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, and 6-17 are pending and are subject to this office action. Claims 1-2, 7-8, 11 are amended.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/30/2026 has been entered.
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. 5, filed 04/30/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues claim 7 has been amended to provide sufficient antecedent basis for the term “the weak area” because claim 7 has been amended to depend from claim 6. However, claim 7, now recites “a weak area” instead of “the weak area.” It is unclear if “a weak area” in claim 7 is the same weak area recited in claim 6 or a separate weak area. Therefore, an updated rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been presented below.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 5-8, filed 04/30/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Liu, in view Leadly, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The prior art rejections below are maintained and 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.
Claim 7 is 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 7 recites the limitation "a weak area" whereas claim 6 from which claim 7 depends also recites the limitation, “a weak area”. It is unclear if “a weak area” in claim 7 is the same weak area recited in claim 6 or a separate weak area. The specification appears to discloses a weak area (148) arranged in contact with the frame (40, Fig. 3, pg. 9 lines 25-35), as recited in claim 6, and a separate weak area (250) formed on the outer wall (242, Fig. 4, pg. 10 lines 20-35) with reduced thickness as recited in claim 7. Therefore, for the purposes of examination, “a weak area” in claim 7 will be interpreted as a second weak area formed on the outer wall that is separate from the weak area in contact with the frame recited in claim 6.
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, 7, 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen (CN 206727144 U, as cited on IDS dated 05/04/2023, hereinafter referring to the English machine translation provided).
PNG
media_image1.png
723
716
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses an electronic cigarette (200, Fig. 1, [0036]), comprising:
An outside casing (cover 30 and shell 11) delimiting an inside part (cavity 111), the inside part comprising a battery (20) and receiving cavity (top portion of cavity 111) for receiving a cartridge (atomizer 40, Fig. 2, Fig. 3, [0053-0055]),
The outside casing comprises a frame (shell 11) and outer wall (front wall of cover 30 Fig. 3) attached to the frame (11, Fig. 2, Fig. 3, [0036, 0053]),
The outer wall (front wall of cover 30 Fig. 3) extends along the longitudinal axis of the device (Fig. 2), and;
When the pressure inside the device increases, the cover (30) which comprises the outer wall (front wall of cover 30 Fig. 3) is detached from the frame (11, [0036]).
The internal pressure of the device would be required to increase to a minimum level to have enough force to push the cover off the frame, and therefore the outer wall is considered to detach from the frame when the pressure inside the device exceeds a predetermined threshold pressure.
Regarding claim 2, Chen discloses the electronic cigarette (200, Fig. 1) has two extremities (i.e. a top and bottom end) along the longitudinal axis. The outer wall (front wall of cover 30 Fig. 3) detaches from the frame in a direction away from the bottom end of the device (Fig. 3, [0036, 0038]).
Regarding claim 3, Chen discloses the outer wall (front wall of cover 30, Fig. 3) has an outer surface defining part of the outer surface of the electronic cigarette (200, Fig. 1) which reasonably suggests the outer surface of the outer wall (front wall of cover 30, Fig. 3) is configured to be held by the user.
Regarding claim 7, Chen discloses the outer wall comprises a groove (34) which has a smaller thickness compared to the rest of the outer wall (Fig. 3, [0035, 0037]).
Regarding claim 11, Chen discloses a second outer wall (rear wall of cover 30 Fig. 3) attached to the frame (11, Fig. 2, Fig. 3, [0036, 0053]), where the second outer wall (rear wall of cover 30 Fig. 3) extends along the longitudinal axis of the device (Fig. 2) and when the pressure inside the device (cavity 111) increases, the cover (30) which comprises second outer wall (rear wall of cover 30 Fig. 3) is detached from the frame (11, [0036]).
PNG
media_image2.png
769
694
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, the internal pressure of the device would be required to increase to a minimum level to have enough force to push the cover off the frame, and therefore the second outer wall is considered to detach from the frame when the pressure inside the device exceeds a predetermined threshold pressure.
Regarding claim 12, Chen discloses the electronic cigarette (200) generally comprises a parallelepiped extending along the longitudinal axis and the first outer wall and second outer wall form a pair of parallel sides of the parallelepiped (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 13, Chen discloses the cover (30) is interference fitted with the inner wall (114) of the frame (11) via grooves (34) on the outer wall (Fig. 3, [0035, 0037]), which is considered to be the outer wall (front wall of cover 30 Fig. 3) being attached to the frame (11) via mechanical fixation.
Regarding claim 14, Chen discloses the frame (11) comprises an opening at the bottom, the opening is delimited by an edge, and the edge comprises a protruding part for retaining the outer wall in the frame (11) opening, as shown in the annotated Fig. 3 below.
PNG
media_image3.png
696
968
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 206727144 U, as cited on IDS dated 05/04/2023, hereinafter referring to the English machine translation provided) in view of Liu (US 20200315262 A1, hereinafter referred to as Liu (5262)).
Regarding claim 6, Chen discloses the cover (30) is interference fitted with the inner wall (114) of the frame (11) via grooves (34) on the outer wall (Fig. 3, [0035, 0037]).
Chen does not explicitly disclose a weak area being different from the attaching area.
However, Liu (5262), directed to an electronic cigarette (abstract), discloses:
A battery assembly comprising a cover plate (23) and a plurality of screws (22, “first fixing means”) for attaching the cover plate (23) to the battery assembly (Fig. 3, [0023])
The area where the screws (22) attach the cover plate (23) to the to the battery assembly is considered to be an attaching area and the areas between the attaching areas are considered to be a contact area that is different from the attaching area arranged to contact the frame without fixing means.
The electronic cigarette is not easy to dismantle by children ([0012, 0014]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Chen, by attaching the cover (30) to the shell/frame (11) using screws as taught by Liu (5262) because both Chen and Liu (5262) are directed to electronic cigarettes, Liu (5262) discloses the device is difficult to dismantle by children, and this involves applying known fixing means to a similar electronic cigarette to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 17, Chen discloses the cover (30) is interference fitted with the inner wall (114) of the frame (11) via grooves (34) on the outer wall (Fig. 3, [0035, 0037]).
Chen does not explicitly disclose the outer wall is attached to the outside casing by screws.
However, Liu (5262), directed to an electronic cigarette (abstract), discloses:
A battery assembly comprising a cover plate (23) and a plurality of screws (22) for attaching the cover plate (23) to the battery assembly (Fig. 3, [0023])
The electronic cigarette is not easy to dismantle by children ([0012, 0014]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Chen, by attaching the cover (30) to the shell/frame (11) using screws as taught by Liu (5262) because both Chen and Liu (5262) are directed to electronic cigarettes, Liu (5262) discloses the device is difficult to dismantle by children, and this involves applying known fixing means to a similar electronic cigarette to yield predictable results.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 206727144 U, as cited on IDS dated 05/04/2023, hereinafter referring to the English machine translation provided) in view of Chen (US 20210249720 A1, hereinafter referred to as Chen (9720)).
Regarding claim 8, Chen discloses an outer wall (front wall of cover 30 Fig. 3) attached to the frame (11, Fig. 2, Fig. 3, [0036, 0053]).
Chen does not explicitly disclose the outer wall comprises a second portion attached to the first portion where the second portion is configured to be detached from the first portion when the pressure threshold is exceeded.
However, Chen (9720), directed to an explosion proof enclosure for batteries (abstract, [0102]), discloses:
An enclosure comprising a housing body and an explosion proof element formed on the housing body ([0049])
The explosion proof element (“a second portion”) comprises ring shaped pressure relief portion (12) and a central portion (13), where the pressure relief portion (12) is configured to detach from the housing when the pressure reaches a set value, allowing the gas in the enclosure to be released quickly (Fig. 2, Fig. 3, [0053, 0055-0056]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Chen by providing an explosion proof element/second portion on the outer wall as taught by Chen (9720) because both Chen and Chen (9720) are directed to battery enclosures, Chen (9720) teaches the explosion proof element provides quick release of gas during a battery failure and this involves applying known pressure relief structure to a similar battery enclosure to yield predictable results.
Claims 9, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 206727144 U, as cited on IDS dated 05/04/2023, hereinafter referring to the English machine translation provided) in view of Rusico (US 20180070636 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Chen discloses the electronic cigarette (200) comprises a cover (30) comprising an outer wall (front wall of cover 30 Fig. 3, Fig. 2, Fig. 3, [0036, 0053]).
Chen is silent to the material used for the outer wall.
However, Rusico, directed to an aerosol generating device (abstract), discloses:
A frame (108) for supporting a power supply (110, Fig. 2, Fig. 4, [0053])
The frame is formed of an electrical insulator including polycarbonate or a composite comprising glass fibers ([0011]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Chen by forming the cover of polycarbonate or a glass fiber containing composite as taught by Rusico because both Chen and Rusico are directed to electronic cigarettes, Chen is silent to the material used for the battery housing, Rusico teaches known materials for a battery housing, and one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to similar devices for selection of suitable battery housing materials and this involves applying known housing material to a similar electronic cigarette to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 10 and 16, Rusico discloses a battery housing formed of polycarbonate ([0011]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 206727144 U, as cited on IDS dated 05/04/2023, hereinafter referring to the English machine translation provided in view of Kalish (US 20180279676 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Chen discloses a frame (shell 11, Fig. 3).
Chen is silent to materials used for the frame (11).
However, Kalish, directed to an electronic vaporizer (100), discloses:
A frame comprising a casing body (110) for storing batteries, a top body cap (150), and base (114) constructed of titanium, stainless steel, or aluminum (Fig. 1, [0037, 0040-0041]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Chen by forming the frame of titanium, stainless steel, or aluminum as taught by Kalish because both Chen and Kalish are directed to electronic cigarettes, Chen is silent to the material used for the frame, Kalish teaches known materials for a frame, and one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to similar devices for selection of suitable frame materials and this involves applying known housing material to a similar electronic cigarette 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
Prosecution Insights