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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 2/3/2026.
Claim 30 is amended.
Claims 11, 17, 20, and 31-122 are cancelled.
Claims 1-10, 12-16, 18-19, 21-30, and 123 are pending. Claims 21-29 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, filed 2/3/2026, with respect to the 101 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Particularly, the Examiner found Applicant’s argument that the disabling step cannot be characterized as insignificant extra-solution activity because disabling the heater is technical solution itself and not a tangential addition to be persuasive. The rejection of 2/3/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/3/2026 with respect to the 103 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant notes that the Examiner alleges that the disabling step adds no additional structure and is merely claiming how the device is intended to be used, and argues that the disabling step is a required step executed by the processor and not intended use (p. 11).
The Examiner has noted Applicant’s argument but finds it unpersuasive. Specifically, the Examiner contends that the Examiner has explained that modified Wensley is capable of operating as claimed. Specifically, modified Wensley’s processor can operate solely based on the instruction of the nicotine delivery schedule to prevent overdose ([0376]) such that delivery of nicotine involves activating the heating element ([0013]). In the context of the claim, the word “disabling” is taken to mean “to make ineffective or inoperative” (see definition 1a in Merriam-Webster; see also [0345] of the instant specification, illustrating that disabling the vaporizer means includes a situation where the vaporizer is deactivated and inoperable). In modified Wensley, the one or more processing units, when carrying out the nicotine delivery schedule by activating the heating element (i.e., operative state), also controls the heater to “deactivate” by not activating the heating element to result in a period of time in which the heating element is off or deactivated (i.e., an inoperative state).
Applicant argues that Ofir does not rectify the deficiencies of Wensley (p. 11). Specifically, Applicant argues that Ofir collects data when the gesture indicates that the user is smoking and when the user is not smoking, whereas the pending claims measure direct device operation metrics versus just movements as taught by Ofir (p. 11). Applicant argues that the pending claims allow for different sampling rates for different data types since each type of data has different relevance and variability, whereas the gesture in Ofir takes a probability-driven approach by merely adjusting the overall sampling frequency based on whether the system thinks the user is about to smoke (p. 11).
The Examiner has noted Applicant’s argument but finds them unpersuasive. As an initial matter, the Examiner notes that the claim’s recitation of “usage data,” “first type of data,” and “second type of data,” are broad enough to compass Ofir’s teachings of gesture data. Specifically, claim 1 merely recites “usage data associated with user interactive with the vaporizer device…includ[ing] a first type of data having a first sampling rate and a second type of data having second sampling rate.” Here, “usage data” merely needs to be associated with interaction with the vaporizer device. Ofir’s teachings meet this threshold because, As Applicant notes, “Ofir is directed to the communication between a vaporizer device and a wearable device and gesture analysis” (p. 9). Moreover, Ofir teaches that the gesture analysis engine may be configured to analyze one or more features in the sensor data to determine the probability of the user taking a cigarette puff, comprising at least the following: (1) a time duration that a potential cigarette is detected in a mouth of the user; (4) a time duration of a potential smoking puff; (5) a time duration between consecutive potential puffs; and (6) number of potential puffs that the user takes to finish smoking a cigarette ([0130]). When Ofir’s teachings are applied to Wensley’s electronic nicotine delivery device, such gesture data is associated with the user’s interaction with the electronic nicotine delivery device and can further be used to determine additional usage data such as timing of the one or more puffs. Moreover, the “first type of data” and “second type of data” are not particularly limited in form and are not required to be different types of data as Applicant argues. Rather only the rates for collecting the first type of data and the second type of data are required to be different.
Applicant further argues that there is no actual device control in Ofir and that the sensor in Ofir is not capable of affecting any type of control based on the collected data (p. 11).
The Examiner finds Applicant’s argument unpersuasive. “One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.” MPEP 2145(IV). Particularly, Ofir is not depended on for teaching the control based on the collected data. Rather, Wensley is depended on to teach providing a delivery schedule with an optimal dose and pattern to taper the dose of nicotine by analyzing collected data (see [0378] and [0396]).
Applicant' s arguments, see page 10, filed 2/3/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wensley in view of Zarifian and Adelson have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended claim 30 to include the limitation “the usage data includes a first type of data having a first sampling rate and a second type of data having a second sampling rate, wherein the first sampling rate and the second sampling rate are different.” Wensley, Zarifian, and Adelson fail to disclose such a limitation. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ofir (US 2017/0262064; of record).
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.
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 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 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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 12-14, 19, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wensley et al. (US 2015/0216237; of record) in view of Zarifian et al. (US 2019/0307170; of record), Adelson (US 2017/0304563; of record), and Ofir et al. (US 2017/0262064; of record).
Regarding claims 1 and 30, Wensley discloses a system and non-transitory computer readable medium for smoking or nicotine urge relief (abstract; Paragraph 378) comprising:
one or more processing units (4104; Fig. 41; Paragraph 418; “at least one data processor”); and
a memory (4106; “at least one memory”) storing program code (Paragraph 419-420; “instructions”), the processing units can be capable of executing one or more methods or routines stored in the memory (Paragraph 418), the methods and operations include:
receiving and/or recording data (Paragraph 378; “usage data”) by tracking the actual use of the electronic nicotine delivery device (4006; see Fig. 40; “vaporizer device”) over time in terms of patterns of dosing (Paragraph 396) and by administering a nicotine challenge dose which varies important characteristics, such as flavorings (Paragraph 406; equivalent to first usage data including a flavor of a vaporizable material) in a cartridge (paragraph 141; see Fig. 95A-C),
analyzing the data and regulating (“determining, based on the usage data”) a delivery schedule (“recommendation”) of the condensed formulation comprising the pharmaceutically active agent based on the analysis of the data by the one or more algorithms (Paragraph 378), the delivery schedule suggesting:
an optimal dose (para. 396; “strength…of vaporizable material”), other characteristics such as flavoring (Paragraph 396; “flavor of vaporizable material”) to minimize smoking urge (para. 396; “associated with reduced usage of the vaporizable material”), and
an optimal pattern of use (para. 396; “timing of the one or more puffs”) to minimize smoking urge (Paragraph 396; “associated with the reduced usage of the vaporizable material”) and gradually taper the dose (Paragraph 398) based on goals of a user of the device (Paragraph 386), the nicotine challenge can be assessed to suggest decreased nicotine administration (Paragraph 407), wherein flavorings can be used to reduce nicotine doses while retaining flavorings to help reduce nicotine dependency and enable cravings to be fully or partially sated using the flavoring as a conditioned stimulus (Paragraph 192; strength, flavor, and “the timing of the one or more puffs are correlated with the usage of the vaporizable material”) and deliver nicotine to the individual user on the particular delivery schedule (“length of time between two or more successive puffs”), which involves varying the number of doses per day, timing of the doses within the day (“time of day for taking the puffs”), or amount of nicotine per dose over time to reduce the urge or desire to smoke tobacco and smoking behavior (Paragraph 121, 376); and
the electronic agent delivery device can communicate with a data store to perform the functionalities of adjusting dose, frequency of administration, delivery schedule, customize feedback, administer challenge doses (para. 409; “providing to the vaporizer the strength, flavor, and timing of the one or more puffs”); and
controlling the heating (para. 127; “modulating an activation cycle of a heater”) to yield customized doses of nicotine according to the customized dosing regimens (para. 128; “in accordance with the timing of the one or more puffs”), the dosing regimen including the timing of dosses within the day and the amount of nicotine per dose (para. 121, 376).
Moreover, Wensley discloses that the frequency of use of a device can be tracked (Paragraph 386; “first type of data having a first sampling rate”) and track the experiences of the user (Paragraph 389; “second type of data having a second sampling rate”).
However, Wensley does not explicitly teach the recommendation including a pod identifier indicating a strength and flavor of the vaporizable material, providing to the vaporizer the pod identifier, and determining based on the pod identifier whether a cartridge having the strength and flavor of the vaporizable material is coupled with the vaporizer device, and then modulating when the cartridge having the strength and the flavor of the vaporizable material is determined to be coupled with the vaporizer device.
Zarifian teaches systems and methods of vaporizing liquids (abstract) comprising receiving user information, identifying at least one recommended cartridge based on the user’s information (“recommendation”), receiving in the vaporizing device the at least one recommended cartridge (para. 47; “providing to the vaporizer the pod identifier”), and adjusting the temperature of the heating element that vaporizes the fluid (para. 48; “modulating when the cartridge having the pod identifier is coupled with the vaporizer”), wherein cartridges include an identifier that can be used to get more information about the cartridge (para. 58; “pod identifier”) such that the vaporizer can then receiving information about how to vaporize each vaping liquid as well as how much of each vaping liquid to dispense to deliver a pre-specified doses of each liquid (para. 59).
Adelson teaches a system and method for vaporizing substances in a pod or cartridge (abstract) wherein a pod (3) can contain one or more substances of varying strength/potency, flavor, or other characteristics as desired (para. 72), the pods can be associated with machine readable code that may be read by a reader (18; “pod identifier indicating a strength and a flavor”) such that upon scanning by the reader, a processor (13) recognizes various characteristics of the pod (para. 72, see also para. 108; “determining based on the pod identifier whether a cartridge having the strength and flavor the vaporizer material is coupled to with the vaporizer”).
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 Zarifian’s method of identifying at least one recommended cartridge based on the user’s information and adjusting the temperature of the heating element based on the pod identifier to Wensley’s system in order to administer precise dosages of vaporized liquids (Zarifian; para. 48). Moreover, it would have been obvious to said skilled artisan to have modified the pod identifiers of modified Wensley to be able to convey information about characteristics of the pod such has strength and flavor and other information such as manufacturer and expiration date and scanning the pod identifier as in Adelson in order to not operate and/or alter a user when the cartridge is prepared by an unrecognized manufacturer or the cartridge is expired (Adelson; para. 72) thereby increasing the safety in using new cartridges.
Moreover, modified Wensley is silent as to wherein the first sampling rate and the second sampling rate are different.
Ofir teaches a method and system for analyzing, monitoring, and influencing a user’s behavioral gesture (abstract) wherein it is known in the art that people may wish to improve their health and well-being by reducing or eliminating smoking (Paragraph 8), smoking involving unique hand-to-mouth gestures that vary between smokers depending on type, size, and/or brand of cigarette, a person’s smoking history, gender, day and time of day of smoking, and plethora of other factors (Paragraph 9), wherein the system (see Fig. 2) comprises a user device (102) and a wearable device (104) and gesture analysis engines (108), the wearable device comprises at least one sensor (105) providing input data to the gesture analysis engine (Paragraph 96) along with user input (Paragraph 98), the user location may be determined by a location sensor (Paragraph 99) and historical behavioral data (Paragraph 100; interpreted as a first plurality of data samples comprising the first type of data), wherein sensor data may be collected at a first predetermined frequency when the gesture analysis engine determines that the user is not smoking (“first type of data having a first sampling rate”), and then collecting sensor data at a second predetermined frequency when the gesture analysis engine determines a high probability that the user is smoking “(second type of data having a second sampling rate”), the second predetermined frequency being higher than the first predetermined frequency (Paragraph 168; “first sampling rate and the second sampling rate are different”), the frequency of the sensor data collection may be adjusted based on different times of the day and/or different geographical locations wherein the frequency of sensor data collection may be decreased at times of the day and/or geographical locations where the probability of the user performing the predefined gesture is below a predetermined threshold (Paragraph 169), wherein the one or more sensor may comprise a first group of sensors and a second group of sensors (Paragraph 170) and selectively powering the sensors based on the probability of a user smoking (Paragraph 171), wherein the sensor data is stored in a memory (Paragraph 166).
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 known method of using geographical locations to determine the probability of the user performing a predefined gesture is below a predetermined threshold to decrease the frequency of sensor data, and storing the sensor data in a memory as in Ofir to the known system of Wensley in order to obtain the predictable result of selectively activating different groups of sensors (Ofir; Paragraph 170-171) with the benefit of reducing power consumption, allowing for faster analysis of the sensor data, and reduce the amount of memory required to store the sensor data (Ofir; Paragraph 170).
Regarding the claim limitation “disabling, when the cartridge having the strength and the flavor of the vaporizable material is determined to be coupled with the vaporizer device, the heater outside of the time of day for taking the one or more puffs based on an activation cycle of a heater at the vaporizer device and disabling the heater for the length of time between the two or more successive puffs” this limitation has been interpreted as these limitation has been considered, and construed as the manner of operating an apparatus that adds no additional structure to the apparatus as claimed. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114. However, because the system of modified Wensley is structurally similar to that instantly disclosed, it is capable of being operated with similar if not identical claimed characteristics. Specifically, modified Wensley is capable of operating such that the electronic nicotine delivery platform can provide nicotine to an individual user on a particular schedule involving varying the timing of the doses within the day to prevent overdose (para. 376), wherein the delivery of nicotine involves activating ([0013]) the heater element vaporizing a composition comprising the nicotine (para. 378) and the instructions are in the form of explicit compliance reminders to achieve the optimal nicotine absorption (para. 398). In other words, modified Wensley’s processor can operate solely based on the instructions for the nicotine delivery schedule such that the heater does not activate outside of the nicotine delivery schedule.
Regarding claim 2, modified Wensley discloses that tracking can include tracking of dosing (para. 390; “strength of vaporizable material”), flavorings (para. 407) and frequency of use of a device (paragraph 386), the tracking occurring with the coupled cartridge (see para. 210; “first cartridge”).
Regarding claim 5, modified Wensley discloses that the dosage can be a percentage of an agent (e.g. nicotine) in the formulation (para. 184; “indication of a percentage of nicotine within the vaporizable material”).
Regarding claim 6, modified Wensley discloses that particular delivery schedule involves varying the timing of doses within the day (“lower frequency of puffs over a time period”), the amount of nicotine per dose over time (“lower total dosage of an active ingredient delivered”) to achieve a reduction in an urge or desire to smoke a tobacco based smoking article (Paragraph 376).
Regarding claim 12, modified Wensley is silent as to performing sample summarization to generate, based on a first plurality of data samples comprising the first data type and/or a second plurality of data samples comprising the second type of data, one or more data samples having a third sampling rate that is lower than the first sampling rate and the second sampling rate; and storing, in a log, the one or more data samples having the third sampling rate.
Ofir further teaches applying a data compression step (“sample summarization”) of the sensor data prior to data transmission wherein if there is no different in the current data sample and previous data sample, the sensor data is not re-transmitted; conversely if there is a different in the current data sample and previous data sample, only the different may be transmitted, thereby compressing the predefined number of bits ([0167]), which can then be stored in memory ([0170]).
It would have been obvious to said skill artisan to have applied Ofir’s step of data compression to modified Wensley’s collection of data in order to reduce the bandwidth required to transmit sensor data, which reduces power consumption of the wearable device during transmission of data (Ofir; [0167]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Wensley discloses the wherein the difference in data samples may be time-based (Ofir; [0167]) and comprise one or more parameters such as smoking statistics of the user (Ofir; [0173]).
Regarding claim 14, modified he system helps smokers control their smoking behaviors, reduce the number of smoked cigarette, and set goals that are geared towards helping smokers reducing or quit smoking (Ofir; Paragraph 10).
Regarding claim 19, modified Wensley discloses the machine readable code that may be read by a reader such that upon scanning by the reader, the processor recognizes various characteristics of the pod such as strength and flavor (Adelson; para. 72; “plurality of data fields indicating at least the strength and the flavor”).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wensley et al. in view of Zarifian et al., Adelson, and Ofir as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Cameron (US 2017/0018000; of record).
Regarding claim 3, modified Wensley discloses the system as discussed above with respect to claim 1, wherein the algorithms change over time based on input from the device or feedback form a user over time (Paragraph 386).
However, Wensley is silent as to the first usage data further includes a user input indicating a perceived smoothness of a vapor drawn by the one or more puffs.
Cameron teaches an electronic vapor device (abstract) the electronic vapor device (1700; Fig. 17) comprising: a processor (1710); and a memory device (1716), wherein the processor executes an algorithm based on program instructions stored in the memory (Paragraph 192) comprising: collecting usage data from a user (step 1804; Paragraph 196; “receiving a first usage data associated with a first user interacting with a first vaporizer device”); and processing data (step 1812) to create recommendation data for the electronic vaporizing device (Paragraph 199; equivalent to determining based on the first usage data a first recommendation for the first user interacting with the first vaporizer device). Cameron further teaches that the user can further use an input/output device to select a desired smoothness (Paragraph 92, 131; “perceived smoothness”) which is accomplished by cooling, heating, and/or magnetizing vapor exiting the outlet (Paragraph 92).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a cooling element and/or magnetic element as in Cameron to the electronic cigarette of Wensley and applying the known method of using an input/output device to select a desired smoothness as in Cameron to the known method of Wensley in order to achieve the predictable and beneficial result of providing a smoother vaping experience (Cameron; Paragraph 131).
Regarding claim 4, modified Wensley discloses a user interface (4108) that can comprise any combination of buttons, knobs, keyboards, touchscreens, displays, light-emitting elements, speakers or the like (Cameron; Paragraph 75), and can comprise a microphone configured to receive audio signals (Cameron; Paragraph 78). It is noted that buttons, keyboards, and touchscreens would allow a user to tap the vaporizer device, and the microphone would allow the user to input a sound.
Claims 7-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wensley et al. in view of Zarifian et al., Adelson, and Ofir as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pradeep (US 2012/0291791; of record).
Regarding claims 7-8, modified Wensley discloses matching users to algorithms (Paragraph 399; “the user interaction with the vaporizer device is associated with a first user”).
However, Wensley does not explicitly teach determining that the first user is similar to a second user; and determining, based on the first usage data, a second recommendation for a second user interacting with a second vaporizer device based on one or more attributes associated with each of the first and second users, the attributes including demographics, preferences, and/or cessation goals.
Pradeep discloses a nicotine delivery reduction system allowing implementation of different reduction programs based on personal preferences and characteristics (abstract) wherein reports may be generated and shared in networks for users to encourage reduced nicotine usage through peer evaluation and that successful nicotine reduction plans for individuals with particular characteristics can be applied to other individual with similar characteristics (paragraph 21).
It would have been obvious to said skilled artisan to have applied the known step of applying successful nicotine reduction plans to other individuals with similar characteristics as in Pradeep to the system of Wensley because sharing successful nicotine reduction plans encourage reduced nicotine usage through peer evaluation (Pradeep; Paragraph 21).
Regarding the claim limitation “determining, based at least on the first usage data, a second recommendation for a second user interacting with a third vaporizer device” this limitation has been considered, and construed as the manner of operating an apparatus that adds no additional structure to the apparatus as claimed. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (See MPEP 2114). However, because the system of modified Wensley is structurally similar to that instantly disclosed, it is capable of being operated with similar if not identical claimed characteristics.
Regarding claim 10, modified Wensley discloses the delivery schedule includes varying the number of doses per day, timing of doses within the day (i.e. “timing of the one or more puffs”), or amount of nicotine per dose over time (“strength of the vaporizable material”) (Paragraph 376) and other characteristics such as flavoring (para. 396; “flavor of the vaporizable material”) and providing this successful nicotine reduction plan to other individuals (Pradeep; Paragraph 21).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wensley et al. in view of Zarifian et al., Adelson, Ofir, and Pradeep as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Pham et al. (“A Clustering Approach for Collaborative Filtering Recommendation Using Social Network Analysis”; of record).
Regarding claim 9, modified Wensley discloses the system as discussed above with respect to claim 8.
However, modified Wensley is silent as to wherein the first user and the second user are determined to be similar by at least applying a clustering algorithm configured to determine, based on the one or more attributes associated with each of the first user and the second user, one or more groups of similar users
Pham discloses a clustering approach for collaborative filtering recommendation systems using social network analysis (title), wherein it is well known that collaborative filtering (CF) recommender systems suffer from data sparsity where users rate a small set of items making computation of similarity between users imprecise (abstract) wherein the developed clustering technique based CF performs better than traditional CF algorithms (abstract), the application of clustering techniques reduces the sparsity and improves the scalability of the system since similarity can be calculated only for users in the same clusters wherein clustering users results in creating sub-matrices of the entire user-item rating matrix, then classical CF algorithms can be used to generated recommendation based on these submatrices (Page 588-589, see Network Clustering for CF section).
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 a clustering algorithm to create sub-matrices and then applying a CF algorithm as in Pham to recommendation system of modified Wensley in order to achieve the predictable result of applying a CF algorithm to the sub-matrices (Pham, Page 589, lines 1-5) with the benefit of using a better system (abstract) that reduces the sparsity and improves the scalability of the system (Pham; Page 588-589).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wensley et al. in view of Zarifian et al., Adelson, and Ofir as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Goodnow et al. (US 2010/0191385; of record).
Regarding claims 15-16, modified Wensley discloses the system as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
However, Wensley is silent as to the at least one data processor further caused to perform bulk summarization to generated, based on a first plurality of data samples comprising the first type of data a metric, the metric being generated based on the first plurality of data samples collected by a single thread, the generating of the metric further excluding a second plurality of data samples collected by another thread, the metric comprising a temperature rise time, an observed temperature, a deviation from a temperature set-point, a pressure differential, a maximum differential pressure, a minimum differential pressure, and/or an average differential pressure.
Goodnow discloses a power management system (abstract), the power management system (100) comprising a processor (150) which analyzes monitored data including current temperature (interpreted as a first plurality of data samples), forecasted data, and historical data according to a predetermined scheme in order to predict how long a set of conditions will occur (interpreted as a metric) which triggers a voluntary reduction in the overall power consumption by the electronic devices on the SOC, the reduction in overall power involving a change from a multi-thread operation (high power) mode to a single thread operation (low power) mode (Paragraph 34; interpreted as excluding a second plurality of data samples collected by another thread).
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 known method of Goodnow including monitoring current temperature data, predicting how long a set of conditions will occur, and switching from a multi-thread operation to a single thread operation, to the system of Wensley in order to obtain the predictable result of switching from a high power mode to a lower power mode (Goodnow; Paragraph 34) to avoid high power costs (Goodnow; abstract; Paragraph 5).
Claims 18 and 123 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wensley et al. in view of Zarifian et al., Adelson, and Ofir as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choukroun et al. (US 2016/0278435; of record).
Regarding claims 18, modified Wensley discloses the system as discussed above with respect to claim 1, wherein the system helps a user transition from combustible tobacco cigarettes or cigars (Paragraph 376-377).
However, Wensley does not explicitly teach wherein the recommendation is further generated based on a usage pattern for combustible cigarettes, and wherein the usage pattern includes a brand of combustible cigarettes, a type of combustible cigarettes, and/or a quantity of combustible cigarettes consumed by the first user.
Choukroun teaches an electronic cigarette (abstract), the electronic cigarette (100) is capable of sensing the number and duration of puffs taken by a user and transmits this data (Paragraph 43) to a computing device (110), the computing device including a nicotine withdrawal application (150) that may optimize a nicotine withdrawal schedule based on the user’s unique personal attributes and nicotine usage history (Paragraph 44), the cigarette recording the duration and number of actuations in order to determine the amount of nicotine inhaled by a user (Paragraph 48). Choukroun teaches that a new user (105; Fig. 3) seeking to quick smoking signs up for the nicotine withdrawal application and enters their profile (380) including smoking history including number of cigarettes per day, the time of day of usage (interpreted as timing of one or more puffs), the brand of cigarettes, whether the user smokes e-cigarettes, how long each cartridge is used, and the amount of nicotine per cartridge (interpreted as strength of vaporizable material (Paragraph 51; interpreted as a first usage data); once the initial data has been entered, the application determines an optimal nicotine withdrawal schedule based on the user’s individual profile in the form of an output (360; interpreted as a first recommendation), the output indicating the amount of cigarettes or puffs recommended for a user for a particular period of time with options to select different paces (Paragraph 53), or the withdrawal schedule will utilize the same amount of puffs but instead lower the strength of the e-liquid periodically so that user effectively consumes less nicotine (Paragraph 55), wherein puff data (320) and input (390) may be utilized to modify the nicotine withdrawal schedule (Paragraph 62) (also see Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electronic vapor device of Wensley with the teachings of Choukroun in order to obtain the predictable result that a user inputs their user history including number of cigarettes per day and a brand of cigarettes, the application generating an optimal nicotine withdrawal schedule based on the user’s individual profile, and then using the collected puff data to modify the nicotine withdrawal schedule because the modification is beneficial because it reduces the rate of relapse of smokers attempting to quit smoking or vaping and improve the likelihood of quitting smoking or vaping through feedback to a user (Choukroun; Paragraph 7-8).
Regarding claim 123, modified Wensley discloses the system as discussed above with respect to claim 1, and further discloses a display (4108; “user interface”) configured to provide a graphical user interface to a user operating the computer device for receiving user input and executing applications (paragraph 418).
However, Wensley is silent as to displaying, on a graphic user interface at a user device associated with the first user, a graphical representation of the recommendation, and receiving via the graphic user interface a user input indicating an acceptance of the recommendation, wherein the pod identifier and the timing of the one or more puffs are provided to the vaporizer in response to the acceptance.
Choukroun further teaches that the application (150) determines an optimal nicotine withdrawal schedule (370) based on the user’s individual profile (380), and then outputs (360) to the user the recommendation in the form of a chart or table or other indication of the amount of puffs recommended for a user for a particular period of time (para. 53; “graphical display of recommendation”), and additionally a user may be given different options to select the pace of withdrawal from different recommended paces (para. 53; “acceptance of the recommendation”), wherein the output may be displayed on the screen of the computing device (para. 53).
It would have been obvious to said skilled artisan to have modified Wensley’s system to output multiple nicotine withdrawal schedule recommendations and allowing a user to select different schedules as in Choukroun in order to allow the user to select the pace of withdrawal from different recommended paces (para. 53) thereby beneficially giving the user more optionality in using the device.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Mayle et al. (US 2017/0266397) teaches a processor (66) instructing the heating component (60) to remain deactivated until the timer (72) indicates the period of time has passed for a cessation program ([0049]).
Popoola et al. (US 2024/0122265) teaches a sleep state having a first sampling frequency and an active state having a higher second frequency and a third even higher frequency, wherein a higher sampling frequency increase the precision of the pressure measurements and the responsiveness of the electronic cigarette([0057]). However, Popoola is not considered prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SONNY V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8294. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM EST.
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 Y 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.
/SONNY V NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights