DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-11 are pending and are subject to this Office Action. This is the first Office Action on the merits of the claims.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 4/24/26 is acknowledged.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Janardhan (US 20190295304 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Janardhan discloses a method of controlling an electronic device ([0001]), the method comprising:
predicting a virtual smoke implementation timepoint by monitoring a distance between one side of the electronic device and an object (The simulation device 300 receives and/or detects drawing information from the various sensors corresponding to the operation of the e-vaping device 200. [0011], [0144]. The 3D spatial position of the simulation device 300 is determined using an external camera(s) and/or gyroscopes, accelerometers, and other position-related sensors. [0146]. Spatial position information is determined corresponding to a time when ejection of drawn vapor occurred and a time subsequent to when the ejection of the drawn vapor occurred. [0015]); and
transmitting a control signal comprising the virtual smoke implementation timepoint to a device for displaying a virtual image (The device processor generates a vaping simulation on the headset corresponding to the determination of drawn vapor. [0015]-[0017]. The simulation device 300 and/or vapor simulator 500 may analyze collected data to determine vapor ejection operation, such as a start and end time of the ejection of the vapor. [0147]).
Regarding Claim 2, Janardhan discloses a method of controlling an electronic device wherein the predicting of the virtual smoke implementation timepoint comprises:
detecting a first timepoint at which the distance between the one side of the electronic device and the object reaches within a first threshold value (The determined spatial position information includes information of the inhalation device relative to the user and corresponding to a time of ejection of drawn vapor. [0047]); and
detecting a second timepoint at which the distance between the one side of the electronic device and the object exceeds a second threshold value, after the first timepoint (The determined spatial position information includes information corresponding to a time subsequent to the ejection of the drawn vapor. [0047]. The simulation generates the vaping simulation using a particle engine based on the calculated vapor model and the calculated virtual coordinate information. [0047]).
Regarding Claim 3, Janardhan discloses a method of controlling an electronic device wherein the predicting of the virtual smoke implementation timepoint comprises predicting the virtual smoke implementation timepoint based on an interval between the first timepoint and the second timepoint (The model generates a vaping simulation based on the determined vaping characteristics, such as the time of ejection of drawn vapor and time subsequent to ejection of vapor. [0047], [0053]. "The generated 3D vapor particle model is then overlaid and/or projected onto the adult vaper's environment using the AR glasses as a 2D or 3D image on the AR glasses in real-time, with real-time and/or static modeling of the generated vapor particles and/or generated ejected vapor cloud" [0168]).
Regarding Claim 4, Janardhan discloses a method of controlling an electronic device wherein the predicting of the virtual smoke implementation timepoint comprises:
predicting a first respiration time based on the interval between the first timepoint and the second timepoint (The determined spatial position information includes information of the inhalation device relative to the user and corresponding to a time of ejection of drawn vapor. [0047]);
predicting a timepoint of second respiration based on the interval between the first timepoint and the second timepoint and the first respiration time (The determined spatial position information includes information corresponding to a time subsequent to the ejection of the drawn vapor. [0047]); and
determining the timepoint of second respiration to be the virtual smoke implementation timepoint (The simulation generates the vaping simulation using a particle engine based on the calculated vapor model and the calculated virtual coordinate information. [0047]).
Regarding Claim 5, Janardhan discloses a method of controlling an electronic device
wherein the predicting of the virtual smoke implementation timepoint comprises estimating an intake volume and a respiration volume of a user based on the interval between the first timepoint and the second timepoint (The e-vaping device 200 may determine the start and stop time of a drawing of vapor from the e-vaping device 200 and the volume of vapor flow. [0144]),
wherein the intake volume comprises an intake volume of an aerosol that is inhaled by the user through the electronic device in a state in which the electronic device and the object are in contact (The spatial position sensors may be used to determine the volume of vapor inhaled based on proximity of the inhalation device to the user. [0146]-[0147]), and
the respiration volume comprises an inspiration volume inhaled by the user in a state in which the electronic device and the object are not in contact (The spatial position sensors may be used to determine the volume of vapor exhaled based on proximity of the inhalation device to the user and the time between inhale and exhale. [0146]-[0147]).
Regarding Claim 6, Janardhan discloses a method of controlling an electronic device wherein the predicting of the virtual smoke implementation timepoint comprises predicting the virtual smoke implementation timepoint based on the intake volume and the respiration volume (The volume of inhaled/exhaled vapor may be used to determine the simulated vapor to be generated. [0146]-[0147]).
Regarding Claim 7, Janardhan discloses a method of controlling an electronic device wherein the predicting of the virtual smoke implementation timepoint comprises:
determining whether the electronic device satisfies a predetermined operating condition (The user may create a profile comprising personal preferences including simulation systems profiles, thus creating predetermined operating conditions. [0133]); and
predicting the virtual smoke implementation timepoint based on a determination that the electronic device satisfies the operating condition (The user profile settings defining predetermined operating conditions may be used in the vapor simulation determination and/or calculation. [0142]).
Regarding Claim 8, Janardhan discloses a method of controlling an electronic device wherein the operating condition comprises at least one of whether the electronic device is powered on/off and whether a suction sensor included in the electronic device operates (Generated vapor flow volume may be determined using a flow sensor; and a user may determine operation of the device through the on/off button. [0087]).
Regarding Claim 9, Janardhan discloses a method of controlling an electronic device wherein the transmitting of the control signal to the device for displaying a virtual image comprises:
transmitting information about a type of virtual smoke (the device may transmit the vapor simulator routine 521 and/or a particle generator routine 522. [0100]. "Once the vaping characteristics of the ejected vapor have been calculated, the computing device transmits the vaping characteristics to the particle generator 322 (e.g., operation S506 of FIG. 5A) to determine the vapor particle characteristics for the 3D image vapor particle model." [0162]); and
transmitting information about a delay in communication between the electronic device and the device for displaying a virtual image ("The 3D vapor simulator 321 may use the results of one or more of these vapor parameters may (in real-time) to determine the vapor characteristics as a function of time and/or distance, and/or subject to other variables…" [0166]. Such other variables may include considering a delay in communication necessary to accurately render a virtual image in real-time. [100]-[0101], [0164]-[0170]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. US 12100070 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are directed to a method of controlling an electronic device comprising all the elements of rejected Claim 1. The claims differ in that, conflicting Claim 1 further incorporates the elements of rejected Claim 2, which were amended into Claim 1 during prosecution of U.S. Patent No. US 12100070 B1. Therefore, all the elements of rejected Claim 1 are present and obvious over the conflicting claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey Buckman whose telephone number is (571)270-0888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-4:00.
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 Louie can be reached at (571)270-1241. 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.
/JEFFREY A. BUCKMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1755
/PHILIP Y LOUIE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights