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 .
Response to Amendments
This office action is responsive to the amendments filed on 04/16/2026. In which,
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 11, 16-17, 19-22, 26, 30, 32-33, 35-36 and 42 are pending and being considered,
Claims 3, 8-10, 12-15, 18, 23-25, 27-29, 31, 34, 37-41 and 43-47 have been cancelled,
Claims 5, 7, 16-17, 20, 22, 26, 32-33, 35-36 and 42 have been amended, and
Claims 1, 16 and 32 are independent claims.
Response to Arguments
Objections to the ‘Title of the Invention’ and ‘Abstract of the Disclosure’, as set
forth in the previous office action, have been waived in view of the remarks and amendments to the “Title of the Invention” and “Abstract” filed on 04/16/2026.
Objections to the Drawings, in particular for Fig. 1a (element 22), have been
waived in view of the remarks on page 8-9 of the arguments or remarks filed on 04/16/2026.
Claim objections, as set forth in the previous office action, have been waived
in view of the claim amendments and remarks filed on 04/16/2026. However, claim amendments have raised new issues which are addressed in the claim objections and/or claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as described below.
Claim Interpretation - 35 U.S.C. 112(f), for claims 32-33, 35-36 and
42, as set forth in the previous office action, have been waived in view of the amendments and remarks filed on 04/16/2026. The amendments, however, have raised a new issue which is addressed under 35 USC 101.
Claim rejections under 112(b), for claims 7 and 22, as set forth in the previous
office action, have been waived in view of the amendments and remarks filed on 04/16/2026. Claim amendments, however, have raised new issues which are addressed in the claim objections and/or claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as described below.
Claim rejections under 35 USC 101, as set forth in the previous office action,
have been maintained for at least the following reasons:
with regards to independent claims 1 and 16, applicant remarks that ‘claims 1 and 16 do not relate to the abstract idea of performing limitations in the mind. Instead, claims are directed towards ‘collecting data’ and ‘transmitting data’, which cannot be performed in the human mind’.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the remarks, in such that the process of ‘collecting data, gathering data, obtaining data, etc.’ and ‘transmitting data, transferring data, providing data, etc.’ is a well-known abstract idea and falls under fundamental human activity which can be performed mentally (mental processes) or with pen and paper. For example, one ordinary skilled in the art can manually, such as by using pen and paper, collect data from another user/entity, and handover (transmit) the collected data to a third party/entity that holds the hashed ID of another user/entity. Therefore, the claim limitations “collecting data and transmitting data”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations under fundamental human activity which can be performed mentally or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components, such as a processor. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or includes some additional physical steps such as to encompass performance by a human using pen and paper but for the recitation of the generic computer components, such as a processor, then it falls within the “Mental Processes and/or Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea, and therefore rejection is maintained as set forth in the previous office action.
with regards to independent claim 16, applicant further remarks that ‘claim 16 has been amended to specify that the user device comprises a processor configured to carry out the functions recited therein. Claim 16 therefore positively claims a hardware element, as suggested by the Examiner. Independent claim 16 and its dependent claims (i.e. claim 26) therefore relate to statutory subject matter. Accordingly, Applicants respectfully submit that the rejections to claims 16 and 26 on eligibility grounds are overcome.’.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the remarks, in such that on page 15-16 of the non-final rejection, examiner has respectfully suggested that “the claim to be further amended to positively recite at least a hardware element, e.g., hardware processor, computer processor and/or a memory, within the body of the claim to make the claim statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. The nominal recitation of the “Processor” with an absence of a hardware element in the body of the claim fails to make the claim statutory under 35 USC 101. See Am. Med. Sys., Inc v. Biolitec, Inc., 618 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2010). See also Ex parte Cohen et al., (Appeal No. 2009-011366) for details”. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been maintained, as set forth in the previous office action.
Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103: Applicant’s arguments/remarks filed on
04/16/2026 have been considered and are persuasive. Thus, claim rejections (35 USC 103), as set forth in the previous office action, have been waived in view of the arguments/remarks.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 7, the claim in lines 1-2 recites “providing a mechanism for a user to reset the user-set code comprising: ...” which should be corrected as “providing a mechanism for [[a]] the user to reset the user-set code comprising: ...” since the term “a user” has already been recited in the preceding claims on-which the claim 7 depends-on. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 7, the claim in line 4 recites “transmitting a user-set security term and the customer ID to the connectivity platform;” which should be corrected as “transmitting [[a]] the user-set security term and the customer ID to the connectivity platform;” since the term “a user-set security term” has already been recited in the preceding claim 6 on which the claim 7 depends-on. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 7, the claim in line 6 recites “hashing a customer ID using the customer ID and the decrypted user-set code as salt;” which should be corrected as “hashing [[a]] the customer ID using the customer ID and the decrypted user-set code as salt;”, since the term “a customer ID” has already been recited in the preceding claims on which the claim 7 depends-on. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 7, the claim in line 7 recites limitation “the hash result” which is not defined previously and therefore lacks antecedent basis”. Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner respectfully suggests the applicant to re-write the claim (7) limitations “hashing a customer ID using the customer ID and the decrypted user-set code as salt; comparing the hash result, obtained from the hashing, against a record of known hashed user-IDs; and” to overcome informalities. For example, the limitations can be re-written as, “obtaining a hash result by hashing [[a]] the customer ID using the customer ID and the decrypted user-set code as salt; comparing the hash result”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 19, the claim in lines 1-2 recites limitation “The user device of claim 17, further configured to generate ...” which should be corrected as “The user device of claim 17, the processor being further configured to generate ...”, in order to be in-line with the claim 17 on-which the claim 19 depends-on. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 22, the claim in lines 1-2 recites limitation “the processor being further configured to provide the mechanism for a user to reset ...” which should be corrected as “the processor being further configured to provide [[the]] a mechanism for a user to reset...” since the claimed term “the mechanism” is not defined previously and, therefore lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 22, the claim in line 3 recites limitation “inviting a user to enter the user-set security term;” which should be corrected as “inviting [[a]] the user to enter the user-set security term;” since the claimed term “a user” has already been recited in the preceding limitations. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 42, the claim in lines 1-2 recites the term “the remote system” which should be corrected as “[[the]] a remote system”, since the claimed term “the remote system” is not defined previously and therefore lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Dependent claims which depend-on the above objected claims are likewise objected since they depend on and/or carries the deficiencies of the objected parent claims. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 7 is 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.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites limitation “hashing a customer ID using... salt;” which is unclear. It is unclear whether the term “a customer ID” as recited in the claim 7 is referring/corresponding to “a customer ID” as recited in claim 2, on-which the claim 7 depends-on, or it is referring/corresponding towards a different customer ID. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites limitation “comparing the hash result, obtained from the hashing, against a record...” in lines 7-8 of the claim, which is unclear. First, examiner notes that the term “the hash result” as claimed is not defined previously, and therefore lacks antecedent basis. Second, examiner notes that the claimed limitation “the hash result obtained from the hashing” as recited lacks antecedent bases, and it is unclear as to how the hash result is being obtained from the hashing, the “hashing” step which is being performed in the preceding limitation. Examiner notes that the “hashing” step as recited in the preceding limitation only recites “hashing a customer ID using ... salt” without providing an outcome/end-result that resulted in a “hash result” from the “hashing”. Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claims are determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 11, 16-17, 19-22, 26, 30, 32-33, 35-36 and 42 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“2019 PEG”), effective January 7, 2019, independent claims 1, 16 and 32 are directed to an abstract idea without being significantly more nor being integrated into a practical application. The claims are directed towards data processing.
For instance, the independent claim 1 recites the method steps of “collecting, at a device, user-specific data relating to an aerosol provision device of a user; transmitting the user-specific data to a remote system in association with a hashed user ID for the user of the aerosol provision device, wherein the hashed user ID is not usable to identify the user.”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is considered as an abstract idea by itself and falls under fundamental human activity which can be performed mentally (mental processes) or with pen and paper. For example, one ordinary skilled in the art can manually, such as by using pen and paper, collect data from another user/entity, and handover (transmit) the collected data to a third party/entity that holds the hashed ID of another user/entity. Therefore, the claim limitations “collecting data and transmitting data”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations under fundamental human activity which can be performed mentally (mental process) or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of a generic computer. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or includes some additional physical steps such as to encompass performance by a human using pen and paper but for the recitation of a generic computer, then it falls within the “Mental Processes and/or Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites additional element(s), such as devices and remote system. These element(s) in the claim are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. A review of the additional elements, considered individually and in combination, shows that the claim does not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea itself. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) such as “a device” to perform the steps of “collecting data and transmitting data” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, see spec [0026], which may include component e.g., a processor, or memory. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to independent claim 16, the claim recites “a user device comprising a processor is configured to: collect user-specific data relating to an aerosol provision device of a user; transmit the user-specific data to a remote system in association with a hashed user ID for the user of the aerosol provision device, wherein the hashed user ID is not usable to identify the user.”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is considered as an abstract idea by itself and falls under fundamental human activity which can be performed mentally (mental processes) or with pen and paper. For example, one ordinary skilled in the art can manually, such as by using pen and paper, collect data from another user/entity, and handover (transmit) the collected data to a third party/entity that holds the hashed ID of another user/entity. Therefore, the claim limitations “collecting data and transmitting data”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations under fundamental human activity which can be performed mentally or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of a generic computer components, such as a processor. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or includes some additional physical steps such as to encompass performance by a human using pen and paper but for the recitation of a generic computer components, such as a processor, then it falls within the “Mental Processes and/or Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites additional element(s), such as a user device comprising a processor and remote system. These element(s) in the claim are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. A review of the additional elements, considered individually and in combination, shows that the claim does not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea itself. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) such as “a user device comprising a processor” configured to “collect data and transmit data” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, such as a processor. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to independent claim 32, the claim recites “A data management system, comprising a user device and a connectivity platform, wherein the user device comprises a processor configured to collect user-specific data relating to an aerosol provision device of a user, and to transmit the user- specific data to the connectivity platform in association with a hashed user ID for the user of the aerosol provision device, wherein the hashed user ID is not usable to identify the user.”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls under fundamental human activity which can be performed mentally (mental processes) or with pen and paper, and therefore is considered as an abstract idea. For example, one ordinary skilled in the art can manually, such as by using pen and paper, collect data from another user/entity, and handover (transmit) the collected data to a third party/entity that holds the hashed ID of another user/entity. Therefore, the claim limitations “collecting data and transmitting data”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations under fundamental human activity which can be performed mentally or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of a generic computer components, such as a processor. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or includes some additional physical steps such as to encompass performance by a human using pen and paper but for the recitation of a generic computer components, such as a processor, then it falls within the “Mental Processes and/or Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites additional element(s), such as a user device comprising a processor and connectivity platform. These element(s) in the claim are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. A review of the additional elements, considered individually and in combination, shows that the claim does not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea itself. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) such as “a user device comprising a processor” configured to “collect data and transmit data” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, such as a processor. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to dependent claims 2, 4-7, 11, 17, 19-22, 26, 30, 33, 35-36 and 42, the claims recite elements which are taken individually do not amount to “significantly more” than just the abstract idea. The claims do not recite a specific technological improvement or a particular machine and no additional element to amount to significantly more. The elements as recited in the claims are generic (such as, sending a query, receiving data, using a hashed ID) and appear well-understood, routine, and conventional. Some of the evidences of “significantly more” are a) improvement to another technology or field; b) applying judicial exception with or by a “particular machine’; c) transforming particular article/data into different state or thing; d) adding unconventional or non-routine steps, producing useful application; and e) other meaningful limitations beyond generic link to particular technological environment.
As a result, the claims 1-2, 4-7, 11, 16-17, 19-22, 26, 30, 32-33, 35-36 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter as the claims do not contain any element or combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360. Under Alice, that is not sufficient "to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." See Electric Power group, etc.
Allowable Subject Matter
Independent claims 1, 16 and 32, alongside with their respective dependent
claims, would be allowable only if rewritten and/or amended to overcome the claim rejections and objections as set forth in this office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject
matter in view of the closest cited prior art, as disclosed below. The closest relevant prior art made of record are:
Anderson et al. (US 2020/0000143 A1), describes a vaporizer system that may include a vaporizer device communicatively coupled with a user device configured to control the functions and/or features of the vaporizer device. The vaporizer device may serve as a replacement for traditional combustible cigarettes. Accordingly, the user device may be configured to collect usage data from the vaporizer device and generate recommendations to enhance and/or expedite the transition from traditional combustible cigarettes to the vaporizer device. Additionally, the user device is communicatively coupled with the first vaporizer device and a remote server. The remote server [...] may perform operations that include: receiving, from the user device, a usage data for associated with a first user interacting the first vaporizer device, the vaporizer device may be linked to the user by at least creating an association between a device identifier of the vaporizer device and a user identifier of the user. Data received from the vaporizer device may be anonymized by at least being associated with the device identifier of the vaporizer device but not the user identifier of the user.
Bettger; David Duane (US 2019/0052467 A1), discloses that the receiver computing device may obtain identity 308 from the sender computing device at a previous time (for example, before the sender is presented with the offer) in a manner such that information that could be used to uniquely identify the sender remains hidden even if data is intercepted by a malicious device. For example, at a previous time (for example, before the sender is presented with the offer), the sender computing device may prompt the sender to provide an input that uniquely represents an identity of the sender (for example, a fingerprint, a vein reading, an iris scan, face recognition, a passcode, a single-use code, a key card, a digital certificate, a digital token, and/or any other item that represents a biological characteristic of the user, something that the user knows, or something that the user has). Once the input is received, the sender computing device may convert the input into a value (for example, an alphanumeric value, a hexadecimal value, etc.) and then generate a hash of the value to form an identity hash code. The sender computing device may then transmit the identity hash code to the receiver computing device. In an example, the sender computing device may transmit the identity hash code to the receiver computing device instead of, for example, the converted value because it may not be possible to recreate the input(s) to a hash function using a hash code. However, it may be possible to recreate the input(s) using the converted value. Thus, a malicious device that is able to intercept the identity hash code would not be able to recreate the input(s) used to create the identity hash code and that uniquely identify the sender. In other words, data that could be used to steal the sender's identity (such as the sender's fingerprint, vein reading, iris scan, face-recognition, passcode, a single-use code, a key card, digital certificate, digital token, and/or any other item that represents a biological characteristic of the user, something that the user knows, or something that the user has) would be protected even if the identity hash code is intercepted. In an implementation, the identity hash code generated based on the input(s) uniquely identifies the user.
Suponau et al. (US 20070245118 A1), describes method and system that aggregates data associated with one or more entities from different data sources are provided. The data sources include documents, web pages, or images that have information about one or more entities. The information is extracted from the data sources based on criteria that define the entities. The extracted information is utilized to generate a hash identifier that corresponds to each entity and one or more storage locations. The one or more storage locations and associated hash identifiers are utilized to store the extracted information corresponding to the entities, and the extracted information for each entity is structured as a virtual page that is stored in an index having references to the data sources.
MANNINGHAM et al. (US 20240403268 A1), describes a method comprising steps of: receiving a message comprising first data associated with a user and an anonymized hash of an identifier associated with the user; determining that a database comprises a first record associated with the anonymized hash, wherein the first record comprises additional data associated with the user; causing a second record to be created, wherein the second record comprises the first data associated with the user and the additional data associated with the user, and wherein the second record is associated with the anonymized hash; and causing replacing, on the database, of the first record with the second record.
Amorde et al. (US 20210211867 A1), the current subject matter described herein relates generally to vaporizer devices, such as portable, personal vaporizer devices for generating and delivering an inhalable aerosol from one or more vaporizable materials, and more particularly relates to messages sent by a personal vaporizer device. Features relating to a vaporizer device configured to wirelessly broadcast anonymized advertisement messages to protect the privacy and/or security of a user of the vaporizer device and/or a user equipment. In an implementation, the vaporizer device is configured to anonymize at least a portion of an advertisement, the portion including data identifying at least one of the vaporizer devices and a user equipment associated with the vaporizer device; and transmit, to one or more devices including the user equipment, the anonymized advertisement.
Although, the cited prior teaches the process of ‘collecting, at a device, user-specific data relating to a user device; and transmitting the user-specific data to a remote system in association with a user ID’. However, none of the closest prior art mentioned above teaches or suggests, either taken alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious, the claimed subject matter “transmitting, by the user device, the user-specific data to a remote system/a connectivity platform in association with a hashed user ID for the user of the aerosol provision device, wherein the hashed user ID is not usable to identify the user.” as recited in each of the independent claims 1, 16 and 32. Thus, independent claims 1, 16 and 32, alongside with their respective dependent claims, would be allowable only if rewritten and/or amended to overcome the claim rejections and objections as set forth in this office action.
Note: Merely reducing the originally claimed subject matter (e.g., by deleting or removing the originally claimed limitations) to overcome the claim objections and claim rejections would broaden the scope of the claims, and therefore further consideration and prior art search would be required for the broadened claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (See PTO-892)
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALI CHEEMA, whose telephone number is 571-272-1239. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-4PM (EST) Monday-Friday. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eleni A. Shiferaw can be reached on 571-272-3867.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALI H. CHEEMA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2497
Prosecution Insights