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 .
Response to Amendment
Claim 1 is amended. Claims 3, 5-6 and 8-19 are cancelled. Claims 22-35 are withdrawn. Claim 40 is newly added. Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 20-21 and 36-40 are presently examined.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 40, the claim recites the limitation “provides a cushioning movement when interfaced with stepped surfaces located between the corresponding pins of the second connector to provide a friction fit therebetween,” which is considered to be a limitation regarding the intended use of the claimed insulator. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP § 2114. Therefore, for the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it required an insulator that could provide cushioning.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 1-2, 4, 7, 20-21 and 36-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers (US 10,334,880) in view of Mathauser (US 3,808,577).
Regarding claims 1, 20 and 39, Rogers discloses an aerosol delivery device containing a cartridge with a second connector portion that connects to a first connector portion of a control body (abstract). The cartridge includes a reservoir containing an aerosol precursor composition that is heated to produce an aerosol (column 1, lines 58-67, column 2, lines 1-16). The control body has a plurality of electrical contacts (column 11, lines 21-35, figure 5, reference numerals 224a-224c), which are considered to meet the claim limitation of pins. The electrical contacts comprise circular metal bands of varying radii positioned at different depths and separated by stepped surfaces of the body of the coupler (column 11, lines 36-45). In a different embodiment the contact sections are electrically insulated from one another by spacers comprising an electrically insulating material such as plastic (column 14, lines 29-40) so that separate electrical connections are formed (column 16, lines 49-62). The cartridge terminals are made from a central component terminal (figure 3, reference numeral 304) and first and second terminals that do not extend annularly (column 8, lines 52-59, figure 3, reference numerals 320a, 320b). Rogers does not explicitly disclose (a) the circular contact bands being separated by electrically insulating spacers (b) the electrical contacts of both the cartridge and the control body comprising continuous rings, and (c) the rings being oriented parallel to the longitudinal axis of the connector.
Regarding (a), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the steps of the stepped electrical contacts of Rogers from the insulating material of Rogers. One would have been motivated to do so since Rogers discloses that electrically insulating different components allows separate electrical connections to be formed.
Regarding (b), Mathauser teaches a quick disconnected self aligning telephone jack having cooperating electrical contact means in male and female connector halves (abstract). The contacts on the male connector are provided in the form of annular fixed electrical contact rings (figure 1, reference numeral 34) and are brought into alignment with annular contacts of the female half to establish electrical connections (column 3, lines 64-68, column 4, lines 1-9, figure 1, reference numeral 17). The contacts on the male connector are provided in the form of annular fixed electrical contact rings that extend perpendicularly to the insertion direction (figure 1, reference numeral 34) and are brought into alignment with contacts of the female half that also extend perpendicularly (column 3, lines 64-68, column 4, lines 1-9, figure 1, reference numeral 17).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the central component terminal and the first and second terminals of the cartridge of Rogers extend annularly. One would have been motivated to do so since Mathauser teaches that making circular electrical terminals allows two components to be easily connected in any orientation.
Regarding (c), it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to move the electrical contacts of Rogers from the vertical faces of the stepped surfaces in line with the insertion direction to the horizontal faces of the stepped surfaces perpendicular with the insertion direction. One would have been motivated to do so since Mathauser teaches that providing perpendicular contacts surfaces allow two components to be easily connected in any orientation. Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI C.
Regarding claim 2, Rogers discloses that one of the contact sections is a data contact section configured to form a data connection between the cartridge and the control body (column 16, lines 49-62). First and second heating terminals are connected on the two other contact sections (column 16, lines 9-26) to form positive and negative heating terminals (column 10, lines 60-67, column 11, lines 1-10). It is evident that the positive and negative terminals would establish an electric current.
Regarding claim 4, Mathauser teaches that each of the rings and contact elements form cylindrical shapes (figure 1, reference numerals 17, 34).
Regarding claim 7, it is evident that, in the combination, the insulator aligns the rings since the insulator forms the steps that separate the rings.
Regarding claim 21, modified Rogers teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Rogers additionally discloses that the control body forms a female connection with a recess (figure 5) and the cartridge forms a male connection with an extending central portion (figure 4), and that the portions of the connectors can be reversed between the control body and the cartridge (column 19, lines 8-19). Modified Rogers does not explicitly teach the control body forming a male connection and the cartridge forming a female connection.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reverse the connectors so that the control body forms a male connection and the cartridge forms a female connection. One would have been motivated to do so since Rogers teaches that the connections can be reserved.
Regarding claim 36, Mathauser teaches that the connector forms a proper electrical connection in any relative rotational position (column 4, lines 44-59), indicating that the contact surfaces are continuous.
Regarding claim 37, Rogers discloses that the control body forms a male connection (column 11, lines 46-57, figure 5, reference numeral 204) and the cartridge forms a female connection (column 8, lines 52-59, figure 4, reference numeral 300). It is evident that all of the contacts would respectively face either inwardly or outwardly since Rogers discloses the heating terminals face inwardly (figure 4).
Regarding claim 38, modified Rogers teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Rogers additionally discloses that the control body forms a male connection (column 11, lines 46-57, figure 5, reference numeral 204) and the cartridge forms a female connection (column 8, lines 52-59, figure 4, reference numeral 300), and that the connections on each component could be reversed (column 19, lines 8-19). Modified Rogers does not explicitly teach the male and female connections being reversed.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reverse the male and female connections of modified Rogers. One would have been motivated to do so since Rogers discloses that the connections on each component could be reversed.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 20-21 and 36-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers (US 10,334,880) in view of Reylek (US 5,071,363).
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Rogers discloses an aerosol delivery device containing a cartridge with a second connector portion that connects to a first connector portion of a control body (abstract). The cartridge includes a reservoir containing an aerosol precursor composition that is heated to produce an aerosol (column 1, lines 58-67, column 2, lines 1-16). The control body has a plurality of electrical contacts (column 11, lines 21-35, figure 5, reference numerals 224a-224c), which are considered to meet the claim limitation of pins. The electrical contacts comprise circular metal bands of varying radii positioned at different depths and separated by stepped surfaces of the body of the coupler (column 11, lines 36-45). In a different embodiment the contact sections are electrically insulated from one another by spacers comprising an electrically insulating material such as plastic (column 14, lines 29-40) so that separate electrical connections are formed (column 16, lines 49-62). The cartridge terminals are made from a central component terminal (figure 3, reference numeral 304) and first and second terminals that do not extend annularly (column 8, lines 52-59, figure 3, reference numerals 320a, 320b). Rogers does not explicitly disclose (a) the circular contact bands being separated by electrically insulating spacers and (b) the electrical contacts of both the cartridge and the control body comprising continuous rings that face outwardly and inwardly from the longitudinal axis.
Regarding (a), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the steps of the stepped electrical contacts of Rogers from the insulating material of Rogers. One would have been motivated to do so since Rogers discloses that electrically insulating different components allows separate electrical connections to be formed.
Regarding (b), Reylek teaches two electric components having terminals that disconnectably interconnected by a multiple electrical connector that includes a pair of intermeshable members that are tapered and become strongly adhered to each other to make good electrical contact (abstract). The two intermeshable members have metal segments located nearly vertically to form the electrical connection (column 8, lines 35-45, figure 8), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of facing outwardly and inwardly. Reylek additionally discloses that these connections do not require a clamp to remain connected (column 2, liens 14-19).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the electrical connection of Rogers with the intermeshable stepped members of Reylek. One would have been motivated to do so since Reylek teaches an electrical connection that forms good electrical contact and does not require a clamp.
Regarding claim 2, Rogers discloses that one of the contact sections is a data contact section configured to form a data connection between the cartridge and the control body (column 16, lines 49-62). First and second heating terminals are connected on the two other contact sections (column 16, lines 9-26) to form positive and negative heating terminals (column 10, lines 60-67, column 11, lines 1-10). It is evident that the positive and negative terminals would establish an electric current.
Regarding claim 4, Rogers discloses that electrical contact sections are cylindrical (figure 5).
Regarding claim 7, it is evident that, in the combination, the insulator aligns the rings since the insulator forms the steps that separate the rings.
Regarding claim 21, modified Rogers teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Rogers additionally discloses that the control body forms a female connection with a recess (figure 5) and the cartridge forms a male connection with an extending central portion (figure 4), and that the portions of the connectors can be reversed between the control body and the cartridge (column 19, lines 8-19). Modified Rogers does not explicitly teach the control body forming a male connection and the cartridge forming a female connection.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reverse the connectors so that the control body forms a male connection and the cartridge forms a female connection. One would have been motivated to do so since Rogers teaches that the connections can be reserved.
Regarding claim 36, Rogers discloses that the electrical contact sections extend in a circle around the longitudinal axis of the device (figure 5).
Regarding claim 37, Rogers discloses that the control body forms a male connection (column 11, lines 46-57, figure 5, reference numeral 204) and the cartridge forms a female connection (column 8, lines 52-59, figure 4, reference numeral 300). It is evident that all of the contacts would respectively face either inwardly or outwardly since Rogers discloses the heating terminals face inwardly (figure 4).
Regarding claim 38, modified Rogers teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Rogers additionally discloses that the control body forms a male connection (column 11, lines 46-57, figure 5, reference numeral 204) and the cartridge forms a female connection (column 8, lines 52-59, figure 4, reference numeral 300), and that the connections on each component could be reversed (column 19, lines 8-19). Modified Rogers does not explicitly teach the male and female connections being reversed.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reverse the male and female connections of modified Rogers. One would have been motivated to do so since Rogers discloses that the connections on each component could be reversed.
Regarding claim 39, the nearly vertical faces of Reylek are considered to meet the claim limitation of planar and oriented substantially planar.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers (US 10,334,880) in view of Mathauser (US 3,808,577) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Akman (US 5,464,354).
Regarding claim 40, modified Rogers teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Rogers additionally discloses that the surface is stepped (figure 5). Modified Rogers does not explicitly teach the insulator providing a cushioning movement.
Akman teaches a connector plug having an electrically insulative and resilient body have bores within it that allow conductive wires to pass through (abstract). It is evident that the resilient material can provide cushioning.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the insulator of modified Rogers from the resilient material of Akman. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers (US 10,334,880) in view of Reylek (US 5,071,363). as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Akman (US 5,464,354).
Regarding claim 40, modified Rogers teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Rogers additionally discloses that the surface is stepped (figure 5). Modified Rogers does not explicitly teach the insulator providing a cushioning movement.
Akman teaches a connector plug having an electrically insulative and resilient body have bores within it that allow conductive wires to pass through (abstract). It is evident that the resilient material can provide cushioning.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the insulator of modified Rogers from the resilient material of Akman. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues (a) that Mathauser does not teach the electrical contact surface extending outwardly or inwardly from the longitudinal axis, (b) the insulator providing a cushioning effect, and (c) that the dependent claims are allowable due to dependence on an allowable claim.
Regarding (a), applicant’s arguments do not address the legal conclusion that such a modification would have been obvious nor the teachings of Reylek.
Regarding (b), applicant’s arguments do not address the teaches of Akman.
Regarding (c), all examined claims, including the independent claim, are rejected as set forth above.
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 RUSSELL E SPARKS whose telephone number is (571)270-1426. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5 pm.
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.
/RUSSELL E SPARKS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights