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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-10 and 14-19 in the reply filed on 09/21/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/21/2026.
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, 6, 8, 10, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sur et al. (US 2017/0156397 A1) in view of Galloway et al. (US 2017/0156405 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sur teaches a method for use with an aerosol-generating device having a power source (aerosol delivery device 100 including control body 102, cartridge 104, and power source 212; ¶ [0037]), the method comprising:
receiving at least one acceleration value (motion sensor 248 comprising a multi-axis accelerometer that generates an electrical signal corresponding to detected motion; ¶ [0060]);
detecting a fall or shock based on the at least one acceleration value (detecting vibration, shock, or freefall using acceleration, including detecting acceleration relative to a threshold; ¶ [0066]); and
initiating, using a controller of the aerosol-generating device, at least one response procedure in response to detecting the fall or shock (control component 208 controls at least one functional element to perform an operation in response to detection of the vulnerability; ¶ [0067]).
Sur does not expressly teach wherein the at least one response procedure comprises initiating a diagnostic routine.
Galloway teaches initiating an onboard diagnostic test of an aerosol delivery device in response to a test initiation signal and generating diagnostic information concerning operation of the device (¶ [0046]). Galloway further teaches diagnostic testing of heater circuitry associated with the aerosol-generating heating element (¶ [0077]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the response procedure of Sur to include initiating the diagnostic routine taught by Galloway in response to the detected fall or shock, because doing so would permit determination of whether components of the aerosol-generating device remain operational following an event capable of damaging the device.
Regarding claim 6, Sur in view of Galloway teaches the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Sur further teaches wherein initiating the diagnostic routine comprises displaying a warning related to the fall or shock (control component 208 may generate an alert message in response to detection of vulnerability of the aerosol delivery device or user; ¶ [0064]).
Regarding claim 8, Sur in view of Galloway teaches the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Sur further teaches wherein the at least one response procedure is initiated in response to at least one of: a fall or shock, a fall duration exceeding a time threshold, a maximum acceleration value, a fall height exceeding a height threshold, and an impact value exceeding an impact threshold (shock may be detected when the accelerometer detects at least a threshold amount of acceleration; ¶ [0066]).
Because claim 8 requires initiation in response to at least one of the recited conditions, Sur's acceleration-threshold teaching is sufficient to satisfy the alternative limitation.
Regarding claim 10, Sur in view of Galloway teaches the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Galloway further teaches wherein the diagnostic routine comprises checking a resistance value of an aerosolizer, by testing heater circuitry using a resistance load and measuring the resulting electrical response to determine whether the heater circuitry satisfies an expected operating criterion (¶ [0077]). Galloway teaches that the heater circuitry controls supply of power to heating element 324 for heat generation (¶ [0056]).
Regarding claim 14, Sur teaches an aerosol-generating device comprising (aerosol delivery device 100; ¶ [0037]):
a power source configured to operably couple to an aerosolizer to generate aerosol from an aerosol-generating substrate (power source 212 associated with the aerosol-generating components of cartridge 104; ¶ [0037]);
at least one accelerometer configured to measure at least one acceleration value (motion sensor 248 comprising a multi-axis accelerometer configured to convert detected motion into an electrical signal; ¶ [0060]); and
a controller operably coupled to the power source and the accelerometer (control component 208 receiving the electrical signal from motion sensor 248 and controlling functional elements of aerosol delivery device 100; ¶ [0067]).
Sur further teaches the controller responding to acceleration-based detection of vibration, shock, or freefall (¶ [0066]).
Sur does not expressly teach the controller comprising a processor configured to perform the method of claim 1, particularly initiating a diagnostic routine in response to detecting the fall or shock.
Galloway teaches processing circuitry configured to execute an onboard diagnostic test of an aerosol delivery device in response to a test initiation signal (¶ [0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the controller of Sur to initiate the diagnostic routine taught by Galloway in response to the detected fall or shock, because doing so would permit the controller to determine whether components of the aerosol-generating device remain operational following the potentially damaging event.
Regarding claim 15, Sur in view of Galloway teaches the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Galloway further teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium including a stored computer program that, when run on programmable electric circuitry, causes the programmable electric circuitry to execute the method of claim 1, wherein memory 514 stores computer-readable program instructions executable by processor 512 (¶ [0053]).
Claims 2–4, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sur et al. (US 2017/0156397 A1) in view of Galloway et al. (US 2017/0156405 A1), and further in view of Tysowski et al. (US 2012/0007745 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Sur in view of Galloway teaches the method of claim 1 as set forth above. Sur teaches detecting a fall or shock from acceleration (¶ [0066]), but does not expressly teach detecting an end of the fall or shock based on the at least one acceleration value.
Tysowski is reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by the claimed limitation because Tysowski addresses using accelerometer data to characterize a device fall, including determining when the freefall terminates in an impact. Tysowski teaches that when the device hits the ground or another surface at the end of a fall, the accelerometer detects a rapid change in acceleration corresponding to the impact (¶ [0049]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sur's acceleration-based fall detection to determine the end of the fall from the acceleration associated with impact, as taught by Tysowski, because doing so would permit the controller to distinguish an ongoing fall from a completed fall and thereby determine the timing of a responsive procedure.
Regarding claim 3, Sur in view of Galloway and Tysowski teaches the method of claim 2 as set forth above.
Tysowski further teaches wherein the at least one response procedure is initiated before detecting the end of the fall or shock, by permitting responsive operations to proceed directly upon detection of freefall without requiring detection of a secondary indication corresponding to impact/end of fall (¶ [0054]).
Tysowski is reasonably pertinent to the claimed limitation because it addresses when a device should initiate a responsive action relative to the progression of a detected fall, including initiating a response based on freefall detection without waiting for a subsequent indication of impact (¶ [0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to initiate the response procedure of Sur in view of Galloway upon detection of the fall and before detection of its end, as taught by Tysowski, because doing so would permit the device to begin a protective response without waiting for impact.
Regarding claim 4, Sur in view of Galloway and Tysowski teaches the method of claim 2 as set forth above.
Tysowski further teaches wherein the at least one response procedure is initiated after detecting the end of the fall or shock, wherein the system determines whether a secondary indication associated with the detected fall exists before proceeding to the responsive operation (¶ [0055]).
Tysowski is reasonably pertinent to the claimed limitation because it addresses when a responsive action should be initiated relative to completion of a detected fall, including conditioning the responsive operation on confirmation of a secondary indication associated with the fall (¶ [0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to initiate the response procedure of Sur in view of Galloway after detecting the end of the fall, as taught by Tysowski, because doing so would permit the device to confirm completion of the fall before initiating the responsive procedure.
Regarding claim 18, Sur in view of Galloway teaches the method of claim 1 as set forth above. Sur does not expressly teach wherein the at least one response procedure is initiated in response to at least one of: a fall duration exceeding a time threshold, or a fall height exceeding a height threshold.
Tysowski is reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by the claimed limitation because Tysowski addresses distinguishing an actual device freefall warranting a response from other device movements based on the duration of the detected acceleration condition.
Tysowski teaches determining that a freefall condition exists when the acceleration condition persists for a predetermined duration selected to represent freefall while excluding gestures and other device movements (¶ [0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to initiate the response procedure based on the detected fall persisting for a predetermined time threshold, as taught by Tysowski, because doing so would distinguish a sustained freefall warranting a response from transient device movement.
Because claim 18 requires at least one of the recited alternatives, Tysowski's fall-duration threshold is sufficient.
Regarding claim 19, Sur in view of Galloway and Tysowski teaches the method of claim 18 as set forth above.
Galloway further teaches wherein the diagnostic routine comprises checking a resistance value of an aerosolizer, by testing heater circuitry using a resistance load and measuring the resulting electrical response to determine whether the heater circuitry satisfies an expected operating criterion (¶ [0077]). Galloway teaches that the heater circuitry controls the supply of power to the aerosol-generating heating element (¶ [0056]).
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sur et al. (US 2017/0156397 A1) in view of Galloway et al. (US 2017/0156405 A1), and further in view of Blasco Allue et al. (US 2005/0246585 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Sur in view of Galloway teaches the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Sur in view of Galloway does not expressly teach wherein initiating the diagnostic routine comprises writing a flag into a persistent or non-volatile memory to perform the diagnostic routine after a next device startup.
Blasco Allue teaches a forced power-up diagnostic mechanism in which a latch is programmed with a value indicating that diagnostic operation is required upon the next power-up, wherein the storage element may comprise a flip-flop, one-bit register, latch, or other data-storage element (¶ [0030]). Blasco Allue further teaches using the stored value to trigger forced diagnostic entry upon the next power-up event (¶ [0031]) and maintaining the stored indication through power-down for use at the subsequent power-up (¶ [0032]).
Blasco Allue is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem addressed by the claimed limitation—preserving an indication that a diagnostic routine is required when power is lost so that the diagnostic routine can be performed following a subsequent startup. Blasco Allue addresses this problem by retaining the diagnostic indication through power-down and using the retained indication to force diagnostic entry upon the subsequent power-up (¶ [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fall/shock-responsive diagnostic routine of Sur in view of Galloway to write a persistent indication that the diagnostic routine is required, as taught by Blasco Allue, because doing so would ensure that a diagnostic triggered by the detected fall or shock is performed following the next device startup even when the device powers down before the diagnostic can be performed.
Regarding claim 7, Sur in view of Galloway teaches the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Sur in view of Galloway does not expressly teach wherein initiating the diagnostic routine comprises storing the fall or shock in a persistent or non-volatile memory.
Blasco Allue teaches maintaining a stored diagnostic marker through a power-down condition until subsequent power-up (¶ [0032]). In the modified method of Sur and Galloway, the diagnostic routine is initiated in response to the detected fall or shock; thus, the persistently stored indication that the diagnostic routine is required represents the detected fall or shock that caused initiation of the diagnostic routine.
Blasco Allue is reasonably pertinent to the problem of preserving the state that caused a diagnostic response despite an intervening loss of power, as discussed with respect to claim 5.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to persistently store the indication associated with the fall/shock-triggered diagnostic routine, as taught by Blasco Allue, so that the diagnostic state associated with the detected fall or shock is retained notwithstanding an intervening power-down.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sur et al. (US 2017/0156397 A1) in view of Galloway et al. (US 2017/0156405 A1), and further in view of Smits et al. (US 2016/0321903 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Sur in view of Galloway teaches the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Sur in view of Galloway does not expressly teach wherein the at least one response procedure is initiated according to a priority sequence or a user preference.
Smits teaches detecting a fall and thereafter determining which one of two or more actions is to be performed in response to the detected fall based on a user profile and/or user preference, and subsequently performing the determined action (¶ [0064]).
Smits is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem addressed by claim 9 because Smits addresses selecting an appropriate response from multiple available response procedures following detection of a fall and teaches using user preference information to determine which response should be performed (¶ [0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fall-responsive method of Sur in view of Galloway such that the response procedure is initiated according to a user preference, as taught by Smits, because doing so would permit the response to a detected fall to be selected in accordance with the user's desired response.
Because claim 9 recites “a priority sequence or a user preference,” Smits's express teaching of selecting the responsive action based on user preference is sufficient to satisfy the alternative limitation.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sur et al. (US 2017/0156397 A1) in view of Galloway et al. (US 2017/0156405 A1) and Tysowski et al. (US 2012/0007745 A1), and further in view of Blasco Allue et al. (US 2005/0246585 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Sur in view of Galloway and Tysowski teaches the method of claim 3 as set forth above.
Sur in view of Galloway and Tysowski does not expressly teach wherein initiating the diagnostic routine comprises writing a flag into a persistent or non-volatile memory to perform the diagnostic routine after a next device startup.
Blasco Allue teaches programming a stored value indicating that diagnostic operation is required upon the next power-up (¶ [0030]), using the stored value to trigger forced diagnostic entry upon the next power-up event (¶ [0031]), and retaining the indication through an intervening power-down for use at the subsequent power-up (¶ [0032]).
Blasco Allue is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem addressed by the claimed limitation because it addresses preserving an indication that a diagnostic routine is required through an intervening power-down so that the diagnostic can be performed upon subsequent startup (¶ [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Sur in view of Galloway and Tysowski to persistently store an indication of the required diagnostic, as taught by Blasco Allue, because doing so would ensure that a diagnostic triggered before completion of the detected fall or shock is performed following the next device startup even when the device powers down before the diagnostic can be performed.
Regarding claim 17, Sur in view of Galloway and Tysowski teaches the method of claim 4 as set forth above.
Sur in view of Galloway and Tysowski does not expressly teach wherein initiating the diagnostic routine comprises writing a flag into a persistent or non-volatile memory to perform the diagnostic routine after a next device startup.
Blasco Allue teaches programming a stored value indicating that diagnostic operation is required upon the next power-up (¶ [0030]), using the stored value to trigger forced diagnostic entry upon the next power-up event (¶ [0031]), and retaining the indication through an intervening power-down for use at the subsequent power-up (¶ [0032]).
Blasco Allue is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem addressed by the claimed limitation because it addresses preserving an indication that a diagnostic routine is required through an intervening power-down so that the diagnostic can be performed upon subsequent startup (¶ [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Sur in view of Galloway and Tysowski to persistently store an indication of the required diagnostic, as taught by Blasco Allue, because doing so would ensure that a diagnostic triggered following detection of the end of the fall or shock is performed following the next device startup even when the device powers down before the diagnostic can be performed.
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 1–10 and 14–19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–6, 10–13, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,016,307 B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because the instant claims recite the same or obvious variations of the fall- or shock-responsive aerosol-generating device, associated response procedures, diagnostic routines, device, and computer-readable medium already claimed in U.S. Patent No. 12,016,307 B2.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,016,307 B2 recites a method for use with an aerosol-generating device having a power source, including receiving at least one acceleration value, detecting a fall or shock based on the at least one acceleration value, and initiating, using a controller of the aerosol-generating device, at least one response procedure in response to detecting the fall or shock, wherein the response procedure includes initiating a diagnostic routine. Patent claim 1 additionally requires storing data associated with the fall or shock in persistent or non-volatile memory. The omission of this additional storage step from instant claim 1 merely broadens the claimed method and does not render the otherwise corresponding method patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 2, claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,016,307 B2 further recites detecting an end of the fall or shock based on the at least one acceleration value. Thus, instant claim 2 is not patentably distinct from patent claims 1 and 4.
Regarding claim 3, claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,016,307 B2 further recites initiating at least one response procedure before detecting the end of the fall or shock. Thus, instant claim 3 is not patentably distinct from patent claims 1, 4, and 5.
Regarding claim 4, claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,016,307 B2 further recites initiating at least one response procedure after detecting the end of the fall or shock. Thus, instant claim 4 is not patentably distinct from patent claims 1, 4, and 6.
Regarding claim 5, claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,016,307 B2 expressly recites, as one of the diagnostic-routine procedures, writing a flag into a persistent or non-volatile memory to perform the diagnostic routine after a next device startup. Thus, instant claim 5 merely selects an expressly claimed diagnostic procedure and is not patentably distinct from patent claims 1 and 12.
Regarding claim 6, claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,016,307 B2 expressly recites displaying a warning related to the fall or shock as one of the diagnostic-routine procedures. Thus, instant claim 6 merely selects an expressly claimed diagnostic procedure and is not patentably distinct from patent claims 1 and 12.
Regarding claim 7, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,016,307 B2 expressly requires the response procedure to comprise storing data associated with the fall or shock in persistent or non-volatile memory. Storing the fall or shock as recited in instant claim 7 is therefore not patentably distinct from the storage expressly required by patent claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,016,307 B2 recites initiating the response procedure in response to at least one of a fall or shock, a fall duration exceeding a time threshold, a maximum acceleration value, a fall height exceeding a height threshold, and an impact value exceeding an impact threshold. Instant claim 8 recites the same alternatives and is therefore not patentably distinct from patent claims 1 and 10.
Regarding claim 9, claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,016,307 B2 recites initiating the at least one response procedure according to a priority sequence or a user preference. Instant claim 9 recites the same limitation and is therefore not patentably distinct from patent claims 1 and 11.
Regarding claim 10, claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,016,307 B2 recites that the diagnostic routine comprises checking a resistance value of an aerosolizer. Instant claim 10 recites the same limitation and is therefore not patentably distinct from patent claims 1, 12, and 13.
Regarding claim 14, claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,016,307 B2 recites an aerosol-generating device comprising a power source configured to operably couple to an aerosolizer to generate aerosol from an aerosol-generating substrate, at least one accelerometer configured to measure at least one acceleration value, and a controller operably coupled to the power source and accelerometer and comprising a processor configured to perform the method of patent claim 1. Instant claim 14 recites the same device architecture, with its processor configured to perform the method of instant claim 1. As discussed above, the method of instant claim 1 differs from the patented method principally by omission of the additional persistent-memory storage requirement. Accordingly, instant claim 14 is not patentably distinct from patent claim 2.
Regarding claim 15, claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,016,307 B2 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including a stored computer program that, when run on programmable electric circuitry, causes the programmable electric circuitry to execute the method of patent claim 1. Instant claim 15 recites the corresponding storage medium for executing instant claim 1. For the reasons discussed with respect to instant claim 1, instant claim 15 is not patentably distinct from patent claim 3.
Regarding claim 16, patent claim 5 recites initiation of the response procedure before detecting the end of the fall or shock, and patent claim 12 expressly recites writing a flag into persistent or non-volatile memory to perform the diagnostic routine after a next device startup. Instant claim 16 merely combines these already-claimed aspects of the patented method. It would have been obvious to employ the expressly claimed flag-based diagnostic procedure of patent claim 12 as the response procedure initiated before the end of the fall or shock according to patent claim 5. Accordingly, instant claim 16 is not patentably distinct from patent claims 1, 4, 5, and 12.
Regarding claim 17, patent claim 6 recites initiation of the response procedure after detecting the end of the fall or shock, and patent claim 12 expressly recites writing a flag into persistent or non-volatile memory to perform the diagnostic routine after a next device startup. Instant claim 17 merely combines these already-claimed aspects of the patented method. It would have been obvious to employ the expressly claimed flag-based diagnostic procedure of patent claim 12 as the response procedure initiated after the end of the fall or shock according to patent claim 6. Accordingly, instant claim 17 is not patentably distinct from patent claims 1, 4, 6, and 12.
Regarding claim 18, claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,016,307 B2 recites initiating the response procedure based on, inter alia, a fall duration exceeding a time threshold or a fall height exceeding a height threshold. Instant claim 18 selects these two expressly claimed alternatives and is therefore not patentably distinct from patent claims 1 and 10.
Regarding claim 19, patent claim 10 expressly encompasses initiating the response procedure based on a fall duration exceeding a time threshold or a fall height exceeding a height threshold, and patent claim 13 expressly requires the diagnostic routine to comprise checking a resistance value of an aerosolizer. Instant claim 19 merely combines these expressly claimed features. It would have been obvious to use the resistance-checking diagnostic routine expressly recited in patent claim 13 as the diagnostic routine initiated under the conditions expressly recited in patent claim 10. Accordingly, instant claim 19 is not patentably distinct from patent claims 1, 10, 12, and 13.
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