PGR2020-00044
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GoFire, Inc.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Canopy Growth Corporation,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case PGR2020-00044
`Patent No. 10,327,479
`____________
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`Submitted Electronically via the Patent Review Processing System
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.207
`
`
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00044
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ’479 PATENT ............................................................ 4
`
`III.
`
`PROSECUTION HISTORY OF THE ’479 PATENT .................................... 7
`
`A. Non-Final Office Action ....................................................................... 7
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Response to Non-Final Office Action ................................................... 8
`
`Final Office Action ................................................................................ 9
`
`D.
`
`First Examiner Interview ..................................................................... 10
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Response to Final Office Action ......................................................... 11
`
`Second Examiner Interview and Supplemental Response .................. 14
`
`G. Notice of Allowance ............................................................................ 14
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ...........................................15
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................15
`
`VI. PETITIONER’S EXPERT DECLARATIONS AND CLAIM CHART ARE
`IMPROPERLY
`INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
`INTO THE
`PETITION .....................................................................................................16
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner’s Expert Declarations are Improperly Incorporated by
`Reference ............................................................................................. 16
`
`Petitioner’s Claim Chart is Improperly Incorporated by
`Reference ............................................................................................. 18
`
`VII. THE BOARD SHOULD EXCERSIZE ITS DISCRETION UNDER 35
`U.S.C. § 325(D) TO DENY INSTITUTION OF THE PETITION ..............19
`
`A.
`
`Factors (a), (b), & (d) – The Same Art and Arguments Used in
`the Petition were Previously Presented to the Office .......................... 21
`
`1.
`
`Factor (a): Petitioner uses the same art that was substantively
`considered during prosecution ..................................................22
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00044
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`2.
`
`Factor (d): Petitioner largely repeats the same arguments made
`by the Examiner during prosecution .........................................25
`
`B.
`
`Factors (c), (e), and (f) – Petitioner Has Not Persuasively
`Shown that the Office Committed Material Error When
`Allowing the Claims ............................................................................ 26
`
`1.
`
`Factor (e): Petitioner failed to persuasively demonstrate that the
`Examiner misapprehended or overlooked teachings from the
`prior art when allowing the claims ...........................................27
`
`a. The Examiner did not overlook any teaching in Woodbine
`or the cited art ...........................................................................27
`
`b. The Examiner did not misapprehend any teaching in
`Woodbine or the cited art ..........................................................28
`
`2.
`
`Factor (f): The declarations from Petitioner’s experts do not
`warrant reconsideration of the prior art ....................................30
`
`C.
`
`Denying Institution is Consistent with the Board’s Previous
`Decisions ............................................................................................. 33
`
`VIII. PETITIONER FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT IT IS MORE
`LIKELY THAN NOT THAT ANY OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`ARE UNPATENTABLE ...............................................................................36
`
`A. Grounds 1-7: Petitioner Failed to Specify Where Each Element
`of the Challenged Claims are Found in the Prior Art by Relying
`on the Rejected Theory of Invalidity Estoppel ................................... 37
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The Federal Circuit rejected Petitioner’s “Invalidity Estoppel”
`Theory .......................................................................................39
`
`Petitioner failed to establish it is more likely than not that the
`claims are invalid by relying on the Examiner’s invalidity and
`obviousness analysis .................................................................40
`
`a. Petitioner improperly relies on the Examiner’s rejection of
`independent claim 1 in from the Final Office Action to allege
`invalidity of claim 1 ..................................................................41
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00044
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`b. Petitioner improperly relies on the Examiner’s obviousness
`rationale to support its obviousness combinations in grounds 3-
`7 43
`
`B.
`
`Grounds 1 and 2: Petitioner relies on legally flawed inherency
`arguments to argue that Claims 1-6, 7-9, 13, 14, 17, 18, and 19
`are Anticipated by Woodbine .............................................................. 45
`
`1.
`
`“a unique payload identifier that is unique to the payload
`reservoir” ...................................................................................45
`
`a. Woodbine does not explicitly disclose “a unique payload
`identifier that is unique to the payload reservoir” ....................45
`
`b. Woodbine does not inherently disclose “a unique payload
`identifier that is unique to the payload reservoir” ....................47
`
`2.
`
`“Authenticate” and “compare” claim elements ........................50
`
`C.
`
`Grounds 3-7: Petitioner Failed to Demonstrate That It Is More
`Likely Than Not That the Challenged Claims are Obvious Over
`the Alleged Woodbine-Hawes, Woodbine-Frija, Woodbine-
`Conley, and Woodbine-Bowen Combinations ..................................... 53
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Ground 3: Petitioner Has Not Established that the Proposed
`Woodbine-Hawes Combination Renders Obvious Claims 1-6,
`7-9, 13, 14, 17, and 19-21 .........................................................55
`
`Ground 4: Petitioner Has Not Established that the Proposed
`Woodbine-Frija Combination Renders Obvious Claims 1-6, 7-
`9, 13, 14, 17, and 19-21 ............................................................57
`
`Ground 5: Petitioner Has Not Established that the Proposed
`Woodbine-Conley Combination Renders Obvious Claims 1-6,
`7-9, 13, 14, 17, and 19-21 .........................................................60
`
`Ground 6: Petitioner Has Not Established that the Proposed
`Woodbine-Bowen Combination Renders Obvious Claims 1-6,
`7-9, 13, 14, 17, and 19-21 .........................................................62
`
`D. Ground 7: Petitioner Failed to Demonstrate That It Is More
`Likely Than Not That the Challenged Claims are Unpatentable
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00044
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`Over the Same Combinations Noted by the Examiner in the
`Final Office Action .............................................................................. 65
`
`IX. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................65
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00044
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Petitioner’s Exhibits
`
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 10,327,479 (“the ’479 Patent”)
`
`Ex. 1002 Prosecution History of the ’479 Patent
`
`Ex. 1003 U.S. Patent Pub. 2018/0177231 (“Woodbine”)
`
`Ex. 1004 U.S. Patent Pub. 2018/0177231 (“Hawes”)1
`
`Ex. 1005 U.S. Patent Pub. 2015/0122252 (“Frija”)
`
`Ex. 1006 U.S. Patent Pub. 2013/0220315 (“Conley”)
`
`Ex. 1007 U.S. Patent Pub. 2018/0043114 (“Bowen”)
`
`Ex. 1008 U.S. Patent Pub. 2015/0320116 (“Bleloch”)
`
`Ex. 1009 U.S. Patent Pub. 2014/0096782 (“Ampolini”)
`
`Ex. 1010 U.S. Patent Pub. 2014/0107815 (“LaMothe”)
`
`Ex. 1011 U.S. Patent Pub. 2016/0114407 (“Duncan”)
`
`Ex. 1012 U.S. Patent Pub. 2016/0106936 (“Kimmel”)
`
`Ex. 1013 Claim Chart for Invalidity of the ’479 Patent
`
`Ex. 1014 Declaration of Joe Keenan
`
`Ex. 1015 Declaration of Dr. Vladislav Babinsky
`
`Ex. 1016 Declaration of James G. Sawtelle Regarding Motion for Admission
`
`
`
`
`1 Although Hawes is listed as U.S. 2018/0177231 in Petitioner’s list of Exhibits,
`
`Hawes is U.S. 2017/0258136.
`
`v
`
`
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00044
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`
`Advanced Bionics, LLC, v. Med-El Elektromedizinische Gerate GMBH,
`IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2020) .....................................passim
`
`Apple Inc. v. ContentGuard Holdings, LLC,
`IPR2015-00446, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. July 10, 2015) .......................................... 17
`
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG,
`IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2017) ....................................passim
`
`Cisco Sys., Inc., v. C-Cation Techs., LLC,
`IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2014) ............................. 17, 18, 19
`
`Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co.,
`948 F.2d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1991) .................................................................... 32, 48
`
`Dominion Dealer Sols., LLC v. AutoAlert, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00223, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 15, 2013) ..................................... 44, 54
`
`Edge Endo, LLC v. Maillefer Instruments Holding S.A.R.L.,
`IPR2018-01349, Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 14, 2019) ........................ 21, 29, 34, 35
`
`Fitbit, Inc. v. Aliphcom, Inc.,
`IPR2016-00714, Paper 27 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 13, 2017)................................... 44, 52
`
`GN Resound v. Oticon,
`IPR2015-00103, Paper 13 (P.T.A.B. June 18, 2015) ......................................... 42
`
`Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC,
`IPR2018-00582, Paper 34 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 5, 2019) ........................................... 44
`
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ...................................................................... 44, 54
`
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int'l, Ltd.,
`829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................ 4, 40, 50
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00044
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`In re Oelrich,
`666 F.2d 578 (CCPA 1981) ................................................................................ 48
`
`In re Rijckaert,
`9 F.3d 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) .............................................................................. 40
`
`InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Communications, Inc.,
`751 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...................................................................passim
`
`K/S Himpp v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC,
`751 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................ 57, 60, 62, 65
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 54
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 41
`
`Puma North America, Inc., v. Nike, Inc.,
`IPR2019-01042, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2019) .......................................... 22
`
`Sabasta v. Buckaroos, Inc.,
`683 F. Supp. 2d 937 (S.D. Iowa 2010) ............................................................... 39
`
`Salazar v. Procter & Gamble Co.,
`414 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 39
`
`Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
`802 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 45
`
`TorPharm, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Pharm., Inc.,
`336 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ...................................................................... 3, 39
`
`TQ Delta, LLC v. CISCO Sys., Inc.,
`942 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .......................................................................... 54
`
`Transclean Corp. v. Bridgewood Servs., Inc.,
`290 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .......................................................... 4, 47, 50, 53
`
`Unified Patents Inc., v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC,
`IPR2016-01643, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2017) ..................................... 49-50
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00044
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`Zero Gravity Inside, Inc. v. Footbalance Sys. Oy,
`IPR2015-01769, Paper 49 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 3, 2017) .....................................passim
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) .............................................................................................. 9, 23
`
`35 U.S.C. 103 ............................................................................................. 7, 8, 10, 24
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ........................................................................................................ 22
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 282(b) ................................................................................................... 41
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e) ................................................................................................... 41
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ............................................................................................passim
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) .............................................................................................. 17
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(1)(ii) ....................................................................................... 16
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b) .............................................................................................. 41
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(4) .................................................................................... 39, 40
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00044
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`By Petitioner’s own admission, every reference used in the Petition was
`
`substantively considered by the Examiner during prosecution. The primary
`
`reference used in each ground of the Petition—U.S. Publication No. 2018/0177231
`
`(“Woodbine”)—was found by the Examiner and used as the primary reference to
`
`reject each of the challenged claims under §§ 102 and 103. After two telephonic
`
`interviews to discuss Woodbine and two rounds of amendments and arguments to
`
`distinguish the prior art, the Examiner allowed the claims, specifically noting that
`
`the claims were patentably distinct from Woodbine and the other prior art.
`
`Petitioner now wrongly contends that the Examiner allowed the claims over
`
`Woodbine “based on an erroneous distinction of anticipating claim elements.” Pet.
`
`at 2. The only new evidence presented by the Petitioner are the narrowly focused
`
`declarations of its expert witnesses, but these declarations do not establish that the
`
`Examiner materially erred when allowing the claims. Both experts limit their
`
`testimony to the alleged ability of EEPROM chips to provide unique identification
`
`functionality. Neither expert addresses the arguments and amendments made by
`
`Patent Owner during prosecution that were unrelated to the “unique identifier”
`
`claim amendment. Indeed, neither expert addresses the “compare” claim element
`
`added to the independent claims that the Examiner highlighted in his reasons for
`
`allowance. Moreover, neither expert provides an opinion on the alleged
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00044
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`obviousness combinations presented in grounds 3-7 of the Petition.
`
`The limited testimony offered by Petitioner’s experts does not warrant
`
`reconsideration of the challenged claims. See Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun
`
`Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 27 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2017)
`
`(precedential as to § III.C.5, first paragraph) (“Becton, Dickinson”) (denying
`
`institution under § 325(d), when “[n]either Petitioner, nor Mr. Griffis, takes the
`
`opportunity to explain why Applicant’s arguments made during prosecution were
`
`in error, or how those arguments would not apply to this asserted ground.”). At
`
`bottom, Petitioner has not shown that the Examiner committed “material error”
`
`when allowing the claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC, v. Med-El Elektromedizinische
`
`Gerate GMBH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 9 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2020)
`
`(Precedential) (“Advanced Bionics”). Patent Owner respectfully requests that the
`
`Board “defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record” and deny
`
`institution of the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Advanced Bionics, at 9.
`
`The Petition also suffers from multiple, substantive deficiencies that weigh
`
`against institution. First, Petitioner relies on the rejected theory of invalidity
`
`estoppel—the idea that an examiner’s rejection of a claim element must be
`
`accepted during later invalidity challenges if the applicant amended the claim
`
`instead of disputing the rejection—to argue that the claims are invalid. See, e.g.,
`
`Pet. at 20, 24, 30, 39, 44, 59, 62, 63, 74. However, a “patentee is not required to
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00044
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`fight tooth and nail every possibly adverse thought an examiner commits to paper,
`
`nor to advance redundant arguments for patentability.” TorPharm, Inc. v. Ranbaxy
`
`Pharm., Inc., 336 F.3d 1322, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (emphasis added). Petitioner
`
`cannot avoid its burden to establish the invalidity of a claim by substituting the
`
`Examiner’s rejection of certain claim elements made during prosecution. Patent
`
`Owner requests that the Board deny institution because the foundation of grounds
`
`1-7 all rely on this faulty invalidity estoppel theory.
`
`Second, Petitioner relies on flawed inherency theories to argue that
`
`Woodbine anticipates the challenged claims. See Pet. at Grounds 1 & 2. For
`
`example, Petitioner argues that “Woodbine’s disclosure of an EEPROM disposed
`
`upon the cartridge inherently discloses the limitation of a unique identifier
`
`associated with the payload reservoir/cartridge.” Pet. at 33. Yet, Petitioner and its
`
`experts admit that EEPROMs do not necessarily provide this unique identification
`
`functionality, and that this functionality is optional. See Pet. at 37 (“[I]t is inherent
`
`in an EEPROM that it may uniquely identify the cartridge in which it is included”)
`
`(emphasis added); id. at 33 (explaining that there are “non-unique identifying
`
`EEPROMs”). “[A]nticipation by inherent disclosure is appropriate only when the
`
`reference discloses prior art that must necessarily include the unstated
`
`limitation[.]” Transclean Corp. v. Bridgewood Servs., Inc., 290 F.3d 1364, 1373
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2002) (emphasis added). Because, by Petitioner’s own admission the
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00044
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`EEPROM disclosed by Woodbine does not necessarily
`
`include unique
`
`identification functionality, there can be no inherent disclosure. Accordingly,
`
`Petitioner’s anticipation arguments in grounds 1 and 2 fail as a matter of law.
`
` Third, Petitioner provides no evidence that it would have been obvious to a
`
`PHOSITA to combine the references as alleged in grounds 3-6. Petitioner argues
`
`that each secondary reference used in grounds 3-6 could be used to modify
`
`Woodbine to uniquely identify Woodbine’s cartridge with a unique identifier. Pet.
`
`at 62, 66, 69, 73. But Petitioner provides no rational underpinning—no evidence
`
`or expert opinion—supporting these conclusory arguments. Without providing this
`
`threshold evidence, Petitioner cannot meet its burden of establishing its
`
`obviousness arguments in grounds 3-7. In re Magnum Oil Tools Int'l, Ltd., 829
`
`F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“To satisfy its burden of proving obviousness,
`
`a petitioner cannot employ mere conclusory statements. The petitioner must
`
`instead articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support the
`
`legal conclusion of obviousness.”).
`
`These deficiencies establish that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that it is
`
`more likely than not that any of the challenged claims are unpatentable.
`
`Accordingly, Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board deny institution.
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ’479 PATENT
`
`The ’479 Patent discloses an “improved personal vapourization device” that
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00044
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`enhances the safety and security of conventional vaping devices. Ex. 1001 (’479
`
`Patent) at Title, Abstract. Figure 3 of the ’479 Patent illustrates an example vape
`
`device system comprising an
`
`improved vape device
`
`that
`
`is capable of
`
`communicating with a computing device. Id. at 7:35-37.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 (’479 Patent) at Fig. 3.
`
`To provide improvements over conventional vaping systems, the ’479 Patent
`
`explains that a vape device may include a payload reservoir that is identified by a
`
`unique payload identifier that is unique to the payload reservoir. The vape device
`
`may include a wireless transceiver that is configured to transmit the unique
`
`payload identifier to a computing device that is remote from the vape device. The
`
`computing device may determine secondary data comprising payload information
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00044
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`and user information based on the unique payload identifier. The payload
`
`information and user information may be stored in a memory that is remote from
`
`both the vape device and the computing device.
`
`To enhance the safety and security of the vape system, the ’479 Patent also
`
`discloses how the system can authenticate a user and how a computer device can
`
`compare user information associated with the unique payload identifier with
`
`application user information to determine whether the user is permitted to use the
`
`payload reservoir. For instance, once the user is authenticated and the computer
`
`device receives the payload identifier, an application can determine whether the
`
`user is authorized to use the vape device using “any combination of secondary data
`
`(e.g., user information, prescription information, location information, payload
`
`information, historical vape device usage information, and historical payload
`
`reservoir information) and the payload identifier.” Id. at 17:39-44, 17:63-18:10.
`
`As described by the ’479 Patent, the unique payload identifier in
`
`combination with payload information, which may be stored in a memory that is
`
`remote from both the vape device and a computing device, allows a vape
`
`device/cartridge provider to control usage of the device/cartridge on a real-time
`
`basis by updating the payload information in the remote memory. Id. at 8:40-44;
`
`15:16-25; 16:29-42; 17:25-62; see also Ex. 1002 at 83. By storing the payload
`
`information in remote memory and accessing it based on a unique payload
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00044
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`identifier, the vape device provider can easily update the payload information as
`
`necessary so that future usage of the vape device will take into account the updated
`
`payload information. Id. at 8:40-44; 15:16-25; 16:29-42; 17:25-62. In contrast,
`
`conventional vape devices may store payload information and operational settings
`
`on the vape device or in the cartridge but not in remote memory. See Ex. 1002 at
`
`83.
`
`III. PROSECUTION HISTORY OF THE ’479 PATENT
`
`The prosecution history of the ’479 Patent shows how Petitioner relies on
`
`the same prior art that was substantively considered by the Examiner—and
`
`overcome by the Patent Owner—during prosecution. As shown below, all the
`
`references relied on in the Petition were used to reject the claims during
`
`prosecution.
`
`A. Non-Final Office Action
`
`On May 18, 2018, the Examiner issued a non-final office action rejecting
`
`each of the pending claims. Ex. 1002 at 113-126. Notably, the Examiner relied on
`
`US 2013/0220315
`
`(“Conley”), US 2018/0043114
`
`(“Bowen”), and US
`
`2017/0258136 (“Hawes”) to reject the pending claims. These are the same
`
`references used in grounds 3, 5, and 6 of the Petition.
`
`The Examiner rejected claim 3 “under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
`
`over Ampolini as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Conley (US
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00044
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`2013/0220315).” Ex. 1002 at 117 (emphasis added). The Examiner argued that “it
`
`is known in the art that both controllers/processors may be involved in operating
`
`the vape device, as taught by Conley [0063, 0064; Fig. 9].” Id. at 117-18.
`
`The Examiner rejected claims 16 and 17 “under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
`
`unpatentable over Ampolini as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of
`
`Bowen (US 2018/0043114).” Id. at 120 (emphasis added); see also id. at 123
`
`(rejecting claims 21-23 under § 103 over Bleloch in view of Bowen). According to
`
`the Examiner, “Bowen teaches a vape device wherein an operation setting may be
`
`determined based on user weight or gender [0171].” Id. at 117-18.
`
`Finally, the examiner rejected claim 24 “under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
`
`unpatentable over Blelock and LaMothe as applied to claim 21 above, and further
`
`in view of Hawes (US 2017/0258136).” Id. at 124 (emphasis added). According
`
`to the Examiner, “it is well known in the art for information to be sent in response
`
`to an information request, as taught by Hawes [0105].” Id.
`
`B. Response to Non-Final Office Action
`
`In response to the non-final office action, Patent Owner canceled claims 2
`
`and 3 and incorporated the limitations from those claims into independent claim 1.
`
`Ex. 1002 at 82, 91-92. Patent Owner further amended claims 1 and 9 to “require
`
`(i) that the payload reservoir is identified by a unique payload identifier, and (ii) a
`
`computing device remote from the vape device determines secondary data
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00044
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`comprising payload information based on the unique payload identifier, wherein
`
`the payload information is stored in a memory remote from the vape device and the
`
`computing device, and wherein
`
`the payload
`
`information comprises an
`
`identification of a particular substance located within the payload reservoir.” Id. at
`
`82. Relevantly, Patent Owner then explained why Conley failed to disclose the
`
`amendments made to independent claims 1 and 9. See id. at 86 (explaining that
`
`Conley “disclose[s] a security measure for determining whether a user is
`
`authorized to use a particular solution, but do not disclose determining what that
`
`solution is, as required by independent claims 1 and 9 of the present application”).
`
`C. Final Office Action
`
`The Examiner responded to Patent Owner’s argument and amendments by
`
`conducting another prior art search and issuing a Final Office Action on September
`
`4, 2018 (“Final Office Action”). Like grounds 1-4 and 6-7 of the Petition, the
`
`Examiner relied on Woodbine, Bowen, US 2015/0122252 (“Frija”), and Hawes to
`
`reject the claims. Ex. 1002 at 66-75.
`
`The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 5-10 “under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as
`
`being anticipated by Woodbine (US 2018/0177231).” Ex. 1002 at 68 (emphasis
`
`added). The Examiner argued that paragraphs 19, 49, 50, 60, and 62 of Woodbine
`
`disclose the claimed “computing device;” the requirement that “the payload
`
`reservoir is identified by a unique payload identifier;” and the limitation that the
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00044
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`“payload information is stored in a memory remote from the vape device and the
`
`computing device.” Id. at 68-69.
`
`The Examiner rejected claims 4, 12, 16, and 17 “under 35 U.S.C. 103 as
`
`being unpatentable over Woodbine as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further
`
`in view of Bowen (US 2018/0043114).” Id. at 70 (emphasis added); see also id. at
`
`72-73. According to the Examiner, “Bowen teaches a vape device wherein a
`
`dosage setting may be determined based on user weight or gender (user
`
`information) or prescription information [0171, 183].” Id. at 70.
`
`The Examiner additionally rejected claim 18 “under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
`
`unpatentable over Woodbine in view of Frija (US 2015/0122252).” Ex. 1002 at
`
`71 (emphasis added). According to the Examiner, Frija “teaches a vape device
`
`comprising authenticating a user via a software application on a computing device
`
`[0051, 0055]. . . .” Id. at 72.
`
`Finally, the Examiner rejected claim 24 “under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
`
`unpatentable over Woodbine, Frija, and Bowen as applied to claim 21 above, and
`
`further in view of Hawes (US 2017/0258136).” Id. at 73 (emphasis added). As
`
`before, the Examiner alleged that Hawes disclosed “information to be sent in
`
`response to an information request. . . .” Id.
`
`D. First Examiner Interview
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00044
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`On November 14, 2018, Patent Owner requested an examiner interview to
`
`discuss Woodbine. Ex. 1002 at 62-64. Specifically, Patent Owner explained:
`
`Independent claims 1, 9, and 18 stand rejected based on Woodbine
`
`(US 2018/0177231) in part on the basis that Woodbine discloses a
`
`payload reservoir that is identified by a unique payload identifier.
`
`Woodbine discloses a cartridge with a memory module that stores
`
`an identification code associated with the concentrate. Woodbine,
`
`¶ [0019]. The identification code is indicative of properties of the
`
`concentrate. Id. Woodbine does not disclose that the identification
`
`code uniquely
`
`identifies
`
`the cartridge
`
`that contains
`
`the
`
`concentrate. Claims 1, 9, and 18 of the present application require
`
`that the payload reservoir is identified by a unique payload identifier.
`
`Ex. 1002 at 64 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`The interview took place on November 27, 2018 and included Patent
`
`Owner’s attorney and inventor Peter Popplewell. Ex. 1002 at 60-61. In the
`
`interview, the parties discussed Woodbine in view of potential amendments, but no
`
`agreement was reached. Id.
`
`E. Response to Final Office Action
`
`Following the examiner interview, Patent Owner responded to the Final
`
`Office Action with further argument and amendment. Ex. 1002 at 37-53. Patent
`
`Owner amended claims 1 and 18 to require that the unique payload identifier is
`
`“unique to the payload reservoir.” Id. at 38, 41. Patent Owner amended claim 18
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00044
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`to require “comparing the user information associated with the unique payload
`
`identifier with application user information that the user provides to the software
`
`application to determine whether the user is permitted to use the payload
`
`reservoir.” Id. at 41-43.
`
`Patent Owner then distinguished Woodbine and the other relied-on prior art
`
`from the amended claims. Citing to paragraphs 18 and 19 of Woodbine, Patent
`
`Owner explained how Woodbine only disclosed an identifier unique to a
`
`concentrate:
`
`Woodbine discloses a vaporizing device 200 that utilizes a
`
`cartridge 210 to store a concentrate to be vaporized. Woodbine, ¶
`
`[0018]. "[T]he cartridge 210 includes a memory module 216 to
`
`store an identification code associated with the concentrate." Id.
`
`at ¶ [0019]. "[T]he identification code . . . is indicative of properties
`
`of the concentrate therein . . . . Id. "[T]he identification code is
`
`programmed into the memory module 216 based on the testing of the
`
`concentrate substance in a testing facility; and each identification code
`
`may be unique to a particular batch of concentrate." Id.
`
`Woodbine does not disclose that the identification code is
`
`"unique to the payload reservoir" as required by independent
`
`claims 1 and 9 of the present application. Accordingly, Applicant
`
`requests that the Examiner withdraw the rejection of independent
`
`claims 1 and 9 as being anticipated by Woodbine.
`
`
`Ex. 1002 at 46-47 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00044
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`Patent Owner
`
`then explained how
`
`the proposed Woodbine-Frija
`
`combination failed to disclose, teach, or suggest each element o