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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2026 June 22 has been entered.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 11-12, 28-38, and 45 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 11-12, 28-29, 31-32, 34-36, 38, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian (CN 210137815 U cited on an IDS and with reference made to machine translation) in view of Stern (US 20140355969 A1).
Claims 1, 5, 7, and 12: Tian teaches an aerosol provision system (fig. 3-4 and [44]) comprising:
a vaporizer (2) for generating vapor from an aerosolizable material (e-liquid);
an electrode (5) for receiving electrical power, wherein the vaporizer (2) is electrically connected to ([46-47], vaporizer #2 comprises wire #23 which electrically connects to electrode #5) the electrode (5);
and a sealing member (3 and 4), wherein the sealing member (3 and 4) comprises a cover (3) with a location (volume occupied by 5) for the electrode (5), configured to surround at least a first end of the electrode (5) and provide a barrier against contact of aerosolizable material with the electrode (where 3 and 4 surround 5, a barrier is formed), and a cavity defining an air channel (fig. 10 and [51], #43) upstream of the vaporizer (fig. 3-4, #2).
Tian does not explicitly teach that the cavity comprises a valve integrally formed with the sealing member,
the valve is a one-way valve,
and the valve comprises one or more sections which taper inwardly in a direction extending away from the cover or a bridging portion of the sealing member.
Stern teaches an aerosol provision system (title) comprising a cavity (fig. 2, volume between #A and #B) comprising a one-way valve ([23-24], #300) integrally formed with a sealing member ([22], #300 and cartomizer section #A form a seal), wherein the valve comprises one or more sections ([24], the valve #300 comprises flaps) which taper (the flaps are tightly adjacent, so the flaps taper to a center of the valve) inwardly in a direction extending away from a sealing member (A which surrounds 300), such that the one-way valve prevents e-liquid flow towards electronics [21] and such that the one-way valve reduces absorption of ambient moisture into e-liquid in order to preserve e-liquid viscosity [19].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add Stern’s one-way valve comprising one or more sections which taper inwardly in a direction extending away from the cover or bridging portion of the sealing member to Tian’s cavity, because doing so would enable the one-way valve to prevent back flow in order to protect Tian’s electronics, and would reduce absorption of ambient moisture into e-liquid in order to preserve Tian’s e-liquid viscosity.
Claim 2: modified Tian teaches the aerosol provision system according to claim 1, wherein the cover (fig. 4, #3) has a plurality of locations (volumes occupied by 5) for a plurality of electrodes (5).
Claim 3: modified Tian teaches the aerosol provision system according to claim 2, wherein the cavity (fig. 4, #43 which is not labelled; fig. 10, #43) is between the plurality of locations (volumes occupied by 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
378
1162
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 11: modified Tian teaches the aerosol provision system according to claim 1, wherein the sealing member (fig. 4, #3 and #4) comprises a bridging portion (fig. 8, central portion of #4) configured to accommodate the air channel (43) defined by the cavity.
Claim 28: modified Tian teaches the aerosol provision system according to claim 1, wherein the location (fig. 4, volume occupied by #5) for the electrode (5) comprises a primary opening (opening in 3 through which 5 penetrates) in the cover (3), and the cover (3) extends around the first end of the electrode (5).
Claim 29: modified Tian teaches the aerosol provision system according to claim 1, wherein the sealing member (fig. 4, #3 and #4) has a core component (4) and a shell component (3).
Claim 31: modified Tian teaches the aerosol provision system according claim 29, wherein the location (fig. 4, volume occupied by #5) for the electrode (5) comprises a primary opening (opening of 3 through which 5 penetrates) in the shell component (3), and the shell component (3) extends around the first end of the electrode (5).
Claim 32: modified Tian teaches the aerosol provision system according to claim 29, wherein the core component (fig. 4, #4) is in contact with the electrode (5).
Claim 34: modified Tian teaches the aerosol provision system according to claim 29, wherein the shell component (fig. 3-4, #3) is in contact with the vaporizer (2).
Claim 35: modified Tian teaches the aerosol provision system according to claim 29, wherein the core component (fig. 4, #4) is configured to be held in compression between ([45], the system is fastened together, so #4 is compressed between abutting #2 and #5 to some extent) the vaporizer (2) and the electrode (5).
Claim 36: modified Tian teaches the aerosol provision system according to claim 29, wherein the shell component (fig. 4, #3) is configured to be held in compression between ([45], the system is fastened together, so #3 is compressed between abutting #2 and #4 to some extent) the vaporizer (2) and a surface (topmost surface of 4) of the aerosol provision system.
Claim 38: modified Tian teaches the aerosol provision system according to claim 1, further comprising a porous member (fig. 4 and [47], #22) for use in holding aerosolizable material (e-liquid) to be vaporized using the vaporizer (2),
wherein the sealing member (3 and 4) at least partly supports the porous member (22), such that the sealing member (3 and 4) is configured to be held in compression between ([45], the system is fastened together, so #3 and #4 are compressed between abutting #22 and #5/#6 to some extent) the porous member (22) and a surface (surfaces of 5 and 6 which abut 4) of the aerosol provision system.
Claim 45: modified Tian teaches the aerosol provision system according to claim 36, wherein the shell component (fig. 4, #3) is configured to be held in compression ([45], the system is fastened together, so #3 is compressed between abutting #2 and #4 to some extent) between the vaporizer (2) and a surface (topmost surface of 4) adjacent to the electrode (5).
Claims 30 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian (CN 210137815 U cited on an IDS and with reference made to machine translation) in view of Stern (US 20140355969 A1) as applied to claim 29 in further view of Batista (WO 2017108912 A1).
Claims 30 and 33: modified Tian teaches the aerosol provision system according to claim 29, wherein the shell component (fig. 4, #3) is composed of silicone [45], and the core component (4) is made by ultrasonic processing [45].
Tian does not explicitly teach that at least one component is at least partially composed of a heat-resistant, electrically conductive composite material,
and the core component is composed of a heat-resistant, electrically conductive composite material.
Batista teaches an aerosol provision system (title) comprising a core component (fig. 6 and p. 30, lines 30-33, #515) that is composed of a heat-resistant (core component 515 seals a heat-transfer element 502 and therefore withstands heat from the heat-transfer element 502), electrically conductive (515 comprises aluminum) composite material, such that the aluminum facilitates an airtight seal (p. 9, lines 1-4) and the polymer layer can be heat-welded to the system (lines 1-4) in order to seal a cavity.
Batista’s benefits of forming an airtight and heat-weldable seal are agnostic to the intended use of Batista’s sealing component to yield expectation to succeed. One of ordinary skill looking to optimize all aspects of Tian would see Tian’s core component (fig. 4, #4) which fastens and seals the device [Tian 45] and be motivated to apply Batista’s sealing teachings.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use, as Tian’s core component composed of a generic material, Batista’s specific heat-resistant, electrically conductive composite material, because doing so would enable the aluminum layer to form an airtight seal, and would enable the polymer layer to be heat-welded to the system
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian (CN 210137815 U cited on an IDS and with reference made to machine translation) in view of Stern (US 20140355969 A1) as applied to claim 29 in further view of Anderson (US 20200000146 A1, hereinafter Anderson 1) and Anderson (US 20200000143 A1, hereinafter Anderson 2).
Claim 37: modified Tian teaches the aerosol provision system according to claim 29, wherein the core and shell components are installed together [45].
Tian does not explicitly teach that the core and shell components are co-molded.
Anderson 1 teaches an aerosol provision system (title) comprising a core component (fig. 2G and [257], #164) and a shell component (106) co-molded into sealing the system [257].
Anderson 2 teaches co-molding components in aerosol provision systems [252], such that parts count of the systems can be minimized in order to enable high-volume manufacturing [252].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use, as Tian’s generic installation method, Anderson 1’s co-molding method, because doing so is exemplified by Anderson 1 as installing components together, would minimize parts count in order to enable high-volume manufacturing as taught by Anderson 2, and would predictably install the core component and the shell component together to seal the device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments of 2026 June 22 have been carefully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (p. 6, [3]) that claim 1’s “end” should be defined as “a final part of something in its entirety” and that claim 1’s “surround” should be defined as “be everywhere around something”. However, applicant’s arguments for constructing claim terms in a certain way cannot take the place of making a broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the instant specification. See MPEP 2111.01(III): “the ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification… In re Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., 696 F.3d 1142, 1149-50, 104 USPQ2d 1337, 1342-43 (Fed. Cir. 2012)… In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260-61, 94 USPQ2d 1640, 1644 (Fed. Cir. 2010)… Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583, 39 USPQ2d 1573, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1996)… Malvern Panalytical Inc. v. TA Instruments-Waters LLC, 85 F.4th 1365, 1374-75, 2023 USPQ2d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2023).”
In particular, applicant’s argument for defining “surround” as “be everywhere around something” is inconsistent with the instant specification. With respect to electrode ends, the instant specification draws and describes that a location (fig. 5A and 6A and [70], #150) surrounds a first end of an electrode (cylindrical element surrounded by 150). The location (150) is “around” the electrode (cylindrical element surrounded by 150) along the electrode’s circumferential surface but not along the electrode’s planar surfaces. In other words, applicant’s own specification discloses the location as “surrounding” the electrode without being “everywhere around” the electrode.
The examiner maintains that Tian teaches a sealing member (Tian fig. 4 and [45], #3 and #4) configured to surround at least a first end of an electrode (5), and no disclosure in the instant specification has been identified to show otherwise.
PNG
media_image2.png
292
1101
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues (p. 5, [final paragraph] – p. 8, [final paragraph]) that Tian’s sealing member (Tian fig. 4 and [45], #3 and #4) does not completely surround a topmost end surface, a circumferential end surface, or a bottommost end surface of an electrode (5). However, as in the above analysis, claim 1 only requires that a sealing member be configured to surround an end of an electrode, which is broader than the interpretation upon which applicant’s arguments appear to hinge.
Applicant argues (p. 9) that Tian’s sealing member (fig. 4 and [45], #3 and #4) does not provide a barrier against contact of aerosolizable material with an electrode (5). However Tian’s sealing member (3 and 4) does provide barriers through which aerosolizable material cannot pass and thus cannot contact an electrode (5).
PNG
media_image2.png
292
1101
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues (p. 10, [1-3]) improved properties of claim 1 , e.g., preventing leakage without comprising manufacturing demands or consumer experience. However, Tian teaches the sealing structure of claim 1 and is presumed to yield the same property of preventing leakage. “The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious.” Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). See MPEP 2145(II).
Applicant argues (p. 11, [4]) that Tian addresses leakage during inhalation, while Stern addresses leakage into a battery. However, [Tian 5] cited by applicant describes a general state of the vaporizer art, not a specific effect achieved by Tian’s structure. Furthermore, applicant has not shown how preventing leakage during inhalation and preventing leakage into a battery are “completely different”, nor that such a difference would break the examiner’s proposed modification.
Tian’s e-liquid is absorbed in a cotton core (fig. 4 and [47], #22) and exposed to ambient moisture through the air channel (fig. 10 and [51], #43). One of ordinary skill would be motivated to add Stern’s one-way valve to Tian’s air channel, where both Tian and Stern have similar exposed liquid reservoirs, to yield Stern’s same benefit of preventing absorption of ambient moisture in order to preserve e-liquid viscosity, in addition to Stern’s same benefit of preventing flow into vaporizer electronics and internals.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 Tobey C. Le whose telephone number is (703)756-5516. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:30-18:30 ET.
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.
/TOBEY C LE/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights