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 Objections
Claim 37 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 37 recites that "the type of the second feedback comprises at least of visual feedback and/or haptic feedback." The phrase "at least of" is grammatically incomplete and appears to omit the word "one.". Appropriate correction is required.
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 6, 7, 10, 11, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 6, "the user interface portion" lacks antecedent basis. Claim 6 depends from claim 2, and neither claim 1 nor claim 2 introduces a user interface portion. Although claim 3 introduces a user interface portion, claim 6 does not depend from claim 3. Accordingly, it is unclear what is intended by "the user interface portion."
Regarding claim 7, "the third feedback" lacks antecedent basis. Neither claim 7 nor the claims from which claim 7 depends previously introduces a third feedback. The recitation of a "third mode of operation" does not provide antecedent basis for "the third feedback."
Claims 10 and 11 depend from claim 7 and further recite "the third feedback." Accordingly, claims 10 and 11 retain the indefiniteness resulting from the lack of antecedent basis for "the third feedback" in claim 7.
Regarding claim 33, "the user interface portion" lacks antecedent basis. Claim 33 depends from claim 31, and neither claim 30 nor claim 31 introduces a user interface portion. Although claim 32 introduces a user interface portion, claim 33 does not depend from claim 32. Accordingly, it is unclear what is intended by "the user interface portion."
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 15, 16, 22-24, and 29-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hawes et al. (US 2017/0258136 A1) in view of Gallagher et al. (US 2022/0015436 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hawes teaches a feedback provision system comprising an aerosol provision system for generating an aerosol (EVD 101 including cartridge 102 and dispersion generator 103; ¶ [0064]) and a feedback portion (computer device 220 including display 228; ¶ [0126]) for providing first feedback (EVD status information provided through status interface 401; ¶ [0126]) and second feedback (EVD power-supply charge-level push notification; ¶ [0139]) to a user of the aerosol provision system. Hawes further teaches that the feedback provision system is configured to allow the second feedback to be selectively prevented from being provided by the feedback portion (EVD power-supply charge-level notification individually enabled or disabled; ¶ [0141]).
Hawes does not teach that the feedback provision system is configured to not allow the first feedback to be selectively prevented from being provided by the feedback portion.
Gallagher is directed to providing device-condition feedback in an electronic vaping device and therefore addresses the same technical problem of communicating operating conditions of an aerosol-generating device to a user. Gallagher teaches providing a fault indication that is continually output until corrective action is taken or the electronic vaping device is manually powered off, thereby teaching feedback that is not independently user-selectively preventable while the device remains operative (¶ [0294]).
It has been held that use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way is an appropriate rationale supporting obviousness. MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Hawes's first feedback so that feedback corresponding to a device fault is continually provided and is not independently user-selectively preventable, as taught by Gallagher, while retaining Hawes's individually enableable/disableable EVD power-supply charge-level notification as the second feedback, in order to ensure that a fault condition requiring corrective action remains communicated to the user while permitting selective suppression of ordinary device-status notifications, thereby predictably providing non-selectively-preventable first feedback and selectively-preventable second feedback.
Regarding claim 2, modified Hawes further teaches allowing a user to toggle between a first mode of operation in which the second feedback is configured to be provided (EVD power-supply charge-level notification enabled; Hawes, ¶ [0141]) and a second mode of operation in which the second feedback is configured to be prevented from being provided (EVD power-supply charge-level notification disabled; Hawes, ¶ [0141]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Hawes further teaches a user interface portion (control settings interface 501 presented on touch-sensitive display 228; Hawes, ¶ [0141]) allowing the user to toggle between the first mode and the second mode.
Regarding claim 4, modified Hawes further teaches that the user interface portion comprises a toggling device (interactive icon 516 associated with the EVD power-supply charge-level notification; Hawes, ¶ [0141]) allowing the user to toggle between the first and second modes.
Regarding claim 6, notwithstanding the § 112(b) rejection and for purposes of prior-art examination, "the user interface portion" is interpreted as a user interface portion of the aerosol provision system. Modified Hawes further teaches the aerosol provision system comprises the user interface portion (PCC 100 comprising interface 206, which may comprise a tactile interface, button, touchscreen interface, or combination thereof; Hawes, ¶ [0099]).
Regarding claim 7, notwithstanding the § 112(b) rejection concerning "the third feedback," and for purposes of prior-art examination, "the third feedback" is interpreted as an additional feedback. Modified Hawes further teaches a third feedback (PCC battery charge-level push notification; Hawes, ¶ [0140]) in addition to the previously mapped first feedback and second feedback. Hawes teaches that the separate notifications are independently enableable or disableable (Hawes, ¶ [0141]). Accordingly, the first mode corresponds to the EVD power-supply charge-level second feedback being enabled, the second mode corresponds to that second feedback being disabled, and enabling the independently selectable PCC battery charge-level third feedback while the first feedback remains configured to be provided in modified Hawes results in a third mode of operation in which the first feedback and third feedback are configured to be provided, as claimed.
Regarding claim 10, modified Hawes further teaches the third feedback is configured to be prevented from being provided in the second mode of operation (independently selectable PCC battery charge-level notification disabled while the EVD power-supply charge-level notification is also disabled; Hawes, ¶ [0141]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Hawes further teaches the third feedback is configured to be prevented from being provided in the first mode of operation (EVD power-supply charge-level notification enabled while the independently selectable PCC battery charge-level notification is disabled; Hawes, ¶ [0141]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Hawes further teaches that the first feedback is configured to be provided in response to a first predetermined criterion being satisfied. Gallagher teaches providing a fault indication in response to determining that a fault event has occurred at the electronic vaping device (¶ [0270]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Hawes further teaches that the first predetermined criterion comprises a determination being made that the aerosol provision system is faulty. Gallagher teaches determining whether a fault event has occurred at the electronic vaping device (¶ [0253]).
Regarding claim 22, Hawes further teaches an embodiment in which the aerosol provision system comprises the feedback portion (EVD 101 comprising activation light 111; Hawes, ¶ [0091]). Hawes teaches that ordinary feedback provided by activation light 111 may be selectively prevented by disabling the activation light (Hawes, ¶ [0098]).
Hawes does not teach using that feedback portion to provide first feedback that is not independently user-selectively preventable.
Gallagher teaches that a fault indication may comprise a red blinking LED (¶ [0271]) and teaches continually outputting the fault indication until corrective action is taken or the vaping device is manually powered off (¶ [0294]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to configure Hawes's activation light 111 to additionally provide Gallagher's persistent fault indication as the first feedback while retaining Hawes's selectively disableable ordinary activation-light feedback as the second feedback, in order to communicate a fault condition using Hawes's existing on-device visual feedback structure, thereby predictably providing the claimed feedback portion as part of the aerosol provision system.
Regarding claim 23, modified Hawes further teaches an electrical device which is operable to wirelessly communicate with the aerosol provision system (remote computer device 220 communicating with PCC 100/EVD 101 through wireless communication link 210; Hawes, ¶ [0094]).
Regarding claim 24, modified Hawes further teaches the electrical device comprises the feedback portion (computer device 220 including display 228 for providing user feedback; Hawes, ¶ [0126]).
Regarding claim 29, Hawes teaches an aerosol provision device (EVD 101; ¶ [0062]) for use in an aerosol provision system for generating an aerosol. The recitation concerning use with a consumable comprising aerosol-generating material does not impose an additional structural limitation on the claimed aerosol provision device; nevertheless, Hawes teaches cartridge 102 containing aerosol-forming material and dispersion generator 103 for generating a dispersion (¶ [0064]).
Hawes further teaches a feedback portion (activation light 111 provided on EVD 101; ¶ [0091]) for providing feedback to a user and teaches second feedback that may be selectively prevented from being provided by the feedback portion (activation-light feedback selectively enabled or disabled; ¶ [0098]).
Hawes does not teach the aerosol provision device configured to provide first feedback that is not allowed to be selectively prevented from being provided by the feedback portion.
Gallagher teaches that a fault indication may comprise a red blinking LED (¶ [0271]) and that the fault indication is continually output until corrective action is taken or the vaping device is manually powered off (¶ [0294]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Hawes's activation light 111 to additionally provide Gallagher's persistent fault indication as the first feedback while retaining Hawes's selectively disableable ordinary activation-light feedback as the second feedback, in order to ensure continued communication of a fault condition using Hawes's existing device-mounted feedback structure while preserving selective control of ordinary feedback, thereby predictably providing the claimed first and second feedback through the aerosol provision device.
Regarding claim 30, Hawes teaches a method of controlling the provision of feedback in a feedback provision system comprising an aerosol provision system for generating an aerosol (EVD 101 including cartridge 102 and dispersion generator 103; ¶ [0064]), comprising providing a feedback portion (computer device 220 including display 228; ¶ [0126]) for providing first feedback (EVD status information; ¶ [0126]) and second feedback (EVD power-supply charge-level push notification; ¶ [0139]) to a user of the aerosol provision system, and allowing the second feedback to be selectively prevented from being provided by the feedback portion (EVD power-supply charge-level notification selectively enabled or disabled; ¶ [0141]).
Hawes does not teach not allowing the first feedback to be selectively prevented from being provided by the feedback portion.
Gallagher teaches continually providing a fault indication until corrective action is taken or the electronic vaping device is manually powered off, thereby teaching first feedback that is not independently user-selectively preventable while the device remains operative (¶ [0294]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Hawes's method such that first feedback corresponding to a device fault is continually provided and is not independently user-selectively preventable, as taught by Gallagher, while retaining Hawes's selectively preventable EVD power-supply charge-level notification as the second feedback, in order to ensure continued communication of fault conditions while permitting selective suppression of ordinary feedback, thereby predictably providing the claimed method.
Regarding claim 31, modified Hawes further teaches toggling between a first mode of operation in which the second feedback is configured to be provided and a second mode of operation in which the second feedback is configured to be prevented from being provided (EVD power-supply charge-level notification selectively toggled between enabled and disabled states; Hawes, ¶ [0141]).
Regarding claim 32, modified Hawes further teaches toggling a user interface portion from the feedback provision system between the first mode of operation and the second mode of operation (interactive icon 516 associated with the EVD power-supply charge-level notification toggled between enabled and disabled states; Hawes, ¶ [0141]).
Regarding claim 33, notwithstanding the § 112(b) rejection and for purposes of prior-art examination, "the user interface portion" is interpreted as a user interface portion of the aerosol provision system. Modified Hawes further teaches the aerosol provision system comprises the user interface portion (PCC 100 comprising interface 206, which may comprise a tactile interface, button, touchscreen interface, or combination thereof; Hawes, ¶ [0099]).
Regarding claim 34, modified Hawes further teaches the feedback portion is provided as part of an electrical device which is operable to wirelessly communicate with the aerosol provision system (computer device 220 including display 228 and communicating wirelessly with the PCC/EVD; Hawes, ¶ [0094]).
Regarding claim 35, modified Hawes further teaches the electrical device comprises a smartphone (computer device 220 may comprise a smartphone; Hawes, ¶ [0094]).
Regarding claims 36 and 37, Hawes teaches that the type of the second feedback comprises visual feedback (EVD power-supply charge-level notification visually presented through display 228; Hawes, ¶ [0139]).
Hawes does not teach that the type of the first feedback is different from the type of the second feedback, particularly that the type of the first feedback comprises acoustic feedback while the second feedback comprises visual feedback.
Gallagher teaches that fault indications may be provided using multiple feedback modalities, including sound, visual feedback, and haptic feedback (¶ [0271]). Thus, Gallagher teaches acoustic feedback as a known alternative modality for communicating the persistent fault condition. Providing the first feedback acoustically while retaining Hawes's visual second feedback results in feedback of different types as required by claim 36 and, specifically, acoustic first feedback and visual second feedback as required by claim 37.
It has been held that use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way is an appropriate rationale supporting obviousness. MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Hawes's feedback provision system by providing the first, persistent fault feedback acoustically, as taught by Gallagher, while retaining Hawes's visual EVD power-supply charge-level notification as the selectively preventable second feedback, because Gallagher teaches acoustic feedback as a known modality for communicating fault conditions in an electronic vaping device, thereby predictably providing first and second feedback of different types.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER KESSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-7739. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Michael H Wilson can be reached at (571) 270-3882. 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.
/JENNIFER A KESSIE/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights