DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in view of amendments filed 9/11/2026 with respect to the rejection(s) of the claims under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 1-2, 4, 6-8, 10-14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell (US 2023/0024525) in view of Cristian (US 2023/0292847) and Ampolini (US 2014/0096782).
Regarding claim 1, Bell teaches an aerosol delivery device configured to engage with a component to form an aerosol delivery system, the device comprising: electrical circuitry arranged to control the supply of power to an aerosol generation unit and to detect engagement and disengagement of a component with the device [0043-0046], wherein the circuitry is configured to: in an unlocked state, control the supply of power to the aerosol generation unit to enable the generation of an aerosol if a user inhales through the system [0071]; in a locked state, control the supply of power to the aerosol generation unit to prevent the generation of an aerosol if a user inhales through the system [0070, 0072, 0146]; and transition the system from the locked state to the unlocked state in response to a detection of a predefined sequence of user actions, the predefined sequence of user actions comprising at least one disengagement of a component with the device and at least one engagement of a component with the device [0073-0076], wherein the circuitry is configured to control a visual feedback element to indicate the engagement state to the user [0080]. Bell does not teach indicating the predefined sequence to the user. Cristian teaches an aerosol delivery device wherein circuitry is configured to control a visual feedback element to indicate guidance signals for guiding the user to provide input [0014]. In the device of Bell, the predefined sequence is a user input mechanism [0074]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the concept of Cristian to the device of Bell such that the circuitry is configured to control a visual feedback element to indicate the predefined sequence to the user. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to guide the user to provide the input, i.e. the predefined sequence, as suggested by Bell.
Bell does not teach a memory operatively connected to the circuitry and configured to store the predefined sequence of user actions. Cristian teaches a memory operatively connected to the circuitry and configured to store software instructions [0046]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the device of Bell a memory operatively connected to the circuitry and configured to store software instructions, including the predefined sequence of user actions, for the benefit of storing operation instructions for the device.
Modified Bell does not teach the memory is configured to store a plurality of predefined sequences of user actions and the circuitry is configured to randomly choose a predefined sequence of user actions from the plurality of predefined sequences stored in the memory. However, it noted that in the device of both Bell and the claimed invention, a “sequence” is merely the number of times a component is engaged and disengaged with the device. Bell teaches the count threshold value may be set as, for example, two, three, or four [0083], i.e. among a plurality of predefined sequences of user actions. Thus, the memory simply being configured to store two engagements/disengagements, three engagements/disengagements, and four engagements/disengagements, wherein the circuitry is configured to randomly choose from two, three, or four, would read on the above limitations. Ampolini teaches an aerosol delivery device [0027] wherein a plurality of challenges are stored in the memory and one is randomly selected for authentication purposes [0092, 0098]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the device of modified Bell such that the memory is configured to store the plurality of predefined sequences of user actions of Bell (two, three and four engagements/disengagements) and the circuitry is configured to randomly choose a predefined sequence to achieve predictable results, e.g. enhancing security be randomly varying the sequence required for the user to input. Thus, in modified Bell, the circuitry would be configured to control the visual feedback element to indicate the randomly chosen predefined sequence to the user.
Regarding claim 2, Bell teaches the circuitry is configured to transition the system from the locked state to the unlocked state only if the predefined sequence of user actions is detected within a predetermined period of time [0095].
Regarding claim 4, Bell teaches the circuitry is configured to: detect a sequence of user engagements and disengagements of a component with the device; determine whether the detected sequence corresponds to the predefined sequence of user actions; and transition the system from the locked stated to the unlocked state if the detected sequence corresponds to the predefined sequence [0073].
Regarding claim 6, Bell teaches the circuitry is configured to control the visual feedback element to provide first visual feedback to the user upon the detection of the predefined sequence of user actions [0147].
Regarding claim 7, Bell teaches the circuitry is configured to control the visual feedback element to provide second visual feedback to the user upon detection of a sequence of user engagements and disengagements of a component with the device that does not correspond to the predefined sequence of user actions, wherein the second visual feedback is different from the first visual feedback [0098].
Regarding claim 8, Bell teaches the circuitry is configured to control the visual feedback element to output a sequence of visual flashes [0098]. In view of Cristiano as applied to claim 1 above, this would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that to provide a sequence of flashes that corresponds to the predefined sequence of user actions to indicate the predefined sequence to the user, so as to guide the user to provide the input.
Regarding claim 10, Bell teaches the circuitry is configured to transition the system from an off state to the locked state if a user by pressing a button [0079]. As Bell discloses pressing a button and inhaling are alternatives for operation of the device [0128], this suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art that the circuitry may configured to transition the system from an off state to the locked state if a user inhales through the system when a component is engaged with the device to achieve predictable results.
Regarding claim 11, Bell teaches the circuitry is configured to transition the system from the unlocked state to the locked state if a predetermined period of time has elapsed since a last user inhalation through the system [0123].
Regarding claim 12, Bell teaches an airflow sensor configured to detect a user inhalation [0039].
Regarding claim 13, modified Bell as applied to claim 1 above teaches an aerosol delivery device according to claim 1. Bell teaches the device is part of an aerosol delivery system comprising a consumable component for containing an aerosol precursor, the consumable component configured to be reversibly engageable with the aerosol delivery device to form the aerosol delivery system [0029-0030].
Regarding claim 14, Bell teaches the consumable component comprises the aerosol generation unit [0034].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell and Cristian as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Anderson (US 2020/0000143).
Modified Bell does not teach in the locked state, the circuitry is configured to control the visual feedback element to provide third visual feedback to the user if a user inhales through the system. However, this configuration is known in the art as taught by Anderson [0350] and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply to the device of modified Bell for the purpose of indicating to the user that device will not work in the locked state.
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 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
