DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because “in response to receiving an indication that the aerosol provision system is lost, using the database to predict a location of the aerosol provision system.” This is the stronger §101 issue. As presently drafted, “predict a location” is extremely broad. The claim does not recite how the prediction is made—no particular algorithm, mathematical model, sensor processing, machine-learning architecture, or technological technique. Conceptually, a person could maintain a record of prior locations where devices were lost and, after learning that another device was lost, examine those prior locations and predict where the lost device is likely located. That looks like an evaluation/judgment based on stored information, which fits the USPTO’s mental-process grouping. The MPEP expressly says a computer-implemented claim can still recite a mental process where the computer is merely being used as a tool to perform the concept.
Step 2A, Prong Two
There is no recited step of actually locating, tracking, controlling, communicating with, or changing operation of the aerosol provision system based on the prediction. Nor does the claim, on its face, appear to recite an improvement to computer functionality or another technology. The USPTO requires considering the claim as a whole at this stage rather than stopping merely because an abstract idea has been identified.
Step 2B
Abstract idea: predicting the location of a lost aerosol provision system based on stored information concerning locations where aerosol provision systems have previously been lost.
Grouping: Mental process — evaluation/judgment.
A possible Prong One explanation would be:
The claim recites using stored information concerning locations at which aerosol provision systems have been lost to predict the location of an aerosol provision system in response to an indication that the system is lost. The limitation recites an evaluation or judgment because a person can review previously recorded lost locations and, based on those locations, predict a location of a subsequently lost system. Accordingly, the limitation recites a mental process, one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas identified in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element - using a processor to perform receiving, analyzing, determining, evaluating, selecting, monitoring, tracking, and handling steps.
The processor in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no
more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer
component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea
into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to
integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of
using a processor to perform receiving, analyzing, determining, evaluating, selecting,
monitoring, tracking, and handling steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to
apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim is not patent eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 10,887,759) in view of Estripeau (US 10,782,383).
As per claim 1, Wang et al. disclose a computer-implemented method (figures 1-3 for locating a lost electronic device comprising:
“maintaining a database (memory device) of locations of a mobile device (104, 106, 108) has been lost” by accumulating and storing historical location information associated with the device and using such historical information to develop device usage/location patterns (see abstract, col. 1, line 63 through col. 2, line 20, col. 4, line 23 col. 5, line 25, and col. 8, line 38-61); and
“in response to receiving an indication that the device is lost, using the database to predict a location of the device” by detecting or determining that the device is lost and using historical device-location data to identify potential locations of the lost device based on sequence analysis and historical patterns (see abstract and col. 8, line 49 through col. 9, line 7).
Wang et al., however, do not expressly disclose that the lost device is an aerosol provision system. Estripeau teaches a system expressly intended to assist a user in locating an aerosol generation device comprising a smartphone (2) communicating with the electronic cigarette (4) via Bluetooth and using a GPS receiver, Wi-Fi positioning, dead reckoning, or cellular positioning to determine location, a data storage unit for storing locations associated with the electronic cigarette (col. 6, lines 12-40), wherein the storing geographic positions of the electronic cigarette in data storage and maintaining a log of positions at different times and receiving a user’s instruction to locate a particular electronic cigarette, retrieving its stored position, and displaying the position to assist the user in finding the misplaced electronic cigarette (figures 1-3, col. 7, lines 31 through col. 8, line 32). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply Wang’s historical-location-based lost-device prediction technique to the aerosol generation device/electronic cigarette location system taught by Estripeau for the purpose of providing a user with likely locations at which to search for the misplaced aerosol device, thereby improving the usefulness to obtain the predictable result of providing likely locations at which the lost aerosol device may be found.
Regarding claim 2, Wang teaches that the indication that the device is lost may be provided through user input. Wang teaches a buddy device asking the user to acknowledge whether the device is lost and initiating location assistance when the user agrees that it is lost (see abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Wang additionally teaches that the potentially-lost event may originate from the device itself and be posted by the device to a buddy device or cloud service. Thus, Wang teaches receiving a lost indication from the device.
Regarding claim 4, Wang teaches receiving feedback regarding a loss determination and modifying stored usage patterns in response to the feedback. Wang specifically teaches feedback identifying legitimate alerts and false positives and modifying corresponding usage patterns based upon the feedback.
Regarding claim 5, Wang expressly teaches receiving such feedback through user input, including the user agreeing that the device is lost or dismissing the alert.
Regarding claim 6, Wang teaches communication between the lost device and the companion/buddy device and teaches device-generated loss events and localizer information transmitted by the lost device. Thus, it would have been obvious to update the historical information/database in response to receiving information that the device was located, thereby improving subsequent loss/location predictions.
Regarding claim 7, Wang teaches historical records comprising locations and times associated with device events. Wang’s usage history expressly includes events occurring at respective times and locations. Estripeau, likewise teaches maintaining a log corresponding to positions at different times and storing time and location details associated with the electronic cigarette. Therefore, storing the location at which the aerosol provision system was found together with time/date/status information would have been an obvious implementation of the historical usage/location records taught by Wang and Estripeau.
Regarding claim 8, Wang expressly teaches generating multiple potential locations in decreasing order of likelihood based upon historical device-location data. Thus, after the device is not located at the first predicted location, using the next predicted location or updating the historical model to obtain another prediction would have been an obvious use of Wang’s ranked candidate locations. Wang additionally teaches receiving user feedback and modifying corresponding usage patterns based upon whether a loss determination was correct. Accordingly, updating the database after an unsuccessful search and predicting a second location would have been an obvious application of Wang’s feedback and ranked-location teachings.
Regarding claim 9, Wang teaches receiving user feedback through the buddy device, including user acknowledgment/dismissal of a loss event. Thus, obtaining an indication through user input that the device was not found would have been an obvious implementation of Wang’s user-feedback mechanism.
Regarding claim 10, Wang teaches that the lost device itself communicates with companion devices and provides localizer signals. It would therefore have been obvious for the device to communicate information indicating whether it has been located/detected at a candidate location, particularly where the devices communicate through Bluetooth/Wi-Fi as expressly taught by Wang and JTI.
Regarding claim 11, Wang teaches recording events occurring at respective times and locations, and its pattern-learning process expressly considers temporal information, including time intervals and daily usage patterns. Estripeau independently teaches that its smartphone maintains a log corresponding to device positions at different times and expressly teaches providing time and location details to data storage or a network. Accordingly, including a time and/or date associated with a lost/found location in the database would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 12, Wang teaches associating stored location information with device usage/status information. Wang’s spatial model correlates physical location with usage information derived from sensor inputs, including position, acceleration, duration, orientation, communications with other devices, and other device characteristics.
Regarding claim 13, Wang expressly teaches sensor information including orientation and also teaches battery-charging patterns. Estripeau further teaches storing and communicating electronic-cigarette device information and status information. Estripeau specifically discloses battery-power information and device temperature information, including temperature associated with vaping and hardware/software over-temperature conditions. Thus, it would have been obvious to include battery-charge, orientation, and/or temperature information as device-status information associated with historical locations because Wang teaches correlating sensor/device-status information with location for pattern recognition and loss detection, while Estripeau teaches those types of status information in the particular electronic-cigarette environment.
Claim 14 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing instructions for performing substantially the method of claim 1.
Wang expressly teaches that the invention may be implemented as a computer program product including a computer-readable storage medium containing program instructions for causing a processor to perform the disclosed lost-device location operations. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1, claim 14 would have been obvious over Wang in view of Estripeau.
As per claim 15, refer to claim 1 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAI T. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2961. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9am-6pm.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/TAI T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685 September 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights