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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/21/2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The substitute specification filed 08/30/2023 is acknowledged and has been approved for entry by the examiner.
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 1-13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations "among a plurality of communication addresses" in line 6 and “each of the at least one communication addresses” in line 9. Since the communication addresses are introduced in plural form, the recited single form of communication addresses is indefinite. The examiner suggests amending the “each of the at least one communication addresses” limitation to read “each of the plurality of communication addresses”.
Claims 2-13 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon and because the fail to cure the deficiencies of claim 1.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almazrouei et al. (US 2024/0090569 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 10, Almazrouei discloses a nicotine delivery device – (construed as an aerosol generation device) for generating a mist containing nicotine, and a method of operating the components and subsystems to include microchips to perform the functions thereof, see at least [0002], [0544]. The nicotine delivery device to include a mist generator 201 – (construed as an extension unit) coupled to a driver device 202, wherein communication between the two are through a power management integrated circuit (PMIC) chip which includes a communication bus, see [0377], [0392] – (construed as controlling communication with one or more extension units via a communication bus, each of the one or more extension units being connectable to the aerosol generation device). And where a battery charging functionality of the driver device to include different programmable parameters are controlled by a circuit connected to the PMIC, see at least [0450] – [0463] – (construed as configured to enable at least one additional functionality of the aerosol generation device, further to aerosol generation, when connected to the aerosol generation device). Additionally, the communication bus is an I2C bus, see [0392]; wherein the PMIC is a slave device and a microcontroller which functions as a master device. This being sufficient for controlling various functions of aerosol generating device, see [0400].
Almazrouei does not explicitly disclose the claimed functionality. However, Almazrouei discloses the I2C bus incorporates a plurality of addresses to implement the functionality of the microchips of the components, see at least [0429] – [0430], [0478]. And where the PMIC and microcontroller control all the functions of the aerosol generating devices. It being considered, Almazrouei having all the required structure and functionality, presents a reasonable pathway to having the method: identify at least one communication address among a plurality of communication addresses of the communication bus for which signaling is received from an extension unit, among the one or more extension units, using the communication address; associating, with each of the at least one communication address, an extension unit identifier indicating the extension unit from which the signaling was received; determining, for each extension unit identifier, a current connection state of the extension unit indicated by the extension unit identifier; and controlling, for each extension unit identifier, communication with the extension unit indicated by the extension unit identifier via the communication bus using the communication address associated with the extension unit identifier and in accordance with the determined current connection state of the extension unit.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Almazrouei’s method as claimed since: One would as a matter of routine experimentation use the recited method steps to enable higher efficiency operation than conventional nicotine delivery devices, the nicotine delivery devices of examples of this disclosure have an environmental benefit due to the reduced power requirement.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-9, 11-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art Almazrouei does not teach or reasonably suggest the functionality of claims 2-13.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRICK S WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-9776. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached on 5712705545. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CEDRICK S WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749