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 .
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 11, 15-20, 22, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevens et al. (Pub# US 2016/0211693 A1), and further in view of Topholm (Pub # US 2008/0049957 A1).
Consider claim 1, Stevens et al. teaches a method of transmitting a feedback signal from an aerosol provision system (electronic cigarette / vaporization device) to an external device, the method comprising outputting acoustic feedback by a hearing aid in response to receiving the feedback signal transmitted by the aerosol provision system [0037].
Stevens et al. does not teach controlling the hearing aid using the feedback signal.
In the same field of endeavor, Topholm teaches a mobile device executing controlling the hearing aid using the feedback signal from the external device [0024] for the benefit of using the known mobile device to hearing aid communication techniques.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a mobile device executing controlling the hearing aid using the feedback signal from the external device would have been a predictable substitution/improvement for accessibility and noticeability, wherein yielding no more than predictable results as shown in Topholm, in Stevens et al. method for the benefit of using the known mobile device to hearing aid communication techniques.
Consider claim 3, Steven et al. clearly shown and disclose the method, wherein the method further comprises: wirelessly transmitting the signal from the aerosol provision system to the external device (hearing aid) [0153].
Consider claim 5, Stevens et al. teaches the method, wherein the aerosol/vaporization unit that is associated with registered user and a registered user’s smart device is activated in proximity and the user has confirmed their identity [0186].
Stevens does not teach the hearing aid of the user.
In the same field of endeavor, Topholm teaches the hearing aid system in which user provides user commands and those command are transmitted to control the hearing aid [0030] for the benefit of securing the user identity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the hearing aid of the user as shown in Topholm, in Stevens et al. method for the benefit of securing the user identity.
Consider claim 6, Stevens et al. clearly shown and disclose the method, wherein the signal is configured to be transmitted by the aerosol provision system in response to a predetermined event (system error) being satisfied [0178].
Consider claim 7, Stevens et al. clearly shown and disclose the method, wherein the signal is configured to be transmitted by the aerosol provision system in response to a predetermined event being determined as being satisfied by the aerosol provision system [0178].
Consider claim 8, Stevens et al. clearly shown and disclose the method, wherein the feedback signal is transmitted by Bluetooth [0120].
Consider claim 11, Stevens teaches a feedback provision system comprising: an aerosol provision system (vaporization unit) (405, Fig. 4) for generating an aerosol; and the structure of communication between the vaporization unit and smart device application, wherein the structure includes running the system check and communicate information to the smart device application [0178].
Stevens does not teach a hearing aid having an acoustic transducer, wherein the hearing is hearing aid is configured to output the acoustic feedback in response to receiving a signal.
In the same field of endeavor, Topholm teaches wireless reception by the hearing aid and transmission of information to the hearing aid via a wireless interface, which inherently causes acoustic output through hearing aid’s acoustic output transducer [0024] for the benefit of utilizing well-known wireless communication protocol to remotely controlling apparatus.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wireless reception by the hearing aid and transmission of information to the hearing aid via a wireless interface, which inherently causes acoustic output through hearing aid’s acoustic output transducer as shown in Topholm, in Stevens et al. device for the benefit of utilizing well-known wireless communication protocol to remotely controlling apparatus.
Consider claim 15, Stevens et al. clearly shown and disclose the feedback provision system, wherein the signal is configured to be transmitted by the aerosol provision system in response to a predetermined event (system error) being satisfied [0178].
Consider claim 16, Stevens et al. clearly shown and disclose the feedback provision system, wherein the signal is configured to be transmitted by the aerosol provision system in response to a predetermined event being determined as being satisfied by the aerosol provision system [0178].
Consider claim 17, Stevens et al. clearly shown and disclose the feedback provision system, wherein the predetermined event comprises the aerosol provision system changing from a first mode of operation (normal mode) to a second mode of operation (trouble shooting mode) [0178].
Consider claim 18, Stevens et al. clearly shown and disclose the feedback provision system, wherein the predetermined event comprises at least one of: i) the aerosol provision system being switched on (powered); and/or ii) the aerosol provision system being switched off (shut down) upon unit cannot connected to application [0178].
Consider claim 19, Stevens et al. clearly shown and disclose the feedback provision system, wherein the aerosol provision system comprises an aerosol generator (a vaporization chamber), for aerosolizing aerosol-generating material (a wick and conductive wire/heating arrangement), for generating the aerosol [0113].
Consider claim 20, Stevens et al. clearly shown and disclose the feedback provision system, wherein the predetermined event comprises any combination of: i) the aerosol generator being operated (control the flow rate); ii) the aerosol generator being switched on (power on the length of time); and/or iii) the aerosol generator being switched off (power off when the length of time expired) [0125].
Consider claim 22, Stevens et al. clearly shown and disclose the feedback provision system, wherein the signal is wirelessly transmitted by the aerosol provision system by Bluetooth [0120].
Consider claim 24, Stevens et al. clearly shown and disclose the feedback provision system, wherein the aerosol provision system comprises: an aerosol provision device (vaporization unit) (450, Fig. 4); and a consumable for releasably engaging with the aerosol provision device, wherein the consumable is configured for receiving aerosol-generating material (wick) for aerosolizing into the aerosol [0036].
Consider claim 25, Stevens et al. teaches an aerosol provision system for generating an aerosol, wherein the aerosol provision system is configured to wirelessly (Bluetooth) transmit a signal to an external device [0163].
Stevens et al. does not teach the external device is a hearing aid; wherein the signal is configured for controlling the hearing aid.
In the same field of endeavor, Topholm teaches the external device is a hearing device (hearing aid); wherein the signal is configured for controlling the hearing aid [0024] for the benefit of using the known mobile device to hearing aid communication techniques.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the external device is a hearing device (hearing aid); wherein the signal is configured for controlling the hearing aid as shown in Topholm, in Stevens et al. device for the benefit of using the known mobile device to hearing aid communication techniques.
Claims 4, 12, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevens et al. (Pub # US 2016/0211693 A1) in view of Topholm (Pub # US 2008/0049957 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gerber et al. (Pub # US 2005/0015749 A1).
Consider claim 4, Stevens et al. and Topholm combined reference teaches similar invention.
Stevens et al. and Topholm combined reference does not teach the method, wherein the aerosol provision system is configured to wirelessly transmit the signal directly to the hearing aid.
In the same field of endeavor, Gerber et al. teaches wherein the aerosol provision system is configured to wirelessly transmit the signal directly to the hearing aid [0021] for the benefit of improve reception or utility.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the aerosol provision system is configured to wirelessly transmit the signal directly to the hearing aid as shown in Gerber et al., in Stevens et al. and Topholm combined device for the benefit of improve reception or utility.
Consider claim 12, Stevens et al. and Topholm combined reference teaches similar invention.
Stevens et al. and Topholm combined reference does not teach the feedback provision system, wherein the method further comprises: transmitting the signal from the aerosol provision system directly to the hearing aid.
In the same field of endeavor, Gerber et al. teaches wherein the method further comprises: transmitting the signal directly to a hearing device (hearing aid) [0021] for the benefit of improve reception or utility.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the method further comprises: transmitting the signal directly to the hearing aid as shown in Gerber et al., in Stevens et al. and Topholm combined method for the benefit of improve reception or utility.
Consider claim 14, Stevens et al. and Topholm combined reference teaches similar invention.
Stevens et al. and Topholm combined reference does not teach the feedback provision system, wherein the hearing aid is configured to receive the signal directly from the aerosol provision system.
In the same field of endeavor, Gerber et al. teaches wherein the hearing device (hearing aid) is configured to receive the signal directly from the aerosol provision system [0021] for the benefit of improve reception or utility.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the hearing aid is configured to receive the signal directly from the aerosol provision system as shown in Gerber et al., in Stevens et al. and Topholm combined method for the benefit of improve reception or utility.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevens et al. (Pub # US 2016/0211693 A1) in view of Topholm (Pub # US 2008/0049957 A1) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Alarcon et al. (Pub # US 2011/0265806 A1).
Consider claim 21, Stevens et al. teaches the feedback provision system including the predetermined event (error) [0178].
Stevens et al. and Topholm combined reference does not teach wherein the predetermined event comprises the aerosol generator exceeding a predetermined temperature.
In the same field of endeavor, Alarcon et al. teaches wherein the predetermined event comprises the aerosol generator exceeding a predetermined temperature [0060] for the benefit of enhance the safety and alerting the user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the predetermined event comprises the aerosol generator exceeding a predetermined temperature as shown in Alarcon et al., in Stevens et al. and Topholm combined device for the benefit of enhance the safety or alerting the user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK K WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-1938. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM.
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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/JACK K WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686