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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (Claims 1-14, 22-25, and 33: drawn to a circuitry) in the reply filed on 6-16-2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is unity of invention between Groups I and II (Group III claim(s) having been cancelled) and that a search burden does not exist. This is not found persuasive because the special technical feature does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Kersey (US 2022/0000183 A1) (see Office action mailed 4-28-2026 at pages 3). A search burden exists in that the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art and the inventions require a different field of search -- (for example, searching different CPC areas or electronic resources, or employing different search queries). Claim 29 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 4-6 and 9-14 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.
Claims 4-6 recite the limitation "the operation" (claim 4 at line 2; claim 5 at line 3; claim 6 at line 2). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 9-11 recite the limitation "the user" (claim 9 at line 2; claim 10 at lines 1 and 3-6; claim 11 at line 3). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 is considered to be indefinite in that the antecedent of “a user” (line 4) is not clearly defined. Does this refer to the user previously recited as having a user profile or to a different user?
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the activity" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the location" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the geographical location" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 13-14 recite the limitation "the establishment" at line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-14, 22-25, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kersey (US 2022/0000183 A1).
The applied reference has a common assignment with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Claims 1 and 33: Kersey teaches circuitry 30 for an aerosol delivery device of an aerosol delivery system (paras 6 and 28), the circuitry 30 being configured to:
●monitor usage of a first device 2 in the aerosol delivery system (Kersey: usage examples
include “a number of activations” of the first device 2 and/or “durations of individual activations”) of the first device 2) (para 28);
●determine that there is data available for transfer between the first device 2 and a second
device of the aerosol delivery system, based on monitoring the usage of the first device 2 (para 48); and
●initiate a procedure for transfer of data between the first device 2 and the second device over
a data communication interface, based on determining there is data available for transfer between the first device 2 and the second device (paras 6, 9, 21-23, 30, and 55-56).
Claim 2: Kersey teachers the circuitry of claim 1, wherein determining there is data available to be transferred comprises determining an amount of data stored on the first device 2 has reached a predetermined threshold (paras 48 and 55-56).
Claim 3: Kersey teaches the circuitry of claim 1, wherein the data available to be transferred comprises usage data collected by the first device 2 (para 28).
Claim 4: Kersey teaches the circuitry of claim 1, wherein the data available to be transferred comprises data to be transferred from the second device to the first device 2 in order to modify the operation of the first device 2 (paras 25 and 36).
Claim 5: Kersey teaches the circuitry of claim 4, wherein determining that there is data available to be transferred from the second device to the first device 2 comprises determining a certain time has elapsed since data for modifying the operation of the first device 2 was last received by the first device 2. See paragraphs 8, 39, 46-47, and 55-56 for the relationship between time and transfer is discussed.
Claim 6: Kersey teaches the circuitry of claim 4, wherein the data comprises a software update and/or a control parameter (for example -- power) for modifying the operation of the first device 2 or second device (paras 6, 29, and 42).
Claim 7: Kersey teaches the circuitry of claim 1, wherein monitoring the usage of the first device 2 comprises monitoring how often a data connection is established between the first device 2 and the second device (para 28).
Claim 8: Kersey teaches the circuitry of claim 7, wherein determining there is data available to be transferred between the first device 2 and the second device comprises determining that a certain time has elapsed since a data connection was last established between the first device 2 and the second device. See paragraphs 8, 39, 46-47, and 55-56 for the relationship between time and transfer is discussed.
Claim 9: Kersey teaches the circuitry of claim 8, wherein the elapsed time after which it is determined data is available to be transferred is determined based on information about the user of the first device 2 (paras 21, 46, and 54).
Claim 10: Kersey teaches the circuitry of claim 9, wherein the information about the user comprises at least one of the following: i) information derived from the activity of the user on an online application (for example – preconfiguring), ii) information about the location and/or movement of the user (note incorporation Wi-Fi, WLAN, wireless telecommunications networks, Internet, and WAN with the circuitry 30), iii) information provided by the user via a form or questionnaire (for example – preconfiguring), iv) information derived from sensing one or more physical characteristics of the user (for example – inhalation) (paras 24, 32-33, 46, and 54).
Claim 11: Kersey teaches the circuitry of claim 10, wherein determining there is data available to be transferred between the first device 2 and the second device comprises determining that a user profile associated with the user has changed, wherein the user profile is established based on the information about a user of the first device 2 (paras 24, 32-33, 46, and 54).
Claim 12: Kersey teaches the circuitry of claim 1, wherein monitoring the usage of the first device 2 comprises monitoring the geographical location of the first device 2 and/or the second device; claim 13: Kersey teaches the circuitry of claim 12, wherein a procedure for the establishment of a data connection between the first device 2 and that second device is initiated based on determining the first device 2 entered a predefined geographical location; and claim 14: Kersey teaches he circuitry of claim 12, wherein a procedure for the establishment of a data connection between the first device 2 and the second device is initiated based on determining the second device entered a predefined geographical location (paras 22, 27, 30, 32, 34-46, 55-56, and 63) – note incorporation Wi-Fi, WLAN, wireless telecommunications networks, Internet, and WAN with the circuitry 30.
Claim 22: Kersey teaches he circuitry of claim 1, wherein initiating the procedure for transfer of data between the first device 2 and the second device comprises providing an indication via the first device 2 that a user should establish a data connection for the transfer of data between the first device 2 and the second device (paras 32-34, 36, and 55-56).
Claim 23: Kersey teaches the circuitry of claim 1, wherein initiating the procedure for transfer of data between the first device 2 and the second device comprises providing an indication via the second device that a user should establish a data connection for the transfer of data between the first device 2 and the second device (paras 32-34, 36, and 55-56).
Claim 24: Kersey teaches the circuitry of claim 1, wherein initiating the procedure for transfer of data between the first device and the second device comprises providing an indication via a further device of the aerosol delivery system that a user should establish a data connection for the transfer of data between the first device 2 and the second device (paras 32-34, 36, and 55-56).
Claim 25: Kersey teaches the circuitry of claim 22, wherein the indication that a user should establish a data connection for the transfer of data between the first device 2 and the second device comprises an audible or a visual signal (para 32).
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
●Leafy Staff discusses connection between vaporizers and vaping apps, as well as
temperature control and session customization;
●Sweeney indicates that a vaping device itself can be used as the most useful device for
collecting data on vaping;
●Terry discusses the circuitry of a personal vapor inhaling unit -- that data can be transmitted
between the unit and a computer device using wired or wireless connections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDA GRAY whose telephone number is (571) 272-5778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9 AM to 5:30 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, Phil Tucker can be reached at (571) 272-1095. 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.
/LINDA L GRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights