DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 11-12, 15, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Masih (US 2024/0099366).
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 15, Masih teaches an aerosol generating system comprising a case and an aerosol delivery device (vaporizer), the case having an authentication device adapted to enable removal of the vaporizer from the case only in an event of a positive authentication result and/or disable removal of the vaporizer from the case in the event of a negative authentication result (controller controls the locking mechanism such that the lid of the case can be locked under the control of the controller) [0064, 0080-0085]. An authentication interface is provided on a mobile device [0069, 0080]. The method of using the system thereby reads on the claimed method.
Regarding claim 3, Masih teaches the authentication interface is based on Bluetooth [0069].
Regarding claim 4, Masih teaches an electromagnetic locking mechanism [0064], i.e. removal of the vaporizer is disabled by an electric lock having at least one magnet adapted to actuate a lock by electric power being supplied or removed.
Regarding claims 5-6, Masih teaches a pivotable lid 12 [Fig. 1] which prevents removal of the vaporizer when the case is closed and locked. In other words, removal of the vaporizer is disabled by a pivotable blocking element that blocks movement of the vaporizer.
Regarding claims 11-12 and 20-21, Masih teaches disabling removal of the vaporizer via a mobile device [0080-0085], i.e. after insertion of the vaporizer This is interpreted as the authentication device being adapted to disable removal of the vaporizer after a predetermined time after detection of the vaporizer, wherein the predetermined time is set by a mobile device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masih as applied to claims 5 and 15 above, and further in view of Memari (US 2015/0245654).
Masih does not teach the vaporizer comprises a recess, and wherein the locking or blocking element is a pin arranged to enter the recess. However, this is a conventional means for locking a vaporizer within a case as taught by [0388] and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply to the system or method of Masih to achieve predictable results.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masih as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Niebling (US 20200288786).
Masih does not teach removal of the vaporizer is disabled by at least one pivotable second locking or blocking element engaging a door or lid associated with a chamber or recess accommodating the vaporizer and/or that blocks movement thereof. However, this is a conventional locking mechanism known in the art as taught by Niebling [0154] and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply to the system of Masih to achieve predictable results.
Claims 14, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masih as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of McKenzie (US 2020/0214341).
Masih teaches the vaporizer is nested in a recess 16 of the case [Fig. 1] but does not teach wherein a gap is provided at a lower end of the recess configured to allow a user to apply pressure at the lower end of the vaporizer for tilting the vaporizer about a step. However, this is a conventional mechanism for allowing removal of a vaporizer known in the art as taught by McKenzie [0065] and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply to the system or method of Masih to achieve predictable results. Thus, the movement for taking the vaporizer from the case starts with a tilting movement.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masih as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Cooper (US 2015/0102777).
Regarding claims 5-6, Masih teaches a pivotable lid 12 [Fig. 1] which prevents removal of the vaporizer when the case is closed and locked. In other words, a first blocking element is pivoted in order to enable removable of the vaporizer. A sliding lid is not disclosed. However, this is a conventional mechanism for opening a lid as taught by Cooper [0029] and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply to the method of Masih to achieve predictable results
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masih and Cooper as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Niebling (US 20200288786).
Modified Masih does not teach removal of the vaporizer is enabled by pivoting a second locking or blocking element. However, this is a conventional locking mechanism known in the art as taught by Niebling [0154] and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply to the method of Masih to achieve predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC YAARY whose telephone number is (571)272-3273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
/ERIC YAARY/Examiner, Art Unit 1755