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, 4-17 and 19-25 are presented for examination and claims 2-3 and 18 are cancelled.
Response to Amendment/Response to Arguments
2. 2.1 The rejection under 112 has been withdrawn since applicant’s amendments and remarks are persuasive and overcome the rejection. However, with newly amended limitation has raise new 112 (b) is introduced.
2.2 The rejection under 101 has been maintained since applicant’s amendments and remarks are not persuasive. Applicant amended the independent claims by adding the limitation “wherein the notification comprises changing the electrical power supplied to an aerosol generator by the aerosol provision system”. However, without giving the detail how the power change or it is only in the notification stage no action is taken, simply calming send an alert or notification to change the power supply of the device is consider- “insignificant extra-solution activity" see MPEP 2106.05(g)) because it is routine, well-understood that does not add an inventive concept. For this reason, the rejection under 101 has been maintained.
2.3 Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim(s) 1 and 22-24 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.
Applicant amended the limitation “
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8-9, filed 06/12/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of independent claim(s) 1 and 22-24 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made Aleov (US 20120048266 A1).
Applicant argues regard to the amended limitation, a sensor configured to detect a session comprising a plurality of inhalations, the session having a maximum duration of less than 10 minutes, and wherein the notification comprises changing the electrical power supplied to an aerosol generator by the aerosol provision system. This amendment was added in response to the Non-final rejection made by the Office. As a result, the previous rejection under 103 has been withdrawn and a new rejection has been made in its place. See the rejection below.
Aleov (US 20120048266 A1) discloses an aerosol provision system (an inhalation device 100) comprising: a sensor ([0029], sensor 240) configured to detect a session ([0038], The counter 242 can be configured to measure a number of puffs taken by a user during a smoking session) comprising a plurality of inhalations ([0041], value of the total puffs in a given period), the session having ([0038], [0040] smoking session) comprising a plurality of inhalations ([0041], total puffs taken by a user or counter 242 and timer 248 can provide usage data on the number of puffs per given period), having a maximum duration of less than 10 minutes ([0041], [0045], the user can be allowed a first set time limit for the total duration time of puffs within five minutes that is roughly equal to smoking one cigarette, a factory setting can be preloaded to the smoking device to allow about fifteen puffs per use within five minutes), on the aerosol provision system by a user of the aerosol provision system ([0010],[0018], inhalation device control system), and wherein the notification comprises changing the electrical power supplied to an aerosol generator by the aerosol provision system ([0032], [0041], controller 224 accumulates and compares the accumulated data with the set limit value. Once the accumulated time value or the value calculated from a combination with the accumulated time and the data of the quantity of the substance from the sensor reaches or goes over the limit value, controller 224 turns the inhalation device control system 200 off or makes the inhalation device control system 200 go into a low-level mode in which the inhalation device). Thereby the above of the reference rendering the instant limitations unpatentable.
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, 4-17 and 19-25 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 1, 4-6, 9 and 22-24“sensor configure to detect a session” and “threshold session” is unclear and vague since the term “session” is not clear what it represents. for examination purpose, examiner interpreted “the threshold session of inhalations”
Claim 1, 15, and 21, the term “threshold” it is unclear and vague what threshold is represented and from what threshold to compare, clarification requested, however, for examination purpose, examiner interpreted “threshold of inhalation”.
As per claims 4-17, 18-21, and 24, these claims are at least rejected for their dependencies, directly or indirectly, on the rejected claims 1, 22-24. They are therefore rejected as set forth above.
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.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as (As per step 2A prong 1):
1) Mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I); 2) Certain methods of organizing human activity - fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and 3) Mental processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Claims 1-25 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).
Under step 2A prong 2 the examiner must then determine if the recited abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04 states:
Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e)
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
-Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
-Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
-Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
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)), and the limitation of notification comprises changing the electrical power supplied to an aerosol generator by the aerosol provision system (without giving the detail how the power change or it is only in the notification stage no action is taken, simply calming send an alert or notification to change the power supply of the device is consider- “insignificant extra-solution activity" see MPEP 2106.05(g)) because it is routine, well-understood that does not add an inventive concept. 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, 16-21 and 25 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, 7, 9, 14-15, 17 and 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alelov (US 20120048266 A1) in view of Spinka et al. (US 20150272220 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 22-24, Alelov discloses an aerosol provision system (Fig. 1, an inhalation device 100) comprising:
non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform a method comprising: ([0006], a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, if executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to perform operations for metering an inhalation device).
a sensor ([0029], sensor 240) configured to detect a session ([0038], The counter 242 can be configured to measure a number of puffs taken by a user during a smoking session) comprising a plurality of inhalations ([0041], value of the total puffs in a given period), the session having ([0038], [0040] smoking session) comprising a plurality of inhalations ([0041], total puffs taken by a user or counter 242 and timer 248 can provide usage data on the number of puffs per given period), having a maximum duration of less than 10 minutes ([0041], [0045], the user can be allowed a first set time limit for the total duration time of puffs within five minutes that is roughly equal to smoking one cigarette, a factory setting can be preloaded to the smoking device to allow about fifteen puffs per use within five minutes), on the aerosol provision system by a user of the aerosol provision system ([0010],[0018], inhalation device control system),
output corresponding inhalation detection signals to control circuitry ([0041], Once the limit value as the time accumulation is set, timer measures the duration of each puff and send the sensor data output to the control logic in controller 22),
wherein the control circuitry (controller 22) is configured to:
determine an indication of an amount of an ingredient delivered from an aerosol generating material to the user during the session based on the inhalation detection signals ([0040], [0045], calculating the quantity of consumption of the substance from data collected from timer for the duration of each and every intake of the air and Counter 242 and timer 248 can provide usage data on the number of puffs per given period and timer 248 can provide both time duration of airflow for each puff and total time accumulated for the airflow over a given period. Therefore, when the substance distribution limit is set by the user or preset by the factory, the limit can be set on the actual amount of the substance in terms of total time allowed for airflow within a given period for use); wherein the notification comprises changing the electrical power supplied to an aerosol generator by the aerosol provision system ([0032], [0041], controller 224 accumulates and compares the accumulated data with the set limit value. Once the accumulated time value or the value calculated from a combination with the accumulated time and the data of the quantity of the substance from the sensor reaches or goes over the limit value, controller 224 turns the inhalation device control system 200 off or makes the inhalation device control system 200 go into a low-level mode in which the inhalation device).
Alelov does not disclose compare the indication of the amount of the ingredient delivered to the session threshold; and provide a notification to the user based on the comparison between the indication of the amount of the ingredient delivered to the session threshold.
Spinka discloses compare the indication of the amount of the ingredient delivered to the session threshold ([0047], [0058], The nicotine consumption sensor 200 may limit the amount of nicotine consumed over time. For example, the heating element may be configured to remain unheated if the user has reached or exceeded a predetermined maximum nicotine consumption level in a given time period (for example, a usage session, a daily limit, or any other measure of time) or a predetermined maximum user nicotine or cotinine level), and
provide a notification to the user based on the comparison between the indication of the amount of the ingredient delivered to the session threshold ([0042], The electronic nicotine delivery device 300 may also include visual indicators 310, 320, and 330 configured to output the nicotine consumption information or user nicotine or cotinine levels. The amount of nicotine consumed over the past 24 hours, the amount of nicotine consumed during the current session.
Alelov 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 an inhalation device, taught by Alelov, in order to provide both time duration of airflow for each puff and total time accumulated for the airflow over a given period. Therefore, when the substance distribution limit is set by the user or preset by the factory, the limit can be set on the actual amount of the substance in terms of total time allowed for airflow within a given period for use, not just an allowable number of puffs.
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 9, combination Alelov and Spinka disclose:
Alelov discloses the notification is provided to the user when the indication of the amount of the ingredient delivered exceeds the session threshold ([0034], [0035],[0046], The display 250 can indicate the usage level for the user to monitor the use of the device and can send out messages to encourage the user to cut down on the use based on the progress he or she makes. A display message can include a number of cigarette equivalents used or left on the inhalation device control system 200, a number of puffs (i.e., drags) used or left on the inhalation device control system 200, and it can include a real time display of a number of puffs the user is allowed to take in each cycle as he or she uses the inhalation device control system 200), and 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 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 ([0035], output an audible or visual warning (e.g., via an LED or speaker) to an external device, for example,s a computer, a smart phone, a fitness tracker or a fitness watch, etc.).
5.2 Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alelov (US 20120048266 A1) in view of Spinka et al. (US 20150272220 A1) further in view of Oliana (US 20230210191 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Alelov and Spinka discloses the limitations of claim 1, but fail to discloses the limitation of claim 4, However, Oliana discloses as follow:
Regarding claim 4, Oliana discloses comparing the indication of the amount of the ingredient delivered to the session threshold is performed after each inhalation (Fig. 7, [0037], [0036],[0294], indicative of aerosol amount or aerosol volume released by the aerosol-forming substrate. The user interaction parameter may be indicative of aerosol amount or aerosol volume delivered to the user. The user interaction parameter is calculated volume of aerosol delivered to the user during the usage session. Thus, the aerosol-generating device is configured such that each usage session has a duration of 6 minutes from initiation of the usage session, or delivery of a predetermined maximum volume of aerosol, if that predetermined volume of aerosol is delivered to the user within 6 minutes from initiation of the usage session).
Oliana, Alelov and Spinka are analogous art. They relate to control consumption of e-cigarette. 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 Oliana, incorporated with the teaching of Spinka and Alelov, as state above, in order to provide by the controller determines a current phase of the session and sends a signal to the haptic output device to emit an indication of the progress of the session.
5.3 Claim(s) 5,6, 8, 10-13, 16, 19-21 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alelov (US 20120048266 A1) in view of Spinka et al. (US 20150272220 A1) further in view of Yu (US 20200178616 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Yu discloses comparing the indication of the amount of the ingredient delivered to the session 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 discloses compare the indication of the amount of the ingredient delivered to the session 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 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 10, Yu discloses control circuitry is configured to determine default user behavior based on the indication of the amount of the ingredient delivered from the aerosol-generating material to the user ([0003], [0007]-[0011], [0017], a vaporization device which comprises a dosage reminder system for reminding a user to control a vapor inhalation dosage based on the predetermined paraments threshold value).
Regarding claim 11, 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).
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, 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).
Regarding claim 16, Yu discloses the notification comprises a haptic, visual or audible provided on an application is provided on the aerosol provision system and on a remote device 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 (audible), vibration (haptic), or illumination (visual), 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 19 and 25, 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).
Yu, Alelov and Spinka are analogous art. They relate to control consumption of e-cigarette. 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 Yu, incorporated with the teaching of Spinka and Alelov, as state above, in order to provide a vaporization device, wherein the user is reminded to stop the vapor inhalation during each vaping operation so that the user is able to frequently be aware of the dosage control of the vapor inhalation.
Citation Pertinent prior art
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Farina (US20190070372A1) discloses provide improvements to the measurement of dose content uniformity of inhaler and nasal devices. The methods involve analyzing and measuring a spray pattern of an emitted spray from an inhaler or nasal device. The spray pattern may be used to determine the dose content uniformity of an inhaler or nasal device.
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for allthat it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed wereinstead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1 009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck& Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
7. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed Kidest Worku whose telephone number is 571-272-3737. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9am to 5pm, ET.
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
Prosecution Insights