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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/17/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
______________________________________________________________________
Claim(s) 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHILDERS et al. (US 2005/0098173 in view of HENDRY, JR. et al. (US 2016/0158782) and BOWEN et al. (US 2016/0157524).
With respect to claim 9, CHILDERS et al. discloses an inhalation device comprises a device for providing inhalable compounds, such as nicotine (Abstract; Paragraph [0004]). The device comprises a memory, 16, (Paragraph [0015]) and control electronics, 14 configured to determine a dose of nicotine previously consumed by the user (Paragraphs [0036], [0037], [0045] and [0046]) as well as the number of dosages to be consumed in the future (e.g, past and next dosage), in order to reduce nicotine cravings. Determine a threshold for the user to prevent harmful amounts of nicotine to be consumed (Paragraph [0044]), and if the total amount is above the threshold, a lockout mechanism, 15, is activated (Paragraph [0044]) otherwise, the lockout mechanism is implicitly not engaged and the user is implicitly allowed to dispense nicotine.
CHILDERS et al. does not explicitly disclose the claimed accelerometer. HENDRY, JR. et al. discloses a gesture recognition user interface for an aerosol delivery device (Abstract; Title). The device comprises an accelerometer for recognizing defined gestures (Paragraphs [0004], [0053], [0054], [0058], [0059]). These detected gestures control various functions of the device, such as altering a locked state of the device (Paragraph [0062]). Thus, the controller is configured to monitor motions of the hand and assign an appropriate electrical signal to the gesture. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide an accelerometer in the device of CHILDERS et al., and to allow a processor to recognize hand gestures of the user so that the device can assign an electrical signal to said hand gesture, and then assign an appropriate action to said hand gesture. Thus, in the event that the user is fidgeting, the processor is then capable of determining a craving by the user.
CHILDERS et al. does not explicitly disclose that a signal to dispense the dose of nicotine. BOWEN et al. discloses that an alert is made to the user when a threshold dosage has been reached or exceeded (Paragraphs [0007]) and the device can be disabled upon reaching the total dose during the time period (e.g., usage is monitored to not exceed a dosage limit) (Paragraph [0022] and [0026]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller of CAMERON to provide feedback via alerts to the user, as taught by BOWEN et al., so that the user can be notified that the appropriate dose has been reached and the device is being disabled. The status prior to the alert represents the claimed signal to dispense the claimed dosage.
With respect to claim 11, CHILDERS et al. discloses that the point in time of a regiment determines the appropriate dispensation of nicotine (Paragraph [0015]).
With respect to claim 13, CHILDERS et al. discloses that the type of product is determined (Paragraph [0023]).
With respect to claim 14, CHILDERS et al. discloses the cessation regimen is determined (Paragraph [0026]) based on behavior (Paragraph [0004]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-17, 19 and 20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With respect to claim 15, the cited are does not teach or suggest the claimed carriage.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX B EFTA whose telephone number is (313)446-6548. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST M-F.
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 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.
/ALEX B EFTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights