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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to amendment filed on 6 June 2025. Claims 3, 5, 7, 8, 10 and 11 have been amended. Claims 1-12 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: communication unit for sending control information, a memory unit for storing the control information and a control unit for calculating a reward in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. (FP 7.30.06)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of sending control information and calculating a reward grated. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. (FP 7.31.01).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. (FP 7.34.01)
Claim limitation “a commucation unit for sending control information” , “memory unit for storing control information” and “and “a control unit for calculating a reward” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification states the claimed function of sending control information defining parameters relating to a temperature by heating the aerosol source, storing control information sent by the commucation and the usage history and for calculating a reward granted to a user. ” There are no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform sending control information, sorting control information and calculating reward granted to a user. The use of the term “ generating the control information ” is not adequate structure for performing the sending and storing control information, and calculating reward because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the term “generating the control information” refers to ending and storing control information, and calculating reward and can be performed in any number of ways in hardware, software or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which generating the control information structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. (FP 7.34.23).
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.
Step 1: The claims 1-11 are a system and claim 12 is a method. Thus, each independent claim, on its face, is directed to one of the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. §101. However, the claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A-Prong 1: independent claims 1 and 12 recite sending control information defining parameters relating to a temperature at which an aerosol source is heated, which generates an aerosol by heating the aerosol source, and receiving a usage history constituting information showing a history of use of the control information; storing the control information and calculating a reward granted to a user who contributed to generating the control information, based on the usage history. The calculating limitation, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable intepration covers calculation of a reward based on user contribution failed into mathematical or mental processes. An individual could perform these steps using a pen, paper, and basic arithmetic, but for the recitation of a generic computer components. For example, but for the generic computer components (i.e., communication unit, memory unit, and control unit) language, the claims encompass that user manually calculating the amount of reward based on the contribution of the user. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer component does not take the claims limitation out the mental process groping. Simply put, theses limitation merely describing motivating users to create and share better heating profiles by giving them rewards, it is clearly business arrangement in its purest form. Claims 2-11 merely provided additional abstract concept and narrow the abstract idea of claim 1. Further, claims 1-12 are recited at such a high level that the claimed steps amount no more than mental process, such as concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation,, evaluation, judgment, opinion) because a human can calculate the amount of reward granted to a user based generated control information, can be performed by human using “pencil and paper” which is a mental process. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
Step 2A-Prong 2: The claims recite the combination of additional elements communication unit used to perform sending step, memory unit used to perform storing step and , control unit used to perform calculating step. Th generic computer components (i.e., communication unit, memory unit, and control unit) in these steps are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., communication unit, memory unit, and control unit performing a generic computer function of processing data (amount or reward granted to a user). The receiving and sending steps are recited at a high level of generality (e.g., as a general means of gathering data for use in the calculation step) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. This generic computer components (i.e., communication unit, memory unit, and control unit) are merely 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 the abstract idea. The claims are directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-6, and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BELLINGER et al. (US Pub., No., 2019/0313697 Al) in view of Anderson et al. (US Pub., No., 2020/0000143 A1)
With respect to claim 1 BELLINGER teaches an information processing device (paragraph [0006], discloses a communication interface in commucation with the computer-readable medium transmit the reservoir information and plurlity operation parameter of the electronic vaping devices..) comprising:
a memory unit for storing the control information sent by the communication unit and the usage history received by the communication unit(paragraph [0016], discloses the operation parameter stored by the computer-readable medium includes times assocted with each of the plurality of puffs, and paragraph [0040], discloses the transmitted data for each puff can be stored in a database ); and
a control unit for calculating a reward granted to a user who contributed to generating the control information, based on the usage history stored in the memory unit (paragraph [0068], discloses survey data collected from users .., the result of the survey input to the comping device by the user can be stored in database server and optionally lined to the operation parameter for the user in the database .., surveys can be constructed to elect detailed information about the user’s vaping device an incentive can be provided to the users to answer the surveys).
BELLINGER teaches a communication unit for sending control information defining parameters (paragraph [0006], discloses a plurality of operational parameter of the electronic vaping device for each of a plurality of puffs, the operational parameter includes at least the first operational parameter .., transmit the reservoir information and the plurality of operation parameter of the electronic vaping device for the plurality of puffs .., paragraph [0009], discloses the sensor system includes a temperature sensor that measures a temperature of the heating elements as the first operation parameter, paragraphs [0021], [0023]-[0024] discloses received plurality of operational parameters[control information defining parameter] paragraph [0040], discloses computing device can transmit the operational parameters and the reservoir information over a wide-area commucation network ) relating to a temperature (paragraph [0009], discloses the sensor system includes a temperature sensor that measures a temperature of the heating elements as the first operation parameter ) at which an aerosol source is heated, for use by an inhalation device (paragraph [0006], discloses a heating element congrued to elevate a temperature of a liquid and convert a portion of the liquid into a vapor to be inhaled by a user of the electronic vaping device, paragraph [0010], discloses a temperature of heating element ), the e-liquid evaporated as a result of being exposed to an elevated temperature of a
heating element provided to the vaping device 105, and small liquid droplets of the e-liquid suspended or entrained in the air as an aerosol (paragraph [0044]), and retrieval and use of the stored data to reproduce the puffs under the actual usage conditions for which the stored data
was recorded(paragraph [0050]). BELLINGER failed to teach generates an aerosol by heating the aerosol source and for receiving a usage history constituting information showing a history of use of the control information by the inhalation device.
However, Anderson teaches generates an aerosol by heating the aerosol source (paragraphs [0008], discloses a vaporizer device, the user inhales an aerosol commonly called vapor, which may be generated by a heating elements that vaporize) and for receiving a usage history constituting information showing a history of use of the control information by the inhalation device (paragraph [0492], discloses receiving information about a user’s smoking history vaporizer usage history, goals, and/or history user information..). Therefore, it would have been obvious to the one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for operation parameter measure by a senor system provided to the respective electronic vaporing device of BELLINGER with collecting usage data from the vaporizer device of Anderson in order to generate recommendation to enhance and/or expedite the transaction from traditional combustible cigarettes to the vaporizer device (see, Anderson, abstract).
With respect to claim 2, BELLINGER in view of Anderson teaches elements of claim 1, furthermore, BELLINGER teaches the information processing device wherein the usage history includes at least any one of: the number of substrates containing an aerosol source that were heated on the basis of the control information; the number of puffs taken during heating based on the control information; timing of puffs; and duration of puffs taken during heating based on the control information(paragraph [0058], discloses a timer that can record temporal information for each puff such as start time, puff duration and/or end time).
With respect to claim 3, BELLINGER in view of Anderson teaches elements of claim 1, furthermore, BELLINGER teaches the information processing device wherein the control unit calculates the reward granted to a user who contributed to generating the control information, based on a ranking assigned to the control information from a predetermined perspective(paragraph [0068], discloses an incentive can be provided to the user to answer the survey [a user who contributed to generating the control information] for example, users can be offered a discount on thee-fluid as a result of completing the survey.).
With respect to claim 4, BELLINGER in view of Anderson teaches elements of claim 3, furthermore, BELLINGER teaches the information processing device wherein the control unit determines the ranking of the control information on the basis of at least any of: the usage history of the control information, a history of sending/receiving of the control information, and an evaluation of the control information(paragraph [0064], discloses measure the operation parameter…, the measured values of the operating parameters correspond to their respective puff in the database).
With respect to claim 5, BELLINGER in view of Anderson teaches elements of claim 1, furthermore, BELLINGER teaches the information processing device wherein the memory unit stores the sending/receiving history which shows the history of sending/receiving of the control information, and the control unit calculates the reward granted to a user who contributed to generating the control information, based on the history of sending/receiving of the control information stored in the memory unit(paragraph [0068], discloses an incentive can be provided to the user to answer the survey [a user who contributed to generating the control information] for example, users can be offered a discount on thee-fluid as a result of completing the survey.).
With respect to claim 6, BELLINGER in view of Anderson teaches elements of claim 5, furthermore, BELLINGER teaches the information processing device wherein the number of users using devices that received the control information(paragraph [0068], discloses survey data collected from users .., the results of the surveys input to the computing device by the user can be stored in the database server .., the surveys..). BELLINGER failed to teach history of sending/receiving of the control information includes at least either of the number of times that the control information was sent/received.
However, Anderson teaches sending/receiving of the control information includes at least either of the number of times that the control information was sent/received (paragraph [0406], discloses estimating image download time and .., the actual downloads times through pre-processing past history, testing, aggreged data from their device and/or the like history). Therefore, it would have been obvious to the one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for operation parameter measure by a senor system provided to the respective electronic vaporing device of BELLINGER with collecting usage data from the vaporizer device of Anderson in order to generate recommendation to enhance and/or expedite the transaction from traditional combustible cigarettes to the vaporizer device (see, Anderson, abstract).
With respect to claim 10, BELLINGER in view of Anderson teaches elements of claim 1, furthermore, BELLINGER teaches the information processing device wherein the inhalation device (paragraph [0037], discloses electronic vaping device .., user inhales through the mouth .., each ) uses control information received from a device used by another user, and the control unit calculates the reward granted to said other user who is using the device which was the sender of the control information(paragraph [0068], discloses survey data collected from users .., the results of the surveys input to the computing device by the user can be stored in the database server .., the surveys..).
With respect to claim 11 , BELLINGER in view of Anderson teaches elements of claim 1, furthermore, BELLINGER teaches the information processing device wherein the memory unit stores, in association with each other, the control information, first identification information for identifying a user who contributed to generating the control information, information(paragraph [0062], discloses puff can be assocted with the identification number uniquely identify those puffs.., paragraph [0064], discloses received information is stored in a databased , paragraph [0065], discloses information stored in the database in relations to the individual puffs ..,and paragraph [0067], discloses individuals within a certain class of user [identification information] …). BELLINGER failed to teach second identification information for identifying the Preliminary Amendment control.
However, Anderson teaches second identification information for identifying the Preliminary Amendment control (paragraph [0170], discloses enable remote update of data mode characterstics of the vaporizer device (data types collected at which frequency) based on implementing of new features and new learing of which data is most valuable). Therefore, it would have been obvious to the one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for operation parameter measure by a senor system provided to the respective electronic vaporing device of BELLINGER with collecting usage data from the vaporizer device of Anderson in order to generate recommendation to enhance and/or expedite the transaction from traditional combustible cigarettes to the vaporizer device (see, Anderson, abstract).
With respect to claim 12, BELLINGER teaches an information processing method comprising:
storing control information defining parameters relating to a temperature at which an aerosol source is heated, for use by an inhalation device which generates an aerosol by heating the aerosol source (paragraph [0006], discloses a heating element congrued to elevate a temperature of a liquid and convert a portion of the liquid into a vapor to be inhaled by a user of the electronic vaping device, paragraph [0009], discloses the sensor system includes a temperature sensor that measures a temperature of the heating elements as the first operation parameter paragraph [0010], discloses a temperature of heating element paragraph [0016], discloses the operation parameter stored by the computer-readable medium includes times assocted with each of the plurality of puffs, and paragraph [0040], discloses the transmitted data for each puff can be stored in a database );
sending the stored control information(paragraph [0169], discloses calibration data may be stored on a cartridge used with a vaporizer, transmitted to the vaporizer and proved …, and paragraph [0702], discloses received data and instructions from and to transmit data and instruction to a storage system); and
calculating, by means of a control unit, a reward granted to a user who contributed to generating the control information, based on the stored usage history(paragraph [0068], discloses an incentive can be provided to the user to answer the survey [a user who contributed to generating the control information] for example, users can be offered a discount on thee-fluid as a result of completing the survey.).
BELLINGER teaches sending control information defining parameters (paragraph [0006], discloses a plurality of operational parameter of the electronic vaping device for each of a plurality of puffs, the operational parameter includes at least the first operational parameter .., transmit the reservoir information and the plurality of operation parameter of the electronic vaping device for the plurality of puffs .., paragraph [0009], discloses the sensor system includes a temperature sensor that measures a temperature of the heating elements as the first operation parameter, paragraphs [0021], [0023]-[0024] discloses received plurality of operational parameters[control information defining parameter] paragraph [0040], discloses computing device can transmit the operational parameters and the reservoir information over a wide-area commucation network ) the e-liquid evaporated as a result of being exposed to an elevated temperature of a heating element provided to the vaping device 105, and small liquid droplets of the e-liquid suspended or entrained in the air as an aerosol (paragraph [0044]), and retrieval and use of the stored data to reproduce the puffs under the actual usage conditions for which the stored data was recorded(paragraph [0050]). BELLINGER failed to teach receiving a usage history constituting information showing a history of use of the control information by the inhalation device; and storing the received usage history.
However, Anderson teaches receiving a usage history constituting information showing a history of use of the control information by the inhalation device; and storing the received usage history (paragraph [0492], discloses receiving information about a user’s smoking history vaporizer usage history, goals, and/or history user information..). Therefore, it would have been obvious to the one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for operation parameter measure by a senor system provided to the respective electronic vaporing device of BELLINGER with collecting usage data from the vaporizer device of Anderson in order to generate recommendation to enhance and/or expedite the transaction from traditional combustible cigarettes to the vaporizer device (see, Anderson, abstract).
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BELLINGER et al. (US Pub., No., 2019/0313697 Al) in view of Anderson et al. (US Pub., No., 2020/0000143 A1) and futher view of UNAGAMI et al. (US Pub. No.: US 2023/0291602 Al)
With respect to claim 7, BELLINGER in view of Anderson teaches elements of claim 1, furthermore, BELLINGER teaches the information processing device wherein the control unit to generating the control information, based on rights relating to generation of the control information which have been granted to a user who contributed to generating the control information(paragraph [0068], discloses an incentive can be provided to the user to answer [rights] the survey [a user who contributed to generating the control information] for example, users can be offered a discount on thee-fluid as a result of completing the survey.) and Anderson teaches offer incentive based on the original purchase and/or subsequent purchase (paragraph [0605]). BELLINGER and Anderson failed calculates the reward granted to a user who contributed.
However, UNAGAMI teaches calculates the reward granted to a user who contributed(Fig. 14, S14 & S15 discloses identify provided data and value reference information and data provider of provided data, determine incentive, Fig. 17, S121-S128, discloses obtain usage record information for each user .., determine individual incentive , sum individual incentive for each provider and determine incentive, paragraphs [0007]-[0008], and paragraph [0036] discloses determining an incentive for a data provider of the used data ..). Therefore, it would have been obvious to the one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for providing incentive to the user to answer the survey of BELLINGER and offering incentive based on the original purchase and/or subsequent purchase of Anderson with determining incentive for each individual data provider of UNAGAMI in order to calculates, for each operation log, the data value based on the value reference information assigned to the operation log (see, UNAGANI, paragraph [0068]).
With respect to claim 8, BELLINGER in view of Anderson teaches elements of claim 1, furthermore, BELLINGER teaches the information processing device wherein the control unit generating the control information, (paragraph [0068], discloses an incentive can be provided to the user to answer the survey [a user who contributed to generating the control information] for example, users can be offered a discount on thee-fluid as a result of completing the survey.) and Anderson teaches offer incentive based on the original purchase and/or subsequent purchase (paragraph [0605]). BELLINGER and Anderson failed calculates the reward granted to a user who contributed.
However, UNAGAMI teaches calculates the reward granted to a user who contributed based on total sales of the control information (paragraph [0077], discloses payment amount determinator determine an incentive to be given to the determined data provided based the determine data value…, The incentive may be set by the data value itself, may be calculated by subtracting a certain value from the data value, may be calculated by multiplying the data value by a certain value ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to the one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for providing incentive to the user to answer the survey of BELLINGER and offering incentive based on the original purchase and/or subsequent purchase of Anderson with determining incentive for each individual data provider of UNAGAMI in order to calculates, for each operation log, the data value based on the value reference information assigned to the operation log (see, UNAGANI, paragraph [0068]).
With respect to claim 9, BELLINGER in view of Anderson and further view of UNAGAMI teaches elements of claim 8, but failed to teach information processing device wherein the control unit determines a selling price of the control information on the basis of: a ranking assigned to the control information from a predetermined perspective, the user who contributed to generating the control information, or the user who is using a device which received the control information.
However, UNAGAMI teaches information processing device wherein the control unit determines a selling price of the control information on the basis of: a ranking assigned to the control information from a predetermined perspective, the user who contributed to generating the control information, or the user who is using a device which received the control information (paragraph [0073], discloses payment amount determinator 103 calculates the usage fee for one or more operation log used by a specific data user .. ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to the one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for providing incentive to the user to answer the survey of BELLINGER and offering incentive based on the original purchase and/or subsequent purchase of Anderson with determining incentive for each individual data provider of UNAGAMI in order to calculates, for each operation log, the data value based on the value reference information assigned to the operation log (see, UNAGANI, paragraph [0068]).
Prior Arts:
BELLINGER et al. (US Pub., No., 2019/0313697 Al) discloses provided are a system and method of reproducing individual puffs based on empirical data collected by a plurality of electronic vaping devices during use of the vaping devices by users to inhale vapors.
Anderson et al. (US Pub., No., 2020/0000143 A1) discloses a vaporizer system may include a vaporizer device communicatively coupled with a user device configured to control the functions and/or features of the vaporizer device.
UNAGAMI et al. (US Pub. No.: US 2023/0291602 Al) discloses a method includes: recording provision record information in which provider identification information which identifies a data provider, data identification information which identifies each of one or more items of provided data generated by a home appliance, and value reference information which serves as a reference for calculating a data value of each of the one or more items of provided data are associated with one another.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SABA DAGNEW whose telephone number is (571)270-3271. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6:45.
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at (571) 270 -3948. 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.
/SABA DAGNEW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights