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 Objections
Claims 1, 13 and 20 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the attachable accessory” in line 11. It is presumed to recite “the
Claim 13 recites “the attachable accessory” in line 9. It is presumed to recite “the
Claim 20 recites “the wireless signal” in line 1. It is presumed to recite “the wireless alert signal”. See claim 19, line 3.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 3-6, 17 and 18 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the visual alert comprises an indication of a location of the accessory on a display of the locating device.” Claim 1 requires “wherein the alerting module is configured to issue an alert responsive to receipt of the alert signal by the listening module”. It is unclear how the locating device can issue the visual alert when the visual alert is specifically issued by the alerting module of the accessory. For at least this reason, the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claims 4-6 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the visual alert comprises a direction pointer displayed on the locating device”. Claim 1 requires “wherein the alerting module is configured to issue an alert responsive to receipt of the alert signal by the listening module”. It is unclear how the locating device can issue the visual alert when the visual alert is specifically issued by the alerting module of the accessory. For at least this reason, the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claim 17 recites “the housing” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Clarification is requested.
Claim 18 is rejected by virtue of its dependency.
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 the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,406,565. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of currently pending Application No 19/287,009 are broader and obvious variants of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,406,565.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-13, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cameron (US 2017/0092106 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cameron discloses an attachable accessory for device location of an aerosol generation device (see at least Figure 16, items 1602a and 1602b | [0004] | [0044] note the first user device can correspond to a mobile user device, and a second user device can be a vaping device | [0045] note the second user device can be attached to an object of importance, such as a vaping device), the accessory comprising:
a housing configured to engage a portion of the aerosol generation device to operably couple the accessory to the aerosol generation device (see at least [0045] note the second user device can be attached to an object of importance, such as a vaping device);
a listening module (see at least [0044] note both the first and second user devices can communicate via Zigbee or Bluetooth | [0137]); and
an alerting module (see at least [0044] note the second user device can produce an audio signal, visual signal and/or vibration signal);
wherein the listening module is configured to receive an alert signal from a locating device (see at least [0044] note the second user device responds when a signal is received from the first user device); and
wherein the alerting module is configured to issue an alert responsive to receipt of the alert signal by the listening module (see at least [0044] note the second user device responds via an audio signal, visual signal and/or vibration signal when a signal is received from the first user device), said alert including a strength of indication feature representative of a proximity to the attachable accessory by the locating device (see at least [0139] note the response generated by the second user device can vary based on proximity of the first user device to the second user device, for example the second user device can increase the volume or frequency of the audio signal the closer the first user device gets to the second user device).
Regarding claim 2, Cameron discloses wherein the alert comprises a visual alert (see at least [0044] note the second user device can produce an audio signal, visual signal and/or vibration signal).
Regarding claim 3, Cameron discloses wherein the visual alert comprises an indication of a location of the accessory on a display of the locating device (see at least [0138] note the signal transmitted by the second user device can comprise location information such as, a GPS location or a triangulated location, and the first user device can generate a visual display on a map with the location of the second user device based on the location information received).
Regarding claim 4, Cameron discloses wherein the visual alert comprises a relative location between the accessory and the locating device, the relative location being defined by a distance between a first point associated with the accessory and a second point associated with the locating device (see at least [0139] note the response of the second user device can comprise an audio signal (e.g., ring, beep, and the like), visual signal (e.g., flash, visual display activation, and the like), vibrations, combinations thereof, and the like, that vary in volume/amplitude or frequency based on proximity of the first user device to the second user device | [0141] note the first user device can determine the location of the second user device based on strength of the signal of the second user device).
Regarding claim 7, Cameron discloses wherein the alert comprises an audio alert (see at least [0139] note the response of the second user device can comprise an audio signal (e.g., ring, beep, and the like), visual signal (e.g., flash, visual display activation, and the like), vibrations, combinations thereof, and the like, that vary in volume/amplitude or frequency based on proximity of the first user device to the second user device | [0141] note the first user device can determine the location of the second user device based on strength of the signal of the second user device).
Regarding claim 8, Cameron discloses wherein the audio alert comprises an audible sound and the strength of indication feature comprises varying an intensity of the audible sound as a function of a distance between the accessory and the locating device (see at least [0139] note the response of the second user device can comprise an audio signal (e.g., ring, beep, and the like), visual signal (e.g., flash, visual display activation, and the like), vibrations, combinations thereof, and the like, that vary in volume/amplitude or frequency based on proximity of the first user device to the second user device | [0141] note the first user device can determine the location of the second user device based on strength of the signal of the second user device).
Regarding claim 9, Cameron discloses wherein the audio alert comprises an intermittent audible sound and the strength of indication feature comprises varying a frequency of the intermittent audible sound as a function of a distance between the accessory and the locating device (see at least [0139] note the response of the second user device can comprise an audio signal (e.g., ring, beep, and the like), visual signal (e.g., flash, visual display activation, and the like), vibrations, combinations thereof, and the like, that vary in volume/amplitude or frequency based on proximity of the first user device to the second user device | [0141] note the first user device can determine the location of the second user device based on strength of the signal of the second user device).
Regarding claim 10, Cameron discloses wherein the alert comprises a haptic alert (see at least [0139] note the response of the second user device can comprise an audio signal (e.g., ring, beep, and the like), visual signal (e.g., flash, visual display activation, and the like), vibrations, combinations thereof, and the like, that vary in volume/amplitude or frequency based on proximity of the first user device to the second user device | [0141] note the first user device can determine the location of the second user device based on strength of the signal of the second user device).
Regarding claim 11, Cameron discloses wherein the strength of indication feature comprises varying an intensity of the haptic alert as a function of a distance between the accessory and the locating device (see at least [0139] note the response of the second user device can comprise an audio signal (e.g., ring, beep, and the like), visual signal (e.g., flash, visual display activation, and the like), vibrations, combinations thereof, and the like, that vary in volume/amplitude or frequency based on proximity of the first user device to the second user device | [0141] note the first user device can determine the location of the second user device based on strength of the signal of the second user device).
Regarding claim 12, Cameron discloses wherein the strength of indication feature comprises varying a frequency of the haptic alert as a function of a distance between the accessory and the locating device (see at least [0139] note the response of the second user device can comprise an audio signal (e.g., ring, beep, and the like), visual signal (e.g., flash, visual display activation, and the like), vibrations, combinations thereof, and the like, that vary in volume/amplitude or frequency based on proximity of the first user device to the second user device | [0141] note the first user device can determine the location of the second user device based on strength of the signal of the second user device).
Regarding claim 13, Cameron discloses a device locator system (see at least Figure 16, items 1602a and 1602b | [0004] | [0044] note the first user device can correspond to a mobile user device, and a second user device can be a vaping device | [0045] note the second user device can be attached to an object of importance, such as a vaping device) comprising:
an aerosol generation device (see at least [0044] note vaping device | [0045] note vaping device); and
an accessory configured to be operably coupled to the aerosol generation device (see at least [0045] note the second user device can be attached to an object of importance, such as a vaping device), the accessory comprising
a listening module (see at least [0044] note both the first and second user devices can communicate via Zigbee or Bluetooth | [0137]) and
an alerting module (see at least [0044] note the second user device can produce an audio signal, visual signal and/or vibration signal),
wherein the listening module is configured to receive an alert signal from a locating device (see at least [0044] note the second user device responds when a signal is received from the first user device), and
wherein the alerting module is configured to issue an alert responsive to receipt of the alert signal by the listening module (see at least [0044] note the second user device responds via an audio signal, visual signal and/or vibration signal when a signal is received from the first user device), said alert including a strength of indication feature representative of a proximity to the attachable accessory by the locating device (see at least [0139] note the response generated by the second user device can vary based on proximity of the first user device to the second user device, for example the second user device can increase the volume or frequency of the audio signal the closer the first user device gets to the second user device).
Regarding claim 19, Cameron discloses wherein the listening module comprises a wireless receiver configured to communicate wirelessly with the locating device to receive the alert signal as a wireless alert signal sent by the locating device, responsive to a request from a user (see at least [0044] note both the first and second user devices can communicate via Zigbee or Bluetooth | [0137-0138]).
Regarding claim 20, Cameron discloses wherein the wireless signal is sent responsive to activation of the locating device via an application executed by the user at the locating device (see at least [0138] note when a user of the first user device wants to locate a second user device, the user can activate an application on the first user device to determine a location of the second user device by transmitting a signal to the second user device).
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cameron (US 2017/0092106 A1) in view of Bowen (US 2018/0043114 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Cameron does not specifically disclose wherein the strength of indication feature comprises a variable color scheme correlated with a magnitude of the distance between the first point and the second point.
It is known to locate missing devices in different ways. For example, Bowen teaches a system wherein the strength of indication feature comprises a variable color scheme correlated with a magnitude of the distance between the first point and the second point (see at least [0193] note the vaporizer may also help locate a misplaced phone when connected via changing LED colors depending on the distance between the vaporizer and the phone).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Bowen into Cameron. This provides a user with feedback as to how close they are from a missing device.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cameron (US 2017/0092106 A1) in view of Yan (US 2011/0234399 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Cameron does not specifically disclose wherein the visual alert comprises a direction pointer displayed on the locating device, and the strength of indication feature comprises varying a magnitude of directional pointer as a function of the distance between the first point and the second point.
It is known to locate missing devices in different ways. For example, Yan teaches a system wherein the visual alert comprises a direction pointer displayed on the locating device, and the strength of indication feature comprises varying a magnitude of directional pointer as a function of the distance between the first point and the second point (see at least Figure 7A, item 705 | [0063] note the arrow 705 is a navigation indicator of the location with the direction of the arrow pointing to the position of the item 701, the length of the arrow 705 approximately corresponding to the distance, the thickness of the corresponding to the signal strength, and any obstacles in the path to the item 701 corresponding to a bend in the arrow (e.g., in this case, there is no obstacle in the way, so there is not bend in the arrow | [0064]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Yan into Cameron. This provides the user with intuitive feedback as to how close they are from a missing device.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cameron (US 2017/0092106 A1) in view of Wood (US 2020/0352250 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Cameron does not specifically disclose wherein the accessory comprises a sleeve portion configured to receive a portion of the aerosol generation device to operably couple the accessory to the aerosol generation device.
It is known for tracking devices to be configured in different ways. For example, Wood teaches a device locator system wherein an accessory comprises a sleeve portion configured to receive a portion of the aerosol generation device to operably couple the accessory to the aerosol generation device (see at least Figures 15A-17 | [0059] | [0037] note the data transmission device may be housed with a Bluetooth/Wi-Fi receiver and a speaker that may communicate with the user’s electronic device, and when an electronic vaporizing device is lost, the user can use his/her electronic device to identify the last location when he/she had the electronic vaporizing device via the internal speaker).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Wood into Cameron. This provides a known alternative coupling means that can be used in place of Cameron’s coupling means while providing predictable results.
Regarding claim 15, Cameron does not specifically disclose wherein the alerting module comprises a speaker configured to issue the alert as an audible sound.
It is known for tracking devices to emit sounds in different ways. For example, Wood teaches a device locator system wherein the alerting module comprises a speaker configured to issue the alert as an audible sound (see at least Figures 15A-17 | [0059] | [0037] note the data transmission device may be housed with a Bluetooth/Wi-Fi receiver and a speaker that may communicate with the user’s electronic device, and when an electronic vaporizing device is lost, the user can use his/her electronic device to identify the last location when he/she had the electronic vaporizing device via the internal speaker).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Wood into Cameron. This provides a known alternative notification means that can be used in place of, or in addition to, Cameron’s notification means while providing predictable results.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cameron (US 2017/0092106 A1) in view of Wilson (US 2020/0229492 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Cameron does not specifically disclose wherein the alerting module is configured to issue the alert for a predetermined period of time, or to issue the alert until an instruction to stop issuing the alert is received.
It is known for aerosol generation device accessories to function in different ways. For example, Wilson teaches an accessory wherein the alerting module is configured to issue the alert for a predetermined period of time, or to issue the alert until an instruction to stop issuing the alert is received (see at least [0057] note the audio device can be configured to generate and play a predetermined sound or audible waveform for a set period of time and/or continuously, until the locating mode is turned off | [0054-0055]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Wilson into Cameron. This provides the ability to listen for the alert for an extended period of time in order to better assist in finding the aerosol generation device.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cameron (US 2017/0092106 A1) in view of Henry (US 2015/0224268 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Cameron does not specifically disclose a power module configured to power the listening module and the alerting module, and wherein the housing further comprises a charge port via which the power module is rechargeable from an external power source.
It is known for aerosol generation device accessories to be constructed in different ways. For example, Henry teaches an accessory with a power module configured to power a listening module and an alerting module, and wherein the housing further comprises a charge port via which the power module is rechargeable from an external power source (see at least [0030] note the battery may be recharged through interfacing of the aerosol delivery device 100 or portion thereof containing a battery (e.g., the control body 102) with an embodiment of the charging accessory | Figure 3, items 304, 328, 326, 322, 324, 336 and 302 | Figure 5 | [0057] | [0059] | [0061] | [0063] | [0072] | [0115]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Henry into Cameron. This provides the ability to power Cameron’s accessory so the user can locate an aerosol generation device.
Regarding claim 18, Cameron in view of Henry teach wherein the power module is configured to provide power to a battery of the aerosol generation device (see at least [0030] of Henry, note the battery may be recharged through interfacing of the aerosol delivery device 100 or portion thereof containing a battery (e.g., the control body 102) with an embodiment of the charging accessory | Figure 3, items 304, 328, 326, 322, 324, 336 and 302 of Henry | Figure 5 of Henry | [0057] of Henry | [0059] of Henry | [0061] of Henry | [0063] of Henry | [0072] of Henry | [0115] of Henry).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN WILSON whose telephone number is 571-270-5884. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00pm.
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 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.
/BRIAN WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights