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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to claims 1-6, 9, and 11-20, cancellation of claims 7-8 and 10, and supporting remarks filed 10/20/2025 (“Amendment”) have been entered. Accordingly, the claim objections, claim rejections under 35 USC 102 and 112, and claim rejections for double patenting are withdrawn or rendered moot. The Examiner appreciates Applicant’s amendments and remarks which have clarified the claimed structure, particularly the meaning of “integrated” in the “integrated vaporizing assembly” (Amendment p. 6-7). However, new claim rejections under 35 USC 103 are necessitated by the amendment. Claims 1-6, 9, and 11-20 remain pending and are examined herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejections under 35 USC 102-103 (Amendment p. 7-11) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that amended claim 1 is novel and has inventive step over Yuan (Amendment p. 8-10). The Examiner respectfully disagrees because Yuan renders amended claim 1 obvious (i.e., amended claim 1 lacks an inventive step). Applicant correctly points out that Yuan fails to disclose some of the claimed features (Amendment p. 8-9). However, these allegedly distinguishing features are merely changes in shape, rearrangements of parts, or are otherwise obvious in view of Yuan as set forth in the rejection of amended claim 1 below. Applicant argues that the claimed vaporizer avoids leakage caused by deformation or poor sealing of the vaporizing core base and therefore demonstrates an inventive step over the prior art (Amendment p. 10-11), but Yuan similarly seeks to avoid liquid leakage (Yuan [0005]).
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1 and 20 each introduce a “battery part” and components thereof. However, the claims are directed to a “vaporizer”, the housing of which is configured to be connected with the battery part as recited in claim 1. The claims do not positively recite the battery part as a component of the vaporizer. Therefore, for purposes of examination, the “battery part” is not considered to be a required element in claims 1-20 because it does not make up any part of the claimed vaporizer structure. See MPEP 2115; see also in re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). Similarly, the “electronic vaporization device” of claims 1-20 and the “further magnet or magnetic material provided on the battery part” of claim 20 are not considered to be required claim elements for purposes of examination. These features have patentable weight in claims 1-20 only to the extent that they dictate the structure of the claimed vaporizer and its components.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, 9, 11-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan (CN 211482973 U, US 2023/0000154 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Yuan is directed to an atomization assembly and electronic cigarette (Title).
The atomization assembly includes an e-liquid storage sleeve 11 (“a housing” as claimed) [0027], which has a mouthpiece end with a mouthpiece and an open connecting end as shown in Figs. 2-3, reproduced below. The mouthpiece extends inward and is integrally formed with the tube body portion 112 (“vapor outlet tube”), as shown in Figs. 2-3.
The storage sleeve 11 and atomization assembly are connectable to a battery assembly to form the electronic cigarette (“which allows connection with a battery part to form an electronic vaporization device”) ([0042], Figs. 1-3).
The atomization assembly includes numerous components disposed within the sleeve 11 (which together form the claimed “integrated vaporizing assembly”) ([0027], Figs. 2-3).
A sealing seat 12 and blocking seat 14 (together a “vaporizing core base”), a porous body 2 and heating element 3 (together a “vaporizing core”), and a fixing seat 13 (“base part”) are arranged within the sleeve 11 ([0027], Figs. 2-3).
The sealing seat 12 is sleeved over the porous body 2 to provide an atomization channel c (“cavity”) ([0028, 0037], Figs. 2-3).
The porous body 2 (“vaporizing core body”) and heating element 3 (“heating resistance”) adsorb and atomize e-liquid [0031].
The porous body 2 has an air hole 26 (“vaporizing passage”) in communication with the atomization channel c [0037]. An air inlet 132 draws air into an air inlet channel (“air chamber”) below the porous body 2 ([0030, 0037], Figs. 2-3).
The fixing seat 13 is installed on an end of the sleeve 11 and seals the end ([0029], Figs. 2-3).
The sealing seat 12 and blocking seat 14 may be arbitrarily divided into three sections, with the second perforation 122 defining an upper section (the circular cross-section reads on the “tube-like connector”), a middle section of the sealing seat 12 sheathed within the sleeve 11 [0028], and a lower section of the blocking seat 14 connected to an inner wall of the fixing seat 13 ([0029], Fig. 2, showing blocking seat 14 having smaller diameter than sealing seat 12). However, the sealing seat 12 and blocking seat 14 do not have an upper section with “different outer diameter” as claimed. But modifying the sealing seat 12 so that the tube structure of the second perforation 122 extends out from the seat 12 (which would produce an upper section with different diameter) would be a mere change in shape which does not patentably distinguish the prior art, particularly because the second perforation 122 is already in communication with the tube body portion 112 [0028]. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B); see also in re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Yuan fails to disclose that the sealing seat 12 or blocking seat 14 (“vaporizing core base”) are provided with “second snap bumps”, and fails to disclose that the fixing seat 13 (“base part”) is provided with “with second engaging holes” as claimed. But Yuan discloses the electrodes 4 and magnetic elements 5 (either of which read on the “protruding columns”), and Yuan discloses a “buckled connection” between the sleeve 11 and the fixing seat 13 [0029]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the buckled connection could similarly be applied between the blocking seat 14 and fixing seat 13, for instance by including a buckle on the blocking seat 14 which engages a hole in the electrode 4 or magnetic element 5. This would be a mere rearrangement of Yuan’s buckled connection which does not patentably distinguish the prior art, particularly because connection means are well known in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C); see also in re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
The sealing seat 12 (“sealing portion”) and blocking seat 14 (“support portion”) together form the claimed “vaporizing core base” as set forth above. The sealing seat 12 includes the tubular second perforation 122, an outer wall in a middle section, and an inner wall of the atomization channel c (“cavity”) ([0028], Figs. 2-3). The sealing seat 12 presses elastically against the sleeve 11 [0028] (which reads on a “soft” material). The blocking seat 14 presses against the porous body 2 to “firmly fix[ed]” it [0030] (which reads on a “hard” material; see Applicant’s specification at [0064] explaining that the support portion has a certain strength and rigidity to make sure that the vaporizing core base 21 is prevented from being deformed to cause loose or leakage).
PNG
media_image1.png
708
822
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
648
484
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2-3, the sealing seat 12 (“vaporizing core base”) has a second perforation 122 (“vapor fog through-hole “) which is centrally formed. Exiting aerosol flows via the second perforation 122, a tube body portion 112, and an aerosol channel a ([0027-28, 0037], Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 4, Yuan discloses an e-liquid storage cavity b (“liquid storage chamber”) within the sleeve 11 and above the sealing seat 12 ([0027], Figs. 2-3). The sealing seat 12 further includes a first recess 23 (“liquid through-hole”) connecting the storage cavity b and the porous body 2 ([0033], Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 5, Yuan discloses the porous body 2 with first recess 23, as set forth above in the discussion of claim 4. The first recess 23 has an inner wall (“liquid guiding groove”), but the wall as shown in Fig. 3 has no vertical concavity, and thus Yuan fails to disclose the groove which “opens upwards” as claimed. However, altering the slope of the inner wall of the first recess 23 would be a mere change in shape which does not patentably distinguish the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B); see also in re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 6, the air hole 26 (“vaporizing passage”) is centrally formed in the porous body 2 (Figs. 2-3), which reads on claim 6.
Regarding claim 9, the sleeve 11 (“housing”) and fixing seat 13 (“base part”) may be engaged with a “buckled connection”, though the connection is not illustrated nor included in the disclosed embodiment [0029]. Yuan fails to specifically disclose that engaging holes are provided on “two sides” of the sleeve 11, but one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand the “buckled connection” to include various arrangements of engaging holes and accompanying snap bumps, such connections being well known in the art. Thus, Yuan’s disclosure of the “buckled connection” between sleeve 11 and fixing seat 13 renders the specific structure of claim 9 obvious.
Regarding claims 11-12, two electrodes 4 (“supporting part”) in the fixing seat 13 press against the heating element 3 within the blocking seat 14 ([0041], Figs. 2-3). Yuan fails to explicitly disclose that the electrodes 4 are “for propping up” the blocking seat 14 and sealing seat 12 as recited in claim 11, but this is merely an intended use of the claimed structure. See MPEP 2114(II); see also ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). The electrodes 4 contact the blocking seat 14 and thus physically support it, which reads on the claim.
Regarding claim 13, Yuan discloses the air inlet channel (“air chamber”) above the air inlet 132, as set forth above. However, Yuan fails to disclose a “main air inlet” formed in the sleeve 11. But forming an air inlet in a side wall of the sleeve 11, either in addition to or instead of the air inlet 132 in the base part 13, would be a mere rearrangement or duplication of parts which does not patentably distinguish the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C); see also in re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 14, the fixing seat 13 includes the air inlet 132 in communication with the air inlet channel, as set forth above.
Regarding claim 15, the air inlet 132 is centrally formed (Fig. 3). The air inlet 132 is tubular and extends out from the bottom of the fixing seat 13 ([0030], Figs. 2-3), which reads on the claim.
Regarding claim 17, the porous body 2 may be a porous ceramic body [0033]. Yuan fails to explicitly disclose a “microporous” ceramic porous body 2 as claimed. However, at least the air inlet wall 22 of the porous body 2 has “micropores” [0031-32] and Yuan discloses that porous bodies generally have “capillary micropores” [0003]. From these disclosures, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a microporous ceramic body 2.
Regarding claim 18, the heating element 3 is on a lower surface of the porous body 2 ([0035-38], Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 19, the heating element 3 includes electrical connection portions 33, 34 (“contact terminals”) which are planar and connected to the electrodes 4 in the fixing seat 13 ([0039, 0041], Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 20, the fixing seat 13 include a magnetic element 5 for connection with the battery assembly [0041]. As shown in Figs. 2-3, the magnetic element 5 is embedded through the outer bottom of the fixing seat 13.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan (CN 211482973 U, US 2023/0000154 A1) as applied to claim 15, in view of Zhang (US 2022/0256925 A1).
Yuan discloses the fixing seat 13 with air inlet 132 as set forth above. However, Yuan fails to disclose “an inclined cover” in either alternative arrangement as claimed.
Zhang is directed to an electronic cigarette atomizer (Title). The electronic cigarette 100’ includes a shielding part 124’ which blocks condensed liquid from entering an air inlet channel 122’ ([0085-86], Figs. 12-13). The shielding part 124’ includes a liquid blocking slope 1241’ (“inclined cover”) which directs condensed liquid away from an atomizing cavity 121’ [0086]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that such a liquid blocking slope 1241’ could similarly be included at Yuan’s air inlet 132 to predictably block condensed liquid/vapor from accessing the air inlet 132. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the slope 1241’ on the air inlet 132 either with an aperture therethrough or such that one end of the slope 1241’ is raised, in order to allow airflow therethrough.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Yuan such that the top of the air inlet 132 includes a liquid blocking slope 1241’, because both Yuan and Zhang are directed to electronic vaporization devices, Zhang teaches that this prevents condensed liquid from entering the air inlet channel 122’, and this would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
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 MICHAEL PATRICK MULLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2373. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael H. Wilson can be reached at (571) 270-3882. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL PATRICK MULLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1747 /Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights