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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 06/09/2026 has been entered. As directed by the amendment claims 1, 3 – 6 and 8 are amended. Claim 7 is canceled. Thus, claims 1 – 6 and 8 – 10 are currently pending. The amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the claim objections, the indefiniteness rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and the obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 in the Non-Final Rejection. As such, those objections and rejections are withdrawn. However, the amendments failed to overcome the subject matter eligibility rejection made under 35 U.S.C. 101 and the rejection is maintained herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, page 6 – 14, filed on 06/09/2026, with respect to the amendments overcoming claim objections, the indefiniteness rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and the obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 in the Non-Final Rejection on 03/11/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. As such, the objections and rejections have been withdrawn as indicated above.
However, applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. 101 are not persuasive because:
None of the amended limitations of the method steps add a process that exceeds a mental process, signal/data information or amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Claim 1 is amended to recite :S110 “obtaining all operating states… wherein, raw liquids having different tastes require different atomization temperatures, and different operating modes are used to adapt to the raw liquids having different tastes”, “wherein different heating wire combinations operate respectively in the at least two operating states, each of the at least two operating states corresponds to one heating wire combination of the heating wire combinations, and the one heating wire combination comprises at least one heating wire; and the heating wire combinations operating in the at least two operating states are capable of providing an atomization temperature required for a raw liquid of a taste corresponding to each operating mode;”
S 120 “obtaining an operating temperature of the atomizing core structure, determining a current service life of each heating wire of a heating wire combination based on an operating time of each heating wire and the operating temperature of the atomizing core structure, and determining a current service life of the heating wire combination based on the current service life of each heating wire; wherein when the heating wire combination comprises one heating wire, the current service life of the heating wire combination is a current service life of the one heating wire; or when the heating wire combination comprises at least two heating wires, the current service life of the heating wire combination is an average of current service lives of the at least two heating wires;” and
S 130 “determining… wherein, when a difference between the current service life of in the current operating state and a current service life of another heating wire combination in another operating state in the current operating mode exceeds a preset threshold, the current operating state of the atomizing core structure is switched to another operating state, so as to balance a service life of each of the heating wires of the atomizing core structure.”
The amendments in steps 110 and 120 still amount to abstract ideas or mental processes, “obtaining …operating states”- amounts to data/signal collection that are considered insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., activity that occurs before the abstract idea or after the abstract idea). See MPEP § 2106.05(g), “determining …service life”- is considered an evaluation or a judgement, which is a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04 (a)(2)(III).
The amendment in step 130, “…the current operating state of the atomizing core structure is switched to another operating state…” contingent upon “when a difference between the current service life of the heating wire combination… another heating wire combination …exceeds a preset threshold…”. Thus, the actual step of switching is a contingent process that need not be met by the claimed method and is not required, see MPEP §2111.04. II. In other words, the switching of operating state in S130 is not required by the claim since the claim method can be practiced without "a difference between the current service life of the heating wire …another heating wire combination … exceeding "a preset threshold".
Thus, the amendments failed to positively recite an actual process that amounts to significantly more than a data/signal collection (insignificant extra-solution activity) or an evaluation or a judgement (mental process). The amendments failed to positively recite a specific step/process of controlling a structure or performing a practical process (e.g. turning one heating wire combination on/off or switching from one to another).
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 6 and 8 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) one or more abstract ideas, such as claim 1 is amended to recite: S110: “…obtaining all operating states …”, S 120: “obtaining an operating temperature of the atomizing core structure, determining a current service life…determining a current service life of the heating wires…" and S 130: “determining, based on the current service life of the heating wire combination and a current operating mode of the atomizing core structure, a current operating state of the heating wires…", which are abstract ideas or mental processes, (an evaluation or a judgement, which is a mental process, see MPE2106.04(a)(2)(III).
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the additional element recited in the step of providing S 110, “an atomizing core structure", does not integrate the recited abstract ideas into practical applications and the determining steps claimed (S120 and S130) are evaluations or judgements of a mental process or an abstract idea.
Further, in step S110, the recited "obtaining all operating states of the atomizing core structure under different operating states and the atomizing core structure has at least two operating states in the same operating mode" is considered as a simple collection of data/signal (obtaining of "operating states" and "operating mode") that amounts to an insignificant extra activity or solution to an abstract idea (data/signal i.e. "operating states" and "operating mode), see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Similarly, the "obtaining", "selecting", "updating", "taking" and "calculating" steps recited in the dependent claims 2 – 6, and 10 do not add limitation that exceed mental process, signal/data information or amount to significantly more than the Judicial exceptions.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the scope of amended claims failed to positively recite an actual step or process that amounts to controlling a structure or performing a practical process.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 6 and 8 – 10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for replying 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 DILNESSA B BELAY whose telephone number is (571)272-3136. The examiner can normally be reached M-F approx. 8:00 am - 5:30 pm EST.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. 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.
/DILNESSA B BELAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JOHN J NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights