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
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 final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/24/2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 10/24/2025, (“Remarks to Advisory Action”) were in response to the Advisory Action mailed on 09/11/2025 (“Advisory Action”). Applicant’s Remarks filed on 08/22/2025 (Remarks to Final Rejection) were made in response to the Final Rejection mailed on 06/24/2025 (“Final Rejection”).
Claim(s) 3–6, 10–13, and 16–19 is/are canceled.
Claim(s) 1–2, 7–12, 14–15, and 20–26 is/are pending and is/are addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1–2, 7–15, and 20–26 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bessant (US 2021/0007406) (“Bessant”) in view of Galloway et al. (US 2017/0156405) (“Galloway”).
Applicant's Remarks to the Advisory Action and Remarks to Final Rejection have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive for the reasons explained at lengths below.
Beginning with Applicant’s Remarks to Final Rejection, Applicant argues that claim 1 requires “3. The EVPS indicates the results of this cell integrity test to a user by providing visible, audio, and/or haptic output from the EVPS.” Remarks to Final Rejection at 9. (annotation removed) Examiner disagrees. First, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1’s “wherein the cell integrity test comprises measuring one or more parameters of a cell of the EVPS, the one or more parameters relating to the cell comprising one or more of: (i) a voltage from the cell: (ii) a current from the cell: and (iii) a temperature of the cell, to check that each of these one or more parameters relating to the cell are within a predetermined operation range,” id., ll. 34–37, does not require checking whether the parameters are within a predetermined operation range—just measuring one or more of: (i) a voltage from the cell: (ii) a current from the cell: and (iii) a temperature of the cell. Second, the recitation of “an output processor adapted to indicate a result of the at least one system diagnostic performed to a user, using one or more output devices of the EVPS which are configured to provide visible, audio, and/or haptic output,” id., ll. 8–10, does not require the processor to indicate anything. Instead, the output processor must be “adapted to” indicate a result. Bessant’s output processor (i.e., communication interface) is adapted to indicate a result of the at least one system diagnostics performed to a user ([0057]) using one or more output devices of the EVPS which are configured to provide visible ([0053]), audio ([0052]), and/or haptic output ([0051]). Third, the recitation of “an output processor adapted to indicate a result of the at least one system diagnostic performed to a user, using one or more output devices of the EVPS which are configured to provide visible, audio, and/or haptic output,” id., ll. 8–10,” is not linked to claim 1’s “wherein the cell integrity test comprises measuring one or more parameters of a cell of the EVPS, the one or more parameters relating to the cell comprising one or more of: (i) a voltage from the cell: (ii) a current from the cell: and (iii) a temperature of the cell, to check that each of these one or more parameters relating to the cell are within a predetermined operation range.” Id., ll. 34–37. That is, claim 1 does not require the EVPS to indicate a result of the cell integrity test to a user by providing visible, audio, and/or haptic output from the EVPS.
Next Applicant states “as discussed previously and as recognised by the Examiner, Bessant fails to disclose detecting a predetermined misuse event and then performing a particular corresponding system diagnostic in the manner recited by any of options (a) to (d).” Remarks to Final Rejection at 9. For the sake of clarity, Bessant discloses 1) detecting a predetermined misuse event, e.g., a drop, id., [0071]; 2) after detecting, performing a system diagnostic, id., [0088] (explaining “certain diagnostic procedures may be initiated if certain thresholds are exceeded, such as the impact threshold.”); 3) and the performed system diagnostic includes a diagnostic of the battery circuit. Id., [0106]. Bessant fails to disclose performing a particular corresponding system diagnostic in the manner recited by any of options (a) to (d), i.e., data obtained from a thermometer sensor, input voltage/current sensor, payload closure sensor, or a moisture sensor because Bessant focuses on misuses events from dropped e-cigs and, accordingly, data obtained from accelerometer sensor. Id., [0062, 0072].
Next Applicant states:
As discussed previously, Galloway is about using a test apparatus in a manufacturing setting to probe the functionality of a control board before it is implemented in an aerosol provision device. In paragraph [0077] of Galloway, which the Examiner has cited as relevant, this document describes how a resistance load may be coupled to heater circuitry of the control board via the test apparatus. This resistance load is intended to emulate a heating element, and this can be used to test whether the heater circuitry can correctly provide power to the resistance load, by measuring current flow between the resistance load and the heater circuitry. If the measured current does not satisfy an expected current criterion the test apparatus "may determine that there is a fault in the heater circuitry".
However, there is no mention in this passage of using the outcome of this test to trigger a subsequent and separate integrity test of a cell of an aerosol provision device.
Remarks to Final Rejection at 9–10. (underline in original) Galloway teaches using the outcome of this test to trigger a subsequent and separate integrity test of a cell of an aerosol provision device. See id., [0080] (explaining “calibrating a battery measurement component that may be used to measure remaining power, and/or other components that may be calibrated based on diagnostic information derived during performance of a diagnostic test.”). However, even if Applicant’s characterization of Galloway were correct, such an alleged deficiency is disclosed already by Bessant. See id., [0088] (explaining “certain diagnostic procedures may be initiated if certain thresholds are exceeded, such as the impact threshold.”), and id., [0106] (explaining the performed system diagnostic “includes a diagnostic of the battery circuit”). This disclosure of Bessant together with the teachings of Galloway makes obvious both the scope of the pending claims and the narrower scope of the pending claims Applicant alleges claim 1 possesses.
Applicant continues “[i]n fact, at this stage in Galloway, the control board has not even been implemented in an aerosol provision device, and there is no power source to test (see paragraph [0137], the control board is only connected to a power source and placed in a housing to form an aerosol delivery device once any necessary repairs are made).” Remarks to Final Rejection at 10. (bold and citation in original) (annotation added) First, claim 1 does not require that the control board is implemented in an aerosol provision device because the claims are drawn to an electronic vapor provision system, which is broader than an aerosol provision device. Second, even if claim 1 was as narrow as applicant alleges, the alleged deficiencies of Galloway are remedied by the disclosure of primary reference of Bessant. That is, Bessant’s processor(s) focus on the aerosol provision device, id., [0071] and [0083], where there is a power source to test. Id., [0106] (explaining the performed system diagnostic “includes a diagnostic of the battery circuit”). Again, Galloway teaches using the outcome of this test to trigger a subsequent and separate integrity test of a cell of an aerosol provision device. See id., [0080] (explaining “calibrating a battery measurement component that may be used to measure remaining power, and/or other components that may be calibrated based on diagnostic information derived during performance of a diagnostic test.”).
Applicant continues “[i]t is also noted that, as the control board is not yet part of an aerosol provision device, there is also no aerosol provision device which could provide visible, audio, and/or haptic output to a user as a result of such an integrity test of a cell, as also required by the independent claims.” Remarks to Final Rejection at 10. (annotation added) Again, these alleged deficiencies are disclosed by Bessant. See id., [0057] (describing indicating a result of the at least one system diagnostics performed to a user), id., [0053] (displaying information to a user), id., (using a speaker to communicate with an user), id., [0051] (providing a “user interface[, which] may include any components that interact with any one of the user's senses, such as touch, sight, sound, taste, or smell and/or haptic output.”) (annotation added).
Applicant continues:
Notably, the Office Action appears to consider that certain steps are optional and non- limiting. In this regard, certain steps appear to be considered as though the diagnostic processor performs particular steps "ifso" the detection processor detects particular events, these steps are non-limiting. Applicant respectfully submits that this view is incorrect. A processor which performs particular steps if particular events occur is evidently different to a processor which does not perform these steps if the same events occur. These claimed features are just as limiting as, for example, a processor of an EVPS which is configured to cause an action to occur if a user inhalation is detected or a button is pushed, and must be assessed with the same weight by the Examiner.
Remarks to Final Rejection at 10. As demonstrated above and the rejection below, even if the "if" statements are required, the combination of Bessant and Galloway still meet the claimed invention.
Turning now to Applicant’s Remarks to the Advisory Action, Applicant argues:
there is no suggestion at all that this calibrating [in Galloway] involves measuring any parameter of a cell. To the contrary, the battery measurement component is not a part of a battery. In fact, as set out in paragraph [0137] of Galloway, the control board does not even comprise a power source, and is not connected to a power source until it has been deemed functional or repaired if necessary, and placed in a housing to form an aerosol delivery device.
Id. at 9. (annotation added) Even if this characterization of Galloway is correct, Bessant discloses performing the claimed cell integrity test. Bessant, [0106] (explaining the performed system diagnostic “includes a diagnostic of the battery circuit”.) Addressing the above Remarks to the Advisory Action directly, the claims do not require “the battery measurement component” to be part of battery. Claim 1 recites “the cell integrity test comprises measuring one or more parameters of a cell of the EVPS.” The claimed cell of the EVPS is not limited to a cell of an electronic cigarette. Even if the claimed cell of the EVPS was limited to being part of an electronic cigarette, Bessant discloses performing a diagnostic of the battery circuit of the electronic cigarette. Id., [0106]. Galloway teaches various fault circuitry arrangements, id., [0075], and using the control board associated with the electronic cigarette to test functionality. id., [0076].
Applicant continues:
Secondly, there is no mention that this calibrating involves specifically measuring the voltage from a cell, current from a cell, or temperature of a cell. The test apparatus which is used in Galloway to perform the testing of the control board is configured as a "bed of nails" (see [0043]) and is completely unable to interrogate a control board within an aerosol delivery device, let alone a cell connected to the control board within the aerosol delivery device.
As such, not only is there no motivation to make the several modifications and selections necessary to arrive at the claimed invention, but this also appears technically unfeasible given the specific test apparatus and approach taught in Galloway.
Remarks to Advisory Action at 9. Bessant discloses performing the claimed cell integrity test. Bessant, [0106] (explaining the performed system diagnostic “includes a diagnostic of the battery circuit”.) Galloway’s teachings help fill in the gaps of the generic disclosure of Bessant.
Lastly Applicant’s argues “Galloway also fails to disclose techniques which result in providing visible, audio, or haptic output to a user of an EVPS, or any technologies which can be feasibly implemented within a consumer-usable EVPS, as required by the present claims.” Remarks to Advisory Action at 9. (underline in original). Even if Applicant’s characterization of Galloway is correct, Bessant’s output processor (i.e., communication interface) is adapted to indicate a result of the at least one system diagnostics performed to a user ([0057]) using one or more output devices of the EVPS which are configured to provide visible ([0053]), audio ([0052]), and/or haptic output ([0051]).
Therefore, Applicant's Remarks to the Advisory Action and Remarks to Final Rejection are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1–2, 7–9, 14–15, and 21–26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP 2106.03. Independent claim 1 is drawn to an electronic vapor provision system (EVPS), independent claim 14 is drawn to a diagnostic method for a diagnostic system of an electronic vapor provision system (EVPS) and claim 26 is drawn to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing computer executable instructions adapted to cause a computer system to, when executed by the computer, perform the method of claim 14. Thus, the independent claims and their dependents pass Step 1 because they are drawn to either an article of manufacture, a machine, or a process, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP § 2106.04(II) and the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility Life Sciences & Data Processing Examples (“October 2019 Update”), a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. The claims recite recites abstract ideas in the following underlined locations:
Claim 1’s “(a) . . . the detection processor is adapted to detect a predetermined misuse event relating to use of the EVPS by a user by detecting whether a signal from the electronic thermometer sensor exceeds a threshold value, and if so, the diagnostic processor is adapted to perform a cell integrity test;”
Claim 1’s “(b) . . . the detection processor is adapted to detect a predetermined misuse event relating to use of the EVPS by a user by detecting whether a signal from at least one of the input voltage sensor or the input current sensor is outside a predetermined range, and if so, after detecting that the signal from at least one of the input voltage sensor or the input current sensor is outside the predetermined range and as a consequence of detecting that the signal from at least one of the input voltage sensor or the input current sensor is outside the predetermined range, the diagnostic processor is adapted to perform the cell integrity test”;
Claim 1’s “(c) . . . the detection processor is adapted to detect a predetermined misuse event relating to use of the EVPS by a user by detecting a signal from the payload closure sensor indicating improper payload closure, and if so, the diagnostic processor is adapted to perform one or more selected from the group consisting of: a moisture test, a circuit integrity test, and the cell integrity test”;
Claim 1’s “(d) . . . the detection processor is adapted to detect a predetermined misuse event relating to use of the EVPS by a user by detecting a signal from the moisture sensor indicating moisture, and if so, the diagnostic processor is adapted to perform one or more selected from the group consisting of: the circuit integrity test, and the cell integrity test”;
Claim 1’s “wherein the cell integrity test comprises measuring one or more parameters of a cell of the EVPS, the one or more parameters relating to the cell comprising one or more of: (i) a voltage from the cell: (ii) a current from the cell: and (iii) a temperature of the cell, to check that each of these one or more parameters relating to the cell are within a predetermined operation range”;
Claim 2’s “the detection processor is adapted to detect whether a signal from the accelerometer sensor exceeds a threshold value, and if so, the diagnostic processor is adapted to perform the circuit integrity test”;
Claim 14’s “(a) . . . the detection processor is adapted to detect a predetermined misuse event relating to use of the EVPS by a user by detecting whether a signal from the electronic thermometer sensor exceeds a threshold value, and if so, the diagnostic processor is adapted to perform a cell integrity test”;
Claim 14’s “(b) . . . the detection processor is adapted to detect a predetermined misuse event relating to use of the EVPS by a user by detecting whether a signal from at least one of the input voltage sensor or the input current sensor is outside a predetermined range, and if so, after detecting that the signal from at least one of the input voltage sensor or the input current sensor is outside the predetermined range and as a consequence of detecting that the signal from at least one of the input voltage sensor or the input current sensor is outside the predetermined range, the diagnostic processor is adapted to perform the cell integrity test”;
Claim 14’s “(c) . . . the detection processor is adapted to detect a predetermined misuse event relating to use of the EVPS by a user by detecting a signal from the payload closure sensor indicating improper payload closure, and if so, the diagnostic processor is adapted to perform one or more selected from the group consisting of: a moisture test, a circuit integrity test, and the cell integrity test”;
Claim 14’s “(d) . . . the detection processor is adapted to detect a predetermined misuse event relating to use of the EVPS by a user by detecting a signal from the moisture sensor indicating moisture, and if so, the diagnostic processor is adapted to perform one or more selected from the group consisting of: the circuit integrity test, and the cell integrity test”;
Claim 14’s “wherein the cell integrity test comprises measuring one or more parameters of a cell of the EVPS, the one or more parameters relating to the cell comprising one or more of: (i) a voltage from the cell; (ii) a current from the cell; and (iii) a temperature of the cell, to check that each of these one or more parameters relating to the cell are within a predetermined operation range”;
Claim 15’s “the detecting comprises detecting whether a signal from the accelerometer sensor exceeds a threshold value, and if so, the performing comprises performing the circuit integrity test”;
Claim 24’s “performing at least the first diagnostic test for the EVPS in response to the detection of a corresponding predetermined misuse event, based on the data received from the EVPS”; and
Claim 25’s “detecting the predetermined misuse event, based on the data received from the EVPS”.
The above limitations fall into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas similar to other mental processes identified as abstract ideas, e.g., observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). The above limitation is recited at such a high level of generality that they is capable of being performed in the human mind. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) (explaining "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” was found to be a mental process capable of being performed in the human mind because the data analysis steps were recited at a high level of generality.); see also Specification filed on 05/14/2021 (“Specification”) at 22 ll. 3–9 (describing comparing the temperature from a thermometer with a threshold to determine if EVPS is overly hot), id. at 18 ll. 11–32 (explaining the measured voltage or current is compared with a threshold voltage, which is established “based upon testing of what level of voltage and/or current may cause damage to the EVPS during charging (or optionally discharging) of the cell, or based upon a manufacturer's rating of the cell or of an approved charging unit which may cause damage to the EVPS during charging . . .”), id at 19 ll. 27–29 (explaining that the detection processor “compare[s] the signal from a seal integrity electrical sensor . . . with a predetermined operation range to detect if the signal is outside the range. . .”), id. at 20 ll. 20 (explaining the moisture sensor data is compared to determine if “the EVPS has been dropped in water . . .”), id. 16 ll. (“each circuit integrity test, as applicable, may test that a circuit closes and/or opens as instructed, and/or that one or more of a voltage, current and resistance within a circuit is within a predetermined operational range”), and id. at 16 ll. 1–4 (describing comparing “the signal from the accelerometer . . . with the or each threshold to detect whether a signal exceeds a threshold value, and if so this result is passed to the diagnostic processor to indicate a specific form of misuse, namely dropping the EVPS.”). (annotation added)
Step 2A Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether claim(s) as a whole integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) provides helpful context for what is not considered an integration of a judicial exception, e.g., when a claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Please see reproduction below:
TLI Communications provides an example of a claim invoking computers and other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The court stated that the claims describe steps of recording, administration and archiving of digital images, and found them to be directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner. 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747. The court then turned to the additional elements of performing these functions using a telephone unit and a server and noted that these elements were being used in their ordinary capacity (i.e., the telephone unit is used to make calls and operate as a digital camera including compressing images and transmitting those images, and the server simply receives data, extracts classification information from the received data, and stores the digital images based on the extracted information). 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48. In other words, the claims invoked the telephone unit and server merely as tools to execute the abstract idea. Thus, the court found that the additional elements did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea on a telephone network without any recitation of details of how to carry out the abstract idea.
Other examples where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process include:
i. A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
ii. Generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location as performed by generic computer components, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1243-44, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1855-57 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
iii. A process for monitoring audit log data that is executed on a general-purpose computer where the increased speed in the process comes solely from the capabilities of the general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
iv. A method of using advertising as an exchange or currency being applied or implemented on the Internet, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1754 (Fed. Cir. 2014);
v. Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and
vi. A method of assigning hair designs to balance head shape with a final step of using a tool (scissors) to cut the hair, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential).
MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2). (annotations removed)
Returning now to the pending claims, in addition to the abstract idea identified above, the claims also recite:
Claim 1’s “electronic vapor provision system (EVPS) comprising a diagnostic system, the diagnostic system comprising” generically links the abstract idea to the field of endeavor of aerosol generating devices. See MPEP § 2106 (explaining “[a]n abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment”). The courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis. MPEP § 2106.05(I);
Claim 1’s “a detection processor adapted to detect one or more of a plurality of predetermined misuse events relating to use of the EVPS by a user” and “a diagnostic processor adapted to perform, in response to detection of a predetermined misuse event relating to use of the EVPS by a user, at least one corresponding system diagnostic.” These detection and diagnostic processors are recited generically (no structural details are recited other than that it is a “processor”) and represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a general-purpose processor/circuitry. See Specification at 9 ll. 24–32 (explaining the “’ processor 50 includes a general processing core 530, RAM531, ROM 532, a one-time programming (OTP) unit 533, a general purpose I/O system 560 (for communicating with other components on the PCB 28). . .)” Accordingly, the above limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The above also captures insignificant pre-solution activity necessary to perform the perform the “mental process.” See MPEP § 2106.05(g) (explaining mere data gathering is an example of insignificant extra-solution activity) or the additional requirements amount insignificant post-solution activity of merely applying the abstract idea(s). See generally MPEP § 2106.05(g);
Claim 1’s additional one or more of “an electronic thermometer sensor,” “at least one of an input voltage sensor or an input current sensor,” “a payload closure sensor,” and “a moisture sensor” captures insignificant pre-solution activity necessary to perform the perform the “mental process.” See MPEP § 2106.05(g) (explaining mere data gathering is an example of insignificant extra-solution activity);
Claim 2’s “wherein the EVPS comprises an accelerometer sensor” captures insignificant pre-solution activity necessary to perform the perform the “mental process.” See MPEP § 2106.05(g) (explaining mere data gathering is an example of insignificant extra-solution activity);
Claims 7–9’s wireless communication and accompanying structures amount to mere in structures to apply the mental process exception because they recite no more than an idea of the outcome. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1)(iii) (providing a similar examples where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, e.g., “[w]ireless delivery of out-of-region broadcasting content to a cellular telephone via a network without any details of how the delivery is accomplished”). (annotation added);
Claim 14’s “diagnostic method for a diagnostic system of an electronic vapor provision system (EVPS)” generically links the abstract idea to the field of endeavor of aerosol generating devices. See MPEP § 2106 (explaining “[a]n abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment”). The courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis. MPEP § 2106.05(I).
Claim 14’s “detecting one or more of a plurality of predetermined misuse events relating to use of the EVPS by a user” and “performing, in response to the detection of one or more of the plurality of predetermined misuse events relating to use of the EVPS by a user, at least one corresponding system diagnostic.” These detecting and performing steps represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a general-purpose processor/circuitry. See Specification at 9 ll. 24–32 (explaining the “’ processor 50 includes a general processing core 530, RAM531, ROM 532, a one-time programming (OTP) unit 533, a general purpose I/O system 560 (for communicating with other components on the PCB 28). . .)” Accordingly, the above limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The above also captures insignificant pre-solution activity necessary to perform the perform the “mental process.” See MPEP § 2106.05(g) (explaining mere data gathering is an example of insignificant extra-solution activity) or the additional requirements amount insignificant post-solution activity of merely applying the abstract idea(s). See generally MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Claim 14’s additional one or more of “electronic thermometer sensor,” “at least one of an input voltage sensor or an input current sensor,” “a payload closure sensor,” and “a moisture sensor” captures insignificant pre-solution activity necessary to perform the perform the “mental process.” See MPEP § 2106.05(g) (explaining mere data gathering is an example of insignificant extra-solution activity)
Claim 15’s “accelerometer sensor” captures insignificant pre-solution activity necessary to perform the perform the “mental process.” See MPEP § 2106.05(g) (explaining mere data gathering is an example of insignificant extra-solution activity)
Claims 20–23 wireless communication and accompanying structures amount to mere in structures to apply the mental process exception because they recite no more than an idea of the outcome. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1)(iii) (providing a similar example where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, e.g., “[w]ireless delivery of out-of-region broadcasting content to a cellular telephone via a network without any details of how the delivery is accomplished”). (annotation added);
Accordingly, the claims fail to recite any additional features which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Therefore, Step 2A, Prong Two is satisfied because the claims fail to recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Analysis under Step 2B may be found in the following section.
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim(s) as a whole
amount(s) to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP § 2106.05.
While similar to Step 2A Prong Two, Step 2B goes further by taking into account whether or not
the extra-solution activity is well-known. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). The following Table provides
evidence demonstrating that the features recited in addition to the abstract idea(s) were well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field aerosol generating devices:
Features recited in addition to the abstract idea(s)
Conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two
Evidence that the additional features were well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field aerosol generating devices
Claim 1’s “electronic vapor provision system (EVPS) comprising a diagnostic system, the diagnostic system comprising”
Generically links the abstract idea to the field of endeavor of aerosol generating devices
US 20210007406 as applied in the rejection below; and
US 20170156405 as applied in the rejection below;
Claim 1’s “a detection processor adapted to detect one or more of a plurality of predetermined misuse events relating to use of the EVPS by a user” and “a diagnostic processor adapted to perform, in response to detection of a predetermined misuse event relating to use of the EVPS by a user, at least one corresponding system diagnostic.”
These do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The above also captures insignificant pre-solution activity necessary to perform the perform the “mental process.” See MPEP § 2106.05(g) (explaining mere data gathering is an example of insignificant extra-solution activity) or the additional requirements amount insignificant post-solution activity of merely applying the abstract idea(s). See generally MPEP § 2106.05(g)
US 20210007406 as applied in the rejection below; and
US 20170156405 as applied in the rejection below;
Claim 1’s additional one or more of “an electronic thermometer sensor,” “at least one of an input voltage sensor or an input current sensor,” “a payload closure sensor,” and “a moisture sensor”
Captures insignificant pre-solution activity necessary to perform the perform the “mental process.” See MPEP § 2106.05(g) (explaining mere data gathering is an example of insignificant extra-solution activity)
US 20210007406’s voltage sensor/ input current sensor [0106];
US 20170156405 as applied in the rejection below;
US 20210169150’s moisture sensor [0042]; and
US 20150142387’s a temperature sensor, a voltage sensor, a capacitive sensor. [0040] and [0043]
Claim 2’s “wherein the EVPS comprises an accelerometer sensor”
Captures insignificant pre-solution activity necessary to perform the perform the “mental process.” See MPEP § 2106.05(g) (explaining mere data gathering is an example of insignificant extra-solution activity)
US 2021/0007406 as applied in the rejection below;
US 20130042865’s [0021]; and
US 20160360789’s [0093];
Claim 7’s wireless communication and accompanying structures
These amount to mere in structures to apply the mental process exception because they recite no more than an idea of the outcome. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1)(iii)
US 20210007406’s [0056];
US 20170156405’s [0045]];
US 20170156405’s [0104];
US 20140246020’s [0103]; and
US 20120048266’s [0026].
Claims 8 and 9’s wireless communication and accompanying structures
US 20210007406’s [0056];
US 20170156405’s [0045]];
US 20170156405’s [0104];
US 20140246020’s [0103]; and
US 20120048266’s [0026].
Claim 14’s “diagnostic method for a diagnostic system of an electronic vapor provision system (EVPS)”
Generically links the abstract idea to the field of endeavor of aerosol generating devices.
US 2021/0007406 as applied in the rejection below;
US 20170156405 as applied in the rejection below;
Claim 14’s “detecting one or more of a plurality of predetermined misuse events relating to use of the EVPS by a user” and “performing, in response to the detection of one or more of the plurality of predetermined misuse events relating to use of the EVPS by a user, at least one corresponding system diagnostic.”
Captures insignificant pre-solution activity necessary to perform the perform the “mental process.” See MPEP § 2106.05(g) (explaining mere data gathering is an example of insignificant extra-solution activity) or the additional requirements amount insignificant post-solution activity of merely applying the abstract idea(s). See generally MPEP § 2106.05(g).
US 2021/0007406 as applied in the rejection below;
US 20170156405 as applied in the rejection below;
Claim 14’s additional one or more of “electronic thermometer sensor,” “at least one of an input voltage sensor or an input current sensor,” “a payload closure sensor,” and “a moisture sensor”
Captures insignificant pre-solution activity necessary to perform the perform the “mental process.” See MPEP § 2106.05(g) (explaining mere data gathering is an example of insignificant extra-solution activity)
US 20210007406’s voltage sensor/ input current sensor [0106];
US 20170156405 as applied in the rejection below;
US 20210169150’s moisture sensor [0042]; and
US 20150142387’s a temperature sensor, a voltage sensor, a capacitive sensor [0040] [0043]
Claim 15’s “accelerometer sensor”
Captures insignificant pre-solution activity necessary to perform the perform the “mental process.” See MPEP § 2106.05(g) (explaining mere data gathering is an example of insignificant extra-solution activity)
US 2021/0007406 as applied in the rejection below;
US 20130042865’s [0021]; and
US 20160360789’s [0093];
Claim 20’s wireless communication and accompanying structures
Amount to mere in structures to apply the mental process exception because they recite no more than an idea of the outcome. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1)(iii)
US 20210007406’s [0056];
US 20170156405’s [0045]];
US 20170156405’s [0104];
US 20140246020’s [0103]; and
US 20120048266’s [0026].
Claims 21–23’s wireless communication and accompanying structures
US 20210007406’s [0056];
US 20170156405’s [0045]];
US 20170156405’s [0104];
US 20140246020’s [0103]; and
US 20120048266’s [0026].
Claim 23’s wireless communication and accompanying structures
US 20210007406’s [0056];
US 20170156405’s [0045]];
US 20170156405’s [0104];
US 20140246020’s [0103]; and
US 20120048266’s [0026].
As demonstrated above, those features recited in addition to the abstract idea remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration because the features were well-known, routine, and conventional at the time of filing.
Accordingly, claims 1–2, 7–9, 14–15, and 21–26 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited exceptions identified above.
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 1–2, 7–9, 14–15, and 20–26 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.
As to claim 1, this claim was amended to recite “wherein the cell integrity test comprises measuring one or more parameters of a cell of the EVPS, the one or more parameters relating to the cell comprising one or more of: (i) a voltage from the cell: (ii) a current from the cell: and (iii) a temperature of the cell, to check that each of these one or more parameters relating to the cell are within a predetermined operation range.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of “the one or more parameters relating to the cell comprising one or more of: (i) a voltage from the cell: (ii) a current from the cell: and (iii) a temperature of the cell” requires measuring either (i) a voltage from the cell, (ii) a current from the cell, or (iii) a temperature of the cell.” That is, the above does not require testing all three. However, claim 1 continues by reciting “to check that each of these one or more parameters relating to the cell are within a predetermined operation range.” This subsequent recitation of “to check that each of these one or more parameters” appears to require that each of the parameters are checked—instead of the just one. One of ordinary skill in the art is unable to ascertain whether claim 1 requires broadly requires “one or more” of the parameters are checked or more narrowly requires that “each of these one or more parameters” are checked.
For the purposes of searching and throughout the remainder of this action, Examiner will assume broadly requires only “one or more” of the parameters are checked.
Claims 2 and 7–9 are rejected for the same reasons via their dependency on claim 1.
As to claims 2 and 7–9, these claims have a preamble of “the diagnostic system of claim 1.” However, claim 1 is drawn to an electronic vapor provision system (EVPS). Accordingly, claims 2 and 7–9 are indefinite because they add confusion as to whether the limitations are intended to be subcomponents of the overall EVPS or further narrow just the diagnostic system.
For the purposes of searching and throughout the remainder of this action, Examiner will assume Applicant intends the preamble of claims 2 and 7–9 to recite “The EVPS of claim 1”
As to claim 7, recitation of “the remote mobile communication device comprising at least the detection processor” conflicts with claim 1 because claim 1 already requires that the detection processor is a subcomponent of the diagnostic system.
As to claim 8, the recitation of “wherein the EVPS comprises the detection processor” is indefinite because claim 1 already requires that the detection processor is a subcomponent of the diagnostic system, which is a subcomponent of the EVPS. That is, EVPS already comprises the detection processor. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art is unable to ascertain how the scope of claim 8’s “wherein the EVPS comprises the detection processor” is intended to narrow the scope of claim 1 without conflicting.
As to claim 8, recitation of “the remote mobile communication device comprising at least the diagnostic processor” conflicts with claim 1 because claim 1 already requires that the diagnostic processor is a subcomponent of the diagnostic system.
As to claim 9, the recitation of “wherein the EVPS comprises the diagnostic processor” is indefinite because claim 1 already requires that the diagnostic processor is a subcomponent of the diagnostic system, which is a subcomponent of the EVPS. That is, EVPS already comprises the diagnostic processor. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art is unable to ascertain how the scope of claim 9’s “wherein the EVPS comprises the diagnostic processor” is intended to narrow the scope of claim 1 without conflicting.
As to claim 9, recitation of “the remote mobile communication device comprising the output processor” conflicts with claim 1 because claim 1 already requires that the output processor is a subcomponent of the diagnostic system.
As to claim 14, the recitation of “the detection processor” in line 13 lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 15 and 20–26 are rejected for the same reason via their dependency on claim 14.
As to claim 14, the recitation of “the diagnostic processor” in line 16 lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 15 and 20–26 are rejected for the same reason via their dependency on claim 14.
As to claim 21, the recitation of “the performing” in lines 4–5 is indefinite because one of ordinary skill in the art is unable to ascertain whether Applicant intends to reference the “performing” in claim 14’s line 6 or “perform” in claim 14’s lines 16, 29, 28, and/or 33.
As to claim 21, the recitation of “the detecting” in line 7 is indefinite because one of ordinary skill in the art is unable to ascertain whether Applicant intends to reference the “detecting” in claim 14’s lines 4, 14, 19, 26, or 31 and/or “detect” in claim 14’s lines 14, 18, 26, and/or 31.
As to claim 22, the recitation of “the performing” in line 2 is indefinite because one of ordinary skill in the art is unable to ascertain whether Applicant intends to reference the “performing” in claim 14’s line 6 or “perform” in claim 14’s lines 16, 29, 28, and/or 33.
As to claim 22, the recitation of “the indicating” in lines 4–5 is indefinite because one of ordinary skill in the art is unable to ascertain whether Applicant intends to reference the “indicating” in claim 14’s line 9, 28, and/or 32.
As to claim 23, the recitations of “the EVPS” in lines 3 and 5 are indefinite because one of ordinary skill in the art is unable to ascertain whether Applicant intends to reference the “remote electronic vapor provision system (EVPS)” in claim 24’s line 2 or the “electronic vapor provision system (EVPS)” in claim 14’s line 2. Similarly, the recitation of “the data received from the EVPS” is indefinite because it doesn’t clearly have antecedent basis in the “data from a remote electronic vapor provision system (EVPS)” set out in claim 23’s line 2. Restated differently, because two “EVPS” are defined and only one is “remote” claim 23 is indefinite.
Claims 24–25 are rejected for the same reasons via their dependency on claim 23.
As to claim 24, the recitations of “the EVPS” in line 2 and “the data received from the EVPS” in line 3 are indefinite for the same reasons set out in the rejection of claim 23 immediately above.
Claim 25 is rejected for the same reasons via its dependency on claim 24.
As to claim 25, the recitation of “the data received from the EVPS” indefinite for the same reasons set out in the rejection of claim 23 two rejections above.
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.
Claims 1-2, 7-9, 14–15, and 20-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bessant (US 2021/0007406) in view of Galloway et al. (US 2017/0156405).
The above Response to Arguments section is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Bessant discloses a fall (i.e., misuse) response procedures (i.e., method) for an aerosol-generating system comprising:
a detection processor adapted to detect one or more of a plurality of predetermined misuse events (i.e., fall) ([0071]);
a diagnostics processor adapted to perform, in response to detection of a predetermined misuse event, at least one corresponding system diagnostic ([0083]), and
an output processor (i.e., communication interface) adapted to indicate a result of the at least one system diagnostics performed to a user ([0057]), using one or more output devices of the EVPS which are configured to provide visible ([0053]), audio ([0052]), and/or haptic output ([0051]).
Bessant further teaches that “a device held by a user may be bumped and jarred into motion causing a shock without a fall” ([0068]), and “the sample rate may be increased, for example increased to about 100 Hz or about 200 Hz, if the first detected sample exceeds 1G significantly due to additional force provided by a user's hand, for example, exceeds 7G. This may allow the device to determine a free fall before the device reaches to the floor” ([0080], Fig. 1 components 12, 14, 20). This clearly establishes that the misuse events involving the aerosol generating device (i.e., EVPS) were caused by a user during their use of the device (i.e., relating to use of the EVPS by a user), wherein the diagnostic processor (i.e., processor) is configured to detect a predetermined misuse event (e.g., a fall) related to the device’s use by a user ([0083]).
Bessant further discloses performing a cell integrity test in response to diagnostic routine, wherein the cell integrity test comprises measuring one or more parameters of a cell of the EVPS. ([0106])
However, Bessant does not explicitly teach one or more of the limitations described below:
(a) the EVPS comprises an electronic thermometer sensor, and the detection processor is adapted to detect a predetermined misuse event relating to use of the EVPS by a user by detecting whether a signal from the electronic thermometer sensor exceeds a threshold value, and if so, the diagnostic processor is adapted to perform a cell integrity test
(b) the EVPS comprises at least one of an input voltage sensor or an input current sensor, and the detection processor is adapted to detect a predetermined misuse event relating to use of the EVPS by a user by detecting whether a signal from at least one of the input voltage sensor or the input current sensor is outside a predetermined range, and if so, after detecting that the signal from at least one of the input voltage sensor or the input current sensor is outside the predetermined range and as a consequence of detecting that the signal from at least one of the input voltage sensor or the input current sensor is outside the predetermined range, the diagnostic processor is adapted to perform the cell integrity test
(c) the EVPS comprises a payload closure sensor, and the detection processor is adapted to detect a predetermined misuse event relating to use of the EVPS by a user by detecting a signal from the payload closure sensor indicating improper payload closure, and if so, the diagnostic processor is adapted to perform one or more selected from the group consisting of: a moisture test, a circuit integrity test, and the cell integrity test, and
(d) the EVPS comprises a moisture sensor, and the detection processor is adapted to detect a predetermined misuse event relating to use of the EVPS by a user by detecting a signal from the moisture sensor indicating moisture, and if so, the diagnostic processor is adapted to perform one or more selected from the group consisting of: the circuit integrity test, and the cell integrity test; and
the one or more parameters relating to the cell comprising one or more of: (i) a voltage from the cell: (ii) a current from the cell: and (iii) a temperature of the cell, to check that each of these one or more parameters relating to the cell are within a predetermined operation range.
Galloway discloses a system and method for testing components of an aerosol delivery device. The system comprises a control board (i.e., EVPS) and a test apparatus (i.e., mobile communication device), wherein the control board includes an interface that communicatively couples with the test apparatus ([0005], Fig. 4). Galloway also discloses that the control board’s processing circuitry ([Fig. 5 component 510]) is configured to verify that the measured current satisfies an expected current value criterion ([0077]); therefore, it is clear that the processing circuitry of the aerosol delivery device (i.e., EVPS) inherently includes an input current sensor to measure the current delivered to the resistance load by the heater circuitry ([Fig. 5 component 518]). Furthermore, Galloway teaches that the processor (i.e., processing circuit) ([Fig. 5 component 510]) is configured to determine (i.e., diagnose) if there is a fault in the heater circuitry from the detected current values ([0077]). The heater circuitry directly connects to the power source (i.e., battery/cell) to provide power (i.e., current) to the resistance load. Thus, it is clear that verifying the measured current values delivered to the resistance load is also a method to diagnose the cell’s integrity (i.e., cell integrity test—teaching wherein the cell integrity test comprises measuring one or more parameters of a cell of the EVPS, the one or more parameters relating to the cell comprising one or more of: (i) a voltage from the cell: (ii) a current from the cell: and (iii) a temperature of the cell, to check that each of these one or more parameters relating to the cell are within a predetermined operation range.). The reference further states that based on the fault detection and/or diagnostic information calibration routines (i.e. testing to ensure measuring instruments are providing accurate and reliable results) can be performed. The calibration routine includes calibrating a battery measurement component (i.e. a cell integrity test) (paragraph [0080]). Further it is noted the claimed limitation of “and if so, after detecting at the signal from at least one of the input voltage sensor or the input current sensor is outside the predetermined range and as a consequence of detecting that the signal from at least one of the input voltage sensor or the input current sensor is outside the predetermined range, the diagnostic processor is adapted to perform the cell integrity test” is stated in the alternative – “if so”. Therefore while Galloway does meet this limitation, the limitation itself does not have to occur. Galloway is considered to be an analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the electronic aerosol delivery devices.
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 aerosol-generating system (i.e., EVPS) of Bessant to incorporate the teachings of Galloway by including an input current sensor in the control circuitry. Doing so would allow the processor to detect and measure the current values delivered to the heating element, diagnose any faults in the battery based on the measured current values after the device experiences a fall or shock caused by misuse events related to the device’s use by a user, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
Please refer to the modified Figured below:
PNG
media_image1.png
566
842
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is further noted that the “output processor adapted to indicate a result of the at least one system diagnostic performed to a user, wherein one or more of (a) to (d) below is met” allows for only one or the conditions (a) to (d) to be met. Which is clearly obvious over the combination of Bessant and Galloway above.
Regarding claims 2, 15 and 26, modified Bessant discloses the EVPS comprises an accelerometer sensor ([0062, 0072]), the detection processor is adapted to detect whether a signal from the accelerometer sensor exceeds a threshold value ([0065, 0066, 0088]). Modified Bessant also teaches that the processor is configured to perform a diagnostic routine to verify that some or all features of the device are functional ([0128]). Thus, it is clear that the circuitry within the device (i.e., EVPS) would inherently be checked to ensure it properly functions after the device experiences a fall or shock. Furthermore, Modified Bessant discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing computer executable instructions adapted to cause a computer system to, when executed by the computer, perform the method ([0009]).
Regarding claims 7 and 20, modified Bessant discloses an aerosol generating device comprise a wireless communications circuit for communication with a remote mobile communication device ([0055, 0056, 0087]); and the remote mobile communication device comprising at least the detection processor, and signals from one or more sensors of the aerosol generating device are transmitted to the remote mobile communication device ([0057]). In other words, the remote mobile communication device could be a tablet or a smart phone includes a processor which would inherently be capable of transmitting (i.e., output) and receiving (i.e., detect) signals wirelessly from the sensors of the electronic smoking device once they (i.e., electronic smoking device and mobile device) are properly connected via an application.
Regarding claims 8-9, and 21-22, modified Bessant discloses the electronic vapor provision system (EVPS) comprises a processor (i.e., detection processor) for analyzing the signals detected from sensors, such as an accelerometer ([0070, 0071, 0085]). Modified Bessant also discloses the EVPS comprises a wireless communication circuit (i.e., communication interface) for communication with a remote mobile communication device ([0056,0057, 0058]). Modified Bessant further teaches that the remote mobile communication device (i.e., remote user device) includes its own communication interface to exchange data with the EVPS ([0057]). Therefore, a diagnostic result performed by the EVPS is inherently transmitted to the remote mobile communication device. However, modified Bessant does not explicitly teach the remote mobile communication device comprising at least the diagnostic processor.
Galloway discloses a system and method for testing components of an aerosol delivery device. The system comprises a control board (i.e., EVPS) and a test apparatus (i.e., mobile communication device) ([0061], Fig. 6 component 600), wherein the test apparatus (i.e., mobile communication device) includes a processor (i.e., processing circuitry) ([0061], Fig. 6 component 610) configured to determine (i.e., diagnose) whether the components within the control board (i.e., EVPS) are faulty based on the diagnostic information sent from the control board (i.e., EVPS) ([0095]). Galloway is considered to be an analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the electronic aerosol delivery devices.
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 remote user device of modified Bessant to incorporate the teachings of Galloway by programming the remote user device’s processor to perform diagnostic tests upon receiving diagnostic information from the aerosol generating device (i.e., EVPS), as recognized by Galloway.
Regarding claims 23-25, modified Bessant discloses a mobile communication device (i.e., remote user device) ([0114], Fig. 1 component 28) comprising a wireless communications circuit for communication with a remote electronic vapor provision system (EVPS) ([0057, 0114]); a display ([Fig. 1 component 28]); and the processor of the remote user device inherently displays the result of at least a first diagnostic test performed for the EVPS on the display screen ([Please refer to the rejection of claims 8-9 and 21-22 above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANLEY L CUMMINS IV whose telephone number is (571)272-1060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. (CST).
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, Michael H. Wilson can be reached at (571) 270-3882. 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.
/MANLEY L CUMMINS IV/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1747