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 without traverse of Group (I) (claims 1-14 -- drawn to an aerosol delivery system), in the reply filed on 7-20-2026 is acknowledged. Claims 15-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions (Group (II) claim 15 -- drawn to a method of operation; Group (III) claim 16 -- drawn to a computer program), there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 7, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
●claim 1: “that” (Ln11) should be amended to read “the particular”
●claim 4: a semicolon should be inserted after “transmission” (Ln8)
●claim 7: “such” (Ln6) should be amended to read “of the”
●claim 11: “the” should be inserted before “one” (Ln4).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35
U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
aerosol delivery device claims 1, 7, 9, 11, 14
wireless signal receiver claims 1, 3
identification processor claims 1, 3
correlation processor claims 1, 3
control processor claim 1, 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13
companion device claims 2, 3
associated devices claim 7
location determination unit claim 9
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the
manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of
making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 (and thus depending claims 2-14 which contain the subject matter of claim 1) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement.
The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 1, the specification does not connect the window of time with any particular part of the aerosol delivery system or explain how to relate the time and the user behaviour in a comparable manner. The specification does not established a relationship between the storing a characterising data of the identification processor and the other features the aerosol delivery system. Movement of signals, by the control processor, between the receiver, identification processor, and the correlation processor is not established. The specification speak in generalities with respect to the features of the system – the limits of the invention in the claims is not clearly provided in the specification.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 is considered to be indefinite in that “identifying recurrent wireless communications signals” (Lns6-7) lacks specific antecedent basis and/or the antecedent basis is unclear. Does this refer to the signals in lines 3-4 or to different signals?
Claim 1 is considered to be indefinite in that “wireless communications signals” (Lns10-11) lacks specific antecedent basis and/or the antecedent basis is unclear.
Claim 1 is considered to be indefinite in that it is unclear what is intended by “within a predetermined window of time relative to the user behaviour” (Lns6-8). The claim does not connect “window of time” with any particular part of the aerosol delivery system such that one cannot determine what window of time is encompassed by the claim. Also, it is unclear how the time and the user behaviour are comparable given that the unit of measuring are different.
Claim 1 is considered to be indefinite in that a relationship is not established between the storing a characterising data of the identification processor (Lns4-5) and the other features the aerosol delivery system such that the limits of the claim in this respect are not clearly defined.
Claim 1 is considered to be indefinite in that it does not clearly set forth the movement of signals, by the control processor (Lns9-13), between the receiver, identification processor, and the correlation processor. Thus, the subject matter of the claim cannot be specifically defined.
Claim 6 is considered to be indefinite in that “characterising data” (Ln3) lacks specific antecedent basis and/or the antecedent basis is unclear. Also, see the same in claim 8 at line 4.
Claim 6 is considered to be indefinite in that “received wireless communications signals” (Lns 4-5, 6-7, 8-9, 10-11) lacks specific antecedent basis and/or the antecedent basis is unclear. Also, see the same in claim 7 at line 3. Also, see the same in claim 8 at lines 4-5 and lines 6-7. Also, see claim 9 at lines 4-5. Also, see claim 11 at line 4.
Claim 6 is considered to be indefinite in that “a version” (Ln10) is not defined by the claim and the specification does not provide definition such that the scope of claim is not clearly set forth.
Claim 8 is considered to be indefinite in that “relative” signal strength (Ln4) is not defined by the specification or the claims such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Is “relative” intended to quantify the signal strength?
Claim 9 is considered to be indefinite in that it is unclear if one user behavior is required or more than one. Claim 1, from which claim 9 depends, recites only one user behavior and claim 9 recites more than one (Ln4).
Claim 12 is considered to be indefinite in that “one or more recurrent received wireless communications signals” (Ln3) lacks specific antecedent basis and/or the antecedent basis is unclear. Also, see claim 13 at line 3.
Claim 13 is considered to be indefinite in that it is not clear if the limitation in parenthesis (Lns6-7) is required by the claim, if it is optional, or if it is preferred.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
●Mikheev et al. discusses electronic cigarettes capable of measuring behavioral usage
data such as puff data (volume, duration);
●Anderson et al. discusses pairing an electronic cigarette with a smart device to
measure puff and usage data (for example) which is then used to control operation of the electronic cigarette;
●Smith discusses correlation analysis and behavioral-learning programs in an electronic
cigarette.
●Hawes discusses a vaping device with movement detection.
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