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 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 10-13 and 26 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.
Regarding claim 10, it is unclear whether the claim further limits or impermissibly broadens claim 9. Claim 9 requires that the display element represent a set mode from a plurality of modes. Are the modes of the instant claim already included in the plurality of modes of claim 9? If so, the instant claim does not further limit claim 9. If the modes of the instant claim are not included in claim 9, then the instant claim impermissibly broadens claim 9. In either case the claim does not comply with the statutory requirements. Nowhere does the instant claim actually require the device to operate according to the claimed first or second modes. The claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the claim will be interpreted as if it did not limit claim 9. Claims 11-13 and 26 are indefinite by dependence.
Regarding claim 12, the claim requires heating of the first aerosol source by the first heater to take precedence over heating of the second aerosol source by the second heater. However, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of taking precedence are. Does that require the first heater to heat before the second heater? Does it require the first heater to receive more power than the second heater? Does it require using only the first heater if the battery voltage falls below a first threshold? The claim is indefinite since it is unclear what operations are required to take precedence. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it did not limit claim 10.
Regarding claim 13, the instant claim requires circuitry that switches between the first and second modes in response to user operation. However, it is unclear whether the device is required to operate in the first and second modes at all, since none of claims 9, 10 and 13 require to operate according to those modes, and therefore what would change when such a “switch” occurs. The claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the claim will be interpreted as if it required a button that could be used to switch the device between heating modes.
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.
Claims 9-15, 18, 24 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 12,220,001) in view of Lamb (US 2017/0251724) and Sebastian (US 11,083,215) and Sayed (US 2022/0183391).
Regarding claims 9-10 and 12, Park discloses an aerosol generating device (abstract) having a first cartridge (figure 2, reference numeral 22) having a first material (figure 2, reference numeral 221) and a first heater heating the first material (column 6, lines 18-19, figure 2, reference numeral 222). The first material is a solid material (column 6, lines 20-28). The device also contains a second cartridge (figure 2, reference numeral 23) that contains a second material (figure 2, reference numeral 231) and a second heater that heats the second material (column 7, lines 25-27, figure 2, reference numeral 232). The second material is a liquid material (column 7, lines 28-33). The heaters are powered by a battery (column 8, lines 33-36, figure 2, reference numeral 25). The device has a user interface in the form of a display (column 4, lines 55-67). Park does not explicitly disclose (a) the display displaying the remaining amount of an aerosol source and the battery, (b) the display displaying information regarding heating and (c) the display having separate display elements.
Regarding (a), Lamb teaches an aerosol delivery device having a display that displays information such as a remaining amount of aerosol precursor composition or a charge of a power source of the heating element (abstract). Lamb additionally teaches that this display provides feedback to a user so that a user can anticipate needing to make changes to the device [0003].
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 Park with the displaying of Lamb. One would have been motivated to do so since Lamb teaches displaying information so that a user can anticipate device needs.
Regarding (b), Sebastian teaches a heat not burn tobacco aerosol source member (abstract) having an LED indicator that indicates the status of the device heaters by using various kinds of indicator light functions to indicate different statuses of the device (column 10, lines 16-24), which must include at least one of the claimed plurality of modes.
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 display of Park with the display of the status of the heaters of Sebastian. One would have been motivated to do so since Sebastian teaches indicating device status to a user.
Regarding (c), Sayed teaches an aerosol provision device (abstract) having a device having LED’s that are positioned in different regions so that different indications can be provided to a user [0141].
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 display of modified Park with the regions of Sayed. One would have been motivated to do so since Sayed teaches that different indications can be provided to a user by using different display regions.
Regarding claim 11, claim 9 only requires that the first display represent a single set mode from the plurality of modes. Therefore changes to the scope of one specific mode do not affect the rejection since the set mode is taught by the prior art as set forth with respect to claim 9, and nowhere is the device required to operate according to the instantly claimed second mode.
Regarding claim 13, modified Park teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Park additionally discloses that the device receives input through a button (column 4, lines 55-67). Modified Park does not explicitly teach the button changing heating modes of the device.
Sayed teaches an aerosol provision device (abstract) in which the device operates in two different modes based on how a button has been pressed [0050].
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 button of modified Park to switch between heating modes. One would have been motivated to do so since Sayed teaches using a button to provide input to an aerosol provision device.
Regarding claim 14, modified Park teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Park does not explicitly teach the shapes of the material and charge level indicators of the display.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the material and charge level indicators of the display have the claimed shapes. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV B.
Regarding claim 15, modified Park teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Park does not explicitly teach the relative position and arrangement of the material and charge level indicators of the display.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the material and charge level indicators of the display have the claimed relative position. Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI C.
Regarding claim 18, Lamb teaches that the icon for aerosol precursor composition contains a number of segments that represent incremental percentages of the consumable remaining [0064], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of corresponding since each percentage increment corresponds to some number of puffs.
Regarding claim 24, Lamb teaches that the amount of aerosol precursor composition and power source remaining are represented as icons ([0064], figure 4, reference numerals 402, 404).
Regarding claim 28, Park discloses an aerosol generating device (abstract) having a first cartridge (figure 2, reference numeral 22) having a first material (figure 2, reference numeral 221) and a first heater heating the first material (column 6, lines 18-19, figure 2, reference numeral 222). The first material is a solid material (column 6, lines 20-28). The device also contains a second cartridge (figure 2, reference numeral 23) that contains a second material (figure 2, reference numeral 231) and a second heater that heats the second material (column 7, lines 25-27, figure 2, reference numeral 232). The second material is a liquid material (column 7, lines 28-33). The heaters are powered by a battery (column 8, lines 33-36, figure 2, reference numeral 25). The device has a user interface in the form of a display (column 4, lines 55-67). Park does not explicitly disclose (a) the display displaying the remaining amount of an aerosol source and the battery, (b) the display displaying information regarding heating (c) the display having separate display elements, (d) the device having two icons showing the remaining amounts of both the solid and liquid materials, and (e) the icons being longitudinal to each other.
Regarding (a), Lamb teaches an aerosol delivery device having a display that displays information such as a remaining amount of aerosol precursor composition or a charge of a power source of the heating element (abstract). Lamb additionally teaches that this display provides feedback to a user so that a user can anticipate needing to make changes to the device [0003].
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 Park with the displaying of Lamb. One would have been motivated to do so since Lamb teaches displaying information so that a user can anticipate device needs.
Regarding (b), Sebastian teaches a heat not burn tobacco aerosol source member (abstract) having an LED indicator that indicates the status of the device heaters by using various kinds of indicator light functions to indicate different statuses of the device (column 10, lines 16-24), which must include at least one of the claimed plurality of modes.
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 display of Park with the display of the status of the heaters of Sebastian. One would have been motivated to do so since Sebastian teaches indicating device status to a user.
Regarding (c), Sayed teaches an aerosol provision device (abstract) having a device having LED’s that are positioned in different regions so that different indications can be provided to a user [0141].
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 display of modified Park with the regions of Sayed. One would have been motivated to do so since Sayed teaches that different indications can be provided to a user by using different display regions.
Regarding (d), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the remaining aerosol precursor amount icon to correspond to the two aerosol materials of Park. The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI B.
Regarding (e), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the material and charge level indicators of the display have the claimed relative position. Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI C.
Claims 16-17 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 12,220,001) in view of Lamb (US 2017/0251724) and Sebastian (US 11,083,215) and Sayed (US 2022/0183391) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Sutton (US 12,708,151) and Bessant (US 10,362,804) and Wang (US 9,027,153).
Regarding claim 16, modified Park teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Park does not explicitly disclose (a) the display being a screen, (b) the device having a lock state, and (c) a lock state display element being superposed over other display elements.
Regarding (a), Sutton teaches a vapor provision system (abstract) having a display in the form of an LCD screen that provides a visual indication of characteristics associated with the electronic cigarette (column 8, lines 1-21).
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 LCD screen of Sutton as the display of modified Park. One would have been motivated to do so since Sutton teaches that LCD screens are suitable displays for conveying information in an electronic cigarette. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See MPEP § 2143, B.
Regarding (b), Bessant teaches an aerosol generating device (abstract) that has an input device that controls electronic locking and unlocking of the device to prevent or allow activation of the heater (column 3, lines 53-65).
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 modified Park with the locking of Bessant. One would have been motivated to do so since Bessant teaches locking the device to prevent heater activation.
Regarding (c), Wang teaches a computer having a lock state in which a lock screen image is superimposed over a background layer and allows transitioning to the unlocked state when a touch input exceeds a threshold amount (abstract). The lock screen image is displayed while the device is in the locked state (column 3, lines 44-47).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to superimpose the lock screen image of Wang over the display of modified Park. One would have been motivated to do so since Wang teaches a display that indicates whether the device is locked using a lock screen image.
Regarding claim 17, modified Park teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Park does not explicitly teach the various indications being displayed in the claimed locations.
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 claimed indications in the claimed locations. Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI C.
Regarding claim 23, modified Park teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Park does not explicitly disclose (a) the display being a screen, (b) the device having a lock state, and (c) a lock state display element being superposed over other display elements.
Regarding (a), Sutton teaches a vapor provision system (abstract) having a display in the form of an LCD screen that provides a visual indication of characteristics associated with the electronic cigarette (column 8, lines 1-21).
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 LCD screen of Sutton as the display of modified Park. One would have been motivated to do so since Sutton teaches that LCD screens are suitable displays for conveying information in an electronic cigarette. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See MPEP § 2143, B.
Regarding (b), Bessant teaches an aerosol generating device (abstract) that has an input device that controls electronic locking and unlocking of the device to prevent or allow activation of the heater (column 3, lines 53-65).
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 modified Park with the locking of Bessant. One would have been motivated to do so since Bessant teaches locking the device to prevent heater activation.
Regarding (c), Wang teaches a computer having a lock state in which a lock screen image is superimposed over a background layer and allows transitioning to the unlocked state when a touch input exceeds a threshold amount (abstract). The lock screen image is displayed while the device is in the locked state (column 3, lines 44-47). The lock screen image is removed from being displayed as the device is being unlocked (column 6, lines 26-31).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to superimpose the lock screen image of Wang over the display of modified Park. One would have been motivated to do so since Wang teaches a display that indicates whether the device is locked using a lock screen image.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 12,220,001) in view of Lamb (US 2017/0251724) and Sebastian (US 11,083,215) and Sayed (US 2022/0183391) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Ubakar (US 2020/0163375).
Regarding claim 19, modified Park teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Park does not explicitly teach a number of LED’s corresponding to the heating mode.
Ubakar teaches a base unit that has multiple operating modes in which the temperature setting is indicated by the number of lights that are lit up [0156]. Each light is considered to meet the claim limitation of a compartment. Ubakar additionally teaches that this allows information regarding the device function to be indicated to a user [0156].
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 modified Park with the lights of Ubakar. One would have been motivated to do so since Ubakar teaches indicating information regarding heating using the number of lights.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 12,220,001) in view of Lamb (US 2017/0251724) and Sebastian (US 11,083,215) and Sayed (US 2022/0183391) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Al-Amin (US 2025/0009042).
Regarding claim 20, modified Park teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Park does not explicitly teach the user activating the display.
Al-Amin teaches an aerosol generating device (abstract) having a display that is activated by user action [0049] from a low power sleep mode [0069].
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 display of modified Park with the activation of Al-Amin. One would have been motivated to do so since Al-Amin teaches keeping the device in a low power stated when the display is not activated by a user.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 12,220,001) in view of Lamb (US 2017/0251724) and Sebastian (US 11,083,215) and Sayed (US 2022/0183391) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Fard (US 12,035,756).
Regarding claim 21, modified Park teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Park does not explicitly teach locking the device if no inhalation has occurred after a preset time.
Fard teaches a smoking substitute device (abstract) that is activated by a user inhaling from the device that constitutes a predetermined action (column 6, lines 32-62), and that the device is disabled after a predetermined time period has passed since the predetermined action (column 6, lines 25-31). The device is located after the predetermined time period has passed to prevent unauthorized users form using the device (column 10, lines 53-67).
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 modified Park with the time lock of Fard. One would have been motivated to do so since Fard teaches a time lock that prevents unauthorized users form using a smoking substitute device.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 12,220,001) in view of Lamb (US 2017/0251724) and Sebastian (US 11,083,215) and Sayed (US 2022/0183391) and Fard (US 12,035,756) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Sutton (US 12,708,151) and Wang (US 9,027,153).
Regarding claim 22, modified Park teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Park does not explicitly teach (a) the display being a screen and (b) a lock state display element being superposed over other display elements.
Regarding (a), Sutton teaches a vapor provision system (abstract) having a display in the form of an LCD screen that provides a visual indication of characteristics associated with the electronic cigarette (column 8, lines 1-21).
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 LCD screen of Sutton as the display of modified Park. One would have been motivated to do so since Sutton teaches that LCD screens are suitable displays for conveying information in an electronic cigarette. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See MPEP § 2143, B.
Regarding (b), Wang teaches a computer having a lock state in which a lock screen image is superimposed over a background layer and allows transitioning to the unlocked state when a touch input exceeds a threshold amount (abstract). The lock screen image is displayed while the device is in the locked state (column 3, lines 44-47).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to superimpose the lock screen image of Wang over the display of modified Park when the device is locked. One would have been motivated to do so since Wang teaches a display that indicates whether the device is locked using a lock screen image.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 12,220,001) in view of Lamb (US 2017/0251724) and Sebastian (US 11,083,215) and Sayed (US 2022/0183391) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Cameron (US 2017/0020188).
Regarding claim 25, modified Park teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Park does not explicitly teach the display being activated for a preset time.
Cameron teaches an evapor apparatus that has a skin that forms a graphical interface that forms a display [0042] that is timed out if the device is not used for a period of time into a power conservation mode [0189], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a preset display time.
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 display of modified Park with the time-out time of Cameron. One would have been motivated to do so since Cameron teaches turning off a display after a specified time to conserve power.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 12,220,001) in view of Lamb (US 2017/0251724) and Sebastian (US 11,083,215) and Sayed (US 2022/0183391) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Chen (US 11,382,354).
Regarding claim 26, modified Park teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Park does not explicitly teach placing the device into a sleep state while maintaining detection of inhalation.
Chen teaches a vaporization device that enters a standby state when no inhalation action is detected for a duration threshold in which power is reduced, while a sensor remains in an active state (column 23, lines 47-54). The sensor is an airflow sensor (column 5, lines 30-39) that detects user inhalation (column 7, lines 65-67, column 8, lines 1-8).
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 modified Park with the standby state and sensing of Chen. One would have been motivated to do so since Chen teaches a standby state that reduces power use.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 12,220,001) in view of Lamb (US 2017/0251724) and Sebastian (US 11,083,215) and Sayed (US 2022/0183391) and Fard (US 12,035,756) and Sutton (US 12,708,151) and Wang (US 9,027,153).
Regarding claim 27, Park discloses an aerosol generating device (abstract) having a first cartridge (figure 2, reference numeral 22) having a first material (figure 2, reference numeral 221) and a first heater heating the first material (column 6, lines 18-19, figure 2, reference numeral 222). The first material is a solid material (column 6, lines 20-28). The device also contains a second cartridge (figure 2, reference numeral 23) that contains a second material (figure 2, reference numeral 231) and a second heater that heats the second material (column 7, lines 25-27, figure 2, reference numeral 232). The second material is a liquid material (column 7, lines 28-33). The heaters are powered by a battery (column 8, lines 33-36, figure 2, reference numeral 25). The device has a user interface in the form of a display (column 4, lines 55-67). Park does not explicitly disclose (a) the display displaying the remaining amount of an aerosol source and the battery, (b) the display displaying information regarding heating, (c) the display having separate display elements, (d) locking the device if no inhalation has occurred after a preset time, (e) the display being a screen and (f) a lock state display element being superposed over other display elements.
Regarding (a), Lamb teaches an aerosol delivery device having a display that displays information such as a remaining amount of aerosol precursor composition or a charge of a power source of the heating element (abstract). Lamb additionally teaches that this display provides feedback to a user so that a user can anticipate needing to make changes to the device [0003].
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 Park with the displaying of Lamb. One would have been motivated to do so since Lamb teaches displaying information so that a user can anticipate device needs.
Regarding (b), Sebastian teaches a heat not burn tobacco aerosol source member (abstract) having an LED indicator that indicates the status of the device heaters by using various kinds of indicator light functions to indicate different statuses of the device (column 10, lines 16-24), which must include at least one of the claimed plurality of modes.
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 display of Park with the display of the status of the heaters of Sebastian. One would have been motivated to do so since Sebastian teaches indicating device status to a user.
Regarding (c), Sayed teaches an aerosol provision device (abstract) having a device having LED’s that are positioned in different regions so that different indications can be provided to a user [0141].
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 display of modified Park with the regions of Sayed. One would have been motivated to do so since Sayed teaches that different indications can be provided to a user by using different display regions.
Regarding (d), Fard teaches a smoking substitute device (abstract) that is activated by a user inhaling from the device that constitutes a predetermined action (column 6, lines 32-62), and that the device is disabled after a predetermined time period has passed since the predetermined action (column 6, lines 25-31). The device is located after the predetermined time period has passed to prevent unauthorized users form using the device (column 10, lines 53-67).
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 modified Park with the time lock of Fard. One would have been motivated to do so since Fard teaches a time lock that prevents unauthorized users form using a smoking substitute device.
Regarding (e), Sutton teaches a vapor provision system (abstract) having a display in the form of an LCD screen that provides a visual indication of characteristics associated with the electronic cigarette (column 8, lines 1-21).
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 LCD screen of Sutton as the display of modified Park. One would have been motivated to do so since Sutton teaches that LCD screens are suitable displays for conveying information in an electronic cigarette. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See MPEP § 2143, B.
Regarding (f), Wang teaches a computer having a lock state in which a lock screen image is superimposed over a background layer and allows transitioning to the unlocked state when a touch input exceeds a threshold amount (abstract). The lock screen image is displayed while the device is in the locked state (column 3, lines 44-47).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to superimpose the lock screen image of Wang over the display of modified Park when the device is locked. One would have been motivated to do so since Wang teaches a display that indicates whether the device is locked using a lock screen image.
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