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 .
Response to Amendment
In the Amended Claims of June 25, 2026, claims 1-5, 7-11, 14-18, 20-22, 24, 30 and 33 are pending. Claims 1, 4, 5, 8-10, 15, 16, and 18 are amended. Claim 33 is new.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, 14-18, 20-22, 24, 30 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan (US 2019/0230985) in view of Wang (US 8062782).
Regarding Claim 1, Chan discloses a charging case (100, 103) for an aerosol delivery system (101, 601). Chan does not disclose one or more formations that are configured to space at least a portion of the aerosol provision system from the charging case to provide an air gap and to reduce friction between the aerosol delivery system and the case to facilitate sliding movement of the system relative to the charging case.
Wang discloses a similar case for electronic battery charging comprising one or more formations (126) which provide an air gap and reduces friction between the battery (30) and the case facilitate sliding movement.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the case of Chan with the projection sliders seen in Wang in order to prevent the item from directly contacting the bottom wall of the housing and decrease the frictional force acted on the component, thereby facilitating detachment of the component from the receiving space (Col. 2 Lines 30-38).
Regarding Claim 2, Wang discloses the one or more formations are protrusions.
Regarding Claim 3, Wang discloses the one or more formations project out of a bottom surface of the charging space.
Regarding Claim 4, Wang discloses the protrusions are straight ribs.
Regarding Claim 5, Wang discloses the surface is below the charging battery when it is charging and that the formations are provided over less than 20% of the surface area of the bottom surface.
Regarding Claim 7, Wang discloses the formations extend longitudinally.
Regarding Claims 8-10, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be capable of modifying the dimensions of the formations to best suit the measurements of the charging article such as the aerosol delivery system of Chan.
Regarding Claim 11, Wang discloses a plurality of formations which would provide the air gap.
Regarding Claim 14, Wang discloses the formations are discrete and spaced from each other.
Regarding Claim 15, while Wang does not disclose a convex cross-section, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be capable of modifying the shape of the projection sliders to minimize friction as an obvious modification in the optimization of the shape of the projections.
Regarding Claim 16, Chan discloses a storage area cavity (172, 672) configured to receive the aerosol delivery system.
Regarding Claim 17, Wang discloses the formation is provided in the storage area. These formations would be provided in the area of Chan.
Regarding Claim 18, Chan discloses a port (177, 181) and the port is configured so that the aerosol delivery system is slid away from the port to be disconnected (Paragraph 0076).
Regarding Claim 20, the spacer formation of Wang would be arranged such that the formation is in contact with the rechargeable aerosol delivery system while charging.
Regarding Claim 21, Chan discloses a storage area configured to receive the aerosol delivery system, wherein the port is provided at an end of the storage area.
Regarding Claim 24, Chan discloses the charging case comprises a main body (104) and a lid (102). The main body would comprise the formations of Wang to decrease friction during movement.
Regarding Claim 30, Chan discloses an aerosol delivery system.
Regarding Claim 33, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize and find obvious that the formations of Wang may be positioned so that the port overlies at least a portion of the formations as an obvious modification to ensure proper sliding of the apparatus along the surface.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIDEON R. WEINERTH whose telephone number is (571)270-5121. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-6PM 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, Orlando Aviles can be reached at (571) 270-5531. 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.
/GIDEON R WEINERTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights