Jump to content

Patent Application 16767857 - Electrically Operated Aerosol Generation System - Rejection

From WikiPatents

Patent Application 16767857 - Electrically Operated Aerosol Generation System

Title: Electrically Operated Aerosol Generation System with Authentication of Consumable

Application Information

  • Invention Title: Electrically Operated Aerosol Generation System with Authentication of Consumable
  • Application Number: 16767857
  • Submission Date: 2025-05-23T00:00:00.000Z
  • Effective Filing Date: 2020-05-28T00:00:00.000Z
  • Filing Date: 2020-05-28T00:00:00.000Z
  • National Class: 131
  • National Sub-Class: 329000
  • Examiner Employee Number: 82917
  • Art Unit: 1747
  • Tech Center: 1700

Rejection Summary

  • 102 Rejections: 1
  • 103 Rejections: 1

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

Office Action Text


    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 .

Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. 
The applicant argues that the one or more processors are not indefinite.  The examiner disagrees.  There claim is unclear as to the structure being claimed and is therefore indefinite.  The applicant has indicated on the record that the one or more processors are part of a system, but they are currently not claimed as part of any structure in the system. Additional claim 18, indicates that the processors are part of the electrical circuitry or are in communication with the electrical circuitry.  This further introduces confusion as no communication structures are claimed.  
The applicant argues that the limitations identified as functional language are not intended use but, “have a specific structure capable of performing the claimed feature.”  The examiner disagrees.  
First, the processor(s) do not appear to be part of either the consumable or the device body claimed and therefore it is unclear if there is a specific structure capable of performing the claimed feature.  Second, the claimed invention does not have a specific structure capable of performing the claimed feature.  In particular, there is no connection (e.g. electrical circuitry, communication system, sensor, antenna) between the non-transient memory and the processor, and therefore there is no specific structure capable of performing the claimed feature.  In the claim, the phrase “configured to” only concerns the structure of the processor and does not add structure to other the other limitations.  In particular, there is no structure present to be configured to obtain information from the non-transient memory.  One of ordinary skill would not be able to configure a processor to obtain information from a different structure.  Additional structure beyond the processor is required.  There is no structure claimed to read, access, or communicate the information from the non-transient memory to the processor.  There is also no programming or software claimed to decrypt information, authenticate, or calibrate the device or consumable.  No memory, stored data, or instructions are claimed for the processor.  Therefore, the limitations concerning “configured to” are considered to be intended use of the processor.  
 
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.


The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.


Claim 1-9 and 16-18 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, claim 1 includes the limitation, “an aerosol generation device body comprising electrical circuitry, the electrical circuitry comprising one or more processors or being in communication with the one or more processors, the one or more processors configured to:..”.  It is unclear if the processor is part of the claimed aerosol generation device.  It appears that the processor(s) can be located in an unclaimed third structure (i.e. not the consumable or aerosol generation device body) and therefore not be part of the claimed invention.  This would result in the claimed device being incapable of performing any of the functional limitations presented and therefore the limitation is indefinite.  Please note that there is also no communication structure claimed.  

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 or 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 (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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.

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.

Claim(s) 1-9, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lamb et al. (US 2017/0020191) in view of Herrington et al. (US 2014/0201094) and Minskoff et al. (US 2016/0021930).
Regarding claims 1, 16-18 Lamb et al. disclose an aerosol delivery device with a control body and cartridge that are coupleable with one another to form an aerosol delivery device. The control body comprises a control component (electrical circuitry) and an RFID reader contained within at least one housing. The cartridge comprises at least one heating element and an RFID tag (i.e. non-transient memory) contained within at least one housing (216). The RFID reader of the control body is coupled to the control component of the control body and configured to communicate with the RFID tag of the cartridge upon coupling of the control body with the cartridge. The control component of the control body is configured to authorize the cartridge for use with the control body based at least in part on communication between the RFID reader and the RFID tag. (see Abstract).
Lamb et al. also disclose that data stored within the RFID tag may be encrypted [0083].  The control component of Lamb et al. is capable of decrypting data from the RFID and authorize use of the cartridge [0083].  
Lam et al. do not expressly disclose that authentication comprises decrypting a first portion of information and comparing it with a second portion.  
Claim 1 recites the functional language “including electrical circuitry configured to: obtain from said non-transient memory said information; decrypt the first portion; and determine the consumable is authentic when the decrypted first portion corresponds to the unencrypted second portion”.  A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.  Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).  Lamb et al. disclose the structure as claimed and therefore is capable of performing the intended use.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to encrypt data as disclosed by Lamb et al. and provide software algorithms to decrypt the data and verify it with unencrypted data (such as keys).  Although Lamb et al. do not disclose authenticating the consumable when the decrypted first portion is determined to match the unencrypted second portion, it is known in the art to compare encrypted and unencrypted information for authorization.  For instance, Herrington et al. disclose detecting unauthorized products by capturing data from an authentication marker and “decrypt the encrypted portion of the authentication marker to see if it matches the other portion of the authentication marker.”  It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing to use the method disclosed by Herrington et al. in the device of Lamb et al. to authenticate smoking product.  Although Herrington et al. is not in the same field of endeavor (i.e. smoking articles), it is pertinent to the technical problem faced by the applicant as well as to Lamb et al. (i.e. encryption of information for authenticating articles) and is therefore considered to be analogous art.  
Claim 1 recites the functional language, “calibrate, based on all or part of at least one of the encrypted first portion or the unencrypted second portion, the aerosol generation device body for use with the consumable.”  
A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.  Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).  Lamb et al. also disclose that the RFID tag can contain information for authentication as well as for operation such as puff count.  The RFID would also be capable of providing calibration information. 
  Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to encrypt additional data, such as calibration information, in addition to the examples of data disclosed by Lamb et al.  Calibration data (including error correction of wireless signals), cleaning routines, firmware upgrades, are notoriously well known in the art. 
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use the information provided by Lamb et al., such as the flavor of the flavor containing aerosol precursor composition [0014] to adjust or calibrate the power provided to the heating element.  For instance, Minskoff et al. disclose in a similar aerosol generation system that includes systems to prevent misuse and that, “the cartridge content/formulation data can be used to optimize the activation of the device in terms of peak operation temperature, and time to peak operating temperature,” [0238].  It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use the flavor composition information from the cartridge of Lamb et al. to calibrate or optimize the heating profile (i.e. peak operating temp and times) as taught by Minskoff et al.  

Regarding claim 2, Lamb et al. disclose the RFID may contain capacity information (i.e. information associated with an operation of the consumable).  
Regarding claim 3, Claim 3 recites the functional language “the electrical circuitry configured to enable operation of a heating system of an atomizer with the precursor of an authenticated consumable, wherein the operation of the heating system is at least partially based on the information”.  A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.  Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).  Lamb et al. disclose the structure as claimed and therefore is capable of performing the intended use.
Furthermore, Lamb et al. disclose that the control circuit uses information from the cartridge (number of puffs) to control operation of the heater [0060].
Regarding claim 4, Claim 4 recites the functional language “when the consumable is determined as not authentic, the electrical circuitry prevents operation of a heating system of an atomizer with the precursor of the consumable or enables usage of said heating system with said precursor at a predetermined safe operating temperature”.  A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.  Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).  Lamb et al. disclose the structure as claimed and therefore is capable of performing the intended use.  Furthermore, Lamb et al. disclose that if authentication fails, the control component may prohibit current flow to the heating element [0085]  
Regarding claim 5, Lamb et al. disclose that the cartridge couples (docks) with the control body (Abstract) disclose that the control component is configured to authorize the cartridge in response to automatically receiving the authentication indicia from the RFIS tag via the RFID reader upon coupling the control body with the cartridge.  Therefore, the control component of Lamb et al. has a detection circuit because it authenticates upon coupling.  
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to that detection of an RFID tag by the control component and RFID reader would result in detection of the presence of a coupled cartridge.  It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the RFID reader would also have been a detection circuit.   
Regarding claims 6 and 7:
Claim 6 recites the functional language “wherein the electrical circuitry implements electronic data storage, the data storage to store a plurality of cryptographic algorithms, the information of the non-transient memory of the consumable comprising an identifier to identify one of said plurality of cryptographic algorithms for decryption of the first portion, the electrical circuitry to identify one of the plurality of cryptographic algorithms for decryption of the first portion based on the identifier and to decrypt the first portion with the identified cryptographic algorithm”.  
Claim 7 recites the functional language “a communication interface to receive a cryptographic algorithm or information to generate a cryptographic algorithm, data storage of said device body to store said algorithm”.  
A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.  Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).  Lamb et al. disclose the structure as claimed and therefore is capable of performing the intended use.  
Furthermore, Lamb et al. discloses the control component contains a microcontroller, memory, and communication interfaces [0067-0068].  Lamb et al. also disclose the information on the RFID may be encrypted and therefore, the microcontroller and memory would inherently be capable of retrieving (through a communication interface), storing, identifying, and decrypting information from the RFID tag on the cartridge [0083].
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that encrypted data, as disclosed by Lamb et al. would need to be decrypted in order to use the information.  It is notoriously well known to decrypt encrypted data so the data can be processed.  It is notoriously well known to use decryption algorithms to decrypt encrypted data.  It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing to use the microprocessor and control components of Lamb et al. to receive data from an RFID tag, decrypt the data using an appropriate algorithm, and use the decrypted information to authenticate or operate the aerosol device.
Regarding claim 8, Claim 8 recites the functional language “the information of the non-transient memory of the consumable including information based on an electrical property of the heating system, wherein the electrical circuitry is configured to: measure the electrical property of the heating system by application of electrical energy therethrough; and determine the consumable as authentic only when the measured electrical property corresponds to the information based on the electrical property”.  
A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.  Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).  Lamb et al. disclose the structure as claimed (including an electrical heater) and therefore is capable of performing the intended use. 
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to include data such as the resistance value of the heating element in the RFID information.  It is notoriously well known in the art to determine heating element temperature by measuring resistance of the heating element (by sending a very small current through the element) and comparing the resistance to predetermined resistance curve that relates temperature to resistance of a given heating element.  It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to store the resistance curve in the RFID information so that the temperature of the element can be accurately controlled and prevent overheating and generation of unwanted combustion products.    
 Regarding claim 9, Claim 9 recites the functional language “the electrical circuitry implements electronic data storage, the data storage to store a plurality of cryptographic algorithms, wherein the consumable includes a heating system having one or more electrically resistive heating elements, the electrical circuitry configured to: measure an electrical property of the heating system by the application of electrical energy therethrough; select one of the plurality of cryptographic algorithms to decrypt the first portion based on the measured electrical property; and decrypt the first portion with the selected cryptographic algorithm.”.  
A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.  Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).  Lamb et al. disclose the structure as claimed (including an electrical heater and electrical heater control and monitoring mechanisms [0063]) and therefore is capable of performing the intended use.  
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to store a plurality of cryptographic algorithms in the memory of Lamb et al. in order to decrypt the encrypted data in stored in the RFID of Lamb et al.  It is notoriously well known in the art that a variety of cryptographic algorithms can be used.  For instance, home WI-FI uses several common algorithms such as WEP, WPA, WPA2, etc., and WI-FI devices store the required algorithms and detect the type of encryption and then apply the encryption to decrypt the information being sent.  
Regarding claim 16, Claim 16 recites the functional language “the information is associated with an operation of the consumable as part of the system, and is for authentication and for calibration of the aerosol generation device body for use with the consumable”.  
A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.  Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).  Lamb et al. also disclose that the RFID tag can contain information for authentication as well as for operation such as puff count.  The RFID would also be capable of providing calibration information.   
Regarding claim 17, Claim 17 recites the functional language “all or part of the information that is associated with the operation of the consumable, which is encoded on the consumable, and that is for authentication and for calibration of the aerosol generation device body for use with the consumable, is encrypted as the encrypted first portion”.  
A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.  Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).  Lamb et al. also disclose that the RFID tag can contain information for authentication as well as for operation such as puff count and that the data may be encrypted.  
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to encrypt additional data, such as calibration information, in addition to the examples of data disclosed by Lamb et al.  Calibration data (including error correction of wireless signals), cleaning routines, firmware upgrades, are notoriously well known in the art. 

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 MICHAEL J FELTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4805. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Thursday-Friday 7:00-4:30, Wednesday 7:00-1:00.
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, Michael H Wilson can be reached on 571-270-3882. 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.

/Michael J Felton/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1747


Retrieved from "https://wikipatents.org/index.php?title=Patent_Application_16767857_-_Electrically_Operated_Aerosol_Generation_System_-_Rejection&oldid=623050"
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.