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. Priority 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. 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. Claim s 1-13 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. The claim(s) contains 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. In order to satisfy the two equations defined by claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to determine the following: choose a suitable e-liquid choose a suitable atomizer's size and geometry (e.g. cube vs. pyramidal) choose a suitable atomizer's porosity choose a suitable atomizer material (e.g. hydrophobic vs. hydrophilic) choose a suitable heater dimension and shape choose a suitable heater operating temperature profile choose a suitable value for the variable "h" at which the equations are evaluated choose a suitable division of the atomizer into a liquid penetration portion and temporary liquid storage portion choose a particular state of the atomizer for which n=1 account for the effect of ambient temperature/pressure account for the effect of varying inhalation time account for the effect of varying intervals between inhalation account for the effect of varying inhalation suction The specification however does not provide any guidance to the skilled person on how to address the above problems so that achieving the result specified by claim 1, i.e. meeting the conditions specified by the two equations, would require the skilled person to carry out such an extensive set of trials that it would constitute an undue burden. Claims 2-13 are also rejected as being dependent upon claim 1. 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 s 1-13 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. Claim 1, equation 3 recites a generic function "f(T ₁ )" as representing "a function relation between quality of e-liquid actually vaporized and an inhalation time in an th inhalation cycle", but it unclear what the equation defines the function. Claim 1 requires that two equations must be satisfied for any given nth inhalation cycle but does not specify what initial conditions are to be met, i.e. what is to be considered the first inhalation cycle when n=1 (after power up of the device? After refilling / cartridge change? After unpacking of the device?). Claim 1 refers to a value "h" that is a distance from the vaporization surface. It is unclear if said value h also includes the height of the temporary liquid portion as seen in figure 1 or if it is a separate, independent value. The equations defined in claim 1 include terms (e.g. liquid density of the liquid, penetration rate of the liquid) that are dependent on external parameters (as e.g. temperature) that are however not defined. Claim 1 defines that two equation must be satisfied by a given vaporization core, but does not however specify what technical features are necessary in achieving this goal. Claim 1 attempts therefore to define the subject-matter in terms of the result to be achieved and not in terms of how said effect is to be achieved , which renders the claim indefinite. Claims 2, 3 and 4, line 1 recites “the following” , there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 5 -13 are also rejected as being dependent upon claim 1. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT THIEN S TRAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7745 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday [8:00-4:00] . 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 Steven Crabb can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-5095 . 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. /THIEN S TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 3/12/2026