DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 30, 2025, has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1 and 32 have been amended. Claims 9, 10, 35, and 36 have been canceled. Claims 1-8, 11-34, and 37-43 are pending and are provided to be examined upon their merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8, 11-34, and 37-43 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
A response is provided below in bold where appropriate.
Applicant notes Claim Objection, pg. 14 of Remarks:
Claim Objections
Claim 32 is objected to for a minor informality. Appropriate correction has been made. Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §101
Withdrawn based on the claim amendment.
Applicant argues 35 USC §101 Rejection, pg. 14 of Remarks:
Claims 1-8,11-34, and 37-43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 for allegedly being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Applicant traverses this rejection.
The Examiner has argued that “using an interface has been shown to be part of a mental process” and “using an interface to reduce complexity or options can be done with a pen and paper, such as providing a busy executive with an executive summary”. Accordingly, the Examiner has considered using a generic device to modify complexity or number of options of a user interface to mitigate stress is analogous to modifying a presentation to a boss by providing an executive summary.
As noted above, however, independent claims 1 and 32 have each been amended to clarify that the user interface complexity is modified by flattening parts of a menu tree and/or highlighting or reordering commonly chosen options. Applicant submits that the recitation of the specific examples (i.e. flattening parts of a menu tree and/or highlighting or reordering commonly chose options) distinguishes the currently claimed system from an executive summary, and therefore addresses the “abstract ideas” objection. That is, independent claims 1 and 32 are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As such, Applicant requests withdrawal of this rejection.
Respectfully, if a person is stressed, presenting the person with a long list of items or an unordered list could be marked up with pen and paper to eliminate (flatten) parts of a list (menu tree) or reorder items based on what is commonly looked at (important items).
Even if this were not abstract as a mental process, managing someone’s stress by obtaining their state information and feedback actions, and modifying an interface based on their stress is managing personal behavior, which is abstract under certain methods of organizing human behavior.
The rejection is respectfully maintained but modified for the claim amendments.
Applicant argues 35 USC §112 Rejection, pg. 15 of Remarks:
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §112
Claims 1-8, 11-34, and 37-43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as allegedly being indefinite due to the phrase of “modifying a user interface complexity”. Applicant traverses this rejection.
A decision on whether a claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) requires a determination of whether those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification. Power-One, Inc. v. Artesyn Techs., Inc., 599 F.3d 1343, 1350, 94 USPQ2d 1241, 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1 USPQ2d 1081 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In Orthokinetics, a claim directed to a wheel chair included the phrase “so dimensioned as to be insertable through the space between the doorframe of an automobile and one of the seats thereof.” 806 F.2d at 1568, 1 USPQ2d at 1082. The court found the phrase to be as accurate as the subject matter permits, since automobiles are of various sizes. /d. at 1576, 1 USPQ2d at 1088. “As long as those of ordinary skill in the art realized the dimensions could be easily obtained, § 112, 2d para. requires nothing more.” /d. Claim terms are typically given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, and the generally understood meaning of particular terms may vary from art to art. See MPEP § 2111.01. Therefore, it is important to analyze claim terms in view of the application’s specification from the perspective of those skilled in the relevant art since a particular term used in one patent or application may not have the same meaning when used in a different application. Medrad, Inc. v. MRI Devices Corp., 401 F.3d 1313, 1318, 74 USPQ2d 1184, 1188 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Independent claim 1 and 32 have each been amended to recite “modifying a user interface complexity by flattening parts of a menu tree and/or highlighting or reordering commonly chosen options”. In this regard, the “complexity” and modification thereof has been defined by “flattening parts of a menu tree and/or highlighting or reordering commonly chosen options”.
Withdrawn as to section (7) regarding complexity based on the claim amendment.
In this regard, those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed in view of the present amendments, particularly when read in light of the specification. For at least this reason, Applicant submits that this rejection has been overcome and requests withdrawal thereof.
Section (8) rejection is maintained but has been changed to a 112(d) issue as the claims depend on canceled claims. A dependent claim cannot depend from a canceled claim.
Applicant argues 35 USC §103 Rejection, starting pg. 16 of Remarks:
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §103
Claims 1-8, 11-13, 18-20, 23-34, 37, 38, 40, and 43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as allegedly being obvious over U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0387796 to Cohen (Cohen). Claims 10, 11, 12, 13, 36, and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as allegedly being obvious over Cohen in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0319869 to Dorfmann (Dorfmann). Claims 21, 22, and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as allegedly being obvious over Cohen and Dorfmann, and in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0156308 to Ohnemus (Ohnemus). Claims 14-17 and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as allegedly being obvious over Cohen and Dorfmann, in view of WO 2015/051376 to Alarcon (Alarcon). Applicant traverses all prior art rejections.
To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, according to a test predominately used by the courts, three basic criteria must be met. First, there must be some suggestion or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings. Second, there must be a reasonable expectation of success. Finally, the prior art reference (or references when combined) must teach or suggest all the claim elements. The teaching or suggestion to make the claimed combination and the reasonable expectation of success must both be found in the prior art and not based on applicant's disclosure. Jn re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 20 USPQ2d 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
With regard to the Supreme Court’s decision in KSR Jnt’/. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 US. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), it is noted that the Court did not dismiss the usefulness of the well-established “teaching, suggestion, or motivation” test set forth above, but merely cautioned against its rigid application. The Supreme Court in KSR commented that the Federal Circuit ‘‘no doubt has applied the test in accord with these principles [set forth in KSR] in many cases. ”’ /d. 82 USPQ2d at 1396. However, the Supreme Court also opined that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. . .” /d. 82 USPQ2d at 1395-96. Regardless of the precise test used, the Court, quoting /n re Kahn, cautioned that *‘‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’’ /d. 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Applicant submits that the currently cited art, whether considered individually or in any combination, fails to teach or suggest modifying a user interface complexity by flattening parts of a menu tree and/or highlighting or reordering commonly chosen options as currently claimed. Additionally, there is no teaching or motivation towards modifying a user interface complexity by flattening parts of a menu tree and/or highlighting or reordering commonly chosen options in any of the cited prior art documents.
From Cohen…
Produce a user interface…
“A vaporizer consistent with implementations of the current subject matter may be configured to connect (e.g., wirelessly or via a wired connection) to a communication device (or optionally two or more devices) in communication with the vaporizer. Such a device can be a component of a vaporizer system as discussed above, and can include first communication hardware, which can establish a wireless communication channel with second communication hardware of the vaporizer. For example, a device used as part of a vaporizer system may include a general purpose computing device (e.g., a smartphone, a tablet, a personal computer, some other portable device such as a smartwatch, or the like) that executes software to produce a user interface for enabling a user of the device to interact with a vaporizer. In other implementations of the current subject matter, such a device used as part of a vaporizer system can be a dedicated piece of hardware such as a remote control or other wireless or wired device having one or more physical or soft (e.g., configurable on a screen or other display device and selectable via user interaction with a touch-sensitive screen or some other input device like a mouse, pointer, trackball, cursor buttons, or the like) interface controls.” [0032]
Examples of various user interfaces can be generated (therefore, modify user interface)…
“Examples of application software with many of the features described herein for use with one or more vaporizers are described with reference to FIG. 9. Each of the user interface (UI) screens described herein in FIG. 9 can be generated by user interface 650 of a user device 305, and/or the computing apparatus 600. For example, the user device 305 can comprise the memory 620 storing instructions for executing the vaporizer application running on the user device 305. The processor 610 can execute those instructions and can generate the exemplary UIs using the display 630 and/or the user interface 650. The exemplary UIs can also be generated based on user input received via the display 630 and/or the user interface 650. The exemplary UIs can also be generated based on communications with the vaporizer 100, 200, remote server 307, other user devices 305, and/or other devices. The communications can be received using the network interface 640 and/or antenna 690 of the user device 305, the vaporizer 100, 200, and/or any other device.” [0165]
Cohen therefore has the ability to modify a user interface.
As such, the skilled person would not be prompted to modify the teachings in any of the cited prior art documents to arrive at the claimed invention.
Accordingly, Applicants submit that all prior art rejections have been overcome and request withdrawal thereof.
The rejection is respectfully maintained but modified for the claim amendments.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 42 recites a computer program comprising computer executable instructions adapted to cause a computer to perform the method of claim 32. For examination purposes this is interpreted as a system claim comprising a computer, where the computer executes instructions. Claim 43 is interpreted as a product claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8, 11-34, and 37-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-8, 11-34, and 37-43 are directed to a system, method, or product which are statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified method Claim 32 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to system Claim 1.
Claim 32 recites the limitations of:
A user feedback method for a user of a first device, comprising
an obtaining step of obtaining one or more user factors indicative of a state of the user;
an estimating step of identifying at least a first feedback action based upon one or more of at least a subset of the obtained user factors;
a feedback step of select at least a first identified feedback action, and
a modifying step of causing a modification of one or more operations of at least the first device, according to the or each selected feedback action,
wherein the first device is not an aerosol delivery device,
wherein the first device provides a user interface for the purposes of interaction with the user, and
wherein modification of one or more operations of the first device relates to modifying a user interface complexity by flattening parts of a menu tree and/or highlighting or reordering commonly chosen options.
These above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. The claim recites elements, in non-bold above, which covers performance of the limitation as managing personal behavior. Obtaining user factors indicative of a state of a user, identifying a first feedback action based on user actions, select a first identified feedback action, causing modification of operations of a first device according to selected feedback action, where modification of the first device relates to flattening parts of a menu tree and/or highlighting or reordering commonly chosen options is abstract as managing personal behavior by following rules or instructions (obtaining a state of a user, identifying feedback action of a user) and teaching (modifying operations according to selected feedback action, modifying user interface complexity by flattening parts of a menu tree and/or highlighting or reordering commonly chosen options). Therefore, the claim as a whole is directed to “treating a patient,” which is an abstract idea because it is a method of organizing human activity. “Treating a patient” is considered to be a method of organizing human activity because it is an example of managing personal behavior (including teaching and following rules or instructions). Obtaining information of a user (user state and feedback actions) to modify operations of a device (flattening parts of a menu tree and/or highlighting or reordering commonly chosen options) is treating a user’s stress, giving the claim it’s broadest reasonable interpretation (see pg.125, lines 1-9 of the instant specification). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a managing personal behavior, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 is also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
In as much as the claims are obtaining factors, identifying and selecting a feedback action (analyzing the data), and modifying operations (providing a result), the claims are also abstract under mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. How are the claims any different from a person detecting (mental observation) a boss is in a hurry and agitated (obtaining a state), determining (mental observation) the boss needs information fast (identifying a first feedback action), and provide relevant information (use pen and paper to select a feedback action). Applicant recites flattening parts of a menu tree and/or highlighting or reordering commonly chosen options, but this can be done with pen and paper by crossing out long lists or renumbering lists using a pen Therefore, modify complexity to mitigate stress is analogous to modifying a presentation to an boss by providing an executive summary or crossing out unimportant information.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite: first device, obtaining processor, estimation processor, feedback processor, aerosol delivery device (Claim 1); first device, aerosol delivery device (Claim 32). The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The “not an aerosol device” could include just a processor. The user interface is computer software for providing information and recited at a high level of generality (e.g., modifying user interface complexity is not improving a technology and could be just about anything). Flattening parts of a menu tree and/or highlighting or reordering commonly chosen options on an interface, even if not abstract, are recited at a high level of generality. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claims 1 and 32 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to 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. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Steps such as obtaining (receiving) are steps that are considered insignificant extra solution activity and mere instructions to apply the exception using general computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(d), II). Thus claims 1 and 32 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-8, 11-31, 33, 34, and 37-43 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 32 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and Mental Processes and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Claims 4 and 5 recite sensors at a high level of generality. Claims 7 and 38 recite terminal at a high level of generality. Claims 7 and 40 recite aerosol delivery device at a high level of generality. Claims 14-17 and 39 recite a point-of-sale device, which is recited at a high level of generality. Further, claims 16 and 17 engage in a commercial interaction of delivering a product, which is abstract for this reason also under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Claims 21, 22, and 41 recite fitness equipment at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claims 2-8, 11-31, 33, 34, and 37-43 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-8, 11-34, and 37-43 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-8, 11-34, and 37-43 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 1 recites “modifying a user interface… or reordering commonly chosen options” where “commonly” is a relative term rendering the claim indefinite. Commonly could be anything as there is no basis or limit as to what this encompasses. Claim 32 has the same problem.
Dependent claims 2-8, 11-31, 33, 34, and 37-43
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 11 and 12 depend from canceled claims 9 and 10. Claim 13 depends from Claim 12, therefore rejected on that basis.
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements.
Examiner Request
The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 U.S.C. §112(a) or §112 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8, 18-20, 23-34, 38, 40, 42, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pub. No. US 2019/0387796 to Cohen in view of Pub. No. US 2014/0108900 to Olson et al. and in view of Pub. No. US 2013/0332475 to Michelstein et al.
Regarding claim 1
A user feedback system for a user of a first device, comprising
an obtaining processor adapted to obtain one or more user factors indicative of a state of the user;
{
From Applicant’s specification on obtaining, estimation, and feedback processors…
“In this embodiment, the obtaining processor 1010, estimation processor 1020, and feedback processor 1030 are located within the server 1000. However, it will be appreciated that any one or more of these processors may be located elsewhere within the ecosystem 1, or its role may be shared between two or more processors in server and/or the ecosystem. For example the obtaining processor may be located in an e-cigarette or mobile phone, or the feedback processor may be located in a vending machine or e-cigarette, or the functionality of these processes may be shared between the server and such devices. In other examples, these processors may be local to the delivery device ( e.g. an e-cigarette ), or to a delivery system comprising the delivery device and a mobile phone.” (pg. 22, lines 13-21)
Therefore, the processors could be in a server (e.g., multicore processor, etc. or in various devices.).
From Applicant’s specification on state of a user…
“It will be appreciated that references to 'the user's state' encompass one of many states of the user, or equivalently one aspect of the overall state of the user. Hence for example the user's level of stress, which as a non-limiting example may be a combination of social circumstance and cortisol levels, is an example of 'the state of the user', but does not completely define the user. In other words, the state of the user is a state relevant to the potential intervention of one or more feedback actions as described elsewhere herein.” (pg. 21, lines 17-20 to pg. 22, lines 1-2)
“Hence the principles of modifying the operation of a device responsive to a model of a user's state based upon user factors indicative of such states can be applied not just to aerosol delivery systems and their deliver ecosystem ( or user-associated non-delivery ecosystem), but to any device or system where the modification of its operation may advantageously benefit the user, for example by mitigating a negative user state, helping to transit to a more positive user state, or maintain a positive user state, whether that state relates wholly or in part to physiological, neurological, psychological, circumstantial, environmental or historical influences.” (pg. 136, lines 4-10)
Therefore, a user’s state could be they are stressed.
}
Cohen teaches:
Example of application (therefore, computer) with driving under the influence (factor indicative of state of the user)…
“In some implementations of the current subject matter, the application or vaporizer may inform the users of the driving under the influence (DUI) limit of THC in their state and set warning/alert when one time usage exceeds the limit based on estimated blood level (e.g., 5 ng/mL blood level in Colorado or 3.5-5 ng/mL blood level according to this report http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/DUICreport.2005.pdf). The vaporizer or app may also include a table similar to the number of drinks vs. blood alcohol content (BAC) table included in department of motor vehicles (DMV) letters. The vaporizer and/or app may alternatively or additionally estimate blood THC concentration based on the user's body weight and gender info.” [0097]
Another example of estimate based on (obtaining processor) weight and gender…
“In some implementations of the current subject matter, the application or vaporizer may inform the users of the driving under the influence (DUI) limit of THC in their state and set warning/alert when one time usage exceeds the limit based on estimated blood level (e.g., 5 ng/mL blood level in Colorado or 3.5-5 ng/mL blood level according to this report http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/DUICreport.2005.pdf). The vaporizer or app may also include a table similar to the number of drinks vs. blood alcohol content (BAC) table included in department of motor vehicles (DMV) letters. The vaporizer and/or app may alternatively or additionally estimate blood THC concentration based on the user's body weight and gender info.” [0097]
Various digital devices part of a system, but not an aerosol device…
“For example, applications (“apps”) may be executed on a processor of a portable and/or wearable device, including smartphones, smartwatches, and the like, which may be referred to as a personal digital device or optionally just a device (e.g., user device 305 in FIG. 3) that is part of a vaporizer system. These digital devices may provide an interface for the user to engage and interact with functions related to the vaporizer, including communication of data to and from the vaporizer to the digital device or the like and/or additional third party processor (e.g., servers such as the remote server 307 in FIG. 3). For example, a user may control some aspects of the vaporizer (temperature, dosage, etc.) and/or data transmission and data receiving to and from vaporizer, optionally over a wireless communication channel between first communication hardware of the device and second communication hardware of the vaporizer. Data may be communicated in response to one or more actions of the user (e.g., including interactions with a user interface displayed on the device), and/or as a background operation such that the user does not have to initiate or authorize the data communication process.” [0070]
Analyzing data at a server…
“At 805, the app, vaporizer 100, 200, and/or the computing apparatus 600, for example, may provide an optimized delivery of nicotine to a user. The optimized delivery may include the determined first cartridge and/or first program described herein. For example, the processor 610 may determine the first cartridge and/or first program based on a user selected input received via the user interface 650. In response to providing the optimized delivery of nicotine, the user behavior may be monitored and/or inputted. The monitored and/or inputted data may be transmitted at 806 to a server for analysis or may be analyzed locally at the user access device 305, vaporizer 100, 200, and/or the computing apparatus 600. At 810, the app, vaporizer 100, 200, and/or the computing apparatus 600, for example, may receive user feedback (e.g., monitored and/or inputted data 806) regarding the optimized delivery of nicotine at 805…” [0123]
See Processors below.
an estimation processor adapted to identify at least a first feedback action based upon one or more of at least a subset of the obtained user factors; and
App estimate THC concentration (estimation to identify THC amount) and inform (identify) under the influence…
“In some implementations of the current subject matter, the application or vaporizer may inform the users of the driving under the influence (DUI) limit of THC in their state and set warning/alert when one time usage exceeds the limit based on estimated blood level (e.g., 5 ng/mL blood level in Colorado or 3.5-5 ng/mL blood level according to this report http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/DUICreport.2005.pdf). The vaporizer or app may also include a table similar to the number of drinks vs. blood alcohol content (BAC) table included in department of motor vehicles (DMV) letters. The vaporizer and/or app may alternatively or additionally estimate blood THC concentration based on the user's body weight and gender info.” [0097]
a feedback processor adapted to select at least a first identified feedback action, and to cause a modification of one or more operations of at least the first device, according to the or each selected feedback action,
Device such as a computing device…
“A vaporizer consistent with implementations of the current subject matter may be configured to connect (e.g., wirelessly or via a wired connection) to a communication device (or optionally two or more devices) in communication with the vaporizer. Such a device can be a component of a vaporizer system as discussed above, and can include first communication hardware, which can establish a wireless communication channel with second communication hardware of the vaporizer. For example, a device used as part of a vaporizer system may include a general purpose computing device (e.g., a smartphone, a tablet, a personal computer, some other portable device such as a smartwatch, or the like) that executes software to produce a user interface for enabling a user of the device to interact with a vaporizer. In other implementations of the current subject matter, such a device used as part of a vaporizer system can be a dedicated piece of hardware such as a remote control or other wireless or wired device having one or more physical or soft (e.g., configurable on a screen or other display device and selectable via user interaction with a touch-sensitive screen or some other input device like a mouse, pointer, trackball, cursor buttons, or the like) interface controls.” [0032]
Computing apparatus (first device) analyze feedback nicotine and determine (identify and select feedback action) should be modified, computing apparatus modify the optimized delivery (modification of operations of computing device)…
“At 815, the app, vaporizer 100, 200, and/or the computing apparatus 600, for example, may pool or aggregate the user feedback and/or modifications with crowdsourced information regarding nicotine cessation. In some aspects, the user feedback and/or modifications 812 may improve the pooled data source by providing additional data points associated with previous optimized deliveries. The app, vaporizer 100, 200, and/or the computing apparatus 600, for example, may analyze the user feedback and/or the crowdsourced information to determine that the optimized delivery of nicotine at 805 should be modified. At 816, the app, vaporizer 100, 200, and/or the computing apparatus 600 may modify the optimized delivery of nicotine at 805 and may improve model reliability by adjusting for these additional inputs. For example, the processor 610 may determine that the first cartridge and/or first program should be modified based on the analysis. The processor 610 may then generate or recommend the second cartridge and/or the second program as described herein. The app, vaporizer 100, 200, and/or the computing apparatus 600 may deliver an updated optimized delivery of nicotine at 805.” [124]
wherein the first device is not an aerosol delivery device,
Example of components such as a device in communication or components that may be configured for user control and operation (not an aerosol device)…
“Implementations of the current subject matter include methods, devices, apparatuses, articles of manufacture, and systems relating to vaporizing and/or aerosolizing one or more materials for inhalation by a user. Example implementations include vaporizer devices and systems including vaporizer devices. The term “vaporizer” is used generically in the following description and claims to refer to any of a self-contained apparatus, an apparatus that includes two or more separable parts (e.g., a vaporizer body that includes a battery and/or other hardware, and a cartridge that includes and/or is configured to hold a vaporizable material), and/or the like. A “vaporizer system” as used herein may include one or more components, such as a device in communication (e.g., wirelessly or over a wired connection) with a vaporizer and optionally also the vaporizer itself. A vaporizer or one or more components of a vaporizer system consistent with implementations of the current subject matter may be configured for user control and operation. As used herein, an “aerosol” may refer to a “vapor.” Although the term “device” is used herein, the term “apparatus” is intended to be equivalent and should be construed as such.” [0025]
Computer to implement features and/or components and in addition to or alternatively from the vaporizer apparatuses…
“FIG. 6 illustrates an example computing apparatus 600 which may be used to implement one or more of the described features and/or components, in accordance with some example implementations. For example, at least a portion of the computing apparatus 600 may be used to implement at least a portion of the vaporizer 100, the vaporizer 200, the user device 305, the remote server 307, and/or like. The components of the computing apparatus 600 can be implemented in addition to or alternatively from any of the components of the vaporizer apparatuses 100, 200 illustrated and/or described.” [0100]
Where first device is a computing device (not an aerosol delivery device) and user to engage and interact with an interface…
“The computing apparatus 600 may perform one or more of the processes described herein. For example, the computing apparatus 600 may be used to execute an application providing for user control of a vaporizer in communication with the computing apparatus 600 and/or to provide an interface for the user to engage and interact with functions related to the vaporizer, in accordance with some example implementations.” [0101]
Another example of games unrelated to vaporization material (not an aerosol device) and permit game interaction (feedback and modification of device)…
“In general, any of these apparatuses may permit users to engage in games either by gamification of usage or by including games that may be played by users (including multiple users) unrelated to vaporization of material. For example, gamification of usage (including purchasing of new components such as cartridges) may include awarding points, prizes, etc. and the creation of teams for switching or the like. Games may include the use of the accelerometer or other sensors in the apparatus that may be transmitted wirelessly to an app and/or to another user's vaporizer or app (e.g., directly or via a remote server) to permit game interaction.” [0159]
Interaction with a user on a computer with feedback provided by various forms including visual, etc…
“To provide for interaction with a user, one or more aspects or features of the subject matter described herein can be implemented on a computer having a display device, such as for example a cathode ray tube (CRT) or a liquid crystal display (LCD) or a light emitting diode (LED) monitor for displaying information to the user and a keyboard and a pointing device, such as for example a mouse or a trackball, by which the user may provide input to the computer. Other kinds of devices can be used to provide for interaction with a user as well. For example, feedback provided to the user can be any form of sensory feedback, such as for example visual feedback, auditory feedback, or tactile feedback; and input from the user may be received in any form, including, but not limited to, acoustic, speech, or tactile input. Other possible input devices include, but are not limited to, touch screens or other touch-sensitive devices such as single or multi-point resistive or capacitive trackpads, voice recognition hardware and software, optical scanners, optical pointers, digital image capture devices and associated interpretation software, and the like” [0185]
wherein the first device provides a user interface for the purposes of interaction with the user, and
Fig. 6, ref. 650 and computing apparatus with user interface…
PNG
media_image1.png
246
196
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein modification of one or more operations of the first device relates to modifying a user interface complexity by flattening parts of a menu tree and/or highlighting or reordering commonly chosen options.
[No Patentable Weight is given to non-functional descriptive claim language of “modifying a user interface complexity by flattening parts of a menu tree and/or highlighting or reordering commonly chosen options” where the user interface (display) complexity itself is non-functional descriptive claim language (that is a display of information in a particular format is not given patentable weight). For examination purposes this is interpreted as modifying a user interface.]
{
From Applicant’s specification on user interface…
“Examples of first devices may include any device that provides a user interface for the purposes of interaction with the user. A non-limiting list of examples includes electronic menus ( e.g. in fast food restaurants, libraries, hotels, department stores and other places offering disparate options to users), automated teller machines, gym equipment, point-of-sale devices (e.g. self-service kiosks, vending machines and the like), medical equipment, or other devices that may provide access to products and/or services.” (pg. 124, lines 15-20}
Therefore, just about any device with a user interface.
From Applicant’s specification on complexity…
“In these cases, and identified feedback action may comprise modifying one or more operations of the first device relating to user interface complexity, and/or the number of user interface options. Hence for example if the obtained user factors correlate with stress, then the modification may be to reduce user interface complexity, for example by flattening parts of a menu tree or highlighting or reordering commonly chosen options, thereby modifying a tradeoff between ease-of-use and degree of control, in favor of ease-of-use. In a similar and related manner, if the obtained user factors correlate with stress, then the modification may be to reduce a number of user interface options, for example by pruning parts of a menu tree or bundling options together in common combinations.” (pg. 125, lines 1-9)
Therefore, if a user is stressed, reduce screen complexity by flattening a menu tree or reordering commonly chosen options.
}
Dashboard so users can log on and tabulate progress (user interface complexity)…
“In some implementations, the vaporizer and/or an affiliated app may have a dashboard style user-interface (e.g., user interface 650), in which users can log on and tabulate their progress over time. Data may be based on individual and/or group data. For example, the group data can show as a population of what the mean smoking-vaping switch rate is at any given time since starting to use a vaporizer. The apparatus may provide a view in which the user can select other users to define a group (cohort) based on their starting conditions: e.g., packs per day, age, gender, etc.” [0127]
Display with functions of a vaporizer and prompts (options)…
“The computing apparatus 600 may include one or more user interfaces, such as user interface 650. The user interface 650 can include hardware or software interfaces, such as a keyboard, mouse, or other interface, some of which may include a touchscreen integrated with a display 630. The display 630 may be used to display information, such as information related to the functions of a vaporizer, provide prompts to a user, receive user input, and/or the like. In various implementations, the user interface 650 can include one or more peripheral devices and/or the user interface 650 may be configured to communicate with these peripheral devices.” [0103]
See Flat below.
See Highlight and Reorder below.
Processors
Cohen teaches server and processors. They do not explicitly teach obtaining processor, estimation processor, or feedback processor. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that these are functions performed by generic processors and could be performed in a single server with multicore or multi-processor capability or distributed to various devices with processors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s filing to modify the combined references with the knowledge available to such an artisan that the processors are generic processors performing functions indicated by their label and servers with multicore processors or multiple processors could also perform the functions. This would have been known work in the field of endeavor prompting variations of it in the same field based on use of generic processors performing functions and would provide predictable results.
Aerosol
Cohen teaches vaporizer. They do not explicitly teach not an aerosol delivery device. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a computer is not a vaporize device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s filing to modify the combined references with the knowledge available to such an artisan that computers are not aerosol devices. This would have been known work in the field of endeavor prompting variations of it in the same field based on use of providing feedback and would provide predictable results.
Flat
Cohen teaches using an interactive display. They do not teach flattening a menu.
Olson et al. also in the business of interactive display teaches:
Menu can be flat or hierarchical…
“The link menu can also be displayed in different formats. For instance, it can be displayed as a single, flat level display, or the elements in the link menu can be displayed according to an indent/out-dent format that corresponds to the hierarchical arrangement of the report. That is, links to subsections can be indented relative to the links to their corresponding parent sections. This is indicated by block 198 in FIG. 2. Other menu displays can be generated as well, and this is indicated by block 200.” [0037]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include in the method and system of the Cohen the ability to format a flat display as taught by Olson et al. since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Further motivation is provided by Olson et al. who teaches menus can be displayed in different formats and Cohen benefits as they provide an interactive display interface to users.
Highlight and Reorder
The combined references teach interactive display. They do not teach highlight or reorder.
Michelstein et al. also in the business of interactive display teaches:
Content with better design…
“Because almost any technology user today creates, generates, shares, and/or publishes content, some users or other entities creating, generating, sharing, or publishing the content may not be trained in design principles. As a result, some of these entities may not be capable of producing visual content in a consumable, useful, or visually appealing format. Thus, the utility of some content created, generated, shared, or published by these or other entities may be enhanced by applying better designs.” [0002]
“Thus, the rules 206 can be applied to adjust how the data 110 is presented by application of a particular world. For example, the rules 206 can be applied to the data 110 to adjust the readability of text. These adjustments can be based, for example, upon a relative ease with which a typeface can be read when characters are laid