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 .
Election/Restriction Response
Applicant’s election of Species 4 without traverse (claims 1, 5, 7-9, and 12-17) in the reply filed on 10/28/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The status of the 10/28/2025 claims, is as follows: Claim 12 has been amended; Claims 2-4, 6, 10-11, and 18-20 have been withdrawn; and Claims 1-20 are pending.
Note: Amendment to the specification filed on 10/28/2025 is found acceptable.
Information Disclosure Statement
The (1) information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/12/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 17: the phrase “a liquid transfer body” should be read “the liquid transfer body” because it is presumed to have antecedent basis in line 4 of claim 1 that recites “a liquid transfer body”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
In claim 1:
The limitation “a preheating part” in line 3
“part” is the generic placeholder.
“preheating” is the functional language.
The limitation “an atomization part” in line 4
“part” is the generic placeholder.
“atomization” is the functional language.
In claim 12:
The limitation “a transition part” in line 3
“part” is the generic placeholder.
“transition” is the functional language.
In claim 15:
The limitation “a fixing part” in line 2
“part” is the generic placeholder.
“fixing” is the functional language.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that, the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
The limitation “a preheating part” in line 3 of claim 1 has been described in the published specification in para. 0062 to include any structure to realize heating.
The limitation “an atomization part” in line 4 of claim 1 has been described in the published specification in para. 0053 to include any structure to realize heating.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 12, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 12:
The corresponding structure of “a transition part” in line 3 is not supported in the published disclosure as interpreted under 35 U.S.C 112(f). Therefore, since the Specification does not clearly identify what the corresponding structure of the “a transition part” is, there is a presumption that the applicant didn’t possess the invention at the time of filing, i.e. lack of written description.
In claim 15:
The corresponding structure of “a fixing part” in line 2 is not supported in the published disclosure as interpreted under 35 U.S.C 112(f). Therefore, since the Specification does not clearly identify what the corresponding structure of the “a fixing part” is, there is a presumption that the applicant didn’t possess the invention at the time of filing, i.e. lack of written description.
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 12, and 15-16 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 12:
The claim limitation “a transition part” in line 3 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, as noted above. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
In the original specification, “a transition part” in line 3 is not disclosed structurally. The proper structure must be disclosed in a way that one of ordinary skill in the art will understand what the inventor has identified to perform the recited function.
In claim 15:
The claim limitation “a fixing part” in line 2 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, as noted above. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
In the original specification, “a fixing part” in line 2 is not disclosed structurally. The proper structure must be disclosed in a way that one of ordinary skill in the art will understand what the inventor has identified to perform the recited function.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (US 20220071290) in view of Chen (US 20230276852)
Regarding Claim 1, Zhou discloses a heating mechanism (heating body 20; figs. 1-3) configured for heating in stages (“for heating in stages” is a statement of intended use), comprising a heating circuit (heating part 23) configured for evaporating liquid (liquid medium) (para. 0042), and electrodes (electrode wires 30) configured to be connected to a power supply unit (para. 0048. It is noted the electrode wires 30 are configured to be connected to the power supply to energize the heating part 23), wherein the heating circuit (heating part 23) comprises an atomization part (heating part 23) attached to or inlaid in an atomization surface of the liquid transfer body (atomization face 12 of porous ceramic matrix 10) (para. 0042; fig. 2);
at least the atomization part (heating part 23) is an integral structure (“the first fixing part 21, the second fixing part 22, and the heating part 23 are integrally formed, as one piece,”, para. 0042).
Zhou does not disclose at least the atomization part is matched and identical with the atomization surface of the liquid transfer body in shape and size.
However, Zhou further discloses in another embodiment shown in fig. 7 that at least the atomization part (heating part 23b) is matched and identical with the atomization surface of the liquid transfer body in shape and size (para. 0067; fig. 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the atomization surface of the liquid transfer body of Zhou (i.e. modify the atomization surface 12 of matrix 10) such that it is matched and identical with the atomization part as further taught by Zhou, in order to provide the corresponding grooves to accommodate the atomization part to securely mount the atomization part to the liquid transfer body.
Zhou does not disclose the heating circuit comprises a preheating part buried in the liquid transfer body;
the preheating part and the atomization part are connected in series and/or in parallel between the electrodes;
the preheating part and the atomization part are stacked, such that projections of the preheating part and the atomization part overlap entirely or partially; or, the preheating part and the atomization part are arranged in a ladder type, such that the projections of the preheating part and the atomization part do not overlap.
However, Chen discloses the heating circuit (heating module 200) comprises a preheating part (second heating portion that includes 212 and 213) buried in the liquid transfer body (“second heating portion is embedded in the liquid absorbing element,”, para. 0005 and also para. 0058 and 0061);
the preheating part (second heating portion that includes 212 and 213) and the atomization part (heating element 211) are connected in series between the electrodes (first connector 220 and second connector 230) (para. 0060);
the preheating part (second heating portion) and the atomization part (heating element 211) are stacked (fig. 2), such that projections of the preheating part and the atomization part overlap partially (fig. 2) (it is noted the second heating portion is connected to the heating element 211, therefore the projection of the second heating portion overlaps with the heating element 211 partially).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heating circuit of Zhou (i.e. heating part 23 of Zhou) to include the preheating part (second heating portion of Chen) buried in the liquid transfer body, wherein the preheating part and the atomization part are connected in series between the electrodes as taught by Chen, in order to utilize the preheating part to preheat the liquid such that the temperature of the liquid can be uniformly raised thereby improving the vaporization effect of the vaporizable liquid (para. 0040 of Chen).
Regarding Claim 5, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, except the preheating part and the atomization part are formed integrally to form an integral structure.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the preheating part (i.e. second heating portion that includes 212 and 213 of Chen) and the atomization part (heating part 23 of Zhou) such that they are formed integrally to form the integral structure (heating part formed integrally as a whole), since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation to provide convenience for installing the heating mechanism to the liquid transfer body because the heating mechanism is integrally formed.
Regarding Claim 7, Chen discloses the atomization part (first heating portion 211) is an integral structure (para. 0058; fig. 2), and the preheating part (second heating portion) is formed by multiple separate structures (sub-portions 212, 213) connected to the atomization part (para. 0058 and 0061), and the atomization part and the preheating part are stacked in a ladder type (para. 0064. It is noted the atomization part and the preheating part are stacked in the ladder type because they are arranged on a different planes to form 3-dimensional structure).
Regarding Claim 8, Chen discloses the preheating part (second heating portion that includes 212 and 213) and the atomization part (first heating portion 211) are each a combination of at least one of the planar structure and the curved structure (para. 0063; fig. 2) (according to Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/planar, accessed on 02/02/2026, “planar” is interpreted to mean relating to, or lying in a plane).
PNG
media_image1.png
421
623
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9, Chen discloses the preheating part (second heating portion that includes 212 and 213) and the atomization part (first heating portion 211) are each a combination of said planar structures (annotated fig. 2), an angle a is formed between the preheating part and the atomization part, and 90°≥α>0° (para. 0063; fig. 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
421
623
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 12, the modification discloses the preheating part (second heating portion of Chen) and the atomization part (heating part 23 of Zhou) are connected into an integral structure (porous ceramic matrix 10) through a transition part (first soldering part 231 and second soldering part 232) (para. 0048; fig. 3 of Zhou).
Regarding Claim 13, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, except a diameter or width of the atomization part is constant or basically constant; or, the diameter or width of the atomization part increases or decreases gradually or is regular with respect to a center of the heating mechanism.
However, Chen further discloses a diameter or width of the atomization part (first heating portion 211) is basically constant (fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the width of the atomization part of Zhou to be basically constant as further taught by Chen, in order to yield uniform heat across the vaporization surface of the porous ceramic matrix 10 thereby enhance the user’s experience of the atomization assembly.
Regarding Claim 14, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, except a distance between different positions of the atomization part is constant from one end to the other end, or decreases gradually from a middle to two ends of the atomization part, or increases gradually form the middle to the two ends of the atomization part.
However, Zhou further discloses a distance between different positions of the atomization part (first heating portion 211) is constant from one end to the other end (fig. 2).
PNG
media_image3.png
418
594
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the atomization part of Zhou such that the difference between different positions is constant from one end to the other end as further taught by Chen, in order to yield uniform heat across the vaporization surface of the porous ceramic matrix 10.
Regarding Claim 15, Zhou discloses the atomization part (heating part 23) is connected to a fixing part (first soldering part 231 and second soldering part 232) configured for fixedly attaching the atomization part to the atomization surface of the liquid transfer body (para. 0064).
Regarding Claim 16, Zhou discloses at least one said fixing part (first soldering part 231 and second soldering part 232) is arranged and is disposed at least on an edge of the atomization part (heating part 23) (para. 0048).
Regarding Claim 17, Zhou discloses an atomization device (atomization assembly 1), comprising a liquid transfer body (porous ceramic matrix 10), and the heating mechanism (heating body 20) according to claim 1, wherein the heating mechanism is inlaid in or attached to a surface of the liquid transfer body (para. 0038; fig. 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BONITA KHLOK whose telephone number is (571)270-7313. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00am-6pm.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached on (571)272-9059. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BONITA KHLOK/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner,
Art Unit 3761