DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
The present application was filed 10 September 2024 and is a continuation of 16/007,672 filed 13 June 2018 (now abandoned) and US 14/808,233 filed on 24 July 2015 (issued as US 10,015,987).
Claims 1-19 are pending.
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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listings of references in the specification are not proper information disclosure statements. (See, e.g., p. 1 last par. – p. 2 par. 1, p. 11 pars. 1 and 2, p. 16 par. 1 – p. 18 par. 1, p. 18 last par.). 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, references listed in the specification have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings filed 10 September 2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The specification is objected to for the following informalities:
It uses the trademarks BLUETOOTH, ZIGBEE and APPLE without capitalizing each letter of the mark or otherwise indicating the description of the mark. See M.P.E.P. § 608.01(v)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 any U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph or double patenting rejections set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The “control component configured to cause the aerosol delivery device to heat material…” in claim 1;
The “communication interface...configured to enable wireless communication" in claim 1;
The “control component is further configured to cause the communication interface to initiate broadcasting…only after the control body is coupled to a cartridge" in claim 1;
The "control component is further configured to cause the communication interface to initiate a subsequent broadcasting…" in claim 2;
The "control component is further configured to cause the communication interface to initiate a subsequent broadcasting…" in claim 6;
The "control component is further configured to control an indicator to provide a user-perceptible feedback" in claim 12;
The “control component controlling operation of at least one functional element..." in claim 16;
The “control component…configured to detect a predefined trigger..." in claim 16;
The "communication interface enabling wireless communication…" in claim 16;
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are compared to claims 1-18 of issued Patent No. 10/015,987 in the following table:
Instant Application
Patent No. 10,015,987
Claim 1 – An aerosol delivery device comprising a control body coupleable to a cartridge, the control body comprising:
at least one housing, and contained within the housing:
a control component configured to cause the aerosol delivery device to heat a material to generate an inhalable substance
a communication interface coupled to the control component and configured to enable wireless communication,
wherein the control component is further configured to cause the communication interface to initiate broadcasting that the aerosol delivery device is available for connection with a capable wireless device only after the control body is coupled to a cartridge.
Claim 10 – An aerosol delivery device comprising a control body coupleable to a cartridge, the control body comprising:
at least one housing; and contained within the at least one housing,
a control component configured to control operation of at least one functional element of the aerosol delivery device in instances in which a flow of air through at least a portion of the at least one housing is detected; and
a communication interface coupled to the control component and configured to enable wireless communication,
wherein the control component is further configured to detect at least one predefined trigger, and automatically in response thereto, cause the communication interface to broadcast availability of the aerosol delivery device for connection with a capable wireless device, a predefined trigger of the at least one predefined trigger including coupling of the control body to the cartridge, and a first instance in which the flow of air is detected after the control body is coupled to the cartridge, and excluding user-actuation of any button on the aerosol delivery device, and wherein the control component is configured to cause the communication interface to broadcast availability in response to detection of a subsequent instance of the predefined trigger only after the control body is decoupled from the cartridge and recoupled to the cartridge or another cartridge.
Claim 4 - The aerosol delivery device of claim 1 further comprising a sensor configured to detect a flow of air through at least a portion of the aerosol delivery device.
Claim 10 - … a flow of air through at least a portion of the at least one housing is detected….
Claim 5 - The aerosol delivery device of claim 4, wherein the broadcasting is initiated only after a first instance of air flow is detected through at least a portion of the housing after the coupling of the control body to the cartridge.
Claim 10 - … wherein the control component is further configured to detect at least one predefined trigger, and automatically in response thereto, cause the communication interface to broadcast availability of the aerosol delivery device for connection with a capable wireless device, a predefined trigger of the at least one predefined trigger including coupling of the control body to the cartridge, and a first instance in which the flow of air is detected after the control body is coupled to the cartridge…
Claim 7 – The aerosol delivery device of claim 1, wherein the communication interface is a Bluetooth communication interface configured to broadcast availability and transmit an advertisement that includes information for connecting the Bluetooth communication interface with a capable Bluetooth-enabled device.
Claim 17 - The aerosol delivery device of claim 10, wherein the communication interface is a Bluetooth communication interface, and wherein the communication interface being caused to broadcast availability includes the Bluetooth communication interface being caused to transmit an advertisement that includes information for connecting the Bluetooth communication interface with a capable Bluetooth-enabled device, and in at least one instance, bond with the capable Bluetooth-enabled device upon connection.
Claim 8 – The aerosol delivery device of claim 7, wherein the communication interface is further configured to bond with the capable Bluetooth-enabled device upon connection.
Claim 17 –…the Bluetooth communication interface being caused to…in at least one instance, bond with the capable Bluetooth-enabled device upon connection.
Claim 9 – The aerosol delivery device of claim 1, further comprising the cartridge.
Claim 10 – An aerosol delivery device comprising a control body coupleable to a cartridge… the control body is…recoupled to the cartridge or another cartridge.
Claim 16 – A method of operation of an aerosol delivery device, the method comprising at the aerosol delivery device:
a control component controlling operation of at least one functional element of the aerosol delivery device and configured to detect a predefined trigger;
a communication interface enabling wireless communication; and
broadcasting automatically in response to the predefined trigger availability of the aerosol delivery device for connection with a capable wireless device, excluding a user-actuation of any button on the aerosol delivery device.
Claim 1 – A method of operation of an aerosol delivery device comprising
a control body coupleable to a cartridge, the method comprising at the aerosol delivery device:
a control component controlling operation of at least one functional element of the aerosol delivery device in instances in which a flow of air through at least a portion of at least one housing is detected;
a communication interface enabling wireless communication; and
the control component further detecting at least one predefined trigger, and automatically in response thereto, causing the communication interface to broadcast availability of the aerosol delivery device for connection with a capable wireless device, a predefined trigger of the at least one predefined trigger including coupling of the control body to the cartridge, and a first instance in which the flow of air is detected after the control body is coupled to the cartridge, and excluding user-actuation of any button on the aerosol delivery device, and
wherein the control component is configured to cause the communication interface to broadcast availability in response to detection of a subsequent instance of the predefined trigger only after the control body is decoupled from the cartridge and recoupled to the cartridge or another cartridge.
Claim 17 – The method of claim 16, wherein the aerosol delivery device comprises a control body coupleable to a cartridge, and wherein the predefined trigger includes coupling of the control body to the cartridge.
Claim 1 -…an aerosol delivery device comprising a control body coupleable to a cartridge… the at least one predefined trigger including coupling of the control body to the cartridge…
It is also noted that the present application and the issued patent share the same inventive entity (Inventors Henry, Kimsey and Ampolini).
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-12 and 16-17 are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10 and 17 of US Patent No. 10,015,987 in view of Lord (WO 2014/060269) (hereinafter Lord).
As to claim 1, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because the issued claims disclose all of the features of the instant claims as set forth in the above table with the exception of a control component configured to cause the aerosol delivery device to heat a material to generate an inhalable substance.
However, in an analogous art, Lord discloses
a control component configured to cause the aerosol delivery device to heat a material to generate an inhalable substance (e.g., Lord, p. 11 ll. 10-12: the computer 20 provides an electrical current to the heating coil 12 to heat the heating coil 12 and vaporise liquid from the liquid store 8 [vapour being an inhalable substance]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control component of the issued claims, by incorporating a control component configured to cause the aerosol delivery device to heat a material to generate an inhalable substance as taught by Lord, as Lord would provide the advantage of a means for a user to inhale vapour from a liquid store. (See Lord p. 1 ll. 10-13).
As to claim 4-5 and 7-9, the issued claims disclose all the features of these claims as set forth in the above table.
As to claim 10, the issued claims in view of Lord discloses the aerosol delivery device of claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9 above), but the issued claims do not explicitly disclose wherein the cartridge comprises a housing and the material configured to generate an inhalable substance when heated.
However, in an analogous art, Lord discloses:
wherein the cartridge comprises a housing and the material configured to generate an inhalable substance when heated (e.g., Lord, p. 17 l. 9: the mouthpiece comprises the liquid store 8; p. 12 ll. 5-6: the device activates to heat the heating coil 12 and vaporize the liquid in the liquid store 8; p. 11 ll. 1-2: the resultant vapour is then inhaled by the user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cartridge of the issued claims, such that the cartridge comprises a housing and the material configured to generate an inhalable substance when heated, as taught by Lord, as Lord would provide the advantage of a means for a user to inhale vapour from a liquid store. (See Lord p. 1 ll. 10-13).
As to claim 11, the issued claims in view of Lord discloses the aerosol delivery device of claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10 above), but the issued claims do not explicitly disclose wherein the material configured to generate an inhalable substance when heated comprises an aerosol precursor composition retained within a reservoir disposed at least partially within the cartridge housing.
However, in an analogous art, Lord discloses:
wherein the material configured to generate an inhalable substance when heated comprises an aerosol precursor composition retained within a reservoir disposed at least partially within the cartridge housing (e.g., Lord, p. 17 l. 9: the mouthpiece comprises the liquid store 8; p. 12 ll. 5-6: the device activates to heat the heating coil 12 and vaporize the liquid [aerosol precursor composition] in the liquid store 8; p. 11 ll. 1-2: the resultant vapour is then inhaled by the user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cartridge of the issued claims, such that the cartridge includes a material configured to generate an inhalable substance when heated and comprises an aerosol precursor composition retained within a reservoir disposed at least partially within the cartridge housing, as taught by Lord, as Lord would provide the advantage of a means for a user to inhale vapour from a liquid store. (See Lord p. 1 ll. 10-13).
As to claim 12, the issued claims in view of Lord discloses the aerosol delivery device of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but the issued claims do not explicitly disclose wherein the control component is further configured to control an indicator to provide a user-perceptible feedback.
However, in an analogous art, Lord discloses:
wherein the control component is further configured to control an indicator to provide a user-perceptible feedback (e.g., Lord, Fig. 9 and associated text, p. 20 ll. 13-18: a signaling unit is provided to provide auto or visual outputs to the user indicative of operating conditions of the device. For example, the signaling device may include a light emitting diode that glows red when the user draws on the device p. 16 ll. 25-28: the computer 20 may automatically clear the memory. A user is notified by a sound signal when the data has been cleared from the computer memory, such as 4 beeps).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control component of the issued claims, such that the control component is further configured to control an indicator to provide a user-perceptible feedback, as taught by Lord, as Lord would provide the advantage of a means to indicate operating conditions or memory clearance to a user of the device. (See Lord, p. 20 ll. 13-18; p. 16 ll. 25-28).
As to claim 16 and 17, the issued claims disclose all the features of these claims as set forth in the above table.
Claims 2-3, 13 and 18 are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10 and 17 of US Patent No. 10,015,987 in view of Lord (WO 2014/060269) in further view of Young et al. (US 9,288,614) (art made of record – hereinafter Young).
As to claim 2, issued claim 1 in view of Lord discloses the aerosol delivery device of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) but does not wherein the control component is further configured to cause the communication interface to initiate a subsequent broadcasting that the aerosol delivery device is available for connection if the aerosol delivery device fails to bond with the capable wireless device after the initial broadcast times out.
However, in an analogous art, Yound discloses:
wherein the control component is further configured to cause the communication interface to initiate a subsequent broadcasting that the aerosol delivery device is available for connection if the aerosol delivery device fails to bond with the capable wireless device after the initial broadcast times out (e.g., Young, Fig. 6 and associated text, col. 13 l. 57 – col. 14 l. 1: the advertisement notice 605 may include pairing and/or bondable information (e.g., passkey seed information). The advertisement notice 605 may be repeated, at a set or variable interval or advertisement period 602, until the communication link 104 is established. The advertisement period 602 represents the length of time the IMD 101 may transmit another advertisement notice 605 after a previous transmission by the IMD 101 of the advertisement notice 605; col. 3 ll. 51-56: communication initialization modes to establish a bi-directional communication link. For example, the communication initialization mode may correspond to a defined pairing and/or binding procedure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control component and communication interface of the issued claims, such that the control component is further configured to cause the communication interface to initiate a subsequent broadcasting that the aerosol delivery device is available for connection if the aerosol delivery device fails to bond with the capable wireless device after the initial broadcast times out, as taught by Young, as Young would provide the advantage of a means to establish the bonding in the event an initial attempt fails. (See Young, col. 13 l. 57 – col. 14 l. 1).
As to claim 3, issued claim 1/Lord/Young discloses the aerosol delivery device of claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above), issued claim 1 further discloses:
wherein the subsequent broadcasting is triggered after the control body is decoupled from the cartridge and recoupled to the cartridge or another cartridge (see issued claim 1:…the control component is configured to cause the communication interface to broadcast availability in response to detection of a subsequent instance of the predefined trigger only after the control body is decoupled from the cartridge and recoupled to the cartridge or another cartridge).
As to claim 13, the issued claims in view of Lord discloses the aerosol delivery device of claim 7 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the Bluetooth communication interface includes a whitelist that specifies one or more identifiers of any Bluetooth-enabled devices with which the Bluetooth communication interface has previously bonded and/or is allowed to bond.
However, in an analogous art, Young discloses:
wherein the Bluetooth communication interface includes a whitelist that specifies one or more identifiers of any Bluetooth-enabled devices with which the Bluetooth communication interface has previously bonded and/or is allowed to bond (e.g., Young, col. 16 ll. 35-45: The microcontroller 160 may compare the address information of the external device 201 with a previously paired/and or bonded links tables [whitelist] stored in memory 194. The previously paired and/or bonded links table may be used to determine whether the IMD 101 has previously paired and/or bonded with the external device 201. For example, if the IMD 101 determines that the external device 201 corresponds to an un-paired and/or un-bonded external device (e.g., not previously paired) the IMD 101 may ignore the connection request from the external device 201; col. 2 ll. 66-67: the pairing and/or bonding procedure may be defined by a wireless protocol “(e.g., Bluetooth, Bluetooth low energy, ZigBee)”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication interface of the issued claims in view of Lord by including a whitelist that specifies one or more identifiers of any Bluetooth-enabled devices with which the Bluetooth communication interface has previously bonded and/or is allowed to bond, as taught by Young, as Young would provide the advantage of a means of limiting connection to only previously bonded devices. (See Young, col. 16 ll. 35-45).
As to claim 18, it is a method claim having limitations substantially the same as those of claim 13. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 6 is rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of US Patent No. 10,015,987 in view of Lord (WO 2014/060269) in further view of Svensson (US 6,429,622) (art made of record – hereinafter Svensson).
As to claim 6, issued claim 10 in view of Lord discloses the aerosol delivery device of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) but does not explicitly disclose, wherein the control component is further configured to cause the communication interface to initiate a subsequent broadcasting that the aerosol delivery device is available for connection if the aerosol delivery device is coupled to a charging component.
However, in an analogous art, Svensson discloses:
wherein the control component is further configured to cause the communication interface to initiate a subsequent broadcasting that the device is available for connection if the device is coupled to a charging component (e.g., Svensson, col. 4 ll. 41-44: the MTs 110 ar one example of devices powered by one or more batteries; col. 5 ll. 61-62: the CU 130 recharges the battery 380 by transferring power; col. 6 ll. 53-59: after a MT 110 detects a connection to a CU 130, the MT 110 broadcasts “(e.g., wireless Bluetooth)” page (510) to any and all devices within range that include a compatible SR TRX 220. Having a SR TRX 220, the CU 130 responds with an acknowledgement that includes an identification (520) to establish a wireless communication link).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control component of the issued claims such that it is further configured to cause the communication interface to initiate a subsequent broadcasting that the device is available for connection if the device is coupled to a charging component, as taught by Svensson, as Svensson would provide the advantage of a means of authenticating the charger. (See Svensson, col. 1 ll. 10-12).
Claims 14-15 and 19 rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10 and 17 of US Patent No. 10,015,987 in view of Lord (WO 2014/060269) in view of Young (US 9,288,614) in further view of Nordic Semiconductor, “ble_advertising.c” (art made of record – hereinafter Nordic).
As to claim 14, the issued claims in view of Lord and Young discloses the aerosol delivery device of claim 13 (see rejection of claim 13 above) and further discloses the aerosol delivery device (see rejection of claim 1 above) but does not explicitly disclose further comprising a timer configured to initiate a timeout period after expiration thereof, wherein the Bluetooth communication interface is configured to reinitiate broadcasting that the aerosol delivery device is available for connection if the whitelist is empty.
However, in an analogous art, Nordic discloses:
further comprising a timer configured to initiate a timeout period after expiration thereof, wherein the Bluetooth communication interface is configured to reinitiate broadcasting that the device is available for connection if the whitelist is empty (e.g., Nordic, line 390: Upon time-out, the next advertising mode is started, i.e., from fast to slow or from slow to idle; line 246: “Fetch the whitelist”; ll. 311-330 [see code, if “whitelist_has_entries(&m_whitelist)” is false at line 311, lines 329-330 are executed (“Starting slow advertisement”). As shown by at least Knaappila with respect to claim 16, advertisement in Bluetooth low energy is broadcasting that the device is available for connection]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify aerosol delivery device, Bluetooth communication and whitelist of the issued claims in view of Young by including a timer configured to initiate a timeout period after expiration thereof, wherein the Bluetooth communication interface is configured to reinitiate broadcasting that the device is available for connection if the whitelist is empty, as taught by Nordic, as Nordic would provide the advantage of a means of establishing a connection with devices not on the whitelist in the event an initial attempt fails and there are no previously connected devices.
As to claim 15, the issued claims in view of Lord and Young discloses the aerosol delivery device of claim 13 (see rejection of claim 13 above) but does not explicitly disclose further comprising a timer configured to initiate a timeout period after expiration thereof, wherein, if the whitelist is not empty, the Bluetooth communication interface is configured to enter an active state during which the Bluetooth communication interface may be configured to slow advertise if not actively connected to an in-range Bluetooth-enabled device.
However, in an analogous art, Nordic discloses:
further comprising a timer configured to initiate a timeout period after expiration thereof, wherein, if the whitelist is not empty, the Bluetooth communication interface is configured to enter an active state during which the Bluetooth communication interface may be configured to slow advertise if not actively connected to an in-range Bluetooth-enabled device (e.g., Nordic, line 390: Upon time-out, the next advertising mode is started, i.e., from fast to slow or from slow to idle; line 246: “Fetch the whitelist”; ll. 311-325 [see code, if “whitelist_has_entries(&m_whitelist)” is true at line 311, lines 324-325 are executed (“Starting slow advertisement with whitelist”). As shown by at least Knaappila with respect to claim 16, advertisement in Bluetooth low energy is broadcasting that the device is available for connection. Since the device is trying to connect to another Bluetooth device, it is not actively connected to it already]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify aerosol delivery device, Bluetooth communication and whitelist of the issued claims in view of Young by including a timer configured to initiate a timeout period after expiration thereof, wherein, if the whitelist is not empty, the Bluetooth communication interface is configured to enter an active state during which the Bluetooth communication interface may be configured to slow advertise if not actively connected to an in-range Bluetooth-enabled device, as taught by Nordic, as Nordic would provide the advantage of a means of establishing a connection with only devices on the whitelist in the event an initial attempt fails.
As to claim 19, it is a method claim having limitations substantially the same as limitations of claim 14 and 15. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 4 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lord (WO 2014/060269) in view of Knaappila et al. (US 2015/0319600) (hereinafter Knaappila) in view of LaMothe et al. (US 2014/0107815) (art made of record – hereinafter LaMothe).
As to claim 1, Lord discloses an aerosol delivery device (e.g., Lord, p. 10 l. 32 – p. 11 l. 2: the reduced pressure inside the electronic cigarette causes the power cell 22 to provide power to the vaporiser 10 which in turn vaporises the nicotine solution. The resultant vapour is then inhaled by the user) comprising a control body coupleable to a cartridge, (e.g., Lord, p. 15 ll. 2-3: the mouthpiece 2 is releasably-attachable to the cigarette body; p. 17 l. 9: the mouthpiece comprises the liquid store 8) the control body comprising:
at least one housing, (e.g., Lord, Figs. 3-6 and associated text, p. 10 ll. Ll. 18-19: the electronic cigarette has a mouthpieces 2 and a cigarette body 4 [see figure, cigarette body 4 or the tube formed by the mouthpiece, body, and/or vaporizer 10 together being a housing]) and contained within the housing:
a control component configured to cause the aerosol delivery device to heat a material to generate an inhalable substance (e.g., Lord, p. 11 ll. 10-12: the computer 20 provides an electrical current to the heating coil 12 to heat the heating coil 12 and vaporise liquid from the liquid store 8 [vapour being an inhalable substance])
a communication interface coupled to the control component and configured to enable wireless communication, (e.g., Lord, p. 13 l. 32: a transmitter is connected to the computer 20; p. 14 ll. 28-29: the transmitter 18 may be a wireless transmitter therefore transmitting the use data by wireless means to a corresponding receiver) wherein the control component is further configured to cause the communication interface to initiate communication (abstract: the device further comprises a transmitter and the computer is configured to transmit the data).
Lord does not explicitly disclose broadcasting that the aerosol delivery device is available for connection with a capable wireless device only after the control body is coupled to a cartridge.
However, in an analogous art, Knappila discloses communication that includes:
broadcasting that the aerosol delivery device is available for connection with a capable wireless device (e.g., Knaappila, par. [0003] discloses Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) [wireless]; par. [0026-0028] discloses in BLE technology slave devices pass advertisement packets which a master device is scanning. Advertisement packets types are ADV_IND and ADV_DIRECT_IND; par. [0032] discloses if the advertiser sends ADV_IND or ADV_INDIRECT packets, a scanner desiring to exchange data can send a CONNECT_REQ packet. If the advertiser accepts the CONNECT_REQ packet, the devices become connected and communication may be started).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication resulting from a predefined trigger that includes at least one user puff taught by Lord, to include the broadcasting availability for connection, as taught by Knaappila, as Knaappila would provide the means of enabling communication via Bluetooth, which permits low-power and low-latency communication. (See Knaappila at pars. [0032] and [0003]).
Further, in an analogous art, LaMothe discloses
communication only after the control body is coupled to a cartridge (e.g., LaMothe, par. [0051]: electronic cigarette fluid cartridges can be screwed into the EAC; par. [0022]: transceiver can be used for communication to and from the EAC; par. [0076]: the EAC can detect when the user is using an un-authorized fluid cartridge and block communication capabilities, [i.e., communication only after coupling to an authorized cartridge] or deactivate the unauthorized device so it is rendered unusable).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lord/Knaappila, in which the device operates to broadcast availability, such that the device only operates after the control body is coupled to a cartridge, as taught by LaMothe, as LaMothe would provide a means of ensuring the control body is only used with authorized cartridges. (See LaMothe, par. [0076]).
As to claim 4, Lord/Knaappila/LaMothe discloses the aerosol delivery device of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) Lord further discloses further comprising a sensor configured to detect a flow of air through at least a portion of the aerosol delivery device (e.g., p. 11 ll. 5-8: when a user applies a suction force to the electronic cigarette, the resultant airflow causes a drop in pressure. The pressure sensor provides a signal to the computer).
As to claim 7, Lord/Knaappila/LaMothe discloses the aerosol delivery device of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but Lord does not explicitly disclose wherein the communication interface is a Bluetooth communication interface configured to broadcast availability and transmit an advertisement that includes information for connecting the Bluetooth communication interface with a capable Bluetooth-enabled device.
However, in an analogous art, Knaappila discloses:
wherein the communication interface is a Bluetooth communication interface configured to broadcast availability and transmit an advertisement that includes information for connecting the Bluetooth communication interface with a capable Bluetooth-enabled device (e.g., Knaappila, par, [0002] discloses Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) [wireless]; par. [0027-0028] discloses in BLE technology slave devices pass advertisement packets which a master device is scanning. Advertisement packets types are ADV_IND and ADV_DIRECT_IND; par. [0032] discloses if the advertiser sends ADV_IND or ADV_INDIRECT packets, a scanner desiring to exchange data can send a CONNECT_REQ packet. If the advertiser accepts the CONNECT_REQ packet, the devices become connected and communication may be started).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication interface of Lord, by incorporating a Bluetooth communication interface broadcasting availability and transmitting an advertisement that includes information for connecting the Bluetooth communication interface with a capable Bluetooth-enabled device, as taught by Knaappila, as Knaappila would provide the advantage of a means of low-power and low-latency communication. (See Knaappila at par. [0003]).
As to claim 8, Lord/Knaapila/LaMothe discloses the aerosol delivery device of claim 7 (see rejection of claim 7), but Lord does not explicitly disclose wherein the communication interface is further configured to bond with the capable Bluetooth-enabled device upon connection.
However, in an analogous art, Knaappila discloses:
wherein the communication interface is further configured to bond with the capable Bluetooth-enabled device upon connection (e.g., Knaappila, par, [0002] discloses Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE); par. [0032]: if the advertiser accepts the CONNECT_REQ packet, the devices become connected and communication may be started. After connected, the master device can request bonding with the slave device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication interface of Lord such that the communication interface is further configured to bond with the capable Bluetooth-enabled device upon connection, as taught by Knaappila, as Knaappila would provide the advantages of a means of enabling low-power, low latency communication via Bluetooth a means of storing information for future connections. (See Knaappila, par. [0003] and par. [0032]).
As to claim 9, Lord/Knaappila/LaMothe discloses the aerosol delivery device of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) Lord further discloses further comprising the cartridge (e.g., Lord, p. 15 ll. 2-3: the mouthpiece 2 is releasably-attachable to the cigarette body; p. 17 l. 9: the mouthpiece comprises the liquid store 8).
As to claim 10, Lord/Knaappila/LaMothe the aerosol delivery device of claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9 above), Lord further discloses wherein the cartridge comprises a housing and the material configured to generate an inhalable substance when heated (e.g., Lord, p. 17 l. 9: the mouthpiece comprises the liquid store 8; p. 12 ll. 5-6: the device activates to heat the heating coil 12 and vaporize the liquid in the liquid store 8; p. 11 ll. 1-2: the resultant vapour is then inhaled by the user ).
As to claim 11, Lord/Knaappila/LaMothe discloses the aerosol delivery device of claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10 above), Lord further discloses: wherein the material configured to generate an inhalable substance when heated comprises an aerosol precursor composition retained within a reservoir disposed at least partially within the cartridge housing (e.g., Lord, p. 17 l. 9: the mouthpiece comprises the liquid store 8; p. 12 ll. 5-6: the device activates to heat the heating coil 12 and vaporize the liquid [aerosol precursor composition] in the liquid store 8; p. 11 ll. 1-2: the resultant vapour is then inhaled by the user).
As to claim 12, Lord/Knaappila/LaMothe discloses the aerosol delivery device of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the control component is further configured to control an indicator to provide a user-perceptible feedback (e.g., Lord, Fig. 9 and associated text, p. 20 ll. 13-18: a signaling unit is provided to provide auto or visual outputs to the user indicative of operating conditions of the device. For example, the signaling device may include a light emitting diode that glows red when the user draws on the device p. 16 ll. 25-28: the computer 20 may automatically clear the memory. A user is notified by a sound signal when the data has been cleared from the computer memory, such as 4 beeps).
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lord (WO 2014/060269) in view of Knaappila (US 2015/0319600) in view of LaMothe (US 2014/0107815) in further view of Young (US 9,288,614).
As to claim 2, Lord/Knaappila/LaMothe discloses the aerosol delivery device of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) but does not wherein the control component is further configured to cause the communication interface to initiate a subsequent broadcasting that the aerosol delivery device is available for connection if the aerosol delivery device fails to bond with the capable wireless device after the initial broadcast times out.
However, in an analogous art, Young discloses:
wherein the control component is further configured to cause the communication interface to initiate a subsequent broadcasting that the aerosol delivery device is available for connection if the aerosol delivery device fails to bond with the capable wireless device after the initial broadcast times out (e.g., Young, Fig. 6 and associated text, col. 13 l. 57 – col. 14 l. 1: the advertisement notice 605 may include pairing and/or bondable information (e.g., passkey seed information). The advertisement notice 605 may be repeated, at a set or variable interval or advertisement period 602, until the communication link 104 is established. The advertisement period 602 represents the length of time the IMD 101 may transmit another advertisement notice 605 after a previous transmission by the IMD 101 of the advertisement notice 605; col. 3 ll. 51-56: communication initialization modes to establish a bi-directional communication link. For example, the communication initialization mode may correspond to a defined pairing and/or binding procedure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control component and communication interface of Lord/Knaappila, such that the control component is further configured to cause the communication interface to initiate a subsequent broadcasting that the aerosol delivery device is available for connection if the aerosol delivery device fails to bond with the capable wireless device after the initial broadcast times out, as taught by Young, as Young would provide the advantage of a means to establish the bonding in the event an initial attempt fails. (See Young, col. 13 l. 57 – col. 14 l. 1).
As to claim 13, Lord/Knaappila/LaMothe discloses the aerosol delivery device of claim 7 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the Bluetooth communication interface includes a whitelist that specifies one or more identifiers of any Bluetooth-enabled devices with which the Bluetooth communication interface has previously bonded and/or is allowed to bond.
However, in an analogous art, Young discloses:
wherein the Bluetooth communication interface includes a whitelist that specifies one or more identifiers of any Bluetooth-enabled devices with which the Bluetooth communication interface has previously bonded and/or is allowed to bond (e.g., Young, col. 16 ll. 35-45: The microcontroller 160 may compare the address information of the external device 201 with a previously paired/and or bonded links tables [whitelist] stored in memory 194. The previously paired and/or bonded links table may be used to determine whether the IMD 101 has previously paired and/or bonded with the external device 201. For example, if the IMD 101 determines that the external device 201 corresponds to an un-paired and/or un-bonded external device (e.g., not previously paired) the IMD 101 may ignore the connection request from the external device 201; col. 2 ll. 66-67: the pairing and/or bonding procedure may be defined by a wireless protocol “(e.g., Bluetooth, Bluetooth low energy, ZigBee)”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication interface of Lord/Knaappila/LaMothe by including a whitelist that specifies one or more identifiers of any Bluetooth-enabled devices with which the Bluetooth communication interface has previously bonded and/or is allowed to bond, as taught by Young, as Young would provide the advantage of a means of limiting connection to only previously bonded devices. (See Young, col. 16 ll. 35-45).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lord (WO 2014/060269) in view of Knaappila (US 2015/0319600) in view of LaMothe (US 2014/0107815) in view of Young (US 9,288,614) in further view of Smith et al. (US 2016/0089508) (art made of record – hereinafter Smith).
As to claim 3, Lord/Knaappila/LaMothe/Young discloses the aerosol delivery device of claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above) and further discloses the subsequent broadcasting (see rejection of claim 2 above) but does not explicitly disclose wherein the subsequent broadcasting is triggered after the control body is decoupled from the cartridge and recoupled to the cartridge or another cartridge.
However, in an analogous art, Smith discloses:
wherein the communication is triggered after the control body is decoupled from the cartridge and recoupled to the cartridge or another cartridge (e.g., Smith, par. [0128]: cartridge identifiers can be stored in a data base. If the user inserts a partially used cartridge, the vapor inhalation device will typically communicate with the database base to understand how much fluid is remaining in the reservoir; par. [0038]: a communication unit 17 is provided in the vapor inhalation device. The communication unit 17 can be embodied as a BLE SoC module using communication means such as Bluetooth).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the subsequent communication comprising broadcasting availability taught by Lord/Knaappila/LaMothe/Young such that that that communication is triggered after the control body is decoupled from the cartridge and recoupled to the cartridge or another cartridge, as taught by Smith, as Smith would provide the advantage of a means of for the device to understand how much fluid is remaining in the reservoir. (See Smith, par. [0128]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lord (WO 2014/060269) in view of Knaappila (US 2015/0319600) in view of LaMothe (US 2014/0107815) in further view of Svensson (US 6,429,622).
As to claim 6, Lord/Knaappila/LaMothe discloses the aerosol delivery device of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) but does not explicitly disclose, wherein the control component is further configured to cause the communication interface to initiate a subsequent broadcasting that the aerosol delivery device is available for connection if the aerosol delivery device is coupled to a charging component.
However, in an analogous art, Svensson discloses:
wherein the control component is further configured to cause the communication interface to initiate a subsequent broadcasting that the device is available for connection if the device is coupled to a charging component (e.g., Svensson, col. 4 ll. 41-44: the MTs 110 ar one example of devices powered by one or more batteries; col. 5 ll. 61-62: the CU 130 recharges the battery 380 by transferring power; col. 6 ll. 53-59: after a MT 110 detects a connection to a CU 130, the MT 110 broadcasts “(e.g., wireless Bluetooth)” page (510) to any and all devices within range that include a compatible SR TRX 220. Having a SR TRX 220, the CU 130 responds with an acknowledgement that includes an identification (520) to establish a wireless communication link).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control component of Lord/Knaaappila/LaMothe such that it is further configured to cause the communication interface to initiate a subsequent broadcasting that the device is available for connection if the device is coupled to a charging component, as taught by Svensson, as Svensson would provide the advantage of a means of authenticating the charger. (See Svensson, col. 1 ll. 10-12).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lord (WO 2014/060269) in view of Knaappila (US 2015/0319600) in view of LaMothe (US 2014/0107815) in view of Young (US 9,288,614) in further view of Nordic (“ble_advertising.c”)
As to claim 14, Lord/Knaappila/LaMothe/Young discloses the aerosol delivery device of claim 13 (see rejection of claim 13 above) and further discloses the aerosol delivery device (see rejection of claim 1 above) but does not explicitly disclose further comprising a timer configured to initiate a timeout period after expiration thereof, wherein the Bluetooth communication interface is configured to reinitiate broadcasting that the aerosol delivery device is available for connection if the whitelist is empty.
However, in an analogous art, Nordic discloses:
further comprising a timer configured to initiate a timeout period after expiration thereof, wherein the Bluetooth communication interface is configured to reinitiate broadcasting that the device is available for connection if the whitelist is empty (e.g., Nordic, line 390: Upon time-out, the next advertising mode is started, i.e., from fast to slow or from slow to idle; line 246: “Fetch the whitelist”; ll. 311-330 [see code, if “whitelist_has_entries(&m_whitelist)” is false at line 311, lines 329-330 are executed (“Starting slow advertisement”). As shown by at least Knaappila with respect to claim 16, advertisement in Bluetooth low energy is broadcasting that the device is available for connection]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify aerosol delivery device, Bluetooth communication and whitelist of Lord/Knaappila/LaMothe/Young by including a timer configured to initiate a timeout period after expiration thereof, wherein the Bluetooth communication interface is configured to reinitiate broadcasting that the device is available for connection if the whitelist is empty, as taught by Nordic, as Nordic would provide the advantage of a means of establishing a connection with devices not on the whitelist in the event an initial attempt fails and there are no previously connected devices.
As to claim 15, Lord/Knaappila/LaMothe/Young discloses the aerosol delivery device of claim 13 (see rejection of claim 13 above) but does not explicitly disclose further comprising a timer configured to initiate a timeout period after expiration thereof, wherein, if the whitelist is not empty, the Bluetooth communication interface is configured to enter an active state during which the Bluetooth communication interface may be configured to slow advertise if not actively connected to an in-range Bluetooth-enabled device.
However, in an analogous art, Nordic discloses:
further comprising a timer configured to initiate a timeout period after expiration thereof, wherein, if the whitelist is not empty, the Bluetooth communication interface is configured to enter an active state during which the Bluetooth communication interface may be configured to slow advertise if not actively connected to an in-range Bluetooth-enabled device (e.g., Nordic, line 390: Upon time-out, the next advertising mode is started, i.e., from fast to slow or from slow to idle; line 246: “Fetch the whitelist”; ll. 311-325 [see code, if “whitelist_has_entries(&m_whitelist)” is true at line 311, lines 324-325 are executed (“Starting slow advertisement with whitelist”). As shown by at least Knaappila with respect to claim 16, advertisement in Bluetooth low energy is broadcasting that the device is available for connection. Since the device is trying to connect to another Bluetooth device, it is not actively connected to it already]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify aerosol delivery device, Bluetooth communication and whitelist of Lord/Knaappila/LaMothe/Young by including a timer configured to initiate a timeout period after expiration thereof, wherein, if the whitelist is not empty, the Bluetooth communication interface is configured to enter an active state during which the Bluetooth communication interface may be configured to slow advertise if not actively connected to an in-range Bluetooth-enabled device, as taught by Nordic, as Nordic would provide the advantage of a means of establishing a connection with only devices on the whitelist in the event an initial attempt fails.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lord (WO 2014/060269) in view of Knaappila (US 2015/0319600)
As to claim 16, Lord discloses a method of operation of an aerosol delivery device, (e.g., Lord, p. 10 l. 32 – p. 11 l. 2: the reduced pressure inside the electronic cigarette causes the power cell 22 to provide power to the vaporiser 10 which in turn vaporises the nicotine solution. The resultant vapour is then inhaled by the user) the method comprising at the aerosol delivery device:
a control component controlling operation of at least one functional element of the aerosol delivery device and configured to detect a predefined trigger; (e.g., Lord, p. 14 ll. 18-23: a user can suck suddenly on the device in quick burst or indeed blow or such two or more times in rapid succession. In each of these circumstances, the pressure sensor 16 will send a signal to the computer and the computer will determine that this is not a normal operation but a signal to begin transmitting; abstract: the device further comprises a transmitter and the computer is configured to transmit the data)
a communication interface enabling wireless communication; (e.g., Lord, abstract: a transmitter connected to the computer; p. 14 ll. 28-29: the transmitter 18 may be a wireless transmitter, therefore transmitting the data via wireless means to a corresponding receiver) and
communicate automatically in response to the predefined trigger excluding a user-actuation of any button on the aerosol delivery device (e.g., Lord, p. 14 ll. 18-23: a user can suck suddenly on the device in quick burst or indeed blow or such two or more times in rapid succession. In each of these circumstances, the pressure sensor 16 will send a signal to the computer and the computer will determine that this is not a normal operation but a signal to begin transmitting; p. 22 ll. 4-5: the control for the transmitter could be a button rather than the pressure sensor).
Lord does not explicitly disclose communication that includes:
broadcasting availability of the aerosol delivery device for connection with a capable wireless device (e.g., Knaappila, par. [0003] discloses Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) [wireless]; par. [0026-0028] discloses in BLE technology slave devices pass advertisement packets which a master device is scanning. Advertisement packets types are ADV_IND and ADV_DIRECT_IND; par. [0032] discloses if the advertiser sends ADV_IND or ADV_INDIRECT packets, a scanner desiring to exchange data can send a CONNECT_REQ packet. If the advertiser accepts the CONNECT_REQ packet, the devices become connected and communication may be started).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication resulting from a predefined trigger that includes at least one user puff taught by Lord, to include the broadcasting availability for connection, as taught by Knaappila, as Knaappila would provide the means of enabling communication via Bluetooth, which permits low-power and low-latency communication. (See Knaappila at pars. [0032] and [0003]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lord (WO 2014/060269) in view of Knaappila (US 2015/0319600) in further view of Smith (US 2016/0089508).
As to claim 17, Lord/Knaappila discloses the method of claim 16 (see rejection of claim 16) but does not explicitly disclose wherein the aerosol delivery device comprises a control body coupleable to a cartridge, and wherein the predefined trigger includes coupling of the control body to the cartridge.
However, in an analogous art, Smith discloses:
wherein the aerosol delivery device comprises a control body coupleable to a cartridge, and wherein the predefined trigger includes coupling of the control body to the cartridge (e.g., Smith, par. [0128]: cartridge identifiers can be stored in a data base. If the user inserts a partially used cartridge, the vapor inhalation device will typically communicate with the database base to understand how much fluid is remaining in the reservoir; par. [0038]: a communication unit 17 is provided in the vapor inhalation device. The communication unit 17 can be embodied as a BLE SoC module using communication means such as Bluetooth).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication comprising broadcasting availability performed in response to a predefined trigger taught by Lord/Knaappila such that the predefined trigger includes coupling of the control body to the cartridge, as taught by Smith, as Smith would provide the advantage of a means of for the device to understand how much fluid is remaining in the reservoir and prevent piracy and tampering. (See Smith, par. [0128]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lord (WO 2014/060269) in view of Knaappila (US 2015/0319600) in view of Smith (US 2016/0089508) in further view of Young (US 9,288,614).
As to claim 18, Lord/Knaappila/Smith discloses the method of claim 17 (see rejection of claim 17 above) but does not explicitly disclose wherein the communication interface is a Bluetooth communication interface including a whitelist that specifies one or more identifiers of any Bluetooth-enabled devices with which the Bluetooth communication interface has previously bonded and/or is allowed to bond.
However, in an analogous art, Young discloses:
wherein the communication interface is a Bluetooth communication interface including a whitelist that specifies one or more identifiers of any Bluetooth-enabled devices with which the Bluetooth communication interface has previously bonded and/or is allowed to bond (e.g., Young, col. 16 ll. 35-45: The microcontroller 160 may compare the address information of the external device 201 with a previously paired/and or bonded links tables [whitelist] stored in memory 194. The previously paired and/or bonded links table may be used to determine whether the IMD 101 has previously paired and/or bonded with the external device 201. For example, if the IMD 101 determines that the external device 201 corresponds to an un-paired and/or un-bonded external device (e.g., not previously paired) the IMD 101 may ignore the connection request from the external device 201; col. 2 ll. 66-67: the pairing and/or bonding procedure may be defined by a wireless protocol “(e.g., Bluetooth, Bluetooth low energy, ZigBee)”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication interface of Lord/Knaappila by including a whitelist that specifies one or more identifiers of any Bluetooth-enabled devices with which the Bluetooth communication interface has previously bonded and/or is allowed to bond, as taught by Young, as Young would provide the advantage of a means of limiting connection to only previously bonded devices. (See Young, col. 16 ll. 35-45).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lord (WO 2014/060269) in view of Knaappila (US 2015/0319600) in view of Smith (US 2016/0089508) in view of Young (US 9,288,614) in further view of Nordic (“ble_advertising.c”).
As to claim 19, Lord/Knaappila/Smith/Young discloses the method of claim 18 (see rejection of claim 18 above), and further discloses the aerosol delivery device (see rejection of claim 1 above) but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: initiating a timeout period after expiration of a timer;if the whitelist is empty, reinitiating broadcasting that the aerosol delivery device is available for connection; and if the whitelist is not empty, entering an active state during which the Bluetooth communication interface may be configured to slow advertise if not actively connected to an in- range Bluetooth-enabled device.
However, in an analogous art, Nordic discloses further comprising:
initiating a timeout period after expiration of a timer; (e.g., Nordic, line 390: Upon time-out, the next advertising mode is started, i.e., from fast to slow or from slow to idle)
if the whitelist is empty, reinitiating broadcasting that the device is available for connection; (e.g., Nordic, line 246: “Fetch the whitelist”; ll. 311-330 [see code, if “whitelist_has_entries(&m_whitelist)” is false at line 311, lines 329-330 are executed (“Starting slow advertisement”). As shown by at least Knaappila with respect to claim 16, advertisement in Bluetooth low energy is broadcasting that the device is available for connection]) and
if the whitelist is not empty, entering an active state during which the Bluetooth communication interface may be configured to slow advertise if not actively connected to an in-range Bluetooth-enabled device (e.g., Nordic, line 246: “Fetch the whitelist”; ll. 311-325 [see code, if “whitelist_has_entries(&m_whitelist)” is true at line 311, lines 324-325 are executed (“Starting slow advertisement with whitelist”). As shown by at least Knaappila with respect to claim 16, advertisement in Bluetooth low energy is broadcasting that the device is available for connection. Since the device is trying to connect to another Bluetooth device, it is not actively connected to it already]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify aerosol delivery device and Bluetooth communication of of Lord/Knaappila by including initiating a timeout period after expiration of a timer;if the whitelist is empty, reinitiating broadcasting that the device is available for connection; and if the whitelist is not empty, entering an active state during which the Bluetooth communication interface may be configured to slow advertise if not actively connected to an in- range Bluetooth-enabled device, as taught by Nordic, as Nordic would provide the advantage of a means of connecting with another device in the event a first connection attempt fails. (See Nordic, ll. 311-330).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TODD AGUILERA whose telephone number is (571)270-5186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11AM - 7:30PM EST.
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, Hyung S Sough can be reached at (571)272-6799. 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.
/TODD AGUILERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights