DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 in the reply filed on 01/06/2026 is acknowledged. Claim 15 is withdrawn because it is drawn to the non-elected method.
Information Disclosure Statement
The foreign references identified in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on 06/13/2023 and 01/23/2026 were searched for corresponding US Patents, Publications, or other English equivalents. Please see below:
GB 2542010 = No US equivalents located, but is in English;
WO 2019174445 = No US or English equivalents located;
WO 2019037880 = US 20200352253;
CN 209152377 = No US or English equivalents located;
JP 2018534909 = US 20180184722;
JP 2020501610 = US 20200093177; and
WO 2019206334 = US 20210059306.
Of the above, US 20200352253 are being cited in the attached PTO-892 because they are not already of record.
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.
Claim(s) 1–14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 2542010 ("MURISON") (made of record by Applicant on 06/13/2023).
As to claim 1, MURISON discloses an aerosol generation set (Figs. 1–4) comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
399
528
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an aerosol generation device (1) defining a device body extending between first and second body ends (Fig. 3),
PNG
media_image2.png
431
539
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a case (Fig. 3, 100) defining a cavity (Fig. 4) able to receive the aerosol generation device (cavity to the left of door 2) and a movable part (2) movable from a closed position (Fig. 3) to an opened position (Fig. 4) further to a trigger event, e.g., a) “with the user pulling in the base of the hinged holder” (as disclosed in the last paragraph on page 13) or b) when a user presses on trigger latch assembly (Fig. 7, item 15; page 18’s third full paragraph), which is reproduced below:
PNG
media_image3.png
400
616
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Within the context of the disclosures above, the trigger event typically opens the case and allows the aerosol generation device to be lifted out by a spring mechanism. (See Page 18’s third full paragraph “Figure 7 also shows the trigger latch assembly 15; this is pushed by the user to eject cartridge 3 using the force of wire spring 13”).
As demonstrated below, elsewhere MURISON explains that, instead lifting the aerosol generation device out of the case by spring force, repellant magnetic forces can be used instead because they are functional equivalents. Since MURISON fails to disclose the use of magnetics within the context of single embodiment, rather MURISON teaches magnetic as a permissive alternative, MURSION cannot anticipate:
the device body comprising a device magnetic element
the case comprising a case magnetic element arranged facing the device magnetic element when the aerosol generation device is received in the cavity; and
an electric circuitry configured to detect the trigger event; and
upon the detection, activate magnetic interaction between said magnetic elements to push at least one of the first and second body ends from the cavity, when the aerosol generation device is received in the cavity.
Elsewhere, albeit taught as an optional/alternative option, MURSION teaches that a magnetic lifting mechanism is a functional equivalent to the disclosed spring-based ejection mechanism that may be used in place of the spring-based ejection mechanism. See MURISON’s first bullet on page 20 explaining (“Case Feature 4: The case has a PV ejection mechanism: An automatic lifting mechanism (e.g. magnetic or spring-based) that gently lifts the PV up a few mm from the case to enable a user to easily grasp it when the case is opened”).
MURSION teaches that when using a magnetic lifting mechanism (see generally Case Feature 4 describing a PV ejection mechanism on pages 45–46), the system should have the following features:
the device body comprising a device magnetic element (First full paragraph of Case Feature 4 on page 45 “A magnetic lifting mechanism could involve a permanent magnet at one part of the PV and. . .”); and
the case comprising a case magnetic element arranged facing the device magnetic element when the aerosol generation device is received in the cavity (First full paragraph of Case Feature 4 on page 45 “A magnetic lifting mechanism could involve . . . and an adjacent electro-magnet placed in the case and powered by the main battery in the case”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the above teachings of MURISON’s magnetic lifting mechanism in place of the disclosed spring lifting system for the benefit of raise the aerosol generation device out of the case (as taught by MURSION’s last sentence in the Case Feature 4: on page 45). Please see below annotation from Fig. 4:
Turning now to two remaining limitations of claim 1, MURISON further teaches “the lifting mechanism is a permanent magnet at one part of the vaporiser and an adjacent electro-magnet placed in the case and powered by the main battery in the case; so that slowly energising the electro-magnet when the PY needs to be released causes the vaporiser to gracefully rise up out of the case” (page 46 third bullet point) and “the lifting mechanism is automatically activated when the case is opened” (page 46 sixth bullet point).
That is, MURISON teaches applying power to the electromagnetic only after the case is opened to automatically activate the electro-magnetic by “slowly energising the electro-magnet” and gracefully lift the aerosol generation device out of the case.
When incorporating the above teachings of MURISON’s magnetic lifting mechanism in place of the disclosed spring lifting system, it would have been further obvious to include an electric circuitry (see electronics in Fig. 4) configured to detect the trigger event (begin to provide power from the battery to “slowly energising the electro-magnet”) and upon the detection, activate magnetic interaction (again, “slowly energising the electro-magnet.” Here this will repel the magnet in the aerosol generating device to lift the device out of the case) between said magnetic elements to push at least one of the first and second body ends from the cavity (see generally Case Feature 4 describing a PV ejection mechanism on pages 45–46), when the aerosol generation device is received in the cavity for the benefit of gracefully lifting the aerosol generation device out of the case after the triggering event of opening the case is detected (as taught by MURISON’s third and sixth bullet points on page 46).
Accordingly, MURISON makes obvious claim 1.
As to claim 2, MURISON makes obvious the aerosol generation set according to claim 1.
MURSION further discloses wherein:
the case is closed when the movable part is in the closed position (Fig. 3); and
the case is opened and the aerosol generation device is able to be put into the cavity or removed from it the cavity when the movable par is in the opened position (Fig. 4).
As to claim 3, MURISON makes obvious the aerosol generation set according to claim 2.
MURSION further discloses wherein the movable part forms an access lid to the case (Fig. 4).
As to claim 4, MURISON makes obvious the aerosol generation set according to claim 1.
MURSION further teaches wherein the trigger event includes a manual opening of the case or in activating a button by a user (MURISON’s third and sixth bullet points on page 46).
It would have been further obvious to include the teachings above into the aerosol generation device for the benefit gracefully lifting the aerosol generation device out of the case after the triggering event of opening the case is detected (as taught by MURISON’s third and sixth bullet points on page 46).
As to claim 5, MURISON makes obvious the aerosol generation set according to claim l.
MURSION further discloses wherein the case is a charging case configured to charge the aerosol generation device when the aerosol generating device is received in the cavity (last full paragraph on page 10).
As to claim 6, MURISON makes obvious the aerosol generation set according to claim 1.
The obvious combination above arrives at wherein one of the said magnetic elements is a permanent magnet (third bullet point on page 46 “the lifting mechanism is a permanent magnet at one part of the vaporiser”) and the other is a coil (because electromagnetics requires some form of wire wrapped around a metal part) connected to the electric circuitry and configured to generate a magnetic field repelling the permanent magnet (third bullet point on page 46 “electro-magnet placed in the case and powered by the main battery in the case; so that slowly energizing the electro-magnet when the PV needs to be released causes the vaporizer to gracefully rise up out of the case.”).
As to claim 7, MURISON makes obvious the aerosol generation set according to claim 6, wherein said permanent magnet is formed by the device magnetic element; and said coil is formed by the case magnetic element (third bullet point on page 46).
As to claim 8, MURISON makes obvious the aerosol generation set according to claim 7, wherein the device body extends along a device axis (Figs. 1–4).
MURISON fail to explicitly disclose said permanent magnet extends around the device axis.
MURISON teaches a “magnetic lifting mechanism could involve a permanent magnet at one part of the PV and an adjacent electro-magnet placed in the case and powered by the main battery in the case.” (Page 45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the above teachings into the disclosure and arrive at a permanent magnet at the tip of MURSION’s aerosol delivery device, e.g., near the bottom of 1 in Fig. 1, for the benefit of enabling the magnet to be adjacent the electro-magnet placed in the case (as taught by MURSION’s last sentence in the Case Feature 4: on page 45).
At least a portion of the obvious permanent magnet will extend around the device axis, which is an infinitely thin line.
As to claim 9, MURISON makes obvious the aerosol generation set according to claim l.
The obvious combination above arrives at wherein the electric circuitry is integrated into the case (as this would allow the case to enable power from the battery to power the electro-magnetic).
As to claim 10, MURISON makes obvious the aerosol generation set according to claim l, wherein the device magnetic element is integrated into one of the first; and second body ends (third bullet point on page 46).
As to claim 11–12, MURISON makes obvious the aerosol generation set according to claim 10.
MURISON further teaches magnetically attaching the aerosol generating device (Fig. 4, 1) to the case/moveable part (Fig. 4) with opposing permanent magnets (see generally Pages 94–95’s “Misc. 3: PV Magnetically latches in the case”), wherein one of the opposing magnets is located in the case near the battery (Page 95’s lines 2–5 “one or more small magnets near to the battery and data contacts ensure that the corresponding battery and the data contacts in the PY and case magnetically latch to one another when the PY is fully inserted into the case or the chassis part of the case that holds the PV”) and the other permanent magnetic located on the the aerosol generating device at a corresponding end near the battery (Page 95’s lines 5–7 “positioned anywhere suitable, for example, either at one end of the PV, or alternatively are positioned somewhere along the main body of the PV”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to further incorporate these teachings into the disclosure of MURISON above for the benefit of magnetically latching the aerosol generating device within the case to ensure that the aerosol generating device is 1) pulled into and held in a correct position necessary for refilling and recharging (as taught by MURISON at page 94’s last full paragraph and page 95’s first full paragraph.
The above makes obvious the following magnets in the following locations:
Accordingly, with respect to claim 11, MURSION, as modified above, arrives at:
the aerosol generation device further comprises a device retaining element (magnet at circled location of 1 above) integrated into one of the first and second body ends (magnet at circled location of 1 above) opposite to the other one of the first and second body ends integrating the device magnetic element (lower location of 1 near 4, where the magnetic lifting mechanism exists); and
the case further comprises a case retaining element (magnet at circled location of battery 5 above) arranged facing the device retaining element when the aerosol generation device is received in the cavity (see annotation of Fig. 4 above) and configured to retain the other of the first and second body ends integrating the device retaining element by cooperating with the retaining element (see generally Pages 94–95’s “Misc. 3: PV Magnetically latches in the case”).
Accordingly, with respect to claim 12, MURSION, as modified above, arrives at:
the aerosol generation set according to claim 11, wherein each retaining element is formed by a permanent magnet, said magnets arranged to attract one the other (see Page 95’s lines 2–5’s (one or more small magnets near to the battery and data contacts ensure that the corresponding battery and the data contacts in the PY and case magnetically latch to one another when the PY is fully inserted into the case or the chassis part of the case that holds the PV”).
As to claim 13, MURISON makes obvious the aerosol generation set according to claim l.
The obvious combination above would arrive at wherein the electric circuitry is further configured to maintain the magnetic interaction between said magnetic elements as long as the movable part is in the opened position (here the magnetic interaction is repulsion to gracefully lift the aerosol generating device out of the case).
As to claim 14, MURISON makes obvious the aerosol generation set according to claim l.
MURSION teaches slowly energising the electromagnet when the PV needs to be released causes the PV to gracefully rise up out of the case.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to arrive at wherein the electric circuitry is further configured to deactivate the magnetic interaction between said magnetic elements when the movable part is in the closed position for the benefit of enabling the battery to slowly energize the electromagnet and gracefully rise up out of the case (as taught by MURISON’s first full paragraph on page 45). This also provides the benefit of 1) decreasing power consumption when the aerosol generation device does not need to be lifted out of the case; 2) preventing the aerosol generation device from being launched from the case when the case is opened (if power was always maintained to the electro-magnet).
As to claim 16, MURISON makes obvious the aerosol generation set according to claim 10, wherein the device magnetic element is integrated into one of the first and second body ends configured to be held by a user while using the aerosol generation device (Figs. 1–4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANLEY L CUMMINS IV whose telephone number is (571)272-1060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. (CST).
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.
/MANLEY L CUMMINS IV/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1747