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. Claim Objections Regarding claim s 3 , 4, 5 and 8 , th ese claim s are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 3 , in line 4, claim 4 , in line 6 and claim 5 in line 6 all recite “… the each operating state …” and appear to have grammatical/typographical error meant to read “ … each operating state …” . Similarly, claim 8 ends by reciting “… the each heating wire” meant to read “each heating wire”. Appropriate correction is required. 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 – 10 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: “S 120 determining a current service life of the heating wires based on an operating time of the heating wires ” and “ S 130: determining , based on the current service life of the heating wires and a current operating mode of the atomizing core structure, a current operating state of the heating wires in the current operating mode, so that current service lives of all of the heating wires are similar ” , in claim 1 , which are abstract ideas or mental process es , ( an evaluation or a judgement , which is a mental pr ocess, see MPE2106.04(a)(2)(III) ) . Th ese judicial exception s are not integrated into a practical application because the additional element recited in the claim, the provided “atomi zing 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 – 10 do not add limitation that exceed mental process, signal /data information or amount to significantly more than the Judicial exceptions. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1 – 10 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. Regarding claim 1 , this claim, in S110, recites “…obtaining all operating states of the atomizing core structure under different operating modes, wherein at least one of the heating wires operates under a same operating state , and the atomizing core structure has at least two operating states in the same operating mode …” and it is unclear what the limitation “… at least one of the heating wires operates under a same operating state … ” means . is it to say that at least one of the heating wire s operates under the same state (out of multiple states) across different operating modes? Or at least one of the heating wire operates in the same state (a designated state) in the same operating mode. This is ambiguous and unclear from the claim language, rendering the claim indefinite. Further, claim 1 , in S130, recites “ … so that current service lives of all of the heating wir es are similar ” and it is not clear what is considered “similar” in service live s of the heating wir es. Is it to say the sa me or equal or identical or uniform service life across all the heating wires? Is it to say within a range of a service life? If it is within a range of a service life, What range constitutes a “similar ” current service lives of all of the heating wires ? Is it within a 5% range? 10% range? 20% range? As far as the examiner understands, t he specification does not define or discuss what is considered “ similar” in the context of the service lives of the heating wires. This renders the claim indefinite. Claims 2 – 10 inherit th ese rejection s by virtue of their dependency to claim 1. 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 . Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 20180192702 A1) and hereinafter “Li”. Regarding claim 1 , Li discloses a method for controlling heating of multi-taste and multi-pin heating wires, used for atomizing a raw liquid (a method for controlling an atomizer of an electronic cigarette of raw liquid , (see claim 16 – 20 and FIG.2)) comprising: S110: providing an atomizing core structure comprising heating wires (an atomizing core comprising an outer shell and internal heating wires and a recording chip is provided, (0003, 0034)) , and obtaining all operating states of the atomizing core structure under different operating modes , wherein at least one of the heating wires operates under a same operating state, and the atomizing core structure has at least two operating states in the same operating mode ( identifying and record ing the operating information of the electronic cigarette atomizer, said operating information and parameter comprising at least the service life , material of heating wires , operating current of the heating wire, temperature of the core of the atomizer , and the number of uses of the core of the atomizer , ( (0030, 0032, 0038 claim 16 – 20 and FIG.2) Note- “operating state” and “operating mode” are interpreted to be the attributes of the heating wire identified and recorded ) ; S 120: determining a current service life of the heating wires based on an operating time of the heating wires (identifying and recording the service life of the heating wires of the atomizing core based on the used time from a threshold value, ( 0044 and see claim 20)) ; and S 130: determining, based on the current service life of the heating wires and a current operating mode of the atomizing core structure, a current operating state of the heating wires in the current operating mode, so that current service lives of all of the heating wires are similar (determine if the core of the atomizer heating wires are approaching or ha ve overrun its service life , based on comparing current identification information of the heating wire of the atomizer with predefined threshold values, wherein the identification information includes operation power, temperature, duration, number of uses (operating states or operating modes) (0037 – 0038, 0040, 0061 – 0063, claims 19 – 20 and see FIG.2 step 204) ) . Li does not explicitly discuss that determining the current operating state of the heating wires, so that current service lives of all of the heating wires are similar . However, Li discusses stopping the operation the atomizing core if the atomizer overruns its service life to prevent the occurrence of leaks of the atomizer , poor heating matches between an atomizer core and e-liquid , aging problems of the core of the atomizer and to generally improve the safety of the atomizer of the electronic cigarette and user experience , ( 0026, 0061 and see FIG.2 step 204 ) . Therefore, it would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make the service life of the heating wires to be a similar predefined threshold value to provide uniform heat distribution across the atomizing core, prevent poor heating matches between an atomizer core and e-liquid and improve the overall user experience as taught in Li. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2 – 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim objections, the subject matter eligibility rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 , the indefiniteness rejection(s) 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DILNESSA B BELAY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3136 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Steven Crabb can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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 /STEVEN W CRABB/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761