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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/05/2026 (“Amendment”) has been entered, which includes amendments to claims 1, 11-18, and 21, cancellation of claim 20, new claims 22-23, and supporting remarks. Accordingly, the claim rejections under 35 USC 102-103 are withdrawn and new rejections under 35 USC 103 are set forth below. Claims 1-7, 9-18, and 21-23 are pending, claim 23 is withdrawn, and claims 1-7, 9-18, and 21-22 are examined herein.
The Examiner notes that claim 23 appears to contain a typo, reciting at l. 15 “wherein, when the movable component is in the second position, the supplies power”, which appears to be a typo of “…the controller supplies power”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim rejections under 35 USC 102-103 (Amendment p. 9-11) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 23 is directed to an invention that lacks unity with the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Claim 23 lacks unity of invention with claims 1, 22, and dependents thereof because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of “an aerosol provision device, the device comprising: a chamber for receiving a consumable comprising aerosol-generating material, wherein, in use, part of the consumable protrudes from the chamber; an aerosol generator for generating an inhalable medium from the consumable received in the chamber; a controller for controlling the supply of power from a power source to the aerosol generator; and a movable component for at least partially covering the part of said consumable that protrudes from the chamber in use, wherein the movable component is movable between a first position, in which the part of the consumable is exposed, and a second position, in which the part of the consumable is at least partially covered” (notably, the controller of claim 22 is “adapted to supply power” rather than being “for controlling the supply of power” as recited in claim 23, but the claims lack unity whether this is interpreted as reciting two different controllers or not), this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Worm (US 2017/0150757 A1, previously cited). As set forth in detail in the rejections of claims 1 and 22 below, Worm discloses each of the claimed “chamber”, “aerosol generator”, “controller for controlling the supply of power from a power source to the aerosol generator”, and “movable component” ([0164, 0172, 0217-0218], Figs. 1-2 and 17-18), and thus the claims do not share a special technical feature.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 23 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the “movable component” in claims 1-7, 9-18, and 21-22 and the “external components” in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Specifically, the “movable component” includes: a component 150 with any suitable shape to at least partially cover the exposed part 12 of the inserted consumable 10 when in the second position, covering or substantially surrounding all or part of the part 12, (Applicant’s Substitute Specification – Clean Copy p. 15, 1st full paragraph, Figs. 1a-d), a component 150 rotatable about the hinge 152 between the first and second positions (p. 15, 3rd full paragraph), a structure mounted to a carriage 154 (p. 15, last paragraph), a component 150 movable manually or being motorized (p. 16, 1st full paragraph), a component 150 substantially sealing the opening 112 of the chamber 110 with one or more ventilation holes (p. 16, 2nd full paragraph), a component 250 with an annular recess 256 to cooperate with a protrusion 272 (p. 17, 2nd full paragraph, Figs. 2a-b), a component 350, 450 with a lid 358, 458 (p. 20, 1st full paragraph), a component 350, 450 coupled to movement of the retraction mechanism 380, 480 (p. 20, 2nd full paragraph), and equivalents thereof.
The “external components” include: a housing member 305 housing internal components (p. 18, 1st full paragraph, Figs. 3a-b), a knob 383 connected to a threaded consumable support 386 (p. 18, 2nd-4th full paragraphs), a movable component 350 (p. 18, 3rd full paragraph), a housing member 605, 705 housing internal components and which may be movable in combination with a driving member to cause relative reciprocation (p. 28, 1st full paragraph, last paragraph, Figs. 6a-7b), a lower casing 683 twistable by a user to rotate relative to the upper casing 605 and cause retraction of the consumable 10, optionally along a helical path with the upper casing 605, and connected to a consumable support 686 (p. 28 2nd full paragraph-p. 30 2nd full paragraph), an upper casing 605 for concealing elements of the device 600 (p. 30, 3rd full paragraph), and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13-15, 18, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worm (US 2017/0150757 A1, previously cited) in view of Bouchuiguir (US 2022/0142250 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Worm is directed to an aerosol delivery device including a moveable cartridge (Title), which reads on an “aerosol provision device” as claimed:
The device 100 includes a housing 102 with internal space (“chamber”) to receive a cartridge 200 which may be extended in use ([0164], Figs. 1-2).
The device 100 includes an atomizer 212 (“aerosol generator”) for producing vapor from an aerosol precursor in the cartridge 200 [0172].
The device 100 includes a controller 108 (“controller”) configured to direct electrical power to the cartridge 200 to heat the aerosol precursor [0172].
The device 100, 500 has a slider 520 (“movable component”) which can retract to allow the cartridge 200 to protrude from an opening 554 (which reads on the claimed “first position”) ([0218], Fig. 18, reproduced below). The slider 520 may cover the opening 554 so that the cartridge 200 can retract within the device 500 (which reads on the claimed “second position”) ([0217], Fig. 17, reproduced below).
The controller 108 may supply power when the slider 520 is retracted and the cartridge 200 is exposed, but does not supply power when the slider 520 is covering the cartridge 200 [0151, 0207, 0215], which reads on “wherein the controller supplies a different amount of power when the movable component is in the first position compared with when the movable component is in the second position”.
Worm discloses preheating the heater (which reads on “maintain the aerosol-generating material within a temperature range below an aerosol-generating temperature”) when the cartridge 200 is extended [0239] (i.e., in the claimed “first position”). However, Worm fails to disclose preheating when the slider 520 is covering the cartridge 200, and thus fails to disclose “wherein, when the movable component is in the second position, the controller supplies power from the power source to the aerosol generator to maintain the aerosol-generating material within a temperature range below an aerosol-generating temperature of the aerosol-generating material”.
PNG
media_image1.png
624
529
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
628
440
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Bouchuiguir is directed to an aerosol generation device with closure (Title). The device includes an aperture for receiving an aerosol substrate within a chamber, and the closure is moveable between a closed position covering the aperture and an open position wherein the aperture is unobstructed (Abstract). The device includes a controller for receiving activation signals and generating control signals based upon the position of the closure [0044, 0212]. A second activation signal is initiated while the aperture is covered and may preheat the chamber using the heater at a reduced power [0217]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that such preheating advantageously decreases the time a user must wait for the device to heat up (the general concept of preheating is well-known in the art of tobacco aerosolization devices), and one would further recognize that Worm’s controller 108 and device 100 could similarly and predictably be configured to preheat at reduced power when the slider 520 is covering the cartridge 200.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Worm’s device 100 and controller 108 such that they are configured to preheat the atomizer 212 at reduced power when the slider 520 is covering the cartridge 200 (which reads on “wherein, when the movable component is in the second position, the controller supplies power from the power source to the aerosol generator to maintain the aerosol-generating material within a temperature range below an aerosol-generating temperature of the aerosol-generating material”), because both Worm and Bouchuiguir are directed to aerosolization devices with covers, Bouchuiguir teaches preheating when the closure is closed which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as advantageous, and this would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 2, when the slider 520 is covering the cartridge 200 (i.e., in the claimed “second position”), the slider 520 at least partially covers the opening 554 (Fig. 17), which reads on the claim.
Regarding claim 3, Worm discloses an alternative configuration of the device 100, 600 wherein components such as the housing 602, cartridge 200, atomizer 212, and controller 108 are similar to those discussed above per claim 1 ([0212, 0219-0220], Figs. 19-20). The device 600 has a moveable portion 602B (“movable component”) defining a lid, which rotates about a hinge 656 to cover or uncover the cartridge 200 ([0219-0220], Figs. 19-20), which reads on the claim.
Regarding claim 4, Worm discloses the device 100, 500 and slider 520 as set forth above in the discussion of claim 1, which is “configured to slide between the first and second positions” as claimed.
Regarding claim 6, the device 500 includes an actuator 510 (“retraction mechanism”) with an external engagement member 524 which may be slid by a user to move the cartridge 200 ([0215, 0217-0218], Figs. 17-18), which reads on the claim.
Regarding claim 7, Worm discloses a configuration of the device 100, 700 wherein components such as the housing 702, cartridge 200, atomizer 212, and controller 108 are similar to those discussed above per claims 1 and 6 ([0212, 0221-0222], Fig. 21).
The device 700 has a connector 706 (“retraction mechanism”) which extends or retracts the cartridge 200 through an opening 754 ([0222], Fig. 21). The device 700 has a moveable portion 702B (which reads on a “movable component” and a “first one of the plurality of external components”, see Claim Interpretation above and Applicant’s specification at p. 18, wherein movable component 350 is described as an example of a third one of the plurality of external components) which rotates relative to a main body portion 702A (“second one of the plurality of external components”) to cover or uncover the opening 754 and extend or retract the cartridge 200 ([0221-0222], Fig. 21). The main body portion 702A and moveable portion 702B additionally read on the “rotational mechanism” as claimed, because they are “configured to move” the connector 706 as claimed (see also Claim Interpretation above and Applicant’s specification at p. 18, wherein rotational mechanism 382 is described as including a knob 383 which is an example of a second one of the plurality of external components; thus, the claimed “rotational mechanism” may similarly include one or more of the claimed “external components”).
Regarding claim 9, the actuator 510 (“retraction mechanism”) includes the external engagement member 524 (“slider”) which slides to move the cartridge 200 longitudinally ([0215, 0217-0218], Figs. 17-18), which reads on the claim.
Regarding claim 10, retraction and extension of the slider 520 is coupled to movement of the external engagement member 524 and actuator 510 ([0215, 0217-0218], Figs. 17-18), which reads on the claim.
Regarding claim 22, the claim recites the same limitations as those of claim 1, except claim 22 recites “a controller adapted to supply power from a power source to the aerosol generator” and “wherein the controller is adapted to supply a different amount of power…” whereas claim 1 recites “a controller for controlling the supply of power from a power source to the aerosol generator” and “wherein the controller supplies a different amount of power…”, respectively (emphasis added by Examiner in each instance).
As set forth above in the discussion of claim 1, the controller 108 of modified Worm is configured to preheat the atomizer 212 at reduced power when the slider 520 is covering the cartridge 200, the controller 108 is thus “adapted to supply” power as claimed in each instance, and modified Worm therefore renders claim 22 obvious for the same reasons as set forth above in the discussion of claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, modified Worm discloses the device of claim 22 as set forth above. Worm further discloses a spring 860 (“biasing member”) and a damper mechanism to provide slow, controlled movement of the cartridge 200 ([0240-0241], Fig. 22).
Regarding claim 13, the controller 108 may supply power to generate aerosol when the slider 520 is retracted and the cartridge 200 exposed [0151, 0207, 0215] (i.e., in the claimed “first position”), and as set forth above in the discussion of claim 22, the controller 108 of modified Worm is configured to preheat the atomizer 212 at reduced power when the slider 520 is covering the cartridge 200 (i.e., in the claimed “second position”), which reads on the claim.
Regarding claim 14, the controller 108 may supply power to generate aerosol when the slider 520 is retracted and the cartridge 200 exposed [0151, 0207, 0215] (i.e., in the claimed “first position”), which reads on the claim.
Regarding claims 15 and 18, Worm’s device 100 may include sensors (“sensor” of claim 18) for detecting when the cartridge 200 is retracted, extended, or drawn upon by a user, and the controller 108 may supply power to heat the cartridge 200 when extended or drawn upon, but not when retracted [0151, 0239] (which reads on “wherein the controller is adapted to…interrupt the predetermined heating profile in the event that the movable component is moved to the second position” per claim 15 and “wherein the controller is adapted to supply power…in accordance with the position of the movable component as determined by the sensor” per claim 18).
In modified Worm, it would be obvious to configure the controller 108 to perform Bouchuiguir’s preheating when Worm’s sensors detect the cartridge 200 in the retracted position, for the same reasons as set forth above in the discussion of claims 1 and 22.
Regarding claim 21, Worm discloses the device 100, 500 and cartridge 200 as set forth above in the discussion of claim 1. The device 100, 500 generates an aerosol from the cartridge 200 in use [0215], which reads on the claim.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worm (US 2017/0150757 A1) in view of Bouchuiguir (US 2022/0142250 A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Jung (WO 2020/105896 A1, US 2021/0007393 A1 relied upon herein, previously cited).
Worm discloses the device 100, 500 and slider 520 as set forth above. Worm fails to disclose the slider 520 being “completely detachable from the device such that, in the first position, the movable component is removed from a main body of the device and, in the second position, the movable component is removably connected to the main body of the device” as claimed.
Jung is directed to an aerosol generating apparatus (Title). Jung discloses a cover 320 partially covering a protruding cigarette 500, and the cover 320 may be separated from the apparatus 300 or coupled thereto ([0302, 0315], Figs. 24-25). The cover 320 being separable advantageously allows a user to easily clean the interior of the apparatus 300 after removing the cigarette 500 [0252]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Worm’s slider 520 could similarly be made separable in the retracted position (which would read on the claim) in order to more easily allow cleaning of the housing 102 interior when the cartridge 200 is removed. One of ordinary skill in the art would further recognize that making Worm’s slider 520 separable could advantageously provide additional space for a user when inserting and removing the cartridge 200, similar to the cleaning advantage.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Worm by making the slider 520 detachable from the device 100, 500 as taught by Jung, because both Worm and Jung are directed to electronic vaporization devices with movable covers, Jung teaches that this facilitates cleaning the device and one of ordinary skill in the art would further recognize that it facilitates inserting/removing the cartridge 200 for the same reason, and this would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worm (US 2017/0150757 A1) in view of Bouchuiguir (US 2022/0142250 A1) as applied to claim 22, further in view of Liu (WO 2015/157891 A1, previously cited with English translation).
Worm discloses the device 500 and slider 520 as set forth above in the discussion of claim 22. Worm fails to disclose “a locking member to lock the movable component in the first position and/or the second position”.
Liu is directed to an electronic cigarette (Title). Liu discloses a protective cover 3 for an e-liquid bottle 4 and a buckle portion 31 (“locking member”) (p. 6, l. 267-p. 7, l. 281; Figs. 1-3). The buckle portion 31 prevents relative rotation of the cover 3 due to vibrations during smoking, which protects the e-liquid bottle 4 (p. 6, l. 267-p. 7, l. 281; Figs. 1-3). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the buckle portion 31 could similarly be applied to Worm’s slider 520 to prevent accidental displacement from vibrations during smoking.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Worm by including a buckle portion 31 coupled to the slider 520 to lock the slider 520 in the closed position during use, because both Worm and Liu are directed to electronic cigarettes with covers, Liu teaches that this protects the e-liquid bottle 4 within the device, and this involves use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worm (US 2017/0150757 A1) in view of Bouchuiguir (US 2022/0142250 A1) as applied to claim 22, further in view of Mizuguchi (US 2021/0015169 A1).
Worm discloses the aerosol delivery device 100, 500 with controller 108 and slider 520 as set forth above. Worm discloses that automated actuators may be used to extend, retract, and prevent extension of the cartridge 200, for instance to prevent unauthorized use [0242]. Worm also discloses automatically emitting UV radiation upon passage of a predetermined time or based upon other factors [0238]. Worm also discloses a puff sensor coupled to the controller 108 [0175].
However, Worm fails to disclose automatically retracting the cartridge 200 after a predetermined time, and thus fails to disclose “wherein, in use, the controller is adapted to cause movement of the movable component from the first position to the second position in the event that a predetermined amount of time has elapsed since a puff by a user” per claim 16 and “wherein, in use, the controller is adapted to cause movement of the movable component from the first position to the second position a predetermined amount of time after the start of a usage session” per claim 17.
Mizuguchi is directed to a power supply unit for aerosol suction device (Title). The device includes a notification controller 54 which detects a predetermined period, such as an accumulated number of times of puff operations or an accumulated energization time of a load 21 [0065-66, 0070]. A power controller 53 stops power supply from the power supply 12 to the load 21 when the predetermined period has elapsed since the start of a puff period (which reads on both “in the event that a predetermined amount of time has elapsed since a puff by a user” per claim 16 and “a predetermined amount of time after the start of a usage session” per claim 17) [0070-71]. This advantageously prevents variations in the puff period, allows for determining and notifying a user when a cartridge 20 or power supply 12 needs replacing, and increases safety [0065-66, 0071, 0121]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Worm’s controller 108 could similarly be configured to automatically stop or lower power supply when a predetermined period has elapsed since the start of a puff period, and could further be modified to automatically retract the cartridge 200 at such time, because as set forth above, modified Worm uses low power when the cartridge is retracted and Worm discloses automated actuators for retracting the cartridge 200.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Worm by configuring the controller 108 and puff sensor to detect a predetermined period since the start of a puff period, and when such period elapses, to retract the cartridge 200 with the slider 520 covering it and to provide reduced power to the atomizer 212 in such state, because Worm and Mizuguchi are directed to aerosolization devices, Mizuguchi teaches that this advantageously provides consistent puff periods and safe operation, ands this would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a device which can automatically detect the end of a session and accordingly retract the cartridge 200 and lower heating power. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL PATRICK MULLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2373. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7 ET.
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 on (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.
/MICHAEL PATRICK MULLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/KATHERINE A WILL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1747