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 .
Acknowledgement is made to the amendment, filed 2/2/2026. Claim 8 has been canceled. Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 13-20, 26, 27, 30, & 34 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 13-20, & 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tremblay (US 2015/0181945 A1).
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 a user of the vaporizer; determining, by the one or more processors in 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
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].
Regarding claim 2, Tremblay 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 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 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 discloses the method of claim 1, wherein receiving the information comprises receiving a user input by interaction of the user with a user interface [0160-0162].
Regarding claim 7, Tremblay 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 discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the third device comprises a server [0160-0162].
Regarding claim 13, Tremblay discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising providing an indication that the vaporizer is unlocked [0233, 0235, & 0242].
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];
receive information associated with a 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.
Claims 27, 30, & 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tremblay 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 a user of the vaporizer; determining, by the application in 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
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 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 at the time the invention was made to further employ the facial recognition features of Wu within the system of Tremblay 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 user comprises calculating, by the application, the age of the user based on the received user information and transmitting the calculated age to the third device for verification of the age of the 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
Applicant's arguments filed 2/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, regarding claims 1, 14, & 27, see pages 7 & 8 of the Remarks, filed 2/2/2026, that “Tremblay fails to disclose ‘determining, by the one or more processors in communication with a third device, an age of the user in response to identity verification from the third device’”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The specification of the instant application does not explicitly mention a “third device” but does disclose the terms of a “third party”, “third party service”, and “third party system”, wherein user information, disclosed as a social security number, credit history, biometrics, scanning a drivers license, manually entering in birthday information, a user’s name, phone number, and/or an identification card, and the like (see paragraphs [0143, 0166, 0181, & 0255]), is entered by a user into a vaporizer application running on a user device (305) and that information is transmitted to a third party server [0062 & 0220]. Tremblay clearly discloses this same process wherein a software application, related to the electronic cigarette (100), is running on a user’s mobile communication device (400), such as a smartphone, and receives, from the user, authorization information (700), such as a user identifier, a biometric identifier, some indication of the user’s age, etc., and this information is sent to a remote server, such as a third party that has influence on the user’s ability to vape [0160-0162]. Similarly, Tremblay discloses another means of carrying out the same process using a computer as opposed to a smartphone, wherein information received is also transmitted to a remote server for validation. Without authentication or validation from the remote server, the electronic cigarette would not be unlocked for use [0171 & 0172]. The claims have been rejected accordingly.
Applicant argues, regarding claim 27, see page 8 of the Remarks, filed 2/2/2026, that “Tremblay is silent to ‘wherein identity verification at the third device comprises conducting facial recognition’ as in amended claim 27.” The examiner agrees. This limitation was not previously presented and has been newly added. The examiner has presented the teachings of Wu in combination with Tremblay to address this new limitation and therefore the argument is moot with in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone and email are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael G. Lee can be reached on (571) 272-2398. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/PAULTEP SAVUSDIPHOL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights