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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-12) in the reply filed on 11/24/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/24/2025
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 10/24/2023 has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 line 6 has a grammatically incorrect phrase that makes the limitation difficult to understand “responsive the match”. The claim should read “responsive to the match”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1-9, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US2020/0000143A1) in view of Henry (US2017/0023952A1).
Regarding claim 1, Anderson teaches an aerosol provision device (vaporizer device which delivers an aerosol [0003-0005, Figs. 1A-1C]), comprising:
A coupler structured to engage a consumable including aerosol-generating material (the vaporizer may include a heating chamber and is configured to received a cartridge having a reservoir or the like for holding the vaporizable material [0222, Figs. 1A-1C]), the aerosol provision device or the consumable further including an aerosol generator (the device forms aerosol/vapor [0222] from the operation of the device/atomizer [0230], such that there is clearly an aerosol generator),
A communication interface configured to enable a wireless connection (The vaporizer may include communication hardware which can establish a wireless connection [0224, 0236]),
Processing circuitry configured to control power provided to the aerosol generator to energize the aerosol-generating material of the consumable to generate aerosol for delivery to a user (the vaporizer device includes a power source “22” and a controller “24” (e.g., a processor, circuitry, etc., capable of executing logic) for controlling delivery of heat to an atomizer to cause vaporizable material to be converted from the condensed form to the gas phase [0230], wherein the vapor would clearly be delivered to a user of the vaporizer device),
The processing circuitry further configured to at least: activate a timer to measure an elapsed time (the device may be configured to “display a countdown timer for a time-based “auto-locked” vaporizer device” [0351]. The user may have an option to specify the length of time after which the “auto-lock” is responsive (e.g., a time varying from the default time of 24 hours may be provided) [0351]. Therefore, the circuitry would necessarily have a timer for measuring elapsed time when these features are present),
And automatically lock the aerosol provision device, responsive to a timeout condition in which no computer of one or more computers is present in wireless range of the communication interface when the elapsed time reaches a specified period of time (the vaporizer device may be connected to any number of computers such as a smartphone, tablet, personal computer [0224]. The wireless communication of the vaporizer device may be connected to the computers by a variety of wireless methods, such as Bluetooth, NFC, etc., [0255]. The “vaporizer device may be configured to auto-lock a vaporizer device responsive to the vaporizer device being “out-of-range” for a defined time period (e.g., 24 hours)” [0351]. As “out-of-range” is referring to the connection between the vaporizer device and the associated computer [0224, 0394, 0485], Anderson is clearly suggesting the device to automatically lock when out of range of a connected computer at a specified time amount).
As above, Anderson details a variety of different wireless communication methods of the vaporizer and of communications with various computers [0224, 0255]. Anderson does not explicitly detail these connections to computers to be based on a “whitelist”. However, the use of “whitelists” is ubiquitous for enhancing security of connections between devices, and they are extremely common to use with Bluetooth connections, for example. Henry, for example, teaches an aerosol delivery device [title, Fig. 1], wherein the device may have Bluetooth communication with external devices [0076-0080], which is substantially similar to Anderson. Henry details that its Bluetooth communication interface may include a whitelist that specifies one or more identifiers of any Bluetooth-enabled devices with which the Bluetooth communication interface has previously bonded and/or is allowed to bond (e.g., trusted Bluetooth-enabled devices) [0078]. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have the wireless connections of Anderson’s vaporizer to include a whitelist as suggested in Henry. One would have been motivated so as to only allow specific devices to connect so as to enhance security of the device [0078-0080], as whitelists are understood to provide security against unknown threats.
Regarding claim 2, modified Anderson makes obvious an aerosol provision device wherein a computer on the whitelist in wireless range of the communication interface is established by the wireless connection with the computer (as detailed above as in Anderson, the vaporizers may include communications hardware such as a Bluetooth chip, NFC chip, etc., to allow wireless communication [0255-0256]. Vaporizer may therefore by connected to the user device “305” via these methods [0255-0257], wherein the user devices may be a smartwatch, tablet, etc., [0255], which are all capable of wireless connections. And as in Henry, it would have been obvious to have a whitelist for connections between the vaporizer and the user device/computer.)
Regarding claim 3, modified Anderson makes obvious an aerosol provision device wherein the computer in wireless range is established further by verification that the computer and device are linked in a user account provided by a service platform that is accessible from the computer (it may be required that a user’s identity verification is entered at the device/computer in communication with the vaporizer to cause the device to unlock [0270]. In an example, it may be required for the application on the device/computer to verify information (such as through password entry) prior to being able to use the vaporizer [0270]. The vaporizer device may be configured such that the user may only unlock the vaporizer device via an app logged into that user's account [0350]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Anderson makes obvious an aerosol provision device wherein as the elapsed time is measured, the processing circuitry sends a ping command, receives a response to the ping command, and resets the time responsive to the response to the ping command (Anderson teaches FIG. 24 and FIG. 25, which show a view that may be presented to the user upon selection of the opt-in feature. “This screen may be used to explain that the vaporizer will transition automatically to a locked state if communication between the user's mobile device and the vaporizer does not occur for some period of time longer than a threshold amount of time. Functionally, when this feature is enabled, a controller of the vaporizer (e.g., a microcontroller, PCB, software running on a programmable processor, other computing hardware, etc.) can execute operations that track a duration since a last successful communication with a user's mobile device that has been paired to the vaporizer. If this duration exceeds some threshold value, the vaporizer controller can cause interruption of the normal operation of the vaporizer, for example, by preventing delivery of current to a heating element or otherwise activating an atomizer that causes production of inhalable aerosol” [0354]. From this description, the vaporizer of Anderson would communicate with the connected computer and back via an app (akin to sending a ping and responsive ping), wherein the timer would either be reset if the devices are in communication (such that the device would not lock under these conditions), or the timer would continue to run and would lock (cause interruption) of the vaporizer when reaching the designated time span. Therefore, Anderson’s descripted operation is substantially as what is required in this claim).
Regarding claim 5, modified Anderson makes obvious an aerosol provision device wherein the response to the ping has a unique identifier of the computer, and the circuitry matches the unique identifier to a corresponding unique identifier of one of the computers, and identifies the respective computer appropriately (Anderson, as detailed in the rejection of claim 4 above, makes obvious communications between the vaporizer and a computer/device which go back and forth to operate the timer (wherein the timer goes off when there are no communications present, and wherein the timer is reset/does not go off when there are communications present). As the communications may take place via Bluetooth [0255, 0372], and because Bluetooth is known in the art to have unique identifiers to distinguish devices, it would be obvious for Anderson’s aerosol device to also have these unique identifiers to match the device with the computer and so as to properly identify the computer which made the communication).
Regarding claim 6, modified Anderson makes obvious an aerosol provision device wherein the ping command includes a unique identifier of the aerosol device and the response to the ping command indicates the unique identifier and the aerosol device is thus linked to the computer (Anderson, as detailed in the rejection of claim 4 above, makes obvious communications between the vaporizer and a computer/device which go back and forth to operate the timer (wherein the timer goes off when there are no communications present, and wherein the timer is reset/does not go off when there are communications present). As the communications may take place via Bluetooth [0255, 0372], and because Bluetooth is known in the art to have unique identifiers to distinguish devices, it would be obvious for Anderson’s aerosol device to also have these unique identifiers to match the device with the computer and so as to properly identify the computer which made the communication. And as to the linking of the device to the computer, Anderson is very clear that the vaporizer may be connected to any number of computers, such as smartphone, tablet, personal computer, etc. [0255, 0278], such that the connection of the vaporizer with the computer based on this unique identifier would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art).
Regarding claim 7, modified Anderson makes obvious the aerosol provision device wherein when locked the circuitry sends a ping to the computers on the whitelist to identify if it is in wireless range, receive a response to the ping command, and unlock the device (the vaporizer may be connected to a variety of different devices via a wireless connection [0224]. The wireless communication of the vaporizer device may be connected to the computers by a variety of wireless methods, such as Bluetooth, NFC, etc., [0255]. The vaporizer may be may to auto-lock when the device is “out-of-range” for a defined time period [0356]. The vaporizer then may be made to “unlock automatically responsive to returning to in-range status” [0356]. As the vaporizer is connected wirelessly to the computer/phone/etc. via Bluetooth or other methods involving a whitelist (as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above), this communication would involve pings being sent between the two devices so as to unlock the device).
Regarding claim 8, modified Anderson makes obvious the aerosol provision device wherein the circuitry reset the timer and thereby the elapsed time responsive to the ping command (as in the rejection of claim 7 above, Anderson makes it clear that the vaporizer may be connected to a variety of computers, wherein the vaporizer may auto-lock when out of range for a defined time period and may automatically unlock when returning to in-range status, wherein this communication would necessarily encompass pings transferring back and forth between the devices. Anderson details that the timer function may work by “a controller of the vaporizer (e.g., a microcontroller, PCB, software running on a programmable processor, other computing hardware, etc.) can execute operations that track a duration since a last successful communication with a user's mobile device that has been paired to the vaporizer. If this duration exceeds some threshold value, the vaporizer controller can cause interruption of the normal operation of the vaporizer, for example, by preventing delivery of current to a heating element or otherwise activating an atomizer that causes production of inhalable aerosol”. Therefore, this would functionally result in the timer and elapsed time resetting the process when the devices are in range of each other again, in order for the timer/threshold/in-range/out-of-range to function as described).
Regarding claim 9, modified Anderson makes obvious the aerosol provision device comprising a user interface receiving a user input, and the processing circuitry is configured to send the ping command to the computers responsive to the user input (the vaporizer may have one or more input devices “33” (buttons or other tactile control devices) which may be used to turn on the heating element [0235]. The buttons may wirelessly connect to external controllers [0012, 0538-0539], such that a ”ping” would necessarily be sent to a connected computer with operation of the input devices on the vaporizer).
Regarding claim 11, modified Anderson makes obvious an aerosol provision device where a computer includes application software to receive user input, and after locking the processing circuitry receives an indication of the user input and unlocks the aerosol device responsive to the indication of user input from the application software (Figs. 23-30 provide various examples of user interfaces as part of an “app” which is part of a computer which is in communication with the vaporizer [0352], such that the application software is clearly configured to receive user inputs. The user may choose from the application software for the auto-lock feature to be enabled or disabled, and may choose to lock (disable) or unlock (enable) the vaporizer from the user interface on the computer [0352-0358], such that these communications between the computer/app and vaporizer would clearly satisfy the claimed language).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US2020/0000143A1) in view of Henry (US2017/0023952A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cameron (US2016/0331037A1).
Regarding claim 10, Anderson suggests that the vaporizer may have one or more input devices “33” (buttons or other tactile control devices) which may be used to turn on the heating element [0235]. Anderson does not explicitly say that the user input on the vaporizer may be configured to lock the vaporizer. However, this function is ubiquitous within the art of vaporizers. Cameron, for example, teaches an electronic vapor device, wherein the device may include an input/output device “112” which may be a touchscreen interface for taking user inputs [0057], which is common type of user input on vaporizer devices. The user inputs may be utilized for the user to lock, unlock, or partially unlock or lock the vapor device [0057]. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the vaporizer device of Anderson with the locking functionality via user input as in Cameron. One would have been motivated so as to enable locking of the device from the vaporizer device itself [Cameron, 0057], which may be beneficial in terms of child proofing, energy saving, etc.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US2020/0000143A1) in view of Henry (US2017/0023952A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fisher (US2019/0387795A1).
Regarding claim 12, Anderson suggests that the vaporizer may comprise a power supply “110”, such as a battery [0051]. The vaporizer may have the power output and battery voltage communicated with the computer [0298], wherein these features may be tracked by the attached computer. Anderson clearly therefore measures the voltage level of the attached power source. Anderson does not explicitly state that it automatically locks the aerosol device based on a low-voltage condition in which the voltage level is below a specified cutoff voltage. However, this type of behavior is extremely common when dealing with any devices which utilize a power source so as to protect the device from erratic behavior when at low voltage levels. Fisher is tied to an electronic vaporizer [0037], which shares assignees with Anderson. The circuitry of the vaporizer device is configured for an under-voltage-lockout (UVLO) condition [0007], meaning that the protection mechanism can disable the device when the voltage/current are outside of expected operating range [0057]. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to include the UVLO condition of Fisher in the vaporizer of Anderson such that the vaporizer locks when at a low voltage condition. One would have been motivated so as to protect the device for when the voltage is outside of operating range [Fisher, 0057], and wherein UVLO is understood as a crucial feature in electronics to prevent erratic behavior, corruption, and/or damage from the low voltage conditions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS F SCHNEIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-4857. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/T.F.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749