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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 12/29/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 11-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/29/2025.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites the limitation “the air inlet groove is configured to convey the air to the vaporization cavity through the air inlet,” which is considered to be a statement regarding the intended use of the claimed air inlet groove. 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. Therefore, for the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it required a groove through which air could flow in the claimed direction.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites the limitation “wherein air can sequentially flow through the second accommodating space and the air inlet groove, and is then conveyed to the vaporization surface through the air inlet,” which is considered to be a statement regarding the intended use of the claimed air inlet groove. 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. Therefore, for the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it required a structure through which air could flow in the claimed direction.
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 6-8 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 6, the claim recites the limitation “one first air inlet groove.” It is unclear whether this limitation refers to the single air inlet groove of claim 1 or to a new air inlet groove, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it referred to the air inlet groove of claim 1. Claims 7 and 8 are indefinite by dependence.
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 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 9,161,573) in view of Zhou (CN 211861815, machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses an electronic cigarette (abstract) having a liquid guiding member (figure 3, reference numeral 212) with an electric heater coil enwound on the surface of the liquid guiding member (column 5, lines 32-58, figure 3, reference numeral 211), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a heating element. The surface of the liquid guiding member enwound with the coil is considered to meet the claim limitation of a vaporization surface. The two ends of the liquid guiding member are pressed against a permeating component so that the liquid guiding member absorbs liquid (column 5, lines 32-58). The ends are therefore considered to meet the claim limitation of a liquid absorbing surface. The liquid guiding member is secured in an atomization base (column 4, lines 35-62, figure 3, reference numeral 24), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a first support. The atomization base has an internal casing (column 4, lines 35-62, figure 6, reference numeral 241), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a support side wall. However, Liu does not teach or suggest the side wall having a buffered liquid storage groove and an air inlet groove.
Zhou teaches an atomizer having a mounting base (figure 6, reference numeral 20) having a first pressure regulating channel arranged circuitously and arranged in two sections ([0058], figure 6, reference numeral 22). One groove is considered to meet the claim limitation of a buffered liquid storage groove, and the other section is considered to meet the claim limitation of an air inlet groove. The mounting base also has a second pressure regulating channel (figure 10, reference numeral 52) The remaining components are shown in the annotated version of figure 6 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
370
391
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The air inlet is considered to be located at the top of the air inlet groove. Zhou additionally teaches that this arrangement reduces the possibility that liquid leaks out of the atomizer [0062].
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the channels, inlets, and ports of Zhou on the sides of the atomization base of Liu. One would have been motivated to do so since Zhou teaches a mounting base design that reduces the possibility that liquid leaks out of the atomizer.
Regarding claim 2, Liu discloses that the atomization base has an internal casing (figure 6, reference numeral 241), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a support side wall, is provided with a first holding groove that forms two notches with open upper ends and closed lower ends (column 4, lines 35-62, figure 6, reference numeral 244), which are considered to define a first accommodating space. The liquid guiding member and heating coil are located within the two notches (column 4, lines 35-62, figure 3), indicating that the internal area of the internal casing defines a vaporization cavity.
Regarding claim 3, modified Liu teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. It is evident that air could flow the air inlet groove of modified Liu in the claimed direction since it is open. Modified Liu does not explicitly teach the air inlet being located at the closed end of the notch.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the air inlet at the bottom of the notch. Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI C.
Regarding claim 4, modified Liu teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Zhou additionally teaches that the channels are arranged outside the base (figure 6). Modified Liu does not explicitly teach the length of the channels relative to the circumference of the base.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the length of the channels be longer than the circumference of the base. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art absent evidence that the change in size results in a difference in performance. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV A.
Regarding claim 5, modified Liu teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Liu does not explicitly teach the air inlet and overflow port being above the bottom of the notch.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the air inlet and the overflow port above the lower portion of the notch where the vaporization surface is. Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI C.
Regarding claim 6, modified Liu teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Liu does not explicitly teach (a) two first liquid storage grooves having overflow ports and (b) two of the liquid storage grooves located on a single side of the base and surrounding the air inlet and air inlet groove.
Regarding (a), 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 liquid storage groove and overflow port of modified Liu. 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 (b), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the duplicated liquid storage grooves and overflow ports, and the air inlet groove on a side of the support. Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI C.
Regarding claim 7, modified Liu teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Liu does not explicitly teach (a) two second liquid storage grooves having overflow ports and a second air inlet groove and air inlet and (b) two of the liquid storage grooves located on a single side of the base and surrounding the air inlet and air inlet groove.
Regarding (a), 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 liquid storage groove, overflow port, air inlet groove, and air inlet of modified Liu. 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 (b), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the duplicated liquid storage grooves and overflow ports, and the air inlet groove on a second side of the support. Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI C.
Regarding claim 8, Zhou teaches that each side of the base is provided with a first avoidance port ([0078], figure 9, reference numeral 252) that connects to the liquid storage cavity ([0057], figure 4, reference numeral 12), indicating that the first avoidance ports are communicated through the liquid storage cavity. The avoidance ports are connected to side wall sealing portions that connect to each of the pressure regulating channels ([0079], figure 9, reference numeral 251).
Regarding claim 10, Liu discloses that a main guiding tube extends above the base (figure 3, reference numeral 35), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a second support, and defines the inside of a cotton permeating component (column 5, lines 32-58, figure 3, reference numeral 38), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a second accommodating space. It is evident that air could flow through the cotton and then into the air inlet of the combination as claimed.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 9,161,573) in view of Zhou (CN 211861815, machine translation relied upon) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Metz (US 10,285,445).
Regarding claim 9, modified Liu teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Liu does not explicitly teach a liquid inlet channel.
Metz teaches a personal electronic delivery system (abstract) in which a buffer is provided surrounding a heater with openings that transfer fluid to the heater that are optionally provided in a groove (column 8, lines 64-67, column 9, lines 1-2).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the notches of modified Liu in the grooves of Metz. One would have been motivated to do so since Metz teaches that openings that transfer liquid can optionally be provided in grooves. Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See MPEP § 2143, D.
Conclusion
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