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 with traverse of group I, claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 1/16/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Zhou does not disclose an air guiding element disposed at least partially within a through hole that cooperates with the through hole to define airflow paths for introducing air into the liquid storage cavity. This is not found persuasive because. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 15-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 1/16/2026 . 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 5 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 . Regarding claim 5 , t he term “ close ” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ close ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In this case the specification provides literal support for the term but does not provide any examples of specific distances that would beg considered close. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will not be considered to limit the scope of the claim. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1 , 3-4, 7-8, 10-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Lei (US 2023/0063069) . Regarding claim 1 , Lei discloses a vaporizer (abstract) having a liquid storage tank that stores liquid ([0069], figure 2, reference numeral 4), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a liquid storage cavity, and a vaporization core that vaporizes liquid received from the tank ([0070], figure 2, reference numeral 2), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a vaporization assembly. A first seal member is provided on one end of an upper base body ([0047 ], figure 3, reference numeral 11) that is opposite a lower base body ([0072], figure 3, reference numeral 12). The lower base body is on the lower side of the upper base body (figure 3), indicating that the first seal member is above the upper base body. The first seal member is located close to the liquid storage tank [0088], indicating that it seals the tank. The upper base body is considered to meet the claim limitation of a support. The upper base body has an air guide hole structure ([0083], figure 4, reference numeral 152), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a first through hole . The air guide hole structure communicates the liquid to a liquid flowing cavity ([0112], figure 4, reference numeral 116) that communicates in turn with the liquid storage tank [0088]. First (figure 14, reference numeral 1521) and second air guide holes (figure 14, reference numeral 1522) , which are considered to define first air channels, are connected to the air guide hole structure so that air can enter the liquid flowing cavity [0112]. The air guide holes, together with the air guide hole structure, are therefore considered to define a first air guiding element that provide s air flow paths for air to enter the liquid tank. Regarding claim 3 , Lei discloses that the air guide groove structure extends vertically (figure 4) and that the device extends also extends vertically (figure 2), indicating that the vertical direction is also the axial direction. Regarding claim 4 , Lei discloses that the air guide hole structure forms a vertical hole (figure 4), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of the first air guiding element being substantially in a column shape since a vertical hole defines a column and the air guide hole structure forms a substantial portion of the length of the first air guiding element. Regarding claim 7 , the upper portion of the upper base body is considered to meet the claim limitation of a first portion, and the lower portion of the upper base body is considered to meet the claim limitation of a second portion that faces away from the first portion. The lower portion of the upper base body interacts with the vaporization core (figure 3), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of partially accommodating and holding. The upper base body is adjacent to the tank and directly below it (figure 2) , which is considered to meet the claim limitation of the longitudinal direction. The first seal member is provided on one end of an upper base body ([0047], figure 3, reference numeral 11), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of the first portion supporting the first sealing element. Regarding claim 8 , Lei discloses that t he air guide hole structure extends through the upper base body so that air can pass through ([0083], figure 4, reference numeral 152), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of avoiding since it allows air to depart from the lower portion of the upper base body. Regarding claim 10 , Lei discloses that the device has a vaporization cavity into which vaporized liquid flows ([0069], figure 3, reference numeral 125), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a vaporization chamber. The air guide hole structure and air guide groove structure are connected to an access cavity ([0111], figure 3, reference numeral 115) that itself is in communication with the vaporization cavity [0090]. Therefore the inlets of the air guide hole structure and air guide groove structure must be in communication with the vaporization cavity. Regarding claim 11 , Lei discloses that first seal member has a one way valve that extends into an end opening of the vent channel with a flap ([0088], figure 11, reference numeral 161), which is considered to form at least part of the first air guiding element since the air must go around the flap. Regarding claim 13 , Lei discloses that the vaporization core is in fluid communication with a liquid flowing cavity ([0093], figure 3, reference numeral 116) that receives liquid flowing from the liquid storage tank [0088], which is considered to define a liquid guiding channel. The surface of the liquid flowing cavity , combined with the upper surface of the body through which both the liquid flowing cavity and air guide hole structure pass (figure 4), is considered to meet the claim limitation of a first surface. The lower surface of the upper base body where the air guide hole structure emerges (figure 14) is considered to meet the claim limitation of a second surface that faces away from the liquid storage cavity. 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. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei (US 202 3 /0063069) in view of Bie (WO 2021/258808, machine translation relied upon). Regarding claim 2 , Lei discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Lei additionally discloses that t he outside of the base has a fifth capillary groove on its outside that collects leaked liquid ([ 0085 ], figure 4 , reference numeral 14 33 ) connected to a vent channel ([0085], figure 5, reference numeral 14). The air guide holes are located between the outside of the base and the air guide hole structure (figure 14), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of defined between the first groove and an inner wall of the first through hole. Lei does not explicitly disclose the fifth capillary groove extending vertically. Bie teaches an atomizing component having a leakage blockage member disposed longitudinally around an atomizing structure ([0032], figure 6, reference numeral 16) having horizontal first liquid storage tanks that form channels ([0040], figure 6, reference numeral 1610) that are connected using multiple return channels that cut vertically through the first liquid storage tanks so that the liquid can be re-atomzied ([0042], figure 6, reference numeral 163). It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the fifth capillary grooves of Lei with the return channels of Bie. One would have been motivated to do so since Bie teaches return channels that allow leaked liquid to be re-atomzied. Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei (US 202 3 /0063069). Regarding claim 5 , Lei discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. The vertical air guide hole structure of Lei is considered to meet the claim limitation of a second section in an axial direction, and the first and second air guide holes are considered to meet the claim limitation of a first section. Lei does not explicitly disclose the first and second air guide holes having a larger cross sectional area than the air guide hole structure. 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 first and second air guide holes have a larger cross sectional area than the air guide hole structure. 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 9 , Lei discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Lei additionally discloses that a liquid flowing through hole is provided on the first seal member to provide liquid from the liquid storage tank to vaporizer (figure 11, reference numeral 163) and that air enters the liquid storage tank through a one way valve (figure 11, reference numeral 161) that allows air from the vent channel to enter the liquid storage tank [0088]. The vent channel is connected to the air guide groove structure [0049], indicating that it forms an air outlet end of the first air channels. Modified Lei does not explicitly disclose multiple one way valves and liquid flowing through holes. 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 one way valve and liquid flowing through hole of Lei. 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. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei (US 202 3 /0063069) in view of Liu (US 2021/0378303). Regarding claim 6 , Lei discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Lei does not explicitly disclose the air guide holes and air guide hole structures being made from a flexible material. Liu teaches an electronic cigarette (abstract) having air flow that flows through a flexible pipe [0051] so that an overlarge pressure does not damage the device body [0052]. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the air guide holes and air guide hole structures from the flexible material of Liu. One would have been motivated to do so since Liu teaches that providing air flow through a flexible material prevents overlarge pressure from damaging the device body. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei (US 2020/0063069) in view of Li (US 202 3 /0085108). Regarding claim 14 , Lei discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Lei additionally discloses that the first seal member has a one way valve that passes through it so that air can reach the liquid storage tank ([0088], figure 11, reference numeral 161), which is considered to be a part of the air guiding element. The first seal member is provided one end of the upper base body [0047], and must therefore define a wall at its lower end that accommodates the upper base body. Lei does not explicitly disclose the first seal member defining a hollow in its lower wall. Li teaches an electronic atomization device having a first sealing component (abstract) having a side wall (figure 6, reference numeral 152) that defines a hollow cavity below a top wall of the sealing member so as to increase the sealing effect ([0049], figure 6, reference numeral 151). It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the first seal member of Lei with the side wall of Li. One would have been motivated to do so since Li teaches a side wall that increases the sealing effect of a sealing component. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT RUSSELL E SPARKS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1426 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Philip Louie can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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