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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because claim 25 is a photograph despite not showing subject matter that can only practically be illustrated using a photograph as required by 37 CFR 1.84(b). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The use of the terms Wi-Fi [0095], Bluetooth [0096], which are trade names or marks used in commerce, have been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized wherever they appear or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 15-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is directed to a manufacture. The claim requires sensing device motion and then controlling the device in accordance with the motion data, which are considered to be mental processes that can be performed in the human mind. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) III. The device control is considered to be an insignificant application, and is therefore insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). The claim recites the additional elements of a flavor inhalation or aerosol generating device comprising a motion sensor and circuitry. However, these elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, Monsees (US 9,408,416) teaches an electronic vaporization device (abstract) having a motion sensor (column 11, lines 47-67, column 12, lines 1-6) and a microcontroller that indicates a device state to a user (column 13, lines 48-61) and controls the device (column 8, lines 60-67, column 9, lines 1-9). Henry, Jr. (US 10,500,600) teaches an aerosol generating device having a motion sensor that converts a defined motion, which is considered to meet the claim limitation of input data, to an electrical signal that is received by a microprocessor that controls at least one functional element of the device to perform an operation (abstract). Finally, Thomas (US 2022/0256930) teaches a smoking substitute device (abstract) having a motion sensor [0122] that generates an alert command [0129] to issue an alert to a user [0133].
Regarding claim 17, the claim requires the additional element of a light emitter. However, Monsees teaches an LED indicator that indicates device status (column 11, lines 47-67, column 12, lines 1-6), Henry, Jr. teaches a sensory feedback member that is an LED lit in a determined pattern based on the device function (column 13, lines 8-20), and Thomas teaches that the alert is a visual alert [0133] in the form of lights are activated in a pattern [0172].
Regarding claim 26, the claim recites the additional element of a heater. However, Monsees teaches the device heating a material (abstract), indicating that it must have a heater, Henry, Jr. teaches that the device heats an aerosol precursor to form an inhalable substance for human consumption (column 1, lines 7-16) that provides a flavor (column 3, lines 63-67, column 4, lines 1-10), and Thomas teaches the device having a heating element [0182].
Regarding claim 27, the claim recites the additional element of a vibrator. However, Monsees teaches a vibration indicator (column 13, lines 48-61), Henry, Jr. teaches providing sensory feedback using a vibratory element (column 10, lines 3-17), and Thomas teaches alerting using a haptic generator that produces vibratory force [0697].
Regarding claims 16, 18-25 and 28-32, the claims do not recite additional limitation that would affect the patentability analysis as set forth above.
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.
Claims 15-28 and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Henry, Jr. (US 10,500,600).
Regarding claim 15, Henry, Jr. discloses an aerosol generating device having a motion sensor that converts a defined motion, which is considered to meet the claim limitation of input data, to an electrical signal that is received by a microprocessor that controls at least one functional element of the device to perform an operation (abstract). The control component is an electric circuit board (column 6, lines 22-36), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of circuitry.
Regarding claim 16, Henry, Jr. discloses that the gesture that triggers the device is tracing a character with the housing (column 9, lines 59-67, column 10, lines 1-2), which is considered to be a continuous value since the tracing must be a motion that occurs over time.
Regarding claim 17, Henry, Jr. discloses that the functional element is providing an indication of a level of aerosol precursor in the reservoir using a sensory feedback member (column 13, lines 62-67, column 14, lines 1-9). The sensory feedback member is an LED is lit in a determined pattern (column 13, lines 8-20), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of emitting light.
Regarding claim 18, Henry, Jr. discloses that the motion sensor is an accelerometer (column 12, lines 4-16) that detects acceleration of the device (column 11, liens 17-32).
Regarding claim 19, the electrical signal generated by the motion sensor is considered to be a representative value since it is an electronic representation of how the device was moved.
Regarding claims 20 and 22, Henry, Jr. discloses that the electrical signal indicates different velocities and accelerations of the device at different time periods (column 12, lines 4-16, figure 5) and that this data enables the gesture to be recognized (column 11, lines 58-67, column 12, lines 1-3). The velocity is considered to meet the claim limitation of a strength.
Regarding claim 21, Henry, Jr. discloses that the functional element is providing an indication of a level of aerosol precursor in the reservoir using a sensory feedback member (column 13, lines 62-67, column 14, lines 1-9). The sensory feedback member is an LED is lit in a determined pattern (column 13, lines 8-20), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a pattern.
Regarding claim 23, Henry, Jr. discloses that the movement data is derived from movement in both the x and y axes (column 12, lines 17-24), which are considered to be first input data and second input data respectively.
Regarding claim 24, Henry Jr. discloses that the x axis movement is converted to an x axis velocity (figure 3), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of converting first input data to a strength. The velocity values along the y axis are considered to meet the claim limitation of a pattern associated with a function of the device (figure 4).
Regarding claim 25, the LED’s of the sensory feedback member of Henry, Jr. must be lit for a specific time interval, which is considered to meet the claim limitation of determining the pattern in accordance with a time during which the function is active.
Regarding claim 26, Henry, Jr. discloses that the device heats an aerosol precursor to form an inhalable substance for human consumption (column 1, lines 7-16) that provides a flavor (column 3, lines 63-67, column 4, lines 1-10). The gesture can be performed to activate the device from a deep sleep mode (column 10, lines 31-42), indicating that the input data was acquired when heating was not being performed.
Regarding claim 27, Henry, Jr. discloses that the sensory feedback is provided using a vibratory element (column 10, lines 3-17).
Regarding claim 28, Henry, Jr. discloses that increased inhalation on the device causes a different vibration pattern (column 13, lines 8-20).
Regarding claim 31, Henry, Jr. discloses an aerosol generating device having a motion sensor that converts a defined motion, which is considered to meet the claim limitation of input data, to an electrical signal that is received by a microprocessor that controls at least one functional element of the device to perform an operation (abstract), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a control method.
Regarding claim 32, Henry, Jr. discloses an aerosol generating device having a motion sensor that converts a defined motion, which is considered to meet the claim limitation of input data, to an electrical signal that is received by a microprocessor that controls at least one functional element of the device to perform an operation (abstract). The device functionality is pre-programmed (column 9, lines 59-67, column 10, lines 1-2), indicating that the device must have a non-transitory storage medium for the program. The controller is a microprocessor (column 11, lines 43-57), which is considered to indicate that the program can be read by a computer since one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a microprocessor is a form of computer.
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.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry, Jr. (US 10,500,600) in view of Moloney (US 2023/0062580).
Regarding claim 29, Henry, Jr. discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Henry, Jr. does not explicitly disclose the vibrations being proportional to inhalation strength.
Moloney teaches an aerosol provision system for generating an aerosol that provides a haptic indication that varies during inhalation based on the instantaneous strength of the inhalation (abstract). The inhalation strength and intensity of the indication are proportional ([0015], figure 4). Moloney additionally that this enables feedback to be provided to a user [0046].
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 vibration of Henry, Jr. with the proportional indicator intensity of Moloney. One would have been motivated to do so since Moloney teaches providing feedback by varying the intensity of an indicator.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry, Jr. (US 10,500,600) in view of Seo (US 12,527,360).
Regarding claim 30, Henry, Jr. discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Henry, Jr. does not explicitly disclose recording an inhalation time and changing the vibration length based on that time.
Seo teaches an aerosol generation device having a controlled vibration device (abstract) in which the vibration duration is increased with an increase in puff length (column 12, lines 7-20) so that stuck-on residue formation is reduced while also reducing power consumption (column 12, lines 21-32).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the vibration duration based on the inhalation duration. One would have been motivated to do so since Seo teaches increasing vibration duration with an increase in puff length to reduce stuck-on residue formation while also reducing power consumption.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 15-25 and 27-30 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 and 16-20 of copending Application No. 18/627,477 (hereafter referred to as Shiraishi ‘477).
Regarding claim 15, Shiraishi ‘477 claims a device that is a flavor inhaler or an aerosol generating device comprising a sensor configured to detect motion of the device and circuitry that acquires input data and activates means for imparting a sensory stimulation to a user (claim 1), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of control device function.
Regarding claim 16, Shiraishi ‘477 claims the input data including acceleration data of a detected motion (claim 3), which is considered to be continuous data. The data is evidently converted to some form of function control, and that control must either be continuous or discrete since those cover all forms of data.
Regarding claim 17, Shiraishi ‘477 claims the means for imparting being a light emitting element (claim 2).
Regarding claim 18, Shiraishi ‘477 claims the input data indicating an acceleration of the detected motion (claim 3).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Shiraishi ‘477 claims the circuitry using a representative value included in the input data (claim 7) to a strength associated with a sensory stimulation (claim 8).
Regarding claim 21, Shiraishi ‘477 claims converting the representative value to a pattern associated with a sensory stimulation of the means for imparting (claim 9).
Regarding claim 22, Shiraishi ‘477 claims dividing the input data into a plurality of pieces of data each representing the motion detected in a corresponding one of a plurality of time periods, and converting a representative value including in each of the divided pieces to a strength associated with a sensory stimulation of the means for imparting (claim 10).
Regarding claim 23, Shiraishi ‘477 claims the sensor detecting at least a motion of the device along a first axis and a motion of the device along a second axis, and the input data including at least first input data representing the detected motion along the fist axis and the second input data representing the detected motion along the second axis (claim 11).
Regarding claim 24, Shiraishi ‘477 claims the circuitry converting the first input data to a strength associated with a sensory stimulation of the means for impart, and converting the second input data to a pattern associated with a sensory stimulation of the means for imparting (claim 12).
Regarding claim 25, Shiraishi ‘477 claims the pattern associated with the sensory stimulation being determined in accordance with a time during which the means for imparting is active (claim 13).
Regarding claim 27, Shiraishi ‘477 claims the means for imparting being a vibrator (claim 2), which is evidently controlled by vibration data from the circuitry.
Regarding claim 28, Shiraishi ‘477 claims providing the sensory stimulation when inhalation is detected (claim 16).
Regarding claim 29, Shiraishi ‘477 claims the circuitry being configured to control the means for imparting such that a strength of the sensory stimulation is proportion to a strength of the detected inhalation (claim 16).
Regarding claim 30, Shiraishi ‘477 claims the circuitry recording an inhalation time and adjusting a duration of the sensory stimulation based on the inhalation time (claim 17).
Claim 26 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 and 16-20 of copending Application No. 18/627,477 (hereafter referred to as Shiraishi ‘477) in view of Henry, Jr. (US 10,500,600).
Regarding claim 26, Shiraishi ‘477 claims all the claim limitations as set forth above. Shiraishi ‘477 additionally claims acquiring input when heating is not being performed by the device (claim 4). Shiraishi ‘477 does not explicitly claim the device comprising a heater.
Henry, Jr. teaches that a device that heats an aerosol precursor to form an inhalable substance for human consumption (column 1, lines 7-16) that provides a flavor (column 3, lines 63-67, column 4, lines 1-10).
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 device of Shiraishi ‘477 with the heater of Henry, Jr. One would have been motivated to do so since Henry, Jr. teaches a device that provides a flavor.
Claim 31 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of copending Application No. 18/627,477 (hereafter referred to as Shiraishi ‘477) in view of Henry, Jr. (US 10,500,600).
Regarding claim 31, Shiraishi ‘477 claims a control method for a flavor inhaler device in which device motion is detected and a sensory stimulation is provided to a user responsive to the detecting (claim 14). Shiraishi ‘477 does not explicitly claim providing data.
Henry, Jr. teaches an aerosol generating device having a motion sensor that converts a defined motion, which is considered to meet the claim limitation of input data, to an electrical signal that is received by a microprocessor that controls at least one functional element of the device to perform an operation (abstract).
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 process of Shiraishi ‘477 with the microprocessor and data of Henry, Jr. One would have been motivated to do so since Henry, Jr. teaches a processor that controls an aerosol generating device.
Claim 32 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of copending Application No. 18/627,477 (hereafter referred to as Shiraishi ‘477) in view of Henry, Jr. (US 10,500,600).
Regarding claim 32, Shiraishi ‘477 claims a non transitory computer readable medium storing a program for a flavor inhaler device in which device motion is detected and a sensory stimulation is provided to a user responsive to the detecting (claim 15). Shiraishi ‘477 does not explicitly claim providing data.
Henry, Jr. teaches an aerosol generating device having a motion sensor that converts a defined motion, which is considered to meet the claim limitation of input data, to an electrical signal that is received by a microprocessor that controls at least one functional element of the device to perform an operation (abstract).
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 medium of Shiraishi ‘477 with the microprocessor and data of Henry, Jr. One would have been motivated to do so since Henry, Jr. teaches a processor that controls an aerosol generating device.
Claims 15-16 and 18-30 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 18/628,857 (hereafter referred to as Shiraishi ‘857) in view of Newton (US RE 49,196).
Regarding claims 15 and 27-28, Shiraishi ‘857 claims a flavor inhaler device comprising a sensor configured to detect a motion of the device, a converter configured to convert input data indicating the detection motion to vibration data for vibrating a vibrator, and a controller configured to vibrate the vibrator in accordance with the vibration data (claim 1). Shiraishi ‘857 does not explicitly claim circuitry.
Newton claims an electronic cigarette having a sensing circuit (abstract) that is connected to an integrated controller that has additional controller circuity that meets the power constraints of an electronic cigarette (column 6, lines 11-28).
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 device of Shiraishi ‘857 with the circuitry of Newton. One would have been motivated to do so since Newton teaches a controller and circuitry that meet the power constraints of an electronic cigarette.
Regarding claim 16, Shiraishi ‘857 claims the input data being angular velocity of the detected motion (claim 2), which is evidently continuous data. It is evident that the final data is either continuous or discrete data since those encompass all forms of data.
Regarding claim 18, Shiraishi ‘857 claims the input data indicating an acceleration of the detected motion (claim 2).
Regarding claim 19, Shiraishi ‘857 claims the converter using a representative value included in the input data (claim 3).
Regarding claim 20, Shiraishi ‘857 claims converting the representative value to a vibration strength of the vibrator (claim 4).
Regarding claim 21, Shiraishi ‘857 claims converting the representative value to a vibration pattern of the vibrator (claim 5).
Regarding claim 22, Shiraishi ‘857 claims the converter dividing the input data into a plurality of pieces of data each representing the motion detected in a corresponding one of a plurality of time periods, and converting a representative value included in each of the divided pieces of data to a vibration strength of the vibrator at different timing (claim 6).
Regarding claim 23, Shiraishi ‘857 claims the sensor detecting motion along first and second axes and the input data including at least first input data representing the detected motion along the first axis and second input data representing the detected motion along the second axis (claim 7).
Regarding claim 24, Shiraishi ‘857 claims converting the first input data to a vibration strength of the vibrator, and converting the second input data to a vibration pattern (claim 8).
Regarding claim 25, Shiraishi ‘857 claims the vibration pattern being determined in accordance with a vibration time (claim 9).
Regarding claim 29, Shiraishi ‘857 claims the controller vibrating the vibration data in accordance with the vibration data and such that a strength of the inhalation and vibration strength of the vibrator are proportional (claim 11).
Regarding claim 30, Shiraishi ‘857 claims the controller recording an inhalation time and changing a length of time during which the vibrator is vibrated in accordance with the inhalation time (claim 12).
Claim 31 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of copending Application No. 18/628,857 (hereafter referred to as Shiraishi ‘857).
Regarding claim 31, Shiraishi ‘857 claims a control method for a flavor inhaler device comprising a sensor configured to detect a motion of the device, a converter configured to convert input data indicating the detection motion to vibration data for vibrating a vibrator, and a controller configured to vibrate the vibrator in accordance with the vibration data (claim 13).
Claim 32 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of copending Application No. 18/628,857 (hereafter referred to as Shiraishi ‘857).
Regarding claim 32, Shiraishi ‘857 claims a non transitory computer readable medium storage a program causing a processor a flavor inhaler device comprising a sensor configured to detect a motion of the device, a converter configured to convert input data indicating the detection motion to vibration data for vibrating a vibrator, and a controller configured to vibrate the vibrator in accordance with the vibration data (claim 14).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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