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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/17/2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-19 are pending and are subject to this office action. Claim 1 is currently amended and claims 15-19 are new.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s response filed on 11/17/2025 containing amendments and remarks to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8-9, filed 11/17/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended claim 1 to require a portion of the vaporization element is above a portion of the core part and outer cover part in a direction toward the liquid reservoir and the portion of the outer cover part is between the portion of the vaporization element and the core part in a direction toward the liquid reservoir, which was not previously presented. Liu discloses the vaporization element (32) is positioned below the wick (22, Fig. 1, Fig. 2). Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art.
The prior art rejections below are modified where necessitated by 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.
Claims 4-7, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the vaporization element vaporizes the supplied liquid aerosol forming substrate through ultrasonic vibrations” in lines 1-2. It is unclear if the vaporization element in claim 4 is the same vaporization element in claim 1 or a separate vaporization element. The specification appears to disclose an embodiment where the vaporization element (17) vaporizes the liquid aerosol forming substrate by ultrasonic vibrations (Fig. 2-6, [0047]) and another embodiment where the vaporization element (26) vaporizes the liquid aerosol forming substrate by heating (Fig. 7-9, [0079]). The specification does not appear to disclose an embodiment where a portion of the vaporization element is above the outer cover part and core part in a direction towards the liquid reservoir as required by claim 1 and vaporizes by ultrasonic vibrations as required by claim 4. The specification does not appear to disclose an embodiment having more than one vaporization element. For the purposes of examination, the vaporization element in claim 4 will be interpreted as the same vaporization element as the vaporization element in claim 1.
Claims 5-7 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 4.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4-7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 4 requires the vaporization element vaporizes the liquid aerosol forming substrate by ultrasonic vibrations. The specification appears to disclose an embodiment where the vaporization element (17) vaporizes the liquid aerosol forming substrate by ultrasonic vibrations (Fig. 2-6, [0047]) and another embodiment where the vaporization element (26) vaporizes the liquid aerosol forming substrate by heating (Fig. 7-9, [0079]). The specification does not appear to disclose an embodiment where a portion of the vaporization element is above the outer cover part and core part in a direction towards the liquid reservoir as required by claim 1 and vaporizes by ultrasonic vibrations as required by claim 4. The vaporization element cannot be positioned above the core part and outer cover part of the wick in the direction towards the liquid reservoir and vaporize by ultrasonic vibrations. Therefore, claim 4 fails to further limit the vaporization element in claim 1 from which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements.
Claims 5-7 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 4.
A prior art rejection for claims 4-7 is precluded because claims 4-7 appear to be directed to a separate embodiment than amended claim 1 and satisfying the limitations of claims 4-7 would contradict the amended limitations of amendment 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, and 15-19 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, 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 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 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.
The prior art rejections of claim 4-7 are precluded by the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as discussed above.
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.
Conclusion
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