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 filed 5-30-2024 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because no copies of the foreign applications are included herein and further the accommodating references numbers cited in the IDS do not correspond to a valid foreign document number. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Drawings
FIGs 13-14 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(o) as containing excessive textual matter in the figure titles/legends. The lengthy titles/legends are not necessary to identify the views and include explanatory wording that should be placed in the specification, not in the drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Regarding claims 19-20, claim limitation “means for operating the device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Claim 20, which depends from 19, says the means is “a smoking device control interface having an input or an output”. If the control means is only an output, an output alone does not appear to operate or control the device.
The specification lists buttons, switches, displays, haptics, etc, [0024] however the specification fails to clearly tie the “means for operating the device” to the specific structure necessary for operating the device, and to the function of operating the device. The claim scope is unclear. Therefore, the claim 19 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Claim 20 is similarly indefinite for its dependence on claim 19. For the purposes of compact prosecution “means for operating the device” is interpreted to require the device to include any suitable input for operating the device included in the list of suitable inputs in the specification in paragraph [0024].
Claim Objections
The claims 8-12, 16, 17, 19-20 are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 19 recites the claim limitation “means for operating the device”. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The written description lists examples such as buttons, switches, displays, haptics, etc, [0024] however the written description fails to clearly tie the “means for operating the device” to the specific structure necessary for operating the device, and to the function of operating the device, which fails to meet the written description requirement.
Claim 20, which depends from 19, further says the means is “a smoking device control interface having an input or an output”. If the control means is only an output, an output alone does not appear to operate or control the device. The written description lists examples such as buttons, switches, displays, haptics, etc; [0024] however the written description fails to clearly tie the “means for operating the device” to the specific structure necessary for operating the device, and to the function of operating the device, which fails to meet the written description requirement. Further the written description fails to clarify how a control means that is only an output, as alternately required by claim 20 can operate or control a device.
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 1-20 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.
The term “above” in claim 1 line 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “above” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “above” is unclear because the device is a handheld device capable of being held or oriented in multiple positions. The claim does not define or require an objective frame of reference for determining when the control interface is “above” the handle, such as relative to gravity, a longitudinal axis of the device, a normal use orientation, a drawing orientation, having the control interface in an upwardly facing direction during normal use, or a particular structural feature of the device. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonable appraised of the scope of the claim. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the term “above” is interpreted to require the control interface to have the design choice of being disposed in the upwardly facing direction (along the top surface) of the device during normal use. Claims 2-12 are similarly indefinite for their dependence on claim 1.
Claims 8-10, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 USC 112b as indefinite because it is unclear if the distance CD is the distance from the axis to the input/output interface or a distance beyond the input/output interface (“interface within a distance”) which renders the claim indefinite. The term “distance CD” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, for the purposes of compact prosecution, distance CD is interpreted to be non-limiting and any length or distance therefore meets the limitation distance CD. Claims 9-12 are similarly rejected for being indefinite for their dependence on claim 8.
Claims 8-9 and 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 USC 112b as indefinite because the term “length HL” in claim 8, 9, 16, 17, and 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “length HL” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim uses the term to describe the length of a handle, however suitable example lengths of handles are not provided in the claim. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the term length HL is interpreted to be any length which might be suitable for a handle.
Claims 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 USC 112b as indefinite because the claims recite “not obscured when the smoking device is held in front…”. This is a subjective condition. Whether the outputs are visible or obscured depends on the users hand size, grip position, viewing angle, orientation of the device, and what “as during use” means. The specification does not provide an objective structural test for determining if the limitation is met. For the purposes of compact prosecution the limitation “not obscured when the smoking device is held in front” is interpreted to require the outputs to be viewable by the user on the external surface of the device.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 USC 112b because the phrase “selected from the group consisting of… or other inputs” renders the scope of the claim unclear. The transitional phrase “consisting of” normally closes the group to the listed members, however “or other inputs” appears to broaden the group beyond the listed members effectively broadening the list to “comprising”. The claim scope and metes and bounds of the claim is therefore unclear. For the purposes of compact prosecution the list is interpreted as “comprising” and not “consisting of”.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the finger contact surface" in claim 19 line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim recites “a first contact surface” and “a second contact surface”. It is unclear if “the finger contact surface” is introducing a new contact surface not previously recited, or is referring back to one or both of the first and second contact surfaces. The claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of compact prosecution the claim limitation “finger contact surface” is interpreted to be referring back to the second contact surface.
Additionally, regarding Claim 19, claim limitation “means for operating the device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Claim 20, which depends from 19, says the means is “a smoking device control interface having an input or an output”. If the control means is only an output, an output alone does not appear to operate or control the device.
The specification lists buttons, switches, displays, haptics, etc, [0024] however the specification fails to clearly tie the specific structure necessary for operating the device to the function of operating the device. The claim scope is unclear. Therefore, the claim 19 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Claim 20 is similarly indefinite for its dependence on claim 19. For the purposes of compact prosecution “means for operating the device” is interpreted to require the device to include any suitable input for operating the device included in the list of suitable inputs in the specification in paragraph [0024].
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
Claims 1-5, 8-9, 13-16, 19, and 20are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Frija (US 20150122252A1)
Regarding Claim 1, Frija discloses a smoking device (10) comprising:
a handle (e.g., the outside surface of the housing 12, see FIG 1) that includes a first contact surface (bottom surface of the handle where the handheld device can rest) and a second contact surface (fingerprint scanner 22); and
a smoking device control interface that includes an input (button 20) or an output (display 18) (see [0046] and FIG 1), wherein
at least part of the smoking device control interface is disposed above the handle (e.g., the control interface is disposed above the handle, e.g., above is interpreted to be along the top surface of the handle in the upwardly facing direction as illustrated in FIG 1, which would be the orientation of the device during normal use. See claim interpretation above).
Regarding Claim 2, Frija discloses the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Frija discloses the inputs to the smoking device control interface control an operating characteristic (e.g., the biometric fingerprint scanner 22 and push button 20 are coupled to the vaporizer control module which modifies operation of the device [0046], biometric control [0048]), wherein
the outputs indicate operating information about the smoking device ([0055], information such as material being vaporized, dosing, etc), wherein
the first contact surface is a palm contact surface (e.g., the housing 12 of the hand-held vaporizer is held in the hand [0045] and an ordinary artisan would appreciate being a hand-held device includes palm of the hand contact), and wherein
the second contact surface is a finger contact surface (the fingerprint scanner 22 is a finger contact surface), see [0045]-[0047].
Regarding Claim 3, Frija discloses the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Frija discloses the smoking device is a vaporizer [0045], and wherein
the operating characteristic of the biometric fingerprint scanner is an authentication characteristic [0048]-[0050]
Regarding Claim 4, Frija discloses the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Frija discloses the first contact surface (e.g., back side of the handle 12) is opposite the second contact surface (fingerprint scanner 22), and wherein
no inputs or outputs of the smoking device control interface are disposed between the first contact surface and the second contact surface on the handle (See FIG 1, no inputs or outputs are disposed between the first contact surface and the second contact surface.
Regarding Claim 5, Frija discloses the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Frija discloses all inputs of the smoking device control interface are disposed above the handle (e.g., along the top surface of the handle, see FIG 1, see also 112b interpretation above).
Regarding Claim 8, Frija discloses the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Frija discloses the handle and a handle inherently has a length HL.
is below an axis (an ordinary artisan would appreciate they can hold the handle in such a way that the handle would be below an axis), and wherein
the inputs or outputs of the smoking device control interface are within a distance CD of the axis, see FIG 1, an ordinary artisan would appreciate the inputs or outputs of the smoking device as illustrated in FIG 1 are within a distance of the axis. The claim merely names the measured distance as CD and does not require CD to be more or less than any value. Therefore, the prior art meets the limitation because the control interface is located at a distance from the axis.
Regarding Claim 9, Frija discloses the claim limitations as set forth above.
Additionally, Frija discloses the distance CD is less than two-thirds HL. (e.g., Frija inherelty has a length HL and an axis, the display/pushbutton interface is inherently located at distance from that axis. Because the claimed CD is not limited to a specific measurement other than being a distance from the axis, and because the distance from the axis of the housing to the controls on the surface is less than 2/3 the length HL of the handle, Frija discloses the limitation)
Regarding Claim 13, Frida discloses a method comprising: forming a handle (e.g., the outside surface of the housing 12, see FIG 1) that includes a first contact surface (bottom surface of the handle where the handheld device can rest) and a second contact surface (top surface of housing 12 with display 18 and inputs such as fingerprint scanner 22 and button 20, etc. see also FIG 1); and
forming a smoking device control interface that includes an input (button 20 and fingerprint scanner 22) or one output (display 18) (see [0046] and FIG 1), wherein at least part of the smoking device control interface is disposed above the handle (See FIG 1, the input button and display 18 are both on the handle (housing 12).
Regarding Claim 14, Frija teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additinoally Frija teaches the input of the smoking device control interface controls an operating characteristic (see [0046] e.g., smoking device modifies operation without valid fingerprint authentication), and wherein the output indicates operating information about the smoking device (display screen 18, [0046]).
Regarding Claim 15, Frija teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Addiitonally, Frija teaches all inputs of the smoking device control interface are disposed above the handle or along the second contact surface of the handle (see FIG 1, the inputs of the device are disposed on the top surface or above the handle along the second contact surface).
Regarding Claim 16, Frija teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Frija disclosers the handle has a length HL (See FIG 1, the handle has a length)
is below an axis (an ordinary artisan would appreciate that they can hold the handle in such a way that the handle would be below an axis), and wherein
the inputs or outputs of the smoking device control interface are within a distance CD of the axis, see FIG 1, an ordinary artisan would appreciate the inputs or outputs of the smoking device as illustrated in FIG 1 are within a distance of the axis. The claim merely names the measured distance as CD and does not require CD to be more or less than any value. Therefore, the prior art meets the limitation because the control interface is located at a distance from the axis.
Additionally, Frija discloses the distance CD is less than two-thirds HL. (e.g., Frija inherelty has a length HL and an axis, the display/pushbutton interface is inherently located at distance from that axis. Because the claimed CD is not limited to a specific measurement other than being a distance from the axis, and because the distance from the axis of the housing to the controls on the surface is less than 2/3 the length HL of the handle, Frija discloses the limitation)
Regarding Claim 19, Frija teaches a smoking device comprising:
a handle (housing 12), wherein
the handle has a first contact surface (bottom surface of the handle 12),
a second contact surface (top surface of the handle 12 which includes the fingerprint scanner 22 and the button 20), and
the handle has a length HL, (see FIG 1, the handle clearly has a length); and
means for operating the device (e.g., fingerprint scanner 22 and button 20, see FIG 1), wherein part of the means is disposed above the handle or along the finger contact surface of the handle (e.g., see FIG 1, ref# 22 and 20, and [0046]).
Regarding Claim 20, Frija teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Frija discloses the means is a smoking device control interface having an input (e.g., smoking device control interface includes push button 20 and fingerprint scanner 22, see [0046], which both have an input).
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 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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frija (US 20150122252A1) in view of Khalifa (US 20190197225A1)
Regarding Claim 6, Frija discloses the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Frija fails to explicitly disclose a charging port disposed along the handle, wherein the charging port is not part of the smoking device control interface.
Khalifa teaches a similar electronic vaporizer that similarly also has a fingerprint biometrics authentication [0031] and explicitly discloses a charging port disposed along the handle, wherein the charging port (112) is not part of the smoking device control interface (see FIG 1, the charging port is not part of the control interface). It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electronic device of Frija with the charger and battery of Khalifa so that the device can be conveniently charged and battery powered thereby improving portability and repeated use.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frija (US 20150122252A1) in view of Batista (US 20180110262A1)
Regarding Claim 7, Frija discloses the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Frija teaches a mouthpiece 14 which is an outlet. However, Frija is silent to whether an air pathway should include one or more inlet ports and therefore fails to explicitly disclose one or more inlet ports.
However, Batista teaches a similar aerosol generating system that includes a fingerprint scanner that is used to authenticate a user before using the aerosol generating device and teaches the aerosol generating device should include a suitable airflow route that includes an air inlet port and an air outlet port so as to define an airflow route from the air inlet to the air outlet in order for the aerosol generating device to convey aerosol to the outlet and into the mouth of a user. [0083].
Therefore, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fingerprint scanning aerosol generating device of Frija with the air pathway taught by the fingerprint scanning aerosol generating device of Batista, in order to define an airflow route that can convey aerosol to the outlet and into the mouth of the user as taught by Batista.
Claims 10-12 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frija (US 20150122252A1)
Regarding Claim 10, Frija discloses the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, although Frija does not explicitly disclose the distance CD is less than four inches, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the size of Frija such that the distance CD is less than four inches.
A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art absent evidence that the change in size results in a difference in performance. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV A.
Regarding Claim 11, Frija discloses the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Frija teaches the outputs of the device control interface are not obscured when the smoking device is held in front of the body as during use, e.g., it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to hold the device in such a way so as to orient all outputs (Such as the display screen) of the smoking device control interface so that they are not obscured (and the user can see the screen, see FIG 1) when the smoking device is held in front of the body as during use.
Regarding Claim 12, Frija discloses the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally Frija discloses the smoking device has at least one input (button 20) and one output (display 18) (see [0046] and FIG 1), wherein the at least one input is selected from the group consisting of: a button (button 20 [0046]), and wherein
the at least one output is selected from the group consisting of: a display (display 18 [0046]).
Regarding Claim 17, Frija teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Although Frija does not explicitly disclose the handle has a length HL, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the design of Frija such that the handle has a length HL. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art absent evidence that the change in size results in a difference in performance. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV A.
is below an axis (an ordinary artisan would appreciate that they can hold the handle in such a way that the handle would be below an axis), and wherein
the inputs or outputs of the smoking device control interface are within a distance CD of the axis, see FIG 1, an ordinary artisan would appreciate the inputs or outputs of the smoking device as illustrated in FIG 1 are within a distance of the axis. The claim merely names the measured distance as CD and does not require CD to be more or less than any value. Therefore, the prior art meets the limitation because the control interface is located at a distance from the axis.
although Frija does not explicitly disclose the distance CD is less than four inches, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the size of Frija such that the distance CD is less than four inches.
A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art absent evidence that the change in size results in a difference in performance. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV A.
Regarding Claim 18, Frija teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Frija teaches the outputs of the device control interface are not obscured when the smoking device is held in front of the user as during use, e.g., it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to hold the device in such a way so as to orient all outputs (Such as the display screen) of the smoking device control interface so that they are not obscured (and the user can see the screen, see FIG 1) when the smoking device is held in front of the body as during use.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael T Fulton whose telephone number is (703)756-1998. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 - 4:30 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 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.
/M.T.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights