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 of Species (b) in the reply filed on 5-11-26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement (applicant did not indicate that the election was with or without traverse), the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 2, 4, and 5 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. With respect to claim 5, the species of claim 5 is Species (c) (paragraph 25 of instant specification).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: power assembly in claim 10
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1, 3, and 6-10 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.
Claims 1, 8, and 10 are considered to be indefinite in that the claims indicate that a volume of the mounting cavity is reduced so as to squeeze liquid in the mounting cavity to flow back into the liquid storage cavity. However, the claims do not previously recited that the liquid was previously in the liquid storage cavity to afford reciting that it flows “back into” the liquid storage cavity.
Claim 10, the limitation “power supply assembly” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a
limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites
what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the
structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly
recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which
are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
(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, and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (CN113142673A).
Claim 1: Chen teaches a vaporization assembly (Abstract Lns1-2), comprising:
●a ferrule body (comprising at least air duct 400; oil cup 200; first sealing element 320)
having an inner cavity (para30 para36 Fig2 Fig3)
●vaporization body 500 adapted into the inner cavity and provided with liquid inlet holes
(those within oil-absorbing cotton 510) (para52 Fig3)
●a blocking portion protruding from a cavity wall of the inner cavity and arranged to
surround a periphery of vaporization body 500, the blocking portion being provided with at least one liquid-through clearance 310 (para30; Fig3 annotated below)
PNG
media_image1.png
761
980
media_image1.png
Greyscale
●wherein the ferrule body (item 320 of the ferrule body) is movable in a preset direction
(vertically) relative to vaporization body 500 – illustrated when viewing Figure 3 followed by Figure 4 – and comprises a pre-loading position (Fig3) and a conduction position (Fig4), wherein, when the ferrule body is located at the pre-loading position, the blocking portion partitions the inner cavity into liquid storage cavity 210 and a mounting cavity (comprising at least oil reserve 340) in the preset direction, the liquid inlet holes are located in the mounting cavity and isolated from liquid storage cavity 210 (para30 paras36-38; Fig3).
With respect to the claim limitation of “wherein, during a movement of the ferrule body from the pre-loading position to the conduction position, a volume of the mounting cavity is reduced so as to squeeze liquid in the mounting cavity to flow back into the liquid storage cavity via the at least one liquid-through clearance”, this limitation refers to a use of the claimed structure and is not considered to provide a structural limitation to the structure (vaporization assembly). Other locations within reference may be included in the above recited locations (paragraphs, drawing, abstract, claims) to demonstrate further the features in the reference as claimed in the instant claims.
Claim 3: the at least one liquid-through clearance 310 comprises at least two liquid-through clearances 310, the at least two liquid-through clearances 310 being uniformly arranged in a circumferential direction of the blocking portion (para38).
Claim 6: vaporization body 500 comprises a vaporization base, a surface of the vaporization base (heating wire 520) protrudes to form a limiting flange (portion of Fig2 annotated below; Fig3 annotated below). With respect to the claim limitation of “and the ferrule body abuts against the limiting flange in a limiting manner upon movement from the pre-loading position to the conduction position.”, this limitation refers to a use of the claimed structure and is not considered to provide a structural limitation to the structure (vaporization assembly).
PNG
media_image2.png
606
1090
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
345
389
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 7: the ferrule body is configured to move between the pre-loading position and the conduction position relative to the vaporization body 500 along an axis of the ferrule body – illustrated when viewing Figure 3 followed by Figure 4.
Claim 8: Chen teaches a vaporizer, comprising: the vaporization assembly of claim 1; and mouthpiece assembly 100 movably adapted onto the ferrule body (para30; Fig3).
Claim 9: with respect to the claim limitation of “the mouthpiece assembly is separated from the ferrule body when the ferrule body is located at the pre-loading position, and is configured to press the ferrule body in the preset direction when assembled on the ferrule body to provide a downward pressure for the ferrule body to move from the pre-loading position to the conduction position.” this limitation refers to a use of the claimed structure and is not considered to provide a structural limitation to the structure (vaporization assembly).
Claim 10: Chen teaches an electronic vaporization device, comprising: a power supply assembly; and the vaporizer of claim 8, wherein the power supply assembly is electrically connected to the vaporizer (para56).
With respect to claimed power assembly, because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Chen teaches a structure for the power assembly to
perform the same claimed function. Chen is thus considered to meet this limitation of the claim.
Prior Art of Record
The following prior art is made record: Li teaches a movable ferrule body.
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