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 Species group II in the reply filed on 23 February 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 3-4, 7-12, and 33 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 27, 32, and 36 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 10, “the first device” should read “the first feedback device”
In claim 27, line 2, “comprising:” should read “further comprising:”
In claim 32, line 6, “feedback device;” should read “feedback device.”
In claim 36, line 2, “comprising” should read “further comprising”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a means of implementing at least part of a first identified feedback action” in lines 7-8. The specification does not disclose equivalent structure.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
"delivery device" in claims 1-2 and 28-31; equivalent structure found on page 3, lines 1-30. Therefore, in light of the specification, “delivery device” is best understood as an electronic vapor/aerosol provision system, such as an electronic cigarette, vaping device, electronic nicotine delivery device, and equivalents thereof.
“first feedback device” in claims 1-2, 5-6, 13-18, 30-32, 34-35; equivalent structure found on page 58, lines 27-38 and page 59, lines 1-7. Therefore, in light of the specification, a “first feedback device” is best understood as a virtual reality headset or augmented reality headset, and equivalents thereof. Claims 2 and 5-6 are noted for reciting structure for performing the claimed function, and is therefore not subjected to this interpretation.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In the specification, on page 58, lines 17-23 "a means of implementing at least part of a first identified feedback action" is mentioned, but no further description is included. Based on the specification, the structure that supposedly performs the claimed function is indiscernible, and therefore does not meet the written description requirement.
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, 5-6, 13-29, 34-37 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.
Claim limitation “a means of implementing at least part of a first identified feedback action” in claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In the specification on page 58, lines 17-23 "a means of implementing at least part of a first identified feedback action" is mentioned, but no further description is included. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the first feedback device is adapted to modify a plan of the user” in line 2. It is unclear how a first feedback device (as best understood as a virtual reality headset in light of the specification (page 52, lines 17-22)) is structurally capable of modifying a plan of the user. Consistent with the specification (page 51, lines 10-36 and page 53, lines 6-27), this limitation is being interpreted as necessitating a communication channel between a computing device, integrated with a mobile application, and a first feedback device in order to modify a user’s plan.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the first feedback device is adapted to modify a schedule or calendar of the user” in lines 1-2. It is unclear how a first feedback device (as best understood as a virtual reality headset in light of the specification (page 52, lines 17-22)) is structurally capable of modifying a schedule or calendar of the user. Consistent with the specification (page 51, lines 10-36 and page 53, lines 6-27), this limitation is being interpreted as necessitating a communication channel between a computing device, integrated with a mobile application, and a first feedback device in order to modify a user’s schedule or calendar.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the first feedback device is adapted to modify a travelling route of the user” in line 2. It is unclear how a first feedback device (as best understood as a virtual reality headset in light of the specification (page 52, lines 17-22)) is structurally capable of modifying a travelling route of the user. Consistent with the specification (page 51, lines 10-36 and page 53, lines 6-27), this limitation is being interpreted as necessitating a communication channel between a computing device, integrated with a mobile application, and a first feedback device in order to modify a user’s travelling route.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the first feedback device is adapted to modify an exercise plan of the user” in line 2. It is unclear how a first feedback device (as best understood as a virtual reality headset in light of the specification (page 52, lines 17-22)) is structurally capable of modifying an exercise plan of the user. Consistent with the specification (page 51, lines 10-36 and page 53, lines 6-27), this limitation is being interpreted as necessitating a communication channel between a computing device, integrated with a mobile application, and a first feedback device in order to modify a user’s exercise plan.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the first feedback device resembles an item of jewellery” in lines 1-2. It is unclear how a first feedback device (as best understood as a virtual reality headset (page 52, lines 17-22)) structurally resembles an item of jewelry.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the current availability of respective devices" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 34 recites the limitation “the first feedback device is adapted to modify a plan of the user” in line 2. It is unclear how a first feedback device (as best understood as a virtual reality headset in light of the specification (page 52, lines 17-22)) is structurally capable of modifying a plan of the user. Consistent with the specification (page 51, lines 10-36 and page 53, lines 6-27), this limitation is being interpreted as necessitating a communication channel between a computing device, integrated with a mobile application, and a first feedback device in order to modify a user’s plan.
