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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/09/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-19 are pending and are subject to this Office Action.
Claims 8-17 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-2 are amended.
Claims 18-19 are new.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed on 7/09/2026 containing
amendments and remarks to the claims.
The objection to claim 1 has not been withdrawn as lines 7-9 each recite “the side wall” instead of “the at least one side wall”.
The objection to claim 2 has been withdrawn due to the claim amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-10, filed 7/09/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite the electrodes are connected to the at least one side wall extending in opposite directions therefrom, whereas previously this was not required. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of previously applied art and newly found art.
The following is a modified rejection based on amendments made to the claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, line 7, recites “the side wall” which should instead be “the at least one side wall”.
Claim 1, line 8, recites “the side wall” which should instead be “the at least one side wall”.
Claim 1, line 9, recites “the side wall” which should instead be “the at least one side wall”.
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.
Claim 19 is 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.
Claim 19 recites “wherein each electrode includes a portion that extends around the at least one side wall and into the chamber to maintain a shape of the chamber”. However, the instant specification only describes electrodes 107 welded to the thin conductive material of the heating chamber to maintain the shape of the heating chamber (see para. [0017] of the instant specification). Further, fig. 1 of the instant specification shows electrodes 107 welded to the side of heating chamber 101. However, the instant specification does not describe nor show in the drawings wherein each electrode extends into the chamber. Therefore, claim 19 contains new matter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19 recites “where each electrode includes a portion that extends…into the chamber to maintain a shape of the chamber”. However, it is unclear what is meant by the term “maintain a shape of the chamber” and how one of ordinary skill in the art is meant to determine what would maintain a shape of the chamber versus what would not maintain a shape of the chamber. Since the specification provides no clear boundary or suggestion what constitutes an electrode to maintain a shape of the chamber versus not maintaining a shape of the chamber, the limitation is considered to render the claim indefinite. For examination purposes, so long as the electrode extends into the chamber the electrode will be considered to maintain a shape of the chamber.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jurist (US2023/0218001) in view of Spendlove (US 11,805,819) and Wang (WO2022/104727 citations will refer to the English equivalent US2023/0136231).
Regarding claim 1, Jurist discloses:
A personal vaporizer (vaporizer device, figures 7-8, [0089]) comprising: a battery (one or more batteries 650, [0089]); an electrical controller (control module, [0086]); and a chamber in which material to be atomized is contained (heating container 400 defines an internal cavity or heating chamber for placement of organic materials, [0098]), the chamber having at least one side wall (inner wall of container 400 as shown in figure 10).
And the side wall directly contacts the material to be atomized (as the heating container 400 defines an internal cavity or heating chamber for placement of organic materials, [0098]).
The heating container 400 has a heating circuit within its walls ([0099]), and the heating circuit has electrodes ([0105]: first and second thermo-electrode lead that are connected to the heating assembly) connected that deliver electricity to the heating circuit ([0106]: conduct electricity to the heating assembly) from the battery under the control of the electrical controller ([0116]) and resistively heats in response to the electricity ([0099]: the heating assembly is made of a thermosensitive resistance material) to melt and vaporize the material (as different materials may be places in the chamber for heating [0074]).
Jurist does not appear to explicitly disclose (I) electrodes that are connected to the at least one side wall and that deliver electricity to the side wall from the battery under the control of the electrical controller, wherein the side wall resistively heats in response to the electricity to melt and vaporize the material and (II) the electrodes extending in opposite directions from the at least one side wall.
In regard to (I) Spendlove, directed to a vaporizing system, teaches:
A chamber in which material to be atomized is contained (bucket configured to receive and heat oil, Abstract).
The bucket has electrodes that are connected to a side wall (legs 308) and that deliver electricity to the side wall and the side wall resistively heats in response to the electricity (legs connected with electrical connection 311 which is further connected to connection 315, thereby being configured to receive power from the power source, Col. 3, lines 32-42) to melt and vaporize material (as oil is placed in interior area 306 of the bucket (Col. 3, line 38).
The bucket is configured to heat up directly, eliminating the need for an additional heating element and allows for the bucket to heat up faster and more efficiently (Col. 3, lines 44-57).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the chamber of Jurist by configuring the chamber to heat up directly and eliminate the need for an additional heating element as taught by Spendlove, because both Jurist and Spendlove are directed to heating devices with chambers for heating a material, Spendlove teaches this allows for faster and more efficient heating, and this merely involves applying a known technique (i.e. directly heating up a material chamber) to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
In regard to (II) Wang, directed to an atomizing unit and device, teaches:
Electrodes (lead 40) extending in opposite directions (fig. 14) from a side wall (electrode portion 30, [0099]).
The electrode lead 40 is an electrode sheet bent relative to the electrode portion 30 to increase the connecting area with the battery or other power supply ([0099]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrodes of Jurist to be electrode sheets that are bent relative to the side wall and extending in opposite directions therefrom as taught by Wang, because both Jurist and Wang are directed to heating devices with electrode for atomizing a material, Wang teaches this increases the connecting area with the battery, and this merely involves incorporating a known electrode configuration to a similar known heating device with electrodes to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 5, modified Jurist does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the chamber is configured to heat the material to generate aerosol in less than 5 seconds from being activated. However, the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim, and apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See MPEP § 2114 and 2173.05(g). The burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. In this instance, as modified Jurist teaches that by heating up the chamber directly allows the chamber to heat up faster and more efficiently (see Spendlove Col. 3, lines 44-57), it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the heating chamber is structurally capable of heating the material to generate aerosol in less than 5 seconds from being activated. Therefore, the prior art device teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jurist (US2023/0218001) in view of Spendlove (US 11,805,819) and Wang (WO2022/104727 citations will refer to the English equivalent US2023/0136231) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Plojoux (US2014/0305449) and Williams (US2019/0247606).
Regarding claims 2-4, modified Jurist teaches wherein the at least one side wall serves as both a resistance heater and a structural element (as the chamber that holds the heating material (heating container 400 of Jurist) is heated by the electrodes to directly heat the material (Spendlove, Col. 3, lines 44-57)).
Modified Jurist does not appear to explicitly disclose (I) wherein the at least one side wall is a metal and (II) where the metal is a metal foil.
In regard to (I), Spendlove teaches that the bucket is composed of silicon carbide which is a semiconductor and allows the bucket to be heated up directly (Col. 3, lines 44-50).
Plojoux, directed to an aerosol-generating device, teaches suitable electrically resistive materials include semiconductors such as silicon carbides, and suitable metals such as titanium or stainless steel ([0020]). Therefore it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to make the at least one side wall of Jurist be a metal such as titanium or stainless steel, because Plojoux teaches these are suitable electrically resistive materials and the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.07.
However, Jurist does not appear to disclose where the metal is a metal foil.
In regard to (II), Williams, directed to a vaporization device, teaches:
A thin wall metal heating chamber that allows for low thermal mass and thus speedy warmup times [0054]. A thin wall metal reads on a metal foil.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the chamber of Jurist to be thin walled as taught by Williams, and thus a metal foil, because both Jurist and Williams are directed to metal wall heating chambers for vaporization devices, Williams teaches this allows for speedy warmup times, and this merely involves incorporating a known type of metal heating chamber (i.e. thin walled) to a similar heating chamber to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 18, modified Jurist does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the chamber is positioned longitudinally between the electrodes and the controller.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Jurist by moving the electrode connection to any reasonable position along the chamber, including where the chamber is positioned longitudinally between the electrodes and the controller (for example, the electrode connection at the top end of the chamber), because one of ordinary skill would recognize that as the chamber is the heating element any electrode connection along the chamber would be reasonable, as this merely involves rearrangement of parts which is prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 19, modified Jurist does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein each electrode includes a portion that extends around the at least one side wall and into the chamber to maintain a shape of the chamber.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Jurist by moving the electrode connection to any reasonable position along the chamber, including extending around the at least one side wall and into the chamber (for example, the electrode connection at the top end of the chamber), because one of ordinary skill would recognize that as the chamber is the heating element any electrode connection along the chamber would be reasonable, as this merely involves rearrangement of parts which is prima facie obvious.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jurist (US2023/0218001) in view of Spendlove (US 11,805,819) and Wang (WO2022/104727 citations will refer to the English equivalent US2023/0136231) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Puviani (US 11,633,554) and Parry (WO2022/167575).
Regarding claim 6, Jurist does not appear to disclose (I) wherein the controller is configured to respond to the chamber being activated by increasing the chamber temperature to a first temperature setpoint above a melting temperature of the material to be atomized, then increasing the chamber temperature to a second temperature setpoint above the boiling temperature of the material to be atomized, and (II) wherein increasing the chamber temperature to the second temperature occurs after a time delay automatically.
In regard to (I), Puviani, directed to an electronic vaporizer device, teaches:
Pre-heating a viscous, semi-solid or solid composition, before vaporization with the heating element. In certain embodiments, the heat reservoir preheats a vaporizable material to between 40 degrees Celsius and 100 degrees Celsius (Col. 77, lines 25-35). As such it is evident that this pre-heating temperature may be above a melting temperature of the material to be atomized, and the vaporization with the heating element is a temperature above the boiling point of the material to be atomized.
Heating the reservoir may allow for a more controlled initial state, which may enhance the predictability and the stability of the dose (Col. 77, lines 7-10).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to configure the controller of Jurist to pre-heat the vaporizable material before vaporization as taught by Puviani, and thus increase the chamber temperature to a first temperature setpoint above a melting temperature of the material to be atomized, then increasing the chamber temperature to a second temperature setpoint above the boiling temperature of the material to be atomized, because both Jurist and Puviani are directed to electric vaporizer devices with a heating chamber for heating viscous or semi-solid materials, Puviani teaches pre-heating enhances predictability and stability of the dose, and this merely involves incorporating a known way to heat a viscous or semi-solid material (i.e. pre-heat) to a similar vaporizer to yield predictable results.
In regard to (II), Parry, directed to an aerosol generation assembly, teaches:
Duration of the pre-heating phase is fixed to a predetermined time interval. In this case, the controller 36 detects the end of said predetermined time interval and launches the heating phase [0088].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to configure the controller of modified Jurist to fix this pre-heating phase to a predetermined time interval and then launch the heating phase as taught by Parry, and thus increasing of the chamber temperature to the second temperature occurs after a time delay automatically, because both modified Jurist and Parry are directed to an aerosol generation device with a pre-heating phase, and this merely involves incorporating a known way to operate a device with a pre-heating phase to a similar device to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 7, Jurist further teaches the user may know the current heating temperature of the atomization device in real time, and the user may further adjust the temperature by operating the button 602 on the base body 600 according to different heating conditions required by different organic materials [0119], and thus teaches wherein the second temperature setpoint (i.e. atomization temperature) is user-adjustable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicole A Szumigalski whose telephone number is (703)756-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00 - 4:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Philip Louie can be reached at (571) 270-1241. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/N.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights