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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/23/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-15 and 17-20 are currently pending and are subject to this office action. Claim 1 is amended. Claim 16 is canceled. Claim 20 is withdrawn. This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 04/03/2026.
Response to Amendments
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed on 04/03/2026 containing amendments and remarks to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, on pages 6-11, filed 04/03/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The Applicant has amended claim 1 to include a limitation that was not previously presented, specifically, “wherein a resistance of the preheating portion increases by a factor on the order of at least 1x102 as a temperature thereof increases during the first stage of electrification; wherein the resistance increase in the preheating portion causes automatic redistribution of electrical currents flowing through the preheating portion and the vaporization portion connected in parallel”. The Applicant argues that Meixner merely describes a resistance increase behavior and does not teach or suggest using a relationship to perform automatic current redistribution among parallel paths. Further, that the activation of heater elements in Duque are performed manually or externally, rather than automatically driven.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Meixner teaches a heating element formed of ceramic PTC material for preheating. The PTC heating element has self-regulating behavior, where resistivity increases as temperature increases, as shown in Figure 1 (Col. 2, Lines 60-68). Specifically, Figure 1 shows a non-linear increase in resistivity along several orders of magnitude as temperature increases. Further, the Applicant mentions that Meixner does not disclose using the increase in resistance to redistribute current. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that when resistance in a portion of a circuit increases, current through that portion decreases in accordance with basic electrical principles. Thus, where the preheating portion and vaporization portion are connected in parallel, an increase in resistance in the preheating portion would result in a difference in current to the parallel vaporization portion.
Duque teaches that a heater may be connected in parallel with a heating coil and driven by a control circuit [0027],[0062], providing the parallel circuit arrangement of the claimed invention. When combined with Meixner's teaching of a temperature dependent resistance increase in the preheating portion, there would be automatic changes in the current between the parallel paths, without any additional control element. Even in a manual or external control system, as mentioned by the Applicant, the electrical behavior of parallel branches does not change.
The following are modified rejections based on Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
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, 5, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meixner (US 4371778 A) and further in view of Johnson (US 20170303587 A1), Duque (US 20180177240 A1), and Lau (US 20190116880 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
204
310
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 1, Meixner, directed to an electric heating device teaches (i) a heating device for the preheating of oil (Col. 2, Lines 18-19), which meets the claim limitation of a preheating portion. (ii) The heating device is a ceramic PTC conductor (Col. 2, Lines 17-18), which meets the claim limitation of a preheating portion comprising a positive temperature coefficient thermosensitive material. (iii) Figure 1 shows a non-linear increase in resistivity along several orders of magnitudes as temperature increases. The rate of increase of Meixner shows overlap in the rate of increase of the claimed invention, and is therefore considered prima facie obvious. Meixner teaches all of the limitations above, however Meixner is silent to:
A vaporization portion located on the preheating portion
Wherein the preheating portion comprises a porous ceramic
Wherein a circuit in which the preheating portion is located is connected in parallel with a circuit in which the vaporization portion is located
Wherein, at a first stage of electrification, the heating assembly is configured so as to flow electrical current through the preheating portion so as to cause the preheating portion to generate heat
Wherein, at the first stage of electrification, the circuit in which the vaporization portion is located is in a connected state
Wherein the resistance increase in the preheating portion causes automatic reallocation of electrical currents flowing through the preheating portion and the vaporization portion connected in parallel
In regards to i. and ii., Johnson, directed to an oven assembly, teaches (i) a heating plate (Fig. 5: #73, [0044]), which meets the claim limitation of a vaporization portion, wherein a preheating area (Fig. 3: #74) may be disposed under and around the heating plate (Fig. 5: #73, [0044]). (ii) The heating plate of the preheating area comprises a porous ceramic tray (Fig. 5: #75, [0044]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the preheating portion of Meixner by including a vaporization portion on the preheating portion and a preheating portion comprising a porous ceramic because both Meixner and Johnson are directed to devices using liquid inhalable precursors. Johnson teaches a heating plate comprising a porous ceramic tray in a preheating area to absorb heat and change the temperature in accordance with the heating plate and this merely involves using a known porous ceramic material in a similar device to yield predictable results.
In regards to iii., v., vi., Duque, directed to a thermal wick for electronic vaporizers, teaches (iii) a separate heater that may be driven off of a separate heating circuit from a heating coil [0027]. It may also be connected in series or parallel to the control circuit and/or the heating coil [0027]. (v) When the device senses a puff, relating to the first stage of electrification as mentioned in the claimed invention, the coil may be powered and heated to a vaporization temperature [0062]. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that a heater driven through a control circuit must be in a connected state for the heater to reach a desired temperature and Duque’s selective activation demonstrates a first stage during where the vaporization circuit is connected [0027]. (vi) One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that when resistance in a portion of a circuit increases, current through that portion decreases in accordance with basic electrical principles. When Duque’s parallel circuit configuration is combined with Meixner’s temperature dependent resistive behavior, it would allow the parallel heaters to vary in heat distribution, improving how the substrate is heated over time [0062].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the preheating portion and vaporization portion of modified Meixner by including wherein a circuit in which the preheating portion is located is connected in parallel with a circuit in which the vaporization portion is located, the circuit in which the vaporization portion is located is in a connected state, and wherein the resistance increase in the preheating portion causes automatic reallocation of electrical currents flowing through the preheating portion and the vaporization portion connected in parallel because both Meixner and Duque are directed to providing controlled heating behaviors. Duque teaches a separate heater with a circuit different from the circuit of the heating coil, which can be connected in series or parallel to allow a thermal wick to be heated while the device is in the on state to lower the viscosity of the aerosol generating substrate and improve aerosol generation from the substrate [0062] and this merely involves combines prior art elements according to known control methods to yield predictable results.
In regards to iv., Lau, directed to an e-vaping device and method of operating, teaches wherein an electrical current is transmitted from a power supply to a heater for a pre-heating period [0113]. The device first heats the heater to a second temperature, being a pre-heat temperature, to generate heat [0006]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the electrical heating technique of Lau with the pre-heating area of modified Meixner to reduce the effective viscosity of the pre-vapor formulation and help control the quantity of pre-vapor that goes into the heater [0117].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to combine to combine Lau and modified Meixner to achieve wherein at a first stage of electrification, the heating assembly is configured so as to flow electrical current through the preheating portion so as to flow electrical current through the preheating portion to generate heat because both Lau and Meixner are directed to reducing viscosity of aerosol generating material during preheating. Lau teaches an electrical current transmitted to a heater during a pre-heat period to reduce the effective viscosity of the pre-vapor formulation and help control the quantity of pre-vapor that goes into the heater [0117] and this merely involves combining prior art elements according to known pre-heating methods to yield predictable results.
With regards to Claim 5, Meixner teaches a heating device with a ceramic PTC conductor that is built upon a base of barium titanate (Col. 1, Lines 59-64), which meets the claim limitation of wherein the preheating portion comprises a BaTiO3 -based PTC ceramic with a porous structure, a SrTiO3-based PTC ceramic with a porous structure, a PbTiO3-based PTC ceramic with a porous structure, or a V2O3-based PTC ceramic with a porous structure.
With regard to Claim 15, modified Meixner teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Meixner is silent to:
Wherein the first stage of electrification comprises an initial stage of electrification
Lau teaches a first electrical current being supplied from the power supply to the vaporizing heater to energize the vaporizing heater before starting the pre-heating portion [0016].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first stage of electrification of modified Meixner to comprise an initial stage of electrification because both Meixner and Lau are directed to reducing viscosity of aerosol generating material during preheating. Lau teaches a first electrical current being supplied from the power supply to the vaporizing heater to energize the vaporizing heater [0016] and this merely involves applying an electrical current to a known pre-heating method of an aerosol generating device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meixner (US 4371778 A), Johnson (US 20170303587 A1), Duque (US 20180177240 A1), and Lau (US 20190116880 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Kleizo (US 10357064 B1) and Yan (CN 209677351 U, hereinafter citations referring to English Machine Translation).
With regard to Claim 2, modified Meixner teaches a vaporization portion, preheating portion, and all of the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Meixner is silent to:
Wherein under a normal temperature condition, a resistance of the vaporization portion is defined
Wherein under a normal temperature condition, a ratio of the resistance of the vaporization portion to a resistance of the preheating portion is 1: 0.1 to 2
In regards to i., Kleizo, directed to a personal vaporizer, teaches a ceramic resistive heating element with a proper temperature (Col. 10, Line 67), which meets the claim limitation of a normal temperature condition. The resistive heating element has a resistance of 0.11 to 2.1 ohms (Claim 9), which meets the claim limitation of a defined resistance of the vaporization portion.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the vaporization portion of modified Meixner by including a defined resistance value under a normal temperature condition because both Meixner and Kleizo are directed to devices with electrical heating means. Kleizo teaches a ceramic resistive heating element with a proper temperature to allow heating of the device without burning and unrestricted airflow, and this merely involves the use of a known resistance technique to improve a similar vaporization device in the same way.
In regards to ii., Yan, directed to a heating module and electronic smoking set, teaches a temperature sensor and control component used to control the heating of the air heating component in the device [0020], which meets the claim limitation of working under a normal temperature condition. A heating resistor layer with a resistance range of 0.2 to 0.5 ohms is used to preheat a cigarette in the device [0039], which meets claim limitation of the resistance of the preheating portion. Compared to the resistance value of the vaporization portion of modified Meixner, 0.2 to 0.5 ohms meets the claim limitation of a ratio of the resistance of the vaporization portion to a resistance of the preheating portion is 1: 0.1 to 2.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the preheating portion of modified Meixner by including a resistance value, where the ratio of the resistance of the vaporization portion to a resistance of the preheating portion is 1: 0.1 to 2 because both Meixner and Yan are directed to electronic heating devices. Yan teaches a heating resistor layer with a resistance range of 0.2 to 0.5 ohms to allow the resistor to quickly generate heat and heat a first circular tube, which preheats a cigarette, and this merely involves applying a known ratio of resistance to known portions of a device to yield predictable results.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meixner (US 4371778 A), Johnson (US 20170303587 A1), Duque (US 20180177240 A1), Lau (US 20190116880 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above.
With regard to Claim 3, modified Meixner teaches a preheating portion and all of the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Meixner is silent to:
Wherein a Curie temperature of the preheating portion does not exceed 200°C, and/or wherein a resistivity of the preheating portion under a normal temperature condition is 0.25 Ω/cm to 28 Ω/cm, and/or wherein a lift-to-drag ratio of the preheating portion is 1x102 to 1x105
Lau teaches a preheat temperature of 100 to 200°C [0006], which meets the claim limitation of wherein a Curie temperature of the preheating portion does not exceed 200°C.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the preheating portion of modified Meixner by including a temperature that does not exceed 200°C because both Meixner and Lau are directed to electronic heating devices. Lau teaches a preheat temperature of 100 to 200°C to supply a fourth electrical current from the power supply to the vaporizing heater to energize the vaporizing heater to another temperature and this merely involves applying a known preheating temperature to a similar electronic vaporization device to yield predictable results.
With regard to Claim 4, modified Meixner teaches a preheating portion and all of the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Meixner is silent to:
Wherein a Curie temperature of the preheating portion is 100°C to 200°C, and/or wherein a resistivity of the preheating portion under a normal temperature condition is 1 Ω/cm to 20 Ω/cm, and/or wherein a lift-to-drag ratio of the preheating portion is 1x103 to 1x105
Lau teaches a preheat temperature of 100 to 200°C [0006], which meets the claim limitation of wherein a Curie temperature of the preheating portion is 100°C to 200°C.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the preheating portion of modified Meixner by including a temperature between 100°C to 200°C because both Meixner and Lau are directed to electronic heating devices. Lau teaches a preheat temperature of 100 to 200°C to supply a fourth electrical current form the power supply to the vaporizing heater to energize the vaporizing heater to another temperature and this merely involves applying a known preheating temperature to a similar electronic vaporization device to yield predictable results.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meixner (US 4371778 A), Johnson (US 20170303587 A1), Duque (US 20180177240 A1), and Lau (US 20190116880 A1), as applied to Claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Li (CN 109088184 A, hereinafter citations referring to the English Machine Translation).
With regard to Claim 6, modified Meixner teaches a preheating portion and all of the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Meixner is silent to:
Wherein the preheating portion is doped with at least one of La, Y, Nb, or Sb
Li, directed to an aluminum alloy resistant grounding material, teaches an aluminum alloy rod preheated for 2 hours, wherein the inner aluminum alloy is at least one of lanthanum, cerium, praseodymium, neodymium, or yttrium [0026], which meets the claim limitation of wherein the preheating portion is doped with at least one of La, Y, Nb, or Sb.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the preheating portion of modified Meixner by doping it with at least one of La, Y, Nb, or Sb because both Meixner and Li are directed to means of electrical heating. Li teaches an aluminum alloy with at least one of lanthanum, cerium, praseodymium, neodymium, or yttrium to maintain the inner aluminum alloy layer of a double layer structured titanium-clad aluminum alloy and this merely involves the use of known, predictable variations of metals by a person of ordinary skill in the art, to yield predictable results.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meixner (US 4371778 A), Johnson (US 20170303587 A1), Duque (US 20180177240 A1), and Lau (US 20190116880 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Kaminski (US 20160067630 A1).
With regard to Claim 7, modified Meixner teaches a preheating portion, vaporization portion, and all of the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Meixner is silent to
Wherein the preheating portion comprises a liquid inlet surface and a liquid outlet surface opposite to the liquid inlet surface
Wherein the vaporization portion is located on the liquid outlet surface
Kaminski, directed to heating using an electromagnetic heater, teaches wherein (i) liquid is received from an external liquid supply, which meets the claim limitation of a liquid inlet surface, to be purified (Claim 1). The liquid is preheated while traveling through heat exchangers and enters a boiler assembly (Fig. 19: #1805) through incoming liquid openings in a bottom boiler (Fig. 19: #508, [0100]), which meets the claim limitation of a liquid outlet surface opposite to the liquid inlet surface. (ii) A heating element (Fig. 19: #1906) is in contact with the bottom boiler and the liquid changes to vapor when the incoming liquid passes through the vicinity of the heating element [0100], which meets the claim limitation of the vaporization portion located on the liquid outlet surface.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the preheating portion and vaporization portion of modified Meixner by including a liquid inlet surface and liquid outlet surface opposite to the liquid inlet surface and wherein the vaporization portion is located on the liquid outlet surface because both Meixner and Kaminski are directed to heating fluid using electrical means. Kaminski teaches liquid received from an external liquid supply, liquid openings in a bottom boiler, and a heating element in contact with the bottom boiler to ultimately produce vapor directed towards an output of the device and this merely involves applying a known inlet and outlet technique in a similar heating generating device to yield predictable results.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meixner (US 4371778 A), Johnson (US 20170303587 A1), Duque (US 20180177240 A1), and Lau (US 20190116880 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Willkens (US 20070295709 A1).
With regard to Claim 8, modified Meixner teaches a vaporization portion and all of the limitations of the claims set forth above, however modified Meixner is silent to:
Wherein a material of the vaporization portion comprises at least one of a single metal, an alloy, an NTC ceramic, a carbon fiber, or graphite
Willkens, directed to ceramic heating elements, teaches a ceramic heating element with conductive pathways having a negative temperature coefficient of resistance [0012 and 0013], which meets the claim limitation of wherein a material of the vaporization portion comprises at least one of a single metal, an alloy, an NTC ceramic, a carbon fiber, or graphite.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the vaporization portion of modified Meixner by including where the vaporization portion comprises at least one of a single metal, an alloy, an NTC ceramic, a carbon fiber, or graphite because both Meixner and Willkens are directed to resistance heating with conductive ceramics. Willkens teaches a ceramic heating element with conductive pathways having a negative temperature coefficient of resistance to be used as resistive ignition elements for dry and wet fuels [0037], and this merely involves applying a known ceramic negative temperature coefficient technique to improve a similar ceramic heating device to yield predictable results.
With regard to Claim 9, modified Meixner teaches wherein a material of the vaporization portion comprises an NTC ceramic and all of the limitations of the claims set forth above, however modified Meixner is silent to:
Wherein a resistivity of the vaporization portion under the normal temperature condition is 1x101 Ω/cm to 1x106 Ω/cm, and/or a resistivity of the vaporization portion under a condition of 60°C to 300°C is 1x10-1 Ω/cm to 1x102 Ω/cm
Willkens teaches a semiconductor ceramic having a room temperature resistivity of between about 101 and 108 Ω/cm [0083], which has a significant amount of overlap to meet the claim limitations of wherein a resistivity of the vaporization portion under the normal temperature condition is 1x101 Ω/cm to 1x106 Ω/cm, and/or a resistivity of the vaporization portion under a condition of 60°C to 300°C is 1x10-1 Ω/cm to 1x102 Ω/cm.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the resistivity of the vaporization portion of modified Meixner by including a resistivity of 1x101 Ω/cm to 1x106 Ω/cm, and/or a resistivity of the vaporization portion under a condition of 60°C to 300°C is 1x10-1 Ω/cm to 1x102 Ω/cm because both Meixner and Willkens are directed to resistance heating with conductive ceramics. Willkens teaches a semiconductor ceramic having a room temperature resistivity of between 101 and 108 Ω/cm to maintain a workable amount of insulation to achieve a desired voltage in the device [0083] and this merely involves applying a known resistivity to a NTC ceramic in a similar heating device to yield predictable results.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meixner (US 4371778 A), Johnson (US 20170303587 A1), Duque (US 20180177240 A1), Lau (US 20190116880 A1), and Willkens (US 20070295709 A1), as applied to Claims 1, 8, and 9, and further in view of Christian (TW 201735805 A, hereinafter citations referring to US2023356252A1 for translation).
With regard to Claim 10, modified Meixner teaches a vaporization portion and all of the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Meixner is silent to:
Wherein the vaporization portion is doped with at least one of La, Nd, or Ce
Christian, directed to a smoking device and method for aerosol generation, teaches an atomizer that may comprise a ceramic. The ceramic may include doping materials such as Ni, Bi, La, Nd, or Nb ions [0048], which meets the claim limitation of the vaporization portion doped with at least one of La, Nd, or Ce.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the vaporization portion of modified Meixner by doping it with at least one of La, Nd, or Ce because both Meixner and Christian are directed to heating in smoking devices. Christian teaches an atomizer comprising a ceramic doped with at least one of La, Nd, or Ce to reside in a piezoelectric transducer to convert mechanical energy in electrical signals [0051] and this merely involves applying a known doping technique to improve a similar aerosol generating device to yield predictable results.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meixner (US 4371778 A), Johnson (US 20170303587 A1), Duque (US 20180177240 A1), and Lau (US 20190116880 A1), as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Bleloch (US 20150320116 A1) and Gherghe (US 20130087160 A1).
With regard to Claim 11, modified Meixner teaches a preheating portion, vaporization portion, and all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Meixner is silent to:
A liquid guide portion located on a side of the preheating portion away from the vaporization portion
Wherein the liquid guide portion comprises a porous ceramic
In regards to i., Bleloch, directed to a vaporizer device, teaches a wick element located within a preheating element in contact with liquid in a reservoir and moves it through the device with capillary action [0078], which meets the claim limitation of a liquid guide portion located on a side of the preheating portion. Vaporization occurs with heat from an induction coil (Fig. 11: #1103) that is located away from the preheating element (Fig. 11: #1111), which meets the claim limitation of the liquid guide portion away from the vaporization portion.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the preheating portion of modified Meixner by including a liquid guide portion on a side of the preheating portion away from the vaporization portion because both Meixner and Bleloch are directed to heating devices. Bleloch teaches a wick element that moves liquid from a liquid reservoir to allow the wick element to heat a vaporizable substance for vapor to exit a cartridge [0078] and this merely involves applying a known liquid guiding technique to improve similar vaporization devices in a similar way.
In regards to ii., Gherghe, directed to an electronic pipe personal vaporizer, teaches a porous ceramic material that absorbs liquid to be vaporized inside a cartridge [0034], which meets the claim limitation of wherein the liquid guide portion comprises a porous ceramic. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to apply the porous ceramic of Gherghe to the liquid guide portion of modified Meixner to stop the vaporizer from producing fumes and isolate the rest of the components from heat [0034].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the liquid guide portion of modified Meixner by including a porous ceramic because both Meixner and Gherghe are directed to vaporization devices. Gherghe teaches a porous ceramic material that absorbs liquid to be vaporized to act as a thermal insulator to isolate the rest of the cartridge components from excessive heat [0034] and this merely involves using a known porous ceramic material to improve a known vaporization device to yield predictable results.
With regard to Claim 12, modified Meixner teaches all of the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Meixner is silent to:
A liquid storage container comprising a liquid storage cavity configured to store vaporizable liquid, the liquid storage cavity having a liquid outlet
The heating assembly being configured to vaporize the vaporizable liquid
Wherein the preheating portion is close to the liquid outlet
PNG
media_image2.png
341
203
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Bleloch, directed to a vaporizer device, teaches (i) a reservoir (Fig. 11: #1115), meeting the claim limitation of a liquid storage container, that comprises a cavity to contain liquid [0078]. The area that the liquid is held in is brought up through a wick element (Fig. 11: #1107), which meets the claim limitation of the liquid storage cavity having a liquid outlet. (ii) An induction heating element of the device operates to vaporize waxes or liquids [0009]. (iii) Figure 11 of the prior art shows the preheating element (Fig. 11: #1111) surrounding the wick element (Fig. 11: #1107).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the heating assembly of modified Meixner by including a liquid storage container comprising a liquid storage cavity having a liquid outlet, wherein the preheating portion is close to the liquid outlet and a heating assembly configured to vaporize the vaporizable liquid because both Meixner and Bleloch are directed to electrical devices with methods of pre-heating and regulating temperatures. Bleloch teaches a reservoir containing liquid to be brought up through a wick element and a heating element to apply correct heating temperatures to the device and maintain the pressure of air incoming and outgoing from the vaporizer device [0069], which merely involves the use of a known liquid storage container with a liquid outlet and heating assembly technique to improve a heating function of a similar device in the same way.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meixner (US 4371778 A), Johnson (US 20170303587 A1), Duque (US 20180177240 A1), Lau (US 20190116880 A1), and Bleloch (US 20150320116 A1), as applied to Claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Kaminski (US 20160067630 A1).
With regard to Claim 13, modified Meixner teaches a preheating portion, vaporization portion, liquid outlet, and all of the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Meixner is silent to:
Wherein the preheating portion is located between the vaporization portion and the liquid outlet
Wherein the vaporization portion is configured to vaporize the vaporizable liquid that is guided by the preheating portion
Kaminski, directed to heating using an electromagnetic heater, teaches heat exchangers, pointing to the preheating portion, that preheat vaporizable liquid (Fig. 19: #508). Liquid exits the heat exchangers and enters the bottom boiler (Fig. 19: #508), pointing to the liquid outlet, and passes through the heating element (Fig. 19: #1906), pointing to the vaporization portion, to create vapor, which meets the claim limitation of wherein the vaporization portion is configured to vaporize the vaporizable liquid that is guided by the preheating portion. Figure 19 shows an expanded view of the heat exchangers, bottom boiler, and heating element which are situated in each other, which meets the claim limitation of wherein the preheating portion is located between the vaporization portion and the liquid outlet.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the preheating portion and vaporization portion of modified Meixner by including wherein the preheating portion is located between the vaporization portion and the liquid outlet and where the vaporization portion is configured to vaporize the vaporizable liquid that is guided by the preheating portion because both Meixner and Kaminski are directed to heating fluid using electrical means and maintain high heat efficiency. Kaminski teaches heat exchangers and a bottom boil to change liquid to vapor when the incoming liquid passes through the vicinity of the heating element and this merely involves applying a known preheating location technique to a similar heating device to yield predictable results.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meixner (US 4371778 A), Johnson (US 20170303587 A1), Duque (US 20180177240 A1), and Lau (US 20190116880 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Kaminski (US 20160067630 A1).
With regard to Claim 14, modified Meixner teaches a vaporizer comprising a liquid storage container comprising a liquid storage cavity configure to store a vaporizable liquid, the liquid storage cavity having a liquid outlet, the heating assembly configured to vaporize the vaporizable liquid, the preheating portion being close to the liquid outlet and all of the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Meixner is silent to:
A power supply configured to supply power to the vaporizer
Kaminski, directed to heating using an electromagnetic heater, teaches a heating coil with electrical connectors configured to couple the heating coil to an electric based power surface [0104], which meets the claim limitation of a power supply configured to supply power to the vaporizer.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the vaporizer of modify Meixner to include a power supply configured to supply power to the vaporizer both Meixner and Kaminski are directed to heating fluid using electrical means. Kaminski teaches an electric power source to provide power to the device and this merely involves the use of a known power supply technique to improve a similar heating device in the same way.
Claims 17, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meixner (US 4371778 A), Johnson (US 20170303587 A1), Duque (US 20180177240 A1), Lau (US 20190116880 A1), and as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Qui (US 20200120988 A1).
With regard to Claim 17, modified Meixner teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Meixner is silent to:
Wherein, at a second stage of electrification, an electrical circuit in which the preheating portion is located is in an open-circuit state
Qui teaches a button that controls a power source switch, a pre-heating switch, an inhalation switch, and a selecting press button [0056]. After pre-heating is finished, the inhalation phase starts automatically [0032]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would realize that since pre-heating is completed, power provided to that mode would be stopped, stopping flow of electrical current and providing an open circuit. One would be motivated to apply this to the preheating portion of modified Meixner to prevent battery wastage [0005].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Meixner to wherein, at the second stage of electrification, an electrical circuit in which the pre-heating portion is located is in an open state because both Meixner and Qui are directed to heating under a range of desired outputs and maintaining optimal heating temperatures while doing so. Qui teaches a button that releases power to designated modes based on user input to resolve depletion of battery in the electronic cigarette and better user useability and experience [0005] and this merely involves applying a known method of controlling power to a known aerosol generating device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With regard to Claim 18, modified Meixner teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Meixner is silent to:
Wherein at the second stage of electrification, the heating assembly is configured so as to flow electrical current to the vaporization portion
Qui teaches wherein after pre-heating, relating to the first stage of the claimed invention, is finished, the inhalation phase starts automatically [0032] by a heater [0100], relating to the second stage of the claimed invention. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to that once the inhalation phase starts, power is supplied to atomize the tobacco liquid [0054].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art to modify the heating assembly of modified Meixner to wherein, at the second stage of electrification, the heating assembly is configured so as to flow electrical current to the vaporization portion, because both Meixner and Qui are directed to heating under a range of desired outputs and maintaining optimal heating temperatures while doing so .Qui teaches an inhalation phase activated by the completion of a pre-heating mode to resolve depletion of battery in the electronic cigarette and better user useability and experience [0005] and this merely involves applying a known method of controlling power to a known aerosol generating device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With regard to Claim 19, modified Meixner is silent to wherein, upon a temperature of the positive temperature coefficient thermosensitive material reaching a Curie temperature, the electrical circuit in which the preheating portion is located is in an open-circuit state. However, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (MPEP 2114.II). As explained above in prior rejections, Meixner does teach a positive temperature coefficient thermosensitive material (Col. 2, Lines 17-18) and a heating device for the preheating of oil (Col. 2, Lines 18-19). Additionally, modified Meixner teaches a circuit in combination with Duque, meeting the structural limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUWATOSIN O DIYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0789. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 am - 6 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, 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.
/O.O.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights