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 have been received on 6/13/2023 and these drawings have been objected to under 37 CFR 1.84 for the following reasons: lines, numbers and letters are not uniformly thick and well defined; and numbers and reference characters are not plain and legible for all figures. New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because of the reasons stated above. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the to-be-vaporized” in line 6. This should read “the to-be-vaporized liquid”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-12 and 15 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 2 recites “an end of the needle tube”. It is unclear if applicant is referring to the same end recited in claim 1 line 3 or if applicant is attempting to claim a different end. For purposes of examination, it has been interpreted as the same end.
Claims 3-12 and 15 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 2.
Claim 5, claim 6, claim 9, claim 11 also refer to “an end of the needle tube”. It is unclear if applicant is referring to the same end recited in claim 1 line 3 or if applicant is attempting to claim a different end. For purposes of examination, it has been interpreted as the same end.
Claims 10, 12 are rejected due to their dependencies on claims 9 and 11.
Claim 9 recites “an end of the vaporization base”. It is unclear if applicant is referring to the same end recited in claim 2 line 3 or if applicant is attempting to claim a different end. For purposes of examination, it has been interpreted as the same end.
All dependent claims inherit the rejections from the claims from which they depend.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9-10 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stedman et al. (US 2020/0197631 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Stedman discloses: An electronic vaporization device, comprising:
a microporous atomizing sheet (64); and
a needle tube (316), one end of the needle tube being spaced apart from the microporous atomizing sheet (as shown in figure 12; described in [0095]), and an other end of the needle tube being configured for insertion into a liquid storage assembly (318), the needle tube being configured to convey liquid in the liquid storage assembly to the microporous atomizing sheet to form to-be-vaporized liquid [0102], the to-be-vaporized being adsorbed between the microporous atomizing sheet and the needle tube through surface tension [0106] [0095].
PNG
media_image1.png
466
464
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Stedman further discloses a vaporization base (as shown in annotated figure 12 below), wherein the microporous atomizing sheet is arranged on one end (top end) of the vaporization base and is engaged with an end portion (via 46) of the vaporization base to form a vaporization chamber (see annotated figure; as claimed 64 is engaged with 46 in order to form the vaporization chamber), wherein the needle tube is fixed to the vaporization base (via 326), and wherein an end of the needle tube is arranged in the vaporization chamber and is spaced apart from the microporous atomizing sheet (see figure 12).
PNG
media_image2.png
466
465
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Stedman further discloses wherein the microporous atomizing sheet (64) comprises a microporous region [0068], wherein both a cross section of the vaporization chamber and the microporous region are circular (dome shaped as per [0068]; [0067]), and wherein the vaporization chamber, the microporous region of the microporous atomizing sheet, and the needle tube are coaxially arranged (see figure 12).
Regarding claim 9, Stedman further discloses wherein an end of the vaporization base close to the microporous atomizing sheet is provided with an opening (see annotated figure below), wherein the microporous atomizing sheet covers the opening and is engaged with the opening to form the vaporization chamber (as shown below in annotated figure 12), and wherein an end of the needle tube close to the microporous atomizing sheet is spaced apart from a side wall of the opening (see figure 12).
PNG
media_image3.png
466
467
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Stedman further discloses wherein the opening is a through hole or a blind hole (see annotated figure 12 as set forth for claim 9 above).
Regarding claim 15, Stedman further discloses wherein an end portion of the vaporization base (see annotated figure below) away from the microporous atomizing sheet (64) is provided with an accommodating groove (see below where 318 is accommodated) configured to accommodate the liquid storage assembly (318), and wherein an end of the needle tube away from the microporous atomizing sheet is arranged in the accommodating groove (see figure 12).
PNG
media_image4.png
466
491
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 4-6, 11, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stedman et al. (US 2020/0197631 A1)
Regarding claim 4, While Stedman does not explicitly disclose a diameter of the vaporization chamber is greater than a diameter of the microporous region and is less than a doubled diameter of the microporous region, Stedman illustrates a diameter of the vaporization chamber is greater than a diameter of the microporous region (microporous region is the dome shaped region as shown in figure 12 which is smaller in diameter than the diameter of the vaporization chamber defined by end portion as set forth above) and is less than a doubled diameter of the microporous region. The description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127-28, 193 USPQ 332, 335-36 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2125. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Stedman’s device with a diameter of the vaporization chamber is greater than a diameter of the microporous region and is less than a doubled diameter of the microporous region as taught by Stedman’s figure as this is reasonably taught by figure 12.
PNG
media_image5.png
466
481
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Stedman discloses the invention essentially as claimed as discussed above. However, Stedman does not expressly disclose wherein a diameter of the vaporization chamber ranges from 4 mm to 5 mm, and wherein a distance between an end of the needle tube close to the microporous atomizing sheet and a side wall of the vaporization chamber ranges from 1.2 mm to 1.8 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Stedman to have a diameter of the vaporization chamber ranges from 4 mm to 5 mm, and wherein a distance between an end of the needle tube close to the microporous atomizing sheet and a side wall of the vaporization chamber ranges from 1.2 mm to 1.8 mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Stedman would not operate differently with the claimed dimensions and would function appropriately having the claimed dimensions.
Regarding claim 6, Stedman discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed but does not explicitly disclose in figure 12 that a distance between an end of the needle tube close to the microporous atomizing sheet and the microporous atomizing sheet ranges from 0.2 mm to 0.4 mm.
However, in another embodiment of Stedman (figures 7-8) Stedman discloses a distance between an end of the needle tube close to the microporous atomizing sheet and the microporous atomizing sheet ranges from 0.2 mm to 0.4 mm [0085].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Stedman’s figure 12 embodiment such that a distance between an end of the needle tube close to the microporous atomizing sheet and the microporous atomizing sheet ranges from 0.2 mm to 0.4 mm as taught by Stedman’s figures 7-8 for providing a distance between the two components that allow for fluid delivery to the membrane [0085].
Regarding claim 11, Stedman discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed but does not explicitly disclose in figure 12 that wherein an end of the needle tube close to the microporous atomizing sheet is provided with a tube cover configured to increase adhesion of the to-be-vaporized liquid.
However, Stedman in figures 7-8 discloses an end of the needle tube close to the microporous atomizing sheet (as shown in figure 8, similar to 64 in figure 12 there is a dome shaped sheet) is provided with a tube cover (26) configured to increase adhesion of the to-be-vaporized liquid. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is the examiner’s position that Stedman discloses all the structural limitations and thus reads on the claimed language.
Therefore it would have been obvious to have modified figure 12 of Stedman to include wherein an end of the needle tube close to the microporous atomizing sheet is provided with a tube cover configured to increase adhesion of the to-be-vaporized liquid as taught by figures 7-8 of Stedman as an alternative way of holding the conduit within the vaporization base. (Instead of 326, 26 can surround conduit 316).
Regarding claim 13, Stedman discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed but does not explicitly disclose in figure 12 that wherein the needle tube (316) comprises a hollow cylindrical metal tube, and an inner diameter of the needle tube ranges from 0.7 mm to 1.0 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Stedman wherein the needle tube comprises a hollow cylindrical tube, and an inner diameter of the needle tube ranges from 0.7 mm to 1.0 mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Stedman would not operate differently with the claimed dimensions and would function appropriately having the claimed dimensions.
Further, in another embodiment of Stedman, Stedman discloses the hollow tube is a metal [0065],
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Stedman such that the hollow tube is metal as this is a recognized material suitable for the purpose disclosed in Stedman.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stedman et al. (US 2020/0197631 A1) in view of Alizoti et al. (US 2019/0366023 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Stedman as modified discloses wherein an outer wall of the tube cover is spaced apart from a side wall of the vaporization chamber (see figure 8 where the outer wall at the tip of conduit 28 is spaced from a side wall of the vaporization chamber). Stedman does not disclose wherein the tube cover comprises silicone, although Stedman does state the material of 26 is resilient [0065].
However, Alizoti teaches it is known to use silicone as a plug [0060].
Therefore it would have been obvious to have modified Stedman’s resilient material of 26 to be silicone as taught by Alizoti. The courts have held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious)
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stedman et al. (US 2020/0197631 A1) in view of Boeck et al. (DE 10 2005 052 898 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Stedman discloses wherein an end (tope end where 64 is located) of the vaporization base close to the microporous atomizing sheet (64) is provided with a seal member (46), and wherein a non-microporous region (the non dome shaped portion of 64) of the microporous atomizing sheet covers the seal member (46).
Stedman does not disclose the seal member is located in an annular groove.
However, Boeck teaches it is known to provide seals within annular grooves (page 11 of translation, paragraph beginning with “Contraption”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to have provided the seal member of Stedman within a grove as taught by Boeck for the benefit of ensuring the seal stays in place.
As such, with the modification, the microporous atomizing sheet will cover the annular groove as well.
Regarding claim 8, Stedman as modified discloses wherein the annular groove is circular ring-shaped (the seal of Stedman is annular as [0068] indicates piezoelectric element which 46 is located on is annular; and therefore as modified by Boeck, the groove would be annular to accommodate the seal 46 of Stedman), the seal member comprises a circular ring [0067]-[0068],
As currently modified Stedman does not disclose the seal member comprises silicone.
However, Boeck teaches it is known for seals to be made of silicone (page 4, second to last paragraph beginning with “The molded seal”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to have modified Stedman such that the seal 46 is silicone for the purpose of using a material known for acceptable use with pharmaceuticals.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stedman et al. (US 2020/0197631 A1) in view of Ivri et al. (US 7628339 B2).
Regarding claim 14, Stedman does not explicitly disclose: a controller, wherein a conductor is arranged on the needle tube, and the conductor is electrically connected to the controller, wherein the microporous atomizing sheet is electrically connected to the controller, and the needle tube and the microporous atomizing sheet form an impedance sensor, and wherein the controller is configured to detect a resistance value between the needle tube and the microporous atomizing sheet and to control an operating state of the microporous atomizing sheet according to a detection result.
However, Ivri teaches a controller, wherein a conductor is arranged on the needle tube, and the conductor is electrically connected to the controller, wherein the microporous atomizing sheet is electrically connected to the controller, and the needle tube and the microporous atomizing sheet form an impedance sensor, and wherein the controller is configured to detect a resistance value between the needle tube and the microporous atomizing sheet and to control an operating state of the microporous atomizing sheet according to a detection result (col. 2, lines 54-63) (col. 3, lines 6-17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Stedman to include a controller, wherein a conductor is arranged on the needle tube, and the conductor is electrically connected to the controller, wherein the microporous atomizing sheet is electrically connected to the controller, and the needle tube and the microporous atomizing sheet form an impedance sensor, and wherein the controller is configured to detect a resistance value between the needle tube and the microporous atomizing sheet and to control an operating state of the microporous atomizing sheet according to a detection result as taught by Ivri for the benefit of ensuring the aerosol generator is not overloaded at any one time (col. 3, lines 6-17).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)270-7362. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/VICTORIA MURPHY/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785