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 . Claims 1-15 are pending in the current application.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Specifically, Claim 8 is rejected since each of the terms “HV19” and “HV2350” is not defined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 9-15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouyang in view of Ouyang (U.S. Pat. No. 11,508,536 B2) in view of Cao et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2017/0091436 A1, hereinafter “Cao”).
Specifically, regarding Claim 1, Ouyang discloses an inhalation device (FIGS. 1-3 illustrate a battery assembly used in an electronic cigarette comprising all the necessary parts to form an inhalation device, see also ¶ [0001]; i.e., although the battery assembly shown in FIGS. 1-3 is a subunit of an electronic cigarette, Ouyang nevertheless discloses an electronic cigarette, representing an inhaler) with a housing (11, 121, 13; FIG. 1) and at least one button (50; FIGS. 1, 2, and 3) provided in an opening (112; FIG. 3) of the housing (11, 121, 13), wherein the at least one button (50) is attached to the housing (11, 121, 13) and/or an interior of the device by an elastic material (53) inside of the housing (11, 121, 13).
Ouyang does not disclose (i) the claimed housing at least partially made of a hard material, and (ii) and at least partially made of a material substantially as hard as that of the housing or harder. However, Cao discloses (i) a housing at least partially made of a hard material (¶ [0060]; e.g., a plastic), and (ii) and at least partially made of a material substantially as hard as that of the housing (¶ [0064]; e.g., a metal) or harder.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Cao with those of Ouyang to increase actuation area (e.g., a button cap) durability.
Regarding Claim 4, Ouyang discloses that the elastic material (53) is made of rubber and/or silicone (col. 5, ll. 45-50).
Regarding Claim 5, Ouyang discloses that the housing (11, 121, 13) has at least one locally thinned area configured to allow light transmission (col. 8, ll. 5-7).
Regarding Claim 9, Ouyang discloses that the housing (11, 121, 13) has at least one step (STP; FIG. 2, a portion of which is reproduced and annotated below) preventing the at least one button (50) from extending beyond an outer surface of the housing (11, 121, 13).
PNG
media_image1.png
650
1054
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 10, 13, and 15, include language similar to that of Claims 1, 5, and 9, respectively, and are rejected for reasons at least similar to those discussed above.
Regarding each of Claims 11, 12, and 14, the method limitations have been given little patentable weight since the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 2, 3, and 7, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouyang.
Ouyang discloses substantially all of the limitations of the present invention but does not disclose the claimed material. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize such materials to increase product durability and life since it has been held to be within the general ordinary skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 U.S.P.Q. 416.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ouyang in view of Ferrie et al. (European Pat. No. EP 3711571 A1, hereinafter “Ferrie”).
Ouyang discloses substantially all of the limitations of the present invention but does not disclose the claimed cover. However, Ferrie discloses a housing that has a removable front cover, in which the at least one button is provided (¶ [0135]; FIG. 3).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ferrie with those of Ouyang to enable users to customize an appearance and feel of the device according to personal preference.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY R. JIMENEZ whose telephone number is 313-446-6518. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 1030am - 9pm.
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, Renee Luebke, can be reached at (571) 272-2009. 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.
/ANTHONY R JIMENEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights