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 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 1-12 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.
Claim 1 recites “a normal temperature”; however, it is submitted that it is unclear what value is representative of “normal” as neither the claim nor written description provide a frame of reference for determining a “normal” temperature. Appropriate correction is required.
The remaining claims are rejected for at least the reason of their direct and/or indirect dependency from independent claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (CN 106617324) in view of Dorrell (US 3801954).
With regard to claim 1, Cheng teaches a heating assembly (FIG. 2), comprising: a heating bowl (102, FIG. 2); a base (1031, FIGS. 2 & 3) comprising a first electrode (first of “multiple electrodes 1033”) and a second electrode (second of “multiple electrodes 1033”), the base being configured to carry the heating bowl (102), the first electrode and the second electrode (electrodes 1033) being configured to be electrically connected to the heating bowl (102); and an elastic engagement piece (108) arranged on the base (1031), the elastic engagement piece (108) being configured to lock the heating bowl (102) on the base (1031) (“the flexible member 108 is preferably a compression spring, and the lower end of the compression spring is connected to In the fixed seat 1031 in sleeve pipe 109, its upper end elasticity is connected on the lower surface of the flange 116, with to Heating Cup 102 apply jacking force upwards.”, pg. 4, ln. 8-9).
Cheng does not teach that the elastic engagement piece’s shape is modified when heated and the shape changing to a non-coupling shape at a normal temperature; however, Dorrell directed toward the same problem of providing a temperature dependent elastic member performing an engagement function teaches the aforementioned limitation: “When it is desired to lock the receptacle 14 and plug 12 in coupled engagement, sufficient heat is applied to bring the locking memory member 25 to its transitional temperature range for recovery of its original shape. As will be understood from FIGS. 4 and 5, the original shape of the locking memory member 25 is such that a considerable force is exerted on the opposed annular surfaces 42 and 44 to thereby provide a highly rigid coupling of the plug 12 and receptacle 14.”, col. 4, ln. 54-62.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Cheng reference, such that the elastic engagement piece’s shape is modified when heated and the shape changing to a locking state and otherwise a non-locking state at a normal temperature; however, Dorrell directed toward the same problem of providing a temperature dependent elastic member performing an engagement function, as suggested and taught by Dorrell, for the purpose of providing a highly rigid coupling between two components (Dorrell: col. 4, ln. 54-62).
With regard to claim 2, with regard to the limitation of the elastic engagement piece comprises two elastic arms, wherein, in a heated state, the two elastic arms are heated and deformed inward so as to lock the heating bowl, and wherein, at the normal temperature, the two elastic arms are released from a heating constraint and restore to open outward so as to release the heating bowl, Dorrell teaches two elastic arms (FIG. 1 illustrates locking member 25 having two arms having an inverted “V” shape in the figure) which upon heating exert a force upon opposed annular surfaces 42/44 (““When it is desired to lock the receptacle 14 and plug 12 in coupled engagement, sufficient heat is applied to bring the locking memory member 25 to its transitional temperature range for recovery of its original shape. As will be understood from FIGS. 4 and 5, the original shape of the locking memory member 25 is such that a considerable force is exerted on the opposed annular surfaces 42 and 44 to thereby provide a highly rigid coupling of the plug 12 and receptacle 14.”, col. 4, ln. 54-62.). It is respectfully submitted that it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Cheng reference, such that the elastic engagement piece’s two elastic arms are modified when heated and the shape changing to a non-locking shape at a normal temperature; however, Dorrell directed toward the same problem of providing a temperature dependent elastic member performing an engagement function, as suggested and taught by Dorrell, for the purpose of providing a highly rigid coupling between two components (Dorrell: col. 4, ln. 54-62). Assuming it was determined that the arms of Dorrell are determined to not be “restored to open outward” at a normal temperature. It is submitted that as Dorrell teaches a material whose shape can be modified upon application of heat, and additionally, Dorrell teaches that this modified shape performs a locking function between two components, it is submitted that a specific adaptation of the elastic members shape would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art as a matter of routine experimentation and/or as an Obvious Change in Shape to adapt an elastic engagement piece for a specific application/configuration based upon the respective contour/shape of the respective two components that require a coupling to occur therebetween (see MPEP 2144.IV.B. Change in Shape).
With regard to claim 3, Dorrell teaches each of the elastic arms (25) comprises a connected deformable section (FIG. 1 illustrates locking member 25 having two arms having an inverted “V” shape in the figure) and non-deformable section (25b), the non-deformable section (25b) being attached to a side wall (40, FIG. 1) of the base, the deformable section (FIG. 1 illustrates locking member 25 having two arms having an inverted “V” shape in the figure) of each of the two elastic arms (25) being in an open state at room temperature, and the deformable section being deformed inward when heated so as to lock the two components (FIG. 1 illustrates locking member 25 having two arms having an inverted “V” shape in the figure) which upon heating exert a force upon opposed annular surfaces 42/44 (““When it is desired to lock the receptacle 14 and plug 12 in coupled engagement, sufficient heat is applied to bring the locking memory member 25 to its transitional temperature range for recovery of its original shape. As will be understood from FIGS. 4 and 5, the original shape of the locking memory member 25 is such that a considerable force is exerted on the opposed annular surfaces 42 and 44 to thereby provide a highly rigid coupling of the plug 12 and receptacle 14.”, col. 4, ln. 54-62.). Assuming it was determined that the arms of Dorrell are determined to not be “deformed inward when heated”, it is submitted that as Dorrell teaches a material whose shape can be modified upon application of heat, and additionally, Dorrell teaches that this modified shape performs a locking function between two components. It is respectfully submitted that a specific adaptation of the elastic members shape would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art as a matter of routine experimentation and/or as an Obvious Change in Shape to adapt an elastic engagement piece for a specific application/configuration based upon the respective contour/shape of the respective two components that require a coupling to occur therebetween (see MPEP 2144.IV.B. Change in Shape).
With regard to claim 11, Cheng teaches A vaporizer (title: “electronic smoking utensil”), comprising: the heating assembly of claim 1.
With regard to claim 12, Cheng teaches An electronic vaporization device (title: “electronic smoking utensil”), comprising: the vaporizer of claim 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-10 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, and additionally, overcoming the definiteness rejection(s) indicated above. Accordingly, as an example, with regard to “objected to” claim 4, a new independent claim which includes ALL of the limitations of claims 1-4 (and additionally overcomes the definiteness rejection(s) indicated above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH W ISKRA whose telephone number is (313) 446-4866. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 09:00-17:00 EST.
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, IBRAHIME ABRAHAM can be reached on 571-270-5569. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/JOSEPH W ISKRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761