CTNF 18/564,165 CTNF 88444 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-5, 7-11, 14-18, 20-22, 24, and 30 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. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 1 recites the limitation " the aerosol provision system " in Lines 2-3 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 07-34-08 Regarding Claims 4, 5, 15, and 18 the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation of less than 20%, and the claim also recites less than 15%, less than 10% and less than 5% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Similar indefinite range issues exist for Claims 8, 9, and 10. All dependent claims are rejected as dependent on a rejected base claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-5, 7-11, 14-18, 20-22, 24 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan (US 2019/0230985) in view of Kaushik (US 2014/0077758) . 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. Kaushik discloses a similar charging device (10) for a portable electronic system (12, 16) where the surface of the charger includes spacers (38) for creating an air gap (40- Paragraphs 0021-0023). Chan and Kaushik are analogous inventions in the art of charging systems for portable devices with rechargeable batteries. 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 charging case of Chan with the formations configured to space the device away from a surface to provide an air gap in order to allow heat generated by the device and charger to dissipate (Paragraph 0021). This airflow assists in maintaining the temperature of the battery below a threshold temperature (Paragraph 0005). Regarding Claim 2, Kaushik discloses the formations are protrusions such as dimples, ribs, studs, posts, balls, squares or any other shape of configuration that will support and maintain spacing between the portable device and the exterior surface of the charger base (Paragraph 0022). Regarding Claim 3, Kaushik discloses the spacers project from a surface of the base. Regarding Claim 4, Kaushik discloses the spacers are ribs. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize ribs being straight or substantially straight. Regarding Claim 5, while the specific design of the spacers in Kaushik, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize and find obvious from the teachings in Kaushik that the number and spacing of the spacers may be optimized for various types of equipment being charged based on the air flow efficiency for heat dissipation (Paragraph 0022). Regarding Claims 7-10 and 15 as discussed above, Kaushik discloses the size, shape, and arrangement of the spacers may be optimized according to the size of the rechargeable device and the air flow efficiency for heat dissipation. Specifically, please note the discussion in Paragraph 0022 which discusses the optimization of factors for different devices and airflows. Based on the explicit teachings of Kaushik, the dimensions, shape, and orientation of the formations may be modified according to known means to optimize the cooling of the stored device. Regarding Claim 11, Kaushik discloses a plurality of formations that provide the air gap. Regarding Claim 14, Kaushik discloses the formations are discrete and spaced from each other. Please see Liu (US 5918186) and Dinkler (US 3745048) Figures 8 and 9 for other known discrete spaced air-gap creating supports and spacers used in rechargeable batteries. Regarding Claim 16, Chan discloses a storage area cavity (172, 672) configured to receive the aerosol delivery system. Regarding Claim 17, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize and find obvious that the spacers of Kaushik would be provided within the storage area of Chan to provide the air gap between the surface and the device. 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 disconnect from the port (Paragraph 0076). Regarding Claim 20, the spacer formation of Kaushik would be arranged such that the formation is in contact with the rechargeable when the aerosol delivery system is connected to the port while it is being charged. 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 22, Chan discloses an angled wall comprising a ramp (as shown below) such that when the component is moved in a direction away from the port a part of the aerosol provision system moves along the ramp. PNG media_image1.png 770 1260 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding Claim 24, Chan discloses the charging case comprises a main body (104) and a lid (102). As taught by Kaushik, the main body may comprises the one or more formations to provide an air gap between the device and the lower surface. Regarding Claim 30, Chan discloses the charging case and a kit of parts comprising the aerosol delivery system . Conclusion 07-96 AIA 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 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/Examiner, Art Unit 3736 Application/Control Number: 18/564,165 Page 2 Art Unit: 3736 Application/Control Number: 18/564,165 Page 3 Art Unit: 3736 Application/Control Number: 18/564,165 Page 4 Art Unit: 3736 Application/Control Number: 18/564,165 Page 5 Art Unit: 3736 Application/Control Number: 18/564,165 Page 6 Art Unit: 3736 Application/Control Number: 18/564,165 Page 7 Art Unit: 3736 Application/Control Number: 18/564,165 Page 8 Art Unit: 3736