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 .
Detail Action
This office action is response to the application 18/205,427 filed on 06/02/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending in this communication.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner is requesting the applicant’s representative to provide direct phone number and/or mobile phone number in next communication, which will be very helpful to advance the prosecution.
Generally the text that are italicized are claims; the text that are in bold are reference citations (with some obvious exception); the text which is neither italicized nor bolded are by the examiner.
The Examiner used figures, paragraph and line numbers from the instant application’s pre-grant publication or pdf copy of allowance. 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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 7-12 & 14-19 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LETT; G. Scott et al. (US 2022/0269763 A1) in view of PIERSOL; Kurt et al. (US 2006/0147083 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, LETT discloses a method for activating a personal vaporizer comprising:
receiving, at a computing device, a user identification (ID) associated with a user that is to be authenticated; verifying, by the computing device, that the user is authorized based on confirming the user ID with a database of authorized users {ABS., “Aerosolized bioactive materials can be administered to humans, via inhalation, using a vaporizer device which is engineered for real time data capture, and communication, with a software application and backend computational system” … [0027], “The security and safety features also help ensure accuracy of adaptive formulations by authenticating the user/device interaction. For example, the security and safety features can be used to shut off a smart vaporizer device when a counterfeit or contaminated cartridge is detected”};
receiving a device ID that uniquely identifies a personal vaporizer to be activated and a key ID that uniquely identifies a hardware authenticator key configured to activate the personal vaporizer {[0008], “The vaporizer transmits a product identifier to the application. The application accesses the product identifier and uses the product identifier, potentially via communication with a computational cluster, to identify a bioactive material contained at the vaporizer. The application determines a bioactive material dosage option based at least on bioactive material data corresponding to the identified bioactive material” … [0129], “Application 121 can be registered with computational cluster 103/database 131, for example, with a unique key (e.g., a UUID). Computational cluster 103/database 131 can then send messages against the unique key to deliver the messages to application 121 via an agreed client/server protocol};
generating, by the computing device, a machine readable code in response to a successful verification, the machine readable code comprising an activation code configured to enable operation of the personal vaporizer, … and providing the machine readable code to be scanned by the hardware authenticator key {[0021], “data encoded vaporizer cartridges are uniquely identifiable by a machine-readable code. The smart vaporizer device is configured to read the machine-readable code and transmit the machine-readable code to the software application”. Examiner’s note: machine-readable code is configured to read machine-readable-code, which is scanning}.
LETT, however, does not explicitly disclose
… wherein the machine readable code is generated based on the device ID and the key ID;
In an analogous reference PIERSOL discloses
… wherein the machine readable code is generated based on the device ID and the key ID {[0056], “processing logic creates a record by concatenating the digital checksum with information indicative of one or more of a public key, the identifier for the collection, an identifier for a device creating the image, a creation date for the image, and a creation time for the image (processing block 403)” … [0075], “The machine-readable code generation module 498 provides the MFP with the ability to create machine-readable codes like barcodes that represent specific collections. The machine-readable code locator/reader module can be used to find and decode machine-readable codes on collection coversheets in order to determine which coversheet was scanned by the scanning mechanism 442”};
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify LETT’s technique of ‘authenticated and authorized use of a user of Vaporizer device’ for ‘linking user ID and device ID in a machine-readable-code’, as taught by PIERSOL, in order to prevent unauthorized use of a Vaporizer device by an unauthorized intruder. The motivation is - Preventing unauthorized use of a vaporizer device by an intruder using a machine-readable code (such as a QR code, barcode, or NFC tag) offers several security, safety, and operational advantages. These systems, often referred to as smart locking mechanisms, ensure that only authorized individuals can activate the device. Scanning technology allows authorized users to unlock their devices instantly (in milliseconds), offering a fast and efficient alternative to manual passwords or physical locks.
All references are inventions in analogous area but each invention teaches specific claimed limitation specifically and other references mutually cure each other’s deficiencies. When all claimed techniques are combined, they teach claimed invention. The Examiner notes that this motivation applies to all dependent and/or otherwise subsequently addressed claims unless addressed separately.
Regarding Claim 2, LETT as modified by PIERSOL discloses all the features of claim 1. The combination further discloses
wherein generating the machine readable code comprises generating a QR code, and wherein providing the machine readable code to be scanned comprises presenting the QR code on a display device associated with the computing device {LETT: [0068], “Data encoded cartridge 111 can be labeled or engineered with an embedded (e.g., RFID or NFC) product recognition tag or machine-readable code (e.g., QR). When data encoded cartridge 111 is inserted into vaporizer 101, the product recognition tag is utilized for instance identification (e.g., by a processor in electronics 116)”}.
Regarding Claim 3, LETT as modified by PIERSOL discloses all the features of claim 1. The combination further discloses
wherein the activation code, when transmitted by the hardware authenticator key to the personal vaporizer, enables operation of the personal vaporizer {LETT: [0152], “To enable vaporizer 101 functionality, a user can enter an authorization code”}
Regarding Claim 4, LETT as modified by PIERSOL discloses all the features of claim 1. The combination further discloses
retrieving the activation code from a repository, wherein the activation code is specific to the personal vaporizer to be activated; and generating the machine readable code to be specific to the hardware authenticator key based on the key ID {PIERSOL: {[0056], “processing logic creates a record by concatenating the digital checksum with information indicative of one or more of a public key, the identifier for the collection, an identifier for a device creating the image, a creation date for the image, and a creation time for the image (processing block 403)”}.
Regarding Claim 5, LETT as modified by PIERSOL discloses all the features of claim 4. The combination further discloses
Retrieving wherein the activation code is embedded into the machine readable code using a public key of the hardware authenticator key, and wherein the activation code is configured to be extracted from the machine readable code using a private key of the hardware authenticator key {PIERSOL: [0075], “The machine-readable code generation module 498 provides the MFP with the ability to create machine-readable codes like barcodes that represent specific collections. The machine-readable code locator/reader module can be used to find and decode machine-readable codes on collection coversheets in order to determine which coversheet was scanned by the scanning mechanism 442”}.
Regarding Claim 7, LETT as modified by PIERSOL discloses all the features of claim 1. The combination further discloses
wherein verifying that the user is authorized comprises receiving biometric information associated with the user and verifying the biometric information {LETT: [0152], “To enable vaporizer 101 functionality, a user can enter an authorization code in the form of … biometric fingerprint scan”}.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 is claim to a non-transitory computer-readable medium using the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected for the reasons set forth for claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 is a dependent claim of claim 8, claim 9 is claim to non-transitory computer-readable medium using the method of claim 2. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected for the reasons set forth for claim 2.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is a dependent claim of claim 8, claim 10 is claim to non-transitory computer-readable medium using the method of claim 3. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected for the reasons set forth for claim 3.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is a dependent claim of claim 8, claim 11 is claim to non-transitory computer-readable medium using the method of claim 4. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected for the reasons set forth for claim 4.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is a dependent claim of claim 11, claim 12 is claim to non-transitory computer-readable medium using the method of claim 5. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for the reasons set forth for claim 5.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is a dependent claim of claim 8, claim 14 is claim to non-transitory computer-readable medium using the method of claim 7. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for the reasons set forth for claim 7.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is claim to a system using the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the reasons set forth for claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is a dependent claim of claim 15, claim 16 is claim to system using the method of claim 2. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for the reasons set forth for claim 2.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is a dependent claim of claim 15, claim 17 is claim to system using the method of claim 3. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for the reasons set forth for claim 3.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is a dependent claim of claim 15, claim 18 is claim to system using the method of claim 4. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for the reasons set forth for claim 4.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is a dependent claim of claim 18, claim 19 is claim to system using the method of claim 5. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for the reasons set forth for claim 5.
Claims 6, 13 & 20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LETT; G. Scott et al. (US 2022/0269763 A1) in view of PIERSOL; Kurt et al. (US 2006/0147083 A1) and further in view of Anbukkarasu; Annamalai et al. (US 11,551,195 B2).
Regarding Claim 6, LETT as modified by PIERSOL discloses all the features of claim 4. However, the combination does not explicitly disclose
wherein verifying that the user is authorized comprises querying an API of a third party system.
In an analogous reference Anbukkarasu discloses
wherein verifying that the user is authorized comprises querying an API of a third party system {claim 1: “one or more entitlements specific to the user and the one or more connected registered devices; receiving, by an application programming interface (API) module, one or more requests from the one or more connected registered devices; analyzing, by a process orchestration layer (POL) module, the one or more requests received from the API module, and enabling one or more functionalities based on the one or more requests and validating the one or more requests using a security mechanism or the one or more entitlements” … “downloading, by the POL module, … a third-party database, based on the one or more services utilized by the user, …, without disclosing user data from the one or more connected devices”}.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify LETT’s technique as modified by PIERSOL of ‘authenticated and authorized use of a user of Vaporizer device for linking user ID and device ID in a machine-readable-code’, for ‘verifying user authorization from a third-party authenticator by using API interface’ by Anbukkarasu, in order to bring neutrality in authorization by a third party. The motivation is - authenticating and authorizing a user to link their ID with a vaporizer device via a machine-readable code, verified through a third-party API, ensures secure, personalized access. This method prevents unauthorized usage, enables precise, traceable, and secure data exchange, and allows for tailored user experiences, such as consumption tracking or dosage control.
All references are inventions in analogous area but each invention teaches specific claimed limitation specifically and other references mutually cure each other’s deficiencies. When all claimed techniques are combined, they teach claimed invention. The Examiner notes that this motivation applies to all dependent and/or otherwise subsequently addressed claims unless addressed separately.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is a dependent claim of claim 8, claim 8 is claim to non-transitory computer-readable medium using the method of claim 6. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for the reasons set forth for claim 6.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is a dependent claim of claim 15, claim 20 is claim to system using the method of claim 6. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected for the reasons set forth for claim 6.
Conclusion
Following prior art has been considered but is not applied:
COHEN; Gal A. (US 10517530 B2) – Method and Devices for delivering and monitoring of tobacco, nicotine, or other substances.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUAZI FAROOQUI whose telephone number is (571) 270-1034 or Quazi.farooqui@USPTO.GOV. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 am to 5:30 pm, EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bill Korzuch can be reached on (571) 272-7589 or William.Korzuch@USPTO.GOV. The fax phone number for Examiner Farooqui assigned is 571-270-2034.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-flee). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/QUAZI FAROOQUI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491