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
Claims 1-4 and 13-14 are amended. Claims 11 and 12 are withdrawn. Claims 17-20 are newly added. Claims 1-10 and 13-20 are presently examined.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the objections to the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections of 1/7/2026 are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of 1/7/2026 are overcome.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 17-20 are 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.
Regarding claim 17, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the liquid substrate seeping from a surface of the first portion,” rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it recited liquid substrate seeping from a surface of the first portion. Claims 18-20 are indefinite by dependence.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-10 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Atkins (US 2020/0128874).
Regarding claim 1, Atkins discloses a cartridge having a reservoir that accommodates liquid vaporizable material ([0275], figure 3B, reference numeral 1340), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a liquid storage cavity, and an atomizer having a heating element (figure 3B, reference numeral 1350) that covers a part of a wicking element extending in a horizontal direction ([0266], figure 3B, reference numeral 1362), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a liquid guide element perpendicular to a longitudinal direction. The wicking element draws liquid from the reservoir for vaporization [0253]. The heating element is wrapped around the wicking element [0236], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of partially surrounding. The reservoir has an overflow volume that collects some of the vaporizable material ([0276], figure 3B, reference numeral 1344) so that pressure in the reservoir is equalized [0028] to ensure that liquid can be supplied to the heater for vaporization [0249], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a liquid temporary storage space that adjust efficiency of transferring liquid. The overflow volume is separated from the reservoir by a collector structure ([0275], figure 3B, reference numeral 1313), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a first support. The liquid guide structure is located above the heating element (figure 3B), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of avoiding. The wicking element is located in a defined bottom portion (figure 3B), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an atomization chamber.
Regarding claim 4, Atkins discloses that the ends of the wicking element are not covered by the heating element and are adjacent to the overflow volume (figure 3B), and are therefore considered to meet the claim limitation of first portions. The portion of the wicking element surrounded by the heating element is considered to meet the claim limitation of a second portion.
Regarding claim 5, Atkins discloses that the storage chamber transfers liquid to the wicking element via multiple primary passageways ([0279], figure 3B, reference numeral 1382), which are considered to meet the claim limitation of liquid channels.
Regarding claim 6, Atkins discloses that liquid can move downward through both the overflow volume and the primary passageways (figure 3B), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of substantially aligned in the longitudinal direction.
Regarding claim 7, Atkins discloses that the primary passageway is formed from a capillary pathway of the wicking element [0285]. The portion of the wicking element forming the primary passageway are considered to meet the claim limitation of porous body materials. The capillary action draws the liquid [0015], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of adjusting a rate of transferring.
Regarding claim 8, Atkins discloses that the capillary pathway reaches the wicking element [0285], indicating that the porous body extension of the wicking element is in contact with the wicking element shown in figure 3B of Atkins.
Regarding claim 9, Atkins discloses that the collector structure is located at both the bottom of the overflow volume and at the top on the opposite side of the collector from the heating element (figure 3B), which is considered to meet both the facing away and partially supporting limitations.
Regarding claim 10, Atkins discloses that the collector structure is made up of walls that define the overflow volume and has a bottom wall that separates the area that holds the wicking element from the overflow volume (figure 3B).
Regarding claim 17, Figure 3A of Atkins is annotated as shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
609
549
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The sides of the overflow volume form grooves, and the wall that extends from the end of the wicking elements to the grooves is considered to meet the claim limitation of a support wall. It is evident that liquid could seep from the first portion of the wicking element into the overflow volume since there is an open pathway (figure 3A).
Regarding claim 18, Atkins discloses that the wicking element is fit together with a wick housing along with the collector ([0411], figure 25, reference numeral 1315), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a first support. The collector and the wick housing are in contact (figure 25, reference numeral 1320).
Regarding claim 19, the wicking element is fit into the wick housing [0411] so that it is secured in a fixed position [0390], indicating that the wick housing much support the wicking element because it would otherwise move.
Regarding claim 20, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the wicking element must be in contact with the wick housing since they are fit together, which indicates some kind of intimate contact.
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.
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 2-3 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atkins (US 2020/0128874).
Regarding claim 2, Atkins discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Atkins discloses that the overflow volume has an opening to an exterior of the cartridge to act as a venting channel to equalize the air pressure in the reservoir and the outside air [0278], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an air pressure balance channel. It is evident that the pressure equalization would also extend to the vaporization chamber since the vaporization chamber and reservoir are connected both by the overflow volume and by a primary passageway ([0274], figure 3B, reference numeral 1382). Atkins does not explicitly disclose multiple air pressure balance channels.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the opening to the exterior of Atkins. The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI B.
Regarding claim 3, Atkins discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Atkins discloses that the overflow volume has an opening to an exterior of the cartridge to act as a venting channel to equalize the air pressure in the reservoir and the outside air [0278], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an air pressure balance channel. It is evident that the pressure equalization would also extend to the vaporization chamber since the vaporization chamber and reservoir are connected both by the overflow volume and by a primary passageway ([0274], figure 3B, reference numeral 1382). An airflow passageway extends past the heating element to allow air flow and has a opening in the cartridge below the heating element where it enters ([0267], figure 3B, reference numeral 1338). Atkins does not explicitly disclose multiple air pressure balance channels.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the opening to the exterior of Atkins. The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI B.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Atkins discloses that the ends of the wicking element are not covered by the heating element and are adjacent to the overflow volume (figure 3B), and are therefore considered to meet the claim limitation of first portions. The portion of the wicking element surrounded by the heating element is considered to meet the claim limitation of a second portion.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Atkins discloses that the collector structure is located at both the bottom of the overflow volume and at the top on the opposite side of the collector from the heating element (figure 3B), which is considered to meet both the facing away and partially supporting limitations.
Response to Amendment
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues (a) that the overflow volume of Atkins has a different purpose than the claimed liquid temporary storage spaces, which produce various desired effects, (b) that no liquid guiding element is located within the channels of Atkins so that the liquid guiding element is partially surrounded while avoiding the heater, (c) that claims 2 and 3 require airflow communication, and (d) that the dependent claims are allowable due to dependence on an allowable claim.
Regarding (a), the features that applicant discusses are not specific structural features of the claimed liquid temporary storage spaces. Rather they are limitations about the purpose of liquid temporary storage spaces that are unclaimed concepts from the specification. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP § 2114. In this case, applicant offers no argument that the overflow member of Atkins is incapable of performing as claimed. Furthermore, Atkins explicitly discloses that the overflow volume allows storing liquid that overflows from the storage chamber due to pressure changes [0279], which is considered to be a form of buffering and saturation control.
Regarding (b), the claims require the liquid temporary storage space “configured to at least partially surround the liquid guide element.” Applicant appears to argue that this limitation requires the liquid guide element to extend inside the liquid temporary storage space, however, Atkins is considered to disclose this limitation since the overflow volume is above the wicking element (figure 3A), which is considered to be a form of partial surrounding.
Regarding (c), Atkins discloses that the passageway of the overflow volume allows airflow along its length so that airflow between the reservoir and environment can occur to cause pressure equalization [0028].
Regarding (d), all examined claims, including the examined independent claim, are rejected as set forth above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RUSSELL E SPARKS whose telephone number is (571)270-1426. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5 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.
/RUSSELL E SPARKS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights