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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-21 and 39-41 are cancelled. Claims 22-38 are presently examined. Claims 27 and 32-37 are objected to.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 4/23/2026 is overcome.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of 4/23/2026 are overcome.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of 4/23/2026 are overcome.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of 4/23/2026 are overcome.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections on the ground of provisional nonstatutory double patenting have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of 4/23/2026 are overcome.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 22-26, 28-31 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Harden (US 2022/0256934) in view of Daugherty (US 2023/0240376).
Regarding claim 22, Harden discloses an aerosol delivery device having input means in the form of a movement sensor [0071], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a motion sensor, that outputs signals to a controller [0070], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a device processor. A movement detection signal is generated by the movement sensor and is subsequently received by the controller [0174]. The device operation is controlled based on the movement detection signal [0174]. The movement of the device is an active movement of the device by a smoker [0072], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a gesture. Harden does not explicitly disclose a separate motion sensor controller.
Daugherty teaches an electronic vapor provision system (abstract) having an interaction detection processor, which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a motion sensor controller, that detects a motion signal from a motion sensor that indicates an interaction and wakes the device from a first mode to a second mode [0097]. The motion sensor is an accelerometer that detects motion of the device [0090], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a gesture. The first mode is a sleep mode in which the heating is not activated [0095] and the device consumes less power [0094]. The interaction detection processor can be a separate process from a main processor of the electronic vapor delivery device [0115].
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the movement sensor of Harden with the interaction detection processor of Daugherty such that the output of the movement sensor is analyzed by the interaction detection processor. One would have been motivated to do so since Daugherty teaches that using an interaction detection processor enables the device to be kept in a sleep mode in which the device consumes less power.
Regarding claim 23, Harden discloses that the device movement is the device being shaken [0072], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a predefined gesture event being performed on the aerosol generating device.
Regarding claim 24, Harden discloses that the trigger input is a smoker shaking the device [0072], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a predefined gesture event being performed on the aerosol generating device, and that the trigger input is then signaled to the controller using a trigger signal [0070], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of signaling detection.
Regarding claim 25, Harden discloses that the device movement is the device being shaken [0072], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a motion. The movement sensor detects the trigger input and then outputs the trigger signal to the controller based upon the specific trigger input received [0070], indicating that the trigger signal must be computed based on the data received regarding the specific trigger input.
Regarding claim 26, Harden discloses the movement sensor detects the trigger input and then outputs the trigger signal to the controller based upon the specific trigger input received [0070], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of motion sensor data descriptive of the gesture performed.
Regarding claim 28, Harden discloses that the device movement is the device being shaken [0072], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a predefined gesture event following a pattern. The movement sensor detects the trigger input and then outputs the trigger signal to the controller based upon the specific trigger input received [0070], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of providing gesture data indicative of the at least one gesture event to the device control circuitry.
Regarding claim 29, Harden discloses that the predetermined input is in the form of a pattern of taps [0180], which is considered to indicate that the taps must be in sequence. The data provided to the controller must reflect this sequence since the controller receives signals based on the trigger input received by the movement sensor.
Regarding claim 30, Harden discloses that the trigger input is a shake [0072].
Regarding claim 31, Harden discloses that the trigger input is based in part on a time period interval between successive taps [0072], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of time information related to the gesture event.
Regarding claim 38, Harden discloses that the trigger input causes the initiation of a smoking session [0065], which is considered to be an alteration of an operational mode of the aerosol generating device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 27 and 32-37 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Gyongy (US 9,766,263) teaches an accelerometer for attachment to a dairy animal and a processor that determines the activity of the animal (column 2, lines 12-17). Each accelerometer has a processor associated with it (column 3, lines 15-28). However, Gyongy does not teach or suggest one processor communicating acceleration information to a different processor.
Harden (US 2022/0256934) teaches an aerosol delivery device having input means in the form of a movement sensor [0071] that outputs signals to a controller [0070]. A movement detection signal is generated by the movement sensor and is subsequently received by the controller [0174]. The device operation is controlled based on the movement detection signal [0174]. The movement of the device is an active movement of the device by a smoker [0072]. However, Harden does not teach or suggest two separate processors.
Daugherty (US 2023/0240376) teaches an electronic vapor provision system (abstract) having an interaction detection processor, which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a motion sensor controller, that detects a motion signal from a motion sensor that indicates an interaction and wakes the device from a first mode to a second mode [0097]. The motion sensor is an accelerometer that detects motion of the device [0090], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a gesture. The first mode is a sleep mode in which the heating is not activated [0095] and the device consumes less power [0094]. The interaction detection processor can be a separate process from a main processor of the electronic vapor delivery device [0115]. However, Daugherty does not teach or suggest the specific details of what information is processed by the interaction detection processor as compared to an overall device processor.
The prior art does not teach or suggest the specific details of how a processor directly associated with a motion sensor communicates information to an overall device processor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSSELL E SPARKS whose telephone number is (571)270-1426. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5 pm.
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.
/RUSSELL E SPARKS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights