CTNF 18/284,453 CTNF 96927 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. Election/Restrictions 08-06 AIA Claim s 6-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 6, 2026 . Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-5 in the reply filed on April 6, 2026 is acknowledged . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1–5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without reciting significantly more. Step 1 – Statutory Category The claims are directed to an “input processing method,” which is a process. Therefore, the claims fall within a statutory category. Step 2A Prong One – The Claims Are Directed to an Abstract Idea When analyzed, the claims recite: Claim 1: receiving a user input (for example the user input may any one of a button input or a touch input) determining whether the user input is heating command; based on the user input being the heating command, determining whether the electronic device making a decision (for example invalidating the user input if the electronic device is being charged) Claim 2: stopping charging (based on the remaining power of the battery as compared to a threshold value) performing the heating command Claim 3: displaying a guide message These operations correspond to mental processes and mathematical evaluations that are identified in the 2019 PEG as abstract ideas. Although the claims reference an electronic device, the core of the invention is a rules-based decision process that evaluating user inputs, the charging status of the electronic device and validation of the user input to perform an operation corresponding to the user input accordingly. This type of algorithmic control logic can be performed mentally or with basic mathematical comparison, and is considered an abstract idea. The recited elements such as a user input perform only their generic and conventional functions of sending information (i.e., a command). Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. Step 2A Prong Two – The Claims Do Not Integrate the Exception Into a Practical Application The claims apply the abstract decision-making logic to the generic environment of an electronic device. The claims do not improve the functioning of the device, the user input or any other machine component. The claims do not describe a new arrangement of hardware or a specific technological improvement. The steps recited in claim 1, such as receiving a user input, determining the type of user input, comparing to a charging state of the electronic device, and invalidating a heat command are functional and results oriented. This type of field of use limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application according to the 2019 PEG. The device performs no technological function beyond what conventional electronic devices such as electronic cigarettes that heat cigarette aerosol-generating substrate already perform. In claim 2, the step of “stopping charging” and “performing the heating command” amounts to an insignificant extra solution activity, therefore would not In claim 3, the step of “displaying a guide message” amounts to an insignificant extra solution activity, therefore would not be a practical application For these reasons, Step 2A Prong 2 is satisfied because the claims fail to recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Step 2B – The Claims Do Not Recite Significantly More Analysis proceeds to Step 2B because the claims are directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements of the claims consist of: generic user input elements generic charging or power level monitoring generic output elements These elements are well understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) in the art. Their functions here are also conventional, such as receiving a user input, evaluating the user input, determining the type of command inputted, evaluating the charging status of the electronic device and the level of battery power, validation of the user input to perform an operation corresponding to the user input accordingly. The claims do not recite any unconventional arrangement of components, any improved hardware, or any specific technical improvement. Applicant’s Specification evidences that these structures do not amount to significantly more. See Drawings filed on 9/27/2023 (“Drawings”), Figs. 1-12 (illustrating structures generally), and Specification, [045, 094, 101, 114, 191] (explaining that the claimed structures are general-purposes components). There is no inventive concept because the claims simply perform an operation corresponding to a user input to apply the abstract idea with standard components. The claims automate a form of human decision making and do not meaningfully limit the judicial exception. In Conclusion : Because the claims are directed to an abstract idea, do not integrate that idea into a practical application, and do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea itself, claims 1–5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Novak et al. (US 2020/0154779, cited on 5/8/2026 IDS) . Regarding claim 1, Novak discloses an aerosol delivery device comprising one or more rechargeable batteries, charging circuitry, including an electrical connector configured to interconnect the one or more rechargeable batteries with a power supply, and a sensor configured to detect an action of using the aerosol delivery device by a user and output a signal (abstract). Novack further discloses a user input processing method ([0099], Fig. 9 illustrates a flowchart showing a method 900) performed by an electronic device ([0047], Fig. 1, an example of a control device 100 for use in an aerosol delivery device), the method comprising: receiving a user input ([0099], puff action by the user is detected, ref 902); determining whether the user input is a heating command to heat an aerosol-generating substrate of a cigarette ([0099], if a puff action is detected (anticipates a heating command), the method 900 can proceed to block 903); based on the user input being the heating command, determining whether the electronic device is being charged ([0102], at block 904 the microprocessor 606 can determine if the electrical connector 602 is connected to the power supply via the charger 604 (see Fig. 6)); invalidating the user input if the electronic device is being charged ([0103], if the voltage of the rechargeable battery is lower than the charging threshold, the microprocessor 606 can disallow the activation of the heater 319 in the aerosol delivery device to carry out the puff action as shown in block 907); performing an operation corresponding to the user input when the user input is not the heating command ([0071], An input element may be included with the aerosol delivery device (and may replace or supplement an airflow or pressure sensor). The input may be included to allow a user to control functions of the device and/or for output of information to a user.) This anticipates claim 1 . Regarding claim 2, Novak discloses in a case where the user input is the heating command while the electronic device is being charged, checking remaining power of a battery of the electronic device; and based on the remaining power of the battery being greater than or equal to a threshold value ([0103], Fig. 9, at block 905, the microprocessor can perform a comparison between the voltage of the rechargeable battery 601 and the charging threshold of the rechargeable battery (e.g., about 3.3V) (anticipated a threshold value) to determine whether the voltage of the rechargeable battery 601 is higher than the charging threshold (but still lower than the battery threshold of about 3.5V), the microprocessor 606 of such embodiments can allow activation of the heater 319 in the aerosol delivery device to carry out the puff action, as shown in block 906. Novak further discloses if the microprocessor 606 determines a state of the aerosol delivery device indicating an occurrence of a passage of electrical current from the power supply to the rechargeable battery 601 (e.g., charging of the battery), the microprocessor 606 can open switch circuit 607 to discontinue the passage of electrical current (anticipates stopping charging) and alter the voltage threshold of the rechargeable battery 601 from the higher value to the lower value to allow puffs to occur.) This anticipates claim 2 . Regarding claim 4, Novak discloses the user input is any one of a button input and a touch input ([0071], Any component or combination of components may be utilized as an input for controlling the function of the device. For example, one or more pushbuttons may be used. Likewise, a touchscreen may be used.) This anticipates claim 4 . Regarding claim 5 , Novak discloses performing an operation corresponding to the user input through an application installed in the electronic device, ([0085], In an example, the microprocessor 606 may be embodied as or otherwise include one or more ASICs, FPGAs or the like. Thus, although the microprocessor 606 may be capable of performing one or more functions, the microprocessor 606 of various examples may be capable of performing one or more functions without the aid of a computer program.) An ASIC is well known to one skilled in the art to be an Application-Specific Integrated Circuit and further, is cited as such in Applicant’s instant specification, paragraph [0058]. This anticipates claim 5 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novak et al. (US 2020/0154779, cited on 5/8/2026 IDS) as applied to claim 1 above . Regarding claim 3, Novak discloses an output in response to an action of using the aerosol delivery device can be any activity by the device that requires delivery of power from the battery to a further element of the aerosol delivery device. The output may be an activation of a status indicator (e.g., a light, a haptic element, a sound element, a display, etc.) (reads over display a guide message) ([0084]). Regarding the limitation, “displaying a guide message indicating that the heating command is unable to be executed during charging”, it necessarily follows the microprocessor of Novak includes such logic within its programming steps, specifically if/then steps, are inherent to microprocessors, unless shown otherwise. In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have programmed the microprocessor of Novak to activate a status indicator (e.g., a light, a haptic element, a sound element, a display, etc.) when the voltage of the rechargeable battery is lower than the charging threshold, the microprocessor 606 can disallow the activation of the heater 319 in the aerosol delivery device to carry out the puff action (see “invalidating the user input” as discussed in claim 1 rejection above). This reads over the displaying a guide message limitation of claim 3 . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONNIE KIRBY JORDAN whose telephone number is 571-272-5214. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM - 4PM (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, 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. /RONNIE KIRBY JORDAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1747 /Christopher M Rodd/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766 Application/Control Number: 18/284,453 Page 2 Art Unit: 1747 Application/Control Number: 18/284,453 Page 3 Art Unit: 1747 Application/Control Number: 18/284,453 Page 4 Art Unit: 1747 Application/Control Number: 18/284,453 Page 5 Art Unit: 1747 Application/Control Number: 18/284,453 Page 6 Art Unit: 1747 Application/Control Number: 18/284,453 Page 7 Art Unit: 1747 Application/Control Number: 18/284,453 Page 8 Art Unit: 1747 Application/Control Number: 18/284,453 Page 9 Art Unit: 1747 Application/Control Number: 18/284,453 Page 10 Art Unit: 1747
Prosecution Insights