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 is the first Office Action on the merits of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the vibrating motor” in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because it is the first mention of a vibrating motor. For the purposes of examination, the vibrating motor in claim 1 will be interpreted as a vibrating motor that vibrates in response to the electronic cigarette being unlocked.
Claims 2-10 are also rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
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 1, 2, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20210161210 A1) in view of Cristian (US 20250261696 A1) and Yoshida (US 20240057676 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a method of unlocking an aerosol generating device (1, i.e. a child lock program, Fig. 7, [0103]), the method comprising:
A controller (12) switches an aerosol generating device (1) to locking mode where no power to supplied to the heater (13, “in a locked state when the electronic cigarette is inactive”, Fig. 2, S710, Fig. 7, [0087, 0105-0106]), next the control unit (12) monitors for an input for unlocking (S730) from an input interface (16) comprising a button (i.e. monitoring a signal which indicates a touch button is touched, [0089, 0107-0109]).
The controller (12) detects an input for unlocking, such as three short button presses, (S730, [0107-0110]), where the controller (12) can detect a short or long press (“determine whether a duration of time during which the touch button is touched exceeds a first set time”, [0092-0093]).
In response to detecting the input for unlocking comprising three short button presses, the controller (12) instructs an output interface (17) comprising an LED (17b) to blink for a predetermined time (“controlling the LED indicator to light up”) to indicate switching to a password input mode (S750, [0092-0093, 0096-0097, 0111]).
While in the password input mode, a user may touch the button consecutively and the controller (12) may determinetheresses matches a stored password (i.e. determining whether a number of times the touch button is consecutively touched reaches a set number, Fig. 7, S770, [0118, 0135-0137]).
Upon detecting the button presses matches a stored password, the controller (12) terminates the locking mode (“unlocking the electronic cigarette”) and controls the LED (17b) to light up or a motor (17a) to vibrate to indicate the device is unlocked ([0094-0097, 0118, 0121, 0124]) and control the heater (13) to heat (“enter a standby mode”, [0139]).
Lee discloses the LED (17b) blinks for a predetermined time (“controlling the LED indicator to light up”, S750, [0092-0093, 0096-0097, 0111]) to indicate switching to the password input mode and subsequently the controller (12) determines if a number of button presses matches a stored password within a predetermined input waiting time (Fig. 7, S770, [0113, 0118, 0135-0137])
Lee does not explicitly disclose the LED is lit up for a second set time during step S3 and the button is consecutively touched in the second set time during step S4 (in other words, the LED is lit up during a preset password input time).
However, Cristian, directed to a youth access prevention (YAP) process of an aerosol generating device (100, Fig. 1, [0003]), discloses:
A user presses push button (104) which causes an LED (112) to start blinking, the blinking continues for a first time window (“a second set time”) during which the push button is pressed to enter a pin code ([0173]), where the blinking indicates to the user that the first time window for entering the pin code is running (Fig. 1, [0173]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Lee by controlling the LED to blink during the predetermined input waiting time for inputting a passcode as taught by Cristian because both Lee and Cristian are directed to child proofing methods for aerosol generating devices, Cristian teaches the blinking LED indicates to the user that the time window to enter the pin code is running, and this applying a known blinking notification to a similar method to yield predictable results.
Further regarding claim 1, Lee discloses the process is implemented by the controller (120) which may include a processor comprising a microprocessor but the controller may be implemented with other forms of hardware ([0044]).
Lee does not explicitly disclose the child lock control program is implemented by a microcontroller.
However, Yoshida, directed to an unlock process of an aerosol generating apparatus (100, “electronic cigarette”, Fig. 6, [0106-0107]), discloses:
The unlock process is implemented by a processor of a control unit (120) by executing a stored program (“set with a child lock program”), the processor may comprise a CPU or a microcontroller ([0062, 0107]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Lee, in view of Cristian, by implementing the process with a microcontroller as taught by Yoshida because both Lee and Yoshida are directed to child proofing methods for aerosol generating devices, Lee teaches the control unit may comprise a microprocessor but may include other hardware, Yoshida teaches a similar process carried out by a processor or a microcontroller, and this applying a known a known type of processor to a similar method to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses a signal for correct user input for unlocking must be received by the controller (12) to advance to the next step, and therefore Lee is considered to disclose that the operation reverts to receive user input for unlocking step (S730, i.e. step S1) if the incorrect user input is entered (Fig. 7, [0107-0108]).
Lee discloses the controller (12) may terminate the password input mode if the correct user input is not received in step S770 (“S4”) within the predetermined time (Fig. 7 [0117]), and therefore Lee is considered to disclose that the operation reverts to receive user input for unlocking step (S730, i.e. step S1) if the correct password is not entered (Fig. 7, [0107-0108]).
Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses the password may be a three digit password comprising three button touches ([0100, 0135]). The claimed range overlaps with the range by the prior art and therefore the claimed range is considered prima facie obvious.
Claims 3-4, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20210161210 A1) in view of Cristian (US 20250261696 A1) and Yoshida (US 20240057676 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Erguven (US 20240188638 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses the aerosol generating device comprises a puff detection sensor ([0057]).
Lee does not explicitly disclose the unlocking method comprises monitoring for the trigger of an airflow sensor in a third set time.
However, Erguven, directed to a locking method of an aerosol provision system (Fig. 4, [0060]), discloses:
In response to detecting a puff of the aerosol provision system (10, S61), the aerosol provision system (10) starts a timer (S63) and after a preset time interval (“a third set time”), the aerosol provision system (1) is configured to lock and which stops the aerosol provision system (10) from being used to generate aerosol (Fig. 4, [0062-0064]), and;
The method allows the aerosol provision system to automatically restrict use of the system (10) to sessions of a predetermined time which conserves battery level allowing the device to be used for longer ([0056, 0062]).
The Examiner is interpreting an airflow sensor as a sensor that can directly or indirectly sense airflow. A puff requires airflow through the system such that detecting a puff is considered to be “monitoring whether an airflow sensor is triggered”.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Lee, in view of Cristian and Yoshida, by configuring the microcontroller to put the device into lock mode after a time period where no puffs are detected as taught by Erguven because both Lee and Erguven are directed to operation methods for aerosol generating devices, Erguven teaches the automatic locking after no puffs are detected conserves battery level, and this applying a known timeout process to a similar operation method to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, Lee discloses a signal for correct user input for unlocking must be received by the controller (12) to advance to the next step, and therefore Lee is considered to disclose that the operation reverts to receive user input for unlocking step (S730, i.e. step S1) if the incorrect user input is entered (Fig. 7, [0107-0108]).
Lee discloses the controller (12) may terminate the password input mode if the correct user input is not received in step S770 (“S4”) within the predetermined time (Fig. 7 [0117]), and therefore Lee is considered to disclose that the operation reverts to receive user input for unlocking step (S730, i.e. step S1) if the correct password is not entered (Fig. 7, [0107-0108]).
In regards to claimed step S8, Erguven discloses the aerosol provision system (1) is used to generate aerosols once the timer is started (i.e. enter a working state), the timer is re-started after each puff detection which is considered to be monitoring an airflow sensor, and after the puff is detected and the timer starts, the aerosol provision system (1) is still active and available for use which is considered to be a standby state/going back to step 6 (Fig. 4, [0062-0064]).
Regarding claim 10, Erguven discloses the preset time interval (“a third set time”) may be 3 minutes ([0062]). The claimed range overlaps with the time disclosed by the prior art and therefore the claimed range is considered prima facie obvious.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20210161210 A1) in view of Cristian (US 20250261696 A1) and Yoshida (US 20240057676 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Volodarksy (US 20170027224 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses the method may comprises the controller automatically switching the aerosol generating device (1) from unlocked mode to the locked mode after a predetermined locking waiting time (S710, Fig. 7, [0104-0105]).
Lee does not explicitly disclose a method for the user to manually set the device to locking mode.
However, Volodarsky, directed to a control method of a portable vaporizer (100, Fig. 1, [0026]), discloses:
A button (124) for operating the portable vaporizer (100), where pressing the button 5 times switches the device from an unlocked state to a locked state, and pressing the button 5 times also switches the device from a locked state to an unlocked state (i.e. the locking and unlocking method comprise the same steps, [0026, 0029]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Lee, in view of Cristian and Yoshida, by configuring the microcontroller to lock the device using the same methods steps for unlocking as taught by Volodarsky because both Lee and Volodarsky are directed to operation methods for aerosol generating devices, Lee teaches the device may be automatically locked after a period of inactivity but is silent to a manual method of locking the device, Volodarsky teaches a similar method for locking and locking device comprising the same steps, such that the user has the ability to manually lock the device, and this applying a known manual locking process to a similar operation method to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses a signal for correct user input for unlocking must be received by the controller (12) to advance to the next step, and therefore Lee is considered to disclose that the operation reverts to receive user input for unlocking step (S730, i.e. step S1) if the incorrect user input is entered (Fig. 7, [0107-0108]).
Lee discloses the controller (12) may terminate the password input mode if the correct user input is not received in step S770 (“S4”) within the predetermined time (Fig. 7 [0117]), and therefore Lee is considered to disclose that the operation reverts to receive user input for unlocking step (S730, i.e. step S1) if the correct password is not entered (Fig. 7, [0107-0108]).
Volodarksy discloses a locking method and unlocking method comprising the same steps ([0029]), as discussed above. Therefore, Lee in view of Cristian, Yoshida, and Volodarksy, is considered to comprise a method for switching the device from unlocked to locked that is the same as the process for switching the device from locked to unlocked, and the method steps are detailed in the rejection of claim 1. Therefore, Lee in view of Cristian, Yoshida, and Volodarksy, is considered to comprise a step S7 (same as step S2) that reverts to step S6 (same as step S1) if the result is no, and a step S9 (same as step S4), that reverts to step S6 (same as step S1) if the results is no.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20210161210 A1) in view of Cristian (US 20250261696 A1) and Yoshida (US 20240057676 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ferrie (US 20220061399 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses the controller (12) detects an input for unlocking, such as three short button presses, (S730, [0107-0110]), where the controller (12) can detect a short or long press (“determine whether a duration of time during which the touch button is touched exceeds a first set time”, [0092-0093]).
Lee is silent to duration of first set time (i.e. button press time).
However, Ferrie, directed to a child safety mode of a smoking substitute device ([0650]), discloses:
A button configured to transmit a command to a controller to place the system in a safety mode, the command may be in the form of a signal indicative of the button being pressed for more than 2 seconds ([0657]). The claimed range overlaps with the range by the prior art and therefore the claimed range is considered prima facie obvious.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Lee, in view of Cristian and Yoshida, by configuring the microcontroller to detect button presses of more than 2 seconds as taught by Ferrie because both Lee and Ferrie are directed to operation methods for aerosol generating devices, Lee teaches a controller which detects a duration of a button press but is silent to the duration detected, Ferrie teaches detecting a button press of 2 seconds or more, and one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to similar processes for suitable ranges of button press duration, and this applying a known button press duration to a similar operation method to yield predictable results.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20210161210 A1) in view of Cristian (US 20250261696 A1) and Yoshida (US 20240057676 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bell (US 20230024525 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Cristian discloses the user may have 7 seconds to enter a first digit of the code with the pushbutton (104, [0174]).
Cristian does not explicitly disclose the second set time is 2 to 5 seconds.
However, Bell, directed to a method for switching modes of an aerosol provision system (Fig. 5, [0092]), discloses
A method of switching modes comprising engaging and disengaging of a cartridge (4) with a device (2), where the mode is switched when a predetermined number of engagements and disengagements is detected in a predetermined switching time comprising 5 seconds, 4 seconds, or 3 seconds, or 2 seconds (Fig. 1, Fig. 5, [0094-0096]). The time values taught by the prior art lie within the claimed range of 2-5 seconds and therefore the claimed range is considered prima facie obvious.
The number of engagements/disengagements must occur in a short time which adds further complexity to the user-input that is required to switch the operational modes and thus further decreases the chances of inadvertently activating the aerosol provision system ([0101]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Lee, in view of Cristian and Yoshida, by setting the password input time to 2, 3, 4, or 5 seconds as taught by Bell because both Lee and Bell are directed to child proofing methods for aerosol generating devices, Bell teaches the input time of 2, 3, 4, or 5 seconds increases the complexity of the input and further prevents inadvertent activation of the system, and this applying a known password input time a similar operation method to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORGAN FAITH DEZENDORF whose telephone number is (571)272-0155. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-430pm EST.
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.
/M.F.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1755
/PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights