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 .
Claims 1-8, 10-37 are pending.
This action is made final.
Response to Arguments
Claims 12, 15-16, 24-35 were previously canceled from the previous amendment filed 08/07/2023, however, applicant's amendment filed September 2, 2025 appears to rejoin the canceled claims and tags them as “previously presented”. Appropriated clarification is required.
Applicant's arguments filed September 2, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims 1-11, 13-14, 17-23, and 36-37 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non- statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-39 of copending Application No. 18/002978. See detail rejection below.
Claims 1-11, 13-14, 17-23, and 36-37 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non- statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-41 of copending Application No. 18/003007. See detail rejection below.
Claims 1-2, 5-11, 13-14, 17-23, and 36-37 stand rejected under 35 USC 101. See detail rejection below.
Regarding to the prior art rejection, Dagnello teaches a first device wherein the first device selected from the list consisting of: a mobile phone; a network-connected household device; a vending machine; docking unit or hub; and a point of sale device [an ancillary device such as a mobile device, a computer, or a wearable device] comprising a sensor platform with at least a pressure or force sensor [the physiological sensors includes at least a pressure sensor for detecting user’s blood pressure] operable to detect at least a first physical property associated with the user [Fig. 5] [0010-0012, 0028-0037, 0047, 0078-0079, 0108]. See detail rejection below.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10-37 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-39 of copending Application No. 18002978 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as set forth below.
Pending Application
Copending Application No. 18002978
1. A user feedback system for a user of a delivery device within a delivery ecosystem, comprising: a first device, other than the delivery device, comprising:
1. A user feedback system for a user of a delivery device within a delivery ecosystem, comprising:
a sensor platform with at least a first sensor operable to detect at least a first physical property associated with the user, and
a sensor platform comprising at least a first sensor operable to detect at least a first physical property associated with at least a first user inhalation action, wherein the at least first physical property is one or more of an intra-inhalation property or an inter-inhalation property;
a processor adapted to submit data of the detected at least first physical property to an obtaining processor adapted to output data based upon the detected at least first physical property as all or part of a user factor indicative of a user state; and
an obtaining processor adapted to output data based upon the detected at least first physical property as all or part of a user factor indicative of a user state; and
an estimation processor adapted to identify a corresponding feedback action expected to alter a user state as indicated at least in part by the detected at least first physical property.
an estimation processor adapted to identify a corresponding feedback action expected to alter the user state as indicated at least in part by the detected at least first physical property.
the first device selected from the list consisting of: a mobile phone; a network-connected household device; a vending machine; docking unit or hub; and a point of sale device
8. The user feedback system according to claim 1, wherein the sensor platform is located at least in part on one or more selected from the group consisting of: the delivery device; a mobile phone; a docking station for the delivery device; and a wearable fitness device.
at least a pressure or force sensor
9. The user feedback system according to claim 1, wherein the sensor platform comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of: an airflow rate sensor; an air speed sensor; a dynamic pressure sensor; and a microphone.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-8, 10-37 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-41 of copending Application No. 18003007 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as set forth below.
Pending Application
Copending Application No. 18003007
1. A user feedback system for a user of a delivery device within a delivery ecosystem, comprising: a first device, other than the delivery device, comprising:
1. A user feedback system for a user of a delivery device within a delivery ecosystem, comprising:
a sensor platform with at least a first sensor operable to detect at least a first physical property associated with the user, and
a sensor platform comprising at least a first sensor operable to detect at least a first physical property associated with at least one of a user behavior other than inhalation and a user physiology other than in relation to inhalation;
a processor adapted to submit data of the detected at least first physical property to an obtaining processor adapted to output data based upon the detected at least first physical property as all or part of a user factor indicative of a user state; and
an obtaining processor adapted to output data based upon the detected at least first physical property as all or part of a user factor indicative of a user state; and
an estimation processor adapted to identify a corresponding feedback action expected to alter a user state as indicated at least in part by the detected at least first physical property.
an estimation processor adapted to identify a corresponding feedback action expected to alter the state as indicated at least in part by the detected at least first physical property.
the first device selected from the list consisting of: a mobile phone; a network-connected household device; a vending machine; docking unit or hub; and a point of sale device
23. The user feedback system according to claim 1, wherein the delivery ecosystem comprises one or more selected from the group 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 one or more delivery devices.
at least a pressure or force sensor
5. The user feedback system according to claim 1, wherein the sensor platform comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of: a motion sensor; a camera; a microphone; and a pressure sensor or a force sensor.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: The claim recites a system, which fall within a statutory category.
Step 2A Prong one: claim 1 recites step of “identify a corresponding feedback action expected to alter a user state as indicated at least in part by the detected at least first physical property”. This limitation falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited estimation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited estimation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong two: Besides the abstract ideas, the claim recites additional limitations “detect at least a first physical property associated with the user”, “submit data of the detected at least first physical property”, and “output data based upon the detected at least first physical property as all or part of a user factor indicative of a user state”. The additional limitations represent mere data gathering and data outputting that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception (the data values are used in mental process for estimation) and is recited at a high level of generality. Limitations “detect at least a first physical property associated with the user”, “submit data of the detected at least first physical property”, and “output data based upon the detected at least first physical property as all or part of a user factor indicative of a user state” in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional elements “the first device selected from the list consisting of: a mobile phone; a network-connected household device; a vending machine; docking unit or hub; and a point of sale device”, “delivery device”, “a sensor platform with at least a pressure or force sensor”, “a processor”, “obtaining processor”, and “estimation processor” in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim as a whole does not amounts to significantly more than the recited exception. The additional elements of “detect at least a first physical property associated with the user”, “submit data of the detected at least first physical property”, and “output data based upon the detected at least first physical property as all or part of a user factor indicative of a user state” represent mere data gathering and data outputting are recited at a high level of generality, and, as disclosed in the specification, is also well-known. This limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, limitations “detect at least a first physical property associated with the user”, “submit data of the detected at least first physical property”, and “output data based upon the detected at least first physical property as all or part of a user factor indicative of a user state” do not amount to significantly more. The additional elements “the first device selected from the list consisting of: a mobile phone; a network-connected household device; a vending machine; docking unit or hub; and a point of sale device”, “delivery device”, “a sensor platform with at least a pressure or force sensor”, “a processor”, “obtaining processor”, and “estimation processor” in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 2 recites step of “select at least a first feedback action identified by the estimation processor for at least the first device within the delivery ecosystem”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 5 recites additional element “a motion sensor, a camera; a microphone; and a pressure sensor or a force sensor”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computing system performing a generic function, which is insignificant extra-solution activity) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 6 recites additional element “the motion sensor is located in one or more devices selected from the group consisting of: a wearable fitness device; a smartwatch; an item of jewelry; a phone; and a games controller”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computing system performing a generic function, which is insignificant extra-solution activity) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 7 recites additional element “the camera is located in one or more devices selected from the group consisting of: a mobile phone, a smartwatch a docking station of the delivery device; a home hub smart assistant; a WebCam; a vending machine; and a point of sale device”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computing system performing a generic function, which is insignificant extra-solution activity) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 8 recites additional element “the microphone is located in one or more devices selected from the group consisting of: a mobile phone; a smartwatch; an item of jewelry; a docking station of the delivery device; a home hub smart assistant; a vending machine; and a point-of-sale device”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computing system performing a generic function, which is insignificant extra-solution activity) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 9 recites additional element “the pressure sensor or the force sensor is located in one or more devices selected from the group consisting of: a mobile phone; a network-connected household device; and a vending machine”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computing system performing a generic function, which is insignificant extra-solution activity) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 10 recites additional element “the sensor platform comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of: a galvanic skin response sensor; a heart rate sensor, a muscle tension sensor; and a touch sensor”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computing system performing a generic function, which is insignificant extra-solution activity) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 11 recites additional element “the at least first sensor is located on one or more selected from the group consisting of: a wearable fitness device; a smartwatch, a mobile phone; an item of jewelry; and a piece of gym equipment”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computing system performing a generic function, which is insignificant extra-solution activity) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 13 recites additional element “the sensor platform comprises a cortisol sensor”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computing system performing a generic function, which is insignificant extra-solution activity) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 14 recites additional element “the sensor platform is located at least in part on one or more selected from the group consisting of: a mobile phone; a docking station for the delivery device; a voice activated home hub; an item of jewelry; a wearable fitness device; a vending machine; a network-connected household device; and a point of sale device”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computing system performing a generic function, which is insignificant extra-solution activity) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 17 recites additional limitation “one or more further obtained user factors respectively relate to at least one class selected from the group consisting of: historical data providing background information relating to the user; neurological data relating to the user; physiological data relating to the user; contextual data relating to the user; environmental data relating to the user; and deterministic data relating to the user”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computing system performing a generic function of obtaining parameter, which is insignificant extra-solution activity) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea
Claim 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 18 recites step of “identify one or more proposed feedback actions based upon the one or more of the obtained user factors”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 19 lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 20 recites step of “identify one or more proposed feedback actions relating to one or more selected from the group consisting of: a behavioral feedback action for affecting at least a first behavior of the user; a pharmaceutical feedback action for affecting 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”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 21 recites additional element “the delivery ecosystem comprises one or more selected from the group 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 one or more delivery devices”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computing system performing a generic function, which is insignificant extra-solution activity) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 22 recites additional element “one or more of the obtaining processor, the estimation processor, 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”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computing system performing a generic function, which is insignificant extra-solution activity) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which fall within a statutory category.
Step 2A Prong one: claim 23 recites step of “estimating by identifying a corresponding feedback action expected to alter the user state as indicated at least in part by the user factor”. This limitation falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited estimation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited estimation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong two: Besides the abstract ideas, the claim recites additional limitations “detecting at least a first physical property associated with the user”, “submitting data of the detected at least first physical property for use in outputting data based upon the detected at least first physical property as all or part of a user factor indicative of a user state”. The additional limitations represent mere data gathering and data outputting that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception (the data values are used in mental process for estimation) and is recited at a high level of generality. Limitations “detecting at least a first physical property associated with the user”, “submitting data of the detected at least first physical property for use in outputting data based upon the detected at least first physical property as all or part of a user factor indicative of a user state” in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional elements “at least a pressure or force sensor” and “the first device selected from the list consisting of: a mobile phone; a network-connected household device; a vending machine; docking unit or hub; and a point of sale device” in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim as a whole does not amounts to significantly more than the recited exception. The additional elements of “detecting at least a first physical property associated with the user”, “submitting data of the detected at least first physical property for use in outputting data based upon the detected at least first physical property as all or part of a user factor indicative of a user state” represent mere data gathering and data outputting are recited at a high level of generality, and, as disclosed in the specification, is also well-known. This limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, limitations “detecting at least a first physical property associated with the user”, “submitting data of the detected at least first physical property for use in outputting data based upon the detected at least first physical property as all or part of a user factor indicative of a user state” do not amount to significantly more. The additional elements “at least a pressure or force sensor” and “the first device selected from the list consisting of: a mobile phone; a network-connected household device; a vending machine; docking unit or hub; and a point of sale device” in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Claims 36-37 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more under same reason as indicated above.
Claim Objections
Claims 36-37 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 36 appears to have improper form for claiming subject matters recited in claim 23. The claim 36 need to be rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the claim 23.
Claim 37 appears to have improper form for claiming subject matters recited in claim 23. The claim 37 need to be rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the claim 23.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-8, 10-11, 14-28, 30-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dagnello et al. (hereinafter “Dagnello”) (US 20190167927 A1).
As to claims 1, 23, 36-37, Dagnello teaches a system and method for a user of a delivery device [a personal vapor inhalation device “PVID”] within a delivery ecosystem, comprising: a first device [an ancillary device such as a mobile device, a computer, or a wearable device], other than the delivery device [Fig. 5] [0028-0037, 0108], comprising:
a sensor platform with at least a pressure or force sensor [the physiological sensors includes at least a pressure sensor for detecting user’s blood pressure] operable to detect at least a first physical property associated with the user, the first device selected from the list consisting of: a mobile phone; a network-connected household device; a vending machine; docking unit or hub; and a point of sale device [a group of one or more sensors in and around the ancillary devices that collect physiological data on a consumer. These sensors may record data during the period of usage of the PVID, during the period immediately surrounding usage, but also record data throughout periods of non-usage of the PVID] [Fig. 5] [0010-0012, 0028-0037, 0047, 0078-0079, 0108], and
a processor adapted to submit data of the detected at least first physical property to an obtaining processor adapted to output data based upon the detected at least first physical property as all or part of a user factor indicative of a user state [collect and transmit at least the detected physiological data to machine learning system for estimation] [Fig. 5] [0033, 0084-0085, 0092]; and
an estimation processor adapted to identify a corresponding feedback action expected to alter a user state as indicated at least in part by the detected at least first physical property [Sensors capture all of these input variables and feed them to a software system, which leverages machine learning, data mining, and/or statistical techniques to produce at least one output that is used to adjust the tangible matter until an optimum set of substance and vapor characteristics and corresponding changes to the affective and physiological states is achieved] [Fig. 5] [0011-0012, 0092, 0103].
As to claims 2 and 24, Dagnello teaches a feedback processor adapted to select at least a first feedback action identified by the estimation processor for at least the first device within the delivery ecosystem [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 inhalation device] [0011-0012, 0092, 0102-0103].
As to claims 3 and 25, Dagnello teaches the feedback processor is adapted to cause a modification of one or more operations of at least one device within the delivery ecosystem according to the selected at least first feedback action [0011-0012, 0092, 0102-0103].
As to claims 4 and 26, Dagnello teaches the at least one device within the delivery ecosystem for which one or more operations is modified is the delivery device [0011-0012, 0092, 0102-0103].
As to claims 5 and 27, Dagnello teaches the sensor platform comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of: a motion sensor, a camera; a microphone [0047-0048, 0058, 0062, 0097].
As to claim 6, Dagnello teaches the motion sensor is located in one or more devices selected from the group consisting of: a wearable fitness device; a smartwatch; an item of jewelry; a phone; and a games controller [0037, 0047-0048, 0058, 0062, 0097].
As to claim 7, Dagnello teaches the camera is located in one or more devices selected from the group consisting of: a mobile phone, a smartwatch a docking station of the delivery device; a home hub smart assistant; a WebCam; a vending machine; and a point of sale device [0037, 0047-0048, 0058, 0062, 0097].
As to claims 8 and 30, Dagnello teaches the microphone is located in one or more devices selected from the group consisting of: a mobile phone; a smartwatch; an item of jewelry; a docking station of the delivery device; a home hub smart assistant; a vending machine; and a point-of-sale device [0037, 0047-0048, 0058, 0062, 0079, 0097].
As to claim 10 and 28, Dagnello teaches the sensor platform comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of: a galvanic skin response sensor; a heart rate sensor, a muscle tension sensor; and a touch sensor [0078-0079].
As to claim 11, Dagnello teaches the at least first sensor is located on one or more selected from the group consisting of: a wearable fitness device; a smartwatch, a mobile phone; an item of jewelry; and a piece of gym equipment [0037, 0047-0048, 0058, 0062, 0078-0079, 0097].
As to claim 14, Dagnello teaches the sensor platform is located at least in part on one or more selected from the group consisting of: a mobile phone; a docking station for the delivery device; a voice activated home hub; an item of jewelry; a wearable fitness device; a vending machine; a network-connected household device; and a point of sale device [0037, 0047-0048, 0058, 0062, 0078-0079, 0097].
As to claim 15, Dagnello teaches the sensor platform comprises a sensor operable to measure two or more physical properties [0010-0012, 0028-0037, 0047-0048, 0078-0080, 0108].
As to claim 16, Dagnello teaches a user interface operable to receive an indication of user state from the user [0082-0083, 0104, 0108].
As to claim 17, Dagnello teaches one or more further obtained user factors respectively relate to at least one class selected from the group consisting of: historical data providing background information relating to the user; neurological data relating to the user; physiological data relating to the user; contextual data relating to the user; environmental data relating to the user; and deterministic data relating to the user [0010-0012, 0077-0080, 0088, 0092-0096, 0102-0103].
As to claim 18 and 32, Dagnello teaches the estimation processor is operable to identify one or more proposed feedback actions based upon the one or more of the obtained user factors [0011-0012, 0092, 0102-0103].
As to claim 19 and 33, Dagnello teaches the estimation processor does not generate an explicit estimation of user state as an interim operation in the identification of the one or more proposed feedback actions [0011-0014].
As to claim 20 and 34, Dagnello teaches the estimation processor is operable to identify one or more proposed feedback actions relating to one or more selected from the group consisting of: a behavioral feedback action for affecting at least a first behavior of the user; a pharmaceutical feedback action for affecting 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 [0011-0012, 0090-0091, 0104-0108]
As to claim 21, Dagnello teaches the delivery ecosystem comprises one or more selected from the group 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 one or more delivery devices [0037, 0047-0048, 0058, 0062, 0097].
As to claim 22, Dagnello teaches functionality of one or more of the obtaining processor, the estimation processor, 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 [Fig. 5] [0028, 0084,0099-0109].
As to claim 31, Dagnello teaches the sensor platform comprises a sensor operable to measure two or more physical properties [0010-0012, 0028-0037, 0047-0048, 0078-0080, 0108].
As to claim 35, Dagnello teaches selecting a feedback action identified by the estimating for at least a first device within the delivery ecosystem; and selecting which device within the delivery ecosystem will implement a respective selected proposed feedback action [0011-0012, 0090-0091, 0102-0108].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dagnello in view of SHELLY et al. (hereinafter “SHELLY”)(US 20200202120 A1).
As to claim 12, Dagnello teaches using physiological sensors to collect physiological data on a consumer [0037, 0047-0048, 0058, 0062, 0079, 0097]. Dagnello does not explicitly teach the sensor platform comprises electrodes for detecting a physical property of the user and the electrodes are shared by two or more sensors.
However, SHELLY teaches a system and method for providing sleep positional therapy and paced breathing to a user for a sleep session. Especially, SHELLY teaches using physiological sensors to collect physiological characteristics of user wherein the sensor platform comprises electrodes for detecting a physical property of the user and the electrodes are shared by two or more sensors [0030].
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of SHELLY with the teachings of Dagnello for the purpose of using different sensors to collect different physiological data on a consumer to provide a detail physiological state for the user.
Claim(s) 13 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dagnello in view of Neumann (US 20210343407 A1).
As to claims 13 and 29, Dagnello teaches using physiological sensors to collect physiological data on a consumer [0037, 0047-0048, 0058, 0062, 0079, 0097]. Dagnello does not explicitly teach the sensor platform comprises a cortisol sensor.
However, Neumann teaches a system and method for identifying a recommendation for a user based on at least of a detected physiological state for the user. Especially, Neumann teaches the sensor platform comprises a cortisol sensor [0003, 0021, 0100].
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Neumann with the teachings of Dagnello for the purpose of using different sensors to collect different physiological data on a consumer to provide a detail physiological state for the user for generating a recommendation for the user.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHIPENG WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-7.
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, Thomas Lee can be reached at 5712723667. 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.
/ZHIPENG WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115