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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "cover detection means" in claims 13-16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 (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.
(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 1-4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ferrie et al. (EP 3711571, cited in IDS dated April 10, 2023).
Regarding claim 1, Ferrie teaches an aerosol generation device (Figure 2A, smoking substitute system 200, [0108]) comprising:
a main body defined by a main housing comprising an operation interface portion that is provided at at least a portion of an exterior surface of the main housing and configured to be actuated for operating the aerosol generation device (Figures 2A and 3, main housing is housing 227 which defines external surface 229 and contains LEDs 211 and button 212 (“operation interface portion”) and controller controls heater in response to depressing button 212, [0110]-[0111] and [0128]);
a cover element that is detachably attached or connected to the main housing (Figure 3, panel 231, [0131]);
wherein at least a portion of the operation interface portion is arranged between the exterior surface of the main housing and the cover element (Figure 3, transparent covering provided instead of or in addition to cut-out 237 as part of panel 231, [0133]);
and wherein the cover element comprises one or more flexible regions configured to be elastically deformed for actuating the operation interface portion (Figure 3, transparent covering is “flexible region” which can be deformed for actuating button 212 (since the UI is “accessible” to the user, which means it must be pressed/deformed in order to use the button), [0133]).
Regarding claim 2, Ferrie teaches the aerosol generation device according to claim 1, wherein the entire operation interface portion is arranged between the cover element and the main housing (Figure 3, transparent covering provided instead of or in addition to cut-out 237 as part of panel 231, which would make the entire portion between the cover and housing, [0133]),
and wherein the operation interface portion is not externally visible (if viewed from the back or bottom (such as Figure 4 for example), the interface is not visible).
Regarding claim 3, Ferrie teaches the aerosol generation device according to claim 1, wherein the one or more flexible regions are configured to be pressed by a hand or a finger of a user to be elastically deformed towards the main housing for actuating the operation interface portion (Figure 2A, button 212 to be depressed [0128] which would be deformed toward/into the housing).
Regarding claim 4, Ferrie teaches the aerosol generation device according to claim 3, wherein the one or more flexible regions are configured to be pressed to be elastically deformed towards the main housing for actuating one or more operation input elements provided on the operation interface portion or in different regions of the operation interface portion (Figure 2A, button 212 to be depressed which would be deformed toward/into the housing which activates controller, [0128]).
Regarding claim 11, Ferrie teaches the aerosol generation device according to claim 1, wherein an output element is provided at a surface of the main housing between the main housing and the cover element, wherein the output element comprises an indicator light (Figures 2A and 3, LEDs 211 (which are indicator lights, see [0129]) are between housing 227 and panel 231 (including the transparent coving explained above), [0111] and [0132]).
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 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferrie et al. (EP 3711571) in view of Alima (US 2014/0220398).
Regarding claim 5, Ferrie discloses the aerosol generation device according to claim 1, as set forth above. Ferrie fails to disclose wherein one or more of the one or more flexible regions comprise a protrusion on a surface of the cover element that faces the main housing, the protrusion protruding towards the main housing.
Alima teaches a device battery assembly which engages with an aerosol generating device (similar to the full device of Ferrie) wherein one or more of the one or more flexible regions comprise a protrusion on a surface of the cover element that faces the main housing, the protrusion protruding towards the main housing (Figure 3, membrane button 9 is flexible region (see [0018]) and has a protrusion toward/into the housing 1 to engage activator switch 21 (see [0021])). Alima also teaches that this flexible construction allows the membrane button to temporarily engage the battery control unit [0018].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ferrie to incorporate the teachings of Alima to provide a protrusion on the cover element of Ferrie similar to the flexible one taught by Alima that protrudes toward/into the housing because doing so would allow for the button/flexible region to temporarily engage the unit, as recognized by Alima [0018].
Regarding claim 6, modified Ferrie discloses the aerosol generation device according to claim 5, wherein the protrusion of one or more of the one or more flexible regions is integrally formed with the respective flexible region (Alima, Figure 3, protrusion as explained above is integrally formed with membrane button 9 (is part of it), [0018] and [0021]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Ferrie discloses the aerosol generation device according to claim 6, wherein the protrusion of one or more of the one or more flexible regions is configured to actuate the operation interface portion (Alima, Figure 3 protrusion toward/into the housing 1 of membrane button 9 engages activator switch 21, [0021]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Ferrie discloses the aerosol generation device according to claim 7, wherein interacting, engaging or contacting of the operation interface portion comprises interacting, engaging or contacting one or more operation input elements (Ferrie, Figure 2A, user depresses button 212 which can be considered interacting, engaging, and/or contacting, [0128]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Ferrie discloses the aerosol generation device according to claim 8, wherein the one or more operation input elements comprise a button, a switch, or a sensor (Ferrie, Figure 2A, button 212, [0128])).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferrie et al. (EP 3711571) in view of Alima (US 2014/0220398) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Bernauer et al. (US 2017/0196269).
Regarding claims 8-10, modified Ferrie discloses the aerosol generation device according to claim 7, as set forth above. Ferrie fails to explicitly disclose wherein interacting, engaging or contacting of the operation interface portion comprises interacting (specifically) one or more operation input elements, wherein the one or more operation input elements comprise an optical sensor.
Bernauer teaches a similar aerosol generating device wherein interacting, engaging or contacting of the operation interface portion comprises interacting (specifically) one or more operation input elements (interacting with input device controls one or more functions of aerosol-generating device, such as activation/deactivation of heater, [0022]), wherein the one or more operation input elements comprise an optical sensor (input device can be electro-optical sensor, [0023]). Bernauer also teaches that such input devices do not compromise the waterproofing of a housing like a push-button input device may [0023].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ferrie to incorporate the teachings of Bernauer to have made the input device an electro-optical sensor which can be interacted with because doing so would not compromise the waterproofing of a housing like a push-button input device may, as recognized by Bernauer [0023].
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferrie et al. (EP 3711571) in view of Reevell (US 2020/0316325 cited in IDS dated April 10, 2023).
Regarding claim 13, Ferrie discloses the aerosol generation device according to claim 1, as set forth above. Ferrie fails to disclose the device further comprising a cover detection means for detecting whether the cover element is attached to the main housing.
Reevell teaches a similar electrically operated aerosol-generating system wherein the device comprises a cover detection means for detecting whether the cover element is attached to the main housing (Figure 6, main unit 303 comprises electrical circuitry to determine whether article 302 is fully received (it would be equally relevant to apply this to a cover like the one in Ferrie, since the housing of Reevell is “covered”, see at least [0124] and [0125]), [0165]). Reevell also teaches that the circuitry substantially prevents power from being supplied to the heater when the heater(s) are not fully covered [0016].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ferrie to incorporate the teachings of Reevell to provide electrical circuitry to determine whether a cover element is fully received/attached on the housing because doing so would substantially prevent power from being supplied to the heater(s) of the device when the heater(s) are not fully covered, as recognized by Reevell [0016].
Regarding claim 14, modified Ferrie discloses the aerosol generation device according to claim 13, wherein the cover detection means comprises a button or switch configured to be actuated when the cover element is attached to the main housing (Reevell, Figure 1, push button 13, [0133], and Figure 3, power can only be supplied when article is fully received, [0166]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Ferrie discloses the aerosol generation device according to claim 13, further comprising circuitry for controlling operation of the aerosol generation device based on information from the cover detection means, the information comprising information about a first state in which it is detected that the cover element is attached to the main housing and about a second state in which it is detected that the cover element is not attached to the main housing (Reevell, Figure 3, power can only be supplied when article is fully received (first state is “fully received” and second state is “not detected”), [0166]),
wherein controlling operation of the aerosol generation device based on information from the cover detection means comprises preventing or inhibiting generation of an aerosol by the aerosol generation device when the information from the cover detecting means indicates the second state, and enabling generation of an aerosol by the aerosol generation device when the information from the cover detecting means indicates the first state (Reevell, Figure 3, power can only be supplied when article is fully received and prevented otherwise (first state is “fully received” and second state is “not detected”), [0166]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Ferrie discloses the aerosol generation device according to claim 13, wherein the cover detection means comprises sensor circuitry comprising a Hall sensor, an optical sensor, and/or an electrical sensor (Reevell, Figure 3, electric circuitry, [0165]-[0166]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam Z. Baratz whose telephone number is (703)756-1613. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30 - 4:30 CT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael H. Wilson can be reached at 571-270-3882. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.Z.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747