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 .
The following is a final office action in response to the amendments filed 7/30/2026. Amendments received on 7/30/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16 and 20 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As of claims 16 and 20, limitation “wherein the control signal is provided via a link, and wherein the link is only valid for a limited amount of time” does not have support in the original file specification. Based on the specification (paragraph [0164]), “…the authorization tone may be played through an app on the phone (rather than playing it through the speaker during the phone call) based on the help desk verifying/authenticating the user. In another example, the help desk could send a one-time usable link to an audio file with the authentication tone, such as through an email, text message, or notification. The link may only be valid for a limited amount of time to prevent fraud”. So based on the specification the link is transmitted to a user device through email, text message or notification from a help desk. The specification does not disclose that the host device transmits the one-time usable link to the aerosol delivery device. The Examiner was not able to find support for the claimed limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 11, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tremblay (US Pub 2015/0181945) in view of Davis et al. (US Pub 2021/0401061).
As of claim 1, 11 and 18, Tremblay discloses a system comprising:
a consumable comprising an aerosol source material (via a vapor producer 120 comprises a container 124 to store a substance to provide the vapor drawable or a cartridge (see paragraphs [0059]-[0060]);
a host device comprising a communications interface (via mobile device 400 comprising a wireless communication interface; see paragraph [0068]), wherein the host device is configured to:
transmit a request and receive an age verification confirmation for a user via the communications interface (via mobile device 400 communicating with the remote server for user’s authorization and transmitting a wireless signal based on the verification of the user; see paragraph [0161]- [0162]. In the system of Tremblay when a remote server is used to authenticate authorization information (age) a response will be received from the server indicating if authorization information is valid or invalid; see paragraphs [0161]-[0162]), and
output a control signal comprising an indication of the age verification confirmation (via mobile device 400 communicating with the remote server for user’s authorization and transmitting a wireless signal based on the verification of the user; see paragraph [0161]-[0162]);
an aerosol delivery device comprising processing circuitry and signal detector operably coupled to the processing circuitry, the aerosol delivery device being configured to removably receive the consumable (via electronic cigarette 100 comprising control system 130 and a vapor producer 120 comprising a container 124 to store a substance to provide the vapor drawable or a cartridge (see paragraphs [0059]-[0060]);
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to:
receive the control signal from the host device via the signal detector, the control signal comprising the indication of the age verification confirmation; and transition, in response to receipt of the control signal from the host device, the aerosol delivery device out of the locked state to permit delivery of an aerosol, by the aerosol delivery device using the aerosol source material from the consumable (via electronic cigarette 100 configured to be authenticated and enabled in response to receipt of the wireless signal from the mobile device 400; see paragraphs [0161] and [0164]).
However, Tremblay does not explicitly disclose that the consumable being associated with readable information corresponding to an identifier assigned to the consumable and host device configured to read the readable information corresponding to the identifier of the consumable and transmit the control signal comprising the information corresponding to the identifier of the consumable.
Davis discloses a cartridge/payload being associated with readable information corresponding to the identifier assigned to the cartridge/payload (via a unique payload identifier of ID tag 28, wherien the payload identifier is a serial number; see paragraph [0156]) and host device configured to read the payload identifier (via computing device 72 running an application 74 configured to read the payload identifier; see paragraph [0186]). Davis further discloses that the computing device 72 transmits security settings (control signal) wherein the security settings comprise information corresponding to the identifier of the cartridge/payload (see paragraphs [0047]-[0049] and [0187] and [0191]).
From the teaching of Davis, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Tremblay to include the function of associating a consumable with readable information as taught by Davis in order to determine if the consumable is recalled, counterfeit or authorized to be used with the vape device.
As of claim 3, Davis discloses that the readable information is readable via wireless communication (via reading the payload identifier via wireless communication; see paragraph [0157]).
As of claim 4, Davis discloses that the wireless communication is from a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag or a near-field communications (NFC) tag (via ID tag 28 being an RFID or NFC tag; see paragraph [0157]).
As of claims 5 and 12, Tremblay discloses that the processing circuitry is configured to transition back into the locked state in response to one or both of: (a) reaching a time limit or (b) reaching a number of puffs (via disabling electronic cigarette 100 after limited time period; see paragraph [0111]).
Claims 2, 7-10, 14-15, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tremblay, Davis and further in view of Anderson et al. (US Pub 2021/0011446).
As of claims 7-8, 14-15 and 19, combination of Tremblay, Davis discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as mentioned in claim 1 above, however it does not explicitly disclose that the host device is further configured to capture an image in associating with the age verification confirmation; and wherein the age verification confirmation is based in part on facial recognition processing of the image.
Anderson discloses a vaporizer system, comprising a user device (host device), server and a vaporizer (see fig. 5). Anderson further discloses that in order to authenticate age/identity of the user the system uses fingerprint, retinal or facial scan and analysis (see paragraph [0176]). Note: for the purpose of examination term fingerprint/facial scan are used interchangeably, because in the system of Anderson where the term fingerprint scan is used, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use facial scan instead of fingerprint or use both authentication techniques. Anderson further discloses that the system performs a facial recognition capture of a face of the user and wherein the age verification request includes information based on the facial recognition features (see paragraph [0176], [0178], [0181] and [0185]).
From the teaching of Anderson, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the combination of Tremblay and Davis to include the function of including face/picture of the user in age verification request as taught by Anderson since it is well known in the art that age verification systems use facial feature to verify user’s age.
As of claim 2, Anderson discloses that the readable information is a bar code or a magnetic strip (via cartridge (consumable) including identifier 138 which is a barcode or QR code; see paragraph [0058]).
As of claims 9, Anderson discloses an age verification system, the age verification system is configured to: receive the request for the age verification confirmation; access, based on the request, an existing user profile for the user, the existing user profile indicating that an age verification has previously been performed for the user; in response to determining that the existing user profile indicates that the age verification has been previously performed for the user, perform an identity verification based on information within the request; and transmit the age verification confirmation in response to successfully performing the identify verification (see paragraph [0181], “during the first authentication, the consumer may enter their age information (e.g., scanning driver's license, manually typing birthday in application, etc.) along with a first fingerprint sample (facial scan, as explained in claim 8). During the second authentication, the consumer may input a second fingerprint sample (facial scan). If the second fingerprint sample (facial scan) matches the first fingerprint sample (facial scan), the vaporizer and/or the application can correlate the age information of the consumer entered during the first authentication to verify the age of the consumer during the second authentication”).
As of claims 10 and 17, Anderson discloses that the host device is further configured to capture an image of identification documentation for the user and transmit the image of the identification documentation in the request (via scanning driver’s license; see paragraph [0181]).
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tremblay, Davis and further in view of Wang et al. (US Pub 2019/0066417).
As of claims 6 and 13, combination of Tremblay and Davis discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as mentioned in claim 1 above, however it does not explicitly disclose that the host device outputs the control signal as an optical signal; and wherein the host device is further configured to display a prompt to the user indicating alignment positioning of a light source of the host device with the signal detector of the aerosol delivery device.
Wang discloses a system to unlock an object, wherien a mobile device (host device) obtains unlocking information/key, the mobile phone converts the unlocking information into a flashing sequence, the mobile phone prompts the user to align the flashlight with the flash-receiving apparatus (signal detector) of the unlocking object and controls the mobile device’s flashlight to emit a flashing signal (see figs. 5A and 5B; also see paragraphs [0060] and [0089]).
From the teaching of Wang, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the combination of Tremblay and Davis to include the function of prompting the user as taught by Wang in order to notify the user that the mobile device is ready to transmit the control signal via the flashlight.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that combination of the references applied does not discloses “output a control signal comprising an indication of the age verification confirmation and information corresponding to the identifier of the consumable that is based on the readable information. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicants are reminded that during examination, claims are given their “broadest reasonable interpretation . . ..” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969).1 Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, the Examiner maintains her interpretations.
Claim language does not define “information”. So, any information that corresponds to the identifier of the consumable would read on the claim. As disclosed in the rejection above in the reference of Davis “operation settings” corresponds to the identifier of the payload that is read by the computing device (see paragraphs [0047]-[0049] and [0187] and [0191]).
Based on explanation given above it is the Examiner’s position that combination of the references discloses the inventio claimed in the present application.
The terminal disclaimer filed on 7/30/2026 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NABIL H SYED whose telephone number is (571)270-3028. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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 W 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.
/NABIL H SYED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
1 19 See also MPEP §2111; In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152, 36 USPQ2d 1697, 1701
(Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc).
Prosecution Insights