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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the drawings illustrate the claimed structures. The examiner disagrees. In particular, no liquid valve is illustrated in any of the figures. No part of a liquid pump is shown that transports the liquid aerosol-forming substrate to the heater is shown. In fact, the opposite is illustrated by figure 3, where a heater (205) heats a liquid that is shown moving up a capillary body (204) where it reaches a vibration element (301) that is vibrated by a piezo transducer (302). As described the instant specification, the vibration causes droplets to be ejected from the passages at the outlet side 309 and the heated liquid is replaced by further heated liquid moving along the capillary body by capillary action (This is sometimes referred to as ‘pumping action’).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the references or the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the adjacent liquid valve, and the transducer assembly configured to drive the membrane or surface into vibration, the vibration of the membrane or surface forcing the liquid through an adjacent liquid valve in the liquid pump must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The applicant argues that no adjacent liquid valve is disclosed in the prior art. However, no adjacent liquid valve is present in the instant drawings. In particular, no structure appears to be illustrated that can be driven by vibration for the membrane or surface forcing the liquid through an adjacent liquid valve in the liquid pump. No internals of the liquid pump are shown. These features must be shown in the drawings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 15, 23, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mazur (US 20180066645 A1).
Regarding claim 15, 23, and 26, Mazur discloses an aerosol generating device (i.e. electronic cigarette) with a reservoir containing an aerosol-forming liquid, a micropump to pump the fluid from the reservoir to an atomizer (heating element) [0002-0005]. The actuators in the micropump are piezo membranes and are driven by connected control electronics where the rising amplitude of a controller voltage (i.e. oscillating current [0068]), raises the flow rate. The flow rate is also a function of frequency (i.e. of the oscillating current), where the frequency determines the number of pump strokes per unit of time which reaches a maximum flow rate at the resonant frequency, and then decreases at high frequencies above the resonant point [0035]-[0039]. Mazur further discloses that, the combination of signal, amplitude, and frequency (i.e. oscillating current) defines the performance of the micropump, indicating that the controller controls these parameters.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 16-20 and 23-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazur (US 20180066645 A1) as applied to claims 15, 23, and 26 above, in further view of Litherland et al. (US 6,546,927).
Regarding claims 19, and 20, although Mazur discloses a control system and the relation of voltage amplitude and frequency, Mazur does not specifically disclose the circuit type and specific control parameters.
However, Litherland et al. discloses a related aerosol producing device that uses a piezoelectric transducer to force liquid from a liquid reservoir through a plate with apertures (similar to forcing liquid through a valve) along with phase locked loop (PLL) control circuitry to monitor the current, voltage, and the phase difference between them and adjust the resonant behavior of the piezoelectric transducer (col. 3, line 55—col. 4, line 33 and col. 6, line 14—col. 10, line 12). Measuring voltage and current is inherently the same as measuring power.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use the control system of Litherland et al. to control the piezoelectric membrane of Mazur so that the piezoelectric membrane of Mazur could be effectively controlled. One of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in light of the teachings by Mazur that voltage and frequency are used to control the piezo electric actuator.
Regarding claims 16-18, Litherland et al. disclose that, “In some embodiments, the desired frequency is the instantaneous resonant frequency of the plate, while in other embodiments, the desired frequency is an offset from the instantaneous resonant frequency. In some embodiments, the desired frequency is the anti-resonant frequency.” (col. 2, 34-38). The above disclosure along with the monitoring disclosure in the rejection above, results in the monitoring of resonant behavior at a plurality of resonant frequencies corresponding to different modes of vibration.
Regarding claim 24, Mazur discloses that the liquid is mixture of an aerosol former (e.g. propylene glycol or glycerol) and a liquid additive such as tobacco extract or flavor [0059]-[0064].
Regarding claims 25, Litherland et al. disclose measuring and analyzing changes in impedance to detect the end of aerosolization and then reduce energization of the piezoelectric element. In other words, the change in impedance can detect a reduction in fluid for aerosolization.
Regarding claims 27, Litherland et al. disclose monitoring voltage, current, and the phase difference between voltage and current. The measurement occurs at a first frequency where there is no vibration and a second frequency where there is significant vibration (col. 1, 60-67).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PNG
media_image1.png
381
341
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
701
634
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
699
637
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
698
638
media_image4.png
Greyscale
KR 20120007654 U (see figures below)
CurieJet (CurieJet Piezo-electric liquid micropump, youtube, 2019)
PNG
media_image9.png
240
374
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
687
1090
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
669
1091
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
674
1085
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Brammer et al. (US 20150117842 A1)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J FELTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4805. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Thursday-Friday 7:00-4:30, Wednesday 7:00-1:00.
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.
/Michael J Felton/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights