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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
● claim 4, “the” should be inserted after “disengage” (Ln9); and
● claim 15, “a” (Ln4) should be amended to “the”.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
●caps 120
●distal ends 114
●gap 128.
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. 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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute
for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional
language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient
structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
●first cleaning head claims 1 and 15
●second cleaning head claims 1, 7, and 15
●opening tab claims 1 and 15
●pivot member claim 11
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 11-13 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 11 is considered to be indefinite in that the term “preferred” (Ln5) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term 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.
Claim 11 is considered to be indefinite in that the term “non-preferred” (Ln7) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term 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.
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, 7-9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Plotka (US 20200078151 A1).
Claims 1, 5, and 14: Plotka teaches a tool (Fig1), the tool comprising:
●cleaning head 218 (para25) extending along a longitudinal axis of the tool between a proximal end and a distal end (Fig2)
●cleaning head 214/216 (para26) arranged back-to-back with cleaning head 218 for scraping (Fig2)
●a tool base arranged between cleaning heads 218 and 214/216 with the tool base comprising structural features between supports 220 and 222 (paras25-26) (Fig2)
●a housing comprising (paras 22-25)
●cap 102 configured to engage with the tool base to house cleaning head 218
●cap 106 configured to engage with the tool base to house cleaning head 214/216
●an opening tab, for a snap fit connection (i.e. detents/extensions or latch release) extending from both the tool base and extending from caps 102/106 and configured to selectively disengage cap 102 or cap 106 from the tool base based on a user interaction with the opening tab (paras36-38).
The claim limitation of “for cleaning an aerosol-generating device having a heating chamber” refers to an intended use of the claimed tool and is not considered to be a structural limitation of the claimed tool. Other locations within reference may be included in the above recited locations (paragraphs, drawing, abstract, claims) to demonstrate further the features in the reference as claimed in the instant claims.
With respect to claimed cleaning heads and the opening tab, because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The instant specification teaches structures for these pieces. Plotka teaches structures for the same pieces. Plotka is thus considered to meet these limitations of the claim.
Claim 7: Plotka teaches the tool of claim 1, wherein cleaning head 214/216 is detachable from the tool base (para26).
With respect to claimed cleaning head, because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The instant specification teaches a structure for this piece. Plotka teaches a structure for the same piece. Plotka is thus considered to meet this limitation of the claim.
Claim 8: Plotka teaches the tool of claim 1, wherein one of the cleaning heads comprises elongate member 214 extending from the tool base (elongate member 214 comprising a distal end distal from the tool base) and elongated member 216 extending from the tool base (elongate member 216 comprising a distal end distal from the tool base). A slot is defined between the elongate members 214 and 216 (para26) (Fig2).
Claim 9: Plotka teaches the tool of claim 8, further comprising tubular member 222 surrounding at least a portion of elongate members 214 and 216 (para26).
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plotka, as applied to claims 1, 5, 7-9, and 14 above, and further in view of Yilmaz (WO 2013/126029 A1).
Claim 10: Plotka teaches the tool of claim 9. Plotka does not teach that tubular member 222 comprises two semi-cylindrical shells coupled to one another.
However, a housing tube comprising two semi-cylindrical shells coupled to one another is conventional and well-known in the art, as illustrated by Yilmaz in Figure 1. Yilmaz illustrates two brushes 6 within a tubular member comprising two semi-cylindrical shells coupled to each other (pg3 Ln21 to pg5).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have provided in Plotka that tubular member 222 comprises two semi-cylindrical shells couple to one another as is conventional and well-known in the art – and also for the benefits provided therein such as – for example – ease of separation of the semi-cylindrical shells for cleaning.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 6 are 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.
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objection as set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claim 2, the closest prior art of record to Plotka teaches that each cap 102 and 106 comprise a notch (para22). However, Plotka alone or in combination with the other prior art of record does not teach or suggest that the opening tab extends through the notch of cap 201 when cap 102 is engaged with the tool base and through the notch of cap 106 when cap 106 is engaged with the tool base in that the notches are intended as detents and not openings.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claim 3, the closest prior art of record to Plotka alone or in combination with the other prior art of record does not teach or suggest that the opening tab is configured to protrude over an edge surface of cap 102 when the cap 102 is engaged with the tool base and to protrude over an edge surface of the cap 106 when cap 106 is engaged with the tool base in that caps 102 and 106 are structured to protrude over an edge of the tool base.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claim 4, the closest prior art of record to Plotka alone or in combination with the other prior art of record does not teach or suggest that the opening tab comprises: a first surface arranged perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the tool; and a second surface arranged perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the tool and opposite the first surface, wherein the opening tab is configured to: disengage cap 102 from the tool base when pressure is applied to the second surface, and disengage cap 106 from the tool base when pressure is applied to the first surface.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claim 6, the closest prior art of record to Plotka alone or in combination with the other prior art of record does not teach or suggest that the opening tab is configured to elastically flex within a range in response to pressure exerted on opening tab in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the tool, the range of the flex configured to allow the opening tab to exert pressure on the first cap or the second cap sufficient to disengage cap 102 or cap 106 from the tool base.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claim 11, the closest prior art of record to Plotka, alone or in combination with the other prior art of record, does not teach or suggest that cleaning head 214/216 further comprises one or more pivot members arranged between the tool base and both the distal end of elongate member 214 and the distal end of elongate member 216, wherein the one or more pivot members is configured to allow pivoting of elongate member 214 and elongate member 216 in a direction transverse to the extension of elongate member 214 and wherein the one or more pivot members is configured to limit pivoting the elongate member 214 and elongate member 216 in a second direction in that elongated members 214 and 216 are structured, with other features of the tool, to be replaceable with each other (para26).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claim 15, the closest prior art of record to Plotka, alone or in combination with the other prior art of record, does not teach or suggest a system comprising: an aerosol-generating device comprising a heating chamber and a heating blade with a substantially rectangular cross section extending into the heating chamber from a bottom chamber wall of the heating chamber; and a tool for cleaning the aerosol-generating device according to claim 1.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Prior art of Record
The list of prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
●“Make My Vape” teaches cleaning an electronic vaping device using a toothbrush.
●Ruscio (WO2019/121808) teaches cleaning an electronic vaping device using a brush.
●JP3215374 teach a clean tool for a smoking tool having a brush at one end and a
scraper at another end.
●Tong teaches an electronic cigarette cleaner with two centered and encased brushes.
●No-Chang teaches a toothbrush having a cleaning head at both ends where one of the
cleaning heads is pivotal.
●Meyer teaches a double headed toothbrush having a cap over both heads.
●Gao teaches a double headed cleaning tool to clean flasks.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDA GRAY whose telephone number is (571) 272-5778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9 AM to 5:30 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, Phil Tucker can be reached at (571) 272-1095. 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.
/LINDA L GRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights