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 .
Drawings
The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing (or drawings). For examination purposes, the drawings in publication WO2021/254650(A1), having PCT/EP2020076325), have been consulted during examination (see Interview Summary mailed 6-10-2015). Applicant is required to furnish a drawing or drawings under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: page 1 (L3), page 5 (L29), and page 5 (L30) make reference to “claim 1”, “claim 1”, and “subclaims 2 to 10”, respectively. These portions of the specification should be amended in remove specific claim numbers in that these claim numbers may not represent the actual number of claims allowed should the case proceed to issue. Appropriate correction is required.
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following informality: “(Fig. 1)” should be deleted. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election of Species-A in the reply filed on 12-1-25 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement (i.e. applicant did not indicate whether the election was made with or without traverse), the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). The claims encompassed by Species-A are 1-4 and 8-10. Claims 5-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, and 9-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
●claim 1, the second recitation of “in” (L3) should be deleted
●claim 4, “at least one” should be inserted before “pressure” (L2)
●claim 4, “this” (L3) should be amended to read “the at least one”
●claims 4 and 9-10, “Electronic” (L1) should be amended to read “An electronic”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 9-10 are considered to be indefinite in that the term “snug fit” (claim 1, L8; claim 9 recites “the fit”, L2; claim 10 recites “the fit”, L2) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “snug fit” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. A person of ordinary skill in the art may considered a body diameter of, for
example – 2 inches, provides a snug fit wherein another person skill in the art may require a diameter of only 1.5 inches for a snug fit. Thus, the scope of the claim, in this regard, cannot be determined.
Claim 2 is considered to be indefinite in that “said fitting seat” (L3) lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 2 is considered to be indefinite in that the antecedent basis of “control unit” (L3 L3-4) is not clearly defined since two control units have been recited previously (claim 1, L1; claim 2, L2). The reference numbers in parentheses are not considered part of the claim and cannot be relied upon for antecedent clarity.
Claim 2 is considered to be indefinite in that it is unclear what is closing the control unit to the cartridge unit.
Claim 9 is considered to be indefinite in that the term “just slightly displaceable” (L4) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “just slightly displaceable” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. A person of ordinary skill in the art may considered the control element body to be displaceable if it can be displaced, for example – 2cm, wherein another person skilled in the art may require a displacement of 3cm. Thus, the scope of the claim, in this regard, cannot be determined.
Claim 10 is considered to be indefinite in that it is unclear what is intended by “is displaceable arranged with low pressure” (L3-4).
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 2017/0000190 A1) in view of Ou (CN 207252785 U).
Claim 1, Wu teaches an electric cigarette (¶17 Fig1 Fig2) comprising a cartridge unit (comprising at least storage I) (¶4) and a control unit 3 (¶23) detachably arranged thereon by way of magnet 7 (¶26), the electric cigarette terminating at a first end with a mouthpiece end 6 (¶23) and at a second end with a loading tip (comprising at least USB port 8) (¶30), characterized in that the electric cigarette has a cylindrical cross-section over its entire longitudinal extent along a Z-axis (Fig1 Fig3) and has a control element body with a body diameter perpendicular to the Z-axis (see portions of Figures 1 and 2 annotated below), wherein this body diameter of the control element body forms a snug fit in the electric cigarette in that such is housed stationary within the outer tube 1 (¶23), and wherein the control element body further formed as a printed circuit board structure having a cavity (see the portion of Figure 1 annotated below) and having at least one printed circuit board 24 (¶23) which is aligned transversely to the Z-axis (Fig3 Fig4). At least one pressure sensor 34 (reacts to sense of pressure) (¶32) is arranged on this printed circuit board and is operatively connected to the cavity in the printed circuit board structure (see the portion of Figure 1 annotated below) (¶s30-32). With respect to the fit of the control element body being a snug fit, it is submitted that the fit is a snug fit given that the control element body is stationary in the outer housing 1. Other locations within reference may be included in the above recited locations (paragraphs, drawing, abstract, claims) to demonstrate further the features in the reference as claimed in the instant claims.
Portion of Figure 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
349
563
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Portion of Figure 2:
PNG
media_image2.png
222
484
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 1, Wu does not teach that the material of the housing surrounding the printed circuit board 24 is a heat insulative filling material. Note that the instant specification does not define a structure for an insulative material to be a filling material. Thus, this term is given the broadest reasonable interpretation to include a completely solid materials as well as other forms -- such as woven and non-woven materials, and the like.
It is conventional and well-known in the art of electronic cigarettes to provide that the housing which surrounds a printed circuit board controller is an heat insulative material. This is taught by Ou. Ou teaches an electronic cigarette (Abstract) comprising a printed circuit board 9 within a sleeve 7. The sleeve 7 is a housing surrounding the printed circuit board 9. The material of the housing is an heat insulative material (pg3: paragraph beginning “As shown in FIG. 1” through to paragraph ending “atomizer 3” on page 3).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the invention, to have provided in Wu that that the material of the housing surrounding the printed circuit board 24 is a heat insulative material in that such is conventional and well-known in the art of electronic cigarettes as illustrated by Ou.
Claim 8: the cavity (see the portion of Figure 1 above) is in operative communication with air channel 25 in the electric cigarette 1) by means of an opening (i.e. the outlet of the channels each being an opening) (¶23 ¶s 27-33).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4 and 8-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11-21 of copending Application No. 18/570,591 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed loading tip of claim 1 is a charging area. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Prior Art of Record
The following prior art is made of record: Marion teaches a printed circuit board controller for an electronic cigarette.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDA GRAY whose telephone number is (571) 272-5778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9 AM to 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PHIL TUCKER can be reached at (571) 272-1095. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
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.
/LINDA L GRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745