DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS’s) submitted on 06/14/2023 and 03/28/2024 have been considered by the examiner and initialed copies of the IDS’s are hereby attached.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
"switch system" in claim 3.
“warning system” in claim 10.
“module” in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 7-13 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.
The term “long-range antenna” in claims 7 and 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “long-range antenna” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what constitutes “long-range” transmission for the “long-range antenna”.
The term “short-range antenna” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “short-range antenna” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what constitutes “short-range” transmission for the “short-range antenna”. Claims 10-13 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to their dependency on claim 9.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LAWRENSON et al. (EP 3342442 A1), hereinafter LAWRENSON, in view of Hong et al. (US 20210026454 A1), hereinafter Hong.
Regarding claim 1, LAWRENSON discloses [Note: what LAWRENSON fails to disclose is strike-through]
An aerosol generation device (see Fig. 1, the aerosol generating device V) comprising:
-a heater configured to heat a vaporizable material to generate aerosol (See Fig. 1, heating element 4, further see paragraph 0040, “Fig. 1 further exemplarily depicts a liquid storage component 6 fluidly coupled to the heating element 5 in operative connection so that the heating element 5 may supply heating energy to a liquid or gas contained with the liquid storage component 6, thereby causing certain compounds contained in the liquid to volatilize into an airflow”);
-a battery configured to power the heater (see Fig. 1, power source 3, further see paragraph 0040, “As an exemplary configuration, Fig. 1 depicts a vaporising housing section 2 comprising a heating element 5, for example a nichrome wire coil, which is coupled to the power source 3 via the electrical circuitry of the vaporization controller 7. The heating element 5 is supplied with energy for its operation by the power source 3 when activated by the vaporization controller 7.”); and
-at least aproximity sensor (see Fig. 1, proximity sensor at 4b) configured to detect moving objects around the aerosol generation device and to generate detection data representative of a position of the moving objects (see paragraph 0055, “The authorization trigger module 4b may also be formed as a proximity sensor arranged in the device body. Such proximity sensors may detect contacts of the aerosol generating device V with one or more body parts of a user, for example taking the device into the hands or passing the device on to another user.”).
Hong discloses,
at least a millimeter-wave radar configured to detect moving objects around the user device and to generate detection data representative of a position of the moving objects (see paragraph 0203, “The radar system 104 may be operable in a low-power, proximity mode (e.g., the low-power state 504-3) to generate sensor data of sufficient resolution and quality for detecting proximity. The radar system 104 can also operate in a high-power, gesture-recognition mode (e.g., the high-power state 504-1) to generate improved sensor data relative to the sensor data produced in a proximity mode. In gesture-recognition mode, the sensor data generated by the radar system 104 is a higher-resolution or greater quality than in proximity mode because the sensor data is used for more complex gesture-recognition tasks. The sensor data received from the plurality of sensors at operation 1702 may indicate course movement and proximity whereas the sensor data collected from the radar system 104 to perform radar-based gesture-recognition may indicate more-precise movement, proximity, or occlusion.”, where the detection of a gesture using the radar is “detection data representative of a position of the moving objects”, further see paragraph 0102, “Some embodiments of the techniques are particularly advantageous, such as when the UE 102 is a handheld smartphone, the radar signals are in the 57 Ghz-64 Ghz band”, where the radar operating in the 57 Ghz-64 Ghz band is a millimeter wave radar).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Hong into the invention of LAWRENSON. Both LAWRENSON and Hong are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a portable and wearable user device including a radar and proximity sensors. LAWRENSON discloses the use of a radar sensor and proximity and position sensors within the aerosol generating device. Hong discloses the feature of the millimeter radar sensor of the user device to be used as a proximity and gesture detection sensor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a radar sensor within the aerosol generating device of LAWRENSON as the proximity sensor and gesture detection sensor to detect movements of objects around the aerosol generating device. The combination of LAWRENSON and Hong would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide efficient authentication for the user device (see paragraph 0043 of Hong).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of LAWRENSON and Hong discloses [Note: what LAWRENSON fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The aerosol generation device according to claim 1,
Hong discloses,
