Response to Amendment
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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendment filed 5/22/2026 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 16-34 are pending. Claims 1-15 are cancelled. Claims 19 and 26 are cancelled. No new matter is added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited reference do not disclose a sequence in which a detected gesture is interpreted as a request for information regarding usage session progress, followed by a determination of a current phase, and then generation of a corresponding haptic indication.
Henry describes a process by which the usage session is effectively ended rather than controlling progress through a plurality of sequential phases of usage. Henry does not teach or suggest any ability to detect a gesture that is a usage session progress query or the ability to emit a haptic output indicating progress of the usage session.
Ampolini describes splitting individual puffs into multiple segments and adjusting the heating profile. But there would not have been any motivation in Henry, Ampolini or Bowen for the person of ordinary skill to allow a user to query the device using a gesture to determine which segment of an individual puff the user is in.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ampolini describes the puff being segmented based on time (Paragraph [0106] and [0107]) into a plurality of sequential phases that exist between the start and ending of the puff. Bowen specifically discloses that the type of motion detected by the motion sensors is used to determine an action taken by the controller (Paragraph [0036]) and also begins communication between the device and the user. The detected movement is considered a command (e.g., query) by the user to communicate with the device. The device itself communicates with the user through haptic feedback (Paragraphs [0037]) that indicates the status of the vaporizer session (Paragraph [0142]), such as the beginning of the session, middle of the session or end of the session (Paragraph [0143]) by using different types of haptic feedbacks.
Thus, when considering the cited art together, Henry teaches a device that has an accelerometer that can detect and differentiate different types of gestures (e.g., detected signal is determined to be a usage session progress query) (Paragraphs [0047]-[0048]). Each session has a plurality of sequential phases (Ampolini; Paragraphs [0106], [0107]) and upon a predetermined sensed gesture (e.g., query by user to the device), the device then communicates back to the user (e.g., controller configured to determine a current phase, according to Ampolini, and then send a haptic output signal; Bowen paragraphs [0142], [0143]) to the user. Each sequential phase of the session is provided with a unique haptic feedback (Bowen; Paragraphs [0142], [0143]). The haptic feedback signals represent the claimed progress of the usage session because the user is able to identify the different haptic signals representative of the different session phase.
It is further noted that Ampolini describes the use of sequential phases a having the ability to create alternate sensory experiences (Paragraph [0107]). This is the motivation to modify Henry according to the teachings of Ampolini.
Moreover, by providing different haptic feedback signals for each sequential phase in the session according to Bowen, the user is able to identify where in the session the user is currently at.
The courts have generally held that the strongest rationale for combining references is a recognition, expressly or impliedly in the prior art or drawn from a convincing line of reasoning based on established scientific principles or legal precedent, that some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by their combination. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994-95, 217 USPQ 1, 5-6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See also Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356, 1368, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 2006). MPEP 2144, II.
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.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HENRY, JR. et al. (US 2016/0158782) in view of AMPOLINI et al. (US 2014/0270727) and BOWEN et al. (US 2019/0158938).
With respect to claim 16, HENRY, JR. et al. discloses an aerosol generating device (Abstract; Paragraph [0001]) for forming an aerosol from an aerosol precursor (e.g., aerosol forming substrate). The device comprising a timer (Paragraph [0038]); a haptic output unit (Paragraph [0027]); a controller (Paragraphs [0021], [0042], [0062], [0066]) and an accelerometer (Paragraphs [0053], [0054]).
The accelerometer is configured to detect a predetermined gesture movement of the device and to send a signal to the controller (Paragraphs [0048], [0055]-[0058]; Figure 2). The start of the session is initiated by a flow sensor activated by a user drawing on the mouth end of the device (Paragraph [0036]) that signals to the controller to provide power to the heater. The signals from the flow sensor represent the claimed “signal representative of a monitored user interaction parameter” given that the drawing action is a user interaction parameter.
HENRY, JR. et al. does not explicitly disclose that the usage session progresses through a plurality of sequential phases and is controlled by the controller in response to timing signals. AMPOLINI et al. discloses a heating control arrangement for an electronic smoking article (Abstract; Title). The usage session progresses through a plurality of sequential phases between usage start and usage end (Paragraph [0106]-[0114]; Figure 9). Each segment is provided with a defined time segment, and allows the user to create alternate sensory experiences (Paragraph [0107]). The current is controlled during the draw by a timer (Paragraphs [0037]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the usage session of the device of HENRY, JR. et al., being controlled by the controller, to progress through a plurality of sequential power level phases that are performed in response to the timer to control the duration of each sequential phase, as taught by AMPOLINI et al., so that the user can create alternate sensory experiences.
HENRY, JR. et al. further discloses that the accelerometer can detect different predetermined gestures. Each gesture being related to a particular function of the device. With one gesture to unlock the device, another gesture to cause the haptic feedback element to emit feedback (Paragraphs [0047]-[0048]) and other gestures to indicate charge level and aerosol precursor compositing (Paragraphs [0049]-[0050] and [0056]-[0058]).
HENRY, JR. et al. does not explicitly disclose that the signal provided by the accelerometer is analyzed to determine a type of detected gesture. This detected gesture indicate a query on session progress. At which point, the controller controls the haptic output unit to emit an indication of said progress.
BOWEN et al. and electronic vaporizer (Abstract). The vaporizer comprises an accelerometer or other motion sensors (Paragraph [0036]). The detection and determination of the type of motion is used as a command to being communication with the user or a command to cycle through a plurality of settings (Paragraph [0036]).The vaporizer also provides one or more haptic vibrations to indicate the stage of the user session (Paragraphs [0143], [0144]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the haptic output device of HENRY, JR. et al. with a feature that signals each stage of the session, as taught by BOWEN et al. so that the user can be made aware of the amount of remaining session. Moreover, given that a gesture detected by the accelerometer can be used to cycle through settings as taught by BOWEN et al., it also would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure a particular gesture sensed and analyzed by the controller of HENRY, JR. et al., to cycle to the phase of the session, amongst other settings, and to then emit the vibrations so that the user can be made aware of many types of information about the vaporizer, including the phase of the session.
The predetermined type of gesture signal sent to the controller represents the claimed “gesture indicating a usage session progress query” that is detected and determined to be a query by the controller.
BOWEN et al. further discloses that the haptic output emits a different duration, intensity or frequency of vibration (Paragraph [0143]). to indicate each stage (e.g., each phase of session as taught by AMPOLINI et al.) of the session, and therefore implicitly the progress of usage output.
With respect to claim 17, BOWEN et al. discloses that the haptic output is configured to emit an output representative of the current usage session phase (Paragraphs [0143], [0144]). This is in response to the signal received by the controller from the predetermined gesture captured by the accelerometer (See rejection of claim 16).
With respect to claim 18, BOWEN et al. discloses that the haptic output is configured to emit an output representative of the current usage session phase (Paragraphs [0143], [0144]). Given that each phase is associated with a given predetermined haptic output, the transition from one phase to the next would also implicitly trigger the subsequent haptic output for the respective phase.
With respect to claim 19, AMPOLINI et al. disclose more than four sequential phases (Paragraphs [0106]; Figure 9).
With respect to claim 20, HENRY, JR. et al. discloses that the device is configured such that the usage session has a maximum duration determined by the timer (Paragraph [0038]).
With respect to claim 21, HENRY, JR. et al. discloses that the user interaction parameter (e.g., drawing on the mouthpiece end during use) is indicative of use of the device during the usage session (Paragraph [0041]).
With respect to claim 22, HENRY, JR. et al. disclose that the usage session is configured to be terminated (Paragraph [0041]) if the user interaction parameter reaches a “long puff” safety (e.g., predetermined threshold) (Paragraph [0038]).
With respect to claim 23, HENRY, JR. et al. discloses that the user interaction parameter is indicated of the user puff taken during the usage session (Paragraphs [0038], [0041]).
With respect to claim 24¸ AMPOLINI et al. discloses that each of the sequential phases has a phase duration (e.g., horizontal portions of chart) determined by a phase start and end (e.g., vertical portions of chart) (See annotated figure 9).
[AltContent: textbox (Phase starts and stops)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Phase durations)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
316
354
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 25, AMPOLINI et al. discloses that each of the sequential phases has a maximum phase duration controlled by the timer (Paragraphs [0106]-[0114], [0038])
With respect to claim 26, HENRY, JR. et al. discloses that the device is configured such that the usage session has a maximum duration determined by the timer (Paragraph [0038]). It is noted that “and wherein the aerosol-generating device is further configured to record at least one user interaction parameter during the usage session, a phase duration of any, or each, of the plurality of sequential phases having a duration less than a maximum phase duration if the value of the user interaction parameter reaches a predetermined threshold.” (emphasis added). This limitation is a conditional limitation that performs an operation (e.g., record) if a condition is met (e.g., the value of the user interaction parameter reaches a predetermined threshold). Thus, if the condition is not met, then the “configured to record” requirement is not required. Thus, for the rejection of claim 26, the claim limitations are met when the user never reaches the predetermined threshold and the power to the heater is not automatically cut.
With respect to claim 27, BOWEN et al. discloses that a first phase of the haptic output unit emits an output of a first number of vibrations (Paragraph [0143]).
With respect to claim 28, BOWEN et al. discloses that the number of vibrations for the first phase is one (Paragraph [0143]).
With respect to claims 29 and 30¸ BOWEN et al. discloses that the haptic output unit emits two vibrations indicating the second phase (Paragraph [0143]).
With respect to claims 31 and 32,. BOWEN et al. discloses that the haptic output unit emits three vibrations indicating the third phase (Paragraph [0143]).
With respect to claims 33 and 34¸ AMPOLINI et al. discloses up to ten phases of user session (Paragraph [0106]). BOWEN et al. discloses a single vibration for the first phase, two vibrations for the second phase and three vibrations for the third phase (Paragraph [0143]). While it isn’t disclosed to provide four vibrations for the fourth phase, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use four vibrations from the haptic output device of HENRY, JR. et al. in order to indicate the fourth phase of the session.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX B EFTA whose telephone number is (313)446-6548. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Philip Tucker can be reached at 571-272-1095. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEX B EFTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights