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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/10/2026 has been entered.
2. Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 13-20, 26, 27, 30, & 34 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. Acknowledgement is made to the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/10/2026. The information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claims 14-20 & 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tremblay (US 2015/0181945 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Tremblay discloses a vaporizer comprising:
at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the vaporizer to at least:
determine whether the vaporizer is within a communication range of a second device [0067-0074];
lock the vaporizer to deactivate operation of the vaporizer in response to the vaporizer being within the communication range [0081-0084, & 0091];
display an indication, to a user, on the vaporizer in response to the at least one processor detecting an attempted use of the vaporizer [0233, 0235, & 0242];
receive information associated with the user of the vaporizer; determine, based on communication with a third device, an age of the user in response to an identity verification from the third device [0160-0162, 0171, & 0172]; and
unlock, based on the age of the user satisfying a threshold, the vaporizer to activate the operation of the vaporizer [0160-0162].
Regarding claim 15, Tremblay discloses the vaporizer of claim 14, wherein the vaporizer is further caused to at least send a signal from the application running on the second device to the vaporizer to disable operation of the vaporizer [0081-0084, & 0091].
Regarding claim 16, Tremblay discloses the vaporizer of claim 14, wherein the vaporizer is further caused to at least display, on a user interface, a list or graphical representation of vaporizers within the communication range [0227 & 0235-0244].
Regarding claim 17, Tremblay discloses the vaporizer of claim 14, wherein the vaporizer is further caused to at least report, to a third party, a vaporizer within the communication range [0074, 0100-0102, & 0162].
Regarding claim 18, Tremblay discloses the vaporizer of claim 14, wherein the vaporizer is further caused to at least receive a user input by interaction of the user with a user interface [0160-0162].
Regarding claim 19, Tremblay discloses the vaporizer of claim 14, wherein the vaporizer is further caused to at least receive the information from an application executing on one or more programmable processors [0081 & 0160].
Regarding claim 20, Tremblay discloses the vaporizer of claim 14, wherein the information comprises at least one of: a birth date; an address; biometric information; a driver's license number; a passport number; a birth certificate; a social security number; or a government identification document [0160-0162].
Regarding claim 26, Tremblay discloses the vaporizer of claim 14, wherein the vaporizer is further caused to at least provide an indication that the vaporizer is unlocked [0233, 0235, & 0242].
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
5. Claims 1-5, 7, 9, & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tremblay and Verleur et al. (US 2016/0278436 A1), hereinafter Verleur.
Regarding claim 1, Tremblay discloses a method comprising:
determining, by one or more processors, whether a vaporizer is within a communication range of a second device [0067-0074];
locking, via the one or more processors, the vaporizer in response to the vaporizer being within the communication range [0081-0084, & 0091];
receiving, by the one or more processors, information associated with the authorized user of the vaporizer; determining, by the one or more processors in communication with a third device, an age of the authorized user in response to an identity verification from the third device [0160-0162, 0171, & 0172]; and
unlocking, by the one or more processors and based on the age of the user satisfying a threshold, the vaporizer to activate the operation of the vaporizer [0160-0162].
With respect to claim 1, the teachings of Tremblay have been discussed above.
Tremblay is silent with respect to explicitly disclosing notifying, by the one or more processors, an authorized user of the vaporizer that the vaporizer is locked, wherein the authorized user is notified by an output on the vaporizer, as recited in claim 1.
Tremblay clearly discloses that the housing (150) of the electronic cigarette (100) includes a visual output device (190), see [0233], wherein the visual output device (190) can be an LED, other light source, or an electronic display and is used in conveying information visually, such as for presenting various types of information to the user including notifications, messages, and/or alerts, see [0235-0244]. Although Tremblay is silent to explicitly disclosing that the visual information comprises a notification that the vaporizer is locked, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the lock status of the vaporizer being visually represented through the visual output device (190) would have been an obvious matter of design choice so that a user can tell the status of the vaporizer at a glance, similar to the disclosed examples of conveyed information, including custom messages, notifications, alerts, and/or personal information, see [0236-0243].
However, assuming arguendo, that such is not the case in Tremblay, the examiner has presented the teachings of Verleur wherein Verleur teaches, regarding claim 1, notifying, by the one or more processors, an authorized user of the vaporizer that the vaporizer is locked, wherein the authorized user is notified by an output on the vaporizer [0053 – disclosing that the ring indicator (116) may change colors to indicate the lock state of the vaporizer].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide lock indicator of Verleur within the system of Tremblay for at least the benefit of providing a convenient means for conveying status information visually to the user.
Regarding claim 2, Tremblay, as modified above, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein locking the vaporizer comprises sending a signal from an application running on the second device to the vaporizer to disable operation of the vaporizer [0081 & 0160].
Regarding claim 3, Tremblay, as modified above, discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising displaying, on a user interface, a list or graphical representation of vaporizers within the communication range [0227 & 0235-0244].
Regarding claim 4, Tremblay, as modified above, discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising reporting, to a third party, a vaporizer within the communication range [0074, 0100-0102, & 0162].
Regarding claim 5, Tremblay, as modified above, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein receiving the information comprises receiving a user input by interaction of the authorized user with a user interface [0160-0162].
Regarding claim 7, Tremblay, as modified above, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the information comprises at least one of: a birth date; an address; biometric information; a driver's license number; a passport number; a birth certificate; a social security number; or a government identification document [0160-0162].
Regarding claim 9, Tremblay, as modified above, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the third device comprises a server [0160-0162].
Regarding claim 13, Tremblay, as modified above, discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising providing an indication that the vaporizer is unlocked [0233, 0235, & 0242].
6. Claims 27, 30, & 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tremblay, Verleur, and Wu (US 2016/0269375 A1).
Regarding claim 27, Tremblay discloses a method comprising:
determining, by an application in communication with a vaporizer, whether a vaporizer is within a communication range of a second device running the application [0067-0074];
locking, by the application, the vaporizer to deactivate operation of the vaporizer in response to the vaporizer being within the communication range [0081-0084, & 0091];
retrieving, by the application, information associated with the authorized user of the vaporizer; determining, by the application in communication with a third device, an age of the authorized user in response to an identity verification from the third device [0160-0162, 0171, & 0172]; and
unlocking, by the application and based on the age of the user satisfying a threshold, the vaporizer to activate the operation of the vaporizer [0160-0162].
With respect to claim 27, the teachings of Tremblay have been discussed above.
Tremblay is silent with respect to explicitly disclosing notifying, by the application, an authorized user of the vaporizer that the vaporizer is locked, wherein the authorized user is notified by an output on the vaporizer, as recited in claim 27.
Tremblay clearly discloses that the housing (150) of the electronic cigarette (100) includes a visual output device (190), see [0233], wherein the visual output device (190) can be an LED, other light source, or an electronic display and is used in conveying information visually, such as for presenting various types of information to the user including notifications, messages, and/or alerts, see [0235-0244]. Although Tremblay is silent to explicitly disclosing that the visual information comprises a notification that the vaporizer is locked, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the lock status of the vaporizer being visually represented through the visual output device (190) would have been an obvious matter of design choice so that a user can tell the status of the vaporizer at a glance, similar to the disclosed examples of conveyed information, including custom messages, notifications, alerts, and/or personal information, see [0236-0243].
However, assuming arguendo, that such is not the case in Tremblay, the examiner has presented the teachings of Verleur wherein Verleur teaches, regarding claim 27, notifying, by the application, an authorized user of the vaporizer that the vaporizer is locked, wherein the authorized user is notified by an output on the vaporizer [0053 – disclosing that the ring indicator (116) may change colors to indicate the lock state of the vaporizer].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide lock indicator of Verleur within the system of Tremblay for at least the benefit of providing a convenient means for conveying status information visually to the user.
With respect to claim 27, the teachings of the combination of Tremblay and Verleur have been discussed above.
This combination is silent with respect to explicitly disclosing wherein identity verification at the third device comprises conducting facial recognition, as recited in claim 27.
Wu teaches, regarding claim 27, wherein identity verification at the third device comprises conducting facial recognition [0053 & 0065].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the facial recognition features of Wu within the combination of Tremblay and Verleur for at least the benefit of improving security and safety by preventing unauthorized use of the vaporizer.
Regarding claim 30, Tremblay, as modified above, discloses the method of claim 27, wherein determining the age of the authorized user comprises calculating, by the application, the age of the authorized user based on the received user information and transmitting the calculated age to the third device for verification of the age of the authorized user [0160-0162, 0171, & 0172].
Regarding claim 34, Tremblay, as modified above, discloses the method of claim 27, wherein locking the vaporizer comprises sending a signal from the application running on the second device to a second application in communication with the vaporizer instructing the second application to disable operation of the vaporizer [0081 & 0160].
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed 7/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s representatives, Carolina Säve and Sophia Pertrichenko, previously presented proposed amendments and discussed any potential distinctions with the examiner during a telephonic interview on July 28, 2026. During the interview, with respect to independent claim 14, the examiner agreed that the proposed amendments appear to overcome the teachings of Tremblay, as previously applied in the Final Rejection, dated 5/29/2026. However, after further consideration, the examiner has found portions of Tremblay that discloses the newly amended limitations directed to the displaying of an indication when detecting an attempted use of the vaporizer, as recited in independent claim 14. With respect to independent claims 1 & 27, Applicant’s argument are considered moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. The examiner has presented the teachings of Verleur to address the newly amended portions of independent claims 1 & 27. The claims have been rejected accordingly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAULTEP SAVUSDIPHOL whose telephone number is (571)270-1301. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F,7-3 EST. If the examiner cannot be reached by telephone, he can be reached through the following email address: paultep.savusdiphol@uspto.gov
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 and email are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas K. Pham can be reached on (571) 272-3689. 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.
/PAULTEP SAVUSDIPHOL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights