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 without traverse of group I, species B, claims 1, 3, 5-6, 11-16 and 18-19 in the reply filed on 8/5/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 2, 4, 7-10, 35 and 37 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/5/2026.
Specification
The use of the term Drambuie (page 6, line 23), which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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 3 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.
Regarding claim 3, it is unclear what is required by the limitation “wherein the indication comprises the location of the electrical connection port.” Does this mean that the indication is provided when the electrical connection port moves, that the indication is located at the electrical connection port, or that the indication provides information to a user regarding the location of the electrical connection port? The claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it required the indication to be located at the electrical connection port.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-6, 11, 13-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nelson (US 7,186,958).
Regarding claim 1, Nelson discloses a volatilizing device that causes a plant material to become volatile (column 1, lines 65-67, column 2, lines 1-4), which is considered to indicate that the device generates an aerosol. The device has a display that supports Braille in the form of a plurality of small dots, disks, or balls that communicate information to a blind person (column 5, lines 33-42, figure 1, reference numeral 114), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a tactile indicator. The display may display information when the device needs recharging (column 11, lines 46-55).
Regarding claim 5, Nelson discloses that the Braille components protrude variably to communicate information (column 5, liens 33-42), indicating that they move.
Regarding claim 6, Nelson discloses that the controller monitors the battery and sends a signal to the display to display information indicating that device needs to be charged (column 11, lines 46-55), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a first configuration. The controller also controls the display to indicate that the device is charging (column 11, lines 54-62), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a second configuration since the Braille display must change to indicate the difference between the two device functions. The signal sent by controller to indicate that the device is charging is considered to meet the claim limitation of a first signal.
Regarding claim 11, Nelson discloses that the controller monitors the battery and sends a signal to the display to display information indicating that device needs to be charged (column 11, lines 46-55), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a second configuration. The controller also controls the display to indicate that the device is charging (column 11, lines 54-62), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a third configuration since the Braille display must change to indicate the difference between the two device functions. The signal sent by controller to indicate that the device is charging is considered to meet the claim limitation of a second signal.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Nelson discloses that the display is located on the outside of the device (figure 1, reference numeral 114).
Regarding claim 16, the balls of Nelson are considered to meet the claim limitation of projections.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Da Silva (BR 202019027079, machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claim 1, Da Silva discloses an atomizer for perfumes (figure 1, reference numeral 1) that has a liquid outlet nozzle (paragraph 15, figure 1, reference numeral 4), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an aerosol generating device. A Braille identification is located on the nozzle (paragraph 15, figure 1, reference numeral 5), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a tactile indicator.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zominy (US 12,133,554).
Regarding claim 1, Zominy discloses a personal vaporizing device (abstract) that vaporizes liquid (column 7, lines 52-67, column 8, lines 1-3), which is considered to indicate that the device forms an aerosol. The system has a user output device that is controlled alert a user to various device states (column 4, lines 15-21), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an operation. The user output device is refreshable Braille display (column 12, lines 24-31), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a tactile indicator.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (US 7,186,958) in view of Illidge (US 12,213,530).
Regarding claim 3, Nelson discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Nelson additionally discloses that the device is powered by a rechargeable battery (column 8, lines 35-47). Nelson does not explicitly disclose (a) the battery being recharged using a USB port and (b) the display being located at the USB port.
Regarding (a), Illidge teaches a smoking substitute apparatus (abstract) having a power source in the form of a rechargeable battery that is recharged through a connector in the form of a USB port (column 26, lines 45-64), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an electrical connection port.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Nelson with the USB port of Illidge. One would have been motivated to do so since Illidge teaches a suitable connection for recharging an electronic cigarette battery. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2143, A.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Da Silva (BR 202019027079, machine translation relied upon) in view of Whyles (GB 2263269).
Regarding claim 12, Da Silva discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Da Silva does not explicitly teach the Braille being attached using an adhesive.
Whyles teaches Braille stickers that are made from a transparent and self-adhesive material that can be used on home products to assist blind individuals (abstract).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the self-adhesive stickers to mark the bottle of Da Silva. One would have been motivated to do so since Whyles teaches stickers having Braille that are attached to objects to identify the objects. Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See MPEP § 2143, D.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zominy (US 12,133,554).
Regarding claim 15, Zominy discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Zominy additionally discloses that the device has a mouthpiece (column 7, lines 8-21, figure 2, reference numeral 2600). Zominy does not explicitly disclose the user output device located on the mouthpiece.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the user output device of Zominy at the mouthpiece. One would have been motivated to do so since there is no evidence that the specific location of the user output device is critical. Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI C.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu (US 9,132,248) in view of Nelson (US 7,186,958).
Regarding claim 18, Qiu discloses a suction type portable atomizer having a casing (figure 1, reference numeral 10) and a liquid storage case (column 3, lines 62-67, column 4, lines 1-9, figure 1, reference numeral 20) that are mated together (column 4, lines 21-40), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a cartridge. The liquid storage case connects to an atomizing assembly (figure 1, reference numeral 30) that punctures a liquid isolating membrane (figure 1, reference numeral 23) of the liquid storage case (column 5, lines 5-28). The atomizing assembly is considered to meet the claim limitation of an aerosol provision device. Qiu does not explicitly disclose a tactile indicator.
Nelson teaches a volatilizing device that causes a plant material to become volatile (column 1, lines 65-67, column 2, lines 1-4), which is considered to indicate that the device generates an aerosol. The device has a display that supports Braille in the form of a plurality of small dots, disks, or balls that communicate information to a blind person (column 5, lines 33-42, figure 1, reference numeral 114), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a tactile indicator. The display may display information when the device needs recharging (column 11, lines 46-55).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Qiu with the display of Nelson. One would have been motivated to do so since Nelson teaches a display that enables the device to communicate with a blind person.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu (US 9,132,248) in view of Nelson (US 7,186,958) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sur (US 10,231,485).
Regarding claim 19, modified Qiu teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Qiu additionally discloses that the device has a suction nozzle (abstract), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a mouthpiece. Modified Qiu does not explicitly teach (a) the display being located on the casing and (b) the display being on a surface of the mouthpiece.
Regarding (a), Sur teaches an aerosol delivery device (abstract) having a display that is located either on a control component (column 7, lines 56-67, column 8, lines 1-11) or a display (column 8, lines 45-58).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the display of modified Qiu on the casing of modified Qiu. One would have been motivated to do so since Sur teaches that a display can be located on either the body or cartridge of an aerosol delivery device.
Regarding (b), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the display of modified Qiu at the suction nozzle of modified Qiu. Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI C.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSSELL E SPARKS whose telephone number is (571)270-1426. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5 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, 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.
/RUSSELL E SPARKS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights