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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-6 are pending.
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.
Claim 1 is 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 “quickly” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “quickly” 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.
Claims 2-6, respectively, are similarly rejected by virtue of dependency.
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(s) 1, 2, 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 116035269 (Liu hereinafter) in view of US 20170334605 A1 (Murphy hereinafter) in view of US 20210015155 (Li hereinafter) in view of CN 114176262 (Liao hereinafter) and further in view of EP3037009 (Tuanfang hereinafter).
A machine translation is applied for CN 116035269. All citations to ‘Liu’ refer to the machine translation.
A machine translation is applied for CN 114176262. All citations to ‘Liao’ refer to the machine translation.
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches an electronic cigarette that can be quickly disassembled and assembled (page 2, “Contents of the Invention”), comprising:
a cigarette holder module (300), a battery cell module and a host module (200), wherein the cigarette holder module (300) is provided with the battery cell module and the host module (200);
the battery cell module (200) comprises a battery cell upper cover (219), a shell (218), battery cell (220), and a battery cell lower cover (217c);
the host module comprises a bracket (217), a magnet (270), a conductive pin (260), a scheme board (230), a first Type-C female terminal (250), a base (216), and a button (216d).
Liu does not teach that the shell is stainless-steel or that the battery is a soft pack battery cell; the battery cell module includes a charging board and a second Type-C female terminal; or that the host module includes a first Type-C male terminal which is connected to the second Type-C female terminal.
Murphy teaches an aerosol generating device such as an electronic cigarette with a battery cell module (42, Fig. 7A and [0072]). Murphy teaches that the battery cell module is releasably connectable to the electronic cigarette ([0001]). Murphy teaches that the battery cell module comprises a connector, such as a male USB connector, which is attached to a complementary connector, such as a female USB connector, on the body (12), or host module, of the electronic cigarette (10) ([0072]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the connection device between the battery cell module and the electronic cigarette of Murphy to Liu because Liu is silent as to how the battery cell module and the electronic cigarette are connected, and Murphy provides an option with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results, particularly one which enables the battery cell module to be releasably connectable to the electronic cigarette ([0001]).
Murphy does not expressly teach that the battery cell module has a Type-C female USB connector and that the body, or host module, has a Type-C male USB connector; however, given that one connector needs to be a male and the other connector needs to be a female, there are only two possible options. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent a showing of unexpected results, to have identified the two possible configurations with respect to the Type-C male USB connector and the Type-C female USC connector, and pursued both known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143 I E. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
The combined teaching of Liu and Murphy does not expressly teach that the battery cell module includes a charging board.
Li teaches an aerosol-generating device ([0001]). Li teaches that the power supply device is composed of a charging board and a battery, wherein the charging board can charge the battery to ensure that the power supply device can be used repeatedly ([0055]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a charging board in the battery cell module of modified Liu because the charging board can charge the battery to ensure that the power supply device can be used repeatedly ([0055]).
The combined teaching of Liu, Murphy and Li do not expressly teach that the battery is a soft pack battery cell.
Liao teaches an aerosol generative device (abstract) wherein a soft-pack battery is used for energy storage because it has more universal use due to the size and capacity of the soft package battery and it has better flexibility (page 1, lines 5-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a soft-pack battery in modified Liu because it has better flexibility (Liao, page 1, lines 5-7).
The combined teachings of Liu, Murphy, Li and Liao do not expressly teach that the shell is stainless-steel.
Tuanfang teaches an electronic cigarette (abstract) with a detachable and replaceable battery ([0003]). Tuanfang teaches the battery (24) is inside a stainless steel pipe (25) ([0024]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the battery shell in the battery module of modified Liu stainless steel, as taught by Tuanfang, with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, modified Liu teaches that a top of the stainless-steel shell (218) is provided with the battery cell upper cover (219), the stainless-steel shell (218) is provided with the soft pack battery cell (220), the stainless-steel shell (218) is provided with the charging board (since the charging board is provided with the battery, see rejection of claim 1, above, the charging board is within the shell), and the battery cell lower cover (217c) is provided below the charging board (since for the charging board to be provided with the battery, the charging board is within the stainless-steel shell).
Regarding claim 4, modified Liu teaches that the charging board is provided with the second Type-C female terminal (see rejection of claim 1), wherein both components are within the battery cell module and thus are “provided with”.
Regarding claim 5, Liu teaches that the first Type-C female terminal (250) is provided on the scheme board (230).
Regarding claim 6, modified Liu teaches that the battery cell module and the host module are connected through the first Type-C male terminal and the second Type-C female terminal (see rejection of claim 1, above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
No prior art teaches or makes obvious that the first Type-C male terminal is provided at a top of the scheme board (230), wherein “at a top of the scheme board” is interpreted as “on top of the scheme board.”
Modified Liu teaches that the button (216d) is provided at a bottom of the base (216), the scheme board (230) is provided in the base (216), a bracket (217) is provided above the scheme board (230), the conductive pin (260) and the magnet (270) are provided between the bracket (217) and the scheme board (230).
Modified Liu does not teach or make obvious the location of the first Type-C male terminal with respect to the scheme board within the host module.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YANA B KRINKER whose telephone number is (571)270-7662. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.
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, Philip Louie can be reached at 571-270-1241. 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.
YANA B. KRINKER
Examiner
Art Unit 1755
/YANA B KRINKER/Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights