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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (Claims 1-4, 6-15) in the reply filed on 7/30/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the newly amended independent claims overcome the prior art applied such that the claims have unity. This is not found persuasive because the shared technical features are found obvious over Deng1 (CN209950396U) in view of Deng2 (CN209269956U), wherein the combination suggests a groove around a periphery of the through-hole and the button it fixed on the groove. See rejections below for details.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 14-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7/30/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 1/11/2024, 9/12/2024, 2/27/2025, 2/13/2026 have been considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 4 appears to include an inadvertent inclusion of a mouse pointer/cursor in the center of the figure, presumably from a screenshot of the drafting software. This Figure should be amended to remove the pointer/cursor from the Figure as it is not needed to explain the invention and introduces confusion about what this mouse pointer/cursor is in relation to the claimed method for assembling an aerosol-generating device. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Pg. 12 line 28 of the instant specification refers to “outer mold 38”. However, the outer mold is referred to as 36 and the inner mold as 38 in lines 15-23. Applicant is asked to amend and clarify. It appears that line 28 should instead read "the outer mold 36".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 3 should read “providing an outer shell for the aerosol-generating device” because this is introduced in line 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2, 4, 7, 10 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 2 recites “…the button is fixed onto the outer shell by a moulding process, preferably an injection overmoulding process, more preferably a plastic injection overmoulding process”. By use of the phrase “preferably” and “more preferably”, it is not clear whether the associated limitations are being explicitly required in the claim or whether these are optional limitations that are not required. Applicant is asked to amend and clarify without the addition of new matter. Claim 4 is rejected for relying upon a rejected claim. The claim will be examined as if both of the “preferably” limitations are not required to meet the claim language.
The term “about” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” 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 will be examined as if the word about is deleted.
Claim 10 recites “preferably, wherein one or both of the outer shell comprises a metal”. There is only introduced a single outer shell, and it is not clear what “both of the outer shell’ would be referring to when there is only a single outer shell introduced. Applicant is asked to amend and clarify without the addition of new matter. The claim will be examined such that this “preferably” limitation requires the outer shell to comprise a metal.
Claim 10 recites “…comprise different materials, preferably, wherein one or both of the outer shell comprises a metal, preferably aluminum, and the button comprises plastics, preferably thermoplastic polyurethane. By use of the phrase “preferably” and “more preferably”, it is not clear whether the associated limitations are being explicitly required in the claim or whether these are optional limitations that are not required. Applicant is asked to amend and clarify without the addition of new matter. The claim will be examined as if the “preferably” limitations are not required to meet the claim language, such that the outer shell and button comprise different materials.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 9, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng1 (CN209950396U) in view of Deng2 (CN209269956U).
Regarding claim 1, Deng1 teaches a method for assembling an aerosol-generating device (see Figs. 1-2, depicting the aerosol generating-device completed and broken down to its different components), comprising the steps of:
Providing an outer shell for the aerosol-generating device (rod housing “5”, as in Figs. 1-2) being configured to internally receive a frame assembly comprising a push-activated switch (the frame assembly may be considered to be the interface bracket 2 and circuit board 3 which are all connected to each other and located internally of the rod housing [Figs. 1-2, pg. 3-4 of machine translation]. The push-activated switch being considered to be the key press “61” of the key assembly “6” which is set on the circuit board such that it is pressed via the key cap “62” which is considered the button [Figs. 1-3, pgs. 3-4 of machine translation]),
Providing a through-hole on a wall of the outer shell (hole “51” as in Fig. 2 is located in the outer shell and is for the key assembly to be located [Pg. 3 of machine translation]),
Fixing a button onto the outer shell to cover the through-hole (see Figs. 1-3, wherein the key assembly is fixed into the position “51” of the outer shell, such that the key assembly is located in the through-hole and is then positioned to be pressed),
Inserting the frame assembly into the outer shell such that the button overlays the push-activated switch (see Figs. 2-3, wherein the frame assembly is clearly inserted inside of the rod housing “5” which is the outer portion of the device. And as in Fig. 3, the key-cap “62” overlays the key-press “61” in the position “51” of the outer shell such that the button presses down on the key press).
Deng1 does not explicitly disclose providing a groove on an outside of the shell around a periphery of the through-hole wherein the button is fixed onto the groove. However, such grooves are known within the art for affixing structures to each other. Deng2, for example, teaches an electronic handheld device for oral use [Figs. 1-2]. The device includes a handle “1” (akin to outer shell), a button elastic pad “2”, and an injection groove “3” which is formed on the outer wall of the handle “1” [Figs. 1-2, pgs. 3-4 of machine translation]. The injection groove “3” formed on the outer wall is where the key resilient pad “2” is injection formed, which fills in so as to tightly match with the injection groove “3” such that they are integrally formed [pgs. 3-4 of machine translation]. As in Fig. 2 of Deng2, the injection groove “3” extends around an entire periphery of the through hole “4”.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the device of Deng1 to have the injection groove surrounding the through-hole and injection molded button as suggested by Deng2. One would have been motivated so as to have the button/handle formed with no gaps, so as to keep out any residue and to ensure that the button is adhered and preventing falling off [pgs. 3-4 of machine translation]. Where Deng1 is interested in affixing structures so as to prevent leakage, improve waterproofing from outside, etc., [pg. 3-4 of machine translation], Deng2 is similarly tied to ensuring foreign substances does not enter the device and to ensure the button stays affixed [pgs. 3-4 of machine translation], such that Deng2 is clearly of pertinent art to that of Deng1 and of the instant application. Further, Deng2 is similarly tied to a handheld electronic device which enters a user’s mouth for use, such that there are numerous similarities between the structures of Deng1 and Deng2.
Regarding claim 2, modified Deng1 makes obvious a method wherein the button is fixed onto the outer shell by a molding process (Deng1 does not explicitly have the button fixed to the outer shell via a molding process. However, Deng2 discloses an electronic device for oral use which includes a handle “1” (akin to outer shell), a button elastic pad “2”, and an injection groove “3” which is formed on the outer wall of the handle “1” [Figs. 1-2, pgs. 3-4 of machine translation]. The injection groove “3” formed on the outer wall is where the key resilient pad “2” is injection formed, which fills in so as to tightly match with the injection groove “3” such that they are integrally formed [pgs. 3-4 of machine translation]. A key pad “5” covers the button elastic pad “2”, wherein “5” is also made by injection molding such that “2” and “5” are integrally connected [pg. 4 of machine translation], such that the button would clearly be fixed to the shell by a molding process. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the device of Deng1 so as to have the button by injection molded as suggested by the device of Deng2. One would have been motivated so as to ensure that the button stays attached to the main body, and to ensure water/debris does not enter the device [Deng2, pgs. 3-4 of machine translation]. And utilizing a molding process would have been a simple substitution of one known fixing process for that of another known process, with the expected result of molding the button being to ensure the button stays affixed and to ensure water/debris does not enter the device).
Regarding claim 3, modified Deng1 makes obvious a method wherein the step of fixing the button onto the outer shell is carried out before the step of inserting the frame assembly into the outer shell (Deng1 teaches that the key pad assembly is installed at the position of the hole “51” in the outer shell, and the interface bracket is then fixed to the housing [pgs. 2-4 of machine translation]. Additionally, see In reBurhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In reGibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious).
Regarding claim 6, modified Deng1 makes obvious the method wherein a corrugated retaining structure is provided on the groove before fixing the button onto the groove (Deng2 suggests that multiple through holes “4” may be provided onto the groove, so as to increase the contact between the button elastic pad “2” and the injection groove “3”, to match them more tightly and to prevent falling off [pgs. 3-4 of machine translation]. When these holes are provided, it would be considered that the structure is a “corrugated retaining structure” under the broadest reasonable interpretation thereof, noting that a specific definition of corrugated has not been defined. As there are holes present on the injection groove, the structure would thus have alternating periods of holes and non-hole structure, which would thus form a corrugated/wave-like pattern under the broadest reasonable interpretation thereof. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the structure of Deng1 to include multiple through holes “4” on the injection groove as suggested by Deng2. One would have been motivated so as to increase the contact between the button and the injection groove so as to ensure that the button stays attached and does not fall off [pgs. 3-4 of machine translation]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Deng1 makes obvious a pitch pattern comprising a grid shape of squared pitches of 0.2mm in side length separated by grooves of 0.03mm in depth (as in the rejection of claim 6 above, the multiple through holes are considered to form the corrugated retaining structure. There would naturally thus be provided a pitch pattern between where there is a higher thickness portion and a lower thickness portion [Deng2, Fig. 2]. Regarding having the pitches be squared, it is noted that the courts have found that the configuration of shape was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. B. Applicant’s specification merely states that the corrugated structure is beneficial but does not specifically address the shape of the pitches. And regarding the side length/depth of the corrugated structure, Deng2 discloses that the hole structure is present so as to balance the contact area with matching the button “2” and injection groove “3” together to prevent the falling off thereof [pg. 3-4 of machine translation]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the length/depth of the pitch/grooves of the corrugated structure through routine optimization so as to balance the contact area and improved connection between these structures, since “it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).” As such, without showing unexpected results, the interval cannot be considered critical. Applicant provides no evidence of criticality through their specification as to these ranges).
Regarding claim 9, modified Deng1 makes obvious a step of applying an adhesive onto the corrugated retaining structure before fixing the button (Deng2 suggests that the button may be connected to the handle with a waterproof glue so as to improve the connection [pgs. 3-4 of machine translation]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply adhesive for the same rationale, and this would necessarily be done before the button is fixed or else the adhesive would have no effect).
Regarding claim 12, modified Deng1 makes obvious the button is flush with the wall of the outer shell apparat from a central bump at an outer surface of the outer shell (as in Figs. 1-2 of Deng2 for example, the perimeter of the key panel/elastic pad are clearly made to be substantially flush with the outer shell of the housing “1”. The button that is located within this component is clearly shown to extend further outwards as in Figs. 1-2, such that it would be a central bump that would allow for easy pressing of the button).
Regarding claim 13, modified Deng1 makes obvious a method wherein the button is fixed to cover the through-hole so as to form a water-tight seal according to IPX7 (as in the rejection of claim 1 above, the button clearly is formed to cover the through-hole. And as in Deng1, the design leads to a waterproofing effect [pgs. 2-3 of machine translation], and further Deng2 teaches that the attachment of the key elastic pad/key panel to the handle 1 prevents dirt from entering and ensures that it is waterproof [pg. 4 of machine translation], such that it would reasonably be considered that the device was IPX7 since it is designed to be waterproof and prevent dirt from entering at this location).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng1 (CN209950396U) in view of Deng2 (CN209269956U), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Schaefer (DE10341141A1, of record) or Lechner (NPL: “Basics of Plastic Injection Molding”).
Regarding claim 4, modified Deng1 makes obvious a method for an aerosol-generating device which utilizes injection molding to form the button to the main body/housing of the device. Deng1 does not explicitly disclose having an outer/inner mold to form the button. However, such types of structures are incredibly common within the art of injection molding. Schaefer, for example, teaches a housing for small electrical appliances which may be used orally [title, abstract], such that Schaefer’s appliance would be pertinent to that of Deng1 and Deng2. Schaefer teaches an injection molding process, wherein a plastic is sprayed via a two-component injection process, so that plastic on both ends are received to form the structure and firmly connect the different components [pgs. 4-5 of machine translation], wherein the formation of the membrane “36” leads to enabling of the pressing of the interior switch “12”. As this is a two-component injection process which is filling in the opening “11” as shown in Fig. 1, this means that one component would be an inner mold and the other would be an outer mold on opposite sides of the outer shell. The material that is injected would clearly be molten material because this is injection molded. And as there would necessarily be channel formed in the mold for the molten material to travel to form the button, it would have been obvious to try both of the two possibilities (having the channels in an inner mold or outer mold) and the person of ordinary skill in the art would have landed upon the channels in the inner mold. This would be choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions (that being having the channels formed in an inner or outer mold for the injection molding process), and this would lead to a reasonable expectation of success of having the injection molding completed in the desired manner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been obvious to utilize the two-part injection molding process as detailed in Schaefer. One would have been motivated to seal the opening in forming the button/switch so that it is integrally formed so that there is no leakage [pgs. 2-4 of machine translation].
In the alternate, Lechner teaches basic principles regarding injection molding. As in pg. 2, a standard injection molding process would include two molds which are pressed together, wherein the molten materials enters the cavity formed in between the two molds to form the desired structure. As in pg. 2, the green mold is considered one of the molds, and the purple mold is considered the other half. There is clearly formed a channel in the purple mold such that molten material is able to enter the cavity formed between the two molds. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Deng1 to have the outer/inner mold and channels as suggested by Lechner. One would have been motivated so as to obtain the actual aerosol device by utilizing injection molding fundamentals so as to produce the required button. And as the injection mold would have two molds, one would be the outer and the other would be the inner molds when forming the button to connect with the groove as in Deng2. And as there would necessarily be channel formed in the mold for the molten material to travel to form the button, it would have been obvious to try both of the two possibilities (having the channels in an inner mold or outer mold) and the person of ordinary skill in the art would have landed upon the channels in the inner mold. This would be choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions (that being having the channels formed in an inner or outer mold for the injection molding process), and this would lead to a reasonable expectation of success of having the injection molding completed in the desired manner.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng1 (CN209950396U) in view of Deng2 (CN209269956U), as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Darin (US2017/0224142A1).
Regarding claim 8, Deng does not specifically state that laser engraving is used to provide the corrugated retaining structure. However, laser engraving is well known in the art to provide similar types of rough/corrugated structures. Darin, for example, teaches that a surface with micro-features [see Figs. 2-8 for example] may be formed through laser engraving [0016, 0018, 0066]. As Deng is silent as to how its corrugated structure is formed, one would have found it obvious to utilize a laser engraving process so as to form the necessary holes in Deng2. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on suitability for its intended use support prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045)". See MPEP 2144.07).
In the alternate, claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng1 (CN209950396U) in view of Deng2 (CN209269956U), as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Darin (US2017/0224142A1).
In the alternate regarding claim 6, Deng2 suggests that multiple through holes “4” may be provided onto the groove, so as to increase the contact between the button elastic pad “2” and the injection groove “3”, to match them more tightly and to prevent falling off [pgs. 3-4 of machine translation]. Therefore, Deng2 clearly suggests that there may be a structure so as to better ensure that the button and groove are affixed to each other caused by the surface qualities thereof. Darin, for example, is similarly tied to details of providing micro-structures surfaces which may be applied to a variety of types of materials [0016] and types of materials includes appliances, containers, pipes, and the like [0003], wherein these micro-structures may reduce heat transfer and prevent condensation, and improved tactile feel [0003]. The teachings of Darin would therefore clearly be pertinent to that of Deng1/Deng2, such that preventing condensation/heat transfer would be beneficial for the structures of the aerosol-generating device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious so as to apply these micro-structures to the device of Deng1, in order to reduce heat transfer and prevent condensation (affecting the leak properties during use) [Darin, 0003], and with an expectation of improved fixing of the button to the outer shell based upon the teachings of Deng2 [pgs. 3-4 of machine translation].
Regarding claim 7, modified Deng1 suggests a method wherein the corrugated structure comprises a pitch pattern with squared pitches of 0.2mm and depth of 0.03mm (Darin suggests a wide variety of micro-structure surfaces may yield beneficial properties which include square type pitches [see Figs. 3-12]. For example, an outer diameter may have a dimension from 0.1-0.3mm [0059], and a height of 0.025-0.075mm which may be considered to be a groove between each protruding structure [0059]. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Figs. 10-11 clearly depict a grid shape with square pitches between each protuberance).
Regarding claim 8, modified Deng1 suggests the corrugated retaining structure is provided by a laser engraving process (Darin teaches that a surface with micro-features [see Figs. 2-8 for example] may be formed through laser engraving [0016, 0018, 0066]. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on suitability for its intended use support prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045)". See MPEP 2144.07)).
Regarding claim 9, modified Deng1 makes obvious a step of applying an adhesive onto the corrugated retaining structure before fixing the button (Deng2 suggests that the button may be connected to the handle with a waterproof glue so as to improve the connection [pgs. 3-4 of machine translation]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply adhesive for the same rationale, and this would necessarily be done before the button is fixed or else the adhesive would have no effect).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng1 (CN209950396U) in view of Deng2 (CN209269956U), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gao (EP3130238A1).
Regarding claim 10, Deng1 does not explicitly give the materials of the outer shell and the button. However, it is very common in the art of vapes to use different materials for the outer shell and the user-activated button because they have different uses and requirements. Gao, for example, teaches that a material of the power switch may be a plastic material produced by injection molding [0020]. Materials for the shell may include metal [0020]. As Deng1 is silent as to the materials used, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize common materials within the art such as those suggested by Gao. One would have been motivated so as to provide materials to create a working aerosol-generating device. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on suitability for its intended use support prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045)". See MPEP 2144.07. As such, it would have been obvious to have a button made of plastic and a shell made of metal.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng1 (CN209950396U) in view of Deng2 (CN209269956U), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schaefer (DE10341141A1, of record).
Regarding claim 11, Schaefer teaches a housing for small electrical appliances which may be used orally [title, abstract], such that Schaefer’s appliance would be pertinent to that of Deng1 and Deng2. Schaefer teaches an injection molding process, wherein a plastic is sprayed via a two-component injection process, so that plastic on both ends are received to form the structure and firmly connect the different components [pgs. 4-5 of machine translation], wherein the formation of the membrane “36” leads to enabling of the pressing of the interior switch “12”. The injection molding is down such that an inner surface of the handle housing is flush with the plastic [see Fig. 5, pg. 3 of machine translation]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the molding of Deng1 so as to have the inner surface of the housing flush with the injection molded button. One would have been motivated so as to achieve a particularly shapely and aesthetically pleasing structure [pg. 3 of machine translation]. And as an inner surface of the housing would be flush, the frame assembly would clearly have a smooth insertion as no portion extends overly into the interior of the housing).
Regarding claim 12, Schaefer, as above, teaches a housing which has injection molding so as to form a membrane “36” of plastic which is injected molded to form an outside of the housing to enable pressing of a switch “12” [see Figs. 5-8]. The injection molded membrane “36” is flush with an outer surface of the housing [Figs. 5-6], and it further includes a central bump in the center of this portion “37” which is an operation summit. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the central bump “37” of Schaefer to that of Deng1, and one would have been motivated so as to facilitate pressing of the switch [pgs. 4-5 of machine translation], which would also necessitate a tactile haptic feedback given the identical structure to that of the instant application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS F SCHNEIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-4857. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/T.F.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights