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 .
1. This is in response to the amendment filed on 02 March 2026.
2. Claims 25-28 and 31 are pending in the application.
3. Claims 25, 28 and 31 have been rejected.
4. Claims 26 and 27 have been objected to.
5. Claims 1-9, 17, 34-38, 42, 46, 50-52 and 58 have been withdrawn from consideration.
6. Claims 10-16, 18-24, 29, 30, 32, 33, 39-41, 43-45, 47-49, 53-57 and 59-63 have been cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
7. The examiner has considered the information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 11 September 2023, 02 May 2025 and 03 December 2025.
Specification
8. The abstract of the disclosure does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
Election/Restrictions
9. Applicant's election with traverse of a method for unlocking a non-combustible aerosol provision system in the reply filed on 02 March 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that a restriction requirement cannot be based solely on the fact that the claims recite different statutory categories. This is not found persuasive because the withdrawn claims are directed towards age verification while the elected claims are directed towards authentication of an unlock message.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
10. Claim(s) 25, 28 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stockall et al US 2022/0279860 A1 (hereinafter Stockall) in view of Cisneros et al US 2018/0260568 A1 (hereinafter Cisneros).
As to claim 25, Stockall discloses a method for unlocking a non-combustible aerosol provision system, the method comprising:
receiving, at the non-combustible aerosol provision system (i.e. receiving at the aerosol generation device) [0204] , a signed unlock message from a user device (the operation enablement message comprises verifiable data such as a digital signature) [0204], the signed unlock message cryptographically signed using a private key (i.e. the digital signature is a function of a private key) [0204];
authenticating, at the non-combustible aerosol provision system, the signed unlock message using a public key (i.e. the verification uses verification information and the verification information is a public key) [0206] at the non-combustible aerosol provision system (i.e. the aerosol generation device) [0206].]; and
in response to successfully authenticating the signed unlock message, unlocking the non- combustible aerosol provision system (i.e. an operation of the aerosol generation device is enabled) [0212].
Stockall does not teach determining whether the private key used to sign the signed unlock message corresponds to the public key at the non-combustible aerosol provision system.
Cisneros teaches determining whether the private key used to sign the signed unlock message (i.e. received message is signed with a private key) [0020] corresponds to the public key at the non-combustible aerosol provision system (i.e. determining that the signature was generated with the private key corresponding to the public key) [0028].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified Stockall so that it would have been determined whether the private key used to sign the signed unlock message corresponded to the public key at the non-combustible aerosol provision system.
It 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 to have modified Stockall by the teaching of Cisneros because provides management functionality for the computing device even if an operating system is not installed or is non-functional [0001].
As to claim 28, Stockall teaches a non-combustible aerosol provision system comprising processing circuitry configured to carry out the method of claim 25 (i.e. hard-wired circuit or circuits) [0079].
As to claim 31, Stockall teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions which, when executed by processing circuitry of a non-combustible aerosol provision system, cause the non-combustible aerosol provision system to carry out the method of claim 25 (i.e. non-transitory computer readable medium) [0073].
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 26 and 27 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As to claim 26, the prior art does not disclose, teach or fairly suggest the limitations of “receiving, from the user device, a challenge request message”, “generating a challenge response message”, “sending, to the user device, the challenge response message”, “wherein the signed unlock message provides a cryptographic association between a given challenge response message and the private key” and “authenticating the signed unlock message further comprises determining whether the challenge response message generated by the non-combustible aerosol provision system matches the given challenge response message”.
Any claims not directly addressed are objected to on the virtue of their dependency.
Relevant Prior Art
12. The following references have been considered relevant by the examiner:
A. Flokos US 2021/0209204 A1 directed to controlling access to age-restricted electronic products [0001].
B. Trantham US 2019/0361073 A1 directed to secure testing and debugging of electronic devices [abstract].
C. Leddy, III US 2021/0058392 A1 directed to authenticating devices and, in some non-limiting aspects or embodiments, to systems, methods, and computer program products for determining device scores based on authentication of the device across one or more transactions [0001].
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARAVIND K MOORTHY whose telephone number is (571)272-3793. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 4:30-3:00.
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, Catherine Thiaw can be reached at 571-270-1138. 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.
/ARAVIND K MOORTHY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2407
Prosecution Insights