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
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/13/2026 have been fully considered as follows:
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, with respect to the objection to drawings regarding reference characters 22, 36, 32a, 40a, and 31a have been fully considered and are persuasive, in view of amendments to the specification, see pages 6-7. The objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11, with respect the objection to drawings regarding reference character 35 have been fully considered and are persuasive, in view of amendment to the specification, see page 7. The objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11, with respect to the objection to drawings regarding the “first side part” and the “second side part” in claim 7 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. As amended, Fig. 6 identifies these features only by the descriptive words “first side” and “second side,” without an accompanying reference character. Descriptive words alone do not satisfy 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3), which requires that features shown in the drawings be identified by reference characters (numerals, or letters where applicable) that are consistent with, and explained in, the specification, and provides that reference characters shown in the drawings must appear in the specification when the element or part is described. No reference character has been assigned to either the first side part or the second side part in amended Fig. 6, and the specification does not recite a reference character corresponding to either feature. Further, the labels “first side” and “second side” do not correspond verbatim to the “first side part” and “second side part” recited in claim 7. The amendment therefore does not remedy the deficiency identified in the prior Office action, and the objection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11, with respect to the objection to drawings regarding the “liquid guide channel” in claim 15 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant states that “Liquid guide channel” in claim 15 is amended to read as “liquid channel.” Remarks, p. 11. However, as filed, claim 15 amends only the first recitation of “liquid guide channel” to “liquid channel”; the term “liquid guide channel” remains unamended in the clause “the avoidance part is opposite to the liquid guide channel in a longitudinal direction of the vaporizer.” Because “liquid guide channel” continues to be recited in claim 15, the feature to which the objection under 37 CFR 1.83(a) is directed has not been removed from the claim, and the drawings still fail to show every feature specified in the claim as required by 37 CFR 1.83(a). The objection is maintained. This partial amendment further introduces a new indefiniteness issue under 35 U.S.C. 112(b); see the rejection of claim 15 below.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11, with respect to the objection to drawings regarding the “inner wall” recited in claim 17, have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendment. The objection is withdrawn as to claim 17.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11, with respect to the objection to drawings regarding reference characters 31, 32, 31a and 32a not designating side walls opposite to each other in the width direction, have been fully considered, in view of amended Figs. 4, 8 and 9, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument, see pages 11-12, with respect to the objection to the drawings regarding the color-coded scales in Figs. 12-20 have been fully considered. Applicant has paid the fee set forth in 37 CRF 1.17(h) and amended the specification to provide the required color-drawing notice; however, no petition under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) and no color replacement drawings for Figs. 12-20 are of record. In order for the color drawings to be accepted, applicant needs to file the petition as a separate paper, apart from the remarks. The objection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 12, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 7, 14, 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive, in view of amended claims. The rejections of claims 1, 7, 14, 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn. Also, the rejections to claims 2-16, due to their dependency from claim 1 and as to claim 8 additionally from claim 7, are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-14, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Tang in view of Lei have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Tang’s electrode connection portion and porous body dimensions would make it difficult for a person of ordinary skill to increase the L2/L1 ratio without increasing the porous body’s dimensions. This argument is attorney argument unsupported by evidence—no declaration or citation to Tan’s disclosure establishes that the modification is technically infeasible rather than a routine dimensional adjustment—and does not amount to teaching away, since Tang does not criticize, discredit, or discourage increasing the ratio.
Applicant further argues that Tang teaches reducing resistance error and improving service life through an Ω-type heating body with an arc-shaped transition, rather than by increasing the L2/L1 ratio, and that Tang does not teach increasing that ratio. This restates what the outstanding rejection already acknowledged—that Tang does not explicitly disclose a ratio greater than 75%--but does not address the rejection’s rationale, which is that Tang expressly ties greater resistance heating trajectory coverage of the vaporization surface to “the resistance value of the heating body 200 is stable, the resistance error is reduced, and the service life is prolonged” (Tang (translation), p. 7, lns. 19-20), establishing the L2/L1 ration as a result-effective variable recognized in the art, and that Lei’s disclosure of a different specific L2/L1 ration for an analogous structure corroborates that the ratio is a routinely variable design parameter. See MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Applicant additionally argues that Lei does not teach increasing the ratio so that the temperature field range is larger and the heat radiation area covers the whole vaporization surface. This argument is not persuasive because the motivation to combine relied upon is Tang’s own disclosed benefit of a more stable resistance value and better atomization effect (Tang (translation), p. 7, ln. 36), not the purpose that the applicant now attributes to the claimed ratio; a prior art combination’s motivation needs not mirror the applicant’s own stated rationale for the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144 (IV); In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Applicant has not presented evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed ratio being greater than 75%, which is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness once a parameter is recognized in the art as result-effective. The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained, as are the rejections of claims 2-16 and 18, which depend from claim 1 and were argued only on that basis.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 14-15, with respect to the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore,
the “first side part” and the “second side part” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). For purpose of examination, the examiner interprets “1st side part” and “2nd side part” as annotated in Fig. 4 of Tang as the first side part and the second side part.
the “liquid guide channel” in claim 15 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim. For purpose of examination, the examiner interprets “R1” in Fig. 3 as the liquid guide channel.
No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 12-20 include color-coded scales, but the drawings as filed are presented in grayscale such that the scale portions are not clearly distinguishable. Therefore, the subject matter shown in Figs. 12-20 cannot be readily understood from the drawings. Applicant is required to submit replacement drawings, in which the scale regions shown in Figs. 12-20 are clearly differentiated in black and white format, such as by patterns, hatching, shading or labels.
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
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.
Claim 15 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 15 recites, “a liquid channel, positioned between the liquid storage cavity and the porous body, and providing a fluid path for the liquid substrate of the liquid storage cavity to flow to the liquid channel.” Claim 15 depends from claim 13, which already establishes “a liquid channel” penetrating through the porous body. It is unclear whether the “a liquid channel” in newly recited in claim 15 refers to the same liquid channel already established in claim 13, or is intended to introduce an additional, structurally distinct liquid channel—a structure that, prior to amendment, was recited as a separate “liquid guide channel” positioned between the liquid storage cavity and the porous body and providing a fluid path to the (different) liquid channel of claim 13. This ambiguity is compounded by the same limitation’s recitation “to flow to the liquid channel,” which uses the identical, unqualified term for the destination of that fluid path without clarifying whether the source and destination are the same structure or two different structures.
Claim 15 further recites, “the avoidance part is opposite to the liquid guide channel in a longitudinal direction of the vaporizer.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the liquid guide channel” in the claim, since the term “liquid guide channel” has been amended to “liquid channel” at its point of introduction earlier in claim 15 and does not otherwise appear in claim 15 or claim 13.
For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets “the liquid guide channel” in the last recited limitation as referring back to the “liquid channel” first recited in claim 15—i.e., the element previously identified as the “liquid guide channel” prior to the amendment—consistent with the claim scope as originally presented and examined.
This new rejection has been added based on the amended portion of the claim.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (CN 210520094) hereinafter Tang, in view of Lei (WO 2020248230).
Regarding claim 1, Tang teaches,
a vaporizer (Fig. 5: “electronic cigarette”), configured to vaporize a liquid substrate (Tang (translation), p. 3, ln. 3: “for atomizing tobacco tar”) to generate (Tang (translation), p. 3, ln. 39: “tobacco tar is heated and atomized”) an aerosol (Tang (translation), p. 3, ln. 40: “atomized smoke”) for inhaling (the examiner interprets “the atomized smoke [that] flows out of the mouthpiece through the air duct 30,” Tang (translation), p. 3, ln. 4, is “for inhaling”), and comprising:
a liquid storage cavity (Fig. 5: 20, “liquid storage device”), configured to store (Tang (translation), p. 7, ln. 10: “tobacco tar in the liquid storage”) the liquid substrate (“tobacco tar”);
a porous body (Fig. 1: 100, “porous body”), being in fluid communication with the liquid storage cavity (20) to absorb the liquid substrate (“tobacco tar”) (Tang (translation), p. 7, lns. 9-10: “The liquid inlet surface 140 is used for communicating with a liquid storage device, and the tobacco tar in the liquid storage device smoothly enters the porous body 100 along the liquid inlet surface 140”), and having a vaporization surface (Fig. 4: 110, “atomizing surface”) (Tang (translation), p. 3, lns. 5-6: “The porous body 100 includes an atomization surface 110”); and
a heating element (Fig. 4: 200, “heating element”; 600, “first connecting terminal”; 700, “second connection terminal”; the examiner interprets the combination of the heating element 600, the first connecting terminal 600 as well as the second connection terminal 700 as corresponding to the claimed heating element), comprising a first electrode connection portion (Fig. 4: 600, “first connecting terminal”), and a second electrode connection portion (Fig. 4: 700, “second connection terminal”),
the heating element further comprising a resistance heating trajectory (Fig. 4: 200, “heating element”), formed on the vaporization surface (110) (the arrangement shown in Fig. 4) and configured to heat at least a part of the liquid substrate (“tobacco tar”) of the porous body (100) to generate an aerosol (“atomized smoke”) (Tang (translation), p. 3, lns. 39-41: “The tobacco tar is heated and atomized on the heating element 200 at the bottom of the porous body 100, and the atomized smoke flows out of the mouthpiece through the air duct 30 along the direction of the dotted arrow”), and extending between the first electrode connection portion (600) and the second electrode connection portion (700) (the arrangement shown in Fig. 4);
wherein the vaporization surface (110) is a flat plane (Fig. 4), and comprises a length direction (annotated Fig. 4: X, “length direction”) and a width direction (annotated Fig. 4: Y, “width direction”) perpendicular to (annotated Fig. 4) the length direction (X); the resistance heating trajectory (200) comprises a first end connected to the first electrode connection portion (Fig. 4: 600, “first connecting terminal”) and a second end connected to the second electrode connection portion (Fig. 4: 700, “second connection terminal”), and extends between (the arrangement shown in Fig. 4) the first end (600) and the second end (700) in a zigzag way in the length direction of (the configuration shown in Fig. 4) the vaporization surface (110); and a distance (annotated Fig. 4: L2) that the first end (600) and the second end (700) span in the vaporization surface (110) in the length direction (X) is smaller than a length dimension (annotated Fig. 4: L1) of the vaporization surface (110) (the relationship between L2 and L1 is shown in annotated Fig. 4, satisfying the limitation).
PNG
media_image1.png
359
406
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Tang
PNG
media_image2.png
505
926
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 of Tang, annotated
Regarding Claim 1, Tang does not explicitly teach the distance that the first end and the second end span in the vaporization surface in the length direction is greater than 75% of a length dimension of the vaporization surface.
However, Tang teaches, in Fig. 4, a construction similar to the instant invention, wherein the first and second electrode connection portions (600, 700) of the resistance heating trajectory (200) are located near the opposing edges of the vaporization surface (110) in the length direction (X). Further as shown in annotated Fig. 4 of Tang, the distance L2 between the first and second electrode connection portion (600, 700) constitutes a substantial portion of the length dimension L1 of the vaporization surface (110). This arrangement ensures the resistance heating trajectory (200) can wrap as much as possible around the heat dissipation hole (120) on the vaporization surface (110), which achieves that “the resistance value of the heating body 200 is stable, the resistance error is reduced, and the service life is prolonged,” Tang (translation), p. 7, lns. 19-20.
Further, Lei teaches, in annotated Fig. 8 below, a distance L2 between the first and second electrode connection portions (141, “first electrode”; 142, “second electrode”) also constitutes a substantial portion of the length dimension L1 of the vaporization surface (1111, “first surface”), but with a different relative relationship between L2 and L1.
Tang and Lei are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of an electronic atomization device employing resistance heating trajectories arranged on a vaporization surface. Accordingly, Tang and Lei collectively demonstrate that the ratio between L2 and L1 appears to be nothing more than an attempt to ensure a sufficient or optimum amount of resistance heating trajectory is present to achieve the desired result of “a more stable resistance value, and a better atomization effect.” Tang (translation), p. 7, ln. 36. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select any ratio between L2 and L1, including a ratio greater than 75%, in an attempt to achieve the desired result of “a more stable resistance value, and a better atomization effect.” Tang (translation), p. 7, ln. 36.
PNG
media_image3.png
399
571
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 8 of Lei, annotated
Regarding claim 4, Tang teaches the vaporizer (Fig. 5: “electronic cigarette”) according to claim 1, wherein the resistance heating trajectory (200) at least partially extends in the width direction (Y) (the configuration is shown in annotated Fig. 4) of the vaporization surface (110) to a position with a shortest distance (annotated Fig. 4: Ws) from an edge of the vaporization surface (110).
Tang does not explicitly teach a shortest distance from an edge of the vaporization surface is less than 0.32 mm.
However, Tang teaches a construction similar to the instant invention, wherein the resistance heating trajectory (200) is arranged on the vaporization surface (110) around the heat dissipation hole (120), and further teaches such arrangement provides a condition where “the resistance value of the heating body 200 is stable, the resistance error is reduced, and the service life is prolonged.” Tang (translation), p. 7, lns. 19-20.
As shown in annotated Fig. 4 of Tang, the resistance heating trajectory extends across the vaporization surface to positions proximate to edges of the vaporization surface, thereby defining a finite spacing between the resistance heating trajectory and the edge of the vaporization surface.
Further, Lei teaches, in annotated Fig. 8, a resistance heating trajectory arranged on a vaporization surface (1111) and extending to positions proximate to edges of the vaporization surface, thereby defining a spacing between the resistance heating trajectory and the edge of the vaporization surface, but with a different relative spacing as compared to Tang.
Tang and Lei are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of an electronic atomization device employing resistance heating trajectories arranged on a vaporization surface. Accordingly, Tang and Lei collectively demonstrate that the spacing between the resistance heating trajectory and the edge of the vaporization surface, i.e., the shortest distance (Ws), would have been understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art as a layout parameter that could be selected to provide a suitable amount and distribution of the resistance heating trajectory on the vaporization surface while achieving the desired performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select the shortest distance between the resistance heating trajectory and the edge of the vaporization surface, including a distance of less than 0.32 mm, in order to achieve the desired result of “a more stable resistance value, and a better atomization effect.” Tang (translation), p. 7, ln. 36.
Regarding claim 5, which is a dependent claim of claim 1, Tang teaches the vaporizer (“electronic cigarette”) and the resistance heating trajectory (200) in the vaporization surface (110), but does not explicitly teach
the projection area of the resistance heating trajectory in the vaporization surface is greater than 35% of the area of the vaporization surface.
However, Tang teaches a construction similar to the instant invention, wherein the resistance heating trajectory (200) is distributed on the vaporization surface (110) around the heat dissipation hole (120), and further teaches that such arrangement provides a condition where “the resistance value of the heating body 200 is stable, the resistance error is reduced, and the service life is prolonged.” Tang (translation), p. 7, lns. 19-20.
As shown in annotated Fig. 4 of Tang, the resistance heating trajectory is distributed across a substantial portion of the vaporization surface, thereby defining a projection area of the resistance heating trajectory relative to the area of the vaporization surface.
Further, Lei teaches, in annotated Fig. 8, a resistance heating trajectory arranged on a vaporization surface (1111) and distributed across the vaporization surface, thereby defining a projection area of the resistance heating trajectory relative to the area of the vaporization surface, but with a different relative coverage as compared to Tang.
Tang and Lei are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of an electronic atomization device employing resistance heating trajectories arranged on a vaporization surface. Accordingly, Tang and Lei collectively demonstrate that the coverage ratio of the vaporization surface occupied by the resistance heating trajectory, as reflected by the projection area of the resistance heating trajectory relative to the area of the vaporization surface, would have been understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art as a layout parameter that could be selected to provide a suitable distribution of the resistance heating trajectory on the vaporization surface while achieving the desired performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select the projection area of the resistance heating trajectory relative to the area of the vaporization surface, including a projection coverage greater than 35% of the area of the vaporization surface, in order to achieve the desired result of “a more stable resistance value, and a better atomization effect.” Tang (translation), p. 7, ln. 36.
Regarding claim 6, Tang and Lei teaches, in Fig. 4 of Tang, the vaporizer according to claim 1, wherein the resistance heating trajectory (200) comprises a first trajectory part (annotated Fig. 4: T1, “1st trajectory part”) and a second trajectory part (annotated Fig. 4: T2, “2nd trajectory part”) which are alternately arranged (annotated Fig. 4) in the length direction (X) of the vaporization surface (110), the first trajectory part (T1) and/or the second trajectory part (T2) being curved and having different bending directions (the configuration shown in annotated Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7, Tang and Lei teaches, in Fig. 4 of Tang, the vaporizer according to claim 6, wherein the vaporization surface (110) comprises a first side part (annotated Fig. 4: S1, “1st side part”) and a second side part (annotated Fig. 4: S2, “2nd side part”) which are opposite to each other in the width direction (Y) (the arrangement shown in annotated Fig. 4), the first trajectory part (T1) being adjacent to (shown in annotated Fig. 4) the first side (S1), and the second trajectory part (T2) being adjacent to (shown in annotated Fig. 4) the second side part (S2).
Regarding claim 8, Tang and Lei teaches, in Fig. 4 of Tang, the vaporizer according to claim 7, wherein the first trajectory part (T1) and/or the second trajectory part (T2) are/is configured to bend outwards (the configuration shown in annotated Fig. 4) in the width direction (Y) of the vaporization surface (110).
Regarding claim 9, Tang and Lei teaches, in Fig. 4 of Tang the vaporizer according to claim 6, wherein the resistance heating trajectory (200) further comprises a third trajectory part (annotated Fig. 4: T3, “3rd trajectory part”) extending between the adjacent first trajectory part (T1) and second trajectory part (T2); and the third trajectory part (T3) is straight (shown in annotated Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10, which is a dependent claim of claim 9, Tang teaches the third trajectory part (T3) is arranged on the vaporization surface (110).
Tang does not explicitly teach the third trajectory part is arrange obliquely relative to the width direction of the vaporization surface.
However, Lei teaches, in Fig. 8, a vaporizer (abstract: “electronic atomization device”), wherein the third trajectory part (123c, “second oblique straight section”; 125c, “third oblique straight section”) is arranged obliquely relative to (the configuration shown in Fig. 8) the width direction (annotated Fig. 8: Y, “width direction”) of the vaporization surface (annotated Fig. 8: 1111, “atomization surface”).
Tang and Lei are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of an electronic atomization device. 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 arrangement of the resistance heating trajectory as taught by Tang to include oblique orientation as taught by Lei, in order to “reduc[e] the thermal stress between the heating element and the porous body, and further reduc[e] the deformation of the heating element and the porous body…, [by] avoid[ing] the local temperature of the porous body being too high.” Lei (translation), p. 4, lns. 34-38.
Regarding claim 11, Tang and Lei teaches, in Fig. 4 of Tang the vaporizer according to claim 6, wherein the curvature of any position of the first trajectory part (T1) and/or the second trajectory part (T2) is not zero (the curvature configuration is shown in annotated Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 12, Tang and Lei teaches, in Fig. 4 of Tang, the vaporizer according to claim 6, wherein the resistance heating trajectory (200) is constructed such that the whole trajectory (T1, T2, T3) only comprises limited points with the curvature being zero (as shown in annotated Fig. 4, the heating elements 200 has the 3rd trajectory part T3 of which the curvature is zero, satisfying this limitation).
Regarding claim 18, Tang and Lei teaches, in Fig. 5 of Tang,
An electronic vaporization apparatus (“electronic cigarette”), comprising the vaporizer (10, “atomizer”) according to claim 1; and a power supply assembly (Tang (translation), p. 2, ln. 13: “power supply”) configured to supply power to the vaporizer (10) (Tang (translation), p. 2, ln. 13: “the atomizer is driven by the power supply to atomize the tobacco tar”).
PNG
media_image4.png
585
457
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 of Tang, annotated
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (CN 210520094) hereinafter Tang, in view of Lei (WO 2020248230), and further in view of Suzuki et al. (US 20180092402) hereinafter Suzuki.
Regarding claim 2, which is a dependent claim of claim 1, Tang and Lei teaches the vaporizer (Tang, Fig. 5: “electronic cigarette”) and the porous body (Tang, Fig. 1: 100), but does not explicitly teach the porous body has a heat conductivity of 1 to 50 W/(m-K).
However, Suzuki teaches, a vaporizer (paragraph 34: 100, “the flavor inhaler”), wherein the porous body (Fig. 2: 111Q, “wick”; paragraph 38: “wick 111Q is … a liquid holding member … to hold the aerosol source,” which the examiner interprets as the “porous body” to absorb the liquid substrate) has a heat conductivity of 1 to 50 W/(m -K) (paragraph 39: “heat conductivity of the wick 111Q is … 50 W/(m·K) or less”).
Tang, Lei and Suzuki are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of an atomizing unit with a heating element for atomizing an aerosol source without burning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the porous body as taught by Suzuki in the vaporizer of Tang and Lei, in order to prevent “excessive heat from being transferred from the heating element to the reservoir via the wick.” Suzuki, paragraph 39.
PNG
media_image5.png
393
679
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Suzuki
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (CN 210520094) hereinafter Tang, in view of Lei (WO 2020248230), Suzuki et al. (US 20180092402) hereinafter Suzuki, and further in view of Hirotsuru et al. (JP 2007193008) hereinafter Hirotsuru.
Regarding claim 3, Tang in view of Lei and Suzuki teaches the vaporizer according to claim 2, wherein the porous body (Tang: 100) comprises a porous ceramic body (Tang (translation), p. 3, lns. 28-29: “the porous body 100 is porous ceramic”).
Tang, Lei and Suzuki does not explicitly teach the porous ceramic body comprises at least one of silicon carbide, aluminum nitride, boron nitride or silicon nitride.
However, Hirotsuru teaches a porous ceramic body comprises at least one of silicon carbide, aluminum nitride, boron nitride or silicon nitride (Hirotsuru (translation), abstract: “the porous ceramic is an aluminum-ceramic composite composed of … silicon carbide and … silicon nitride or … containing boron nitride”).
Tang, Lei, Suzuki and Hirotsuru are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of porous ceramic composite material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the porous ceramic as taught by Hirotsuru as material for the porous body taught by Tang, Lei and Suzuki, in order for the porous body to “ha[ve] a low coefficient of thermal expansion and a high thermal conductivity…, light weight,… high strength, … a high elastic modulus[, as well as]… easy processability[, and] a relatively low cost [to produce].” Hirotsuru (translation), p. 2, lns. 38-44.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (CN 210520094) hereinafter Tang, in view of Lei (WO 2020248230), and further in view of Zhang et al. (CN 20192064559305) hereinafter Zhang. For the purpose of examination, the examiner refers to US 20220211107, which is the U.S. published application corresponding to CN 20192064559305.
Regarding claim 13, Tang and Lei teaches the vaporizer according to claim 1, wherein the porous body (Tang, Fig. 1: 100) has a liquid channel (Tang, Fig. 2: 140, “liquid inlet surface”) and is in fluid communication with the liquid storage cavity (Tang, Fig. 5: 20) through the liquid channel (140) to absorb the liquid substrate (Tang: “tobacco tar”) of the liquid storage cavity (20) (Tang (translation), p. 7, lns. 9-10: “The liquid inlet surface 140 is used for communicating with a liquid storage device, and the tobacco tar in the storage device smoothly enters the porous body 100 along the liquid inlet surface 140”).
Tang and Lei does not explicitly teach a porous body has a liquid channel penetrating through the porous body.
However, Zhang teaches, in Fig. 6, a porous body (4, “porous body”) has a liquid channel (44, “container”) penetrating through (paragraph 58: “a container 44 is defined and formed between the two side parts 42 and the main body 41,” which the examiner interprets as the liquid channel penetrates through the porous body) the porous body (4).
Tang, Lei and Zhang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of an electronic cigarette having an atomizer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the liquid channel penetrating through the porous body as taught by Zhang in the vaporizer taught by Tang and Lei, in order to “reduce… the shortest conduction distance of the atomized liquid being transferred to the atomizing surface, and guarantee… the liquid conduction rate of the porous body.” Zhang, paragraph 12.
PNG
media_image6.png
401
759
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Tang, annotated
PNG
media_image7.png
395
850
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6 of Zhang, annotated
Regarding claim 14, which is a dependent claim of claim 13, Tang in view of Lei and Zhang teaches the liquid channel (Fig. 6 of Zhang: 44) has an inner bottom wall (annotated Fig. 6 of Zhang: “inner wall”) adjacent to and parallel with (shown in annotated Fig. 6 of Zhang) the vaporization surface (Fig. 6 of Zhang: 411, “atomizing surface”), with a distance (annotated Fig. 7 of Zhang: D1) between the inner bottom wall (“inner wall”) and the vaporization surface (411).
Tang, Lei and Zhang does not explicitly teach the distance between the inner bottom wall and the vaporization surface is less than 1.5 mm.
However, Zhang teaches a construction of the porous body (4) similar to the instant invention, wherein the liquid channel (44) and the vaporization surface (411) are in the opposite side of the main body (41) of the porous body (4) in a thickness direction (annotated Fig. 7: Z, “thickness direction”). Further as shown in annotated Fig. 7 of Zhang, the distance D1 between the inner bottom wall (annotated Fig. 6: “inner wall”) of the liquid channel and the vaporization surface is set in such a way that the depth of the liquid channel (44) is greater than a thickness of the main body (41), which is D1. Zhang, paragraph 58. This configuration ensures “the container to contain partial atomized liquid is formed between the two side parts and the main body of the porous body, which reduces the shortest conduction distance of the atomized liquid being transferred to the atomizing surface.” Zhang, paragraph 12. Accordingly, the distance D1, which defines the thickness of the main body (41), would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as a structural parameter affecting the conduction distance of liquid through the porous body and the liquid conduction rate to the vaporization surface. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select any distance D1 designed to fit within the device, including less than 1.5 mm, to achieve the desired result of “guarantee[ing] the liquid conduction rate of the porous body.” Zhang, paragraph 12.
PNG
media_image8.png
401
725
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Fig. 7 of Zhang, annotated
Regarding claim 15, Tang in view of Lei and Zhang teaches,
the vaporizer according to claim 13, further comprising: a liquid channel (Fig. 1 of Zhang: 432, “liquid inlet”), positioned between (shown in Fig. 6 of Zhang) the liquid storage cavity (Fig. 1 of Zhang: 13, “liquid storage cavity”) and the porous body (Fig. 6 of Zhang: 4, “porous body”), and providing a fluid path (annotated Fig. 1 of Zhang: “fluid path”) for the liquid substrate (paragraph 2 of Zhang: “atomized liquid containing nicotine”) of the liquid storage cavity (Zhang: 13) (paragraph 3 of Zhang: “atomized liquid from the liquid storage cavity”) to flow to (annotated Fig. 1 of Zhang shows the atomized liquid flows from the liquid containing body to the container) the liquid channel (Fig. 6 of Zhang: 44, “container”),
wherein an end part of the liquid channel (Zhang: 44) in a length direction (Fig. 1 of Zhang: 101, “first direction”) is defined as an avoidance part (annotated Fig. 6 of Zhang: 440, “avoidance part”) by at least one step surface (Fig. 6 of Zhang: 42, “side part”), and the avoidance part (Zhang: 440) is opposite to (interpreted, per the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection set forth above, as referring back to the “liquid channel” first recited in this claim 15) the liquid guide channel (Fig. 1 of Zhang: 432, “liquid inlet”) in a longitudinal direction of the vaporizer (the configuration is shown in annotated Fig. 6 of Zhang).
PNG
media_image9.png
877
588
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Zhang, annotated
Claim 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (CN 210520094) hereinafter Tang, in view of Lei (WO 2020248230), Zhang et al. (CN 20192064559305) hereinafter Zhang, and further in view of Zhang et al. (WO 2020259692) hereinafter Zhang ‘692. For the purpose of examination, the examiner refers to US 20220211107, which is the U.S. published application corresponding to CN 20192064559305.
Regarding claim 17, Tang and Lei teaches
a vaporizer (Tang, Fig. 5: “electronic cigarette”), configured to vaporize a liquid substrate (Tang (translation), p. 3, ln. 3: “for atomizing tobacco tar”) to generate (Tang (translation), p. 3, ln. 39: “tobacco tar is heated and atomized”) an aerosol (Tang (translation), p. 3, ln. 40: “atomized smoke”) for inhaling (the examiner interprets “the atomized smoke [that] flows out of the mouthpiece through the air duct 30,” Tang (translation), p. 3, ln. 4, is “for inhaling”), and comprising:
a liquid storage cavity (Tang, Fig. 5: 20, “liquid storage device”), configured to store (Tang (translation), p. 7, ln. 10: “tobacco tar in the liquid storage”) the liquid substrate (“tobacco tar”);
a porous body (Tang, Fig. 1: 100, “porous body”), being in fluid communication with the liquid storage cavity (20) to absorb the liquid substrate (Tang: “tobacco tar”) (Tang (translation), p. 7, lns. 9-10: “The liquid inlet surface 140 is used for communicating with a liquid storage device, and the tobacco tar in the liquid storage device smoothly enters the porous body 100 along the liquid inlet surface 140”), and having a vaporization surface (Tang, Fig. 4: 110, “atomizing surface”) (Tang (translation), p. 3, lns. 5-6: “The porous body 100 includes an atomization surface 110”), wherein the porous body (Tang: 100) defines (Tang, Fig. 2) a liquid channel (Tang, Fig. 2: 140, “liquid inlet surface”) that is basically parallel with (shown in annotated Fig. 2 of Tang) the vaporization surface (Tang: 110); and
a resistance heating trajectory (Tang, Fig. 4: 200, “heating element”), formed on the vaporization surface (Tang: 110) (the arrangement shown in Fig. 4 of Tang) and configured to heat at least a part of the liquid substrate (Tang: “tobacco tar”) of the porous body (Tang: 100) to generate the aerosol (Tang: “atomized smoke”) (Tang (translation), p. 3, lns. 39-41: “The tobacco tar is heated and atomized on the heating element 200 at the bottom of the porous body 100, and the atomized smoke flows out of the mouthpiece through the air duct 30 along the direction of the dotted arrow”).
Regarding claim 17, Tang and Lei does not explicitly teach
a liquid channel penetrates through the porous body; and
an end part of the liquid channel is defined as an avoidance part by at least one step surface parallel to an inner bottom wall of the liquid channel, and a distance between the inner bottom wall of the liquid channel and the vaporization surface is less than a shortest distance between the step surface and the vaporization surface.
However, Zhang teaches
a liquid channel (Fig. 6: 44, “container”) penetrates through the porous body (Fig. 6: 4, “porous body”) (paragraph 58: “a container 44 is defined and formed between the two side parts 42 and the main body 41,” which the examiner interprets as the liquid channel penetrates through the porous body); and
an end part of the liquid channel (Fig. 6: 44, “container”) is defined as an avoidance part (annotated Fig. 6: 440, “avoidance part”) by at least one step surface (Fig. 6: 42, “side part”), and a distance (annotated Fig. 7: D1) between the inner bottom wall (annotated Fig. 6: “inner wall”) of the liquid channel (44) and the vaporization surface (Fig. 6: 411, “atomizing surface) is less than a shortest distance (annotated Fig. 7: D2) between the step surface (42) and the vaporization surface (411) (the distance relationship between D1 and D2 is shown in annotated Fig. 7, satisfying this limitation).
Tang, Lei and Zhang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of an electronic cigarette having an atomizer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the porous body, liquid channel and avoidance parts with the configurations thereof as taught by Zhang in the vaporizer taught by Tang in view of Lei, in order to “reduce… the shortest conduction distance of the atomized liquid being transferred to the atomizing surface, and guarantee… the liquid conduction rate of the porous body.” Zhang, paragraph 12.
Regarding claim 17, Tang, Lei and Zhang does not explicitly teach an end part of the liquid channel is defined as an avoidance part by at least one step surface parallel to an inner bottom wall of the liquid channel.
However, Zhang ‘692 teaches, in annotated Fig. 16, an electronic cigarette atomizer (abstract) comprising a porous body (21’, “porous base”) wherein, an end part of the liquid channel (“liquid channel”) is defined as an avoidance part (“avoidance part”) by at least one step surface (“step surface”) parallel to (annotated Fig. 16 shows the step surface is parallel to the inner bottom wall) an inner bottom wall (“inner bottom wall”) of the liquid channel (“liquid channel”).
Tang, Lei, Zhang and Zhang ‘692 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of an electronic cigarette having an atomizer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the avoidance part of the liquid channel taught by Tang, Lei and Zhang to include a step surface parallel to an inner bottom wall of the liquid channel, as taught by Zhang ‘692, because a step surface parallel to the inner bottom wall of a liquid channel, defining an avoidance part at an end of the channel, was a known technique in the art of electronic cigarette atomizers for constructing the end of a liquid channel in a porous body, and applying this known technique to the avoidance part already present in the porous body taught by Tang, Lei and Zhang, which was ready for improvement, would have yielded the predictable result of a channel-end structure having a step surface parallel to the inner bottom wall of the liquid channel. See MPEP 2143(I)(D). See also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.")
PNG
media_image10.png
444
908
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Fig. 16 of Zhang ‘692, annotated
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (CN 210520094) hereinafter Tang, in view of Lei (WO 2020248230), Zhang et al. (CN 20192064559305) hereinafter Zhang, and further in view of He et al. (CN 111109666) hereinafter He. For the purpose of examination, the examiner refers to US 20220211107, which is the U.S. published application corresponding to CN 20192064559305.
Regarding claim 16, Tang in view of Lei and Zhang teaches
the vaporizer according to claim 13, wherein the porous body (4) comprises a first side wall and a second side wall (Fig. 6 of Zhang: 42, “side parts”) which are arranged oppositely in the width direction (Fig. 1 of Zhang: 102, “second direction”) of the vaporization surface (Fig. 6 of Zhang: 411, “atomizing surface) (the configuration shown in Fig. 6 of Zhang), and a base part (Fig. 6 of Zhang: 41, “main body”) positioned between (shown in Fig. 6 of Zhang) the first side wall (Zhang: 42) and the second side wall (Zhang: 42), and the liquid channel (Zhang: 44) is defined jointly by the first side wall (Zhang: 42), the second side wall (Zhang: 42) and the base part (Zhang: 41) (Fig. 6 of Zhang shows the container is defined by two side walls 42 and the main body 41); and
a surface (Zhang: “inner wall”), adjacent to the liquid channel (Zhang: 44), of the base part (Zhang: 41).
Tang, Lei and Zhang does not explicitly teach a groove extending in a length direction of the porous body is formed in a surface, adjacent to the liquid channel, of the base part, and is configured to increase the surface area of the base part for absorbing the liquid substrate.
However, He teaches in Fig. 1, a groove (110, “groove”) extending in a length direction (annotated Fig. 1: “length direction”) (shown in annotated Fig. 1) of the porous body (10, “porous ceramic substrate”) is formed in a surface (11, “suction level”) of the base part (annotated Fig. 1: “base part”), and is configured to increase the surface area of the base part (“base part”) for absorbing the liquid substrate (He (translation), p. 3, ln. 45-p. 4, ln. 1: “porous ceramic substrate 10 for absorbing and transmitting liquid medium”).
Tang, Lei, Zhang and He are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of a liquid atomizing device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the groove on the surface of the base part as taught by He in the porous body of the vaporizer taught by Tang in combination with Lei and Zhang, in order to “to increase the liquid absorbing area.” He, p. 4, ln. 26.
PNG
media_image11.png
360
592
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of He, annotated
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 JE HWAN JOHN PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Edward F. Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/J.J.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights