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 .
1. Claims 1-24 are presented for examination.
Election/Restrictions
2. The restriction made 08/26/2025, Group 1, claims 1-21, Group 2, Claim 22 and 24 and Group 3, Claim 23 are rejoined since examiner found the inventions are not distinct and that there would not be a serious search or examination burden, as a result of a restriction requirement 08/26/2025 hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Because all claims previously withdrawn from consideration under 37 CFR 1.142 have been rejoined, the restriction requirement as set forth in the Office action mailed on 08/26/2025 is hereby withdrawn. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as to the rejoined inventions, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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 1-24 is 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.
Claims 22 recites the limitation "the use" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the inhalation" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea (mental process) determine and compare the material deliver from the aerosol generating material to the user using data from the sensor is performed in the human mind observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, are considered to recite an abstract idea.
The independent claims 1 and 22-24, recites the limitations of determine an indication of an amount of the ingredient delivered … and compare the indication of an amount of the ingredient delivered …those limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (control circuity, computer and processor). That is, other than reciting “by computing device” nothing in the claim precludes the determine and compare steps from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the “by a computing device” language, the claim encompasses the user can observe, judgment and evaluate the “determine” and “compare” steps. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes or human using pen and paper grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea (mental processes), see MPEP 2106.04(a).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, recites additional element claim 1, “control circuit”, claims 22, “computer” and claim 24, “processor. However, claim 23 has no addition element– – using a processor (claim 24), computer (claim 22) and control circuit (claim 1) to perform “determine” and “compare” steps. The processor in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of “determine” and “compare”) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. In addition, receiving a senser data and a proving a notification step (Insignificant extra-solution activity — receiving (collecting data) and presentation or transmitting (displaying) the data is post- solution activity - see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea
into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor, computer or control circuit to perform both the determine and compare steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (applying the exception with generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C). In addition, receiving a senser data and a proving a notification step (Insignificant extra-solution activity- receiving (collecting data) and presentation or transmitting (displaying) the data is post- solution activity - see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-6, recites comparing … (mental process). Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claims 7-8, recites determination based on the material type (mental process), and listing the material type (insignificant extra-solution activity). Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claims 9 and 16-21, recites notification … (insignificant extra-solution activity). Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claims 10-15, recite determine … (mental process). Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea.
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.
5. 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.
5.1 Claim(s) 1-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (US 20200178616 A1) in view of Spinka et al. (US 20150272220 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 22-24, Yu discloses aerosol provision system (Fig. 1, [0053], an electric cigarette device) comprising:
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform [0096], The dosage reminder vaporization device may comprise a processor, a memory and a data storage component for the function);
an aerosol generator configured to aerosolize ([0054], atomizer installed into the container for heating the vaporizable material in the container to produce the inhalable vapor in responsive to a heating control signal from the control module) an aerosol-generating material [0052]-[0053], the vaporizer body, such as dry herbs, a wax, an oil or a liquid that can be vaporized to produce the inhalable vapor containing active ingredients to the user).
a sensor configured to detect an inhalation on the aerosol provision system by a user of the aerosol provision system ([0057], [0058], When the user inhalation nozzle, the puff sensor can detect the air flow resulted from the suction action of the user), and
output corresponding inhalation detection signals to control circuitry (Fig. 5, [0051], the control module generates a control command for actuating an operation of the reminder element).
wherein the control circuitry (Fig. 5, control module 21) is configured to:
determine an indication of an amount of an ingredient delivered (Fig. 5, dosage reminder system) from the aerosol- generating material to the user during the inhalation based on the inhalation detection signals (Fig. 5, [0024], [0051], [0077], [0086][0087], a dosage reminder system for reminding a user to control a dosage of vapor inhalation. A reminder determination unit configured for detecting a parameter during each of the at least one single continual atomization process of the atomizer);
compare the indication of the amount of the ingredient delivered to a threshold ([0017], [0086]-[0087], [0112], [0134], a vaporization device, if the user continues to vape, the dosage remind unit can be configured to automatically stop the vapor generation operation if the time period of the vaping operation of the user reaches a predetermined amount of value the timer module starts to calculate the time duration of a total time period of the atomization process and when the total time period of the atomization process is reached to a predetermined value threshold), and
provide a notification to the user based on the comparison between the indication of the amount of the ingredient delivered to the threshold ([0086]-[0087], [0091], when the time duration of the atomization operation reaches to the predetermined time threshold, a time reminding signal is generated and sent to the control module and then the control module sends a reminding actuation command to the reminder element to actuate the reminder element to produce a reminding effect such as a vibration effect to remind the user to pause the inhalation operation or an alert message is displayed on the display screen for reminding the user to stop the inhalation operation).
Yu discloses the dosage reminder to remined the user how munch material consumed or delivered based the predetermined time, temperature or air flow threshold in Par. [0008]-[0011]; however, fails to disclose determine and compare indication the amount of the ingredient delivered.
Spink discloses in Abstract, an electronic nicotine delivery device including a nicotine dosage sensor that determines an amount of nicotine consumed by a user based on the duration of an inhalation. Par. [0025] The nicotine dosage sensor 200 is configured to determine (i.e., estimate and/or measure) the amount of nicotine consumed by a user based on the nicotine content of the diluted nicotine solution 112, the duration of each inhalation, the time elapsed between inhalations, and information indicative of the temperature of the heating element 140 during each inhalation. The nicotine dosage sensor 200 determines the duration of each inhalation and the time elapsed between inhalations based on the outputs of the timer 250 and the inhalation sensor 260).
Yu and Spinka are analogous art. They relate to control consumption of vapor dosage.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify an electronic nicotine delivery device, taught be Spinka, incorporated with a dosage reminder system, taught by Yu, in order to be restricted from exceeding a predetermined maximum nicotine consumption level.
Regarding claim 2, combination of Yu and Spinka disclose:
Yu discloses the indication of the amount of the ingredient delivered to the threshold is performed based on an indication of the amount of the ingredient delivered from the aerosol-generating material to the user during each inhalation in a predetermined period ([0008]-[0010], [0017], [0074]-[0078],[0081], the dosage reminder system can be configured to detect a time parameter such as the time duration of the atomization process in the vaping operation of the user, so as to remind the user after the user inhales the vapor for a predetermined time threshold in the vaping operation, so that the user can be reminded to stop the vapor inhalation). In addition, Spinka discloses in par. [0007], an electronic nicotine delivery device including a nicotine dosage sensor that determines an amount of nicotine consumed by a user based on the duration of an inhalation, the nicotine dosage sensor may also include a timer, an inhalation sensor, an air flow sensor).
Regarding claim 3, combination of Yu and Spinka disclose:
Yu discloses the predetermined period is an hour, 24 hours or a week ([0081], a predetermined time period such as 24 hours during which the user is not able to activate the atomizer). In addition, Spinka discloses in par. [0042], the user input device may be used to adjust the predetermined maximum nicotine consumption for one rolling 24-hour period.
Regarding claim 4, Yu discloses comparing the indication of the amount of the ingredient delivered to the threshold is performed after each inhalation ([0077], [0078], after the user has been inhaling the inhalable vapor for a predetermined time threshold, the supply of the inhalable vapor is stopped and the vibration effect is produced).
Regarding claim 5, Yu discloses wherein comparing the indication of the amount of the ingredient delivered to the threshold is performed during the inhalation ([0077]-[0078], during each single continual inhalation operation of the user, the supply of the inhalable vapor is stopped and the vibration effect is produced, so that the user can be frequently reminded to control the dosage of the inhalable vapor, so that the user will not be prone to overtake the inhalable vapor, and thus it is beneficial for the health of the user).
Regarding claim 6, Yu the indication of the amount of the ingredient delivered to the threshold is performed at a predetermined interval during the inhalation ([0077] The predetermined time threshold preset in the timer module can be 2-10 seconds. As an example, the predetermined time threshold is 3 seconds, and when the user puts the inhalation nozzle into his or her mouth and starts to inhale, the dosage reminder vaporization device begins to operate when the control module is activated to actuate the atomizer to heat the vaporizable material so as to produce the inhalable vapor that can be inhaled by the use).
Regarding claim 7, Spinka discloses determination of the indication of the amount of the ingredient delivered from the aerosol-generating material to the user is further based on a concentration of the ingredient in the aerosol-generating material ([0052], [0054], claim 9, the nicotine dosage sensor determines the amount of nicotine consumed by the user further based on a nicotine concentration of the nicotine solution. The electronic nicotine delivery device may automatically vaporize the reduced concentration nicotine solution 112 in response to a determination by the nicotine dosage sensor 200 that the user has consumed a predetermined maximum nicotine amount).
Regarding claim 8, Yu discloses the ingredient is nicotine, caffeine, taurine, theine, a vitamin, melatonin, or a cannabinoid ([0004], [0053], the vaporizable material can be a drug such as nicotine, cannabinol, Vitamin D, glycerin, cetirizine, fluticasone, caffeine, phenol, glycoside, terpene glycoside, alkaloid, isovaleric acid, gamma-aminobutyric acid, and senna glycoside and tetrahydrocannabinol so that the vaporization device also can serve as a drug inhalation device for medical use).
Regarding claim 9, Spinka discloses the notification is provided to the user when the indication of the amount of the ingredient delivered exceeds the threshold ([0042]-[0050], [0054], The visual indicator 320 may indicate that a target minimum amount of nicotine (for example, 0 mg) has been consumed over the last 24 hours. The visual indicator 330 may indicate that a predetermined maximum amount of nicotine (for example, 30 mg) has been consumed in the given time period).
Regarding claim 10, Yu discloses control circuitry is configured to determine default user behavior
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Yu and Spinka disclose:
Yu discloses the default user behavior is determined over an inhalation ([0082], the use can inhale the inhalable vapor for 3 seconds during a single continual inhalation operation and after the user has completed 10 cycles of inhalation operations, the user is prevented from inhaling the inhalable vapor within the predetermined time threshold). In addition, Spinka discloses in par. [0024] The inhalation sensor configured to determine if a user is actively inhaling the vaporized diluted nicotine solution.
Regarding claim 12, Yu discloses the control circuitry is configured to determine a time between the inhalation and a next inhalation based on the inhalation detection signals, and wherein determining default user behavior is also based on the time between the inhalation and the next inhalation ([0082], [0092], the control mode determined the predetermined number is preset to 10 while the predetermined time threshold is 3 seconds, then the use can inhale the inhalable vapor for 3 seconds during a single continual inhalation operation and after the user has completed 10 cycles of inhalation operations, the user is prevented from inhaling the inhalable vapor within the predetermined time period).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Yu and Spinka disclose:
Yu discloses the default user behavior is determined over a plurality of inhalations, and a time between each of the plurality of inhalations is less than a predetermined time ([0082], [0092], the control mode determined the predetermined number is preset to 10 while the predetermined time threshold is 3 seconds, then the use can inhale the inhalable vapor for 3 seconds during a single continual inhalation operation and after the user has completed 10 cycles of inhalation operations, the user is prevented from inhaling the inhalable vapor within the predetermined time period). In addition, Spinka discloses in Par. [0038]-[0039], the nicotine dosage sensor 200 may be stored and executed by an external device configured to receive the duration of each inhalation, the time between inhalations, and/or the bioelectrical impedance of the user from the electronic nicotine delivery device.
Regarding claim 14, Spinka discloses the default user behavior is determined over a rolling time period ([0050, FIG. 5, the user input device may be used to adjust the predetermined maximum nicotine consumption for one session while the user input device may be used to adjust the predetermined maximum nicotine consumption for one rolling 24-hour period).
Regarding claim 15, Spinka discloses the threshold is determined based on the determined default user behavior ([0037]-[0039], the nicotine dosage sensor is configured to receive measurements or estimates of the nicotine or cotinine levels of a user (e.g., from an external device receive the duration of each inhalation, the time between inhalations, static and/or dynamic the bioelectrical impedance of the user from the electronic nicotine delivery device) and update the device profile based on the measured or estimated nicotine or cotinine levels of a user in order to more accurately determine the amount of nicotine consumed by a user and/or the nicotine or cotinine levels of the user).
Regarding claim 16, Yu discloses the notification is provided on the aerosol provision system ((Fig. 1A to Fig. 5, [0051], The dosage reminder vaporization device comprises a vaporizer body for generating an inhalable vapor and a dosage reminder system for providing a reminding action, by displaying on the screen, alarm sound, vibration, or illumination, so as to remind the user to be aware of a dosage control of the inhalable vapor and prevent the user from overtaking the inhalable vapor).
Regarding claim 17, Spinka discloses the notification is provided on an application on a remote device ([0040], The nicotine dosage sensor 200 may also be configured to output the nicotine consumption information and/or the user nicotine or cotinine levels to an external device (e.g., a computer, a smart phone, a fitness tracker, a fitness watch, etc.).
Regarding claim 18, Yu discloses notification is a haptic notification ([0076], [0086], [0090], [0111], a vibration motor that is assembled in the housing and is capable of producing a vibration effect or buzzer for producing the buzzing sound effect to remind the user to be aware of the dosage control of the inhalable vapor).
Regarding claim 19, Yu discloses a parameter of the haptic notification is adjustable by the user of the aerosol provision system ([0077], [0083], [0086], [0092], the user may actuate, by clicked the button, the dosage reminder vaporization device is shifted from the dosage control mode to the dosage unlimited mode. The user interacts with the control device via the control pad to replace the function of the dose selector dial and/or button).
Regarding claim 20, Yu discloses the notification is configurable by the user ([0068], [0092], [0147], [0071] The vaporizer body comprises a lighting element which comprises one or more lighting members which are capable of providing different lighting patterns corresponding to the different heating modes. In other words, when clicking the button for shifting to one of the heating modes, the lighting members is turned on for a while and provide an illumination with a predetermined pattern for the user to be easy to identify the corresponding heating mode).
Regarding claim 21, Yu discloses the notification is provided to the user ([0012]-[0014], [0091], an alert message is displayed on the display screen for reminding the user to stop the inhalation) based on the comparison between the indication of the amount of the ingredient delivered (Abstract, vaporization device which comprises a dosage reminder system for reminding a user to control a vapor inhalation dosage) to a plurality of thresholds (Abstract, [0006]-[0008], [0011]-[0012], [0049], [0091], a reminder element arranged for providing a reminder effect under control of the control module when the parameter (temperature, power pressure or airflow, values) reaches to a predetermined threshold).
Citation Pertinent prior art
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Freeman et al. (US 20170156399 A1) discloses vaporizer that uses sensors and a metering system that controls and informs on the amount of vaporized material administered to the use.
Bowen et al. (US 20180093054 A1) discloses vaporizers and vaporizer systems, which can include a device in communication with a vaporizer, can include one or more features related to control of functions and/or features of the vaporizer, identification of a cartridge and/or a vaporizable material in the cartridge, data exchange (either one-way or two-way) between a cartridge and a vaporizer with which the cartridge is engaged.
Anderson et al. (US 20200000143 A1) discloses the one or more optimal puff characteristics may be determined based at least on a flavor, a concentration, and/or a quantity of vaporizable material remaining in a cartridge inserted in the vaporizer device. The flavor, the concentration, and/or the quantity of vaporizable material remaining in the cartridge may be determined by at least reading an identifier associated with the cartridge.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed Kidest Worku whose telephone number is 571-272-3737. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ali Mohammad can be reached on 571-272-4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application information Retrieval IPAIRI system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PMR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAG system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217 - 9197.
/KIDEST WORKU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119