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 .
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, 9-13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker et al [U.S. 10,440,517] (supplied by applicant) in view of Wu [U.S. 9,473,488] (supplied by applicant) and Henry, Jr. et al [U.S. 10,321,711] (supplied by applicant).
For claim 1, the system taught by Baker includes the following claimed subject matter, as noted, 1) the claimed memory is met by the memory (No. 412) and 2) the claimed one or more processors is met by the CPU (No. 410) in communication with the memory (Fig. 7), wherein the CPU is configured to 3) store a position associated with a most recent communicative interaction between the system and an aerosol generation device (Col. 17, Lns. 48-52: a buildup of a history of where and when the user activated the vaping device), the position being indicative of a last known position of the aerosol generation device (Col. 17, Lns. 57-60: only a few seconds delay occur between the notification and calculation of the GPS coordinates), and 4) output, for display (No. 418), an indication of the stored position to aid a user in locating the aerosol generation device based on its last known position (Figs. 11 and 12 of Baker depict a method to generate a map based on vaping action events). However, there is no mention of identifying information of the aerosol generation device stored.
Identifying information of vaping and aerosol devices has been taught in the prior art. The control device and method taught by Wu not only includes identification information on an identification chip or an atomizer (Col. 5, Lns 21-24), but it also links and matches this identification information with a mobile terminal (Col. 2, Lns. 22-26). The obvious advantage of the Wu reference is to match and authenticate the atomizer with a specific mobile terminal at a lower cost than prior art atomizers. Prior art aerosol devices had expensive authentication devices such as password inputs, fingerprint readers, or even pupil or voice recognition (Col. 1, Lns. 34-39). Even matching methods between the atomizer and battery were expensive (Col. 1, Lns. 64-67).
The Baker reference presents an ideal platform onto which the advantages of Wu may be applied, in that the hardware is already present in the Baker reference, namely the aerosol generation device and mobile terminal. And an authentication method such as Wu would prevent someone other than the owner from using the atomizer (Col. 1, Lns. 28-32). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to save identifying information in the system of Baker for the purpose of properly authenticating an owner of the device and also preventing unauthorized use of the device.
Another claimed element not found in either reference above is outputting a signal when communicative interaction is established or during a communicative interaction configured to trigger the aerosol generation device to provide an audible indication and/or haptic indication provided by a vibration of the aerosol generation device.
Triggering indications have been presented in aerosol devices in the past. The Henry reference presents an aerosol delivery case (No. 102) that communicates with a remote computer (No. 104) that can cause transmission of a trigger signal to said aerosol delivery device (Fig. 10). As recited in the specification (Col. 6, Lns. 42-47), the operations performed by the delivery device and/or computing device based on a communication link may include the devices being configured to provide a user-perceptible feedback, which may include a visual, audible, and/or haptic (e.g., vibration) feedback. Furthermore, the Henry reference is not limiting as to what can trigger the feedback. Functional elements of the aerosol delivery device may be controlled in any number of different manners based on the state of a proximity-based communication link (Col. 12, Lns. 38-44) in order to activate a sensory-feedback member.
The Henry reference presents an advantageous configuration wherein communication between the aerosol generation device and the user computer may be validated with a positive signal perceptible to the user. This would give definite feedback to the user that their communication link is operational. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to indicate a communicative interaction with an aerosol generation device for the purpose of providing a useful indication of proper operation to the user.
For claim 2, Figure 12 of Baker details receiving the user’s current set of GPS coordinates in order to identify regions on a heat map to a remote device.
For claim 3, the method taught by Baker includes the following claimed steps, as noted, 1) store a position associated with a most recent communicative interaction between the system and an aerosol generation device (Col. 17, Lns. 48-52: a buildup of a history of where and when the user activated the vaping device), the position being indicative of a last known position of the aerosol generation device (Col. 17, Lns. 57-60: only a few seconds delay occur between the notification and calculation of the GPS coordinates), and 2) output, for display (No. 418), an indication of the stored position to aid a user in locating the aerosol generation device based on its last known position (Figs. 11 and 12 of Baker depict a method to generate a map based on vaping action events). However, there is no mention of identifying information of the aerosol generation device stored.
The claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons and rationale as is mentioned in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Another claimed element not found in either reference above is outputting a signal when communicative interaction is established or during a communicative interaction configured to trigger the aerosol generation device to provide an audible indication and/or haptic indication provided by a vibration of the aerosol generation device.
The claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons and rationale as is mentioned in the rejection of claim 1 above.
For claim 4, Figure 12 of Baker details receiving the user’s current set of GPS coordinates in order to identify regions on a heat map to a remote device.
For claim 9, Figure 6 of Henry depicts an icon that allows the user to validate their aerosol delivery device to the software application running on the computing device. This may include user input to cause the computing device to transmit a trigger signal to the aerosol device to provide user-perceptible feedback (Col. 15, Lns. 50-59).
For claim 10, the user-perceptible feedback of Henry may be a single or continuous LED flash (Col. 15, Lns. 57-58).
For claim 11, the icon is seen in Figure 6 of Henry. Changing this icon is a matter best left to the designer or user of the software application in order to present a customizable notification to the user.
For claim 12, the non-transitory computer-readable medium (Col. 24, Lns. 26-27) taught by Baker performs the following claimed steps, as noted, 1) store a position associated with a most recent communicative interaction between the system and an aerosol generation device (Col. 17, Lns. 48-52: a buildup of a history of where and when the user activated the vaping device), the position being indicative of a last known position of the aerosol generation device (Col. 17, Lns. 57-60: only a few seconds delay occur between the notification and calculation of the GPS coordinates), and 2) output, for display (No. 418), an indication of the stored position to aid a user in locating the aerosol generation device based on its last known position (Figs. 11 and 12 of Baker depict a method to generate a map based on vaping action events). However, there is no mention of identifying information of the aerosol generation device stored.
The claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons and rationale as is mentioned in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Another claimed element not found in either reference above is outputting a signal when communicative interaction is established or during a communicative interaction configured to trigger the aerosol generation device to provide an audible indication and/or haptic indication provided by a vibration of the aerosol generation device.
The claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons and rationale as is mentioned in the rejection of claim 1 above.
For claim 13, Figure 12 of Baker details receiving the user’s current set of GPS coordinates in order to identify regions on a heat map to a remote device.
For claim 18, Figure 6 of Henry depicts an icon that allows the user to validate their aerosol delivery device to the software application running on the computing device. This may include user input to cause the computing device to transmit a trigger signal to the aerosol device to provide user-perceptible feedback (Col. 15, Lns. 50-59).
For claim 19, the user-perceptible feedback of Henry may be a single or continuous LED flash (Col. 15, Lns. 57-58).
For claim 20, the icon is seen in Figure 6 of Henry. Changing this icon is a matter best left to the designer or user of the software application in order to present a customizable notification to the user.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker et al in view of Wu and Henry, Jr. et al as applied to claims 3 and 12 above, and further in view of Kartchner [U.S. 7,437,167] (supplied by applicant).
For claim 8, the indication of the stored position found in Baker does not include a numerical distance between the two devices or an icon that changes color based on the proximity of the two devices.
Location of transceiver devices have displayed distance for some time. The apparatus taught by Kartchner locates a transceiver using RF communications wherein the transceiver receives an incoming RF signal and responds using a low power signal with a unique identifier and location information, or a high-power signal with a station identifier received from the RF signal (Abstract). One important aspect found in the Kartchner reference (Col. 7, Lns. 17-20) is that the comparison RF device to the transceiver determines a separation distance and then displays this separation distance. Furthermore, if the separation distance exceeds a threshold or if the mobile RF device does not respond, an alarm may be signaled.
The obvious advantage of the Kartchner reference is to present an additional piece of information that would assist a user in finding the mobile device. Having just a map as seen in Baker may not be sufficient to find the misplaced items. Having a specific distance to the device would make it easier to locate said device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a separation distance in the display of Baker for the purpose of facilitating the location of a misplaced item, in this case the aerosol generation device.
For claim 17, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons and rationale as is mentioned in the rejection of claim 8 above.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,368,831. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims pertain to similar subject matter. For example, each independent claim of the current application is merely a broader version of claim 1 of the ’831 reference with the subject matter of claim 8 of the ‘831 reference included therein. The claimed “another signal” in the current application is similar to claims 3 and 4 of the ‘831 reference with its alternate method of triggering an audible or haptic indication.
Claims 5-7 and 14-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as well as filing of the Terminal Disclaimer to obviate the double patenting rejection above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The Henry reference does include an icon as described above; however, this icon is not used to indicate a stored position of the aerosol generation device that is also selectable when communicative interaction is established between the computing device and aerosol generation device.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Estripeau [U.S. 12,200,590] is configured to establish communication between a computing device and an aerosol generation device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN A. TWEEL JR whose telephone number is (571)272-2969. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Davetta W Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
JAT
3/10/2026
/JOHN A TWEEL JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689