DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 Application
2. Pursuant to the amendment filed June 8, 2026, claims 1-13 and 15-18 are pending in the application. The applicant has cancelled claims 14 and 19. The applicant has amended claims 13 and 15-17.
Claim Interpretation
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
4. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“communication module” in claims 9, 11, 17, and 18; and
“computing arrangement” in claims 9, 11, 17, and 18..
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claims 9, 11, 17, and 18 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.
In particular, the claim limitation, “communication module” invokes 35 USC. 112(f), but the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the claimed communication function. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application would have recognized that such a function could be performed in any number of ways by hardware alone or by a combination of hardware and software. The specification does not provide sufficient details to inform one of ordinary skill in the art which structure(s) perform(s) the claimed function. For these reasons, claims 1 and 16 are indefinite.
7. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
8. Claims 9, 11, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed communication function. The specification does not demonstrate that the applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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 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.
10. Claims 1, 2, 6, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (US 2021/0401061 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Davis discloses:
a container for delivery systems and/or aerosol generating material ([0156], [0169]; FIG. 2) comprising:
a body surrounding a cavity and an opening in the body through which the cavity can be accessed ([0169]; FIG. 2: 58);
a closing arranged to openably close the opening in the body ([0192], [0389]; FIG. 2: 31; FIG. 25B);
Davis does not explicitly disclose a lock for controllably locking the closing, but Davis does disclose electronic apparatuses for controllably locking the container ([0174]; FIG. 3: 72, 82, 84), and Davis does disclose a microcontroller, comprising a processor ([0166], [0192]; FIG. 2: 31), that opens and closes the closing to allow and prevent the flow of a fluid payload through the opening ([0389]), which suggests that this apparatus constitutes a lock for controllably locking the closing for the benefit of controllably opening and closing the closing to allow and prevent the flow of a fluid payload through the opening;
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have configured the system of Davis in the foregoing manner because that would have enabled the system to controllably open and close the closing to allow and prevent the flow of a fluid payload through the opening;
control circuitry for changing a state of the lock ([0174], [0192]; FIG. 2: 21; FIG. 3: 72, 82, 84);
user authorisation means for verifying a user ([0180], [0186]; FIG. 4: 404); and,
tamper prevention means arranged to impact the cavity when the closing is opened when the lock is in a locked state ([0189]),
wherein the control circuitry is arranged to change a state of the lock to unlock in response to receiving a signal originating from the user authorisation means associated with an authorised user ([0186], [0187]; FIG. 4: 404, 414).
Regarding claim 2, Davis discloses that the lock comprises at least one of a physical locking element and an electrical locking element. ([0192], [0389]; FIG. 2: 31; FIG. 25B)
Regarding claim 6, Davis discloses that the tamper prevention means is arranged to structurally alter or damage delivery systems and/or aerosol generating material, contained in use in the container, in response to contact with the delivery systems and/or aerosol generating material. ([0192], [0389]; FIG. 2: 31; FIG. 25B)
Regarding claim 9, Davis discloses that the user authorisation means comprises at least one of: a face scanner; a projector scanner; a microphone; a fingerprint scanner; an iris scanner; and, a communication module for communicating with at least one of: a remote database; a remote computing arrangement; an onboard database; and, an onboard computing arrangement. ([0154], [0203]; FIG. 3: 72, 74)
Regarding clam 10, Davis discloses:
a system ([0002]) comprising:
a container for delivery systems and/or aerosol generating material ([0156], [0169]; FIG. 2) comprising:
a body surrounding a cavity and an opening in the body through which the cavity can be accessed ([0169]; FIG. 2: 58);
a closing arranged to openably close the opening in the body ([0192], [0389]; FIG. 2: 31; FIG. 25B);
Davis does not explicitly disclose a lock for controllably locking the closing, but Davis does disclose electronic apparatuses for controllably locking the container ([0174]; FIG. 3: 72, 82, 84), and Davis does disclose a microcontroller, comprising a processor ([0166], [0192]; FIG. 2: 31), that opens and closes the closing to allow and prevent the flow of a fluid payload through the opening ([0389]), which suggests that this apparatus constitutes a lock for controllably locking the closing for the benefit of controllably opening and closing the closing to allow and prevent the flow of a fluid payload through the opening;
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have configured the system of Davis in the foregoing manner because that would have enabled the system to controllably open and close the closing to allow and prevent the flow of a fluid payload through the opening;
control circuitry for changing a state of the lock ([0174], [0192]; FIG. 2: 31; FIG. 3: 72, 82, 84); and,
tamper prevention means arranged to impact the cavity when the closing is opened when the lock is in a locked state ([0189]), and
user authorisation means for verifying a user ([0180], [0186]; FIG. 4: 404),
wherein the control circuitry is arranged to change a state of the lock to unlock in response to receiving a signal originating from the user authorisation means associated with an authorised user ([0186], [0187]; FIG. 4: 404, 414).
Claim 11 is rejected as claim 9.
Regarding claim 12, Davis discloses that the user authorisation means is not integral with the container. ([0174]; FIG. 3: 72, 82, 84)
11. Claims 3-5, 13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Adelaar et al. (US 10,737,041 B1).
Regarding claim 3, Davis does not disclose that the tamper prevention means comprises at least one compound arranged to be released into the cavity when the closing is opened when the lock is in a locked state.
Adelaar, in the same field of containers for delivery systems and/or aerosol generating material (col. 1, lines 16-18), teaches methods and systems for fluid handling and dispensing liquid substances using vaporization or nebulization in a controlled, safe manner (col. 1, lines 38-41), wherein a tamper prevention means comprises at least one compound arranged to be released into the cavity when the closing is opened when the lock is in a locked state (col. 4, lines 26-36) for the benefit of rendering the substance in the cavity inert, so that it does not provide a narcotic effect, while still being safe to consume (col. 4, lines 26-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teachings of Adelaar with the container of Davis because that would have enabled the container to render the substance in the cavity inert, so that it does not provide a narcotic effect, while still being safe to consume.
Regarding claim 4, Davis does not disclose that the at least one compound is arranged to chemically alter delivery systems and/or aerosol generating material, contained in use in the container, in response to contact with the delivery systems and/or aerosol generating material.
Adelaar, in the same field of containers for delivery systems and/or aerosol generating material (col. 1, lines 16-18), teaches methods and systems for fluid handling and dispensing liquid substances using vaporization or nebulization in a controlled, safe manner (col. 1, lines 38-41), wherein a tamper prevention means comprises at least one compound arranged to be released into the cavity and render the substance in the cavity inert when the closing is opened when the lock is in a locked state (col. 4, lines 26-36) for the benefit that the inert substance does not provide a narcotic effect, while still being safe to consume (col. 4, lines 26-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teachings of Adelaar with the container of Davis because that would have enabled the inert substance not to provide a narcotic effect, while still being safe to consume.
Regarding claim 5, Davis does not disclose that the at least one compound is arranged to render delivery systems and/or aerosol generating material, contained in use in the container, chemically inert in response to contact.
Adelaar, in the same field of containers for delivery systems and/or aerosol generating material (col. 1, lines 16-18), teaches methods and systems for fluid handling and dispensing liquid substances using vaporization or nebulization in a controlled, safe manner (col. 1, lines 38-41), wherein a tamper prevention means comprises at least one compound arranged to be released into the cavity and render the substance in the cavity inert when the closing is opened when the lock is in a locked state (col. 4, lines 26-36) for the benefit that the inert substance does not provide a narcotic effect, while still being safe to consume (col. 4, lines 26-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teachings of Adelaar with the container of Davis because that would have enabled the inert substance not to provide a narcotic effect, while still being safe to consume.
Regarding claim 13, Davis discloses:
a method of preventing unauthorised access to a container for delivery systems and/or aerosol generating material ([0002], [0186], [0189]), the method comprising:
verifying, by user authorisation means, a user attempting to access a container of delivery systems and/or aerosol generating material contained in use in a cavity of the container ([0180], [0186]; FIG. 4: 404);
receiving, by control circuitry, a signal originating from the user authorization means ([0165]; FIG. 2: 36; FIG. 3: 72)
in response to receiving a signal originating from the user authorisation means performing at least one of:
changing, by the control circuitry, a state of a lock of the container ([0174]);
activating, by the control circuitry, user authorisation means ([0186]).
Davis does not disclose that the method further comprises: detecting an unauthorised access attempt by a user when the lock is in a locked state, and activating the tamper prevention means to be released into the cavity.
Adelaar, in the same field of containers for delivery systems and/or aerosol generating material (col. 1, lines 16-18), teaches methods and systems for fluid handling and dispensing liquid substances using vaporization or nebulization in a controlled, safe manner (col. 1, lines 38-41), wherein a tamper prevention means comprises at least one compound arranged to be released into the cavity when the closing is opened when the lock is in a locked state (col. 4, lines 26-36) for the benefit of rendering the substance in the cavity inert, so that it does not provide a narcotic effect, while still being safe to consume (col. 4, lines 26-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teachings of Adelaar with the container of Davis because that would have enabled the container to render the substance in the cavity inert, so that it does not provide a narcotic effect, while still being safe to consume.
Regarding claim 16, Davis discloses that activating the tamper prevention means comprises at least one of:
releasing a chemical into the cavity to chemically alter the delivery systems and/or aerosol generating material in the cavity; and,
activating a mover to structurally alter or damage the delivery systems and/or aerosol generating material in the cavity ([0192], [0389]; FIG. 2: 31; FIG. 25B).
Regarding claim 17, Davis discloses that verifying, by user authorisation means, a user attempting to access a container of delivery systems and/or aerosol generating material contained in use in a cavity of the container comprises verification using at least one of: a face scanner; a projector scanner; a microphone; a fingerprint scanner; an iris scanner; a mobile device; and, a communication module for communicating with at least one of: a remote database; a remote computing arrangement; an onboard database; and, an onboard computing arrangement. ([0154], [0203]; FIG. 3: 72, 74)
Regarding claim 18, Davis discloses that receiving, by control circuitry, a signal originating from the user authorisation means comprises at least one of:
(i) receiving, by control circuitry, a signal direct from the user authorization means ([0157], [0165]); and,
(ii) sending by a communication module a signal to at least one of:
a remote database;
a remote computing arrangement ([0187]);
an onboard database ([0157], [0166], [0185]); and,
an onboard computing arrangement ([0166], [0186], [0187]),
receiving, by a communication module, a signal from the at least one of:
a remote database;
a remote computing arrangement ([0187]);
an onboard database ([0157], [0166], [0185]); and,
an onboard computing arrangement ([0166], [0186], [0187]),
and sending a signal, by a communication module, to the control circuitry ([0157], [0166], [0187]).
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
13. The applicant's arguments, filed June 8, 2026, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
The applicant traverses the rejection of claims 1-13 and 15-18.
Against the finding that the limitations, “communication module” and “computing arrangement” of claims 9, 11, 17, and 18 invoke 35 U.S.C. Section 112(f), the applicant argues that that additional structure and materials can be found in the specification. For example, page 9 lines 9-17 of the specification and page 7 line 22-26 further describes the control circuitry (elements 440 and 340, respectively) that form the structure of the communication module and computing arrangement, respectively. Circuitry is well understood to denote structure, and therefore means-plus-function interpretation of the above-noted elements is inappropriate.. These citations are presented only as examples, and should not be considered exhaustive.
Regarding this argument, the applicant’s argument confirms the finding that the limitations, “communication module” and “computing arrangement” invoke Section 112(f). Section 112(f) provides that when a claim limitation uses a generic placeholder for means-plus-function language, the structure of the claim limitation will be limited to the disclosure in the specification of structure associated with the limitation. In this case, the fact that the applicant’s argument cites passages in the specification to identify structure that the applicant claims is associated with the disputed limitations confirms that the limitations themselves do not have defined structures. For at least this reason, these limitations have properly been found to invoke Section 112(f).
Against the finding that the limitations, “communication module” and “computing arrangement” of claims 9, 11, 17, and 18 invoke 35 U.S.C. Section 112(f), the applicant further argues that MPEP 2181 (I)(A), states that “35 U.S.C. § 112(f), paragraph 6 will not apply if persons of ordinary skill in the art reading the specification understand the term to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for the structure that performs the function, even when the term covers a broad class of structures or identifies the structures by their function...The term is not required to denote a specific structure or a precise physical structure to avoid the application of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), paragraph 6.” The applicants respectfully submit that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the terms in the claims have sufficiently definite structure to perform the claimed function, and as such, the claims should not be construed as means-plus-function claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Regarding this argument, the term, “communication module” is not a term of art in the electrical engineering disciplines. Notwithstanding the applicant’s argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the term has sufficiently definite structure to perform the claimed communication function, the applicant’s argument does not state what that sufficiently definite structure is. If the term “module” has a recognized meaning in the electrical engineering disciplines, it means a discrete, self-contained unit of software, which is per se non-statutory subject matter. For these reasons, a “communication module” can mean software, hardware, or a combination of the two. Furthermore, a communication module comprises both wire-bound and wireless communication devices. Because of the multiple possible meanings of the term, “communication module,” one of which does not have structure (a software module), persons of ordinary skill in the art reading the specification would not understand the term, “communication module” to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for the structure that performs the communication function.
Similarly, the term, “computing arrangement,” is not a term of art in the electrical engineering disciplines. Notwithstanding the applicant’s argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the term has sufficiently definite structure to perform the claimed computing function, the applicant’s argument does not state what that sufficiently definite structure is. Within the electrical engineering disciplines, a “computing arrangement” can be anything involved on the performance of computing functions, from software, which is per se non-statutory subject matter, to hardware, or to a combination of software and hardware. Because of the multiple possible meanings of the term, “computing arrangement,” one of which does not have structure (software), persons of ordinary skill in the art reading the specification would not understand the term, “computing arrangement” to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for the structure that performs the computing function.
Against the rejection of claims 9, 11, 17, and 18 under Section 112, the applicant argues that the Office Action alleges that since 112(f) interpretation is taken, and not structure for performing the function is disclosed, the claims are neither definite nor supported by the written description. The applicant states that page 9 lines 9-17 of the specification and page 7 line 22-26 further describes the control circuitry (elements 440 and 340, respectively) that form the structure of the communication module and computing arrangement, respectively. As noted above, “control circuitry” is disclosed in the specification to demonstrate structure for performing the corresponding functions. Based on the existence of structure, the claims are both definite and supported in the written description and the rejections on definiteness and written description grounds are therefore respectfully traversed.
Regarding this argument, the specification states at page 9, lines 9-17:
The system 400 also has user authorisation means 450 for verifying a user. The user 10 authorisation means 450 may communicate to the control circuitry 440 of the device 410 wirelessly, or via a separate hard wired connection, e.g. via USB connection or the like. The user authorisation means 450 is not integral with the device 410. The user authorisation means 450 may be a separate smart device that the user can use to verify themselves prior to accessing the container 410. The user authorisation means 450 may communicate with the 15 device 410 via an app that may, for example, be arranged to use any of Bluetooth TM, Bluetooth Low Energy TM, ZigBee TM, WiFi TM, Wifi Direct TM, GSM, 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G, LTE, NFC, or RFID.
Citing the foregoing passage, the applicant argues that the term, “control circuitry” comprises both a “communication module” and a “computing arrangement” and therefore, the circuitry provides structure for both elements. The applicant’s argument does not explain how this passage discloses the structure of either the “communication module” or the “computing arrangement.” This passage does not refer to either a “communication module” or a “computing arrangement,” and the term “control circuitry” does not inherently comprise either a “communication module” or a “computing arrangement.” On its face, this passage does not show that the term, “control circuitry” comprises either a “communication module” or a “computing arrangement.”
At page 7, lines 22-26, the specification states:
The container 300 of Figure 3 has a body 310, with a cavity 312 and an opening 314, a closing 320 covering the opening 314, a lock 330 to lock the closing 320 and control circuitry 340 connected to the lock 330. The container 300 also has user authorisation means 350 25 connected to the control circuitry 340 and tamper prevention means 360 comprising an tamper prevention means element 362.
The applicant’s argument also does not explain how this passage discloses the structure of either a “communication module” or a “computing arrangement.” Like the previously cited passage, this passage does not refer to either a “communication module” or a “computing arrangement,” and the term “control circuitry” does not inherently comprise either a “communication module” or a “computing arrangement.” On its face, this passage also does not show that the term, “control circuitry” comprises either a “communication module” or a “computing arrangement.”
Regarding the relationship between the “control circuitry” and the “communication module,” the specification states, at page 10, lines 15-28:
The container disclosed herein has user authorisation means that is capable of authorising a user. This data obtained by the user authorisation means may be processed by a number of components able to compare the data against a database (for example) of authorised users. This data may be analysed on-board the container by e.g. control circuitry. The control circuitry may then analyse the signal and evaluate whether to allow or inhibit or prevent 20 access to the container. In another example, the data from the user authorisation means may be sent to a remote database or server for analysis. In such an example, the container (or the user authorisation means itself) may have (or be) a communications module for
communicating with the remote database or server. The remote database or server may perform the analysis and provide a signal to the communications module. The signal 25 ultimately sent to the control circuitry by the communication module may be one indicating the control circuitry should or should not allow access to the container. This allows for more complex analysis to be performed off the container, which may render the container more cost efficient to produce.
This passage shows that the control circuitry and the communication module are separate elements. The control circuitry analyzes user authorization data and determines whether to allow or inhibit or prevent access to a container. The communication module, associated with the container or the user authorisation means, itself, communicates with a remote database or server. Figure 4 shows that the user authorisation means 450 is located remotely from the control circuitry 440. The communication module sends a signal to the control circuitry indicating whether the control circuitry should or should not allow access to the container. The two elements, “communication module” and “control circuitry” are not located together and perform separate functions, so they are not the same element. Because the control circuitry does not include the communication module, the control circuitry cannot provide structure for the claimed “communication module.”
Regarding a “computing arrangement,” the specification states, at page 5, lines 11-14:
The user authorisation means 150 may be at least one of: a face scanner; a projector scanner; a microphone; a fingerprint scanner; an iris scanner; and, a communication module for communicating with at least one of: a remote database; a remote computing arrangement; an onboard database; and, an onboard computing arrangement.
This passage is the only instance in which the specification mentions a “computing arrangement.” This passage does not state that control circuitry comprises the computing arrangement. In fact, this passage does not even mention control circuitry. For these reasons, the specification does not provide any evidence that control circuitry comprises the claimed “computing arrangement.”
Against the rejection of claims 1 and 10, the applicant argues that Davis does not disclose a closing arranged to openably close the opening in the body. Davis discloses that the vape device (either by a microcontroller and/or application) can be locked. Davis also discloses that a stopper may prevent the spring from moving the pressuriser toward the payload reservoir preventing the pressuriser from pressurizing the fluid payload with payload reservoir to an extent that the fluid payload will flow through the opening in the pressure plate. It is unclear what the Examiner considers to be the closing in the arrangement described, as preventing the fluid payload moving through an opening is not closing the opening.
Regarding this argument, Davis discloses, as cited by the Office Action, that before use, stopper 2508 is in a closed position in which it engages flange 2538 to prevent spring 2512 from moving pressurizer 2506 toward payload reservoir 2514, which prevents the pressurizer 2506 from pressurizing the fluid payload within payload reservoir 2514 to an extent that the fluid payload will flow through the opening 2540 in pressure plate 2534. This closure constitutes closing the opening in the body because it prevents the fluid payload from flowing through the opening. ([0389]) Davis further discloses an opening that is closeable after a tablet is placed within a cartridge to prevent the leaking of vaporized material from the cartridge. ([0303])
Against the rejection of claims 1 and 10, the applicant argues that as identified by the Examiner, Davis does not explicitly disclose a lock for controllably locking the closing. Therefore, Applicant respectfully notes, as none of the prior art discloses the distinguishing features, the skilled person could not arrive at the invention as claimed. Therefore, independent claims 1 and 10 are patentable over Davis.
Regarding this argument, although Davis does not explicitly disclose a lock, Davis suggests a lock. The Office Action explains that Davis does not explicitly disclose a lock for controllably locking the closing, but Davis does disclose electronic apparatuses for controllably locking the container ([0174]; FIG. 3: 72, 82, 84), and Davis does disclose a microcontroller, comprising a processor ([0166], [0192]; FIG. 2: 31), that opens and closes the closing to allow and prevent the flow of a fluid payload through the opening ([0389]), which suggests that this apparatus constitutes a lock for controllably locking the closing for the benefit of controllably opening and closing the closing to allow and prevent the flow of a fluid payload through the opening.
Against the rejection of claims 2-9, 11, and 12, the applicant argues that Claims 2-9, 11 and 12 depend directly or indirectly from respective ones of independent claims 1 and 10, and thus include all recitations of the respective independent claim from which they depend. Therefore, dependent claims 2-9, 11 and 12 are patentable for at least those reasons given above for independent claim 1 and 10.
Regarding this argument, the above responses to the arguments against the rejection of claims 1 and 10 are also responsive to this argument.
Against the rejection of claim 13, the applicant argues that independent claim 13 has been amended to include the method further comprising: detecting an unauthorised access attempt by a user when the lock is in a locked state, and activating the tamper prevention means to be released into the cavity. Applicants note that Davis does not disclose a tamper prevention means configured to impact the cavity when the closing is opened when the lock is in a locked state. Davis does disclose that the computer device may prevent use of the vape device, but there is no disclosure of impacting the cavity as a result of opening the closing when in a locked state only putting the device in a locked state.
Regarding this argument, the applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Against the rejection of claims 16-18, the applicant argues that claims 16, 17, and 18 depend directly or indirectly from independent claim 13 and thus include all recitations of independent claim 13. Therefore, dependent claims 16, 17, and 18 are patentable for at least those reasons given above for independent claim 13.
Regarding this argument, the above response to the argument against the rejection of claim 13 is also responsive to this argument.
Conclusion
14. 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 JOHN F MORTELL whose telephone number is (571)270-1873. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10-7 ET.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
/JOHN F MORTELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights