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 .
Comments
This office action is in response to the preliminary amendment of July 1, 2024, which amendment has been ENTERED.
It is noted that claims 19-30, 32-80, and 82-100 stand CANCELLED.
It is further noted that claims 1-18, 31, and 81 are presently pending.
The information disclosure statements (IDS) of July 1, 2024 and of October 10, 2025 have been considered during examination.
The use of the terms Bluetooth, Zigbee, ARM, Atom, Cortex, Wi-Fi, FireWire, and Bluetooth Smart, each of which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. Each of these terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore each of these terms should be capitalized wherever it appears 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.
A copy of the publication, “Brand Guide for Bluetooth Trademarks” has been included with this office action for Applicant’s information. Among the information in this publication, there is information on the use of “BLE.”
Please note that any mention of a line number of a claim in this office action refers to the claims as they appear in the official claim listing in the image file wrapper (IFW), not to any claim as it may be reproduced below.
Objection to the Drawings
The text of 37 CFR 1.84(o) is as follows:
“(o) Legends. Suitable descriptive legends may be used subject to approval by the Office, or may be required by the examiner where necessary for understanding of the drawing. They should contain as few words as possible.” (Bold added).
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(o) because certain drawing elements lack “suitable descriptive legends” that are “necessary for understanding of the drawing,” “suitable descriptive legends” are hereby “required by the examiner” for the following listed drawing elements: in Figure 1, elements 16, 14, 18, 26, 28, 12, 22, 30, and 24.
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.
Claim Interpretation
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 12 and 18 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.
The text of independent claim 18 is as follows:
“18. (Original) A wireless communication beacon comprising: a data interface configured to receive data relating to a physical location with which the beacon is associated; and a wireless communication system configured to transmit using a connectionless data channel, data relating to the physical location with which the beacon is associated.”
On line 1 of independent claim 18, the preamble presents the claim as being directed to claiming, “A wireless communication beacon,” but the body of the claim recites the “data interface” (line 2) as not being part of the “wireless communication beacon.” This contradiction causes the claim to be indefinite and unclear.
Similarly, on line 1 of independent claim 18, the preamble presents the claim as being directed to claiming, “A wireless communication beacon,” but the body of the claim recites, “a wireless communication system” in a manner where the “wireless communication system” is not clearly recited as being the “beacon” or a part of the “beacon.” Further, if the claim 18 “wireless communication system” and the claim 18 “data interface” are not, at least, parts of the overall claimed “wireless communication beacon,” it is unclear how claim 18 claims a “wireless communication beacon.”
Claim 12 contains the trademark/trade name Bluetooth. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a protocol and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Prior Art Rejections
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the article “Reality matters: How do beacons work? The physics of beacon tech” or the article ”BLE Beacons: iBEACON, AltBeacon, URIBeacon, and derivatives” or the article “What are Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) beacons?”.
The text of independent claim 18 is as follows:
“18. (Original) A wireless communication beacon comprising: a data interface configured to receive data relating to a physical location with which the beacon is associated; and a wireless communication system configured to transmit using a connectionless data channel, data relating to the physical location with which the beacon is associated.”
The ”wireless communication beacon” as recited in independent claim 18 is plainly met by a BLE Beacon, an IBEACON, am AltBeacon,” or a URIBeacon, where each of these beacons has a “data interface.”
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) based upon a public use or sale or other public availability of the invention. Each of the articles “Reality matters: How do beacons work? The physics of beacon tech,” ”BLE Beacons: iBEACON, AltBeacon, URIBeacon, and derivatives,” and “What are Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) beacons?” is evidence that the claim 18 “wireless communication beacon” was in public use or was publicly available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 12, 16, 31, and 81 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anderson et al (WO 2019/126,805 A1), hereinafter Anderson et al (‘805).
The text of independent claim 1 is as follows:
“1. (Original) A non-combustible aerosol provision system comprising: a wireless communication system configured to receive, from a wireless communication beacon using a connectionless data channel, data relating to a physical location with which the beacon is associated; and a user interface system configured to communicate by a user interface element of the non-combustible aerosol provision system, an indication related to the received data.”
Anderson et al (‘805) plainly discloses, “A non-combustible aerosol provision system” as in independent claim 1, noting, for example, paragraph [0003].
The claim 1, “wireless communication system configured to receive, from a wireless communication beacon using a connectionless data channel, data relating to a physical location with which the beacon is associated” (lines 2-4) is met in Anderson et al (‘805) by the disclosed “vaporizer” or by the disclosed “user device,” noting, for example, paragraph [0161], especially lines 2-4 (“Certain functions may be split between a vaporizer and a user device”), and, paragraph [0067].
The claim 1, “user interface system configured to communicate by a user interface element of the non-combustible aerosol provision system, an indication related to the received data” (lines 5-6) is met in Anderson et al (‘805) by the user interface of the “user device” (e.g., display, keyboard, etc.) or by the user interface of the “vaporizer,” noting, for example, paragraph [0044] at lines 1-3; paragraph [0045]; page 22 at lines 1-10; paragraph [0089]; paragraph [0053] (“one or more inputs 117”); paragraph [0054] (“Outputs 115”); paragraph [0113]; paragraph [0164] (“interfaces”); paragraph [0163] (“network interface 640”); and, paragraph [0161] at lines 1-4 (functions may be split in any manner between the vaporizer and the user device).
In that each and every claimed feature recited in independent claim 1 is plainly disclosed in Anderson et al (‘805), independent claim 1 is anticipated by Anderson et al (‘805).
The further limitations of dependent claim 2 are met by Anderson et al (‘805), at least, in that the “beacon” is located at or near the store/business/schools and so on, noting, for example, paragraph [0245]; paragraph [0206]; paragraph [0198]; and, paragraph [0199].
The further limitations of dependent claim 3 are met by Anderson et al (‘805), noting, for example, paragraph [0245]; paragraph [0206]; paragraph [0199]; paragraph [0113] at lines 1-5 and 17-19; paragraph [0099] (‘threshold communication range”); paragraph [0102] at lines 4-6 (“threshold communication range”); paragraph [0067]; and, paragraph [0045].
The further limitations of dependent claim 4 are met by Anderson et al (‘805) to see if the vaporizer and/or user device is “in proximity” as described in paragraph [0067]; paragraph [0194] (“communication range 725 of the beacon 705”); paragraph [0199]; and, paragraph [0206] (“with a proximity threshold of certain location”).
The further limitations of dependent claim 12 are met by Anderson et al (‘805), where “Bluetooth” is mentioned, at least, in paragraph [52] at line 8; paragraph [62] at line 9; and, on page 38 at line 3. Bluetooth Low Energy or BLE is mentioned, at least, in paragraph [115] at line 3.
The further limitations of dependent claim 16 are met by Anderson et al (‘805), noting, for example, paragraph [0054]. In that paragraph, “tactile” is taken as meeting the claim limitation of “haptic.”
The remarks concerning independent claim 31 are substantially those made above with respect to claims 1-4.
The remarks concerning independent claim 81 are substantially those made above with respect to claims 1-4 in that claim 81 is the method claim corresponding to the apparatus of claims 1-4.
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 5-9, 11, 13, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al (‘805) in view of Tremblay (‘945).
A person of ordinary skill-in-the-art would be a person having a degree in some form of engineering or in physics with several years of practical experience in the design and/or testing of aerosol provision systems.
First, regarding the further limitations of dependent claim 5, although Anderson et al (‘805) does mention stores (e.g., paragraph [45] at line 5; paragraph [67] at line 4), the “open/closed status of the physical location” is not mentioned.
In the same field of endeavor, Tremblay (‘945) teaches the displaying of displaying “advertisements for nearby stores,” noting, for example, paragraph [0258], paragraph [0262], paragraph [0263], and paragraph [0264] for the advantages of gaining useful information and for the advantages of “compensation” (see paragraph [264]).
So, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the Anderson et al (‘805) with the display of advertising as taught by Tremblay (‘945) in order to gain the advantages taught by Tremblay (‘945). It would have further been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to supply “open/close status of the physical location” both in the form of present status and future status in the form of a schedule in the advertising in order to optimize customer traffic.
The further limitations of dependent claim 6 are substantially-met by the applied combination of Anderson et al (‘805) in view of Tremblay (‘945) as applied above to dependent claim 5.
As for the further limitations of each of dependent claims 7 and 8, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the types of information claimed for products being held out for same in order to optimize customer traffic.
With respect to the further limitations of dependent claims 9 and 11, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art to provide a button or the like on the user interface so that by clicking on the button more information about a product could be obtained by a potential customer, and, that product information additional to that obtained at the first request could be obtained, providing a more complete presentation of the product of interest to a potential customer, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
Next, as for the further limitations of dependent claim 13, Tremblay (‘945) of the applied combination teaches pairing, for example, in paragraphs [0106], [0248], [0273], and [0274] for the advantage of establishing a “data connection” over the Internet with a server (paragraph [274] at lines 12-15) that could provide inter alia advertising (paragraph [263]), with a reasonable likelihood of success.
Regarding the further limitations of dependent claim 15, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a “hub-based approach” in the applied combination for the advantages of consolidating flows to reduce transport costs and of managing congestion, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
Finally, as for the further limitations of dependent claim 17, in a system with a plurality of modes of interfacing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “an input elements configured to receive a selection input to select a user interface function” for the advantages of reducing power consumption and waste heat generation by only operating/energizing the user interface functions that are actually being used, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
Potentially-Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
None of the prior art of record either taken alone or taken in any possible combination would anticipate or would tend to render obvious the claimed subject matter of claims 1, 7, and 10 combined, particularly characterized, at least, by the claimed subject matter of claim 10, nor would the subject matter of claim 10 have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art.
None of the prior art of record either taken alone or taken in any possible combination would anticipate or would tend to render obvious the claimed subject matter of claims 1, 13, and 14 combined, particularly characterized, at least, by the claimed subject matter of claim 14, nor would the subject matter of claim 14 have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art.
Prior Art of General Interest
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Estripeau (‘778) is of general interest for showing the state of the related prior art in using an aerosol-providing device with a user device and location information. Although the reference discloses some of what is claimed in independent claims 1, 31, and 81, it does not disclose as much as the references applied above in the prior art rejections.
Rogan et al (‘975) is of general interest for showing the state of the related prior art in using an aerosol-providing device with a user device and location information. Although the reference discloses some of what is claimed in independent claims 1, 31, and 81, it does not disclose as much as the references applied above in the prior art rejections.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARR E GREGORY whose telephone number is (571)272-6972. The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays through Fridays from 7:30 am to 3:30 pm eastern time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-5144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights