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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 9, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on March 19, 2026. As directed by the amendment, Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 11-14 are new claims. Claims 1-6 and 8-14 are pending in the instant application.
Regarding the Office Action mailed January 22, 2026:
Applicant has resolved all objections to the specification. Therefore, the objections are withdrawn.
Applicant has resolved all rejections under 35 USC 112(b). Therefore, the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC 103 rejections have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference and/or interpretation applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant has further amended Claim 1 to claim the loading board and vaporizer plate are made of the same material. Additionally, Applicant has added new claims. See 35 USC 103 rejections below for more details.
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.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hejazi (US 2021/0052014 A1) in view of Hsieh et al. (English Machine Translation of TW I458558 B provided by PE2E) and Ivri (US 2007/0044792 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Hejazi discloses an ultrasonic vaporization assembly (apparatus of Fig 4E; apparatus shown in a different view, Fig 3), comprising: a piezoelectric drive element (217E, Fig 4E; piezoelectric ring 217E, paragraph 0057) provided with a first through hole (hole of 217E, Fig 4E); a vaporizer plate (219E, Fig 4E; mesh plate 219E, paragraph 0057) stacked with the piezoelectric drive element (219E shown with 217E, Fig 4E), the vaporizer plate comprising a microporous zone (area of 219E exposed by hole of 217E, Fig 4E; perforated plate such as micro-perforated mesh plate, paragraph 0054) at a position corresponding to the first through hole; and a loading board (221E, Fig 4E; metal ring 221E, paragraph 0057) arranged on a side surface of the vaporizer plate which faces away from the piezoelectric drive element (221E on side of 219E opposite of 217E, Fig 4E), wherein: the loading board is combined with the vaporizer plate by gluing or spot welding (the vibrating component and the mesh plate may be permanently affixed to each other such as, for example, by affixing the components together via an adhesive, such as, for example, an epoxy or other glue, or by ultrasonic welding, paragraph 0056; Product by Process: product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process, See MPEP 2113; 221E shown to be combined with 219E, Fig 4E), the loading board being provided with a second through hole (hole of 221E, Fig 4E) at a position corresponding to the microporous zone (hole of 221E exposes area of 219E where perforations are, Fig 4E), the loading board is configured to constrain a vibration mode of the vaporizer plate to a central area of the vaporizer plate (221E shown to provide support to 219E, Fig 4E; Intended use: 221E would be capable of constraining the vibration towards the central area of 219E). Hejazi also discloses the supporting component can be made of polymeric, metal, and/or ceramic materials (paragraph 0055) and the mesh plate may be made of a metal material or polymeric material or a combination of materials (paragraph 0056).
Hejazi fails to disclose the loading board and the vaporizer plate are formed of a same material, a ratio of a pore size of the second through hole to a diameter of the microporous zone is greater than or equal to 0.75 and less than or equal to 1.5, and a ratio of an outer diameter of the vaporizer plate to a thickness of the loading board is between 23 and 40.
However, Hsieh, of the same field of endeavor, teaches an atomizer (Page 1) including a ratio of a pore size of the second through hole to a diameter of the microporous zone is greater than or equal to 0.75 and less than or equal to 1.5 (the brake ring piece 33 is a metal ring piece having an outer ring diameter 331 and an inner ring diameter 332 and disposed on one side of piezoelectric ring piece 31, inner ring diameter of 33 is equal to inner ring diameter of 31, Page 5; 33 and 31 shown to be of same inner diameter as diameter of orifice sheet 32, Fig 8) since these are known dimensions for metal rings in piezoelectric atomizers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inner diameter of the metal ring to have the same diameter as the microporous zone, as taught by Hsieh, since these are known dimensions for metal rings in piezoelectric atomizers. Additionally, since Hejazi already teaches that the inner diameter of the vibrating component can be modified in relation to the diameter of the perforated area, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of modifying the inner diameter of the metal ring in relation to the diameter of the perforated area to be within the claimed ratio through routine experimentation and optimization. Furthermore, the metal ring 221E of Hejazi in Fig 4E of Hejazi obviously shows a ratio where the inner diameter of 221E would be about the same as the perforated area of 219E of Hejazi.
The current Hejazi-Hsieh combination fails to explicitly teach the loading board and the vaporizer plate are formed of a same material, a ratio of an outer diameter of the vaporizer plate to a thickness of the loading board is between 23 and 40.
However, Hejazi further teaches the metal ring 221E and piezoelectric ring 217E to have substantially the same thicknesses (Fig 4E), the thickness of the vibrating component may be in the range of a few hundred microns to tens of millimeters, or the thickness of the vibrating component may be smaller than 1 millimeter (paragraph 0059) and overall diameter of mesh plate may be approximately a few millimeters to approximately 30 millimeters (paragraph 0059).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of using the thickness of the vibrating component as a reference or guideline to find and modify the thickness of the metal ring to be less than 1 millimeter which would make the ratio of the outer diameter of the vaporizer plate or mesh plate to the thickness of the loading board or metal ring to be between the claimed ratio through routine experimentation and optimization. Since Hejazi already shows these two components sharing similar thicknesses in the drawings and the vibrating component having a thickness of less than 1 millimeter, it is obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art to discover similar optimal thicknesses for the metal ring, especially for stability and longevity purposes of the mesh plate as taught by Hejazi (Hejazi: paragraph 0055). This would obviously meet the claimed ratio of between 23 and 40 as the overall diameter of the mesh plate is taught to be around 30 millimeters (Hejazi: paragraph 0059).
Hejazi-Hsieh combination fails to explicitly teach the loading board and the vaporizer plate are formed of a same material.
However, Ivri, of the same field of endeavor, teaches an apparatus for generating an aerosol (Abstract) including the loading board and the vaporizer plate are formed of a same material (aperture plate made from palladium-nickel alloy which his mounted on a steel washer that has been made from or coated with the same palladium-nickel alloy, paragraph 0032; aerosolization element 108 includes a corrosion resistant material, support member 112 may include the same material, paragraph 0046; aerosolization element 716 that includes the same corrosion resistant material as the support member 708, paragraph 0050; the support member 1012 may be machined from stainless steel and coated (e.g., electroplated, anodized, dipcoated, etc.) with a Pd--Ni alloy that is substantially equal to the galvanic potential of the aerosolizing element 1016, paragraph 0064) to allow the apparatus to operate for extended periods of time without the issue of corrosion (paragraph 0006).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the loading board and vaporizer plate to be made of the same metal material, as taught by Ivri, to allow the apparatus to operate for extended periods of time without the issue of corrosion (Ivri: paragraph 0006). This improvement would extend the longevity of the device and ensures the liquid medicaments that have a low pH would not corrode the components of the device. Additionally, having these components be made of the same material would reduce the number of steps involved in the assembly process as the components would be formed from the same material and not different materials.
Regarding Claim 2, Hejazi-Hsieh-Ivri combination teaches the ratio of the diameter of the microporous zone to the pore size of the second through hole is 1 (Hejazi: and the inner diameter of the vibrating component may be substantially the same as the diameter of the perforated area of the mesh plate, paragraph 0059; inner diameter of 221E and perforated area of 219E shown to have substantially the same size, Fig 4E; Hsieh: the brake ring piece 33 is a metal ring piece having an outer ring diameter 331 and an inner ring diameter 332 and disposed on one side of piezoelectric ring piece 31, inner ring diameter of 33 is equal to inner ring diameter of 31, Page 5; 33 and 31 shown to be of same inner diameter as diameter of orifice sheet 32, Fig 8).
Regarding Claim 3, Hejazi-Hsieh-Ivri combination teaches the microporous zone is planar (Hejazi: 219E shown to be flat or planar, Fig 4E), or wherein the microporous zone raises towards a mist outlet direction of the ultrasonic vaporization assembly to form a boss (Hejazi: 219C and 219D shown to have a boss or curve, Figs 4C and 4D; 320 is a curved portion curved towards the aerosol path 366, Fig 5; mesh plate may have a substantially domed shape, which may be concave or convex with respect to reservoir, mesh plate may include substantially flat portion, paragraph 0056).
Regarding Claim 4, Hejazi-Hsieh-Ivri combination teaches the microporous zone is located in a central area of the vaporizer plate (Hejazi: porous area of 219E must be in middle area of 219E, Fig 4E).
Regarding Claim 5, Hejazi-Hsieh-Ivri combination teaches the microporous zone comprises a plurality of vaporization through holes, and wherein a pore size of the vaporization through hole gradually decreases along a mist outlet direction of the ultrasonic vaporization assembly (Hejazi: shapes defined through plate by perforations may be substantially conical, conical perforations may increase performance of mesh, larger openings may be located proximate surface of liquid composition and smaller openings define an aerosol outlet area, paragraph 0058).
Regarding Claim 6, Hejazi-Hsieh-Ivri combination teaches the loading board comprises a metal sheet (Hejazi: supporting component located on side of mesh plate opposite the vibrating component, may comprise supporting ring, supporting component made of metal, paragraph 0055; metal ring 221E, paragraph 0057; Ivri: aperture plate made from palladium-nickel alloy which his mounted on a steel washer that has been made from or coated with the same palladium-nickel alloy, paragraph 0032). The current Hejazi-Hsieh-Ivri combination fails to explicitly teach a thickness of the metal sheet ranges from 0.4 mm to 0.7 mm.
However, Hejazi further teaches the metal ring 221E and piezoelectric ring 217E to have substantially the same thicknesses (Fig 4E) and the thickness of the vibrating component may be in the range of a few hundred microns to tens of millimeters, or the thickness of the vibrating component may be smaller than 1 millimeter (paragraph 0059).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of using the thickness of the vibrating component as a reference or guideline to find and modify the thickness of the metal ring to be within the 0.4 mm to 0.7 mm range through routine experimentation and optimization. Since Hejazi already shows these two components sharing similar thicknesses in the drawings and the vibrating component having a thickness of less than 1 millimeter, it is obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art to discover similar optimal thicknesses for the metal ring, especially for stability and longevity purposes of the mesh plate as taught by Hejazi (Hejazi: paragraph 0055). It is noted that Applicant’s loading board is present in the device for a similar purpose as the prior art to improve overall structural rigidity (Specification: paragraph 0027). Applicant has not provided any details regarding these ranges providing unexpected results.
Regarding Claim 8, Hejazi-Hsieh-Ivri combination teaches the vaporizer plate has a liquid inlet surface and a mist outlet surface that are arranged opposite each other (Hejazi: the larger openings may be located proximate the surface of the liquid composition and the smaller openings may define an aerosol outlet area, paragraph 0058), the loading board being arranged on the liquid inlet surface, and the piezoelectric drive element being arranged on the mist outlet surface (Hejazi: supporting component may be included that is located on the side of the mesh plate opposite the vibrating component, paragraph 0055; 317 shown to be on mist outlet surface of 319, Fig 5), or wherein the vaporizer plate has a liquid inlet surface and a mist outlet surface that are arranged opposite each other (Hejazi: the larger openings may be located proximate the surface of the liquid composition and the smaller openings may define an aerosol outlet area, paragraph 0058), the loading board being arranged on the mist outlet surface, and the piezoelectric drive element being arranged on the liquid inlet surface (Hejazi: supporting component may be included that is located on the side of the mesh plate opposite the vibrating component, paragraph 0055; piezoelectric ring 217B and 217D shown to be on both sides of mesh plate 219B and 219D respectively, Figs 4B and 4D).
Regarding Claim 9, Hejazi-Hsieh-Ivri combination teaches the piezoelectric drive element, the vaporizer plate, and the loading board are all circular (Hejazi: 221E, 217E, and 219E are all circular, Fig 4E), wherein the vaporizer plate comprises a metallic screen mesh (Hejazi: mesh plate may be made of a metal material, paragraph 0056), and wherein the piezoelectric drive element comprises a piezoelectric ceramic ring (Hejazi: the vibrating component may comprise a piezoelectric ring, which, in some implementations may be made of a piezoceramic material, paragraph 0060).
The current Hejazi-Hsieh-Ivri combination fails to explicitly teach the piezoelectric drive element, the vaporizer plate, and the loading board have a same outer diameter.
However, Hejazi further teaches the outer diameter of the vibrating component may be substantially the same size as the overall diameter of the mesh plate (paragraph 0059) and the outer diameter of 221E sharing a similar diameter to the outer diameter of 217E (Fig 4E).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of modifying all three components to have the same outer diameter through routine experimentation and optimization. As taught by Hejazi, the piezoelectric drive element or vibrating component can have the same outer diameter as the vaporizer plate or mesh plate (Hejazi: paragraph 0059). It would be obvious that the loading board or metal ring would also have the same outer diameter since these are known dimensions that one of ordinary skill in the art would experiment on to find the optimal dimensions. It is also obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art to discover similar optimal outer diameters for the metal ring, especially for stability and longevity purposes of the mesh plate as taught by Hejazi (Hejazi: paragraph 0055). It is noted that Applicant’s loading board is present in the device for a similar purpose as the prior art to improve overall structural rigidity (Specification: paragraph 0027). Applicant has not provided any details regarding these dimensions providing unexpected results.
Regarding Claim 10, Hejazi-Hsieh-Ivri combination teaches an ultrasonic vaporization device (Hejazi: apparatus of Fig 2), comprising: a housing (Hejazi: 104, Fig 2) having a liquid storage cavity (Hejazi: 144, Fig 2) and a liquid outlet (Hejazi: outlet of 144, Fig 2); the ultrasonic vaporization assembly of claim 1 arranged at the liquid outlet (See Rejection of Claim 1 above; Hejazi: 115, Fig 2), the ultrasonic vaporization assembly being configured to vaporize an aerosol-forming substrate of the liquid storage cavity when power is turned on (Hejazi: 116 connects 115 to control component 106 and/or battery 110, 115 energized by 110 and/or 106, paragraph 0042); and a power supply assembly (Hejazi: 110, Fig 2) electrically connected to the ultrasonic vaporization assembly, the power supply assembly being configured to supply the power to the ultrasonic vaporization assembly (Hejazi: 116 connects 115 to control component 106 and/or battery 110, 115 energized by 110 and/or 106, paragraph 0042).
Regarding Claim 11, Hejazi-Hsieh-Ivri combination teaches the loading board and the vaporizer plate each comprise stainless steel, or palladium alloy (Hejazi: the mesh plate may be made of a metal material, such as, but not limited to, stainless steel, palladium-nickel, or titanium, paragraph 0056; Ivri: aperture plate made from palladium-nickel alloy which his mounted on a steel washer that has been made from or coated with the same palladium-nickel alloy, paragraph 0032; support member made of stainless steel, aerosolizing element 1016 made of a Pd-Ni alloy, paragraph 0062; the support member 1012 may be machined from stainless steel and coated (e.g., electroplated, anodized, dipcoated, etc.) with a Pd--Ni alloy that is substantially equal to the galvanic potential of the aerosolizing element 1016, paragraph 0064).
Regarding Claim 12, the current Hejazi-Hsieh-Ivri combination does not explicitly teach the outer diameter of the vaporizer plate is 16 mm.
However, Hejazi further teaches the overall diameter of the mesh plate may be in the inclusive range of approximately a few millimeters to approximately 30 millimeters (paragraph 0059).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the outer diameter of the vaporizer plate to be 16 mm, as taught by Hejazi, through routine experimentation and optimization. Since 16 mm fits within the inclusive range taught by Hejazi, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of performing routine experimentation and optimization to modify the outer diameter of the vaporizer plate to be 16 mm. Applicant has not provided any details regarding this dimension providing unexpected results.
Regarding Claim 13, the current Hejazi-Hsieh-Ivri combination does not explicitly teach the outer diameter of the vaporizer plate is 10 mm and the thickness of the loading board ranges from 0.25 mm to 0.43 mm.
However, Hejazi further teaches the metal ring 221E and piezoelectric ring 217E to have substantially the same thicknesses (Fig 4E), the thickness of the vibrating component may be in the range of a few hundred microns to tens of millimeters, or the thickness of the vibrating component may be smaller than 1 millimeter (paragraph 0059) and overall diameter of mesh plate may be approximately a few millimeters to approximately 30 millimeters (paragraph 0059).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the thickness of the vibrating component as a reference or guideline to find and modify the thickness of the loading board to be within the 0.25 mm to 0.43 mm range through routine experimentation and optimization and to modify the outer diameter of the vaporizer plate to be 10 mm through routine experimentation and optimization. Since Hejazi already shows these two components sharing similar thicknesses in the drawings and the vibrating component having a thickness of less than 1 millimeter, it is obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art to discover similar optimal thicknesses for the metal ring, especially for stability and longevity purposes of the mesh plate as taught by Hejazi (Hejazi: paragraph 0055). It is noted that Applicant’s loading board is present in the device for a similar purpose as the prior art to improve overall structural rigidity (Specification: paragraph 0027). Additionally, Since 10 mm fits within the inclusive range taught by Hejazi, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of performing routine experimentation and optimization to modify the outer diameter of the vaporizer plate to be 10 mm. Applicant has not provided any details regarding these ranges and dimensions providing unexpected results.
Regarding Claim 14, Hejazi-Hsieh-Ivri combination teaches the vaporizer plate and the piezoelectric drive element are connected together by gluing or spot welding (Hejazi: the vibrating component and the mesh plate may be permanently affixed to each other such as, for example, by affixing the components together via an adhesive, such as, for example, an epoxy or other glue, or by ultrasonic welding, paragraph 0056; Product by Process: product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process, See MPEP 2113).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN THAI-BINH KHONG whose telephone number is (571)272-1857. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 9:00 am-6:00 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, Kendra Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/BRIAN T KHONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/JOSEPH D. BOECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights