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 .
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 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.
Examiner’s Note
This Office Action is in response to amendment filed on 3/18/2026, where claims 1 and 3-11 are amended; claim 2 is canceled; claims 12 and 13 are added; and claims 1 and 3-13 are currently pending.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3-13 would be allowable if overcome the following 35 USC § 112 rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding independent claims 1 and 11, applicant’s arguments, see pg. 7-10, filed on 3/18/2026, in view of the amendment. As such, the prior art rejection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 7, filed on 3/18/2026, with respect to previous rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendment. As such, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 7-10, with respect to previous rejections of independent claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendment. As such, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 10, that all dependent claims are patentably distinguished over the cited prior art at least in view of the dependency from their respective independent claims, and requests that the rejections for all dependent claims be reconsidered and withdrew for the reasons argued above. The arguments are persuasive in view of the amendment. As such, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 and 3-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 and 3-13 are rejected to because of the following: each of the independent claims 1 and 11 recites “estimating a timepoint of second respiration based on the first respiration time”. The element “first respiration time” is recited with the article “the”, which indicates it is referring to a previous element of the same name. However, there is no such element recited in any of the prior limitation. Therefore, it is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art which element it is referring to. Further, because it is unclear which element it is referring to; thus it is unclear how to estimate a timepoint of second respiration and how it contribute to the predicting of the virtual smoke implementation timepoint. As such, renders the claim indefinite.
Claims 3-10, 12, and 13 are rejected to as having the same deficiencies as the claims they depend from.
Claim 4 is rejected to because of the following: claim 4 recites “wherein the estimating a timepoint of second respiration comprises: predicting a timepoint of second respiration based on…” In each instance, the element “timepoint of second respiration” is recited with the article “a”, which indicates it is the first instance of such element. However, an element of the same name has been recited in claim 1. Therefore, it is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art whether they are the same or different elements. It is suggested to amendment the above limitation to recite “wherein the estimating the timepoint of second respiration comprises: predicting the timepoint of second respiration based on…” if they are the same element. It is suggested to include a unique identifier, e.g., first, second, third, etc., for each instance of the element “timepoint of second respiration” to clearly distinguish between them if they are different and distinct elements.
Claim 4 is further rejected to because of the following: claim 4 recites “predicting a timepoint of second respiration based on the interval between…” The element “interval” is recited with the article “the”, which indicates it is referring to a previous element of the same name. However, there is no such element recited either in claim 4 or claim 1, which it depends from. Therefore, it is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art which element it is referring to.
As such, for the above reasons render the claim indefinite.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 20170196260 (Kobal) – discloses virtual reality smoking system.
US 20230285712 (Moloney) – discloses feedback system for an electronic cigarettes.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONG-SHUNE CHUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5817. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (9-5) EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman, can be reached at telephone number (571)270-5817. 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 and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MONG-SHUNE CHUNG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights