DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 7/28/2026 with respect to the rejections over Freeman and Trzecieski have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as detailed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman (US 2018/0295886) in view of Ferrari (US 2023/0346037).
Freeman teaches an inhalation device for inhaling a vaporized substance (aerosol generating device) [0008] comprising: a heater configured to heat an aerosol [0014]; an input device comprising a button [0015]; a pre-determined pattern that can be stored on the inhalation device such as on the processor [0015], i.e. a memory of the processor configured to store authentication data for user authentication; and a processor that compares the user's inputted pattern with a pre-determined pattern to unlock the vaporizing ability of the device [0015], i.e. a controller configured to: based on the determination that the authentication data is stored in the memory, determine whether a signal received from the input device does, or does not, correspond to the authentication data; and based on the determination that the signal corresponds to the authentication data, supply the power to the heater. Freeman teaches that in a locked mode, the inhalation device is prevented from vaporizing an unvaporized substance [0006], i.e. cut off supply of power to the heater based on the determination that the signal does not correspond to the authentication data. Freeman does not teach based on the determination that the authentication data is not stored in the memory, cut off supply of power to the heater. Ferrari teaches an aerosol-generating device wherein control circuitry is configured to enter the aerosol-generating device into the locked state based an absence of the authentication indicator in the data storage [0058], i.e. based on the determination that the authentication data is not stored in the memory, cut off supply of power to the heater. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the controller of Freeman such that based on the determination that the authentication data is not stored in the memory, in order to ensure that the authentication data is provided prior to use of the device.
Regarding claim 11, Freeman teaches the input device alternatively comprises a touch sensor implemented to communicate a passcode [0017] as applied to the button embodiment of [0015]. Thus, the input device comprises at least one sensor, the authentication data comprises an authentication pattern consisting of at least one of a number of object contacts, an object contact time, or a time interval between object contacts.
Regarding claim 12, Freeman teaches the input device comprises at least one button, the authentication data comprises an authentication pattern consisting of at least one of a button type, number of button presses, a duration of button press, or a time interval between button presses [0015].
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman and Ferrari as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rado (US 2019/0373954).
Freeman does not teach the claimed configuration. Rado teaches a vaporizer comprising a cartridge [0048] comprising: a chamber configured to store a liquid [0046] and a wick configured to be in communication with the chamber [0053]; and a body coupled to the cartridge [0045-0047], wherein the cartridge [Fig. 3-5] comprises: a tank module 60 (first container) comprising the chamber 140 [0057]; an atomizer module 70 (second container) coupled to the first container 60 [0051]; a wick 170/102 mounted in the second container disposed to be in communication with the chamber [0053, 0060]; and a heater 100 configured to heat the wick [0074], wherein the first container 60 comprises an inner wall 150 defining an elongated insertion space 180 and an outer wall 136 , and wherein the chamber 140 is formed between the inner wall and the outer wall [0057]. Rado teaches that this configuration provides for a vaporizer that can be filled more easily [0006] and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply this configuration to the device of Freeman for this reason.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman and Ferrari as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mokhasi (US 2020/0265133).
Freeman does not teach an output device configured to output a message using at least one of a visual manner, an auditory manner, or a tactile manner, wherein the controller is further configured to: in response to receiving an input from the input device, cause the output device to output a message corresponding to reception of the input. Mokhasi teaches a vaporizing device comprising a visual indicator (output device configured to output a message using a visual manner) for notifying the user that an authentication mode has been initiated and confirm that the user has been authenticated [0069] As authentication is attempted via the input device of Freeman, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the concept of Mokhasi to the device of Freeman such that it includes an output device configured to output a message using a visual manner, wherein the controller is configured to: in response to receiving an input from the input device, cause the output device to output a message corresponding to reception of the input. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made this modification for the purpose of notifying the user of the status of the device.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman and Ferrari as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Daugherty (US 2021/0298363).
Regarding claim 6, Freeman does not teach the controller is configured to: based on a determination that the signal does not correspond to the authentication data, update a number of user authentication failures; and based on a determination that the updated number of user authentication failures is greater than or equal to a predetermined number, block user authentication by restricting access to the authentication data. Daugherty teaches an aerosol generating device [0038] wherein based on a certain number of unsuccessful verification attempts (failures), the device remains locked and a benefit denial function is performed [0170-0171]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply this concept to the device of Freeman such that the controller is configured to: based on a determination that the signal does not correspond to the authentication data, update a number of user authentication failures; and based on a determination that the updated number of user authentication failures is greater than or equal to a predetermined number, block user authentication by restricting access to the authentication data. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made this modification for the purpose of preventing an unlimited number of authentication attempts.
Regarding claim 7, Freeman does not teach the controller is configured to: based on a determination that a pattern of the signal corresponds to a predetermined pattern when the authentication data is not stored in the memory, activate a function of generating the authentication data; and generate the authentication data based on the pattern of the signal while the function is activated. Daugherty teaches an aerosol generating device [0038] wherein a verified user may generate a profile for future authentications [0124]. The device is encoded during manufacturing with a predetermined unlock pattern separate from a user authentication code [0143]. The user may then create a profile which includes an authentication code [0166]. In other words, the controller is configured to: based on a determination that a pattern of the signal corresponds to a predetermined pattern when the authentication data is not stored in the memory, activate a function of generating the authentication data; and generate the authentication data based on the pattern of the signal while the function is activated. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply this configuration to the device of Freeman to provide a means for the user to initially establish authentication data.
Regarding claim 8, Freeman does not teach a communication interface configured to receive a signal from an external device, wherein the controller is further configured to: in response to receiving a predetermined control signal through the communication interface based on the authentication data not being stored in the memory, activate a function of generating the authentication data; and generate the authentication data based on a pattern of the signal while the function is activated. Daugherty teaches an aerosol generating device [0038] wherein a verified user may generate a profile for future authentications [0124]. The device is encoded during manufacturing with a predetermined unlock pattern separate from a user authentication code [0143]. The user may then create a profile which includes an authentication code [0166]. Verification is performed through a remote database with which the device communicates [0127]. In other words, Daugherty teaches a communication interface configured to receive a signal from an external device, wherein the controller is further configured to: in response to receiving a predetermined control signal through the communication interface based on the authentication data not being stored in the memory, activate a function of generating the authentication data; and generate the authentication data based on a pattern of the signal while the function is activated. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply this configuration to the device of Freeman to provide a means for the user to initially establish authentication data.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman and Ferrari as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Popoola (US 2024/0057686).
Modified Freeman does not teach controller is further configured to: in response to receiving a predetermined control signal through the communication interface based on the authentication data being stored in the memory, process the authentication data stored in the memory. However, this configuration is known in the art as taught by Popoola [0087] and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply to the controller of modified Freeman for encryption or decryption purposes as suggested by Popoola.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trzecieski (US 2020/0187560) in view of Ferrari.
Regarding claim 1, Trzecieski teaches an aerosol generating device comprising: a heater configured to heat an aerosol [0110]; an input device comprising at least one of a sensor configured to detect contact from an object [0625-0627]; a memory configured to store a preset force (authentication data for user authentication); and a controller configured to: based on a determination that the authentication data is stored in the memory, determine whether a signal received from the input device corresponds to the authentication data; and based on a determination that the signal corresponds to the authentication data, unlock the device (supply the power to the heater) [0625-0627]. When the force detected corresponding to the preset force (authentication data) is required for unlocking, it is implicit in Trzecieski that the controller is configured to determine whether the authentication data is stored in the memory, and based on a determination that the authentication data is not stored in the memory, remain locked, i.e. cut off supply of power to the heater. Trzecieski does not teach based on the determination that the authentication data is not stored in the memory, cut off supply of power to the heater. Ferrari teaches an aerosol-generating device wherein control circuitry is configured to enter the aerosol-generating device into the locked state based an absence of the authentication indicator in the data storage [0058], i.e. based on the determination that the authentication data is not stored in the memory, cut off supply of power to the heater. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the controller of Trzecieski such that based on the determination that the authentication data is not stored in the memory, in order to ensure that the authentication data is provided prior to use of the device.
Regarding claim 2, Trzecieski teaches a cartridge 500 comprising: a chamber configured to store a liquid and a wick configured to be in communication with the chamber [0487]; and a body 400 coupled to the cartridge [0486], wherein the heater is further configured to heat the wick [0492].
Regarding claim 4, Trzecieski teaches the body 400 comprises: a lower body (left half of Fig. 12-13) facing a lower portion of the cartridge 500; and an upper body (right half of Fig. 12-13] disposed on the lower body and facing a side portion of the cartridge, and wherein the input device is disposed in one region of a sidewall of the lower body [0624].
Regarding claim 10, Trzecieski teaches the input device comprises a force sensor configured to output a signal corresponding to a magnitude of force applied by the contact [0625-0627].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trzecieski and Ferrari as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rado.
Trzecieski does not teach the claimed configuration. Rado teaches a vaporizer wherein the cartridge [Fig. 3-5] comprises: a tank module 60 (first container) comprising the chamber 140 [0057]; an atomizer module 70 (second container) coupled to the first container 60 [0051]; a wick 170/102 mounted in the second container disposed to be in communication with the chamber [0053, 0060]; and a heater 100 configured to heat the wick [0074], wherein the first container 60 comprises an inner wall 150 defining an elongated insertion space 180 and an outer wall 136 , and wherein the chamber 140 is formed between the inner wall and the outer wall [0057]. Rado teaches that this configuration provides for a vaporizer that can be filled more easily [0006] and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply this configuration to the device of Trzecieski for this reason.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trzecieski and Ferrari as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Popoola (US 2024/0057686).
Modified Trzecieski does not teach controller is further configured to: in response to receiving a predetermined control signal through the communication interface based on the authentication data being stored in the memory, process the authentication data stored in the memory. However, this configuration is known in the art as taught by Popoola [0087] and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply to the controller of modified Trzecieski for encryption or decryption purposes as suggested by Popoola.
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
