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 § 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 3-5, 12, and 14 are recites the limitation "hearing aid" in claims 1 and 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 3-8, 11, 12, 14-22, 24, and 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 Kim et al. (Pub # US 2022/0248772 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 in response to receiving the feedback signal transmitted by the aerosol provision system [0037].
Stevens et al. does not teach transmitting the feedback signal from the aerosol provision system directly to the headphone or earphone and controlling the headphone or earphone using the feedback signal.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim et al. teaches a smoking system including an article and a sound reducing device, wherein the sound reproducing device as an earphone, and further teaches that the reproducing device may alternatively include a headphone [0051-0052], and transmitting the feedback signal from the aerosol provision system directly (via Bluetooth, BLE, Wi-Fi, ZigBee, WiFi Direct, etc.) to the headphone or earphone [0039], and controlling the headphone or earphone using feedback signal [0047] for the benefit of providing virtual image and a surround sound audio.
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 transmitting the feedback signal from the aerosol provision system directly to the headphone or earphone and controlling the headphone or earphone using the feedback signal.as shown in Kim et al., in Stevens et al. method for the benefit of providing virtual image and a surround sound audio.
Consider claim 3, Steven et al. teaches the method, wherein the method further comprises: wirelessly transmitting the signal from the aerosol provision system to the external device [0153].
Steven et al. does not teach wirelessly transmitting the signal to the headphone or earphone.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim et al. teaches wirelessly transmitting the signal to the headphone or earphone [0039] for the benefit of providing user convenience.
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 wirelessly transmitting the signal to the headphone or earphone as shown in Kim et al., in Steven et al. method for the benefit of providing user convenience.
Consider claim 4, Steven et al. teaches the method, wherein the method further comprises: transmitting the signal from the aerosol provision system directly to the external device.
Steven et al. does not teach wherein the method transmitting the signal directly to the headphone or earphone.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim et al. teaches wherein the method transmitting the signal directly to the headphone or earphone [0051] for the benefit of utilizing the headphone or earphone as external device.
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 transmitting the signal directly to the headphone or earphone as shown in Kim et al., in Steven et al. method for the benefit of utilizing the headphone or earphone as external device.
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 headphones or earphones.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim et al. teaches the hearing aid system in which user provides user commands and those commands are transmitted to control the headphone or earphone [0051] for the benefit of utilizing the headphone or earphone as common external device.
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 headphone or earphone of the user as shown in Kim et al., in Stevens et al. method for the benefit of utilizing the headphone or earphone as common external device.
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], and wherein the aerosol provision system is configured to transmit the signal directly to the external device.
Stevens does not teach headphones or earphones having an acoustic transducer, wherein the headphone or earphone is configured to output the acoustic feedback in response to receiving a signal.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim et al. teaches a headphone or earphone having an acoustic transducer, wherein the headphone or earphone is configured to output the acoustic feedback (receives content information from the article and determines the sound to be reproduced based on that information) in response to receiving a signal (Fig. 2B) [0051-0054] for the benefit of utilizing well-known headphone or earphone as wearable external device.
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 headphone or earphone having an acoustic transducer, wherein the headphone or earphone is configured to output the acoustic feedback in response to receiving a signal as shown in Kim et al., in Steven et al. device for the benefit of utilizing well-known headphone or earphone as wearable external device.
Consider claim 12, Stevens et al. teaches a feedback provision system, wherein the aerosol provision system is configured to wirelessly transmit the signal directly to the external device.
Stevens et al. does not teach the external device is headphones or earphones.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim et al. teaches the external device is headphones or earphones [0051] for the benefit of utilizing the headphone or earphone as common wearable external device.
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 headphones or earphones as shown in Kim et al., in Steven et al. device for the benefit of utilizing the headphone or earphone as common wearable external device.
Consider claim 14, Steven et al. teaches a feedback provision system, wherein the external device is configured to receive the signal directly from the aerosol provision system.
Steven et al. does not teach the external device is headphone or earphone.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim et al. teaches the external device is a headphone or earphone [0039 and 0051] for the benefit of utilizing the common wearable external device as headphone or earphone.
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 headphone or earphone as shown in Kim et al., in Steven et al. device for the benefit of utilizing the common wearable external device as headphone or earphone.
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 headphone or earphone; wherein the signal is configured for controlling the headphone or earphone.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim et al. teaches the external device is a headphone or earphone [0051]; wherein the signal is configured for controlling the headphone or earphone [0051-0054] for the benefit of utilizing the common wearable external device as headphone or earphone.
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 headphone or earphone; wherein the signal is configured for controlling the headphone or earphone as shown in Kim et al., in Steven et al. device for the benefit of utilizing the common wearable external device as headphone or earphone.
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 Kim et al. (Pub # US 2022/0248772 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 Kim et al. combined reference do 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 enhancing 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 Kim et al. combined device for the benefit of enhancing the safety or alerting the user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-8, 11, 12, 14-22, 24, and 25 have been considered but are moot because the newly amended claim limitations have been analyzed and rejected as set forth above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights