DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
This action is in reply to Application 19/208,704 filed on 15 May 2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed 5/15/2025, 5/28/2025, 7/23/2025, 4/27/2026, and 7/22/2026 have been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, representative claim 1 is directed towards performing identity verification prior to allowing usage of a age-restricted device carried out by the various computer-related devices or components of merely receiving, transmitting, generating data/information associated with performing identity verification in an automated manner. Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of using rules and/or instructions in order to facilitate the performing of identity verification in conjunction with the operation of a device in an automated manner, which is grouped under the certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles, practices or concepts; following rules or instructions) grouping, in in prong one of step 2A.
Claim 1 recites:
“a memory having computer readable instructions stored thereon; and
at least one processor configured to execute the computer readable instructions to cause the aerosol-generating device to,
determine whether an age or identity lock has been engaged,
in response to the age or identity lock not being engaged,
determine whether at least one additional lock is engaged,
enable operation of a heater of the aerosol-generating device in response to the at least one additional lock not being engaged”.
Based on the underlined elements above, abstract ideas and/or concepts are identified.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, , when analyzed under prong two of step 2A, the additional elements of the claim such as a “processor”, represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally apply the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. automate) implement the acts of using rules and/or instructions in order to facilitate the performing of identity verification in conjunction with the operation of a device in an automated manner using computer computer-related technology and/or devices that merely perform as designed to function. As such, none of the limitations integrate the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity into a practical application as the claims as a whole merely uses instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or, alternatively, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
When analyzed under step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of using rules and/or instructions in order to facilitate the performing of identity verification in conjunction with the operation of a device in an automated manner using computer computer-related technology and/or devices that merely perform as designed to function. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 12 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1 above and are ineligible for the same reasons. The subject matter of claim 12 corresponds to the subject matter of claim 1 in terms of a method (e.g., process). Therefore the reasoning provided for claim 1 applies to claim 12 accordingly.
Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-20 add further details and contain limitations that narrow the scope of the invention. However, these details do not result in significantly more than the abstract idea itself. As explained in the December 16, 2014 Interim Eligibility Guidance from the USPTO (in reference to the BuySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc. decision), further narrowing the details of an abstract idea does not change the § 101 analysis since a more narrow abstract idea does not make it any less abstract.
Viewed individually and in combination, these additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstraction itself.
Accordingly, the present pending claims are not patent eligible and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 of this title, 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 1-20 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tremblay, US 2015/0181945 A1 (“Tremblay”), in view of Bowen et al., US 2018/0093054 A1 (“Bowen”).
Re Claim 1: Tremblay discloses an aerosol-generating device comprising:
a memory having computer readable instructions stored thereon; ([0010] “apparatus comprises a memory portion and a processing portion which is configured to: determine that a condition is met; and cause a capability of the electronic vaping device to provide vapor through the outlet to be altered in response to the condition being met”)
at least one processor configured to execute the computer readable instructions to cause the aerosol-generating device to, ([0010] “apparatus comprises a memory portion and a processing portion which is configured to: determine that a condition is met; and cause a capability of the electronic vaping device to provide vapor through the outlet to be altered in response to the condition being met”)
determine whether an age or identity lock has been engaged, ([0161] “authorization information 700 may include an indication of the user's age (e.g., a response to a request presented on the user interface of the mobile communication device … prompting the user to indicate his/her age or confirm that he/she is at least of a certain age; an answer to a question presented on the user interface of the mobile communication device 400 to verify the user's age, etc.)”)
in response to the age or identity lock not being engaged, ([0160] “… if the software application determines that the authorization information 700 is valid, the mobile communication device 400 issues an external VCA command to the electronic cigarette 100 over the communication link 440, which includes a wireless connection, in order to enable the vapor-providing capability of the electronic cigarette 100”)
determine whether at least one additional lock is engaged, ([0180] “In some embodiments, as shown in FIG. 26, the vapor-providing capability of the electronic cigarette 100 may be altered (e.g., enabled, disabled, etc.) based on a detectable pattern of drawing 820 on the outlet 152 of the electronic cigarette 100 by the user, i.e., a detectable manner in which the user draws on the outlet 152 of the electronic cigarette 100.”)
Regarding the limitation feature comprising:
enable operation of a heater of the aerosol-generating device in response to the at least one additional lock not being engaged.
Bowen, however, makes this teaching in a related endeavor ([0051] “A processor of the controller 105 may include circuitry to control operation of a heater 118, which can optionally include one or more heating elements for vaporizing a vaporizable material contained within the cartridge 114 …”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Bowen with the invention of Tremblay as disclosed above resulting in an improved system that would have yielded predictable results.
Re Claim 2: Tremblay in view of Bowen discloses the aerosol-generating device of claim 1. Tremblay further discloses:
wherein the at least one additional lock is a plurality of additional locks; and the aerosol-generating device is further caused to, determine whether each of the plurality of additional locks are engaged, and enable the operation of the heater in response to all of the plurality of additional locks not being engaged. ([0180] “In some embodiments, as shown in FIG. 26, the vapor-providing capability of the electronic cigarette 100 may be altered (e.g., enabled, disabled, etc.) based on a detectable pattern of drawing 820 on the outlet 152 of the electronic cigarette 100 by the user, i.e., a detectable manner in which the user draws on the outlet 152 of the electronic cigarette 100.”)
Re Claim 3: Tremblay in view of Bowen discloses the aerosol-generating device of claim 1. Tremblay further discloses:
wherein the aerosol-generating device is further caused to: detect a start of operation of the aerosol-generating device based on at least one of, detection of negative air pressure applied on a mouthpiece of the aerosol-generating device, detection of a wireless pairing request, detection of an age or identity verification request, or any combinations thereof; and in response to the detected start of operation, perform the determination of whether the age or identity lock has been engaged. ([0172] “The external VCA command may be transmitted from the computer 194 to the electronic cigarette 100 via the cable 198 interconnecting them or a wireless connection ( e.g., WiFi, Bluetooth, or other wireless connection) interconnecting them.”)
Re Claim 4: Tremblay in view of Bowen discloses the aerosol-generating device of claim 3. Tremblay further discloses:
wherein the aerosol-generating device is further caused to: perform an age or identity verification operation in response to the age or identity lock being engaged, and disengage the age or identity lock based on results of the age or identity verification operation. ([0161] “authorization information 700 may include an indication of the user's age (e.g., a response to a request presented on the user interface of the mobile communication device … prompting the user to indicate his/her age or confirm that he/she is at least of a certain age; an answer to a question presented on the user interface of the mobile communication device 400 to verify the user's age, etc.)”)
Re Claim 5: Tremblay in view of Bowen discloses the aerosol-generating device of claim 1. Tremblay further discloses:
wherein the at least one additional lock is at least one of: a manual lock, a proximity lock, a beacon proximity lock, or any combinations thereof. ([0132] “when the software application determines that the mobile communication device 400 and the electronic cigarette 100 are not within a specified distance (e.g., 1 or 2 m) from one another, the mobile communication device 400 sends an external VCA command to the electronic cigarette 100 over the communication link 440, which is a wireless connection, in order to disable vaping.”)
Re Claim 6: Tremblay in view of Bowen discloses the aerosol-generating device of claim 5. Tremblay further discloses:
wherein the at least one additional lock is the manual lock; and the aerosol-generating device is further caused to, determine whether the manual lock has been engaged, perform a manual lock verification operation, and disengage the manual lock based on results of the manual lock verification operation. ([0080] “The manual shutdown of the electronic cigarette 100 is a process by which an individual touches the electronic cigarette 100 in order to shut down the electronic cigarette 100. This involves touching the user interface 150 ( e.g., a power button or one or more other control elements of the user interface 150)”)
Re Claim 7: Tremblay in view of Bowen discloses the aerosol-generating device of claim 6. Tremblay further discloses:
wherein the aerosol-generating device is further caused to perform the manual lock verification operation by: determine whether an adult consumer has successfully input a manual lock command into a personal computing device based on a received communication from the personal computing device. ([0080] “The manual shutdown of the electronic cigarette 100 is a process by which an individual touches the electronic cigarette 100 in order to shut down the electronic cigarette 100. This involves touching the user interface 150 ( e.g., a power button or one or more other control elements of the user interface 150)”)
Re Claim 8: Tremblay in view of Bowen discloses the aerosol-generating device of claim 5. Tremblay further discloses:
wherein the at least one additional lock is the proximity lock; and the aerosol-generating device is further caused to, determine whether the proximity lock has been engaged, perform a proximity lock verification operation, and disengage the proximity lock based on results of the proximity lock verification operation. ([0132] “when the software application determines that the mobile communication device 400 and the electronic cigarette 100 are not within a specified distance (e.g., 1 or 2 m) from one another, the mobile communication device 400 sends an external VCA command to the electronic cigarette 100 over the communication link 440, which is a wireless connection, in order to disable vaping.”)
Re Claim 9: Tremblay in view of Bowen discloses the aerosol-generating device of claim 8. Tremblay further discloses:
wherein the aerosol-generating device is further caused to perform the proximity lock verification operation by: connecting to a personal computing device; receiving a unique identifier from the connected personal computing device, the unique identifier identifying the connected personal computing device; and determining whether the unique identifier from the connected personal computing device matches a unique identifier associated with a personal computing device which engaged the proximity lock. ([0188] “… The detectable pattern of drawing 820 on the outlet 152 of the electronic cigarette 100 may be conveyed to an owner of the electronic cigarette 100, such as by providing a description of the detectable pattern of drawing 820 to be performed to the owner ( e.g., as part of documentation provided in packaging of the electronic cigarette 100, by directing the owner to a webpage which provides the description upon entering a serial number or other identifier associated with the electronic cigarette 100, etc.).”)
Re Claim 10: Tremblay in view of Bowen discloses the aerosol-generating device of claim 5. Tremblay further discloses:
wherein the at least one additional lock is the beacon proximity lock; and the aerosol-generating device is further caused to, determine whether the beacon proximity lock has been engaged, perform a beacon proximity lock verification operation, and disengage the beacon proximity lock based on results of the beacon proximity lock verification operation. ([0184] “… controller 160 may send an internal control signal to the vapor producer 120, the fluid-drawing detector 154, etc., to enable the vapor-providing capability of the electronic cigarette 100.”)
Re Claim 11: Tremblay in view of Bowen discloses the aerosol-generating device of claim 10. Tremblay further discloses:
wherein the aerosol-generating device is further caused to perform the beacon proximity lock verification operation by: determining whether the aerosol-generating device is out of range of a wireless beacon transmitter which engaged the beacon proximity lock; and determining whether a time period associated with the beacon proximity lock has expired. ([0141] In some embodiments, as shown in FIG. 16, the communication device 400 is a server associated with a vaping-prohibited area 600 of a particular site, such as an airport, airplane, hospital, restaurant, school, movie theater, train, subway, bus, rental car, or other public place or vehicle, etc. and issues an external VCA command to disable the vapor providing capability of any electronic cigarette in range of a wireless transmitter 420 located in or near the vaping-prohibited area 600 and implementing part of the communication link 440, which includes a wireless connection”; [0131] For instance, in various examples of situations, this may be useful to prevent vaping of the electronic cigarette 100 by the user during periods that the user cannot or should not vape, prevent vaping of the electronic cigarette 100 by an individual ( e.g., a child) not authorized to vape the electronic cigarette 100 during periods of time when the user is unlikely to be in a position to be able to prevent such unauthorized vaping; etc.”)
Re Claim 12: Claim 12, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1.
Re Claim 13: Claim 13, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 2. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 2.
Re Claim 14: Claim 14, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 3. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 3.
Re Claim 15: Claim 15, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 4. Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 4.
Re Claim 16: Claim 16, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 5. Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 5.
Re Claim 17: Claim 17, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 6. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 6.
Re Claim 18: Claim 18, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 7. Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 7.
Re Claim 19: Claim 19, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 8. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 8.
Re Claim 20: Claim 20, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 9. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Libine (US 2023/0248065 A1) discloses systems, devices, and methods for unlocking aerosol-generating devices. A method comprising maintaining a database of user accounts and aerosol-generating devices associated with the user accounts. The method further comprises receiving an
unlock request from a present aerosol-generating device to unlock an unlockable feature of the present aerosol-generating device. The unlock request comprises unique user identification
information identifying a present user account to be associated with the present aerosol-generating device. The method further comprises determining whether the present aerosol-generating device is already associated with any user accounts in the database, transmitting an unlock grant to the present aerosol-generating device to unlock the unlockable feature in response to determination that the present aerosol-generating device is not already associated with any user accounts in the database, and updating the database to associate the present user account with the present aerosol-generating device in response to determination that the present aerosol-generating device is not already associated with any user accounts in the database.
Gretton et al. (US 2021/0337878 A1) discloses an electronic vaping system. A re-fillable liquid tip or pod for a vaping device that includes capacitive sensor plates in the tip liquid reservoir. A liquid re-filling device provides liquid to the vaping device, drawn from a refill bottle; the re-filling device includes a capacitance measuring circuit; a microcontroller uses the data from the capacitance measuring circuit to determine if the level of liquid in the tip liquid reservoir is above or below a threshold level; if below, then a liquid pump in the re-filling device is activated to draw liquid from
the refill bottle and pump it through the vaping device and up into the tip liquid reservoir. Pumping ceases once the liquid reaches the threshold level.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Clifford Madamba whose telephone number is 571-270-1239. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu 7:30-5:00 EST Alternate Fridays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Donlon, can be reached at 571-272-3602. 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.
/CLIFFORD B MADAMBA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights