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/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 23-37 and 39) in the reply filed on 12-8-25 is acknowledged. Claims 38 and 40-44 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions (Group II -- drawn to a cartridge -- claim 38; Group III -- drawn to a method of manufacturing a vaporizer device -- claims 40-44), there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 23, 30, and 32 are objected to because of the following informalities: (a) claim 23, “the” should be inserted before “liquid” (Ln10 Ln15), (b) claim 30, “an” should be inserted after “in” (Ln2), and (c) claim 32, “receiving the wick structure” should be inserted after “opening” (Ln6).
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure:
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is more than one paragraph. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text (MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 28, 32 and 35-36 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 28 is considered to be indefinite in that “the areal extent” (Ln2) lacks antecedent basis in that an areal extent has been previously defined in claim 28 or in claim 23 from which claim 28 depends.
Claim 32 is considered to be indefinite in that the claim depends from claim 1 which has been cancelled. For the purpose of examination, claim 32 is considered to depend from claim 23 given that the preamble of claim 32 recites the “vaporizer device” and refers to structures recited in claim 23: the vaporizer film, the liquid reservoir, and the wick structure.
Claim 35 is considered to be indefinite in that “the base surface of the vaporizer film” (Ln4) lacks antecedent basis. Specifically, claim 23 (from which claim 35 ultimately depends) recites “a base surface” (Lns12-13). Claim 34, (from which claim 35 directly depends) recites that the base surface is a partial shell surface of a cylinder (Ln2) wherein the antecedent herein is “a base surface” in claim 23 (Lns12-13). In view of this, “the base surface of the vaporizer film” (claim 35, Ln4) lacks antecedent basis because claims 34 and 23 do not indicate that the base surface is “of the vaporizer film”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 23, 27-29, 31, 33, 37, and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lauenstein (US 2021/0235760 A1) in view of Richmond (US 2020/0037662 A1).
Claims 23, 27, 29, 31, 33, and 37: Lauenstein teaches a vaporizer device (“for an inhaler” -- it is noted that this claim limitation refers to an intended use of the claimed device and is not considered to provide a structural feature to the claim device (i.e. claimed structure) – although the vaporizer device of Lauenstein is for an inhaler) (claim 37) (¶1 ¶67 Fig1) comprising:
●vaporizer film 331 (film 331 is a vaporizer-film in that film 333 (Lauenstein: sheet 333) (which
is part of film 331and is discussed below) heats and vaporizes a liquid) (¶77 Lns1-4)
●film 331 comprises a layer system comprising the film 333 and film 353
(Lauenstein: sheet 353) (¶73 Lns1-3; ¶74 Lns1-2; Fig3A annotated below)
●film 333 makes surface contact with film 353 (in that films
333 and 353 form a closed position where a plurality of apertures 356 of film 353 are closed by a solid region of film 333) (¶74 Lns6-8; ¶75)
●film 333 is designed as a heating element (in that film 333
heats and vaporizes the liquid) (¶77 Lns1-4)
●film 331 is positioned as shown in Figure 1 (i.e. at the same location as
electric heater 30) (¶68 Lns6-7; ¶71 Lns1-5; ¶73 Lns2-4)
●film 331 comprises at least one first receiving opening 356 (i.e. the
apertures 356 of film 353: ¶74 Lns6-8) for receiving the liquid (¶74 Lns9-12) and at least one dispensing opening 336 for dispensing vaporized liquid (¶73 Lns8-14)
●liquid reservoir 24 (¶68 Lns1-4; Fig1)
●wick structure 27 (¶68; Lns4-6) arranged to supply film 331 with the liquid from
reservoir 24 (¶68 Lns7-9)
PNG
media_image1.png
522
738
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Film 331 is in contact with structure 27 via a base surface. Specifically, Lauenstein recites the following: “wherein the electric heater is arranged on an outer surface of the capillary body” (¶5 Lns9-10). The electric heater being referenced is film 331 and the capillary body being referenced is structure 27. Thus, film 331 is arranged on an outer surface of structure 27. With respect to “via a base surface” in claim 23 (Lns12-13), the outer surface of structure 27 is a base surface which is flat (claim 33) (Fig3A annotated below).
PNG
media_image2.png
629
738
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Film 331 forms at least one supply channel 354 (¶74 Lns1-4). Specifically, film 353 is corrugated -- having a series of parallel ridges and grooves (¶s14-15). The grooves form channel(s) 354 for conducting the liquid. As illustrated in Figure 3A, the channel(s) 354 extend longitudinally along the Z-axis (claim 29 (Ln3): Z-axis = “main flow direction”). By way of channel(s) 354, opening(s) 356 are supplied, by capillary forces (claim 31) with the liquid from structure 27 and the liquid is conducted through channel(s) 354 (¶74 Lns5-12; ¶76) (Fig3A annotated below). Other locations within reference may be included in the above recited locations (paragraphs, drawing, abstract, claims) to demonstrate further the features in the reference as claimed in the instant claims.
Claim 23: Lauenstein does not teach that heating-and-vaporizing-and-apertured film 331 comprises a polymer film and a metal foil (claim-23 Lns2-3), i.e. that films 333 and 353 comprise a polymer film and a metal foil.
Richmond teaches a vaporizer device for an inhaler (¶s1-4 ¶9 Fig3) comprising vaporizer film 14 designed as a heating element (film 14 is a vaporizer-film in that it heats and vaporizes liquid 18) (¶27; ¶50 L10; ¶57 Lns1-6). Film 14 comprises a plurality of apertures 25 (i.e. “receiving openings” claim-23 Lns9-10) for receiving liquid 18 and a plurality of dispensing openings (i.e. exit hole of openings 25) for dispensing vaporized liquid (¶27; ¶57 Lns1-4; Fig6). The vaporizer device comprises liquid reservoir 15 (¶50 Lns9-10) and a push structure (comprising at least concentrate pushers 17) arranged to supply film 14 with liquid 18 from reservoir 15 (¶56; ¶57 Lns1-6). Film 14, having openings 25, is of a material containing metal, ceramic, polymer, composites or a combination thereof (¶44 Lns15-20) wherein these features (apertures and materials) help to distribute heat evenly across the heating-and-vaporizing-and-apertured film 14 (¶37 Lns1-6) which reduces the amount of wasted liquid 18 (¶49 Lns1-5).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have provided in Lauenstein that heating-and-vaporizing-and-apertured film 331 (i.e. films 333 and 353) are of a material containing both a metal and a polymer in that Richmond teaches (in the same art as Lauenstein) that such helps to distribute heat evenly across a heating-and-vaporizing-and-apertured film of a vaporizer device.
It is noted that a film of a polymer or of a metal (giving the two the broadest reasonable interpretation) in the instant specification allows for other materials to be present in each film such that a polymer film may also include a metal -- and a metal film may also include a polymer. Given that the instant specification does not indicate that a particular amount of polymer (or metal) must be present for the film to be considered a polymer film (or a metal film), the metal-and-polymer film of Richmond (modifying Lauenstein) can interchangeably be referred to as a metal film or as a polymer film -- and given that a particular polymer or metal is not claimed.
With respect to the claimed metal film being a foil and the claimed polymer being a film (claim-23, Ln3), the instant specification uses the term “film” and “foil” interchangeably (for example, page 4 at lines 18-21) and the instant specification does not limit the film (foil) to any particular thickness. Giving the terms their broadest reasonable interpretation: a film (and a foil) is generally a thin material in sheet form of any size or length or width. Thus, sheets 333 and 353 are considered to be films and are also considered to be foils in that each are generally a thin material in sheet form.
Claim 28: with respect to the percentage of the areal extent of film 331 forming channel(s) 354, the percentage to which one skilled in the art would consider is a function of, among other variables, the size of the space occupied by the vaporizer film, the composition of the vaporizer film, the diameter of the openings of the vaporizer film, and heating pressure and temperature. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have optimized the percentage of the areal extent of film 331 forming channel(s) 354 (in Lauenstein modified) which one skilled in the art would consider based on known variables, such as those listed (for example); and thus, the claimed percentage cannot be considered critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum and workable ranges by routine experimentation,” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 195). Also, “It is a well settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same this as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results that prior inventions.” In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929). See MPEP 2144.05 II.A.
Also for claim 29: the main flow direction encloses an angle between 0o and 90o with the base surface which overlaps the claimed range of 30o to 150o (Fig3A annotated below).
PNG
media_image3.png
406
549
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 39: Lauenstein (modified as above with respect to claim 23) teaches a method for operating the vaporizer device comprising: providing the vaporizer device according to claim 23 and providing an electrical heating voltage to film 331 to generate the vaporized liquid – by way of a battery (¶67).
Claim(s) 24-26 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lauenstein (US 2021/0235760 A1) in view of Richmond (US 2020/0037662 A1) as applied to claim(s) 23, 27-29, 31, 33, 37, and 39 above and further in view of Thorens (US 2011/0155153 A1).
Claims 24 and 30: Lauenstein (modified) does not teach that channels 356 are formed by folds of films 333 and 353.
Thorens teaches a vaporizer device 201 for an inhaler (¶4; ¶86 Ln2 to ¶87 Ln12; ¶92 Lns1-2; Fig1 Fig2 Fig3) comprising metallic vaporizer film 207 designed as a heating element (film 207 is a vaporizer in that it heats and vaporizes liquid 115; 207 is a thin material in sheet form having a small width (as in a strip) and is thus considered to be a film or foil; ¶65 refers to “thin heating elements (Lns8-9); also see ¶103 and discussion of sheet-form and other cut forms), liquid reservoir 113 (¶86 Ln10), and wick structure 117 (¶87 Lns10-11) arranged to supply vaporizer 207 with liquid 115 from reservoir 113 (¶87 Lns1-12).
It is noted that Thorens illustrates, in Figure 8, vaporizer 807 having a sinusoidal wave shape (i.e. has a plurality of thin curved edges at the peaks and troughs) (¶s124-126) which is the same shape as films 333 and 353 in Lauenstein (discussed above). Thorens illustrates, in Figure 7, vaporizer 707 having a triangular wave shape (i.e. has a plurality of thin folding edges at the peaks and troughs) (¶120). Also, Thorens illustrates, in Figure 2, vaporizer 207 having elongated portions 208 and transverse portions 210 wherein 210 is where vaporizer 207 forms a plurality of thin folding edges (¶s92-93).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have provided in Lauenstein (modified) that channels 354 are formed by folds of films 333 and 353 in that Thorens teaches (in the same art as Lauenstein and Richmond) that a vaporizer having a triangular wave shape (and a vaporizer having the shape in Figure 2 of Thorens) is a well-known and conventional alternative to a vaporizer having a sinusoidal wave shape (as in Lauenstein) where it is obvious to replace one vaporizer shape with another art recognized alternative vaporizer shape where successful results have been demonstrated. Also, it has been held a configuration of the claimed structure is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed structure was significant (MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B)).
Claim 25: in Lauenstein (modified) the folds comprises two opposing folding surfaces which are connected to one another via at least one folding edge (see Figures 2 and 7 of Thorens annotated below where Thorens modifies Lauenstein (modified)).
Figure 2 Figure 7
PNG
media_image4.png
513
329
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
418
335
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As illustrated in Figure 2 of Thorens (and thus in Lauenstein modified), 100% of the two opposing folding surfaces are aligned parallel to each other wherein 100% falls within the claimed range of at least 20%.
Claim 26: in Lauenstein (modified) a plurality of folds are provided (Fig2 Lauenstein in view of Fig2 Thorens discussed above). The folds are spaced apart by an intermediate portion (see transverse portions 210 – Fig2 of Thorens) of films 331, 333, and 353.
Claim 30: Lauenstein (modified) teaches an extension of channel(s) 354 in an orthogonal direction with respect to the base surface (Fig2 of Thorens illustrates elongated portions 208 where each forms and “extension”: Fig2 Lauenstein in view of Fig2 Thornes discussed above). With respect to the claimed height of the extensions to which one skilled in the art would consider is a function of, among other variables, the size of the space occupied by the vaporizer film, the composition of the vaporizer film, and the extension of the intermediate portions. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have optimized the height of the extensions (in Lauenstein modified) which one skilled in the art would consider based on known variables, such as those listed above (for example); and thus, the height of the extensions cannot be considered critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum and workable ranges by routine experimentation,” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 195). Also, “It is a well settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same this as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results that prior inventions.” In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929). See MPEP 2144.05 II.A.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 32 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, (and any objection(s)) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claim 32, the closest prior art of record to Lauenstein, alone or in combination with the other prior art of record, does not teach or fairly suggest providing a support element, on an upper side of which the vaporizer film is arranged, and on a lower side of which the liquid reservoir is arranged, wherein an opening is provided for receiving the wick structure, wherein the opening receiving the wick structure fluidically connects the upper side to the lower side.
Claim 34 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 35-36 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, (and any objection(s)) set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claim 34, the closest prior art of record to Lauenstein, alone or in combination with the other prior art of record, does not teach or fairly suggest that the base surface is a partial shell surface of a cylinder. In Lauenstein the shell surface of cylinder 22 is separated from wick structure 27 (¶68 Ln1; Fig1).
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Prior Art of Record
The following prior art is made of record: Poston teaches an atomizer having a liquid storage, capillary wick, and a heater. Tucker teaches an e-vaping device having a wick surrounded by a sine-wave shaped heater.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDA GRAY whose telephone number is (571) 272-5778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9 AM to 5:30 PM.
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, Phil Tucker can be reached at (571) 272-1095. 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.
/LINDA L GRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745