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 .
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:
run-through hole (first recited in claim 8, line 5)
airflow channel (first recited in claim 8, line 7)
air passing gap (first recited in claim 8, line 8)
transition connection portion (first recited in claim 8, line 8)
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 37 (“transition connection portion” first recited in paragraph 31 and in claim 8, line 8).
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. 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.
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election of Species-(b) (claims 1-13 encompassing the elected species) in the reply filed on 1-14-26 is acknowledged. Applicant did not indicate whether the election was made with traverse or without traverse. Thus, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement.
Claims 8-11 contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Specifically, the following features (of claims 8-11: run-through hole, airflow channel, air passing gap, and transition connection portion) are not shown in the specification to have a connection to the drawings by reference numbers and are not described as having a specific structure such that the examiner cannot determine the invention in claims 8-10. A hole itself may imply an opening; however, without further description in the specification and drawings, one cannot determine the shape or structure specific to the run-through hole – or the shape or structure of the other items in the above list. The specification speaks more to generalities – lacking a working example with respect to these features.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (CN 214483265) in view of Worm (US 9,913,493 B2).
Claims 1 and 13: Zhao teaches a vaporizing assembly of a vaporizer (i.e., electronic vaporization device), comprising:
●the vaporization assembly comprising a sleeve 2 and a vaporization core 1, a liquid
storage cavity 3, the vaporization core 1 being arranged in the sleeve 2, and a liquid inlet hole 21 communicating the vaporization core 1 with the liquid storage cavity 3 being provided on the sleeve 2
●a vent tube 4 sleeved between the sleeve 2 and the vaporization core 1, and spaced
apart from at least one of the sleeve 2 or the vaporization core 1 (in this case – spaced apart from the sleeve 2) to form a vent channel (i.e. center of the vaporization core 1)
wherein the vent channel is configured to be in communication with the liquid inlet hole 21 and an outside (outside meaning outside of the vent channel or outside of the liquid inlet hole 21, for example) (Abstract Lns1-5; pg2 ¶s1-2; pg4 ¶s4-6).
Claims 1 and 13, although Zhao teaches a vaporizer, Zhao does not specifically recited that the vaporizer comprises shell such that the sleeve 2 is arranged in the shell.
However, it is conventional and well-known in that art that a vaporizing assembly, which is part of a vaporizer, be housed in an outer shell at demonstrated by Worm. Worm teaches an aerosol delivery device 100 having an atomizer 212 within a sleeve 216 – all of which are within a shell 102. Worm also teaches that the shell 102 has an ergonomic shape configured to comfortably fit within a user’s hand (col13 ¶s2-4; col17 ¶1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have provided in Zhao that the vaporizer comprises a shell, such as the ergonomic shell taught by Worm, such that the sleeve 2 is arranged in the shell in that it is conventional and well-known in that art that a vaporizing assembly, which is part of a vaporizer, be housed in an outer shell at demonstrated by Worm and because Worm teaches that the ergonomic shell is configured to comfortably fit within a user’s hand.
Claim 1, with respect to the claim limitation that the liquid storage cavity 3 is defined between the shell and the sleeve 2, see Figure 5 of Zhao annotated below.
PNG
media_image1.png
563
1098
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2: Zhao teaches the vaporizer of claim 1, wherein any gap portion of the vent channel ranges from 0.05 mm to 0.15 mm. However, the size of any gap portion of the vent channel to which one skilled in the art would consider using, is a function of, among other variables, the total gap size, the length of the gap along the longitudinal axis of the vaporizer, the speed and temperature smoke inhaled, and the type of liquid material being vaporized. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have optimized the size any gap portion of the vent channel to which one skilled in the art would consider based on known variables, such as those listed for example; and thus, the value cannot be considered critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum and workable ranges by routine experimentation,” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 195). “It is a well settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same this as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results that prior inventions.” In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929). See MPEP 2144.05 II.A.
Claim 3: Zhao teaches the vaporizer of claim 1, wherein the vaporization core 1 comprises a base body 12 and a core body 11, the base body 12 being arranged in the sleeve 2, and the core body 11 being at least partially mounted on the base body 12 at one end thereof, wherein a through hole 121 communicating the liquid inlet hole 21 with the core body 11 is provided on the base body 12, and wherein the vent tube 4 is sleeved between the base body 12 and the sleeve 2 (see Figure 5 of Zhao annotated below), and sleeved with at least one of the base body 12 or the sleeve 2 (in this case from both) in a spaced-apart manner to form the vent channel (pg4 ¶s6-7; Fig5 Fig6).
PNG
media_image2.png
390
617
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 4 and 6: Zhao teaches the vaporizer of claim 3, wherein the vent tube 4 is fixedly sleeved on the base body 12, and a gap is reserved between the vent tube 4 and the left portion of the sleeve 2 in a radial direction so as to define the vent channel (fixedly in that the vent tube 4 and the base body 12 are permanent pieces of the vaporizer; Fig5).
Claims 5 and 6: Zhao teaches the vaporizer of claim 3, wherein the vent tube 4 is fixedly sleeved on an inner wall of the sleeve 2, and a gap is reserved between the vent tube 4 and a left portion base body 12 in a radial direction so as to define the vent channel (fixedly in that the vent tube 4 and the base body 12 are permanent pieces of the vaporizer; “the left portion” being the left side of the vaporizer in the cross section shown in Figure 5).
Claim 7: Zhao teaches the vaporizer of claim 3, wherein a vent groove extending and provided in an axial direction of the vent tube 4 is provided on the base body 12, one part of the vent groove being inside the vent tube 4, and an other part of the vent groove extending to be in communication with the through hole 121 (see Figure 5), and wherein the vent groove comprises the vent channel in that such is part of the vent channel – see Figure 2 and a portion of Figure 6 of Zhao annotated below (pg4 ¶8; pg5 ¶s1-4; Fig5).
PNG
media_image3.png
358
694
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
765
477
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (CN 214483265) in view of Worm (US 9,913,493 B2) and Thevenaz (US 10,334,882 B2).
Claim 12: Zhao in view of Worm teaches the vaporizer of claim 1 (above discussion of Zhao in view of Worm applies herein) where the vent tube 4 comprises cotton and acts as a storage medium for smoking oil (pg4 ¶s405). Zhao does not teach that the vent tube 4 also comprises fiber glass.
Thevenaz teaches an electronic cigarette 1 comprising a vaporizer comprising at least a heating element 16, a heat transfer unit 24, and an absorption member 26. The sorption member 26 acts as a means for holding a liquid substance to be vaporized. The sorption member 26 can be made cotton or made of cotton combined with glass fiber (col7 Lns23-35; col8 Lns9-40; col2 Lns33-32).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have provided in Zhao that the vent tube 4 also comprises fiber glass in that Thevenaz teaches, in the same art as Zhao and Worm, that storage mediums (for absorbing a liquid which is to be vaporized) are known to comprise cotton or both cotton and glass fiber where it is obvious to replace one storage medium (Zhao: cotton) with another art recognized alternative storage member (Thevenaz: cotton and fiber glass) where successful use has been demonstrated.
Prior Art of Record
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s invention:
(a) Nuno teaches a vaporizer having heating susceptors space about a heating chamber – see instant Figure 1 illustrating a cylindrical heating means about the core and Figure 1a of Nuno.
(b) Hawes teaches a flattened mouthpiece for a vaporizer – see instant Figure 2.
(c ) Liu teaches two extending charging electrodes 140 and 150 for a vaporizer – see instant Figure 2 at the bottom of the core 50.
(d) Lin teaches a vaporizer having a housing comprising at least two separate pieces – see instant Figure 2 (shell 10 and bottom piece) and Figures 1-2 and 6 of Lin.
(e) Rogan teaches a vaporizer having a mouthpiece and a bottom piece which are connected by press fitting – see instant Figure 2 illustrating shell 10 and bottom piece which are press fit together as illustrated in instant Figure 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDA GRAY whose telephone number is (571) 272-5778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9 AM to 5:30 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, Phil Tucker can be reached at (571) 272-1095. 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.
/LINDA L GRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights