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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to PCT Patent Application No. GB2203599.2, filed on 3/15/2022. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s communications filed on 4/13/2026 have been considered.
Claims 1, 12 and 13 have been amended.
Claims 1-13 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 6 that the amended claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea. This argument has been considered but is not persuasive. The amended step of “fulfilling the order for one or more articles by the selected vendor” has been identified as activity falling under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, as discussed below. This amended limitation does not recite any elements falling outside of the identified abstract idea, and does not reflect an improvement to a computer or other technical area, as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize from the claims and specification. Accordingly, the claims are maintained as being directed towards “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, without integration into a practical application, and the rejection has been maintained.
The rejections of claims 12 and 13 have been maintained for reasons similar to those discussed with respect to claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 7 that previously cited Cameron does not teach tracking the amount of aerosol generating material remaining within an article, and there is no recognition in Cameron that the progress which a user is making through a single article, e.g., by consumption of the article, should be used to trigger an order for the one or more articles. Applicant further argues that Cameron is particularly vague about what actually triggers the ordering of a new cartridge. This argument has been considered but is not persuasive. This argument is not commensurate in scope with the interpretation of the claims. The claim does not recite determining user progress through consumption of an article. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “wherein determining that an indication received from the aerosol provision system, the indication comprising an indication of the amount of aerosol generating material contained within an article for the aerosol provision system” merely requires receiving information from an aerosol provision system indicating a level of aerosol generating material within an article of the aerosol provision system, rather than tracking or monitoring a user’s progress/consumption of the article.
Accordingly, in light of the amendments, Cameron has been further relied upon to teach wherein determining that the article needs to be replaced is based on an indication received from the aerosol from the aerosol provision system, the indication comprising an indication of the amount of aerosol generating material contained within an article for the aerosol provision system, at (Cameron, [0138][0142-0143]; [0094][0166]), disclosing that the selection of a good occurs according to usage data, such as whether the user is low on a particular vaporizable material. The cited portion of Cameron further discloses that vaporizable material can be supplied by one or more cartridges fitting inside the vapor device, and additionally that the vapor device uploads usage information to the server. Accordingly, Cameron teaches an indication received from the aerosol provision system (vapor device) comprising an indication of the amount of aerosol generating material contained within an article for the aerosol provision system (e.g., is the user low on a particular vaporizable material). In light of the above interpretation, Cameron has been further relied upon to teach transmitting the order for the one or more articles to the selected vendor at the time for placing the order (see at least Cameron [0161][0203][0214-0215]). Cameron has been further relied upon to teach fulfilling the order for one or more articles by the selected vendor, at (Cameron, [0216-0217]), disclosing that a delivery unit is selected to obtain the product from the selected store and deliver it to the location of the e-vapor device. It is noted that the selected store receiving an order for a product and providing the product for delivery reads on fulfilling the order for one or more articles by the selected vendor.
Accordingly, the rejection has been maintained.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, the claims must be directed to one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03. Claims 1-11 are directed towards a process. Claim 12 is directed towards a manufacture. Claim 13 is directed towards a machine. Therefore, claims 1-13 are directed to one of the four statutory categories (Step 1: YES, regarding claims 1-13).
Under Step 2A of the MPEP, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception. See MPEP 2106.04. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry.
Under Prong 1, it is determined whether the claim recites a judicial exception. In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception.
Taking Claim 13 as representative, claim 13 recites limitations that fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas, including:
perform a method comprising:
in response to determining that an article needs to be replaced, transmitting a request for stock information to one or more vendors of articles,
wherein determining that the article needs to be replaced is based on an indication received, the indication comprising an indication of the amount of aerosol generating material contained within an article;
determining, based on the stock information received from the one or more vendors, an order for one or more articles, wherein the order comprises a selection of one of the one or more vendors, a number of articles to be purchased and a time for placing the order, wherein the time for placing the order is calculated based on a lead time for delivering the number of the articles derived from the received stock information;
transmitting the order for one or more articles to the selected vendor at the time for placing the order; and
fulfilling the order for one or more articles by the selected vendor.
Claims 1 and 12 recite the same abstract limitations as recited in claim 13.
Claim 13, as exemplary, recites certain methods of organizing human activity, such as performing commercial interactions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The MPEP defines the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping as including fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). The abstract ideas recited in representative claim 13 are certain methods of organizing human activity because transmitting a request for stock information to one or more vendors of articles in response to determining that an article needs to be replaced, wherein determining that the article needs to be replaced is based on an indication of the amount of aerosol generating material contained within an article, determining, based on the stock information, an order for one or more articles, wherein the order comprises a selection of one of the one or more vendors, a number of articles to be purchased and a time for placing the order, wherein the time for placing the order is calculated based on a lead time for delivering the number of articles derived from the received stock information, transmitting the order for one or more articles, and fulfilling the order for the one or more articles by the selected vendor is a commercial or legal interaction because it is an advertising, marketing or sales activity, or business relations. Claims 1 and 12 recite the same abstract idea.
Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1, 12 and 13 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Under Step 2A (prong 2), if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception (see MPEP 2106.04). As stated in the MPEP, when “an additional element merely recites the words ‘apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea,” the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. In this case, representative claim 13 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
A computing device comprising:
one or more processors; and
memory configured to store instruction that, when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to perform a method comprising:
in response to determining that an article for an aerosol provision system needs to be replaced, transmitting a request for stock information to one or more vendors of articles for the aerosol provision system,
wherein determining that the article needs to be replaced is based on an indication received from the aerosol provision system, the indication comprising an indication of the amount of aerosol generating material contained within an article for the aerosol provision system;
determining, based on the stock information received from the one or more vendors, an order for one or more articles, wherein the order comprises a selection of one of the one or more vendors, a number of articles to be purchased and a time for placing the order, wherein the time for placing the order is calculated based on a lead time for delivering the number of the articles derived from the received stock information;
transmitting the order for one or more articles to the selected vendor at the time for placing the order; and
fulfilling the order for one or more articles by the selected vendor.
These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. As such, these computer-related limitations are not found to be sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 1, 12 and 13 specifying that the abstract idea of ordering products based on stock information is executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer. As such, under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claims 1, 12 and 13 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Since claims 1, 12 and 13 recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claims 1, 12 and 13 are “directed to” an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES). Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Next, under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Returning to representative claims 1, 12 and 13, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claims 1, 12 and 13 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment. For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. Therefore when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 2-11, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. As for dependent claims 2-10, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in independent claims 1, 12 and 13, and do not recite any additional elements other than what is disclosed in independent claims 1, 12 and 13. Therefore, claims 2-10 are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claim 11, the claim recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in independent claims 1, 12 and 13. Additionally, they recite the following additional limitations:
transmitting the request for stock information to one or more vendors of articles for the aerosol provision system within a certain distance of the aerosol provision system and/or a computing device communicatively coupled to the aerosol provision system.
The additional elements of a computing device communicatively coupled to the aerosol provision system are all recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than instructions to apply the judicial exception in a generic technological environment. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, under the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1-13 are ineligible.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Cameron (US 2017/0046738 A1) in view of previously cited Godsey (US 2015/0302510 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Cameron discloses A method comprising ([0048]):
in response to determining that an article for an aerosol provision system needs to be replaced, transmitting a request for stock information to one or more vendors of articles for the aerosol provision system ([0049][0058] the electronic vapor device 100 can be an e-cigarette comprising containers configured to hold one or more vaporizable materials; [0163] the user may wish to find a nearby store that sells a particular product and may request this information from the e-vapor club; [0200-0201] for e-vapor club members, the server determines and provides the location of the e-vapor device and stores nearby the e-vapor device that have the desired product in stock; [0216] the server may use the location of the device to determine nearby vapor supply stores. The server may then query one or more of the vapor supply stores for the desired product and may determine one or more stores that include the product),
wherein determining that the article needs to be replaced is based on an indication received from the aerosol provision system, the indication comprising an indication of the amount of aerosol generating material contained within an article for the aerosol provision system ([0138] the eVapor Club can be configured for conducting one or more financial transactions and initiate a transfer of a good to a user, such as selecting a good according to usage data, e.g., is the user low on a particular vaporizable material… see [0094][0166] vaporizable material can be supplied by one or more replaceable cartridges fitting inside the vapor device 100… cartridges include containers; [0142-0143][0199] the vapor device can be configured to upload usage information… the central server can receive the usage information);
determining, based on the stock information received from the one or more vendors, an order for one or more articles, wherein the order comprises a selection of one of the one or more vendors, a number of articles to be purchased and a time for placing the order, based on a lead time for delivering the number of the articles derived from the received stock information ([0138] the eVapor Club can be configured for conducting one or more financial transactions and initiate a transfer of a good to a user, such as selecting a good according to usage data, e.g., is the user low on a particular vaporizable material; [0214] the product may be a product selected by the user for a one-time delivery, selected based on analyzed data from the user’s e-vapor device; [0216] The server may then query one or more of the vapor supply stores for the desired product and may determine one or more stores that include the product. The server may also determine a nearby deliver unit that is available to deliver the product at the requested time by finding a delivery person who is nearby and has time to deliver the goods; [0217] the server may also look for an available delivery unit that can deliver the product in the least amount of time),
transmitting the order for one or more articles to the selected vendor at the time for placing the order ([0161] a user may use the input/output device 1501 to order specific products; [0203] the server may transmit an order for the product to the selected store. For example, the order may be electronic or via another method; [0214-0216] the server may select the product based on analyzed data from the user’s e-vapor device… The server may then query one or more of the vapor supply stores for the desired product and may determine one or more stores that include the product); and
fulfilling the order for one or more articles by the selected vendor ([0216-0217] instructing the selected delivery unit to obtain the product from the selected store and deliver it to the location of the e-vapor device);
However, in the field of orders according to inventory levels (see at least Godsey [abstract]), Godsey, on the other hand, teaches wherein the time for placing the order is calculated based on a lead time for delivery ([0016] reordering of frequently used items (e.g., consumable items such as toiletries, baby items, coffee filters, motor oil, and so on)), and further discloses wherein the time for placing the order is calculated based on a lead time for delivery ([0073] automatically purchasing an item according to a threshold value that would allow for enough time to replenish the supply of the item without depleting the supply of the item, wherein the threshold value is determined using an estimated rate of consumption and an average delivery lead time based on orders from the same merchant using the same delivery method; [0074-0075] determining a low inventory condition when the inventory level is below the threshold value, notifying the user, and automatically purchasing the item using the order parameters based on the low inventory condition.. see [0051] the timing of the orders may be adjusted to ensure the user maintains a supply of the item above a threshold).
. The steps of Dickie are applicable to the system of Godsey, as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to ordering and delivering products according to inventory levels. 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 system as taught by Cameron, to include wherein the time for placing the order is calculated based on a lead time for delivery, as taught by Godsey. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the system of Cameron in order to ensure the user maintains a supply of the item above a threshold, in order to prevent depletion of the item (Godsey, [0051]).
Regarding Claim 2, Cameron and Godsey teach the limitations of claim 1.
Cameron further discloses wherein the stock information comprises one or more of a number of articles in stock that correspond to the article that needs to be replaced ([0216] the server may use the location of the device to determine nearby vapor supply stores. The server may then query one or more of the vapor supply stores for the desired product and may determine one or more stores that include the product), a cost of each article in stock that corresponds to the article that needs to be replaced, a location of the vendor ([0216] the server may use the location of the device to determine nearby vapor supply stores) and a lead time for delivering the articles in stock that correspond to the article that needs to be replaced.
Regarding Claim 3, Cameron and Godsey teach the limitations of claim 1.
Cameron further discloses wherein determining that the article needs to be replaced is based on an indication received from the aerosol provision system ([0050-0051] the vapor device comprises a processor 102 configured to share data including usage data of the vapor device; [0138] the eVapor Club can be configured for conducting one or more financial transactions and initiate a transfer of a good to a user, such as selecting a good according to usage data, e.g., is the user low on a particular vaporizable material; [0142] the vapor device 1302 can be configured to upload usage information related to vaporizable material consumed and the electronic communication device 1308 can be configured to upload location information related to location of the vapor device 1302. The central server 1310 can receive both the usage information and the location information).
Regarding Claim 4, Cameron and Godsey teach the limitations of claim 1.
Cameron further discloses wherein determining that the article needs to be replaced is based on an indication received from a user of the aerosol provision system ([0143] the vapor device 1306 can provide the respective users with an option to have usage activity tracked (e.g., upload usage data to the central server 1310). For example, if a user opts in to having usage activity tracked, the user can also provide demographic information about the user to the central server 1310… The collected demographic information and the usage data can be utilized to generate one or more usage reports representing usage across one or more of the users of the vapor device 1302… see [0138] selecting a good according to usage data, e.g., is the user low on a particular vaporizable material).
Regarding Claim 5, Cameron and Godsey teach the limitations of claim 1.
Cameron further discloses wherein determining that the article needs to be replaced is based on one or more of a time between one or more previously placed orders ([0138] the eVapor Club analyzes usage data, demographic data, and user preferences to determine a good(s) to transfer to a user, user preferences including a time interval for periodic delivery of the good),
a number of articles in a previously placed order, and
a rate of consumption of aerosol-generating material in the article ([0138] The eVapor Club 1220 can select the good according to usage data… see [0124] usage information includes type of vaporizable material used and frequency of usage).
Regarding Claim 5, Cameron and Godsey teach the limitations of claim 1.
Cameron further discloses wherein determining that the article needs to be replaced is based on one or more of a time between one or more previously placed orders ([0138] the eVapor Club analyzes usage data, demographic data, and user preferences to determine a good(s) to transfer to a user, user preferences including a time interval for periodic delivery of the good),
a number of articles in a previously placed order, and
a rate of consumption of aerosol-generating material in the article ([0138] The eVapor Club 1220 can select the good according to usage data… see [0124] usage information includes type of vaporizable material used and frequency of usage).
Regarding Claim 6, Cameron and Godsey teach the limitations of claim 1.
Cameron further discloses wherein placing the order is based on one or more of a time between one or more previously placed orders ([0138] the eVapor Club analyzes usage data, demographic data, and user preferences to determine a good(s) to transfer to a user, user preferences including a time interval for periodic delivery of the good),
a number of articles in a previously placed order, and
a rate of consumption of aerosol-generating material in the article ([0138] The eVapor Club 1220 can select the good according to usage data… see [0124] usage information includes type of vaporizable material used and frequency of usage).
But does not explicitly disclose wherein the time for placing the order is further calculated based on one or more of a time between one or more previously placed orders, a number of articles in a previously placed order, and a rate of consumption of an article.
Godsey, on the other hand, discloses wherein the time for placing the order is further calculated based on one or more of a time between one or more previously placed orders ([0043] an estimated consumption rate may be determined based on the user data. For instance, the frequency of purchases for a particular item may be used to infer consumption rate; [0053] the analysis module 260 may adjust order and delivery times of the purchase of the item based on a change in consumption rate),
a number of articles in a previously placed order, and
a rate of consumption of an article ([0053] the analysis module 260 may adjust order and delivery times of the purchase of the item based on a change in consumption rate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system, as taught by Cameron, wherein the time for placing the order is further calculated based on one or more of a time between one or more previously placed orders, a number of articles in a previously placed order, and a rate of consumption of an article, as taught by Godsey, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 7, Cameron and Godsey teach the limitations of claim 1.
Cameron further discloses wherein the request for stock information includes one or more characteristics of the article that needs to be replaced ([0138] The eVapor Club 1220 can select the good according to usage data e.g., (is the user low on a particular vaporizable material), recommendation data, and user preferences; [0214] The server may select the product based on analyzed data from the user's e-vapor device and/or other devices; [0216] the server may use the location of the device to determine nearby vapor supply stores. The server may then query one or more of the vapor supply stores for the desired product and may determine one or more stores that include the product… see [0124] usage information includes type of vaporizable material used and frequency of usage) (Examiner notes that the disclosed usage data, recommendation data, and user preferences used to select a good comprise characteristics).
Regarding Claim 8, Cameron and Godsey teach the limitations of claim 7.
Cameron further discloses wherein the characteristics are at least one of an ingredient or flavourant within the article ([0174] user preference data includes likes and dislikes of particular types of products, particular flavors, etc),
a concentration and/or an amount of the ingredient or flavourant ([0231] recommendation data can comprise a recommendation for a mixture of two or more vaporizable materials that a user has used),
a size of the article,
a type of the article ([0124] usage information includes type of vaporizable material used and frequency of usage; [0174] user preference data includes likes and dislikes of particular types of products), and
an identifier of the article ([0124] usage information includes type of vaporizable material used; [0174] user preference data includes like and dislikes of particular products).
Regarding Claim 9, Cameron and Godsey teach the limitations of claim 7.
Cameron further discloses wherein the characteristics are received from the aerosol provision system ([0228] transmitting, by the electronic vapor device, usage data to a central server and receiving an indication that a transfer of a food to a user of the electronic vapor device has initiated based on the usage data and a user preference).
Regarding Claim 10, Cameron and Godsey teach the limitations of claim 1.
Cameron further discloses determining an article based on the received stock information and one or more user preferences ([0214] the product may be selected based on preferences of the user; [0216] the server may use the location of the device to determine nearby vapor supply stores. The server may then query one or more of the vapor supply stores for the desired product and may determine one or more stores that include the product); and
determining the order based on the determination of the article ([0138] the eVapor Club can be configured for conducting one or more financial transactions and initiate a transfer of a good to a user, such as selecting a good according to usage data, e.g., is the user low on a particular vaporizable material);
But does not explicitly disclose determining, in response to the stock information indicating that the article is not in stock at one or more of the vendors, an alternative article; and determining the order based on the determination of the alternative article.
Godsey, on the other hand, discloses determining, in response to the stock information indicating that the article is not in stock at one or more of the vendors, an alternative article ([0050] where one item is out of stock and not available for delivery according to the schedule or the adjusted schedule, the system may determine an alternate process, such as to suggest a similar product); and
determining the order based on the determination of the alternative article ([0050] In one example, the user has selected alternative products that are acceptable to replace the current product on the ordering schedule).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system, as taught by Cameron, determining, in response to the stock information indicating that the article is not in stock at one or more of the vendors, an alternative article, and determining the order based on the determination of the alternative article, as taught by Godsey, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 11, Cameron and Godsey teach the limitations of claim 1.
Cameron further discloses wherein transmitting the request for stock information to the one or more vendors of articles for the aerosol provision system includes transmitting the request for stock information to one or more vendors of articles for the aerosol provision system within a certain distance of the aerosol provision system and/or a computing device communicatively coupled to the aerosol provision system ([0200-0201] for e-vapor club members, the server determines and provides the location of the e-vapor device and stores nearby the e-vapor device that have the desired product in stock; [0215] The server may then query one or more of the vapor supply stores for the desired product and may determine one or more stores that include the product; [0216] the server may use the location of the device to determine nearby vapor supply stores. The server may then query one or more of the vapor supply stores for the desired product and may determine one or more stores that include the product).
Claim 12 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium. Claim 12 recites limitations that are substantially parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 1 which is directed towards a method. The system of Cameron/Godsey teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Cameron further discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising instructions which, when executed, perform a method (Cameron: [0050]). Claim 12 is therefore rejected for the reasons set forth above in claim 1 and in this paragraph.
Claim 13 is directed to a computing device. Claim 13 recites limitations that are substantially parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 1 which is directed towards a method. The system of Cameron/Godsey teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Cameron further discloses a computing device comprising: one or more processors; and memory configured to store instruction that, when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to perform a method (Cameron: [0049-0050]). Claim 13 is therefore rejected for the reasons set forth above in claim 1 and in this paragraph.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY R DONAHUE whose telephone number is (571)272-5850. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-5p.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at (571) 272-6764. 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.
/ZACHARY RYAN DONAHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/VICTORIA E. FRUNZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 6/17/2026
Prosecution Insights