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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-28 in the reply filed on 10/22/2025 is acknowledged.
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 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-28 are directed to a system, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
A user feedback system for a user of a delivery device within a delivery ecosystem, comprising:
an estimation processor adapted to identify at least a first feedback action based upon one or more user factors,
the at least first feedback action comprising a behavioral feedback action for affecting at least a first behavior of the user,
the at least first feedback action being expected to alter a state of the user as indicated at least in part by the one or more user factors; and
a feedback processor adapted to select at least a first identified feedback action, and to cause a modification of one or more operations of the delivery device within the delivery ecosystem, according to the at least first identified feedback action.
The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations as certain methods of organizing human activity. The claim recites elements, in non-bold above, which covers performance of the limitations as managing personal behavior. The claimed “identify at least a first feedback action based upon one or more user factors”, “behavioral feedback action for affecting at least a first behavior of the user”, “feedback action expected to alter a state of the user as indicated at least in part by one or more user factors” and “to cause a modification of one or more operations of the delivery device within the delivery ecosystem, according to the selected at least first identified feedback action” is abstract as managing personal behavior by following rules or instructions (e.g. obtaining a state of a user, identifying feedback action of a user) and teaching (modifying operations according to a selected feedback action, modifying operations according to said feedback action). Therefore, the claim as a whole is directed to “treating a patient”, which is an abstract idea because it is organizing human activity. “Treating a patient” is considered to be organizing human activity because it is managing personal behavior (as noted above). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation has managing personal behavior, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites and abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract).
In as much as the claims are obtaining factors, identifying and selecting a feedback action (analyzing the data), and modifying operations (providing a result), the claims are also abstract under mental processes grouping of abstract ides. The claims are no different than a person detecting (mental observation) their own metal state of nicotine withdrawn through being agitated (obtaining a state), determining (metal observation) their own treatment of said state (identifying a first feedback), wherein said treatment includes the inhalation of nicotine from an inhaler by providing relevant information through thought based on previous actions (selecting a feedback action), and then personally inhaling the amount of nicotine over an amount of time (cause a modification) based on the identified feedback action.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite: delivery device, delivery ecosystem, estimation processor and feedback processor in claim 1. The hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (e.g., as generic processors for performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as n ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106, 05(d), II. Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
Dependent claims 2-28 further define the abstract idea that is present in the independent claim and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human activity and Mental Processes and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Claims 2, 14, 15, 23 and 25 recite conditions of identifying feedback, which performed mentally and does not amount to significantly more.
Claims 3-11 and 13 recite the conditions and types of selected feedback, which are related to organizing human activity.
Claim 12 is related to messaging provided to the user, which is related to organizing human activity.
Claims 16 and 17 relate to the implementation of the selected feedback action, which is related to organizing human activity.
Claim 18 is related to providing a user choice over a selection and is related to organizing human activity.
Claim 19 is related to providing a user with instructions which can be performed mentally or is related to organizing human activity.
Claims 20, 21 and 23 are related to obtaining a state of the user, which is performed mentally and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 24 is a functional aspect of a processor and amounts to programming of a generic hardware, and does not amount to significantly more.
Claims 26, 27 and 28 are related to high-level disclosures of the structures of the system, which are recited at a high level of generality. Therefore, these claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 10 be found allowable, claim 11 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
___________________________________________________________________
Claim 1, 2, 14, 20, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of copending Application No. 18/002,983 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
With respect to claims 1, 23 and 25, copending Application No. 18/002,983 claims a user feedback system for a delivery device within a delivery ecosystem comprising an estimation processor adapted to identify a feedback action expected to alter a user state (e.g. factor) (Claims 1 and 16 (Claim 1), and is operable to identify proposed feedback actions (Claim 18), such as a behavioral feedback action for affecting a first behavior of the user (Claim 20), and alter the users state (Claim 1); and a feedback processor adapted to select at least a first identified feedback (Claim 2) and to cause modification of one or more operations the device within the ecosystem according to the selected action (Claim 3)
With respect to claim 2, copending Application No. 18/002,983 does not explicitly claim the relationship in instant claim 2. Thus, copending Application No. 18/002,983 meets the limitations therein.
With respect to claim 14, copending Application No. 18/002,983 claims that the feedback actions includes a pharmaceutical feedback action for affecting consumption of an active ingredient (Claim 20).
With respect to claim 20, copending Application No. 18/002,983 claims that the feedback processor is adapted to select the first feedback action identified by the estimation processor (Claim 2)
With respect to claim 22, copending Application No. 18/002,983 claims that the factors include neurological data related to the user (Claim 17).
With respect to claim 24, claim 19 of copending Application No. 18/002,983 overlaps with the scope thereof.
With respect to claim 26, copending Application No. 18/002,983 claims that the delivery ecosystem includes one or more mobile terminals (Claim 21).
With respect to claims 27 and 28, copending Application No. 18/002,983 claims that the functionality of the processors is provided by a remote server (Claim 22) within the device.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
___________________________________________________________________
Claims 1, 14, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-3, 22,, 24, 26, 27 and 28 of copending Application No. 18/003,022 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
With respect to claims 1, 23 and 25, copending Application No. 18/003,022 claims a user feedback system for a user of a delivery device within a delivery ecosystem, comprising: an obtaining processor adapted to obtain one or more user factors indicative of a user state of the user, wherein [[said]] the one or more user factors are based upon at least a first aspect of the user's situation of the user separate to their handling or operation of the delivery device by the user; and an estimation processor adapted to identify a corresponding feedback action expected to alter [[a]] the user state of the user as indicated at least in part by the or each one or more user factors (Claim 1); a feedback processor adapted to select at least a first feedback action identified by the estimation processor for at least a first device within the delivery ecosystem (Claim 2); wherein in which the feedback processor is adapted to cause a modification of one or more operations of at least a first device within the delivery ecosystem according to the or each selected at least first feedback action (Claim 3).
With respect to claim 14, copending Application No. 18/003,022 claims The [[A]] user feedback system according to claim1, wherein any proceeding claim, in which the estimation processor is operable to generate one or more proposed feedback actions relating to one or more selected from the group [[list]] consisting of: a behavioral feedback action for affecting at least a first behaviourbehavior of the user;a pharmaceutical feedback action for affecting [[the]] consumption of an active ingredient by the user; and a non-consumption feedback action for affecting one or more non-consumption operations of the delivery ecosystem (claim 26).
With respect to claim 20, copending Application No. 18/003,022 claims the claimed obtaining processor (Claim 1).
With respect to claim 22, copending Application No. 18/003,022 claim obtaining physiological data from the user (Claim 22).
With respect to claim 24, copending Application No. 18/003,022 claims the estimation processor does not generate an explicit estimation of user state as an interim operation [[step]] in the identification of the one or more proposed feedback actions. (Claim 24)
With respect to claim 26, copending Application No. 18/003,022 claims The [[A]] user feedback system according to claim1, wherein any proceeding claim, in which the delivery ecosystem comprises one or more selected from the group [[list]] consisting of: one or more delivery devices; one or more mobile terminals; one or more wearable devices; and one or more docking units for the or each one or more delivery devices (Claim 27)
With respect to claims 27 and 28, copending Application No. 18/003,022 claims The [[A]] user feedback system according to claim1, wherein any proceeding claim, in which functionality of one or more of the obtaining processor, the estimation processor, [[and]] or a feedback processor is provided at least in part by one or more processors located within one or more devices of the delivery ecosystem, or the remote server (Claim 28).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
________________________________________________________________________
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7 and 13-28 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 13-26 of copending Application No. 18/002,949 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
With respect to claims 1, 2, 23 and 25, copending Application No. 18/002,949 claims A user feedback system for a user of a delivery device within a delivery ecosystem, comprising: an estimation processor adapted to identify at least a first feedback action based upon one or more user factors, the at least first feedback action relating to an amount or nature of an active ingredient delivered by the delivery device, the at least first feedback action being expected to alter a state of the user as indicated at least in part by the one or more user factors; and a feedback processor adapted to select the at least [[a]] first identified feedback action, and to cause a modification of one or more operations of at least a first device within the delivery ecosystem, according to the or each selected at least first identified feedback action (Claim 1); [[A]]The user feedback system according to any proceeding claim 1, in which the estimation processor is operable to identify one or more further proposed feedback actions relating to one or more selected from the list consisting of. a behavioral feedback action for affecting at least a first behavior of the user; and ii. a non-consumption feedback action for affecting one or more non-consumption operations of the delivery ecosystem (Claim 14).
With respect to claims 6 and 13, copending Application No. 18/002,949 claims [[A]]The user feedback system according to any proceeding claim 1, in which the selected at least first identified feedback action also comprises causing the prompting of the user to provide feedback to the user feedback processor in relation to the selected at least first identified feedback action (Claim 13).
With respect to claim 7, copending Application No. 18/002,949 claims [[A]]The user feedback system according to claim 1 in which the feedback processor is adapted to prompt the user for consent to cause implementation of at least part of the selected at least first identified feedback action, and to only cause implementation of the at least part of the selected at least first identified feedback action, if consent is determined (Claim 17).
With respect to claim 14, copending Application No. 18/002,949 claims [[A]]The user feedback system according to any proceeding claim 1, in which the estimation processor is operable to identify one or more further proposed feedback actions relating to one or more selected from the list consisting of:.behavioral feedback action for affecting at least a first behaviour of the user; and ii. a non-consumption feedback action for affecting one or more non-consumption operations of the delivery ecosystem (Claim 14).
With respect to claim 15, copending Application No. 18/002,949 claims [[A]]The user feedback system according to any preceding claim 1 in which the feedback processor (1030) is adapted to select the at least first identified feedback action responsive to [[the]] a current availability of respectivedelivery devices for implementing feedback actions within the delivery ecosystem (Claim 15).
Claim 16 overlaps in scope with claim 16 of copending Application No. 18/002,949.
Claim 17 overlaps in scope with claim 17 of copending Application No. 18/002,949.
Claim 18 overlaps in scope with claim 18 of copending Application No. 18/002,949.
Claim 19 overlaps in scope with claim 19 of copending Application No. 18/002,949.
Claim 20 overlaps in scope with claim 20 of copending Application No. 18/002,949.
Claim 21 overlaps in scope with claim 21 of copending Application No. 18/002,949.
Claim 22 overlaps in scope with claim 22 of copending Application No. 18/002,949.
Claim 24 overlaps in scope with claim 23 of copending Application No. 18/002,949
Claim 26 overlaps in scope with claim 24 of copending Application No. 18/002,949.
Claim 27 overlaps in scope with claim 25 of copending Application No. 18/002,949.
Claim 28 overlaps in scope with claim 26 of copending Application No. 18/002,949.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
_________________________________________________________________________
Claims 1, 13-23 and 25 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 20-30 of copending Application No. 18/003,000 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
With respect to claim 1, copending Application No. 18/003,000 claims A user feedback system for a user of a delivery device within a delivery ecosystem, comprising: an estimation processor adapted to identify at least a first feedback action based upon one or more user factors, the feedback action being expected to alter a state of the user as indicated at least in part by the one or more user factors; a first feedback device of a non-delivery ecosystem comprising a means of implementing at least part of a first identified feedback action; and a feedback processor adapted to select at least a first identified feedback action, and to cause a modification of one or more operations of at least the first device within the non-delivery ecosystem, according to the or each selected feedback action (Claim 1), wherein the feedback action comrpsies a a behavioral feedback action for affecting at least a first behaviour of the use (Claim 21).
The scope of claim 13 overlaps with the scope of claim 20 of copending Application No. 18/003,000.
With respect to claim 14, copending Application No. 18/003,000 claims the estimation processor is operable to identify one or more further proposed feedback actions relating to one or more selected from the list consisting of:i. a behavioural feedback action for affecting at least a first behaviour of the use; ii. a pharmaceutical feedback action for affecting the consumption of an active ingredient by the user; and iii. a non-consumption feedback action for affecting one or more non-consumption operations of the delivery ecosystem (Claim 21).
With respect to claim 15, copending Application No. 18/003,000 claims A user feedback system according to claim l any preceding claim in which the feedback processor (1030) is adapted to select the at least first identified feedback action responsive to the current availability of respective devices for implementing feedback actions within the delivery ecosystem (Claim 22).
The scope of claim 16 overlaps with that of claim 23 of copending Application No. 18/003,000.
The scope of claim 17 overlaps in scope with claim 24 of copending Application No. 18/003,000.
The scope of claim 18 overlaps with that of claim 25 of copending Application No. 18/003,000.
The scope of claim 19 overlaps with that of claim 26 of copending Application No. 18/003,000
The scope of claim 20 overlaps with that of claim 27 of copending Application No. 18/003,000
With respect to claim 21, copending Application No. 18/003,000 claims a respective one of the one or more user factors is based upon one selected from the list consisting of: i. at least a first physical property associated with at least a first user inhalation action; ii. at least a first physical property associated with user behaviour other than inhalation; iii. at least a first physical property associated with user physiology other than in relation to inhalation; and iv. at least a first aspect of the user's situation separate to their handling or operation of the delivery device (Claim 28).
With respect to claim 22, copending Application No. 18/003,000 claims one or more user factors respectively relate to at least one class selected from the list consisting of: i. historical data providing background information relating to the user; ii. neurological data relating to the user; iii. physiological data relating to the user; iv. contextual data relating to the user; v. environmental data relating to the user; and vi. delivery device usage or interaction data (Claim 29).
The scope of claim 23 and 25 overlaps with that of claim 30 of copending Application No. 18/003,000.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-16 and 19-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DAGNELLO et al. (US 2019/0167927).
With respect to claims 1 and 23, DAGNELLO et al. discloses teaches a system and method for a user of a delivery device within a delivery ecosystem comprising: an ecosystem (Paragraphs [0028]-[0037], [0108]; Figure 5); an estimation processor adapted to identify a feedback action expected to alter a user state (Paragraphs [0011]-[0012], [0092], [0103]).
Specifically, the sensors (Paragraph [0010]-[0015]), capture all of the input variables and send them to a software system, which uses machine learning, data mining, and/or statistical techniques to produce an optimum set of substance and vapor characteristics and corresponding changes to the affective and physiological states achieved. The one or more processors themselves are within delivery device or network (Paragraphs [0014], [0015], [0028], [0059], [0082]).
The processors receive information from a sensor platform having at least one sensor operable to detect a first physical property associated with the user that record data during the period of use and during the period immediately surrounding use as well as data during periods of non-use (Paragraphs [0010]-[0012], [0047], [0078], [0079]). The data include physiological data (e.g., one or more factors) (Paragraphs [0010]-[0013]) including heart rate, galvanic skin response, blood pressure data blood volume pulse and blood oxygen data (Paragraphs [0078]-[0079]). The data is then use to modify the delivery of substances (e.g., feedback action) (Paragraphs [0104] and [0108]) (as required by Claim 23).
DAGNELLO et al. further discloses a processor adapted to submit data of the detected first physical property to a processor (e.g., feedback processor) (Paragraphs [0033], [0084], [0085], [0092]; Figure 5) and is adapted to selected at least the first feedback action identified by the estimation processor to generate an output that causes an adjustment to be made in the quantity of a tangible substance introduced into the receptacle, in at least one of the substance characteristics, or to a time duration or time period of usage of the vapor device (Paragraphs [0011], [0012], [0092], [0102] and [0103]) such that a modification is made within the ecosystem according to the selected first feedback action. The estimation processor is then configured to prompt the user to inhale and exhale (Paragraph [0069]) (behavioral feedback that effects users’ behavior).
With respect to claim 2, DAGNELLO et al. discloses that the adjustment is made to a duration of use (Paragraph [0012]) (and thus not an amount or nature of an active ingredient).
With respect to claim 3, DAGNELLO et al. discloses that the first identified feedback action causes a modification of a flavor in the vapor (Abstract; Paragraph [0083], Claims 100 and 101).
With respect to claim 4¸ DAGNELLO et al. discloses that the modification can be made to the amount of vapor (Paragraph {0109]), and thus the mass of vapor.
With respect to claim 6, DAGNELLO et al. discloses that the feedback is a prompt in the form of a message from the device to modify the user’s behavior (Paragraphs [0067], [0069], [0072], [0104]).
With respect to claim 7¸ DAGNELLO et al. discloses that the prompt directs the user to use the device to form a BRAD profile (Paragraph [0069]).
With respect to claim 8¸ DAGNELLO et al. discloses that the prompt can be through an app (e.g., user interface) on a mobile phone as an auxiliary device to the vaping device (Paragraph [0069]).
With respect to claim 9, DAGNELLO et al. discloses that the user is prompted to inhale then exhale (e.g., modify breathing) during use of the device (Paragraph [0069]).
With respect to claims 10 and 11¸ DAGNELLO et al. discloses that the prompt can be a request for access to a user’s social media account (e.g., behavior unrelated to the use of the delivery device (Paragraph [0082]).
With respect to claim 12, DAGNELLO et al. discloses that the message is modified according to the user factor (See items 531, 532 and 522 in figure 5).
With respect to claim 13¸ DAGNELLO et al. discloses that the feedback action comprising prompting the user to provide feedback to the feedback system in relation to the use of the device and their experience of their use (Paragraph [0082]).
With respect to claim 14, DAGNELLO et al. discloses that the prompt can be a request for access to a user’s social media account (e.g., non-consumption feedback for affecting a non-consumption operation of the device) (Paragraph [0082]).
With respect to claim 15¸ DAGNELLO et al. discloses that the feedback processor can receive signals from the cartridge about the amount remaining, and then prompt or initiate an order for a new cartridge from a supplier (Paragraph [0102]). Thus, the action of ordering a new cartridge also necessarily prompts availability of said cartridge. If it is available, then it is ordered. If it is not available, then no order could be fulfilled.
With respect to claim 16, DAGNELLO et al. discloses that the feedback processor causes automatic implementation of the action (Paragraph [0102]).
With respect to claim 19, DAGNELLO et al. discloses that the feedback processor is adapted to provide the user with details of how to implement the identified feedback (See items 531, 532 and 522 in figure 5).
With respect to claim 20, DAGNELLO et al. discloses that the obtaining processor is capable of obtaining a state of the user by having the user to provide feedback to the feedback system in relation to the use of the device and their experience of their use (Paragraph [0082]).
With respect to claim 21, DAGNELLO et al. discloses that the first factor includes blood pressure data and blood oxygen data (Paragraphs [0078]) as physiological data. Data is measured and then used to prompt use of the device (Paragraph [0104]) and thus the property is associated with the user’s physiology other than in relation to inhaling.
With respect to claim 22¸ DAGNELLO et al. discloses that the class of factors includes physiological data related to the user (Paragraph [0078]).
With respect to claim 24, DAGNELLO et al. is silent as to an explicit estimation of a user state as an interim step in the identification of the feedback action. Thus, DAGNELLO et al. meets the requirement of “not generate” is this is being claimed as a negative limitation.
With respect to claim 25¸ DAGNELLO et al. further discloses a processor adapted to submit data of the detected first physical property to a processor (e.g., feedback processor) (Paragraphs [0033], [0084], [0085], [0092]; Figure 5) and is adapted to selected at least the first feedback action identified by the estimation processor to generate an output that causes an adjustment to be made in the quantity of a tangible substance introduced into the receptacle, in at least one of the substance characteristics, or to a time duration or time period of usage of the vapor device (Paragraphs [0011], [0012], [0092], [0102] and [0103]) such that a modification is made within the ecosystem according to the selected first feedback action. The estimation processor is then configured to prompt the user to inhale and exhale (Paragraph [0069]) (behavioral feedback that effects users’ behavior).
With respect to claim 26, DAGNELLO et al. discloses that the ecosystem comprises a wearable device (Paragraph [0037]).
With respect to claim 27, DAGNELLO et al. discloses that the functionality of at least one of the processors is provided by a remote server (Paragraph [0084], [0109]; Figure 5)
With respect to claim 28, DAGNELLO et al. discloses functionality of the processors can be provided within the delivery device (Paragraph [0109]). Specifically the controller for adjusting the amount and intensity of the vapor is contained within the delivery device. This controller is the claimed feedback processor in this embodiment.
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) 5, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DAGNELLO et al. (US 2019/0167927) in view of CAMERON (US 2017/0042230).
With respect to claim 5, DAGNELLO et al. does not explicitly disclose that the first identified feedback action comprises causing a modification to a scheme of a user interface component, such that the haptic scheme of the interface changes.
CAMERON discloses a user interface for an electronic vaporization device (Abstract; title). The user interface provides feedback based on one or more sensed conditions (e.g., feedback actions based identified factors). The user interface provides various patterns of lights, sounds or vibrations based on the sensed inputs (Paragraphs [0109], [0141] and [0224]-[0227]) so that the user is informed of information. 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 the user interface of DAGNELLO et al. with modifications in color schemes, audio schemes or haptic schemes, as taught by CAMERON so that the user can be notified of various states of the device.
With respect to claim 17, DAGNELLO et al. does not explicitly disclose that the feedback processor is adapted to prompt the user for consent to cause implementation of the feedback action, as claimed.
CAMERON discloses a user interface for an electronic vaporization device (Abstract; title). The device comprises an app (and therefore a controller and processor) that commands request to perform actions (feedback prompt). The commands include entering a password/passcode in order to perform the requests (Paragraphs [0081], [0082]). 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 the feedback processor of DAGNELLO et al. with an ability to prompt the user to cause implementation of an action by way of a password/passcode, as taught by CAMERON, so that unauthorized users are prevented from using the device.
The action of requiring a password to implement an action implicitly is an action of providing and receiving consent to perform said action.
With respect to claim 18, DAGNELLO et al. does not explicitly disclose that the feedback processor is adapted to provide the user with a choice of actions. CAMERON discloses a user interface for an electronic vaporization device (Abstract; title). The user interface (e.g., feedback processing unit) is configured to receive inputs and provide the user with a selection of identified feedback actions to select from (Figures 10 and 11; Paragraphs [0007], [0131]-[0136]). 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 the feedback processor of DAGNELLO et al. with a selection of choices that the user can select from, as taught by CAMERON so that the user can create their desired aerosol to inhale.
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