Claim 35 recites the limitation “the first feedback device is adapted to modify one or more selected from the list consisting of: a schedule or calendar of the user” in lines 1-3. It is unclear how a first feedback device (as best understood as a virtual reality headset in light of the specification (page 52, lines 17-22)) is structurally capable of modifying a schedule or calendar of the user. Consistent with the specification (page 51, lines 10-36 and page 53, lines 6-27), this limitation is being interpreted as necessitating a communication channel between a computing device, integrated with a mobile application, and a first feedback device in order to modify a user’s schedule or calendar.
Claim 35 further recites the limitation “the first feedback device is adapted to modify one or more selected from the list consisting of: a travelling route of the user” in lines 1-2 and 4. It is unclear how a first feedback device (as best understood as a virtual reality headset in light of the specification (page 52, lines 17-22)) is structurally capable of modifying a travelling route of the user. Consistent with the specification (page 51, lines 10-36 and page 53, lines 6-27), this limitation is being interpreted as necessitating a communication channel between a computing device, integrated with a mobile application, and a first feedback device in order to modify a user’s travelling route.
Claim 35 further recites the limitation “the first feedback device is adapted to modify one or more selected from the list consisting of: an exercise plan of the user” in lines 1-2 and 5. It is unclear how a first feedback device (as best understood as a virtual reality headset in light of the specification (page 52, lines 17-22)) is structurally capable of modifying an exercise plan of the user. Consistent with the specification (page 51, lines 10-36 and page 53, lines 6-27), this limitation is being interpreted as necessitating a communication channel between a computing device, integrated with a mobile application, and a first feedback device in order to modify a user’s exercise plan.
The preamble of claim 36 recites “A user feedback method according to claim 1”. Claim 1 is directed towards an apparatus; therefore, it appears claim 36 is supposed to refer back to one of the preceding claims (30-35). For examination purposes, the claim will be read as if dependent of claim 30, which discloses the user feedback method.
The preamble of claim 37 recites “A user feedback method according to claim 29”. Claim 29 is directed towards an apparatus; therefore, it appears claim 37 is supposed to refer back to one of the preceding claims (30-35). For examination purposes, the claim will be read as if dependent of claim 30, which discloses the user feedback method.
The dependent claims not specifically addressed above are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite due to their dependence from indefinite claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 13, 16, 19-32, and 34-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choukroun et al. (US 2016/0278435), in view of Yudofsky et al. (US 2017/0337839).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, Choukroun et al. teaches a user feedback system for a user of a delivery device within a delivery ecosystem (Abstract; paras. 0015 and 0043; Fig. 1, electronic cigarette 10), comprising:
an estimation processor adapted to identify at least a first feedback action (Figs. 3-6; paras. 0044 and 0053, where a nicotine withdrawal application 150 optimizes a withdrawal schedule 370 which is presented to a user 105 by way of a user interface 510 on a computing device 110) based upon one or more user factors (Fig. 3, user’s usage 330),
the feedback action (Fig. 3, nicotine withdrawal schedule 370) being expected to alter a state of the user as indicated at least in part by the one or more user factors (paras. 0072-0074, where the continual feedback provided to the user through the nicotine withdrawal application 150 is intended to motivate the user to quit smoking, thereby altering the state of the user); and
a feedback processor adapted to select at least a first identified feedback action (Fig 1, computing device 110 and nicotine withdrawal application 150; Fig. 5; para. 0074, where the application 150 may supplementally present a goal progress indicator 540 that displays color coded indications of the user’s e-cig usage, the progress indicator 540 is an additional form of feedback in tandem with the withdrawal schedule 370 shown in Fig. 3).
Choukroun et al. fails to specifically disclose wherein 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 processor adapted to cause a modification of one or more operations of at least the first feedback device within the non-delivery ecosystem, according to the or each selected feedback action.
Yudofsky et al. teaches an analogous user feedback system wherein a first feedback device (Fig. 1, virtual reality system 10) of a non-delivery ecosystem comprising a means of implementing at least part of a first identified feedback action (paras. 0008, 0026, and 0028, where the VR device delivers an averse (visual) stimulus to mitigate addictive behaviors, i.e., smoking); and
a processor (paras. 0039-0040) adapted to cause a modification of one or more operations of at least the first feedback device within the non-delivery ecosystem (paras. 0066-0069, and 0072, where the smoking cessation protocol modifies the VR system’s visual output according to a smoking conditioning/training schedule) according to the or each selected feedback action.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the user feedback system of Choukroun et al. with the virtual reality display comprising means of implementing at least part of a first identified feedback action and a processor adapted to cause a modification of one or more operations of at least the first device within the non-delivery ecosystem of Yudofsky et al. By implementing a virtual reality headset within the user feedback system, the user may self-administer a visual stimulus in conjunction with an e-cigarette’s suggested feedback actions. This combination of feedback and stimulus may help the user abstain from smoking (Yudofsky et al., paras. 0020, 0049, and 0051).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, Choukroun et al., in view of Yudofsky et al., teaches a user feedback system according to claim 1 as stated above, in which the first feedback device is a sensory stimulation device other than the delivery device (Yudofsky et al., para. 0039; Fig. 1, virtual reality system 10).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, Choukroun et al., in view of Yudofsky et al., teaches a user feedback system according to claim 2 as stated above, in which the first feedback device is a visual environment feedback device (Yudofsky et al., paras. 0038-0040; Fig. 1, virtual reality system 10).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, Choukroun et al., in view of Yudofsky et al., teaches a user feedback system according to claim 5 as stated above, in which the visual environment feedback device is a virtual reality headset (Yudofsky et al., para. 0039; Fig. 1, virtual reality system 10).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, Choukroun et al., in view of Yudofsky et al., teaches a user feedback system according to claim 1 as stated above. Yudofsky et al. further teaches wherein the first feedback device is adapted to modify a plan of the user (paras. 0020 and 0072, where the aversive stimulus administered by the VR system is supposed to prevent the user from engage in smoking, thereby altering the user’s intent or “plan”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further combined the user feedback system of Choukroun et al., in view of Yudofsky et al., with the visual reality display adapted to modify a plan of a user of Yudofsky et al. Incorporating unpleasant images of chemotherapy or surgical procedures associated with lung cancer may dissuade a user from smoking, thereby altering the user’s plan (Yudofsky et al., para. 0020).
Regarding claim 16, as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, Choukroun et al., in view of Yudofsky et al., teaches a user feedback system according to claim 13 as stated above. Yudofsky et al. further teaches wherein the first feedback device is adapted to modify a selection or order of options provided to the user (paras. 0060-0062, where the magnitude of the administered visual stimulus may be modulated in order to produce a behavioral modification).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further combined the user feedback system of Choukroun et al., in view of Yudofsky et al., with the visual reality display adapted to modify a selection or order of options provided to the user of Yudofsky et al. An administered visual stimulus of greater magnitude may be required to mitigate and/or condition stronger or more ingrained addictions. Therefore, it would be advantageous for the user, if the VR system was able to automatically modulate the stimuli in accordance with the user’s smoking habits (Yudofsky et al., para. 0062).
Regarding claim 19, as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, Choukroun et al., in view of Yudofsky et al., teaches a user feedback system according to claim 1 as stated above. Choukroun et al. further teaches wherein the user feedback system is adapted to identify the user based upon one or more user factors (Choukroun et al., Fig. 3, profile 380; para. 0051).
Regarding claim 20, as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, Choukroun et al., in view of Yudofsky et al., teaches a user feedback system according to claim 1 as stated above in which the selected feedback action also comprises causing the prompting of the user to provide feedback to the user feedback system in relation to the selected feedback action (Choukroun et al., Fig. 5, “I stopped”; para. 0073, where the feedback presented to the user in the form of an abstinence timer 530 provides an option to indicate the user 105 “slipped” and smoked a cigarette).
Regarding claim 21, as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, Choukroun et al., in view of Yudofsky et al., teaches a user feedback system according to claim 1 as stated above in which the estimation processor is operable to identify one or more further proposed feedback actions relation to one or more selected from the list consisting of (Choukroun et al., Fig. 1, computing device 110 comprises a nicotine withdrawal application 150; paras. 0072-0074):
a behavioral feedback action for affecting at least a first behavior of the use (Choukroun et al., para. 0052);
a pharmaceutical feedback action for affecting the consumption of an active ingredient by the user (Choukroun et al., Fig. 5, usage indicator 520, abstinence timer 530, and goal progress indicator 540, where each feedback mechanism is designed to limit cigarette usage); and
a non-consumption feedback action for affecting one or more non-consumption operations of the delivery ecosystem.
Regarding claim 22, as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, Choukroun et al., in view of Yudofsky et al., teaches a user feedback system according to claim 1 as stated above in which the feedback processor 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 (Choukroun et al., para. 0061, where “progress 375 (form of feedback related to the withdrawal schedule 370) may then be output 360 to the user 105 by an indication on the electronic cigarette 100 or an output to a display on the computing device 110”).
Regarding claim 23, as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, Choukroun et al., in view of Yudofsky et al., teaches a user feedback system according to claim 1 as stated above in which the feedback processor is adapted to cause implementation of the at least first identified feedback action automatically (Choukroun et al., para. 0062, where the withdrawal schedule 370 may be modified automatically based on puff data 320 and/or progress 375).
Regarding claim 24, as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, Choukroun et al., in view of Yudofsky et al., teaches a user feedback system according to claim 1 as stated above in which the feedback processor is adapted to prompt the user for consent to cause implementation of at least part of the at least first identified feedback action, and to only cause implementation of the at least part of the at least first identified feedback action, if consent is determined (Choukroun et al., para. 0051, “upon signing up”, by signing up, the user 105 is consenting to the nicotine application 150; para. 0053, where the user 105 is able to select the pace of the withdrawal from different recommended paces; therefore, the user is acknowledging the proposed withdrawal schedule 370).
Regarding claim 25, as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, Choukroun et al., in view of Yudofsky et al., teaches a user feedback system according to claim 1 as stated above in which the feedback processor is adapted to provide the user with a choice of identified feedback actions to select from (Choukroun et al., paras. 0072-0074, where the feedback may be in the form of a usage indicator 520, progress indicator 540, or abstinence timer 530).
Regarding claim 26, as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, Choukroun et al., in view of Yudofsky et al., teaches a user feedback system according to claim 1 as stated above in which the feedback processor is adapted to provide the user with details of how to implement a selected identified feedback action themselves (Choukroun et al., para. 0053, where the schedule 370 recommends puffs for a user in the form of a chart or table; para. 0057).
Regarding claim 27, as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, Choukroun et al., in view of Yudofsky et al., teaches a user feedback system according to claim 1 as stated above further comprising:
an obtaining processor (Choukroun et al., Fig. 3, controller 230/processor) adapted to obtain one or more user factors indicative of a state of the user, for use by the estimation processor (Choukroun et al., para. 0061, where the controller 230 obtains puff data 320 from the user’s electronic cigarette 100).
Regarding claim 28, as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, Choukroun et al., in view of Yudofsky et al., teaches a user feedback system according to claim 1 as stated above in which:
a respective one of the one or more user factors (Choukroun et al., Fig. 3, usage 330) is based upon one selected from the list consisting of:
at least a first physical property associated with at least a first user inhalation action (Choukroun et al., paras. 0057-0058, where the frequency of puffs can be tracked through the activation of the button 220; button 220 shown in Fig. 2);
ii. at least a first physical property associated with user behavior 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 separates to their handling or operation of the delivery device.
Regarding claim 29, as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, Choukroun et al., in view of Yudofsky et al., teaches a user feedback system according to claim 1 as stated above in which one or more user factors respectively relate to at least one class selected from the list consisting of:
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 (Choukroun et al., paras. 0016, 0051, and 0072; Fig. 3, usage 330, puff data 320) or interaction data.
Regarding claim 30, Choukroun et al. teaches a user feedback method for a user of a delivery device within a delivery ecosystem (paras. 0015 and 0043; Fig. 1, electronic cigarette 10), comprising:
an estimating step of identifying at least a first feedback action (Figs. 3-6; paras. 0044 and 0053, where a nicotine withdrawal application 150 optimizes a withdrawal schedule 370 which is presented to a user 105 by way of a user interface 510 on a computing device 110) based upon one or more user factors (Fig. 3, user’s usage 330),
the feedback action (Fig. 3, nicotine withdrawal schedule 370) being expected to alter a state of the user as indicated at least in part by the one or more user factors (paras. 0072-0074, where the continual feedback provided to the user through the nicotine withdrawal application 150 is intended to motivate the user to quit smoking, thereby altering the state of the user); and
a feedback step, comprising selecting at least a first identified feedback action (nicotine withdrawal application 150; Fig. 5; para. 0074, where the application 150 may supplementally present a goal progress indicator 540 that displays color coded indications of the user’s e-cig usage, the progress indicator 540 is an additional form of feedback in tandem with the withdrawal schedule 370 shown in Fig. 3).
Choukroun et al. fails to specifically disclose a feedback step, comprising causing a modification of one or more operations of at least a first device within the non-delivery ecosystem according to the or each selected feedback action.
Yudofsky et al. teaches an analogous multisensory stimulation/feedback method wherein a feedback step comprises:
causing a modification of one or more operations of at least a first feedback device (Fig. 1, VR system 10) within the non-delivery ecosystem according to the or each selected feedback action (paras. 0008, 0026, and 0028, where the VR device delivers an averse (visual) stimulus to mitigate addictive behaviors, i.e., smoking).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the user feedback method of Choukroun et al. with the feedback step comprising selecting at least a first identified feedback action and causing a modification of one or more operations of the virtual reality display of Yudofsky et al. By implementing a virtual reality headset within the user feedback system, the user may self-administer a visual stimulus in conjunction with an e-cigarette’s suggested feedback actions. This combination of feedback and stimulus may help the user abstain from smoking (Yudofsky et al., paras. 0020, 0049, and 0051).
Regarding claim 31, Choukroun et al., in view of Yudofsky et al., teaches a user feedback method according to claim 30 as stated above, in which the first feedback device is a sensory stimulation device other than the delivery device (Yudofsky et al., para. 0039; Fig. 1, virtual reality system 10).
Regarding claim 32, Choukroun et al., in view of Yudofsky et al., teaches a user feedback method according to claim 31 as stated above, in which the first feedback device (Yudofsky et al., Fig. 1, virtual reality system 10) is one or more selected from the list consisting of:
an environmental olfactory feedback device;
a visual environment feedback device (Yudofsky et al., paras. 0038-0040);
an audio environment feedback device; and
a haptic environment feedback device.
Regarding claim 34, as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, Choukroun et al., in view of Yudofsky et al., teaches a user feedback method according to claim 30 as stated above.
Yudofsky et al. further teaches wherein the first feedback device is adapted to modify a plan of the user (paras. 0020 and 0072, where the aversive stimulus administered by the VR system is supposed to prevent the user from engage in smoking, thereby altering the user’s intent or “plan”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further combined the user feedback method of Choukroun et al., in view of Yudofsky et al., with the visual reality display adapted to modify a plan of a user of Yudofsky et al. Incorporating unpleasant images of chemotherapy or surgical procedures associated with lung cancer may dissuade a user from smoking, thereby altering the user’s plan (Yudofsky et al., para. 0020).
Regarding claim 35, as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, Choukroun et al., in view of Yudofsky et al., teaches a user feedback method according to claim 34 as stated above.
Yudofsky et al. further teaches wherein the first feedback device is adapted to modify one or more selected from the list consisting of:
a schedule or calendar of the user;
a travelling route of the user;
an exercise plan of the user; and
a selection or order of options provided to the user (paras. 0060-0062, where the magnitude of the administered visual stimulus may be modulated in order to produce a behavioral modification).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further combined the user feedback method of Choukroun et al., in view of Yudofsky et al., with the visual reality display adapted to modify a selection or order of options provided to the user of Yudofsky et al. An administered visual stimulus of greater magnitude may be required to mitigate and/or condition stronger or more ingrained addictions. Therefore, it would be advantageous for the user, if the VR system was able to automatically modulate the stimuli in accordance with the user’s smoking habits (Yudofsky et al., para. 0062).
Regarding claim 36, as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, Choukroun et al., in view of Yudofsky et al., teaches a user feedback method according to claim 30 as stated above, further comprising a step of identifying the user based upon one or more user factors (Choukroun et al., Fig. 3, profile 380; para. 0053).
Regarding claim 37, as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, Choukroun et al., in view of Yudofsky et al., teaches a user feedback method according to claim 30 as stated above, in which the estimating step comprises identifying one or more further proposed feedback actions (Choukroun et al., paras. 0072-0074) relating to one or more selected from the list consisting of:
a behavioral feedback action for affecting at least a first behavior of the use (Choukroun et al., para. 0052);
a pharmaceutical feedback action for affecting the consumption of an active ingredient by the user (Choukroun et al., Fig. 5, usage indicator 520, abstinence timer 530, and goal progress indicator 540, where each feedback mechanism is designed to limit cigarette usage); and
a non-consumption feedback action for affecting one or more non-consumption operations of the delivery ecosystem.
Regarding claim 38, Choukroun et al., in view of Yudofsky et al., teaches a computer program comprising computer executable instructions adapted to cause a computer system (Choukroun et al., paras. 0036-0042) to perform the method according to claim 30 as stated above.
Regarding claim 39, Choukroun et al., in view of Yudofsky et al., teaches a computer program product comprising the computer program of claim 38 as stated above, stored on a non-transitory machine-readable medium (Choukroun et al., paras. 0036-0042).
Claim(s) 14-15, and 17 as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choukroun et al., in view of Yudofsky et al., further in view of Bricker (WO 2015/120410).
Regarding claim 14, Choukroun et al., in view of Yudofsky et al., teaches a user feedback system according to claim 13 as stated above. Choukroun et al., in view of Yudofsky et al., fails to teach wherein the first feedback is adapted to modify a schedule or calendar of the user.
Bricker teaches an analogous user feedback system wherein the first feedback is adapted to modify a schedule or calendar of the user (Fig. 3, scrollable calendar 40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the user feedback system of Choukroun et al., in view of Yudofsky et al., with the mobile application configured to modify a calendar of the user of Bricker. Modifying a calendar of the user, may enable to user to: select a targeted quit date for smoking, save the quit date, and receive app push reminders as a quit date draws near, thereby motivating the user to quit smoking (Bricker, page 15, lines 16-22).
Regarding claim 15, Choukroun et al., in view of Yudofsky et al., teaches a user feedback system according to claim 13 as stated above. Choukroun et al., in view of Yudofsky et al., fails to teach wherein the first feedback is adapted to modify a travelling route of the user.
Bricker teaches an analogous user feedback system wherein the first feedback is adapted to modify a travelling route of the user (Fig. 15; page 27, lines 11-25 and page 28, lines 1-13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the user feedback system of Choukroun et al., in view of Yudofsky et al., with the mobile application configured to modify a travelling route of the user of Bricker. Timestamping and indicating a user’s travel route using location data corresponding to smoking incidents may assist in generating a visual map, highlighting areas where the user is prone to smoke. Such visualization may aid individuals in avoiding these locations, if the goal is to cease smoking (Bricker, page 27, lines 11-25 and page 28, lines 1-13).
Regarding claim 17, Choukroun et al., in view of Yudofsky et al., teaches a user feedback system according to claim 13 as stated above. Choukroun et al., in view of Yudofsky et al., fails to teach wherein the first feedback is adapted to modify an exercise plan of the user.
Bricker teaches an analogous user feedback system wherein the first feedback device is adapted to modify an exercise plan of the user (pages 20-22, “ACT exercises”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the user feedback system of Choukroun et al., in view of Yudofsky et al., with the mobile application designed guide a user through ACT exercises of Bricker. Implementing various mental exercises, may assist individuals in maintaining motivation during a quitting program. These exercises are designed to serve as an interactive outlet or voice of reason, supporting users in allowing smoking urges to pass (Bricker, page 20, lines 1-25).
Claim(s) 18 as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choukroun et al., in view of Yudofsky et al., further in view of Dagnello et al. (US 2019/0167927).
Regarding claim 18, Choukroun et al., in view of Yudofsky et al., teaches a user feedback system according to claim 1 as stated above. Choukroun et al., in view of Yudofsky et al., fails to teach wherein the first feedback device resembles an item of jewelry.
Dagnello et al. teaches an analogous user feedback system wherein the first feedback device resembles an item of jewelry (Fig. 5, where the ancillary device transmitting physiological sensor data resembles a watch/bracelet).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the user feedback system of Choukroun et al., in view of Yudofsky et al., with the physiological sensor imbedded within an item of jewelry of Dagnello et al. Incorporating a physiological sensor provides the system with added integrated consumer feedback mechanisms based on actual experienced effects, such as physiological responses indicative of the state of a user. Furthermore, the generated physiological data may be used to prompt an output that causes an adjustment to be made to the characteristics of the vaping device’s active substance (Dagnello et al., paras. 0007 and 0012).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wensley et al. (WO 2015112750) discloses a system and method for smoking urge relief wherein a delivery device and a mobile application are interconnected to provide the user with feedback relating to their usage. Black (US 20160081393) discloses a personal vaporizer with integrated sensors designed to sense components within the personal vaporizer. Black does not disclose a virtual reality headset within a delivery system. Juster et al. (US 20130340775) discloses an electronic cigarette with a complementary application running on a smartphone, developed for improving the operation of the electronic cigarette.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROGAN R LANDEEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1390. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 6:00pm.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/B.R.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JENNIFER ROBERTSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791