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
The amendments entered on 2/27/2026 have been accepted. Claims 1-6, 8-11 are amended. There are no new or canceled claims. Claims 1-17 are pending. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the non-final office action mailed 12/01/2025. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the objections previously set forth.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the limitation “the at least one liquid-conducting projection has a cross section in the shape of an annular sector”, is considered to be new matter. An “annular sector” is a very specific mathematical shape which is a portion of a ring (annulus) bounded by two concentric circles, wherein there are straight lines connecting the endpoints of the two arcs. The specification does not specifically state or suggest that the projections may have the shape of “an annular sector”, and instead the specification states the much broader language that the projection may be “a fan-shaped projection block” [0039], which may have a short arc closer to the solid post and a longer arc which is further away from the solid post [0039]. This does not reasonably convey to the person of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor was in possession of the projection being an “annular sector”, as the projection described does not necessarily meet the mathematical definition of an annular sector. It is considered that the specification suggests the “genus” of a fan-shaped projection block, the specification does not suggest the “species” of an annular sector which the dimensions that implies. Additionally, it is noted that the Figures do not appear to reasonably convey to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the projections have an annular shape, such that the Figures do not appear to suggest this feature. As such, it is considered that the “annular sector” is considered to be new matter. Claims 2-17 are rejected for relying upon a rejected claim. It is noted that the specification does have written support for the projections being in a “fan-shape” which has a shorter arc at the solid post and a longer arc further away from the solid post as detailed in [0039] of the instant specification.
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 1-2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu (CN208096031U, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Fu discloses an aerosol generation assembly (atomizer “1” which may be utilized in an electronic cigarette [abstract]) comprising:
An upright ceramic (ceramic core “11”, as in Figs. 1-4), the upright ceramic comprising a solid post and at least one liquid-conducting projection arranged on the solid post (the solid post is considered the be the center portion of “11” as in Fig. 1, whereas the projections are considered to be the projections “112” [see Figs. 2-4] which extend outward from the solid post to the outer portion of the ceramic core), a gas channel zone being formed between a side wall of the liquid-conducting projection and an outside wall of the solid post (air passage “14” is where the vapor travels during atomization, as in Figs. 1-4. As best seen in Figs. 3-4, the air passage “14” is clearly formed between the sidewalls of “112” and of the solid post), the at least one liquid-conducting projection being provided with a liquid passage zone (liquid enters the core through the guide holes “121” which then travel along the projections “112”, such that this would be considered to be a liquid-passage zone located on the projections [see Figs. 1-4 and bottom of pg. 3-pg. 4 of machine translation); and
A heating element (heating element “13” [pg. 3 of machine translation]), which is at least partly arranged in the outside wall of the solid post and located in the gas channel zone (the heating element/coil of “13” clearly extends through both of the gas channel zone “14” and of the outer wall of the solid post, see in particular Figs. 2-4 which each show the coil extending through each of the regions. Additionally, Fu explicitly states that the heating element may be partially exposed to the channel “14” [pg. 4 of machine translation]. Moreover, it is held that guidance as provided by the figures is sufficient to enable public possession of an inventive concept. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979), see MPEP 2125.),
Wherein the at least one liquid-conducting projection has a cross section in the shape of an annular sector with a side surface along the long arc edge away from the solid post and facing a liquid ingress opening to ensure better blocking and amount of liquid being transferred and a short arc edge is connected to the solid post to realize concentration of transfer of liquid (as in Figs. 1-4, the projections “112” are clearly formed in a “fan shaped projection” manner, wherein they each protrude outwards from the solid post, where the projection has an outer arc at its outermost portion which clearly would contact the liquid ingress opening (see Figs. 1-4 of Fu), and would have an inner arc which may be considered the portion of the projection which is located closer to the solid post (center) than the outer portion of the projections. The projections “112” and their characteristics thereof allows for preventing the leakage of oil into the air passage (thus controlling the flow/concentration of liquid being transferred) [pg. 4 of machine translation]. The core includes grooves “111” which are the spaces in-between each of the projections “112”, wherein the shape of the grooves clearly directly leads to the shape of the projections [see Figs. 3-4]. Fu specifically states that the shape and/or size of the grooves (and thus the projections) may be different from what is shown in the figures, including inconsistent shapes and unevenly distributed shapes [pg. 3 of machine translation]. Fu is therefore clearly not limited to a single embodiment shown in the Figures. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or non-preferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). See MPEP 2123. Therefore, as Fu suggests that the projection “112”/groove “111” lead to a control of the liquid being transferred and of the air passing through the ceramic core [pgs. 3-4 of machine translation], it is obvious that the projections would satisfy the blocking and amount/concentration of liquid being transferred. As in Fig. 3 of Fu, the combination of the projections “112” and grooves “111” form an annular ring, such that a shape of the line between the projections and grooves determines whether the projection is in an annular sector shape or whether the groove is in that shape. And as the projections and grooves would lead to a desired balance of liquid/gas flow in the generation of the aerosol through the ceramic, it is considered that the exact shape/size of the projection would be no more than a matter of choice that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the specific shape is significant (and not merely the presence of the protrusion at the outer and inner portions of the solid post). See MPEP 2144.04 IV. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the shape of the projections of Fu, as in Figs. 1-4, so as to have a long arc at an outer portion and a short arc at an inner portion at the solid post to form an annular sector.
Regarding claim 2, Fu further suggests the heating element comprises a direct heating portion and an embedded portion, where the direct portion is attached/embedded to the outside wall of the solid post and the gas channel zone, and the embedded portion is embedded in the liquid-conducting projection (as in the rejection of claim 1 above, Fu discloses that the heating element “13” may be exposed to the channel “14” [pg. 4 of machine translation], and Fu clearly shows the heating element travelling through both the channel and the outside wall of the solid post and including through the projections “112” [see Figs. 1-4]. The heating element is clearly formed in a continuous manner [Figs. 1-4, pg. 4 of machine translation], such that a direct heating portion would be connected to an embedded portion. The direct heating portion would thus be considered the portion embedded in the solid post and extending partially into the air passage “14”, while the embedded portion would be the portion in the liquid-conducting projection [see Figs. 1-4]).
Regarding claim 4, Fu further suggests the heating element comprises a heating filament (the heating element may be a heating coil composed of a single or more alloy heating wires [pg. 4 of machine translation]);
A portion of the heating filament is attached/embedded in the outside wall of the solid post as the direct heating portion, a portion is embedded in the liquid-conducting portion, and the direct/embedded portion are made as an integrally formed structure (Fu discloses that the heating element “13” may be exposed to the channel “14” [pg. 4 of machine translation]. And as in the rejection of claim 2 above, because the heating element satisfies the direct and embedded heating portion limitations above, and because the heating element contains at least one heating wire which is considered the heating filament, Fu would clearly satisfies the limitations herein. Namely, the direct heating portion would be at least attached/embedded to the solid post and the heating filament would also have a portion embedded in the projection. And as in Fig. 4, the heating filament is clearly formed as an integrally formed structure wherein the portions that provide direct heating vs the portions that are provided are all connected).
Regarding claim 5, Fu further suggests the heating filament comprising a spiral heating filament which is spirally wound around the sidewall of the solid post and liquid-conducting projection (the heating filament is wound into a spiral [pg. 4 of machine translation]. And as in Figs. 1-4, the heating filament “13” is clearly spirally wound with a portion in both the sidewall of the solid post and through the projection).
Regarding claim 6, Fu further suggests that the solid post and liquid-conducting projection are made as an integrally formed structure (as in Figs. 1-4, the post and projections “112” are clearly made integrally formed. See in particular Fig. 1 and Fig. 3), and/or
the solid post comprises a cylinder and a top surface of the projection is flush with a top surface of the cylinder (the ceramic core is made cylindrical [pg. 3 of machine translation], and this is also seen in Fig. 1. As in Figs. 1-4, the top surface of the solid post appears to be flush with the top surface of the projections).
Regarding claim 7, Fu further suggests that the at least one liquid-conducting projection comprises M projections which are arranged in a circumference to define M gas channel zones, where M is greater than 2 (as in Figs. 1-4, there are 4 projections “112” arranged which are each arranged and spaced about the circumference of the core “11”. The projections each delineate the air passage “14” such that there are 4 air passages located around the circumference).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu (CN208096031U, of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Guo (US2022/0030943A1, of record).
Regarding claim 3, Fu suggests the heating element “13”, wherein Fu states that a power supply component and the heater would be detachably connected so as to provide power to the heater [pg. 5 of machine translation]. Fu does not specifically show the electrically conducting members extending through the solid post/projection and connecting with the heater. However, these types of connections would be necessary for operation of the ceramic core, and these types of conducting members are extremely common in the art. Guo teaches a ceramic core for atomizing in an e-cig [0047, Figs. 3-4]. As seen in Fig. 4, the core has heating elements present in a solid portion thereof [0064], where the vapor runs through the core. The heating element is connected to the power source via lead wire “33” and “34” [Figs. 1-4]. And as in Figs. 3-4, the conducting wires extend into the solid portion of the ceramic core, with one end at a bottom and one end at a top portion thereof, which is a substantially similar connection as shown in instant Fig. 5 for example.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to modify the heating elements of Fu to have the conductive members as detailed in Guo. One would have been motivated so as to obtain a working assembly as Fu is silent as to the exact manner of connection between the heating element and the power source, such that the arrangement of Guo would provide electrical power to the heater element of Fu to enable heating [0059] with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 8-12, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu (CN208096031U, of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu (US2022/0240583A1, of record) or Liu2 (US2022/0248754A1, of record).
Regarding claim 8, Fu suggests an aerosol generation mechanism (atomizer “1” which may be utilized in an electronic cigarette [abstract]), with the assembly as in the rejection of claim 1 above. Fu teaches a liquid guiding member with a projection attaching portion attached to the liquid conducting portion (the shell “12” may be considered a liquid guiding member for example, wherein as in Fig. 1 this is clearly located to an outside and attached to the projections “112”. And as the portion of the shell outside of the projection “112” is the projection attaching portion, this is clearly attached to the liquid passage zone of the projection because the holes “121” are formed thereon). Fu does not explicitly teach the end attaching portion as claimed. However, it is common in the art for the ceramic core to be surrounded with a shell that surrounds it to provide additional structure/connection. Liu, for example, teaches an atomizer for an E-cigarette [title], which contains an atomizing core “21” and a heating element “22” [0036, Fig. 2]. The core may be ceramic [0037]. Around the atomizing core, a sleeve “23” is disposed which is present on outer axial ends thereof and which extends above the top of the core [see Fig. 2], wherein the sleeve is connected to and enclosed by the housing [0036]. The e-liquid may flow into the core via the main body “231” thereof [0036], and the sleeve does not prevent the movement of air through the core [0044]. As in Fig. 4, the sleeve comprises a main body around the circumference of the core, and a fixing part on the top of the core that connects to the rest of the device [see Fig. 4, 0036, 0044-0045]. As in Figs. 2-4, the axial edges of the sleeve and the top portions thereof are attached to each other.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the atomizer core of Fu to have the sleeve as suggested by Liu. One would have been motivated so as to prevent the atomizing core from becoming loose and ensure proper fluid transfer into/out of the core [0036, 0045]. When Fu is modified by Liu, the outer portion thereof “234” may be considered the end attaching portion, and the axial outer portion the projection attaching portion. Because the upper portion of the sleeve “234” is on top of the core, it would clearly be formed attached to the outer end of the solid post. Additionally, it is noted that no specific structure is required of the “hollowed region” as this may simply be the area which is located above the gas channel zone. That being said, the portions of “234” which correspond to the air passage zone may be considered the hollowed region, as the sleeve of Liu does not restrict the air passage of the core and thus would clearly be hollowed out. Further, courts have held that rearrangement of parts of the prior art is unpatentable. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and MPEP 2144.04, IV., part C.)
Alternatively, Liu2 discloses an atomizing assembly [see Fig. 5] which has a ceramic atomization core “6” [0034]. The core is surrounded by an oil guide “5” which extends to the immediate outside of the core and is located directly above the core [0034, Fig. 5]. The oil guide “5” is made from an e-liquid conductive cotton [0034]. The oil guide “5” is disposed around the core “6” and within the atomizing tube “7” [0039] such that the oil guide directly communicates with the airflow channel [0036]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the core of Fu to have the oil guide of Liu2. One would have been motivated so as to additionally introduce e-liquid into the core and to provide structure [0034-0039]. When modified as such, the outer portion of “5” would be considered the end attaching portion, and the axial outer portion the projection attaching portion. Additionally, it is noted that no specific structure is required of the “hollowed region” as this may simply be the area which is located above the gas channel zone. That being said, the portions of “5” communicate with the air passage zone [0036], such that it would clearly comprise such a hollowed region corresponding with the gas channel zone. Further, courts have held that rearrangement of parts of the prior art is unpatentable. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and MPEP 2144.04, IV., part C.)
Regarding claim 9, modified Fu makes obvious the end portion of the solid post provided with a positioning portion, the end attaching portion comprising a position region which is connection to the positioning portion (When Fu is in view of Liu, the positioning portion would simply be considered the outermost portion of the sleeve “23”, and the surrounding area of the device would be considered the positioning region which would necessarily be connected as in Fig. 4 of Liu. It being noted that no specific limitations/requirements are required for these positioning portions/regions. And when in view of Liu2, similarly, the positioning portion would simply be considered the outermost portion of “5”, and the surrounding portion thereof would be considered the positioning region).
Regarding claim 10, modified Fu makes obvious the positioning portion has a positioning projection of a cuboid shape, and the positioning region comprises a positioning hole to be received by the projection (when Fu is in view of Liu, the outermost portions of “23” in Fig. 4 would clearly have a projection which projects out from the rest of “23”. And the positioning hole may be considered to be the portion that the positioning projection connects to, such that a positioning hole in the housing would clearly be connected to the projection thereof [see Fig. 1, 6]. And when in view of Liu2, similarly the outermost portion of “5” would be considered a projection because it projects past other area of “5” which do not reach up as far as in Fig. 5. And the positioning hole may be considered the region into which “5” projects, as in Fig. 5. Regarding the shape being cuboid, it is generally recognized that a mere change in shape of an element is within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape was a matter of choice. No persuasive evidence has been presented that the particular shape/combination is significant, such that one would have found it obvious to utilize a cuboid shape. See MPEP 2144.04.).
Regarding claim 11, modified Fu makes obvious the end attaching portion and projection attaching portion are pre-fabricated as an integrally formed cotton structure (when in view of Liu, the end and projection portions are clearly formed together as defined above and as seen in Figs. 2 and Fig. 4 which form the sleeve which surrounds the core. And as cotton may be formed between the sleeve and the core [0043], it would be considered that the whole of the sleeve and the cotton form the cotton structure as required in the claim. And alternatively when in view of Liu2, the oil guide “5” is clearly formed so as to have the end and projection portions integrally formed [see Fig. 5 formed as one piece}, and Liu2 states that “5” is formed as a cotton [0034]. It is noted that the courts have generally found that “making integral” of several parts as a single unit is a matter of obvious engineering choice. See MPEP 2144.04. Regarding the newly added term “pre-fabricated”, this is not considered to add further patentable weight beyond the previous word “made” under the broadest reasonable interpretation thereof and does not appear to further distinguish from the structures as suggested by Fu in view of Liu or Liu2).
Regarding claim 12, modified Fu makes obvious an aerosol generation device (atomizer “1” which may be utilized in an electronic cigarette [abstract]), comprising the mechanism of claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 above), comprising a base (Fig. 5 of Fu provides a view of the structure of the atomizer. The surrounding area around the ceramic atomizing core “10” may be considered the base), wherein the base is filled with an aerosol generation compartment where the aerosol mechanism is disposed (The aerosol generation compartment is considered the portion of Fig. 5 which immediately surrounds the atomizing core “10”), a compartment wall of the aerosol generation compartment enclosing the gas channel zone and contacting the projection attaching portion (the compartment walls can be considered the portions surrounding the core “10”, wherein there would be walls enclosing the gas channel zone which would rise from “10” to the top of the atomizer “1” in Fig. 5. And as the projection attaching portions as defined above are immediately to the outside of the core “10”, the projection attaching portions would similarly necessarily be contacting the compartment wall of the compartment), and a liquid ingress hole in communication with the liquid passage zone (in Fig. 5 of Fu, “30” is the liquid storage for the atomizing device, where the passage from the storage to the atomizer “10” would necessarily contain the liquid ingress hole so as for the liquid to enter the core from the storage, to enter the guide holes “121” of the inventive atomizer so as to have the working atomizer as disclosed).
Regarding claim 14, modified Fu makes obvious an aerosol generation apparatus (atomizer “1” may be used in an electronic cigarette [abstract]), comprising the device of claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above), comprising an aerosol generation medium storage member which is connected to the base (“30” is the liquid storage for the apparatus, wherein this is clearly connected to the base as defined above [pg. 5 of machine translation, Fig. 5], wherein this surrounding section of the apparatus would be considered the storage member), and the storage member is in communication with the liquid ingress hole (the passage from the storage member “30” to the atomizer “10” would necessarily contain the liquid ingress hole so as for the liquid to enter the core from the storage, to enter the guide holes “121” of the inventive atomizer so as to have the working atomizer as disclosed).
Regarding claim 15, modified Fu makes obvious an electrical power bar which is electrically connected to the heating element (Fu specifies that the electronic cigarette comprising the atomizer also includes a power supply assembly in a detachable matter to the heater to provide power to the heater [pg. 5 of machine translation]) and an inhalation mouth in communication with the gas channel zone and connectable to the storage medium and/or base (the electronic cigarette would necessarily possess a mouth for inhalation, where this may be considered the outermost portion of the device of Fig. 5. As the mouth is for inhaling the produced vapor from the atomizer, it would clearly be in communication with the gas channel, as in Fig. 5 of Fu. And as in Fig. 5 would be connectable to the base so as to form the electronic cigarette thereof. Further, courts have held that rearrangement of parts of the prior art is unpatentable. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and MPEP 2144.04, IV., part C.).
Regarding claim 16, modified Fu makes obvious a liquid filling void area (as in Fig. 5 of Fu, the liquid filling void area is considered to be the smaller square which is located immediately above the liquid storage cavity “30”),
the base and the aerosol storage member are connected to form a liquid chamber (the liquid storage cavity “30” is clearly formed as such as in Fig. 5 [pg. 5 of machine translation]), the base being formed with a liquid filling hole in communication with the liquid chamber (the liquid filling hole is considered to be the communication portion between what is considered to be the liquid filling void area and the liquid storage cavity as in Fig. 5 as defined above, where these features are clearly connected and in communication with each other), the liquid chamber being in communication with the liquid ingress hole, the liquid filling hole in communication with the liquid filling void area, and the liquid chamber configured for storing and holding the atomizable cigarette liquid (as above, the liquid storage cavity “30” is configured for storing the liquid for use in the electronic cigarette for atomization [pg. 5 of machine translation, Fig. 5]. And as the liquid would necessarily move from the chamber “30” towards the atomizer “10” in order for the liquid to be atomized to vapor for inhalation, the liquid chamber would necessarily be in communication with the ingress hole, and the void area).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu (CN208096031U, of record) and in view of Liu (US2022/0240583A1, of record) or Liu2 (US2022/0248754A1, of record), as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Xiang (WO2016179776A1, of record).
Regarding claim 13, Fu does not explicitly disclose a liquid blocking step at an end portion of the compartment wall with the step corresponding to the gas channel zone. However, such an arrangement is known in the art. Xiang discloses an atomizing assembly, wherein as in Fig. 7 a smoke blocking cover ‘34” is provided at a top end of the atomizing sleeve “31” [0068] on the end of the mouthpiece assembly. An air outlet hole “343” is provided in communication with the vent tube “23” and the smoke channel “30” on the smoke blocking cover “34” is offset from the smoke outlet from the smoke channel “30” so that large particles of liquid from the smoke are blocked by the smoke blocking cover “34” and flow back through the smoke blocking cover “34” into the liquid adsorption member “32” to prevent large particles of liquid from entering the mouth [0068-0069]. Since large particles of smoke are substantially blocked by the smoke blocking cover 34, the probability of smoke condensing within the vent tube 23 and the mouthpiece assembly 1 is reduced, thereby reducing the probability of a user smoking condensed liquid [0068-0069]. As in Fig. 7, “34” is clearly located within the aerosol generation compartment, and “34” corresponds with the gas channel zone.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the compartment of Fu to have the smoke blocking cover as suggested by Xiang. One would have been motivated so as to prevent the user from inhaling liquid [0068-0069].
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu (CN208096031U, of record) and in view of Liu (US2022/0240583A1, of record) or Liu2 (US2022/0248754A1, of record), as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Fraser (US2019/0150520A1, of record).
Regarding claim 17, Fu does not explicitly disclose a mouth cap on an inhalation mouth which is detachable. However, such mouth caps are extremely common within the art. Fraser, for example, teaches an aerosol delivery device such as an e-cigarette which generates an aerosol from a source liquid containing nicotine [0003]. The device, as in Fig. 4, contains a removeable mouthpiece cap “44” [0066], where the mouthpiece cap comprises the end of the mouthpiece and includes an opening for the user to inhale the vapor through the device [0069], such that it is clearly formed on the inhalation mouth of the device. The cap may have a snap-fit constructure [0069]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have apply a detachable/connectable mouth cap of Fraser to the device of Fu. One would have been motivated so as enable a detachable/connectable cap which is able to block and enable passage of air through the inhalation mouth [0066-0071]. Further, courts have held that rearrangement of parts of the prior art is unpatentable. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and MPEP 2144.04, IV., part C.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Fu does not suggest the amended claim 1 language describing the liquid-conducting projection.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, it is noted that the exact language as in the amended claim is considered to be new matter. Second, it is noted that Applicant’s arguments pertaining “teaching away” are not found convincing. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or non-preferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). See MPEP 2123. The disclosure of a single embodiment via the figures does not teach away from a broader disclosure as revealed in the written specification. In fact, Fu specifically states that the shapes of the grooves “111” (which would necessarily impact the shape of the projections “112” because they share common borders may be different and inconsistent and unevenly distributed [pg. 3 of machine translation]. In other words, Fu is directly stating that the grooves “111” (and thus necessarily the projections “112”) may be formed in different shapes from the shape that is shown in Figs. 1-4. Applicant further argues regarding a “symmetry” of Fu which is desirable as opposed to an asymmetry of the instant application. This is not in any way supported by Fu, where Fu does not in any manner mention the “symmetry” of the projections. These arguments appear to be tied to Applicant’s own opinions of the prior art and not specifically tied to facts in the prior art, such that they are not found convincing. And as in Fig. 3 of Fu, the combination of the projections “112” and grooves “111” form an annular ring, such that a shape of the line between the projections and grooves determines whether the projection is in an annular sector shape or whether the groove is in that shape. As the projections and grooves presence would lead to a desired balance of liquid/gas flow in the generation of the aerosol through the ceramic, it is considered that the exact shape/size of the projection would be no more than a matter of choice that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the specific shape is significant (and not merely the presence of the protrusion at the outer and inner portions of the solid post). See MPEP 2144.04 IV. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the shape of the projections of Fu, as in Figs. 1-4, so as to have a long arc at an outer portion and a short arc at an inner portion at the solid post so as to form an annular sector.
It is noted that under the claim limitations which are supported by the instant specification (that of an outside long arc and an inner short arc with the projection being “fan shaped”), Figs. 1-4 of Fu appear to disclose such a structure without modification. Namely, a “long arc” and a “short arc” is not required to have a single radius for each respective arc, such that an outermost portion of the projection may be considered to have a longer arc compared to a shorter arc that is located at the solid post. The long arc may reasonably include portion along the outer extent of the projection as in Fig. 3 of Fu (for example).
Applicant argues on pg. 11 of their filed remarks that the prior art does not suggest certain features of claim 8.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Applicant makes no reference to any of the references of the rejection of claim 8, such that it is entirely unclear what Applicant believes is lacking in the rejections. The Examiner notes that the rejections, as above, are clear and clearly suggest the claimed structure. Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. As such, these arguments must be found unconvincing.
Applicant argues on pg. 11 of their filed remarks that the structure of claim 11 is not suggested by the prior art.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Applicant makes no reference to any of the references of the rejection of claim 11, such that it is entirely unclear what Applicant believes is lacking in the rejections, or how any of the claim language differentiates from the structure as detailed in the rejections. The Examiner notes that the rejections, as above, are clear and clearly suggest the claimed structure. Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. As such, these arguments must be found unconvincing.
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 THOMAS F SCHNEIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-4857. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/T.F.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights