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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the Amendment 37 CFR 1.121 (“Response”) on 8 July 2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 102 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. Applicant's arguments filed in the Response with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Greenbaum “does not disclose a more urgent, alert-style system as disclosed in amended claim 1, in which the determination step is based on when the actual amount of aerosol generating material has reached a low level” (Response: pg. 7). While Greenbaum does teach “the processor 132 to determine that a resupply is necessary and to generate a signal 139 to indicate a resupply is requested, which signal 139 is transmitted to the computing system 230 (shown in FIG. 2) when the vaporizable substance drops below a threshold level stored in the memory 164 of the vaporization device 100” (Greenbaum: ¶ 0029-0030), Greenbaum does not specifically teach how this is achieved or if the amount of material is directly measured or indirectly measured. Examiner notes, however, that the Applicant has also not amended the claims to only encompass direct means of measuring, however in order to expedite prosecution, Examiner provides United States Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0245654 A1 to Memari et al. (“Memari”) to more specifically teach this claimed feature. Memari teaches and discloses detecting “that the amount of vapour fluid in the reservoir is below the threshold value may be used to prompt the replacement of the fluid reservoir, by automatically ordering the delivery of a replacement fluid reservoir” (Memari: ¶ 0338) and “re-filling unit itself can measure how much e-liquid is left in its cartridge(s) or tank(s)” (Memari: ¶ 0529). Greenbaum teaches a system and method for determining inventory for vaporization device cartridges. Memari teaches a comparable system and method for determining inventory for vaporization device cartridges that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Memari offers the embodiment of determining that an article for the aerosol provision system needs to be replaced when an amount of aerosol generating material in the article is zero or less than a predetermined amount. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of the direct determination means as disclosed by Memari to the indirect determination means as taught by Greenbaum for the predicted result of improved systems and methods for determining inventory for vaporization device cartridges. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
Using computers to apply commonplace ideas-such as generating price quotes-is not a patentable invention, even if the computer is able to handle volumes and complexity at levels impossible for humans. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2350 ("Neither stating an abstract idea while adding the words 'apply it,' nor limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment, is enough for patent eligibility." (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Mayo,132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610-611). Simply utilizing a generic computing device through a communication network to determine and providing information and to perform conventional inventory calculations faster and more efficiently is not enough to transform a patentineligible claim into a patent-eligible invention. See Bancorp Servs. LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (finding a claim not patent-eligible when “the computer simply performs more efficiently what could otherwise be accomplished manually”); SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int' l Trade Comm' n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“In order for the addition of a machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of a claim, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly . . . .”). Nearly every computer has the capability of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360. At most, the computer implementation involved in the claims at issue here is an attempt to limit use of the abstract concept to a particular technological environment. That, however, is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See id. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610–11; Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981).
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without “significantly more.” Claims 1-18 are directed to determining that an article needs to be replace, requesting stock information, determining one or more orders and providing a notification of the one or more orders, which is considered an abstract idea. Further, the claim(s) as a whole, when examined on a limitation-by-limitation basis and in ordered combination do not include an inventive concept.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claims, the examiner finds the claims are directed to a process, machine, or article of manufacture.
Step 2A – Prong One - Abstract Idea Analysis
Exemplary claim 1 (and similarly claims 16 and 17) recites the following abstract concepts, in italics below, which are found to include an “abstract idea”:
A computer implemented method operating on a computing device that is communicatively coupled to an aerosol provision system, the method comprising:
the computing device determining that an article for the aerosol provision system needs to be replaced when an amount of aerosol generating material in the article is zero or less than a predetermined amount;
the computing device, in response to determining that the article for the 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 through a communication network;
the computing device determining, based on the stock information received through the communications network from the one or more vendors, one or more orders, wherein each order of the one or more orders comprises a number of articles to be purchased, a unit cost of each article to be purchased, a lead time for delivering the articles to be purchased and a vendor of the one or more vendors; and
the computing device providing, to a user of the aerosol provision system, a notification on the computing device or the aerosol provision system including the one or more orders.
The claim features in italics above as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, are mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity performed by generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computing device that is communicatively coupled to an aerosol provision system”, “a communications network” and “transmitting a request,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or a method of organized human activity. For example, but for the “transmitting a request” language, “determining that an article for an aerosol provision system needs to be replaced… determining, based on the stock information received from the one or more vendors, one or more orders, wherein each order of the one or more orders comprises a number of articles to be purchased, a unit cost of each article to be purchased, a lead time for delivering the articles to be purchased and a vendor of the one or more vendors” in the context of this claim encompasses mental processes. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps which could be performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement of opinion but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, “request for stock information to one or more vendors of articles for the aerosol provision system… providing, to a user of the aerosol provision system, a notification including the one or more orders” in the context of this claim encompasses certain methods of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interaction or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two - Abstract Idea Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite five additional elements – “transmitting a request” (claims 1, 16 and 17), “a computing device” (claims 1, 16 and 17), “an aerosol provision system” (claims 1, 16 and 17), “communications network” (claims 1, 16 and 17), “one or more processors” (claim 17) and “memory” (claim 17). The “transmitting”, “computing device”, “aerosol provision system”, “communications network”, “one or more processors” and “memory” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B - Significantly More Analysis
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 “transmitting a request”, “a computing device”, “communications network”, “an aerosol provision system”, “one or more processors” and “memory” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the background does not provide any indication that the “transmitting”, “computing device”, “aerosol provision system”, “communications network”, “one or more processors” and “memory” are anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component. 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.
Claims 1-8 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0095697 A1 to Greenbaum (“Greenbaum”) in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0245654 A1 to Memari et al. (“Memari”).
As per claims 1, 16 and 17, the claimed subject matter that is met by Greenbaum includes:
a computer implemented method operating on a computing device that is communicatively coupled to an aerosol provision system, the method comprising (Greenbaum: Abstract and Figs. 2, 3A and 3B):
the computing device determining that an article for the aerosol provision system needs to be replaced when an amount of aerosol generating material in the article is zero or less than a predetermined amount (Greenbaum: ¶¶ 0029-0030 “the program logic configures the processor 132 to determine that a resupply is necessary and to generate a signal 139 to indicate a resupply is requested, which signal 139 is transmitted to the computing system 230 (shown in FIG. 2) when the vaporizable substance drops below a threshold level stored in the memory 164 of the vaporization device 100”);
the computing device, in response to determining that the article for the 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 through a communication network (Greenbaum: ¶¶ 0006 “Vaporization devices typically include … a cartridge that houses a vapor forming medium…The vapor may be mixed with the air drawn by the user to form an inhalable aerosol” 0032, and 0037-0040 “ an exemplary method of determining when a resupply is needed… computing system 230 may identify the nearest physical retail location that has the user's preferred type of cartridge in stock. Retailer stock may be determined based upon a database of current stock maintained by the resupply and inventory server 260 or may be determined by automated communication with one or more servers associated with nearby retailers”);
the computing device determining, based on the stock information received through the communication network from the one or more vendors, one or more orders, wherein each order of the one or more orders comprises a number of articles to be purchased, a unit cost of each article to be purchased, a lead time for delivering the articles to be purchased and a vendor of the one or more vendors (Greenbaum: ¶¶ 0040-0043 “computing system 230 then sends retailer information (e.g., a street address, a web address, an Internet Protocol address or a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) or a phone number for the retail location) to the user's mobile device 202 at block 326. In another embodiment, if the preferred type of cartridge or vaporizable content is not in stock at any nearby location, the computing system 230 may suggest a different type of cartridge or vaporizable content that is available at a nearby location (e.g., a different flavor) and send the substitute information with retailer information to the mobile device 202… delivery procedure will typically consult a preferred type and quantity of substance… computing system 230 may override the default user preference if the delivery time plus the fulfillment time is estimated to exceed the estimated user supply by more than a predetermined amount of time (e.g., one day), which would leave the user without an adequate supply for that time” and 0051 “resupply determination server 240 then sends a signal 716 containing the retail information to the mobile device 202 associated with the user. Such retail information may include an indication of the location of one or more retailers, contact information of the retailers, or links to online information regarding the retailers”); and
the computing device providing, to a user of the aerosol provision system, a notification on the computing device or the aerosol provision system including the one or more orders (Greenbaum: ¶ 0041 “user needing to confirm the resupply, the computing system 230 sends a request to the user (e.g., sends a signal from the resupply determination server 240 to the mobile device 202 or presents a message to the user via a display of the mobile device 202) to prompt the user to approve the resupply, as shown at block 332. In some embodiments, the request to the user may include details regarding the resupply, such as a number and type of cartridges, an estimated delivery date, a cost for the order or options regarding the resupply”).
While Greenbaum does teach determining the amount of aerosol generating material in the article is zero or less than a predetermined amount ‘indirectly’, Greenbaum fails to specifically teach ‘directly’ determining when an amount of aerosol generating material in the article is zero or less than a predetermined amount. The Examiner provides Memari to teach and disclose this claimed feature.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Memari includes:
determining that an article for the aerosol provision system needs to be replaced when an amount of aerosol generating material in the article is zero or less than a predetermined amount (Memari: ¶¶ 0287-0288, 0338 “Detection that the amount of vapour fluid in the reservoir is below the threshold value may be used to prompt the replacement of the fluid reservoir, by automatically ordering the delivery of a replacement fluid reservoir”, 0353 “the liquid cartridge would be pressurised like a small aerosol to move predetermined volumes of liquid”, 0494, 0529 “re-filling unit itself can measure how much e-liquid is left in its cartridge(s) or tank(s)” and 0744)
Greenbaum teaches a system and method for determining inventory for vaporization device cartridges. Memari teaches a comparable system and method for determining inventory for vaporization device cartridges that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Memari offers the embodiment of determining that an article for the aerosol provision system needs to be replaced when an amount of aerosol generating material in the article is zero or less than a predetermined amount. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of the direct determination means as disclosed by Memari to the indirect determination means as taught by Greenbaum for the predicted result of improved systems and methods for determining inventory for vaporization device cartridges. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
As per claim 2, the claimed subject matter that is met by Greenbaum and Memari includes:
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, a cost of each article in stock that corresponds to the article that needs to be replaced, and a lead time for delivering the articles in stock that correspond to the article that needs to be replaced (Greenbaum: ¶¶ 0040-0043, 0047-0048 and 0051).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Greenbaum and Memari are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 3, the claimed subject matter that is met by Greenbaum and Memari includes:
wherein the stock information further comprises a location of the vendor, and the one or more orders are determined based on the location of the vendor (Greenbaum: ¶ 0040 “computing system 230 may identify the nearest physical retail location that has the user's preferred type of cartridge in stock”).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Greenbaum and Memari are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 4, the claimed subject matter that is met by Greenbaum and Memari includes:
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 the 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 (Greenbaum: ¶ 0040 “computing system 230 may identify the nearest physical retail location that has the user's preferred type of cartridge in stock”).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Greenbaum and Memari are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 5, the claimed subject matter that is met by Greenbaum and Memari includes:
wherein the request for stock information includes one or more characteristics of the article that is determined to need to be replaced (Greenbaum: ¶ 0040 “computing system 230 may identify the nearest physical retail location that has the user's preferred type of cartridge in stock”).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Greenbaum and Memari are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 6, the claimed subject matter that is met by Greenbaum and Memari includes:
wherein the characteristics are at least one of an ingredient or flavourant within the article, a concentration and/or an amount of the ingredient or flavourant, a size of the article, a type of the article, and an identifier of the article (Greenbaum: ¶ 0040 “computing system 230 may identify the nearest physical retail location that has the user's preferred type of cartridge in stock”).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Greenbaum and Memari are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 7, the claimed subject matter that is met by Greenbaum and Memari includes:
wherein the characteristics are received from the aerosol provision system (Greenbaum: ¶¶ 0039-0040).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Greenbaum and Memari are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 8, the claimed subject matter that is met by Greenbaum and Memari includes:
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 based on the received stock information and one or more user preferences; and providing an indication of the alternative article with the notification (Greenbaum: ¶ 0040 “if the preferred type of cartridge or vaporizable content is not in stock at any nearby location, the computing system 230 may suggest a different type of cartridge or vaporizable content that is available at a nearby location (e.g., a different flavor) and send the substitute information with retailer information to the mobile device 202”).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Greenbaum and Memari are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 13, the claimed subject matter that is met by Greenbaum and Memari includes:
wherein determining that the article needs to be replaced is based on an indication received from the aerosol provision system.
The motivation for combining the teachings of Greenbaum and Memari are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 14, the claimed subject matter that is met by Greenbaum and Memari includes:
wherein determining that the article needs to be replaced is based on an indication received from the user (Greenbaum: ¶¶ 0037-0040).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Greenbaum and Memari are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 15, the claimed subject matter that is met by Greenbaum and Memari includes:
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 and the number of articles in a previously placed order (Greenbaum: ¶¶ 0028-0029 and 0037-0040).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Greenbaum and Memari are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 18, the claimed subject matter that is met by Greenbaum and Memari includes:
wherein the predetermined amount is 1%, 5%, or 10% of the capacity of the article (Greenbaum: ¶¶ 0029-0030 “processor 132 to determine that a resupply is necessary and to generate a signal 139 to indicate a resupply is requested, which signal 139 is transmitted to the computing system 230 (shown in FIG. 2) when the vaporizable substance drops below a threshold level stored in the memory 164 of the vaporization device 100… The vaporization device memory 164 can also be used to store a threshold value, which may be fixed or variable, below which the vaporization substance needs to be resupplied”)
Greenbaum clearly teaches that the threshold levels can be variable and merely using different specified levels from that in the prior art would have been obvious matter of design choice. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). Further motivation for combining the teachings of Greenbaum and Memari are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenbaum in view of Memari as applied in claim 1, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0054359 A1 to Ross et al. (“Ross”).
As per claim 9, Greenbaum and Memari fail to specifically teach wherein each order of the one or more orders comprises an eco-score based on the environmental footprint of the order. The Examiner provides Ross to teach and disclose this claimed feature.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Ross includes:
wherein each order of the one or more orders comprises an eco-score based on the environmental footprint of the order (Ross: ¶¶ 0057-0058 and Fig. 4)
Greenbaum and Memari teach systems and methods for ordering products that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Ross offers the embodiment of wherein each order of the one or more orders comprises an eco-score based on the environmental footprint of the order. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of the eco-score as disclosed by Ross to the systems and methods for ordering products as taught by Greenbaum and Memari for the predicted result of improved systems and methods for ordering products. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
As per claim 10, the claimed subject matter that is met by Greenbaum, Memari and Ross includes:
wherein the eco-score is included in the received stock information (Ross: ¶¶ 0057-0058 and Fig. 4).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Greenbaum, Memari and Ross are discussed in the rejection of claim 9, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 11, the claimed subject matter that is met by Greenbaum, Memari and Ross includes:
wherein the stock information further comprises a location of the vendor, and the eco-score is determined based on the location of the vendor (Ross: ¶¶ 0057-0058 and Fig. 4).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Greenbaum, Memari and Ross are discussed in the rejection of claim 9, and are incorporated herein.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenbaum in view Memari as applied in claim 1, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0046738 A1 to Cameron (“Cameron”).
As per claim 12, while Greenbaum discusses contacting the vendor, Greenbaum and Memari fail to specifically teach sending the order to a vendor of the one or more vendors to furnish the order. The Examiner provides Cameron to teach and disclose this claimed feature.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Cameron includes:
receiving, from the user, a selection of an order of the one or more orders; and sending the order to a vendor of the one or more vendors to furnish the order (Cameron: ¶ 0203).
Greenbaum teaches a system and method for ordering resupply for vaporization devices that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Cameron offers the embodiment of sending the order to a vendor of the one or more vendors to furnish the order. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of sending the order directly to the vendor as disclosed by Cameron to the system and method for ordering resupply for vaporization devices as taught by Greenbaum for the predicted result of improved systems and methods for ordering resupply for vaporization devices. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
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 Hunter Wilder whose telephone number is (571)270-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. 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.
/A. Hunter Wilder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights