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 the Claims
This office action is in response to Applicants arguments filed 02/26/2026.
Claims 16-28 are pending and are subject to this Office Action.
Claim 29 is previously withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 2-10, filed 02/26/2026, with respect to the 103 rejection of claim 16 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 2-6 the Applicant argues that prior art Delflosse does not appropriately teach that the control circuitry is configured to receive the user-input authentication information during multiple time windows of predetermined duration as claimed. Specifically, the Applicant Argues that Delflosse does not teach imposition of time windows corresponding to respective digits of the sequence in order to attribute user input to the proper digit. The Applicant cites different purposes between the time window of Delflosse (hiding a character on a screen) and the time windows as specified (authentication logic) and states that the concealment time of Delflosse merely defines a passive duration, as opposed to the structurally integral time windows of the specification.
The Examiner disagrees.
Delflosse teaches that the control circuitry (microprocessor 102; page 2, ¶ 8) is configured to receive the user-input authentication information during multiple time windows of predetermined duration (T1; page 4, ¶ 3), each time window corresponding to a respective digit of a sequence of digits forming the authentication information (Fig. 2 demonstrates correspondence of digits to time windows 200-203 of predetermined time T2), and to attribute user input received via the user interface components during a time window of the multiple time windows to the digit corresponding to said time window (Fig. 2 depicts this attribution; page 4; ¶ 3) and interpret multiple signals arising from repeated user operation of a same user interface component during said time window as a coded input signal defining the digit of the sequence to which said time window corresponds (page 4, ¶ 3 teaches multiple concealment time windows (maximum duration during which the user is allowed to enter a character) for each multitap input). The Examiner particularly highlights Delflosse Fig. 2 as demonstrating the assignation of digits to multiple timeframes 200-203.
Delflosse teaches both the concealment of the password and the ability of the input to authenticate the device. While the claimed invention does not require a concealment, this does not preclude ability of Delflosse to make obvious the claim.
The Examiner further notes that the arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims, as the claims do not specifically require the precise structural integrity of the time windows as argued.
Thus, the rejection is maintained.
The following is the maintained rejection.
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 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 16-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cameron (US 20160324217 A1) in view of Delflosse (DE 60103488 T2; hereinafter referring to the English translation provided).
Regarding claim 16, Cameron teaches control circuitry (processor 102; [0049]) for an aerosol-generating device (electronic vapor device 100 or vapor device 900; [0049], [0096]), the aerosol-generating device having a locked state in which the aerosol-generating device is prohibited from delivering aerosol and an unlocked state in which the aerosol-generating device is permitted to deliver aerosol ([0054], [0096]), the control circuitry being configured to receive user-input authentication information from one or more user interface components (input/output device 112 or display 902; [0054], [0096]), perform offline authentication of the aerosol-generating device based on the user- input authentication information ([0054]), and determine to transition the aerosol-generating device from the locked state to the unlocked state based on a successful result of the offline authentication ([0054]).
Cameron does not teach that the control circuitry is configured to receive the user-input authentication information during multiple time windows of predetermined duration, each time window corresponding to a respective digit of a sequence of digits forming the authentication information, and to attribute user input received via the user interface components during a time window of the multiple time windows to the digit corresponding to said time window and interpret multiple signals arising from repeated user operation of a same user interface component during said time window as a coded input signal defining the digit of the sequence to which said time window corresponds.
Deflosse, directed to a method in which a control circuitry (microprocessor 102; page 2, ¶ 8) receives user-input authentication information from one or more user interface components (keyboard 130; page 3, ¶ 1) to determine to transition the device from the locked state to the unlocked state based on a successful result of the offline authentication (page 2; ¶ 1), teaches that the control circuitry is further configured to receive the user-input authentication information during multiple time windows of predetermined duration (T1; page 4, ¶ 3), each time window corresponding to a respective digit of a sequence of digits forming the authentication information, and to attribute user input received via the user interface components during a time window of the multiple time windows to the digit corresponding to said time window (page 4; ¶ 3) and interpret multiple signals arising from repeated user operation of a same user interface component during said time window as a coded input signal defining the digit of the sequence to which said time window corresponds (page 4, ¶ 3 teaches multiple concealment time windows (maximum duration during which the user is allowed to enter a character) for each input).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Cameron by configuring the control circuitry to receive authentication information during multiple time windows and to attribute user input received via the user interface components during a time window of the multiple time windows to the digit corresponding to said time window, interpret multiple signals arising from repeated user operation of a same user interface component during said time window as a coded input signal defining the digit of the sequence to which said time window corresponds as taught by Delflosse because both Cameron and Delflosse are directed to devices with control circuitry that receive user authenication information to lock or unlock the device, Cameron is silent to an exact method for accomplishing this authentication and one with ordinary skill would be motivated to look to prior art for a known and suitable authentication method, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 17, Deflosse teaches that the control circuity is further configured to trigger a timeout in response to no user input being received by the one or more user interface components within a predetermined time period starting from the beginning of a respective one of the time windows (page 4, ¶ 4 teaches a "global concealment time" aka a "maximum duration that the user has to enter his entire password". Thus, a timeout would be triggered in response to no user input being received within the concealment time).
Regarding claim 18, Deflosse teaches that the control circuity is further configured to initiate a first one of the time windows in response to a user interacting with the one or more user interface components (page 3, ¶ 5).
Regarding claim 19, Deflosse teaches that the control circuity is further configured to initiate the first one of the time windows in response to receiving a predetermined signal generated by the user interacting with the one or more user interface components (page 3, ¶ 5).
Regarding claim 20, Deflosse teaches that the one or more user interface components comprise a pushbutton, and the predetermined signal is generated by the user pressing the pushbutton a predetermined number of times (page 3, ¶ 5; "the tilting of a mode to the other is carried out by a simple press of one of the keys command 121 or 122").
Regarding claim 21, Deflosse teaches that before and/or during one or more of the time windows, there is a preliminary time window, and wherein the control circuitry is further configured to determine an unsuccessful result of the offline authentication if no user-input authentication is received during the preliminary time window (page 4, ¶ 3 teaches a maximum duration during which the user is allowed to enter a character for each input. It would be expected that if an input is not received during this duration, the control circuitry is configured to determine an unsuccessful result of the offline authentication), and to store the received user-input authentication and to initiate the corresponding time window and/or to continue running the corresponding time window if user-input authentication is received during the preliminary time window (page 4, ¶ 3).
Regarding claim 22, Deflosse teaches that the control circuity is further configured to control the user interface components to output user-perceptible guidance signals indicating at least the beginnings of respective time windows (page 4; ¶ 3; "when a user inputs a character and waits for a certain moment, the input character is automatically hidden from view for a while, possibly suggesting automatically to input the next character”, indicating the beginning of respective time windows).
Regarding claim 23, Deflosse teaches that the control circuity is further configured to control the user interface components to output user-perceptible guidance signals indicating that said time window is running (page 4; ¶ 3; "when a user inputs a character and waits for a certain moment, the input character is automatically hidden from view for a while, possibly suggesting automatically to input the next character”, indicating that respective time windows are running).
Regarding claim 24, Deflosse teaches that the control circuity is further configured to control the user interface components to output user-perceptible guidance signals (page 2, ¶ 2, “an entered letter is actually displayed on a control screen before it may be automatically obscured by a neutral star type symbol or the like”) indicating for which digit of the sequence the user is being guided to provide input (page 4; ¶ 3; "when a user inputs a character and waits for a certain moment, the input character is automatically hidden from view for a while, possibly suggesting automatically to input the next character”).
Regarding claim 25, Deflosse teaches that the aerosol-generating device is provided with a number of output elements corresponding to the number of digits in the sequence (page 2, ¶ 2, “an entered letter is actually displayed on a control screen before it may be automatically obscured by a neutral star type symbol or the like”), and wherein the position of an active output element with respect to inactive output elements indicates the position of the digit within the sequence for which input is expected (page 4; ¶ 3; "when a user inputs a character and waits for a certain moment, the input character is automatically hidden from view for a while, possibly suggesting automatically to input the next character”).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cameron and Deflosse as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Freeman et al. (US 20180295886 A1).
Regarding claim 27, Cameron teaches that the user interface may be any input/output device, such as a button ([0052]). Cameron further teaches that this may be a power button ([0061]).
Cameron does not explicitly teach that the user interface power button is configured to receive user-input authentication information.
Freeman, directed to an aerosol-generating device (inhalation device 100; [0014]) comprising a control circuitry (processor; [0015]), the aerosol-generating device having a locked state in which the aerosol-generating device is prohibited from delivering aerosol and an unlocked state in which the aerosol-generating device is permitted to deliver aerosol ([0013]), the control circuitry being configured to: receive user-input authentication information from one or more user interface components, perform offline authentication of the aerosol-generating device based on the user- input authentication information, and determine to transition the aerosol-generating device from the locked state to the unlocked state based on a successful result of the offline authentication ([0015]), teaches that an alternative to a keyboard user input, an aerosol-generating device may use a power button (button 108) as the user interface configured to receive user-input authentication information ([0015]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Cameron by making the user interface component a power button as taught by Freeman because both Cameron and Freeman are directed to aerosol-generating devices and control circuitry with user authentication, Freeman teaches that a power button is a known alternative for a user input component, and this involves substituting one alternative user input configuration for another to yield predictable results.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cameron and Deflosse as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Trzecieski (US 20190166913 A1).
Regarding claim 27, Cameron does not teach that the control circuitry is further configured to respond to an unsuccessful result of the offline authentication by prohibiting the user from inputting further authentication information until a time delay period has expired, or by refraining from performing offline authentication based on user- input authentication information until a time delay period has expired.
Trzecieski, directed to an aerosol generating device (vaporization device 1400; [0517]) with control circuitry (processor), the aerosol-generating device having a locked state in which the aerosol-generating device is prohibited from delivering aerosol and an unlocked state in which the aerosol-generating device is permitted to deliver aerosol ([0517]), the control circuitry being configured to perform offline authentication of the aerosol-generating device based on the user- input authentication information and determine to transition the aerosol-generating device from the locked state to the unlocked state based on a successful result of the offline authentication ([0517]), teaches further configured to respond to an unsuccessful result of the offline authentication by prohibiting the user from inputting further authentication information until a time delay period has expired ([0517]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Cameron by configuring the control circuitry to respond to an unsuccessful result of the offline authentication by prohibiting the user from inputting further authentication information until a time delay period has expired as taught by Trzecieski because both Cameron and Trzecieski are directed to aerosol generating devices that receiver user authentication to unlock, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the time delay of Trzecieski would further secure the device and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar device to yield predictable results.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cameron, Deflosse and Trzecieski as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Armingaud (US 20020108046 A1).
Regarding claim 28, Cameron does not teach that the control circuity is further configured to increase the duration of the time delay period after each successive unsuccessful result of the offline authentication.
Armingaud, directed to control circuitry configured to perform authentication of a user- input authentication information ([0002], [0005]), teaches using an increase in the duration of the time delay period after each successive unsuccessful result of authentication to further prevent unauthorized access to a device ([0008]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Cameron by configuring the circuitry to increase the duration of the time delay period after each successive unsuccessful result of the offline authentication as taught by Armingaud because both Cameron and Armingaud are directed to control circuitry configured to perform user authentication, Armingaud teaches that it is known in the art to increase the duration of a time delay after each unsuccessful access to further secure a device, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar authentication process to yield predictable results.
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.
Claim 16 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16, 22 and 23 of copending Application No. 19/099,952. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 16, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are directed to control circuitry for an aerosol-generating device, the aerosol-generating device having a locked state in which the aerosol-generating device is prohibited from delivering aerosol and an unlocked state in which the aerosol-generating device is permitted to deliver aerosol, the control circuitry being configured to: receive user-input authentication information from one or more user interface components and perform offline authentication of the aerosol-generating device based on the user- input authentication information, determine to transition the aerosol-generating device from the locked state to the unlocked state based on a successful result of the offline authentication.
Conflicting claim 16 does not explicitly teach wherein the control circuitry is further configured to receive the user-input authentication information during multiple time windows of predetermined duration, each time window corresponding to a respective digit of a sequence of digits forming the authentication information, and to attribute user input received via the user interface components during a time window of the multiple time windows to the digit corresponding to said time window and interpret multiple signals arising from repeated user operation of a same user interface component during said time window as a coded input signal defining the digit of the sequence to which said time window corresponds, however, conflicting claims 22-23 teach this limitation.
The claims further differ in that conflicting claim 16 contains additional limitations directed to an aerosol-generating device. However, conflicting claims 16, 22 and 23 still make obvious all required components of rejected claim 16. Therefore, all elements of rejected claim 16 are present and/or obvious over the conflicting claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Charlotte Davison whose telephone number is (703)756-5484. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-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, Philip Louie can be reached at 571-270-1241. 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.
/C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights