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 the Claims
Claims 1-10 are pending and are subject to this office action. This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 6/10/26.
Claims 1 and 3-9 are amended.
Response to Amendments
In response to Applicant’s amendments filed 6/10/26, the Examiner withdraws the objection to Claim 1 for minor informalities.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (filed 6/10/26, pages 5-8) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues: (1) the motion signal in Daugherty is a trigger and does not become an authentication key for authenticating the device, nor is it generated or changed to correspond to a user having usage authority, and (2) because the "separate second container" of Claim 2 provides a modular functionality and maintenance advantage that is fundamentally different from the integrated teaching of Daugherty, it is not a "mere rearrangement" or "design choice" as alleged in the rejection. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding Argument (1): 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. Here, the term “authentication data” is broadly interpreted to refer to data verifying a user or process. While the Applicant has further amended the claim such that “authentication data comprises a pattern of a signal of the motion sensor generated to correspond to a user having usage authority of the aerosol-generating device,” the authentication data limitation does not preclude the authentication data from including additional data, such as a wake-up signal. Rather, a wake-up signal may be considered the first step in an authentication process and thus the authentication data may comprise any data received related to a wake-up signal in addition to traditional authentication data, such as a typed password. Therefore, where the claimed invention does not limit the authentication data to consisting solely of the signal received from the motion detector, authentication data must be interpreted broadly.
Where the authentication data must be interpreted broadly, the authentication data and corresponding sequence may comprise of multiple signals such as the data from the accelerometer of Daugherty. Moreover, Daugherty discloses that the accelerometer may be programmed to specifically detect, and the wake signal respond to, specific movements of a particular type and/or pattern ([0184]). A sequence in which the device only wakes up in response to a series of specific movements of a particular type and/or pattern is a form of authentication in that it requires the user/individual holding the device to know the specific pattern of movements required in order to further utilize the device. Thus, a sequence in which the device only wakes-up in response to a series of specific movements of a particular type and/or pattern is a form of a password and/or an authentication verifying that the individual holding the device is in fact the “authorized” user. Therefore, Daugherty discloses an authentication sequence which includes data received from a motion detector, similarly as claimed.
Regarding Argument (2); first and as discussed above, 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. Here, the limitation “container” is interpreted broadly to mean: an object that can hold another object. Thus, a container does not need to be sealed, made of a specific material, or be readily accessible separate from a second container in order to be considered a “container.” Where the Applicant cites features of the claimed multi-container limitation, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. modularity, maintenance, thermal management, and leak protection) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, the argued features do not limit the claim.
Second, where the limitation “container” is interpreted broadly and the argued features do not limit the claim, the claimed limitation of a “first container” and a “second container” would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that, where it would be desirable for any reason to make a component separable, the components may be made separable into two separate “containers” for that purpose. For example, a small, non-sealing divider between the two components in a container would be sufficient to separate one container into two containers, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “container.” Therefore, absent further structural definition of the limitation “container,” defining/separating first and second portions of the container disclosed in the prior art further into first and second containers would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
The following rejections are maintained and modified where necessary based on Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Daugherty (US 20210298363 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Daugherty discloses an aerosol-generating device (device 100. [0060], Figs 1 & 2) comprising:
a cartridge having a chamber configured to store a liquid (cartridge 104 is formed in housing 216, enclosing reservoir 218 which is configured to retain an aerosol precursor composition. [0063], Fig 2);
a body configured to be coupled to the cartridge (cartridge 104 may be coupled to housing 206. [0069], Fig 2);
at least one motion sensor configured to output a signal corresponding to a motion of the aerosol-generating device (A sensor may be incorporated that is used for authentication or verification. [0116]. “Actuator 2400 could be embodied as, or otherwise interface with, an accelerometer” [0184]);
a memory (The device may comprise memory. [0067], [0135]); and
a controller (The device may comprise a controller, such as a microcontroller. [0175]-[0176]),
wherein the cartridge comprises: a wick configured to communicate with the chamber; and a heater configured to heat the wick ("the reservoir 218 may be in fluid communication with a liquid transport element 222 adapted to wick or otherwise transport an aerosol precursor composition in the reservoir housing to the heating element 220." [0064], Fig 2), and
wherein the controller is configured to: perform control such that power is not supplied to the heater based on authentication data for user authentication not being stored in the memory ("default state of the device may be locked and authentication (along with age verification) unlocks the device." [0062]),
determine whether a signal received from the at least one motion sensor corresponds to the authentication data based on the authentication data being stored in the memory ("the processing circuitry 912 and/or the signal conditioning circuitry 914 may be coupled with or receive a control signal that is used for authentication or verification" [0116]), and
perform control such that power is supplied to the heater based on determining that the signal received from the at least one motion sensor corresponds to the authentication data (when the user is verified or authenticated, a switch can establish a connection so that an electric current is permitted to be provided to the aerosol production component. [0116]).
wherein the authentication data comprises a pattern of a signal of the motion sensor generated to correspond to a user having usage authority of the aerosol-generating device (Positioning the device in a particular orientation for a given period of time while shaking, tapping or otherwise providing movement according to a detectable pattern may cause the actuator 2400 to actuate the interrupt generator 2410 and generating a wake signal. [0184]. Where a particular pattern of movement is required to wake up the device, the signal from the accelerometer is a form of user authentication).
Regarding Claim 3, Daugherty discloses an aerosol-generating device wherein the at least one motion sensor comprises at least one of an acceleration sensor or a gyro sensor (actuator 2400 may be, or may be coupled with, an accelerometer. [0184]).
Regarding Claim 4, Daugherty discloses an aerosol-generating device wherein the authentication data comprises an authentication pattern composed of at least one of an orientation direction of the aerosol-generating device or a tap input performed by tapping the aerosol-generating device (actuator 2400 may be used to facilitate a device wake signal as a part of the authentication process. [0181]-[0182]. Actuator 2400 could be, or interface with, an accelerometer to detect movements of a particular type or pattern, such as shaking or tapping, and generate wake signal 2342. [0184]).
Regarding Claim 5, Daugherty discloses an aerosol-generating device wherein the controller is further configured to: determine, based on the signal received from the at least one motion sensor, a pattern corresponding to a number of times the tap input is received while the aerosol-generating device is oriented in a specific direction, and determine whether the determined pattern corresponds to the authentication pattern (Positioning the device in a particular orientation while shaking, tapping or otherwise providing movement according to a detectable pattern may cause the actuator 2400 to actuate the interrupt generator 2410 and generating a wake signal. [0184]).
Regarding Claim 6, Daugherty discloses an aerosol-generating device wherein the controller is further configured to: determine, based on the signal received from the at least one motion sensor, a pattern corresponding to a number of times the tap input is received and a time interval between time points of reception of the tap input, and determine whether the determined pattern corresponds to the authentication pattern (Positioning the device in a particular orientation for a given period of time while shaking, tapping or otherwise providing movement according to a detectable pattern may cause the actuator 2400 to actuate the interrupt generator 2410 and generating a wake signal. [0184]).
Regarding Claim 7, Daugherty discloses an aerosol-generating device wherein the controller is further configured to:
update a number of times the user authentication fails based on determining that the signal does not correspond to the authentication data (The device may record the number of attempts to authenticate the device. [0170]), and
stop determining whether the signal received from the at least one motion sensor corresponds to the authentication data based on the updated number of times being equal to or greater than a predetermined number of times (Upon reaching a predetermined number of failed attempts, the device may revert to a low power or sleep mode, or perform a benefit denial function. [0170]).
Regarding Claim 8, Daugherty discloses an aerosol-generating device wherein the controller is further configured to:
activate a function of generating the authentication data based on a pattern of the signal received from the at least one motion sensor matching a predetermined pattern in a state in which the authentication data is not stored in the memory (Wherein no user profile is established, a verified user may generate and save a profile such that the user data is stored. [0124]. The device may be encoded with a specific unlock sequence during manufacturing, separate from a user authentication code, such as Morse code or Tap code. [0143]), and
generate the authentication data based on the pattern of the signal received from the at least one motion sensor while the function is activated (The user may create an authentication code for further use of the device upon the establishment of a profile after the device is first unlocked. [0166]).
Regarding Claim 9, Daugherty discloses an aerosol-generating device further comprising
a communication interface configured to receive a signal from an external device (the age verification system 1102 may be located remotely and accessible over a network, thereby receiving a signal from an external device. [0127]),
wherein the controller is further configured to: activate a function of generating the authentication data for a predetermined time period based on a predetermined control signal being received through the communication interface in a state in which the authentication data is not stored in the memory (The device 1106 may incorporate a pseudorandom number generator that is synchronized with a network version, such as from the age verification system 1102, wherein the number generator may be rolling and changes after a predetermined amount of time. [0142]), and
generate the authentication data based on a pattern of the signal received from the at least one motion sensor while the function is activated (Wherein the device is remotely verified, the device receives a control signal which allows the user to operate the device, such as creating a user profile. [0142]-[0145], [0166]).
Regarding Claim 10, Daugherty discloses an aerosol-generating device further comprising
a communication interface configured to receive a signal from an external device (the age verification system 1102 may be located remotely and accessible over a network, thereby receiving a signal from an external device. [0127]),
wherein the controller is further configured to: process the authentication data stored in the memory based on a predetermined control signal being received through the communication interface in a state in which the authentication data is stored in the memory (The control signal may be encoded to the device during manufacturing such that the control signal is a predetermined code. [0142]-[0143]. Wherein the device is remotely verified, the device receives a control signal which allows the user to operate the device, such as creating a user profile. [0142]-[0145], [0166]).
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.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daugherty.
Regarding Claim 2, Daugherty discloses an aerosol-generating device wherein the cartridge further comprises:
a first container comprising the chamber (cartridge 104 is formed from housing 216 which contains reservoir 218. [0063], Fig 2);
wherein the first container further comprises an inner wall defining an elongated insertion space and an outer wall (Housing 216 comprises an outer wall and an inner wall such that the inner wall forms reservoir 218. [0063], Fig 2),
wherein the chamber is formed between the inner wall and the outer wall ("the reservoir can comprise one or more layers of nonwoven fibers substantially formed into the shape of a tube encircling the interior of the housing 216" [0071]), and
wherein the wick is mounted in the first container (housing 216 further contains liquid transport element 222. [0064], Fig 2. the liquid transport element 222 and heating element 220 are mounted on a portion of the housing in fluid contact with reservoir 218. [0063]-[0064], Fig 2)
Daugherty does not explicitly disclose a separate second container in which the wick is mounted and coupled to the first container. However, given that positioning the wick in a second container coupled to the first container merely involves a rearrangement of the wick component and/or separation of the first container into two coupled containers, the modification would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find the rearrangement of the wick to a second container coupled to the first container an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Moreover, the rearrangement of the wick from a first container to a second container which is attached to the first container merely involves making a single component separable into two components. Wherein it would be desirable for any reason to make a component separable, it would be obvious to make the components separable for that purpose. See MPEP 2144.04(V)(C). Here, it may be desirable to separate the container into a first and second container for the purpose of separately accessing the wick for reasons of: cleaning, manufacturing, or wick replacement. Therefore, it follows that a person having ordinary skill in the art, through rearrangement of the wick disclosed in Daugherty or separating the container of Daugherty into two containers coupled together, would arrive at the first and second containers as claimed, absent evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey Buckman whose telephone number is (571)270-0888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-4:00.
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, 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.
/JEFFREY A. BUCKMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1755
/PHILIP Y LOUIE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights