DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-4 and 7-10 are pending in this application. 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
Applicant's amendment dated July 22, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 7, and 9 have been amended. Claims 5-6 have been canceled.
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 1-4 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-4 and 7-10, under Step 1, the claims recite a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Under Step 2A claims 1-4 and 7-10 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites: An operating method of a terminal, the operating method comprising: transmitting a purchase request signal of a digital recipe to a server; receiving the digital recipe from the server; transmitting a control signal comprising the digital recipe and a maximum puffing count available for one time smoking to an electronic device connected to the terminal; receiving, from the electronic device, a notification of completion of smoking using the digital recipe, the notification of completion of smoking being determined based on the maximum puffing count; and in response to the notification of completion of smoking, updating an available use of the digital recipe.
The above limitations set forth a procedure for organizing human activity, such as by performing commercial interactions including marketing activity and business relations. This is because the claim recites the steps performed in order to update a recipe (Specification p. 2). Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) the claim recites an abstract idea because the claim recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP 2106.04.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites additional elements, including a server, a terminal, and an electronic device.
These additional elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks).
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment. MPEP 2106.05.
In view of the above, representative claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claims 2-4 and 7-8 recite limitations which are similarly directed to and elaborate on the judicial exception (abstract idea) of claim 1. Thus, each of claims 2-4 and 7-8 are held to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A (prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Furthermore, claims 2-4 and 7-8 do not set forth further additional elements. Considered both individually and as a whole, claims 2-4 and 7-8 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Lastly, under step 2B, dependent claims 2-4 and 7-8 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). This is again because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and specified at a high level of generality.
Claims 9-10 are parallel, i.e. recite similar concepts and elements, to claims 1-4 and 7-8, analyzed above, and the same rationale is applied.
In view of the above, claims 1-4 and 7-10 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claims 1-4 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Cameron, US PG Pub 2017/0135408 A1 (hereafter “Cameron”), previously cited.
Regarding claim 1, Cameron discloses an operating method of a terminal, the operating method comprising:
transmitting a purchase request signal of a digital recipe to a server (¶¶0045, 0069, 0114, and 0160-0166);
receiving the digital recipe from the server (¶¶0052-0053, 0117, and 0166);
transmitting a control signal comprising the digital recipe and a maximum puffing count available for one time smoking to an electronic device connected to the terminal (¶¶0046, 0051-0055, 0083, 0091, 0114, 0117, 0125, 0151, 0166, 0172, and 0196);
receiving, from the electronic device, a notification of completion of smoking using the digital recipe, the notification of completion of smoking being determined based on the maximum puffing count (¶¶0045-0046, 0079, 0125, 0134, 0175-0178, 0187-0188, and 0191); and
in response to the notification of completion of smoking, updating an available use of the digital recipe (¶¶0046, 0086, 0125, 0134-0135, 0143, and 0151).
Regarding claim 2, Cameron discloses the operating method of claim 1, further comprising:
presenting a use pass for using the digital recipe for a predetermined number of times to another terminal (¶¶0052-0053, 0134, and 0166); and
deducting the available use by the predetermined number of times (¶¶0046, 0125, and 0151).
Regarding claim 3, Cameron discloses the operating method of claim 1, further comprising: when the available use is 0, deactivating the digital recipe (¶¶0046, 0125, 0143, 0151, and 0173).
Regarding claim 4, Cameron discloses the operating method of claim 1, wherein the deactivating of the digital recipe comprises: transmitting a deactivation signal of the digital recipe to the electronic device (¶¶0044, 0086, and 0171-0173).
Regarding claim 7, Cameron discloses the operating method of claim 1, further comprising: transmitting a subscription signal to the server; and receiving, from the server, usage information comprising at least one of a number of available digital recipes corresponding to the subscription signal, a maximum available use of the digital recipe, and the maximum puffing count of the digital recipe (¶¶0052, 0117, 0129, and 0166).
Regarding claim 8, Cameron discloses the operating method of claim 1, wherein the digital recipe comprises information of a current applied to an object contacting the electronic device (¶¶0053, 0073, 0078, and 0098).
Regarding claims 9-10, all of the limitations in claims 9-10 are closely parallel to the limitations of method claims 1-8, analyzed above, and are rejected on the same bases.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s arguments regarding the §101 rejection (Remarks pp. 5-6), the examiner disagrees. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The first limitation is transmitting a purchase request signal which is abstract. The second limitation is receiving a recipe which is abstract. The third limitation is transmitting the recipe and a maximum puffing count available which is abstract. The fourth limitation is receiving a notification of completion which is abstract. The fifth limitation is updating the available use of the recipe which is abstract. Every limitation is directed to the abstract idea but for the generic computer hardware recited at a high level of generality identified as additional elements above. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant argues that a digital recipe and a maximum puffing count integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. These elements are themselves abstract. There is no technical detail recited as to any technical process by which the invention might operate. The invention represents the mere abstract decision to stop using the device after a certain amount. The claims are not integrated into a practical application for the reasons stated above.
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art (Remarks pp. 7-9), the examiner disagrees. Applicant argues that Cameron does not disclose transmitting a control signal comprising the digital recipe and a maximum puffing count available for one time smoking to an electronic device connected to the terminal. Applicant argues that Cameron’s session limit based on a number of puffs is not a maximum puffing count. The examiner disagrees. The plain meaning of limit is a maximum and basing the maximum on the number of puffs is a maximum puffing count. Applicant argues that Cameron does not disclose a notification of completion or updating an available use of the recipe. For example, in ¶0125 Cameron discloses “the communication element 1606 can transmit data to a local or remote device such as the computing device 1604. In an aspect, data can be shared anonymously with the computing device 1604. The data can be shared over a transient data session with the computing device 1604. The transient data session can comprise a session limit. The session limit can be based on one or more of a number of puffs, a time limit, and a total quantity of vaporizable material.” Therefore, Cameron discloses transmitting data that comprises the session limit. In ¶0134, Cameron discloses that “the mixture can be sent to the one or more of the user device 1602a, 1602b, and/or 1602c at the request of the uploading device and/or at any user request. The mixture can be provided with a limited number of uses. The mixture can be transmitted so that the receiving user can vaporize according to the mixture to determine if the user enjoys the mixture. If the user desires to continue using the mixture, the user can request access rights.” Therefore, Cameron discloses transmitting data that updates an available use of the recipe.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cohen, US PG Pub 2019/0125126 A1, teaches methods and an apparatus for automated food preparation including digital recipes with limited uses.
Cameron, US PG Pub 2016/0337444 A1, teaches a social network for electronic vapor device users.
Non-patent literature Mikheev, Vladimir B., et al. teaches the application of commercially available mobile cigarette topography devices for e-cigarette vaping behavior measurements.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTOPHER B SEIBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-5549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeff Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER B SEIBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights