DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 11, 16-18, 21-22, and 26 are pending. Claims 1 and 16 have been amended.
Response to Amendments
The Examiner acknowledges Applicant's response filed on 2/24/2026 containing amendments and remarks to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant amended claim 1 to require that the base portion comprise the insert. This amendment overcomes the rejection of claim 1 over Liu in view of Borkovec presented in the prior Office action. However, in view of this amendment, a new mapping of Liu in view of Borkovec is used to address this newly added limitation, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 below.
Applicant amended claim 16 to require the air inlet to be formed in the same wall of the housing that defines the airflow path. This amendment overcomes the rejection of claim 16 over Liu in view of Fraser presented in the prior Office action. However, in view of this amendment, a new mapping of Liu in view of Fraser is used to address this newly added limitation, as discussed in the rejection of claim 16 below.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 109259313 A, a translation of which was previously provided for reference) in view of Borkovec et al. (US 2018/0160735 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses an aerosol-delivery component (“electronic cigarette atomizer”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0047) comprising:
a housing (combination of “base 15”, “bracket 11”, “oil tank cover 13”, “nozzle 3”, and “shell 8”, Fig. 1) comprising a base portion (combination of “base 15”, “bracket 11”, “oil tank cover 13”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0059), a mouthpiece portion (“nozzle 3”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0047) and walls (walls of “shell 8”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0049) extending longitudinally from the base portion to the mouthpiece portion (Fig. 1), the walls comprising opposing front and rear walls (front and rear walls of “shell 8”, Fig. 3) spaced by opposing first and second side walls (first and second side walls of “shell 8”, Fig. 3) extending therebetween, the distance between the front and rear walls defining a depth of the housing and the distance between the side walls defining a width of the housing that is greater than the depth of the housing (Fig. 3);
an air inlet (air inlet to “limiting groove 10”, Fig. 3, ¶ 0057) formed in a wall (wall of “shell 8”, Fig. 1) of the housing and spaced longitudinally from the base portion (Fig. 1);
an air outlet (air outlet formed in “nozzle 3”, Fig. 1) formed in the mouthpiece portion;
an airflow path (airflow path indicated by arrows in Fig 2.) extending from the air inlet to the air outlet, the airflow path comprising a first portion (portion of the airflow path defined by “limiting groove 10”, Fig. 3, ¶ 0057) downstream of the air inlet and extending longitudinally towards the base portion of the housing (Fig. 2), and a transversely extending second portion (portion of the airflow path defined by “air passage 111”, Fig. 4, ¶ 0057) that is downstream of the first portion (Fig. 2); and
a vaporizer (combination of “capillary tube 2” and “heating component 9”, Fig. 8, ¶ 0065) comprising a capillary tube (“capillary tube 2”, Fig. 8, ¶ 0065) and a heating element (“heating component 9”, Fig. 8, ¶ 0065), the vaporizer disposed in a vaporizing chamber (the recessed chamber formed by “oil tank cover 13”, Fig. 1) that forms part of the second portion of the airflow path (Fig. 2)
However, Liu does not disclose wherein the base portion comprises an insert received in an open end of the housing to define the vaporizing chamber and a wick that is elongated in the direction of depth of the housing across the second portion of the airflow path such that the insert comprises two apertures formed in opposing walls of the insert for receipt of respective ends of the wick therethrough.
Borkovec, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a vaporizer comprising a capillary tube formed by an insert (“liquid flow passage between the first and second plates 340, 350”, Fig. 9, ¶ 0064, “The at least two metal plates with the liquid flow passage in between form a capillary tube which draws the liquid stored in the reservoir towards the atomizer by capillary force.”, ¶ 0006) and a heating element (“heating coil 28”, Fig. 9, ¶ 0062) wrapped around a wick (“wick 330”, Fig. 9, ¶ 0062); wherein the insert comprises two apertures formed in opposing walls of the insert (channels formed in the opposing walls of backplates 340 and 350; Fig. 9) for receipt of respective ends of the wick therethrough (“the ends of the wick 330 abutting or extending into the liquid reservoir 334” in Fig. 9; ¶ 0062). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that there was a benefit to including a wick in the heating element and held by an insert in that it facilitates better distribution of the of the liquid coming out of the capillary tube along the heating element for vaporization. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the heating element taught by Liu to include a wick as taught by Borkovec and to modify the base taught by Liu to further comprise an insert as taught by Borkovec in order to achieve this benefit. In the resulting configuration, the insert is received in an open end of the housing (as the open end of the housing corresponds to the open in of the vaporizing chamber where the insert and wick are to be placed) and the insert defines the vaporizing chamber (the insert is considered to “define” the vaporizing chamber as the vaporizing chamber must be at least as large as the insert).
With regards to the orientation of the heater and the wick within the housing, Liu does not explicitly state how the heater in Fig. 8 is oriented relative to the housing in Figs. 1-2. However, there was a benefit to orienting the heater to be perpendicular to the airflow path (i.e., the axis of the heater is in the depth direction as the airflow path is in the width direction) in that it maximizes the percentage of air coming into contact with the heater which better distributes the aerosol within the air. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to orient the heater of Liu to have its axis along the depth direction in order to achieve this benefit.
In the device of the combination, the wick is coaxial with the heater and, therefore, elongated in the direction of depth of the housing across the second portion of the airflow path (see Liu Figs. 1-2, 8).
Regarding claim 2, Liu in view of Borkovec teaches a component according to claim 1, as stated above. Liu further discloses wherein the first portion of the airflow path extends longitudinally from the air inlet towards the base portion of the housing (Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 3, Liu in view of Borkovec teaches a component according to claim 1, as stated above. Liu does not explicitly disclose the longitudinal distance between the air inlet and base portion of the housing to determine if it is greater than 8 mm. However, Liu teaches several components should fit in the housing between the air inlet and base. The efficacy of the housing for this result depends on the longitudinal distance between the air inlet and base portion of the housing. If the housing is too short, the necessary components will not fit inside of the housing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the longitudinal distance between the air inlet and base portion of the housing such that it falls within the claimed range. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955); MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A)).
Regarding claim 4, Liu in view of Borkovec teaches a component according to claim 1, as stated above. Liu further discloses wherein the airflow path comprises a third portion (“air outlet passage 12”, Fig. 3, ¶ 0058) extending longitudinally from the second portion to the air outlet (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Liu in view of Borkovec teaches a component according to claim 4, as stated above. Liu further discloses the component comprising a tank (“oil tank 1”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0047) for housing a liquid aerosol precursor (“e-liquid”, ¶ 0004), the tank disposed between the first and third airflow path portions (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Liu in view of Borkovec teaches a component according to claim 5, as stated above. Liu further discloses that the first portion of the airflow path is defined between the first side wall and a first longitudinally extending wall (wall of “oil tank 1”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0056) of the tank (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Liu in view of Borkovec teaches a component according to claim 1, as stated above. Borkovec teaches that the heating coil of the heating element is wrapped around the wick, and Liu teaches that the cavity within the heating coil of the heating element is cylindrical (Fig. 8). Therefore, 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 wick cylindrical in order to maximize contact between the wick and the heater.
Regarding claim 11, Liu in view of Borkovec teaches a component according to claim 7, as stated above. Liu further discloses wherein the third portion of the airflow path is defined between the second side wall and a second longitudinally extending wall (inner wall of “oil tank 1”, Figs. 1 and 3, ¶ 0058) of the tank (Fig. 2).
Claims 16-18, 21-22, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 109259313 A) in view of Fraser et al. (US 2019/0208821 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Liu discloses a smoking substitute component (“electronic cigarette atomizer”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0047) comprising:
a housing (combination of “base 15”, “nozzle 3”, and “shell 8”, Fig. 1) comprising a base portion (“base 15”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0059), a mouthpiece portion (“nozzle 3”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0047), and one or more walls (walls of “shell 8”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0049) extending longitudinally from the base portion to the mouthpiece portion (Fig. 1);
an airflow path (airflow path indicated by arrows in Fig 2.) extending from an air inlet (air inlet to “limiting groove 10”, Fig. 3, ¶ 0057) formed in one of the one or more walls (wall of “shell 8”, Fig. 1) of the housing and spaced longitudinally from the base portion (Fig. 1) to an air outlet (air outlet formed in “nozzle 3”, Fig. 1) formed in the mouthpiece portion, a first passage (passage through “limiting groove 10”, Fig. 3, ¶ 0057); and
a vaporizer (combination of “capillary 2” and “heating component 9”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0051) in the airflow path downstream of the first passage (Figs. 1-2), the vaporizer comprising a wick (“capillary 2”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0051) and a heating element (“heating component 9”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0051) for heating the wick.
However, Liu does not disclose an absorbent element disposed in the first passage.
Fraser, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a smoking substitute component (“cartomizer 30”, Fig. 4, ¶ 0052) comprising an absorbent element (“absorbent element 50”, Fig. 4, ¶ 0052) in a first passage (passage through the portion of “air flow channel 37” between the air inlet at the upstream end of “air flow channel 37” and “atomizer 40”, Fig. 4, ¶ 0052) of a first portion (portion of “air flow channel 37” between the air inlet at the upstream end of “air flow channel 37” and “atomizer 40”, Fig. 4, ¶ 0052) of an airflow path (“air flow channel 37”, Fig. 4, ¶ 0052) extending from an air inlet (air inlet at the upstream end of “air flow channel 37”, Fig. 4, ¶ 0052) to an air outlet (air outlet formed in “mouthpiece 35”, Fig. 4, ¶ 0052) formed in a mouthpiece portion (“mouthpiece portion 35”, Fig. 4, ¶ 0052). Fraser also teaches benefits associated with including an absorbent element in such a passage in that it can collect escaped liquid in the airflow path and prevent escape of liquid from the smoking substitute component (¶ 0052). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the smoking substitute component taught by Liu to include an absorbent element disposed in the first passage as taught by Fraser in order to achieve these benefits.
In the resulting configuration, there will be a first portion of the airflow path defined by the first passage (portion of the airflow path defined by “limiting groove 10” and upstream of the absorbent element, Fig. 3 of Liu, ¶ 0057) extending longitudinally from the air inlet towards the base portion (Fig. 2) such that the first portion of the airflow path is defined between the absorbent element and the one of the one or more walls of the housing in which the air inlet is formed (as the first portion is the portion immediately upstream of the absorbent element, the first portion will be between the absorbent element and the wall in which the air inlet is formed).
Regarding claim 17, Liu in view of Fraser teaches a component according to claim 16, as stated above. Fraser further teaches wherein a cross-sectional area of the absorbent element is less than a cross-sectional area of the first passage (because “absorbent element 50” is a cylinder and claim 17 does not limit either the placement or the orientation of the plane along which the cross-sectional area is taken, the cross-sectional area can be made as arbitrarily close to zero as desired by selecting a plane whose distance from the central axis of the cylinder is correspondingly arbitrarily close to the radius of the cylinder, see figures below1; therefore, whatever the cross-sectional area of the first passage is, there will exist a cross-sectional area of the absorbent element which is less than the cross-sectional area of the first passage).
PNG
media_image1.png
620
879
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
617
827
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Liu in view of Fraser teaches a component according to claim 17, as stated above. Fraser further teaches wherein the absorbent element comprises a longitudinally extending groove partly defining the first portion of the airflow path (“absorbent element 50” has one or more aperture(s) defining the first portion of “air flow channel 37”, ¶ 0052).
Regarding claim 21, Liu in view of Fraser teaches a component according to claim 16, as stated above. Fraser further teaches wherein a void (void between “absorbent element 50” and “atomizer 40”, Fig. 4) is defined between an end (end of “absorbent element 50” closest to “atomizer 40”, Fig. 4) of the absorbent element and a corresponding end of the first passage (end of the first passage between “absorbent element 50” and “atomizer 40”, Fig. 4) proximate the vaporizer.
Regarding claim 22, Liu in view of Fraser teaches a component according to claim 16, as stated above. Liu further teaches wherein the airflow path comprises a transversely extending second portion (portion of the airflow path defined by “air passage 111”, Fig. 4, ¶ 0057) downstream of the first portion (Fig. 2), the vaporizer disposed in the second portion (Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 26, Liu in view of Fraser teaches a component according to claim 16, as stated above. Liu further teaches the component comprising a tank (“oil tank 1”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0047), wherein the first passage is defined between a wall (wall of “shell 8”, Fig. 1) of the housing and a wall (inner wall of “oil tank 1”, Figs. 1 and 3, ¶ 0058) of the tank (Fig. 2).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 COURTNEY G CULBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-0874. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-4pm.
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 at (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.
/C.G.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747
1 Figures produced using “Cylinder Cross Sections Investigation” (https://www.geogebra.org/m/YBVJzk7m) with cross-sectional planes having different distances from the central axis of the cylinder to demonstrate that there will always exist some cross-sectional area of the absorbent element with a value as close to zero as desired.
Prosecution Insights