge ([0022]). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the power supply 102 would be designed to support this substitution such that the device still functions. One having ordinary skill in the art would expect that, absent evidence otherwise, the power supply 102 of Conley would be able to work with each of the proprietary cartridges that employ different technologies.
Thus, the rejection of claim 25 is maintained.
The following is a modified rejection based on Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites that “the foreign cartridge interface comprises an electrical connector, and the second power supply interface comprises electrodes, the electrical connector to electrically couple the electrodes of the second power supply interface to the power supply”. Based on the claimed configuration, it is unclear how the electrical connector may electrically couple the electrodes to the power supply. The adaptor structure is described in [0175]-[0182] and Figs. 14A-16B of the specification. Specifically, [0177] and Figs. 16A-B teach that electrodes 66 are located on a distal end 63 and electrical connectors 70 on a proximal end 62 of the adaptor. The electrodes 66 serve to connect to a power supply 100’ and the electrical connectors 70 to an oil tank 25’ ([0180]). However, it is not described how the electrical connector functions to “electrically couple the electrodes of the second power supply interface to the power supply”, as these parts are described to be connected independently of the electrical connector. Thus, the claim is indefinite. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be read as “the foreign cartridge interface comprises an electrical connector and the second power supply interface comprises electrodes”.
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 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.
(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 1-2, 5 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Conley et al. (US 20130220315 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Conley teaches a system (electronic vaporizer 100, 700; Fig. 7; [0018], [0047-0048]), comprising:
a power supply (power source 102, 702) including a cartridge interface (first connector type 704),
wherein the cartridge interface mates with a first power supply interface of a proprietary cartridge (cartridge 104) ([0004]);
and an adaptor (adapter 710; [0048]) including a second power supply interface (first connector 712) and a foreign cartridge interface (second connector 714),
wherein the second power supply interface mates with the cartridge interface ([0048]),
wherein the foreign cartridge interface mates with a power coupler (second connector 708) of a foreign cartridge (heating element 706; [0047-0048]);
and wherein the system is configured to diffuse an inhalable substance (Abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Conley teaches that the adaptor 710 comprises an adaptor body having a proximal end and a distal end opposite the proximal end (see Annotated Fig. 1), the foreign cartridge 714 interface disposed at the proximal end of the adaptor body and the second power supply interface 712 disposed at the distal end of the adaptor body, wherein the cartridge interface of the power supply comprises a cavity formed in a proximal end of a housing of the power supply (threaded receiver of power supply 704; [0048]), the cavity for receiving the distal end of the adaptor body, and wherein the distal end of the adaptor body is received within the cavity of the proximal end of the housing of the power supply (threaded portion 712 of adapter configured to screw into 704; [0048]), an electrical communication is established between the power supply and the foreign cartridge ([0004], [0018], [0048]).
PNG
media_image1.png
382
778
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 (Annotated from Conley Fig. 7)
Regarding claim 5, Conley teaches that the at least one foreign cartridge interface comprises an interface proprietary to the foreign cartridge ([0004]).
Regarding claim 8, Conley teaches that the system further comprises the foreign cartridge 706 ([0047-0048]).
Regarding claim 9, Conley teaches that the power supply comprises a proprietary power supply ([0004]).
Regarding claim 10, Conley teaches that the power supply directly couples to the proprietary cartridge and indirectly couples to the foreign cartridge ([0004]).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-4, 6, 11-16 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conley et al. (US 20130220315 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 2 above.
Regarding claim 3, Conley teaches that a protrusion of the distal end of the adaptor body mates with the cavity of the proximal end of the cartridge interface of the power supply ([0048]; see Annotated Fig. 1). Conley further depicts that the outer housings of each portion of the system appear to be continuous (or at least of the same outer diameter) when connected (Fig. 7).
Conley does not explicitly teach that adjacent portions of an outer surface of the power supply and a corresponding outer surface of the adaptor are continuous with each other.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Conley by making the outer surface of the power supply and a corresponding surface of the adaptor continuous with each other when connected, as one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this is an obvious matter of design choice that would improve the appearance of the system but would not modify the operation of the device. See MPEP § 2144.04 (I).
Regarding claim 4, Conley does not explicitly teach that the at least one foreign cartridge interface comprises a 510 threaded connection.
However, Conley does teach that a threaded connection is a known connection type for a cartridge interface.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Conley by making the at least one foreign cartridge interface comprise a threaded connection as Conley is silent to the exact foreign cartridge interface connection and one with ordinary skill would be motivated to look to prior art for a known and suitable connection, Conley teaches that this is a known connection type, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a 510 thread connection is a standard threaded connection used in the art.
Regarding claim 6, Conley does not explicitly teach that the system comprises a plurality of adaptors comprising a plurality of foreign cartridge interfaces of a plurality of different configurations.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Conley by including a plurality of adaptors comprising a plurality of foreign cartridge interfaces, as one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this would enable use of the power source use with multiple different cartridge types, and this involves applying a known teaching to a known device to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 11, Conley teaches a system (electronic vaporizer 100, 700; Fig. 7; [0018], [0047-0048]), comprising:
a power supply (power source 102, 702) including a cartridge interface (first connector type 704),
wherein the cartridge interface mates with a first power supply interface of a proprietary cartridge (cartridge 104) ([0004]);
and an adaptor (adapter 710; [0048]) including a second power supply interface (first connector 712) and a foreign cartridge interface (second connector 714),
wherein the second power supply interface mates with the cartridge interface ([0048]),
wherein the foreign cartridge interface mates with a power coupler (second connector 708) of a foreign cartridge (heating element 706; [0047-0048]);
and wherein the system diffuses an inhalable substance (Abstract).
Conley does not explicitly teach that the system comprises a plurality of adaptors wherein the foreign cartridge interface of each adaptor of the plurality of adaptors has a different configuration than the foreign cartridge interface of every other adaptor of the plurality of adaptors.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Conley by including a plurality of adaptors wherein the foreign cartridge interface of each adaptor of the plurality of adaptors has a different configuration than the foreign cartridge interface of every other adaptor of the plurality of adaptors, as one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this would enable use of the power source use with multiple different cartridge types, and this involves applying a known teaching to a known device to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 12, Conley does not explicitly teach that the foreign cartridge interface of a first adaptor of the plurality of adaptors comprises a 510 threaded connection.
However, Conley does teach that a threaded connection is a known connection type for a cartridge interface.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Conley by making the foreign cartridge interface of a first adaptor comprise a threaded connection as Conley is silent to the exact foreign cartridge interface connection and one with ordinary skill would be motivated to look to prior art for a known and suitable connection, Conley teaches that this is a known connection type, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a 510 thread connection is a standard threaded connection used in the art.
Regarding claim 13, Conley teaches that the foreign cartridge interface of a second adaptor of the plurality of adaptors comprises an interface proprietary to the foreign cartridge ([0004]).
Regarding claim 14, Conley teaches that the cartridge interface comprises a cavity (threaded receiver of power supply 704; [0048]), and wherein the second power supply interface of at least one of the plurality of adaptors comprises a protrusion configured to mate with the cavity (threaded portion 712 of adapter configured to screw into 704; [0048]).
Regarding claim 15, Conley teaches that a protrusion of the distal end of the adaptor body mates with the cavity of the proximal end of the cartridge interface of the power supply ([0048]; see Annotated Fig. 1). Conley further depicts that the outer housings of each portion of the system appear to be continuous (or at least of the same outer diameter) when connected (Fig. 7).
Conley does not explicitly teach that adjacent portions of an outer surface of the power supply and a corresponding outer surface of the adaptor are continuous with each other.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Conley by making the outer surface of the power supply and a corresponding surface of the adaptor continuous with each other when connected, as one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this is an obvious matter of design choice that would improve the appearance of the system but would not modify the operation of the device. See MPEP § 2144.04 (I).
Regarding claim 16, Conley teaches the power supply directly couples to a proprietary cartridge and indirectly couples to the foreign cartridge ([0004]).
Regarding claim 25, Conley teaches a system (electronic vaporizer 100, 700; Fig. 7; [0018], [0047-0048]), comprising: a power supply (power source 102, 702) including a cartridge interface (first connector type 704) that interchangeably mates with a first power supply interface of a first proprietary cartridge (cartridge 104; [0004]) including a first type of diffusing element (heating element 126; Fig. 1; [0022]) to directly couple the first proprietary cartridge to the power supply ([0004]).
Conley does not explicitly teach a second proprietary cartridge including a second type of diffusing element to directly couple to the power supply.
However, Conley teaches that different diffusing elements are usable in the proprietary cartridge.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Conley by making a second proprietary cartridge with a second power supply interface to directly couple the second proprietary cartridge to the power supply, the second type of diffusing element differing from the first type of diffusing element because Conley teaches that there are multiple types of diffusing element usable in the proprietary cartridge, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that making multiple proprietary cartridges with different diffusing elements would enable user preferences, and this involves applying a known teaching to a known device to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 26, Conley teaches that the first type of diffusing element is an atomizer (heating element 126; [0022]; Fig. 1) in communication with a center airflow lumen (air passageway 134; [0024-0025]) and the second type of diffusing element comprises a heating element on a vaporization surface ([0022], e.g., resistive heating).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conley as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Liu (US 20140283857 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Conley teaches that the foreign cartridge interface establishes an electrical connection to the power coupler 708 ([0048]). One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that to establish an electrical connection, the interface must inherently comprise an electrical connector.
Conley further teaches that the adaptor 710 may comprise a conductive material. Conley further teaches that the second power supply interface establishes an electrical connection to the power supply 702 ([0048]).
Conley does not explicitly teach that the second power supply interface comprises electrodes.
Liu, directed to a system (electronic cigarette; [0030]) comprising a power supply (battery cartridge 300; Fig. 5; [0045]) including a cartridge interface (atomizer connector 302; [0043]) wherein the cartridge interface 302 mates with a power supply interface (battery cartridge connector 203; Fig. 4; [0030]), teaches that a cartridge interface may connect to another portion of the device via an electrode 208 on the power supply interface (Fig. 4; [0038]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the second power supply interface of Conley by using electrodes to electrically connect the adaptor with the power supply as taught by Liu because Conley is silent to the exact electrical connection configuration of the second power supply interface and one with ordinary skill would be motivated to look to prior art for a known and suitable electrical connection to a power supply, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Claims 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conley as applied to claims 3 and 14 above, and further in view of Marion et al. (US 20160261021 A1).
Regarding claim 27, Conley teaches that a magnetic connection or any suitable connector type may be used to secure a cartridge or adaptor to the power source ([0018], [0049]).
Conley does not explicitly teach a magnet connection that secures the protrusion of the second power supply interface of the adaptor within the cavity of the cartridge interface of the power supply.
Marion, directed to a system (aerosol delivery device 200; Fig. 2; [0034]) comprising a power supply (control body 202) including a cartridge interface (coupler 230; [0039]) wherein the cartridge interface mates with a first power supply interface (inner periphery 240 of base 228; [0040]) of a cartridge (cartridge 204; [0034]), wherein the cartridge interface of the power supply comprises a cavity (cavity 232; [0039]) formed in a proximal end of a housing of the power supply, the cavity for receiving the distal end of the cartridge body ([0039]), wherein when a protrusion (projection 234; [0039]) of the distal end of the cartridge body mates with the cavity 232 of the proximal end of the cartridge interface of the power supply, adjacent portions of an outer surface of the power supply (206) and a corresponding outer surface of the cartridge (216) are continuous with each other (Figs. 1-2), wherein the system is configured to diffuse an inhalable substance ([0002]), teaches that a magnet may secure the protrusion of the second power supply interface of the adaptor within the cavity of the cartridge interface of the power supply ([0031]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Conley by making a magnet secure the protrusion of the second power supply interface of the adaptor within the cavity of the cartridge interface of the power supply as taught by Marion because both Conley and Marion are directed to systems configured to diffuse inhalable substances, Marion teaches that it is known in the art to use a magnet to secure two portions of the device, specifically to secure a protrusion within a cavity, and this involves substituting one alternative connection configuration for another to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 28, Conley teaches that a magnetic connection or any suitable connector type may be used to secure a cartridge or adaptor to the power source ([0018], [0049]).
Conley does not explicitly teach a magnet connection that secures the protrusion of the second power supply interface of the adaptor within the cavity of the cartridge interface of the power supply.
Marion, directed to a system (aerosol delivery device 200; Fig. 2; [0034]) comprising a power supply (control body 202) including a cartridge interface (coupler 230; [0039]) wherein the cartridge interface mates with a first power supply interface (inner periphery 240 of base 228; [0040]) of a cartridge (cartridge 204; [0034]), wherein the cartridge interface of the power supply comprises a cavity (cavity 232; [0039]) formed in a proximal end of a housing of the power supply, the cavity for receiving the distal end of the cartridge body ([0039]), wherein the system is configured to diffuse an inhalable substance ([0002]), teaches that a magnet may secure the protrusion of the second power supply interface of the adaptor within the cavity of the cartridge interface of the power supply ([0031]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Conley by making a magnet secure the protrusion of the second power supply interface of the adaptor within the cavity of the cartridge interface of the power supply as taught by Marion because both Conley and Marion are directed to systems configured to diffuse inhalable substances, Marion teaches that it is known in the art to use a magnet to secure two portions of the device, specifically to secure a protrusion within a cavity, and this involves substituting one alternative connection configuration for another to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charlotte Davison whose telephone number is (703)756-5484. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-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, 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.
/C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755