DETAILED NON-FINAL OFFICE 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 .
Comments
This office action is in response to the preliminary amendment of June 8, 2023, which amendment has been ENTERED.
It is noted that claim 15 is NEWLY-ADDED.
It is further noted that claims 1-15 are presently pending in the application.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Please note that any mention of a line number of a claim in this office action refers to the claims as they appear in the official claim listing in the image file wrapper (IFW), not to any claim as it may be reproduced below.
Trademarks in the Application
The use of the terms Bluetooth and Wi-Fi, each of which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. Each of these terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore each of these terms should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Bluetooth is used in the specification and in claims 13 and 15.
Wi-Fi is used in the specification.
Objection to the Drawings
The text of 37 CFR 1.84(o) is as follows:
“(o) Legends. Suitable descriptive legends may be used subject to approval by the Office, or may be required by the examiner where necessary for understanding of the drawing. They should contain as few words as possible.” (Bold added).
The drawings are objected to because certain drawing elements lack “suitable descriptive legends” that are “necessary for understanding of the drawing,” which “suitable descriptive legends” are hereby “required by the examiner” for the following listed drawing elements: in Figure 1, elements 10, 16, 12, 20, 22, 32, 28, 24, 26, 30, 34, 36, 14, 133, 134, 140, 132, 138, 130, and 122; in Figure 2, element 16; and, in Figure 3, element 16.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Objection to the Specification
The specification is hereby objected to under 37 CFR 1.71(a) in that it is not expressed in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms” as to the meaning of “short-range” and “long-range,” not defining what ranges are “short,” and, what ranges are “long.”
Claim Interpretation
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 1-15 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.
The term “long-range” in claims 1 and 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “long-range” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “short-range” in claims 1, 8, 19, and 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “short-range” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Each of claims 13 and 15 contains the trademark/trade name Bluetooth. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a type of signal and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. Please see MPEP 2173.05(u).
Each of dependent claims 2-15 is unclear, at least, in that it depends from unclear, independent claim 1.
Prior Art Rejections
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sur et al (‘338).
A person of ordinary skill-in-the-art would be a person having a degree in some form of engineering or in physics with several years of practical experience in the design and/or testing of aerosol generation devices.
Regarding independent claim 1 as newly-amended, Sur et al (‘338) plainly discloses, “An aerosol generation device” (line 1), noting, for example, paragraph [28] at lines 1-6.
The claim 1 feature, “heater configured to heat a vaporizable material to generate an aerosol” (line 2) is plainly disclosed in Sur et al (‘338), noting, for example, paragraph [0005] at lines 1-5; paragraph [0013] at lines 1-6; and, page 4, left column at lines 4-15.
The claim 1 feature, “battery configured to power the heater” (line 3) is met in Sur et al (‘338) by disclosures of a “battery,” noting, for example, paragraph [0031] at lines 19-25.
The claim 1 feature, “geolocation chip configured to generate geolocation data representative of the aerosol generation device” (lines 4-5) is met in Sur et al (‘338) by the disclosed “satellite navigation receiver module 250,” noting, for example, paragraph [61].
The claim 1 feature, “configured to receive a first proximity sensing signal from an external device (14) when the aerosol generation device (12) is within a proximity range (PR) around the external device” (lines 6-8) is met in Sur et al (‘338) by a component of the “aerosol delivery device 100” (see Figure 3) as it receives the signal 304; however, Sur et al (‘338) does not explicitly say that a “short-range antenna” is used. The signal 304 in Figure 3 of Sur et al (‘338) is a “short-range” signal being a wireless personal area network (WPAN) signal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a “short-range antenna” in the “aerosol delivery device 100” in order to optimize the reception of signal 304, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
Similarly, the claim 1 feature, “configured to transmit said geolocation data to an external server when the short-range antenna does not receive said first proximity sensing signal” (lines 9-1) is met in Sur et al (‘338) by a component of the “aerosol delivery device 100” (see Figure 3) as it receives the signal 306; however, Sur et al (‘338) does not explicitly say that a “long-range antenna” is used. The signal 306 in Figure 3 of Sur et al (‘338) is a “long-range” signal, being a wireless local area network (WLAN). Here, “long” is used relative to the use of “short” for signal 304. In paragraph [67] at line 19 of Sur et al (‘338), a “server computer” is disclosed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a “long-range antenna” in the “aerosol delivery device 100” in order to optimize the reception of signal 306, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
In that each and every claimed limitation recited in independent claim 1 is plainly disclosed in Sur et al (‘338) as modified above, claim 1 is obvious over Sur et al (‘338).
As for the further limitations of dependent claim 2, these are fully-met by Sur et al (‘338) as modified above. In Sur et al (‘338), please especially note drawing element 312 of Figure 3.
Finally, the further limitations of dependent claim 8 are met by Sur et al (‘338) as modified above in the rejection of independent claim 1. The claim 8 “aerosol generation assembly” (line 1) is met by the “system 300” in Sur et al (‘338), noting, for example, Figure 3, and, paragraph [67] at lines 1-10.
Potentially-Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7 and 9-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Prior Art of General Interest
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
The publication, “Brand Guide for Bluetooth Trademarks” is included with this office action for Applicant’s information. It is not prior art for Applicant’s invention.
The publication, “Who We Are: Our Brands” is included with this office action for Applicant’s information. It is not prior art for Applicant’s invention.
Juster et al (‘775) is of general interest for the disclosure related to the network and to the server.
Ampolini et al (‘841) is of general interest for the disclosure related to the “control body portion.”
Bowen et al (‘114) is of general interest for Figure 3 and for the disclosure relating to the remote server.
Henry, JR. et al (‘289) is of general interest for the disclosure related to the “control body.”
Skoda (‘438) is of general interest for the disclosure related to network enabling.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARR E GREGORY whose telephone number is (571)272-6972. The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays through Fridays from 7:30 am to 3:30 pm eastern time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-5144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648