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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 2/20/2020 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. Specifically, foreign patent document 4 has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. The Examiner notes that KR 20190077091 was submitted twice.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the claim limitation “the detected motion” should be changed to “a detected motion” since this is the first instance of the limitation being claimed.
Regarding claim 17, the claim limitation “a duration or strength” should be changed to “a duration or a strength” to provide antecedent basis for the limitation.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
(A) 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;
(B) 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
(C) 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 use the word “means,” and are 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: “means for imparting sensory stimulation to a user” in claims 1 and 14-15.
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.
The claim limitation is being interpreted as follows:
“means for imparting a sensory stimulation to a user” in claim 1 and 14-15 is being interpreted to cover the structures of a notifier that shows a message, a light-emitting device/element that emits a light, a display device that shows an image, a sound output device or acoustic element that outputs a sound, or a vibration device that includes a vibrator ([0093], [0289]; see also claim 2) and equivalents thereof.
Note: the word “associated” in the claims (e.g., claims 8-10, 12-13) is interpreted to mean “related or connected” (see Merriam-Webster definition 2). In the context of “strength/pattern associated with a sensory stimulation of the means for imparting,” the strength/pattern does not need to govern the sensory stimulation of the means for imparting, but merely needs to be related to some aspect of the sensory stimulation, such as initiating the means for imparting sensory stimulation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
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.
Claims 1-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Butin et al. (US 2024/0237752).
Regarding claim 1, Butin discloses an aerosol-generating device (abstract) comprising:
one or more user interfaces (130; Fig. 2; [0035]; “means for imparting”);
at least one motion sensor (104; “sensor configured to detect a motion of the device”); and
motion detection circuitry (102) and control circuitry (110) (collectively “circuitry”) configured to process motion sensor data (“input data”) into gesture data (S1; Fig. 3), determining the gesture performed on the aerosol generating device (S2; “indicating a detected motion”), and performing at least one device function in response to the determined gesture (S3) which can include controlling or operating one or more components of the aerosol-generating device such as the user interface ([0029]; “activate the means for imparting”).
Regarding claim 2, Butin discloses exemplary user interfaces can include one or more vibrating elements, one or more light emitting diodes (LEDs), and one or more speakers ([0035]).
Regarding claim 3, Butin discloses the at least one motion sensor may comprise one or more sensors for detecting a rotation, rotational change and/or acceleration of the aerosol-generating device ([0016]), and wherein the motion sensor data may include one or more of acceleration data and angular rate data ([0019]; “data indicating an acceleration or angular velocity”).
Regarding claim 4, Butin discloses that the motion sensor data is acquired with the motion sensor when one or more gesture events may be detected by the motion detection circuitry ([0233]).
Regarding the claim limitation “the sensor is further configured to, when generation of an aerosol by heating is not being performed in the device, acquire the input data,” this limitation has been considered, and construed as the manner of operating an apparatus that adds no additional structure to the apparatus as claimed. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114. However, because the device of Butin is identical to the claimed invention, it is capable of being operated with similar if not identical claimed characteristics. Specifically, Butin simply discloses that the motion sensor data is acquired when one or more gestures are detected, which may occur regardless of the heating state of the device.
Regarding claim 5, Butin discloses exemplary user interfaces of the aerosol-generating device can include one or more buttons, one or more displays, one or more speakers, one or more control elements, one or more vibrating elements, one or more haptic elements, one or more pressure sensitive means, one or more touch control means, one or more lighting means, and/or one or more light emitting diodes (LEDs) ([0035]; emphasis added; see also [0230], describing one or more user interfaces; “two or more devices”), wherein
the device control circuitry may be on figured to transmit one or more control signals to the at least one user interface to operate or actuate the at least one user interface ([0034]; “initially activated”) and provide information to the user ([0034]; “different one of the devices”).
Regarding claim 6, Butin discloses converting the motion sensor data (“input data”) into the gesture data ([0022]), which is analyzed by the device control circuitry to trigger the user interface ([0029]; i.e., the gesture data is used as “sensory stimulation data” because it triggers the user interface).
Regarding claim 7, Butin discloses each gesture data element or a plurality of gesture data elements may be indicative of the predefined gesture event detected by the motion sensor, for example, a predefined gesture event may be descriptive, representative, indicative of, or associated with one or more (predefined) gestural interaction performed by the user while performing the gesture ([0043]; “use a representative value included in the input data”).
Regarding claim 8, Butin discloses an example for detecting a double tap; wherein upon detecting the double tap, the motion detection circuitry may provide a corresponding gesture data element to device control circuitry to perform at least one device function associated with the double tap (“converting the representative value to [a signal] associated with a sensory stimulation of the means for imparting”); wherein for actually detecting the double tap as a gesture event, an amplitude of the single taps (“strength associated with a sensory stimulation of the means for imparting”) and a time interval between the taps can be customized or predefined in the motion circuitry, for example based on defining corresponding reference motion data ([0239]).
Regarding claim 9, Butin discloses the motion sensor controller may be configured to determine at least one predefined gesture event in the gesture performed based on detecting, determining and/or identifying at least one motion pattern associated with the at least one gesture event in the motion sensor data ([0047]; “using the representative value included in the input data includes converting the representative value to a pattern”), the at least one gesture is used to control or operate the one or more components of the aerosol-generating device such as the user interface ([0029]; “associated with a sensory stimulation of the means for imparting”).
Regarding claim 10, Butin discloses:
wherein the gesture data elements include one or more of a time information related to the gesture event, such as a start time, a stop time, and a duration of the gesture event ([0060]; “divide the input data to a plurality of pieces of data each representing the motion detected in a plurality of time periods); and
in an example for detecting a double tap; wherein upon detecting the double tap, the motion detection circuitry may provide a corresponding gesture data element to device control circuitry to perform at least one device function associated with the double tap (“converting the representative value to [a signal] associated with a sensory stimulation of the means for imparting”); wherein for actually detecting the double tap as a gesture event, an amplitude of the single taps (“strength associated with a sensory stimulation of the means for imparting”) and a time interval between the taps can be customized or predefined in the motion circuitry, for example based on defining corresponding reference motion data ([0239]).
Regarding claim 11, Butin discloses wherein
the motion sensor may include an accelerometer-gyroscope sensor combination, which may allow to detect a motion in one or more spatial directions, parallel to one or more axes of the aerosol generating device ([0017], [0219]; “detect at least a motion of the device along a first axis and a motion of the device along a second axis,” which corresponds to “at least first input data representing the detected motion along the first axis and second input data representing detection motion along the second axis”).
Regarding claim 12, Butin discloses:
the motion sensor may include an accelerometer-gyroscope sensor combination, which may allow to detect a motion in one or more spatial directions, parallel to one or more axes of the aerosol generating device ([0017], [0219]; “detect at least a motion of the device along a first axis and a motion of the device along a second axis,” which corresponds to “at least first input data representing the detected motion along the first axis and second input data representing detection motion along the second axis”);
in an example for detecting a double tap; wherein upon detecting the double tap, the motion detection circuitry may provide a corresponding gesture data element to device control circuitry to perform at least one device function associated with the double tap (“converting the representative value to [a signal] associated with a sensory stimulation of the means for imparting”); wherein for actually detecting the double tap as a gesture event, an amplitude of the single taps (“strength associated with a sensory stimulation of the means for imparting”) and a time interval between the taps can be customized or predefined in the motion circuitry, for example based on defining corresponding reference motion data ([0239]); and
the motion sensor controller may be configured to determine at least one predefined gesture event in the gesture performed based on detecting, determining and/or identifying at least one motion pattern associated with the at least one gesture event in the motion sensor data ([0047]; “using the representative value included in the input data includes converting the representative value to a pattern”), the at least one gesture is used to control or operate the one or more components of the aerosol-generating device such as the user interface ([0029]; “associated with a sensory stimulation of the means for imparting”), e.g., detect a motion pattern where acceleration goes up by x% then goes down by Y %and
Regarding the claim limitation “convert the first input data to a strength associated with a sensory stimulation” and “convert the second input data to a pattern associated with a second sensory stimulation,” because Butin discloses collecting motion information along one or more axes of the device, converting a double tapping motion into gesture data would necessarily require converting the tapping motion data (ether up and down, or left and right, or forwards and backwards; each one representing a different axis) into the corresponding gesture data with a corresponding amplitude. Similarly, because Butin discloses collecting motion information along one or more axes of the device, identifying a motion pattern of the upward and downward movement would require converting motion with upward direction (first axis) and downward direction (second axis) as a gesture data which is then compared with a data log comprising one or more predefined gestures (see [0038]).
Regarding claim 13, Butin discloses in an example for detecting a double tap (“pattern”); wherein upon detecting the double tap, the motion detection circuitry may provide a corresponding gesture data element to device control circuitry to perform at least one device function associated with the double tap; wherein for actually detecting the double tap as a gesture event, an amplitude (“strength associated with the sensory stimulation”) of the single taps and a time interval between the taps can be customized or predefined (“a correction coefficient”) in the motion circuitry, for example based on defining corresponding reference motion data ([0239]).
Regarding claims 14-15, Butin discloses a method of operating an aerosol generating device ([0001]) and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a computer program to execute the method on an aerosol-generating device ([0087]) comprising:
detecting a motion ([0016]) of the aerosol-generating device ([0016]);
processing motion sensor data into gesture data (S1; Fig. 3),
determining the gesture performed on the aerosol generating device (S2), and
performing at least one device function in response to the determined gesture (S3) which can include controlling or operating one or more components of the aerosol-generating device such as the user interface ([0029]; “activating means for imparting”).
Regarding claim 18, Butin discloses determining the at least one gesture event at the motion detection circuitry may comprise determining a predefined angular speed about one or more of a longitudinal axis ([0079]; “predetermined threshold”) and performing at least one device function in response to the determined gesture (S3) which can include controlling or operating one or more components of the aerosol-generating device such as the user interface ([0029]; “activate the means for imparting” when “an angular velocity is equal to a predetermined threshold”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butin et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rasmussen et al. (US 2018/0020731).
Regarding claim 16, Butin discloses the device as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
However, Butin is silent as to the circuitry is configured to control the means for imparting such that a strength of the sensory stimulation is proportional to a strength of an inhalation detected by the device.
Rasmussen teaches an electronic cigarette (abstract) comprising: an airflow sensor (224), controller circuitry (222), and LEDs (220A-E), wherein the mass flow rate of air through the power supply portion is measured to provide a variable indication of the strength of draw by way of the LEDs, which may be powered at varying intensities to indicate characteristics of the sensed mass airflow ([0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Butin’s device to include an airflow sensor as in Rasmussen, and configuring Butin’s circuitry to vary the illumination intensity of the LEDs based on the sensed mass airflow as in Rasmussen in order to obtain the predictable result of providing a visual and variable indication of the strength of the draw to a user (Rasmussen; [0035]) thereby improving a user’s experience in using the device.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butin et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Harden et al. (US 2022/0175050).
Regarding claim 17, Butin discloses the device as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
However, Butin is silent as to the circuitry is configured to record an inhalation time and to adjust at least one of a duration or a strength of the sensory stimulation based on the inhalation time.
Harden teaches a smoking substitute device (abstract) comprising an airflow sensor that detects an airflow ([0257]) with an array of light emitting diodes ([0064]) a processor that identifies an inhalation operation and increases an area of the illumination region which is illuminated in proportion to a length of the inhalation “inhalation time”) ([0067]), the area of illumination region may increase proportional with an inhalation time ([0309]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Butin’s device to include an airflow sensor as in Harden and configuring Butin’s circuitry to identify an inhalation operation that increases the illumination area of the LEDs as in Harden in order to more easily indicate an identified operation to the user (Harden; [0053]) and thereby improve the user’s experience when using the device.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butin et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Henry et al. (US 2016/0158782).
Regarding claim 19, Butin discloses the device as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
However, Butin is silent as to the means for imparting is configured to output a vibration pattern selected from a plurality of predetermined vibration patterns stored in a memory of the device.
Henry teaches an aerosol delivery device (abstract) comprising: a sensory feedback member (e.g., a LED or vibratory element”) wherein an increased draw on the device can signal the control component to cause a different vibration pattern by the vibratory element ([0064]), wherein the electronic components such as a memory component communicate with the control component ([0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Butin’s circuitry to perform the function of causing a different vibration pattern to the vibrating element according to an increased draw as in Henry in order to provide a haptic indication to the user to indicating an increased draw (Henry; [0030]) and thereby improve the user’s experience when using the device.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butin et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sur et al. ( ).
Regarding claim 20, Butin discloses the device as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
However, Butin is silent as to a communication interface configured to transmit the input data to an external apparatus and to receive sensory stimulation data generated by the external apparatus for controlling the means for imparting.
Sur teaches an aerosol delivery device (abstract), wherein the aerosol delivery device (100) includes a communication interface (246) configured to establish a connection to a wireless personal network (WPAN) (304) that includes a computing device (302), and a MCU (control component 208) is coupled with a motion sensor to detect motion of the aerosol delivery device and configured to communicate with the service platform to enable the computing device to remotely receive and provide a user perceptible feedback that indicate the motion detected by the motion sensor ([0010], [0083]), wherein the computing device is configured to remotely control at least one functional element of the aerosol delivery device ([0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Sur’s wireless personal network and computing device with Butin’s motion sensor and circuitry in order to obtain the predictable result of providing a remote user perceptible feedback that indicates motion by the motion sensor with the benefit of warning the user that the aerosol delivery device has been moved from its desired location (Sur; [0080]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SONNY V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8294. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM EST.
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 Y 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.
/SONNY V NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights