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
Claims 3, 5, 10-14, 18, 22-23, 28-31 and 33-35 are cancelled. Claims 9, 15-17, 27, and 45-46 are withdrawn. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-8, 19-21, 24-26, 32, 36-44 and 47-49 are presently examined.
Specification
The use of the terms Accord (page 1, line 28), Alpha (page 1, line 29), Joye 510 (page 1, line 29), M4 (page 1, line 29), Cirrus (page 1, line 29), Fling (page 1, line 29), Blu (page 1, line 30), Cohita (page 1, line 30), Colibri (page 1, line 30), Elite Classic (page 1, lines 30-31), Magnum (page 1, line 31), Phantom (page 1, line 31), Sense (page 1, line 31), Epuffer (page 1, line 31), Duopro (page 2, line 1), Storm (page 2, line 1), Vaporking (page 2, line 1), Egar (page 2, line 1), eGo-C (page 2, line 2), eGo-T (page 2, line 2), Elusion (page 2, line 2), Eonsmoke (page 2, line 2), Fin (page 2, line 3), Smoke (page 2, line 3), Greenarette (page 2, line 4), Halligan (page 2, line 4), Hendu (page 2, line 4), Jet (page 2, line 4), Maxxq (page 2, line 4), Pink (page 2, line 5) Pitbull (page 2, line 5), Smoke Stik (page 2, line 5), Heatbar (page 2, line 5), Hydro Imperial (page 2, line 6), Lxe (page 2, line 6), Logic (page 2, line 6), The Cuban (page 2, line 6), LUCI (page 2, line 7), Metro (page 2, line 7), Njoy (page 2, line 7), Onejoy (page 2, line 8) No. 7 (page 2, line 8), Premium Electronic Cigarette (page 2, lines 8-9), Rapp E-Mystick (page 2, line 9), Red Dragon (page 2, lines 9-10), Ruyan (page 2, line 10), SF (page 2, line 10), Green Smart Smoker (page 2, line 11), Smoke Assist (page 2, line 12), Smoking Everywhere (page 2, lines 12-13), V2Cigs (page 2, line 13), Vapor Nine (page 2, lines 13-14), Vapor4Life (page 2, line 14), Veppo (page 2, line 14), Vuse (page 2, line 15), Mistic Menthol (page 2, line 15), Vype (page 2, line 16), Iqos (page 2, line 16), Glo (page 2, line 17), Cooler Visions (page 2, line 19), Direct E-Cig (page 2, line 19), Dragonfly (page 2, line 20), Emist (page 2, line 20), Eversmoke (page 2, line 20), Gamucci (page 2, line 20), Hybrid Flame (page 2, line 20), Knight Sticks (page 2, lines 20-21), Royal Blues (page 2, line 21), Smoketip (page 2, line 21), Kanthal (page 9, line 5), South Beach Smoke (page 2, line 21), Mark Ten (page 18, line 3), Juul (page 18, line 4), Black Note (page 18, line 7), Cosmic Fog (page 18, line 7), The Milkman E-Liquid (page 18, line 7), Five Pawns (page 18, lines 7-8), The Vapor Chef (page 18, line 8), Vape Wild (page 18, line 8), Boosted (page 18, line 8), The Steam Factory (page 18, line 8), Mech Sauce (page 18, lines 8-9), Case Jones Mainline Reserve (page 18, line 9), Mitten Vapors (page 18, line 9), Dr. Crimmy’s V-Liquid (page 18, lines 9-10), Smiley E Liquid (page 18, line 10), Beantown Vapor (page 18, line 10), Cuttwood (page 18, line 10), Cyclops Vapor (page 18, line 10), Sicboy (page 18, line 11), Good Life Vapor (page 18, line 11), Teleos (page 18, line 11), Pinup Vapors (page 18, line 11), Space Jam (page 18, line 11), Mt. Baker Vapor (page 18, lines 11-12), Jimmy The Juice Man (page 18, line 12) and Vycor (page 19, line 19), which are trade names or marks used in commerce, have been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized wherever they appear or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the terms.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-8, 19, 21, 24-26, 32, 36-44 and 47-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 205250357, LinguaLinx Language Solutions, Inc. translation relied upon) in view of Meinhart (US 10,612,770).
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses a honeycomb hollow porous ceramic atomization component for electronic cigarettes [0002] in the form of an oil guide (figure 3, reference numeral 1) having three hollow channels that extend radially through it and form openings on the surface ([0021], figure 3, reference numeral 3), which are considered to meet the claim limitation of a bore defining an opening. The oil guide is formed by sintering [0010], indicating that it must be rigid. The porous honeycomb element has pores having 0.1 mm in diameter [0021], which is considered to also be an average pore size. Both the hollow passages and the pores transfer liquid quickly [0022], indicating that the ceramic component functions through wicking. Liu does not explicitly disclose (a) the area of a single radial hollow channel being between about 1% and about 25% of the external surface area of the atomization component and (b) the pores being a 3-dimensional interconnected structure.
Regarding (a), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the total area of the exterior of the porous atomization component to the area of the opening to the bore fall within the claimed range. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art absent evidence that the change in size results in a difference in performance. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV A.
Regarding (b), Meinhart teaches an inverse-opal wick having a wicking structure that transfers liquid from a liquid source to a vaporization port (abstract). Different pores are interconnected to form a cross-linked networked structure which can be advantageous for wicking (column 25, lines 14-22).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to interconnect the pores of Liu to from a cross-linked networked structure. One would have been motivated to do so since Liu discloses a ceramic that transfers liquid through pores in a ceramic element and Meinhart teaches that a cross-linked network structure is advantageous for wicking a liquid.
Regarding claims 2 and 21, Liu discloses that the oil guide is cylindrical (figure 3).
Regarding claims 4 and 24, Liu discloses that the channels extend radially from a central pore (figure 3), indicating that they must form an angle with the longitudinal axis.
Regarding claims 6 and 25, modified Liu teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Liu additionally discloses that, in a different embodiment, multiple bores extend vertically through the ceramic element at different longitudinal positions that form an array ([0020], figure 2). Modified Liu does not explicitly teach multiple channels extending radially from a central axis.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the radial channels of figure 3 with the multiple vertical channels of figure 2 to produce a ceramic element having radial channels at different longitudinal locations. One would have been motivated to do so since Liu discloses two channel arrangements that both result in liquid atomization.
Regarding claims 7-8 and 26, modified Liu teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Liu does not explicitly teach the channels being provided in staggered rows.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the channels in staggered rows. Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI C.
Regarding claim 19, Liu discloses a honeycomb hollow porous ceramic atomization component for electronic cigarettes [0002], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an atomizer, in the form of an oil guide (figure 2, reference numeral 1). The honeycomb hollow porous ceramic atomization component has three hollow channels that extend radially through it and form openings on the surface ([0021], figure 3, reference numeral 3), which are considered to meet the claim limitation of a bore defining an opening. The oil guide is formed by sintering [0010], indicating that it must be rigid. The porous honeycomb element has pores having 0.1 mm in diameter [0021], which is considered to also be an average pore size. Liu does not explicitly disclose (a) the area of a single radial bore being between about 1% and about 25% of the external surface area of the atomization component and (b) the pores being a 3 dimensional interconnected structure.
Regarding (a), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the total area of the exterior of the porous atomization component to the area of the opening to the bore fall within the claimed range. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art absent evidence that the change in size results in a difference in performance. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV A.
Regarding (b), Meinhart teaches an inverse-opal wick having a wicking structure that transfers liquid from a liquid source to a vaporization port (abstract). Different pores are interconnected to form a cross-linked networked structure which can be advantageous for wicking (column 25, lines 14-22).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to interconnect the pores of Liu to from a cross-linked networked structure. One would have been motivated to do so since Meinhart teaches that a cross-linked network structure is advantageous for wicking a liquid.
Regarding claim 32, Liu discloses a honeycomb hollow porous ceramic atomization component for electronic cigarettes [0002] in the form of an oil guide (figure 2, reference numeral 1) having three hollow channels extending radially through it to create openings ([0025], figure 2, reference numeral 3). One of the radial pores is considered to meet the claim limitation of a bore. A resistive heating element is sintered to the oil guide and passes above the pores ([0025], figure 2, reference numeral 2). Oil is suppled from an oil storage bin ([0007], figure 4, reference numeral 7), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a reservoir. The oil guide is formed by sintering [0010], indicating that it must be rigid. The channels form openings on the surface ([0021], figure 3, reference numeral 3), which are considered to meet the claim limitation of a bore defining an opening. The porous honeycomb element has pores having 0.1 mm in diameter [0021], which is considered to also be an average pore size. Liu does not explicitly disclose (a) the area of a single radial bore being between about 1% and about 25% of the external surface area of the atomization component and (b) the pores being a 3 dimensional interconnected structure.
Regarding (a), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the total area of the exterior of the porous atomization component to the area of the opening to the bore fall within the claimed range. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art absent evidence that the change in size results in a difference in performance. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV A.
Regarding (b), Meinhart teaches an inverse-opal wick having a wicking structure that transfers liquid from a liquid source to a vaporization port (abstract). Different pores are interconnected to form a cross-linked networked structure which can be advantageous for wicking (column 25, lines 14-22).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to interconnect the pores of Liu to from a cross-linked networked structure. One would have been motivated to do so since Meinhart teaches that a cross-linked network structure is advantageous for wicking a liquid.
Regarding claims 36, 39 and 42, Liu discloses that a central hollow pore extends through the oil guide (figure 3), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a lumen.
Regarding claims 37, 40 and 43, modified Liu teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Liu additionally discloses that the diameter of the hollow central pores is about 0.1 to 3 mm and that the diameter of the oil guide is between about 1 and 10 mm [0010]. Modified Liu does not explicitly teach the difference between the radii of the oil guide diameter and hollow central pore being between about 0.1 and 4 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select sizes within the ranges of Liu such that the difference between the radii of the oil guide diameter and hollow central pore is between about 0.1 and 4 mm. In the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claims 38, 41 and 44, Liu discloses that the diameter of the hollow pore is about 0.1 to 3 mm [0010].
Regarding claims 47-49, Liu discloses that the bore extends across the entire diameter of the rigid monolith (figure 3).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 205250357, machine translation relied upon) in view of Meinhart (US 10,612,770) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of DePiano (US 9,277,770).
Regarding claim 20, modified Liu teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Liu additionally discloses that the heating element is wound on the oil guide member [0012]. Modified Liu does not explicitly the wound heating element being a wire.
DePiano teaches an atomizer for an aerosol delivery device having a liquid transport element with a wire continuously coiled around it (abstract) that heats liquid in the liquid transport element and is in direct contact with the liquid transport element (column 8, lines 40-56). The heating element is a resistive heating element (column 8, lines 6-39).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the heating element of modified Liu for the heating element of DePiano. One would have been motivated to do so since Liu discloses a wound resistive heating element and DePiano teaches a resistive heating wire wound around a liquid transport element. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection that do not rely on Davis are made as set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSSELL E SPARKS whose telephone number is (571)270-1426. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5 pm.
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, Philip Louie can be reached at 571-270-1241. 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.
/RUSSELL E SPARKS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights