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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-3, 8-22 are pending and are subject to this office action. Claim 2 is amended. Claims 4-7 are canceled. Claims 20-22 are new.
Examiner Comment
Claim 19 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 in the Non-Final Rejection dated 02/02/2026 but was incorrectly listed with the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejections. Claim 19 has been correctly listed under the 35 U.S.C. 103 heading below. The grounds for rejection of claim 19 remains unchanged.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s response filed on 04/30/2026 containing amendments and remarks to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 7, filed 04/30/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 4-7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has canceled claims 4-7. Therefore, the rejection of claims 4-7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 7, filed 04/30/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claim 1 recites “a direction towards the liquid reservoir”, whereas claim 17 which depends from claim 1 recites “the direction”. It remains unclear if the direction recited in claim 17 is the same direction towards the liquid reservoir in claim 1 or a different direction. Therefore, the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 7-8, filed 04/30/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 4-7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has canceled claims 4-7. Therefore, the rejection of claims 4-7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8-10, filed 04/30/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and but they are not persuasive.
On pg. 9, Applicant argues that Duque discloses the core part (408, Fig. 4) has higher void volume and oil carrying capacity but does not disclose the core part has higher liquid transfer capability. The Examiner disagrees. The specification appears to disclose a core part with a higher liquid transfer capability, such as the core part having a lower density, higher porosity, or higher wettability than the outer cover part ([0094]). The limitation, “higher liquid transfer capability” is interpreted as having the ability to transfer and hold more liquid. Therefore, the core part having a higher void volume for holding liquid vaporizable material is considered to be a material having a higher porosity and therefore a higher liquid transfer capability (Fig. 4, [0038-0039, 0059, 0064]).
On pg. 10, Applicant argues the claimed wick is structurally different than the wick disclosed by Duque. The Examiner disagrees. Claim 1 merely requires a core part and outer cover part having a higher liquid transfer capability than the core part. Claim 1 does not specify materials, porosity or void volume values, or liquid transfer rates for the core part or outer cover part. It has not been persuasively shown that the wick disclosed by Duque is structurally or compositionally different than the claimed invention and therefore the rejection is maintained.
The prior art rejections below are maintained and modified based on Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the direction” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because it the first mention of a direction. Claim 1 recites a direction towards the liquid reservoir. It is unclear if the direction recited in claim 17 is the same direction towards the liquid reservoir in claim 1 or a different direction. For the purposes of examination, “the direction” will be interpreted as the direction toward the liquid reservoir, as recited in claim 1.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 8-9, 12, 15-18, and 20-22 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Duque (US 20180177240 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Duque discloses a cartridge (200, “aerosol generating device”, Fig. 3) comprising:
A reservoir (106, 206, i.e. a liquid supply part comprising a liquid reservoir) configured to supply and store a liquid vaporizable material (104) within a predetermined internal space (Fig. 1, Fig. 3, [0005, 0023, 0026, 0029]),
A wick (103, 203) disposed below a portion of the reservoir (106, 206) which draws liquid vaporizable material (104) to a heating chamber/vaporization space disposed within an airpath (105, 205, Fig. 1, Fig. 3, [0024-0026, 0029]),
A heating coil (102, 202, “vaporization element”) wrapped around the wick (103, 203) which is heated to vaporize the liquid vaporizable material (Fig. 1, Fig. 3, [0024, 0029]),
An air path (205) extending from inlets (215) to an outlet at the mouthpiece piece (209) which allows aerosol generated in the heating chamber/vaporization space to move toward a mouthpiece (209, Fig. 3, [0024-0026, 0029]),
The wick (103, 203, 403) comprises a conductive core (408, “core part”) and a porous wicking material (407, “outer cover part”) that surrounds the conductive core (408, Fig. 4, [0037]), and;
The conductive core (408) is formed of stainless steel wires having an increased void volume for holding liquid vaporizable material (Fig. 4, [0038-0039, 0059, 0064]) which is considered to be a core part having a higher liquid transfer capability than the outer cover part.
The portion of the heating coil (102, “vaporization element”) wrapping over the top of the wick (103, 403) is above a portion of the outer cover part (407) and a portion of the core part (408) in a direction toward the liquid reservoir (106) and the outer cover part (407) is disposed between the portion of the heating coil (102, “vaporization element”) and the core part (408, Fig. 1, Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
614
1108
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“Formed in a non-linear structure” is interpreted as at least a portion of the inlet, outlet, and vaporization element not being disposed on a vertical line. Therefore, an inlet (215) of the airflow path (205), an outlet (defined by outlet at mouthpiece 209) of the airflow path (205) , and the heating coil/vaporization element (102) disposed around the wick (103, 203) are formed in a non-linear structure (Fig. 1, Fig. 3, [0028-0029]).
Regarding claim 2, the core part being made of a material having a lower density than the outer cover part is considered to be the mass of the core part per unit volume of the core part being lower than the mass of the cover part per unit volume of the cover part.
Duque does not explicitly disclose the density of the conductive core (408, “core part”) and a porous wicking material (407, “outer cover part”). However, Duque discloses:
A conductive core (408) formed of stainless steel wires, containing 1-10,000 strands, the strands having a diameter of 0.005-9mm ([0038, 0051-0052]),
A porous wicking material (407, “outer cover part”) formed of silica fibers, containing 17,000 strands, the strands having a diameter of 0.009mm ([0038]),
The outer diameter of the overall wick may be 2mm and the outer diameter of the conductive core may be 1.5mm ([0038]), and;
The length of the wick may be 0.5 to 30 mm ([0051]).
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art could have reasonably arrived at an embodiment where the density of the core part is less than the density of the outer cover part.
Regarding claim 3, “Formed in a non-linear structure” is interpreted as at least a portion of the vaporization element, wick, and inlet not being disposed on a vertical line. Therefore, the heating coil/vaporization element (102) disposed around the wick (103, 203) and an inlet (215) of the airflow path (205) are formed in a non-linear structure (Fig. 1, Fig. 3, [0028-0029]).
Regarding claim 8, Duque discloses the heating coil (102, 202, “vaporization element”) is wrapped around the wick (103, 203) which is heated to vaporize the supplied liquid vaporizable material (104) Fig. 1, Fig. 3, [0024, 0029]).
Regarding claim 9, Duque discloses an airflow path extending from inlets (215) formed in the bottom of the cartridge to an outlet at the mouthpiece (209) where an absorbent pad (219) for soaking up leaked liquid vaporizable material (i.e. a liquid absorber) is disposed on an inner wall of the airflow path (Fig. 3, [0029]).
Regarding claim 12, Duque discloses an airflow path extending from inlets (215) formed in the bottom of the cartridge to an outlet at the mouthpiece (209, Fig. 3) where an absorbent pad (219) is disposed in the airflow path ([0029]). The airflow path passing by an absorbent pad is considered to meet the claim limation of an obstacle disposed inside the airflow path.
Regarding claim 15, Duque discloses the conductive core (408, “core part”) is formed of stainless steel wires and the porous wicking material (407, “outer cover part”) is formed of silica fibers (Fig. 4, [0037-0038]).
Regarding claim 16, Duque discloses the outer cover part (407) covers the outer circumferential surface of the core part (408, Fig. 4, [0040]) and that the ends of the wick may be covered by the outer cover part (407, [0049]) which is considered to be the outer cover part covering an entirety of the core part.
Regarding claim 17, Duque discloses the core part (408) is a central part of the wick (403) in a direction towards the liquid supply part, and the outer cover part (407) is on the upper and lower surface of the core part (408, Fig. 4, [0040]).
Regarding claim 18, Duque discloses a heating coil (102, “vaporization element”) is wrapped around the wick (103, 403) such that a first portion of the heating coil (102) is on an upper surface of the outer cover part (407) and above the core part (408) and a second portion of the heating coil (102) is on a lower surface of the outer cover part (407) below the core part (408, Fig. 1, Fig. 3, [0024, 0039-0040]).
Regarding claim 20, the core part being made of a material having a higher porosity than the outer cover part is interpreted as the core part having a higher proportion of void volume than the outer cover part.
Duque discloses the conductive core (408) is formed of stainless steel wires having an increased void volume for holding liquid vaporizable material (Fig. 4, [0038-0039, 0059, 0064]). An increased void volume is considered to be higher porosity.
Regarding claim 21, Duque discloses the conductive core (408) is formed of stainless steel wires and the porous wicking material (407) is formed of silica fibers (Fig. 4, [0038-0039]). A material with a higher wettability is interpreted as a material with a higher surface energy, such that liquids have a tendency to spread/wet the surface. A person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect stainless steel to have a higher surface energy/wettability than silica fibers, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 22, Duque discloses the porous wicking material (407) surrounds the conductive core (408) on the radial sides and the conductive core (408) may be exposed at the ends to aid in heating of the vaporizable material ([0040, 0049]). The heating element (102, 202, “vaporization element”) is disposed on a central portion of the wick (103 Fig. 1, 203 Fig. 3, 403 Fig. 4, [0024]). Therefore, porous wicking material (407, “outer cover part”) is only disposed at the central region of the wick (103, 203, 403) where the heating element (102, 202) is disposed (Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Fig. 4).
The Examiner notes that claim 22 does not require the outer cover part (252) comprise a gap between the windings of the heating element (26) such that the core part (251) is exposed between the windings of the heating element (26) as shown in Fig. 9 of the specification ([0103]).
Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duque (US 20180177240 A1) in view of Dickens (US 20170143038 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Duque discloses an airflow path (215, 205) extending through the cartridge and an absorbent pad (219) disposed on an inner wall of the airflow path (Fig. 3, [0028-0029]).
Duque does not explicitly disclose a surface treatment for increasing wettability on a specific region of the inner wall of the airflow path in the same region as the liquid absorber.
However, Dickens, directed to an aerosol provision system (abstract), discloses:
A cartomizer (30) comprising an air passage (355) defining an air channel (Fig. 3, [0032-0034]).
At least a portion of the inner wall surface (portion 368 surrounded by reservoir 360) of the air channel (355) is provided with a surface finish to increase wettability which encourages condensate on the inner wall to form a film and lowers the likelihood of the liquid being drawn through the air channel and inhaled by the user (Fig. 3, [0034, 0042-0044]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Duque, by including a surface finish to increase wettability on the inner wall surface of the air channel that is surrounded by the reservoir as taught by Dickens because both Duque and Dickens are directed to aerosol generating devices, Dickens teaches the surface finish lowers the likelihood of the liquid being drawn through the air channel and inhaled by the user, and this involves applying a known surface finish to a mouthpiece air channel in a similar device to yield predictable results.
The portion of the airflow path extending from the inlets (Duque: 215) to the reservoir (Duque: 206) is considered a specific region and therefore applying the surface treatment (Dickens: [0034]) to the portion of the airflow path surrounded by the reservoir (Duque: 206) is considered to be the same specific region as the liquid absorber (Duque: 219, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 13, Duque discloses an airflow path (205, 215) extending through the cartridge (Fig. 3, [0028-0029]).
Duque does not explicitly disclose a surface treatment for increasing wettability on at least a partial region of an inner wall of the airflow path.
However, Dickens, directed to an aerosol provision system (abstract), discloses:
A cartomizer (30) comprising an air passage (355) defining an air channel (first portion 368, second portion 369) between a heater (365) and a mouthpiece opening (369), and a liquid reservoir (360 Fig. 3, [0032-0034]).
At least a portion of the inner wall surface of the air channel (368, 370) is provided with a surface finish to increase wettability which encourages condensate on the inner wall to form a film and lowers the likelihood of the liquid being drawn through the air channel and inhaled by the user (Fig. 3, [0034, 0042-0044]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Duque by including a surface finish to increase wettability on the inner wall surface of the air channel as taught by Dickens because both Duque and Dickens are directed to aerosol generating devices, Dickens teaches the surface finish lowers the likelihood of the liquid being drawn through the air channel and inhaled by the user, and this involves applying a known surface finish to an air channel in a similar device to yield predictable results.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duque (US 20180177240 A1) in view of Saygili (US 20220015433 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Duque discloses an air path (105, 215, 205) extending through the cartridge (Fig. 1, Fig. 3, [0024-0026, 0029]).
Duque does not explicitly disclose a mesh element disposed in the airflow path.
However, Saygili, directed to an aerosol generating system (abstract, Fig. 1), discloses:
An airflow passage (22) extending from an air inlet (16) to an air outlet (28, Fig. 1, [0076])
An air outlet filter (26) comprises a mesh which prevents liquid droplets greater than a particular diameter from leaving the atomization chamber (23, Fig. 1, [0079])
The outlet filter (26) prevents large liquid droplets from escaping the atomization chamber (23) towards the air outlet (28), as large droplets provide an unpleasant experience for the user (Fig. 1, [0087])
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Duque by providing an air outlet filter comprising a mesh in the airflow path as taught by Saygili because both Duque and Saygili are directed to aerosol generating devices, Saygili teaches the filter prevents large droplets from reaching the user and providing an unpleasant taste, and this involves applying a known filter in air channel in a similar aerosol generating device to yield predictable results.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duque (US 20180177240 A1) in view of in view of Riva Reggori (US 20200397054 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Duque discloses the cartridge may be configured for use with a vaporizer body having control circuitry ([0073]).
Duque does not explicitly disclose the electronic cigarette comprises a controller to control power in response to a degree of droplet formation.
However, Riva Reggori, directed to an aerosol generating device (abstract), discloses:
An aerosol generating device (20) configured to receive an aerosol generating article (100), comprising a heating element (26), an electrical energy supply (30), an aerosol sensor (40), and controller (27, Fig. 1a, [0064-0065, 0068, 0082])
The aerosol sensor is an optical particle sizer (40) that measures droplet quantity and droplet size (Fig. 1a, [0082]). When the droplet quantity or size drops, the controller (27) reduces the power supply to the heating element (26, [0082]) which is considered to be controlling power supplied to the vaporization element based on an estimate degree of droplet formation.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Duque by including an optical particle sizer and a configuring a controller in the control circuitry to respond to feedback from the optical particle sizer as taught by Riva Reggori because both Duque and Riva Reggori are directed to aerosol generating devices, Riva Reggori teaches that the feedback loop between the controller and optical particle sizer controls the droplet size and quantity, and this involves applying a known controller and sensor to a similar device to yield predictable results.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duque (US 20180177240 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Duque discloses the overall wick (403) diameter may be 0.5 to 5mm (Fig. 4, [0038]). It is recognized that if the overall wick diameter which includes both the core part (408) and outer cover part (407) is less than 5mm, then the thickness of the outer cover part (407) is in a range that overlaps with the claimed range of less than or equal to 5mm and is therefore is considered prima facie obvious.
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 MORGAN FAITH DEZENDORF whose telephone number is (571)272-0155. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-430pm EST.
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.
/M.F.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights