CTNF 18/564,186 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 2, 4, 7, 10-13, and 49 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. 07-34-08 Regarding Claims 2, 4, 7, 10-13, and 49, 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). Claim 13 recites the limitation "the power connector" in lines 3 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 identifies a “charging connector”. Claim 17 recites “the or each formation”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 15 recites “one or more formations”. 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 1-14, 18, 49, and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan (US 2019/0230985) in view of Haffenden (US 6226189) . Regarding Claim 1, Chan discloses a charging case (100) for an aerosol provision system (101), the charging case comprising a charging connector (106) configured to removably connect to a component of the aerosol provision system and a ramp (as shown below) within the charging cradle slot (172). Chan does not explicitly disclose that the ramp is arranged such that when the component is moved in a direction away from the charging connector a part of the aerosol provision system moves along the ramp. PNG media_image1.png 770 1260 media_image1.png Greyscale Haffenden discloses a similar electronic component comprising an insertable component (40) configured to enter a connector housing (32) with a similar ramp loading region (33, 39) which allows the component to be removed by sliding it up the guide ramp (39 – Col. 5 Lines 1-10). Chan and Haffenden are analogous inventions in the art of hand-connectable and insertable electronic components. 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 ramp of Chan to be used as disclosed in Haffenden in order to provide a guide ramp to gently slide and align the component down into or up out of the recessed compartment (Col. 4 Lines 46-60; Col. 5 Lines 1-10). Regarding Claim 2, Chan discloses a storage area cavity (cradle slot 172) for receiving the aerosol provision system in the charging case. Regarding Claim 3, Chan discloses the ramp is located at an end of the storage area that is distal to the charging connector. Please also note the spacing between the ramp and the device seen in Chan Figure 6A. Similarly, Haffenden discloses the ramp is distal to the connection interface. Regarding Claim 4, Chan discloses the charging case has a first surface and the storage area extends into the first surface wherein the ramp extends to the first surface. Regarding Claim 5, Chan discloses at least a portion of the ramp follows a substantially linear path. Regarding Claim 6, Haffenden discloses at least a portion of the ramp follows a substantially curved path. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that either a linear or curved path would provide predictable results in the function of the ramp. Regarding Claim 7, while Chan and Haffenden do not disclose the dimensions of the ramp, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize and find obvious that the dimensions may be modified to accommodate different aerosol provision systems or charging case dimensions. Please see MPEP 2144.04 IV Section A. Regarding Claim 8, Chan discloses the charging case comprises a body (104) and a lid (102), wherein the body or lid comprises the ramp. Regarding Claims 9 and 10, Chan discloses the entire aerosol delivery system stored in the cradle. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize and find obvious that the whole, part and/or component of the system may be moved up the ramp as disclosed in Haffenden. Regarding Claims 11 and 12, while Chan and Haffenden do not disclose the exact dimensions of the ramp, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize and find obvious that the ramp angle may be varied and optimized for specific aerosol delivery systems or for desired sliding paths. Regarding Claim 13, Haffenden discloses the ramp is arranged such that the component only moves along the ramp once the component has been disconnected from the power connector when the component is spaced from the power connector. Regarding Claim 14, Haffenden discloses the ramp is configured to lift the component of the out of depressed area when the component moves along the ramp. Regarding Claim 18, Haffenden discloses the ramp is arranged such that when the component is slid in the direction away from the charging connector the component moves along the ramp. This would also apply to the structure seen in Chan. Regarding Claim 49, Chan discloses the aerosol provision system comprises a front end that is remote to the power connector when the component is connected to the power connector. While Chan does not disclose the front end is rounded or chamfered, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize and find obvious that the surfaces of the aerosol delivery system may be rounded in order to provide a smoother contacting face against the ramp as an obvious variation in the shape of the system when engaging with the ramp. Regarding Claim 54, Chan discloses a kit of parts comprising a charging case according to claim 1, and an aerosol delivery system . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Modified Chan (US 2019/0230985) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kaushik (US 2014/0077758) . Regarding Claim 15, Modified Chan discloses a charging case (100, 103) for an aerosol delivery system (101, 601). Modified 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). Modified 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 Modified Chan with the formations of Kaushik 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 16, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the formation of Kaushik in the proximity of the ramp disclosed in Chan in order to provide the air gap while the device is charging. Regarding Claim 17, the formations of Kaushik is arranged such that at least one formation is in contact with the device from when the component is disconnected from the power connector until said part of the aerosol delivery system contacts the ramp by placing the formations on the bottom flat surface seen in Chan . 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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736 Application/Control Number: 18/564,186 Page 2 Art Unit: 3736 Application/Control Number: 18/564,186 Page 3 Art Unit: 3736 Application/Control Number: 18/564,186 Page 4 Art Unit: 3736 Application/Control Number: 18/564,186 Page 5 Art Unit: 3736 Application/Control Number: 18/564,186 Page 6 Art Unit: 3736 Application/Control Number: 18/564,186 Page 7 Art Unit: 3736