wherein the millimeter-wave radar is configurable between a scanning configuration in which the millimeter- wave radar detects moving objects and generates detection data representative of a position of the moving objects and an idle configuration in which the millimeter-wave radar is disabled (see paragraph 0058, “The state manager 112 may direct the radar manager 106 to place the radar system 104 in a proximity or a disabled mode when radar-based gesture-recognition is gated and to place the radar system 104 in an enabled or a gesture-recognition mode when radar-based gesture-recognition is not gated.”, further see paragraph 0067, “By gating the gesture-recognitions of the radar system 104 based on context, the disclosed techniques and systems enable the UE 102 to conserve power, improve accuracy, or reduce latency interpreting and responding to radar-based inputs, relative to other techniques and systems for radar-based gesture-recognitions.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Hong into the invention of LAWRENSON. Both LAWRENSON and Hong are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a portable and wearable user device including a radar and proximity sensors. LAWRENSON discloses the use of a radar sensor and proximity and position sensors within the aerosol generating device. Hong discloses the feature of the radar sensor to be configured as enables or disabled based on environmental context. The combination of LAWRENSON and Hong would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to conserve power by the device (see paragraph 0067 of Hong).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of LAWRENSON and Hong discloses [Note: what LAWRENSON fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The aerosol generation device according to claim 2,
Hong discloses,
further comprising a switch system configured to command the millimeter-wave radar between the scanning configuration and the idle configuration, the switch system being controllable by a user of the device (see paragraph 0271, “The radar system 104 can switch-on or switch-off in coordination with other input components. For example, the user 120 may provide input to a touchscreen of the UE 102, and while detecting an input at the touchscreen, the radar system 104 may disable gesture-recognition. In other cases, the radar system 104 enhances the touchscreen functionality by remaining switched-on and sending information about recognized gestures to an input decoder that processes touchscreen data and radar data simultaneously to infer user intent”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Hong into the invention of LAWRENSON. Both LAWRENSON and Hong are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a portable and wearable user device including a radar and proximity sensors. LAWRENSON discloses the use of a radar sensor and proximity and position sensors within the aerosol generating device. Hong discloses the feature of the radar sensor to be configured as enabled or disabled based on user touchscreen input. The combination of LAWRENSON and Hong would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to conserve power by the device (see paragraph 0067 of Hong).
Regarding claim 4, LAWRENSON further discloses
The aerosol generation device according to claim 1, further comprising a device body extending longitudinally along a device axis between two ends (see Fig. 1, device body of aerosol generating device V), the proximity sensor being located at one of the two ends of the device body (see Fig. 1, where the proximity sensor 4b is located at one of the two ends of the device body V).
See cited section and motivation of claim 1 above for combining LAWRENSON and Hong to utilize a millimeter wave radar as the proximity sensor for LAWRENSON.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of LAWRENSON and Hong discloses [Note: what LAWRENSON fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The aerosol generation device according to claim 1,
Hong discloses,
wherein the millimeter-wave radar is a multi-angle radar configured to detect moving objects in several directions (see paragraph 0141, “An additional advantage of the radar system is that the field of view can be quite large, readily enough to detect a user walking up from any direction even when lying flat and face-up on a table.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Hong into the invention of LAWRENSON. Both LAWRENSON and Hong are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a portable and wearable user device including a radar and proximity sensors. LAWRENSON discloses the use of a radar sensor and proximity and position sensors within the aerosol generating device. Hong discloses the feature of the radar sensor to be configured to detect a large field of view (i.e. objects in several direction). The combination of LAWRENSON and Hong would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide efficient authentication for the user device (see paragraph 0043 of Hong).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of LAWRENSON and Hong discloses [Note: what LAWRENSON fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The aerosol generation device according to claims 1,
Hong discloses,
wherein the millimeter-wave radar is configured to detect moving objects within a detection range from the millimeter-wave radar, the detection range being between 1 m and 10 m (see paragraph 0042, “The radar field 118 may extend any of a variety of distances from the radar system 104 such as inches to twelve feet (less than a third of a meter to four meters).”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Hong into the invention of LAWRENSON. Both LAWRENSON and Hong are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a portable and wearable user device including a radar and proximity sensors. LAWRENSON discloses the use of a radar sensor and proximity and position sensors within the aerosol generating device. Hong discloses the feature of the radar sensor to be configured to a range of inches to twelve feet. The combination of LAWRENSON and Hong would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide efficient authentication for the user device (see paragraph 0043 of Hong).
Regarding claim 14, see the cited section and rationale as claim 6.
Regarding claim 15, see the cited section and rationale as claim 6.
Claim(s) 7-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LAWRENSON et al. (EP 3342442 A1) in view of Hong et al. (US 20210026454 A1) further in view of Milt et al. (US 20210134095 A1), hereinafter Milt.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of LAWRENSON and Hong discloses
The aerosol generation device according to claim 1.
LAWRENSON further discloses [Note: what LAWRENSON and Hong fail to disclose is strike-through],
-a geolocation chip configured to generate geolocation data representative of a position of the aerosol generation device (see paragraph 0027, “According to further embodiments of the aerosol generating system, the authorization trigger module may include an acceleration sensor or a position sensor In some embodiments, the acceleration sensor or position sensor may be configured to detect a movement or a position of the aerosol generating system, and the user-initiated activation condition may include a detected movement or position of the aerosol generating system corresponding to one of a number of predefined movement profiles or position profiles of the aerosol generating system.”, where a “position sensor” is a “geolocation chip” under the broadest reasonable interpretation of “geolocation chip”); and
Milt discloses,
-a long-range antenna configured to transmit said geolocation data to an external server (see paragraph 0073, “In an embodiment, cartridge-accepting device 100 may communicate with GPS service and/or database 404, such as a database containing map data, which may include any database as described above. Device may determine, as a function of communication with GPS service and/or database, that device is located within or near to region 400; authentication circuit 132 may determine that use of cartridge-accepting device 100 is not permitted in region 400 and may perform any resulting action as described above. Alternatively or additionally, authentication circuit 132 and/or device 100 may communicate with computing device 152 as described above to determine that device 100 is in or near region 400; computing device 152 may communicate with GPS services and/or database, as described above, to make this determination. Map, GPS, and/or other geofence data may be stored and/or cached in memory of cartridge-accepting device 100 132 and/or computing device 152.”, further see Fig. 4 for support).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Milt into the invention of Hong in view of LAWRENSON. LAWRENSON discloses position sensor in the aerosol generation device to determine position data; however, fails to disclose the transmission of the position data to an external server. Milt discloses this feature where the position data (i.e. geolocation data) is communicated to an external server 404 and an external device 152. The combination of would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide efficient authenticated use for the aerosol generation device based on geographical location of the device (see paragraph 0051 of Milt).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of LAWRENSON and Hong discloses [Note: what the combination of LAWRENSON and Hong fails to disclose is strike-through]
The aerosol generation device according to claim 7,
Milt discloses,
wherein the long-range antenna is configured to transmit said geolocation data via a communication network (see paragraph 0073, “Region 400 may include any area as described above for region 200. In an embodiment, cartridge-accepting device 100 may communicate with GPS service and/or database 404, such as a database containing map data, which may include any database as described above. Device may determine, as a function of communication with GPS service and/or database, that device is located within or near to region 400; authentication circuit 132 may determine that use of cartridge-accepting device 100 is not permitted in region 400 and may perform any resulting action as described above. Alternatively or additionally, authentication circuit 132 and/or device 100 may communicate with computing device 152 as described above to determine that device 100 is in or near region 400; computing device 152 may communicate with GPS services and/or database, as described above, to make this determination. Map, GPS, and/or other geofence data may be stored and/or cached in memory of cartridge-accepting device 100 132 and/or computing device 152.”, further see Fig. 4 for support).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Milt into the invention of Hong in view of LAWRENSON. LAWRENSON discloses position sensor in the aerosol generation device to determine position data; however, fails to disclose the transmission of the position data to an external server. Milt discloses this feature where the position data (i.e. geolocation data) is communicated to an external server 404 and an external device 152. The combination of would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide efficient authenticated use for the aerosol generation device based on geographical location of the device (see paragraph 0051 of Milt).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of LAWRENSON and Hong discloses [Note: what the combination of LAWRENSON and Hong fails to disclose is strike-through]
An aerosol generation assembly (see Fig. 1 of LAWRENSON , aerosol generation assembly V ), comprising:
-the aerosol generation device according to claim 1 (see Fig. 1 of LAWRENSON , aerosol generation assembly V);
Milt discloses,
An aerosol generation assembly (see Fig. 4), comprising:
-the aerosol generation device according to claim 1 (see Fig. 4, aerosol generation device 100 which is a vape); and
-an external device (see Fig. 4, external device 152),
the aerosol generation device further comprising a short-range antenna configured to transmit said detection data to the external device (see Fig. 4, where detection data by vaping device 100 is sent via blue-tooth to external device 152).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Milt into the invention of Hong in view of LAWRENSON. LAWRENSON discloses an aerosol generation device (i.e. a vape device); however, fails to disclose an aerosol generation device assembly where detection data from the vape device is transmitted to an external device. Milt discloses this feature where detection data is communicated to an external device (i.e. phone) via Bluetooth (see Fig. 4, vape device 100 and external phone device 152). The combination of would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide efficient authenticated use for the aerosol generation device (see paragraph 0042 of Milt).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of LAWRENSON and Hong discloses [Note: what the combination of LAWRENSON and Hong fails to disclose is strike-through]
The aerosol generation assembly according to claim 9,
Milt discloses,
wherein the external device comprises a warning system configured to emit a warning signal when the external device receives said detection data (see paragraphs 0052-0053, “In an embodiment, and still referring to FIG. 1, if a user attempts to use cartridge-accepting device 100 within a prohibited area, cartridge-accepting device 100 may notify the user using any notification components and/or methods as described above, including without limitation an audible sound, vibration, light indicator, activation to a messaging system directly (including but not limited to SMS or email) and/or using a messaging system on an associated electronic device… As a further example, and with further reference to FIG. 1, such as for methods of authentication that involve communication with a computing device 152, authentication circuit 132 may be configured not to function if the authentication circuit 132 is not communicatively connected to a computing device 152; for instance, and without limitation, authentication circuit 132 may disable verification circuit and/or other components of cartridge-accepting device 100 using any process and/or component described above. Authentication circuit 132 and/or cartridge-accepting device 100 may alternatively or additionally generate alerts and/or notifications as described above. In a non-limiting example, notifications may be performed instead of disabling vaporization circuit 124 and/or cartridge-accepting device 100.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Milt into the invention of Hong in view of LAWRENSON. LAWRENSON discloses an aerosol generation device (i.e. a vape device); however, fails to disclose an aerosol generation device assembly where detection data from the vape device is transmitted to an external device which issues alerts based on the data. Milt discloses this feature where detection data is communicated to an external device (i.e. phone) which displays alerts. The combination of would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide efficient authenticated use for the aerosol generation device (see paragraph 0042 of Milt).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of LAWRENSON and Hong discloses [Note: what the combination of LAWRENSON and Hong fails to disclose is strike-through]
The aerosol generation assembly according to claim 10,
Milt discloses,
wherein the warning signal is a visual signal and/or an audible signal and/or a haptic signal, perceptible by a user (see paragraphs 0052-0053, “In an embodiment, and still referring to FIG. 1, if a user attempts to use cartridge-accepting device 100 within a prohibited area, cartridge-accepting device 100 may notify the user using any notification components and/or methods as described above, including without limitation an audible sound, vibration, light indicator, activation to a messaging system directly (including but not limited to SMS or email) and/or using a messaging system on an associated electronic device… As a further example, and with further reference to FIG. 1, such as for methods of authentication that involve communication with a computing device 152, authentication circuit 132 may be configured not to function if the authentication circuit 132 is not communicatively connected to a computing device 152; for instance, and without limitation, authentication circuit 132 may disable verification circuit and/or other components of cartridge-accepting device 100 using any process and/or component described above. Authentication circuit 132 and/or cartridge-accepting device 100 may alternatively or additionally generate alerts and/or notifications as described above. In a non-limiting example, notifications may be performed instead of disabling vaporization circuit 124 and/or cartridge-accepting device 100.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Milt into the invention of Hong in view of LAWRENSON. LAWRENSON discloses an aerosol generation device (i.e. a vape device); however, fails to disclose an aerosol generation device assembly where detection data from the vape device is transmitted to an external device which issues alerts based on the data. Milt discloses this feature where detection data is communicated to an external device (i.e. phone) which displays visual alerts. The combination of would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide efficient authenticated use for the aerosol generation device (see paragraph 0042 of Milt).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of LAWRENSON and Hong discloses [Note: what the combination of LAWRENSON and Hong fails to disclose is strike-through]
The aerosol generation assembly according to claim 9,
Milt discloses,
wherein the external device comprises a display system and a module for generating information on the display system, the module for generating information being configured to generate information representative of the detection data when the external device receives said detection data (see paragraph 0047, “With continued reference to FIG. 1, authentication circuit 132 may be configured to perform one or more actions based on a determination of authenticity. For instance, and without limitation, authentication circuit 132 may be configured to activate an indicator light upon determining authenticity of a cartridge 112; indicator light may include one or more light-emitting diodes (LEDs) or the like. In an embodiment, a first color, pattern of blinks, and/or number of indicator lights may indicate that a cartridge 112 is authentic, while a second color, pattern of blinks, and/or number of indicator lights may indicate that authentication has failed. Alternatively or additionally, authentication circuit 132 may be configured to display on a display device of cartridge-receiving device and/or transmit to computing device 152 a message as a function of determining authenticity of a cartridge 112.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Milt into the invention of Hong in view of LAWRENSON. LAWRENSON discloses an aerosol generation device (i.e. a vape device); however, fails to disclose an aerosol generation device assembly where detection data from the vape device is transmitted to an external device which issues alerts based on the data. Milt discloses this feature where detection data is communicated to an external device (i.e. phone) which displays visual alerts on a display. The combination of would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide efficient authenticated use for the aerosol generation device (see paragraph 0042 of Milt).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of LAWRENSON and Hong discloses [Note: what the combination of LAWRENSON and Hong fails to disclose is strike-through]
The aerosol generation assembly according to
Milt discloses,
wherein the external device is a connected object (see Fig. 4, where external device 152 is a “connected” object).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Milt into the invention of Hong in view of LAWRENSON. LAWRENSON discloses an aerosol generation device (i.e. a vape device); however, fails to disclose an aerosol generation device assembly where detection data from the vape device is transmitted to an external device. Milt discloses this feature where detection data is communicated to an external device (i.e. phone). The combination of would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide efficient authenticated use for the aerosol generation device (see paragraph 0042 of Milt).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAZRA N. WAHEED whose telephone number is (571)272-6713. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8 AM - 4:30 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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571)270-5144. 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.
/NAZRA NUR WAHEED/Examiner, Art Unit 3648