DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendments and remarks filed April 1, 2026. Claims 1 and 10 have been amended. Claims 15-18 are new. Claims 1-18 are pending and rejected
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-9, 13-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 212185111 U (hereinafter LEI). LEI was made of record on applicant's information disclosure statement filed August 6, 2024. See annotated, machine translation for citations on PTO-892.
Regarding claim 1, LEI discloses an electronic atomizing device with air flow passages (abstract). LEI discloses A vaporizer (Fig. 2, atomizer 1, page 6), comprising: a vaporization sleeve (Fig. 2, shell 17, page 9) having a liquid storage cavity (Fig. 3, liquid storage cavity 19, page 10) and a mounting cavity (See annotated Fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
607
350
media_image1.png
Greyscale
LEI further teaches another embodiment with a mounting base (Fig. 4, leakage-proof element 18, page 10) arranged in the mounting cavity and forming a vaporization cavity (Fig. 3, atomizing chamber 132, page 10).
LEI further teaches an air inlet channel (Fig. 3, first air inlet 11, page 9) and an air outlet channel (Fig. 3, second air outlet 182, page 10) being in communication with the vaporization cavity (as shown in Fig. 3). LEI further teaches a vaporization core (Fig. 3, atomizing assembly 14, page 9) mounted in the vaporization cavity. LEI further teaches a fine groove (Fig. 4, second connecting groove 186 page 10 and/or intersections 1511 and 1512 page 7) provided on an inner wall of the air inlet channel (As shown in Fig. 4), the fine groove being configured to buffer liquid entering the air inlet channel from the vaporization cavity. LEI teaches that the connecting grooves form an intersection with the dam to provide a capillary force for absorbing the liquid in the air flow passage (page 10). LEI further teaches that the device includes solutions for managing atomized aerosol substrate that has condensed in the channels by providing junctions to drive the liquid to the capillary structure instead of the inlet (middle page 7). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would provide grooves designed to manage the condensate and keep condensate from the inlet as taught in LEI. The positioning of the parts, for example the groove on the air inlet channel and the sectioning of the air inlet channel is considered to be a rearrangement of parts. Courts have held that rearrangement of parts of the prior art is unpatentable. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and MPEP 2144.04, IV., part C. The rearrangement of parts would be an obvious selection of a person of ordinary skill in the art to manage condensate and since the parts are disclosed in the prior art and the reason for including the grooves and the placement of them is for the same reason as the instant application the rationale is supported by knowledge in the prior art. Further the multiplication of grooves is considered to be duplication of parts. The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04, VI, Part B. In this case, this is even more than mere duplication of parts, but a duplication of parts that would be done by one of ordinary skill in the art for management of condensate resulting in predictable results as supported by rationale to combine (C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (See MPEP 2143, I., (C)). The instant application includes these “fine grooves” for the purpose of managing liquid in the same manner and to achieve the same improvement taught in LEI.
LEI further teaches wherein the air inlet channel is arranged upstream of the vaporization cavity such that external air without vapor formed by the vaporization core enters the vaporization cavity from the air inlet channel in response to a user inhaling through the vaporizer. As shown in annotated Fig. 3, the air inlet channel (Fig. 3, first air inlet 11, page 9) is positioned upstream of the vaporization cavity (Fig. 3, atomizing chamber 132, page 10). This is the well-established arrangement of vaporization devices where ambient air (i.e. external air without vapor) is drawn into the device upstream of the area where vaporization occurs. LEI teaches that when the user sucks outside air enters in the first air flow channel from the first air inlet and flows to the outlet (through the atomizing chamber) (Last paragraph page 6).
[AltContent: textbox (DOWNSTREAM)]
PNG
media_image2.png
212
355
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (UPSTREAM)]
Regarding claim 2, LEI teaches the vaporizer of claim 1 as discussed above. LEI further teaches the mounting base comprises a base and a seal member, the seal member being arranged on a side of the base close to the liquid storage cavity, the seal member being engaged with the base and surrounding the base to form the vaporization cavity. LEI teaches that the mounting base (Fig. 4, leakage-proof element 18, page 10) is leak-proof. LEI teaches that the liquid storage cavity is connected to the leakage-proof element. As shown in annotated Fig. 4 below the side of the mount close to the liquid storage cavity has ridged members that form a seal. A person of ordinary skill in the art would immediately recognize that these ridged sections form a seal separating the liquid storage from the mount base in a way that is leak proof.
PNG
media_image3.png
522
640
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, LEI teaches the vaporizer of claim 2 as discussed above. LEI further discloses an outer surface of a side wall of the base has an air guide groove (Fig. 4, second airflow channel 151, page 7). LEI further teaches the air guide groove cooperating with a side wall of the mounting cavity to form the air inlet channel. LEI teaches that the second airflow channel is formed in the leak-proof element. As shown in Fig. 4 the second airflow channel 151 is on side of the mounting cavity. The positioning of the parts, is considered to be a rearrangement of parts. Courts have held that rearrangement of parts of the prior art is unpatentable. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and MPEP 2144.04, IV., part C. The rearrangement of parts would be an obvious selection of a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a pathway for the liquid and air to the atomizer. LEI further discloses as shown in the annotated figure below an end of the air inlet channel close to the liquid storage cavity being in communication with the vaporization cavity, and an end away from the liquid storage cavity being in communication with external air,
PNG
media_image4.png
382
654
media_image4.png
Greyscale
LEI further teaches wherein the fine groove is provided in the air guide groove. LEI teaches an embodiment wherein the fine groove (Fig. 4, second connecting groove 186) is provided in the air guide groove (Fig. 4, second airflow channel 151). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the teachings of every embodiment of LEI to provide hat the groove is in the air guide groove. Doing so would provide the intersection of liquid and air (page 10).
Regarding claim 4, LEI teaches the vaporizer of claim 3 as discussed above. LEI further discloses wherein the air guide groove extends along a side of the mounting base close to the liquid storage cavity to a side away from the liquid storage cavity, and the fine groove is provided on a bottom wall of the air guide groove. As shown in annotated Fig. 4 below, the air guide groove extends along the side and the fine groove is on a bottom wall of the air guide groove.
PNG
media_image5.png
548
682
media_image5.png
Greyscale
LEI does not disclose a width of the fine groove ranges from 0.2 mm to 1.2 mm. LEI is silent as to the relative dimensions of the grooves. As can be seen in the figures, the grooves are relatively narrow. 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 LEI to have a width of the fine groove ranges from 0.2 mm to 1.2 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 USPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of LEI would not operate differently with the claimed values and since the grooves are shown to be narrow the intersection of air and liquid would function appropriately with the claimed values. Further, Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the value “may” be within the claimed ranges (PG Pub ¶49). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05.II.A).
Regarding claim 5, LEI teaches the vaporizer of claim 3 as discussed above. LEI further teaches the air guide groove extends along a side of the mounting base close to the liquid storage cavity to a side away from the liquid storage cavity, and the fine groove is provided on a bottom wall of the air guide groove and a width of the fine groove ranges from 0.3 mm to 0.7 mm, for the same reasons as discussed above in the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, LEI teaches the vaporizer of claim 4 as discussed above. LEI further discloses a side of the air guide groove close to the liquid storage cavity has a first intercepting groove (Fig. 4, first connecting groove 185, page 10), and the fine groove is in communication with the vaporization cavity through the first intercepting groove. The internals of the device are in communication with each other to provide vapor to the user.
Regarding claim 7, LEI teaches the vaporizer of claim 4 as discussed above. LEI further discloses wherein a side of the air guide groove away from the liquid storage cavity has a second intercepting groove (Fig. 4, second air inlet 181, page 10), and the fine groove is in communication with the external air through the second intercepting groove.
Regarding claim 8, LEI teaches the vaporizer of claim 4 as discussed above. LEI further discloses a middle portion of the air guide groove has at least one third intercepting groove (Fig. 4, capillary liquid absorbing structure 152 including capillary grooves 1521, page 8), and the third intercepting groove separates the fine groove. LEI discloses many grooves formed by fins. Further, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04, VI, Part B. In this case, LEI teaches many grooves for managing the flow of both air and liquid (page 8). A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously provide additional grooves to manage the flows within the device to provide a vapor.
Regarding claim 9, LEI teaches the vaporizer of claim 7 as discussed above. LEI further discloses wherein the first intercepting groove comprises a first notch on an edge of the side wall of the base close to the liquid storage cavity, and the second intercepting groove comprises a second notch on an edge of a bottom wall of the mounting base. As informed by applicant’s specification (PG Pub ¶57 and the lack of the notches being numbered in the drawings) the first intercepting groove may be a first notch. Therefore, the first intercepting groove is in fact the first notch. Hence claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in the rejections of claims 6-7.
Regarding claim 13, LEI teaches the vaporizer of claim 1 as discussed above. LEI further teaches a cross section of the vaporization cavity has two opposite long sides and two opposite short sides, and the air inlet channel is located on either side of the long sides. As shown below in annotated Fig. 4, the vaporization cavity 132 has two opposite long sides (vertical lines) opposite short sides (horizontal lines). Air channel 151 is on either side. Further the air inlet 181 is considered to be on the inside side of the sides. Additionally, this is considered to be a rearrangement of parts. Courts have held that rearrangement of parts of the prior art is unpatentable. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and MPEP 2144.04, IV., part C.
PNG
media_image6.png
552
592
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, LEI teaches the vaporizer of claim 1 as discussed above. LEI further teaches an electronic vaporization device (Fig. 7, combination of atomizer 1 and main body 2, page 1) comprising: the vaporizer (Fig. 7, atomizer 1) of claim 1, the vaporizer being configured to store to-be-vaporized liquid and vaporize the to-be-vaporized liquid to form an aerosol for inhalation by an inhaler; and a body (Fig. 7, main body 2) assembly configured to supply power to the vaporizer. LEI disclose that the vaporizer is used in an electronic atomizing device as shown in Fig. 7. The atomizer is connected to the main body that supplies power to the atomizer.
Regarding claim 15, LEI teaches the vaporizer of claim 13 as discussed above. LEI further teaches wherein the air inlet channel begins at a first end of at least one of the long sides and is thereby configured to direct the external air without vapor along the at least one long side to a second end of the at least one long side opposite the first end.
As shown in annotated Fig. 3, the air inlet channel (Fig. 3, first air inlet 11, page 9) is positioned upstream of the vaporization cavity (Fig. 3, atomizing chamber 132, page 10). This is the well-established arrangement of vaporization devices where ambient air (i.e. external air without vapor) is drawn into the device at a first end of the area where vaporization occurs. LEI teaches that when the user sucks outside air enters in the first air flow channel from the first air inlet and flows to the outlet (through the atomizing chamber) (Last paragraph page 6).
[AltContent: textbox (Second end)]
PNG
media_image2.png
212
355
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (First end)]
Regarding claim 17, LEI discloses LEI discloses an electronic atomizing device with air flow passages (abstract). LEI discloses A vaporizer (Fig. 2, atomizer 1, page 6), comprising: a vaporization sleeve (Fig. 2, shell 17, page 9) having a liquid storage cavity (Fig. 3, liquid storage cavity 19, page 10) and a mounting cavity (See annotated Fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
607
350
media_image1.png
Greyscale
LEI further teaches another embodiment with a mounting base (Fig. 4, leakage-proof element 18, page 10) arranged in the mounting cavity and forming a vaporization cavity (Fig. 3, atomizing chamber 132, page 10).
LEI further teaches an air inlet channel (Fig. 3, first air inlet 11, page 9) and an air outlet channel (Fig. 3, second air outlet 182, page 10) being in communication with the vaporization cavity (as shown in Fig. 3). LEI further teaches a vaporization core (Fig. 3, atomizing assembly 14, page 9) mounted in the vaporization cavity. LEI further teaches a fine groove (Fig. 4, second connecting groove 186 page 10 and/or intersections 1511 and 1512 page 7) provided on an inner wall of the air inlet channel (As shown in Fig. 4), the fine groove being configured to buffer liquid entering the air inlet channel from the vaporization cavity. LEI teaches that the connecting grooves form an intersection with the dam to provide a capillary force for absorbing the liquid in the air flow passage (page 10). LEI further teaches that the device includes solutions for managing atomized aerosol substrate that has condensed in the channels by providing junctions to drive the liquid to the capillary structure instead of the inlet (middle page 7). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would provide grooves designed to manage the condensate and keep condensate from the inlet as taught in LEI. The positioning of the parts, for example the groove on the air inlet channel and the sectioning of the air inlet channel is considered to be a rearrangement of parts. Courts have held that rearrangement of parts of the prior art is unpatentable. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and MPEP 2144.04, IV., part C. The rearrangement of parts would be an obvious selection of a person of ordinary skill in the art to manage condensate and since the parts are disclosed in the prior art and the reason for including the grooves and the placement of them is for the same reason as the instant application the rationale is supported by knowledge in the prior art. Further the multiplication of grooves is considered to be duplication of parts. The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04, VI, Part B. In this case, this is even more than mere duplication of parts, but a duplication of parts that would be done by one of ordinary skill in the art for management of condensate resulting in predictable results as supported by rationale to combine (C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (See MPEP 2143, I., (C)). The instant application includes these “fine grooves” for the purpose of managing liquid in the same manner and to achieve the same improvement taught in LEI.
LEI further teaches a cross section of the vaporization cavity has two opposite long sides and two opposite short sides, wherein the air inlet channel begins at a first end of at least one of the long sides.. As shown below in annotated Fig. 4, the vaporization cavity 132 has two opposite long sides (vertical lines) opposite short sides (horizontal lines). Air channel 151 is on either side. Further the air inlet 181 is considered to be on the inside side of the sides. Additionally, this is considered to be a rearrangement of parts. Courts have held that rearrangement of parts of the prior art is unpatentable. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and MPEP 2144.04, IV., part C.
PNG
media_image6.png
552
592
media_image6.png
Greyscale
LEI further teaches, configured to direct external air without vapor formed by the vaporization core along the at least one long side to a second end of the at least one long side opposite the first end . As shown in annotated Fig. 3, the air inlet channel (Fig. 3, first air inlet 11, page 9) is positioned upstream of the vaporization cavity (Fig. 3, atomizing chamber 132, page 10). This is the well-established arrangement of vaporization devices where ambient air (i.e. external air without vapor) is drawn into the device at a first end of the area where vaporization occurs. LEI teaches that when the user sucks outside air enters in the first air flow channel from the first air inlet and flows to the outlet (through the atomizing chamber) (Last paragraph page 6).
[AltContent: textbox (Second end)]
PNG
media_image2.png
212
355
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (First end)]
Claims 10-12, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEI as applied to claims 1-9, 13-15, and 17 above and in further view of CN 111772238 A (hereinafter WEN). WEN was made of record on applicant's information disclosure statement filed August 6, 2024. See annotated, machine translation for citations on PTO-892.
Regarding claim 10, LEI discloses the vaporizer of claim 2 as discussed above. LEI does not disclose a baffle plate is arranged between the air inlet channel and the vaporization cavity, wherein the baffle plate is configured to close the air inlet channel in a natural state so as to disconnect communication between the air inlet channel and the vaporization cavity, and wherein the baffle plate is configured to open the air inlet channel in response to the user inhaling air from the vaporization cavity through the air outlet channel so as to communicate the air inlet channel with the vaporization cavity.
WEN teaches an atomizer with a base comprising a baffle plate with a closed and open state (abstract). WEN teaches that the baffle plate (Fig. 3, baffle 310, page 7) is located between the base and the atomization core. WEN teaches that in a normal condition and when stored the baffle is in closed state to cover the air inlet (page 7). WEN teaches that the user is able to open the air inlet holes allowing air to pass through (page 7). WEN teaches that the baffle opens the air intake hole when the user sucks at the air outlet (page 7). This creates an air pressure difference that overcomes the baffle plate (page 7).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LEI to provide a baffle plate is arranged between the air inlet channel and the vaporization cavity, wherein the baffle plate is configured to close the air inlet channel in a natural state so as to disconnect communication between the air inlet channel and the vaporization cavity, and wherein the baffle plate is configured to open the air inlet channel in response to the user inhaling air from the vaporization cavity through the air outlet channel so as to communicate the air inlet channel with the vaporization cavity as taught in WEN. A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously provide a baffle plate because doing so would prevent leakage when in a normal and closed position and allow for customization of the vaporization in the open state by allowing the user to select a level to which the device is open.
Regarding claim 11, modified LEI discloses the vaporizer of claim 10 as discussed above. LEI further teaches wherein a side wall of the seal member has an engagement groove sleeved on a side wall of the base, and wherein a side wall on a side of the engagement groove is arranged between the air inlet channel and a side wall of the mounting cavity (see annotated Fig. 4 below).
Regarding the limitation a side wall on an other side of the engagement groove is arranged between the vaporization core and the side wall of the base, this is considered to be a rearrangement of parts. Courts have held that rearrangement of parts of the prior art is unpatentable. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and MPEP 2144.04, IV., part C. The rearrangement of parts would be an obvious selection of a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a pathway for the liquid to the atomizer and securement of the base within the housing.
PNG
media_image7.png
548
623
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, modified LEI discloses the vaporizer of claim 11 as discussed above. LEI does not disclose wherein the baffle plate is fixedly connected to a bottom wall of the engagement groove of the seal member, and the baffle plate is integrally formed with the seal member.
WEN teaches an atomizer with a base comprising a baffle plate with a closed and open state (abstract). WEN teaches that the baffle plate (Fig. 3, baffle 310, page 7) is located between the base and the atomization core. WEN teaches that the baffle can be fixed to the surface of the base (page 9).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LEI to provide wherein the baffle plate is fixedly connected to a bottom wall of the engagement groove of the seal member as taught in WEN. A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously fix the baffle to an engagement surface. Doing so would properly position the baffle to open and close the air flow. Regarding the limitation, the baffle plate is integrally formed with the seal member, the courts have held that making components integral to be a mere obvious engineering choice. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.", see Schenck v. Nortron Corp., 713 F.2d 782, 218 USPQ 698 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Claims were directed to a vibratory testing machine (a hard-bearing wheel balancer) comprising a holding structure, a base structure, and a supporting means which form "a single integral and gaplessly continuous piece." Nortron argued that the invention is just making integral what had been made in four bolted pieces. The court found this argument unpersuasive and held that the claims were patentable because the prior art perceived a need for mechanisms to dampen resonance, whereas the inventor eliminated the need for dampening via the one-piece gapless support structure, showing insight that was contrary to the understandings and expectations of the art.).
Regarding claim 16, modified LEI discloses the vaporizer of claim 10 as discussed above. LEI does not disclose wherein the baffle plate is configured to extend parallel to the fine groove and against an end of the fine groove in the natural state.
WEN teaches an atomizer with a base comprising a baffle plate with a closed and open state (abstract). WEN teaches that the baffle plate (Fig. 3, baffle 310, page 7) is located between the base and the atomization core. As shown in Fig. 3, the baffle plate is shown horizontal to the page. Where the baffle plate of WEN is incorporated to LEI for the obvious rationale reasons given above in the rejection of claim 10, the plate would reasonably be horizontal to the page. The fine grooves of LEI are shown to include intersections 1511 and 1512 shown in Fig. 4 and disclosed on page 7 which are also horizontal to the page.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the baffle plate to be parallel to the fine grooves because doing so is the natural arrangement provided when incorporating the baffle plate of WEN into the disclosure of LEI. Further, as explained above, this is a rearrangement of parts that would be in the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art to both manage condensate via the fine grooves and open and shut the air flow via the baffle.
Regarding claim 18, LEI discloses an electronic atomizing device with air flow passages (abstract). LEI discloses A vaporizer (Fig. 2, atomizer 1, page 6), comprising: a vaporization sleeve (Fig. 2, shell 17, page 9) having a liquid storage cavity (Fig. 3, liquid storage cavity 19, page 10) and a mounting cavity (See annotated Fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
607
350
media_image1.png
Greyscale
LEI further teaches another embodiment with a mounting base (Fig. 4, leakage-proof element 18, page 10) arranged in the mounting cavity and forming a vaporization cavity (Fig. 3, atomizing chamber 132, page 10).
LEI further teaches an air inlet channel (Fig. 3, first air inlet 11, page 9) and an air outlet channel (Fig. 3, second air outlet 182, page 10) being in communication with the vaporization cavity (as shown in Fig. 3). LEI further teaches a vaporization core (Fig. 3, atomizing assembly 14, page 9) mounted in the vaporization cavity. LEI further teaches a fine groove (Fig. 4, second connecting groove 186 page 10 and/or intersections 1511 and 1512 page 7) provided on an inner wall of the air inlet channel (As shown in Fig. 4), the fine groove being configured to buffer liquid entering the air inlet channel. LEI teaches that the connecting grooves form an intersection with the dam to provide a capillary force for absorbing the liquid in the air flow passage (page 10). LEI further teaches that the device includes solutions for managing atomized aerosol substrate that has condensed in the channels by providing junctions to drive the liquid to the capillary structure instead of the inlet (middle page 7). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would provide grooves designed to manage the condensate and keep condensate from the inlet as taught in LEI. The positioning of the parts, for example the groove on the air inlet channel and the sectioning of the air inlet channel is considered to be a rearrangement of parts. Courts have held that rearrangement of parts of the prior art is unpatentable. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and MPEP 2144.04, IV., part C. The rearrangement of parts would be an obvious selection of a person of ordinary skill in the art to manage condensate and since the parts are disclosed in the prior art and the reason for including the grooves and the placement of them is for the same reason as the instant application the rationale is supported by knowledge in the prior art. Further the multiplication of grooves is considered to be duplication of parts. The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04, VI, Part B. In this case, this is even more than mere duplication of parts, but a duplication of parts that would be done by one of ordinary skill in the art for management of condensate resulting in predictable results as supported by rationale to combine (C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (See MPEP 2143, I., (C)). The instant application includes these “fine grooves” for the purpose of managing liquid in the same manner and to achieve the same improvement taught in LEI.
LEI does not disclose a baffle plate is arranged between the air inlet channel and the vaporization cavity, wherein the baffle plate is configured to close the air inlet channel in a natural state so as to disconnect communication between the air inlet channel and the vaporization cavity, and wherein the baffle plate is configured to open the air inlet channel in response to the user inhaling air from the vaporization cavity through the air outlet channel so as to communicate the air inlet channel with the vaporization cavity.
WEN teaches an atomizer with a base comprising a baffle plate with a closed and open state (abstract). WEN teaches that the baffle plate (Fig. 3, baffle 310, page 7) is located between the base and the atomization core. WEN teaches that in a normal condition and when stored the baffle is in closed state to cover the air inlet (page 7). WEN teaches that the user is able to open the air inlet holes allowing air to pass through (page 7). WEN teaches that the baffle opens the air intake hole when the user sucks at the air outlet (page 7). This creates an air pressure difference that overcomes the baffle plate (page 7).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LEI to provide a baffle plate is arranged between the air inlet channel and the vaporization cavity, wherein the baffle plate is configured to close the air inlet channel in a natural state so as to disconnect communication between the air inlet channel and the vaporization cavity, and wherein the baffle plate is configured to open the air inlet channel in response to the user inhaling air from the vaporization cavity through the air outlet channel so as to communicate the air inlet channel with the vaporization cavity as taught in WEN. A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously provide a baffle plate because doing so would prevent leakage when in a normal and closed position and allow for customization of the vaporization in the open state by allowing the user to select a level to which the device is open.
LEI does not disclose wherein the baffle plate is configured to extend parallel to the fine groove and against an end of the fine groove in the natural state.
WEN teaches an atomizer with a base comprising a baffle plate with a closed and open state (abstract). WEN teaches that the baffle plate (Fig. 3, baffle 310, page 7) is located between the base and the atomization core. As shown in Fig. 3, the baffle plate is shown horizontal to the page. Where the baffle plate of WEN is incorporated to LEI for the obvious rationale reasons given above in the rejection of claim 10, the plate would reasonably be horizontal to the page. The fine grooves of LEI are shown to include intersections 1511 and 1512 shown in Fig. 4 and disclosed on page 7 which are also horizontal to the page.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the baffle plate to be parallel to the fine grooves because doing so is the natural arrangement provided when incorporating the baffle plate of WEN into the disclosure of LEI. Further, as explained above, this is a rearrangement of parts that would be in the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art to both manage condensate via the fine grooves and open and shut the air flow via the baffle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed April 1, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. Applicant has amended the claims, and as a result of the amendment, the rejection is restated to map the newly recited limitations which are, with respect to amended claim 1, still taught by LEI. Therefore, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of LEI.
The drawing objections made in the office action mailed December 1, 2025 are withdrawn in view of applicant’s arguments.
For purposes of examination, as argued by applicant in the remarks filed April 1, 2026, with respect to the instant application the first notch and the second notch are interchangeable and the same elements as the first intercepting groove and the second intercepting groove (See page 7 of the remarks). Furthermore the third intercepting groove is any type of gap, notch, groove or it's reasonable equivalents that provide for air to flow through the walls of the device. The prior art is read in view of the assertions made in the remarks that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that grooves and notches can read over each other.
Applicant argues, “The Office also contends that relocating Lei's second communicating grooves 186 from the vaporization cavity (i.e., atomization cavity 132) to the first air inlet 11 would be obvious as a mere matter of rearranging parts "to provide a pathway for the liquid to the atomizer." See Detailed Action, page 5. It is respectfully submitted that it is unclear how relocating Lei's second communicating grooves 186 from atomization cavity 132 to first air inlet 11 would "provide a pathway for the liquid to the atomizer.’”
As supported by applicant’s own arguments regarding the drawings, a person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously arrange grooves and notches to provide guidance to both the air flow and the liquid flow of the device. Duplication and rearrangement of such parts is clearly supported by both ordinary engineering judgment, but also by the actual prior art specification that provides grooves and pathways to manage condensate, direct air, and fluidly connect the ambient air to the vaporization chamber and ultimately to the outlet of the device. A person of ordinary skill in vaporization devices would obviously arrange the grooves, notches, and pathways to encourage desired condensate flow and deliver an aerosolized vapor formed from ambient air passing through the device with predictable results.
Regarding the newly recited limitation, "wherein the air inlet channel is arranged upstream of the vaporization cavity such that external air without vapor formed by the vaporization core enters the vaporization cavity in response to a user inhaling through the vaporizer," this limitation is rejected as detailed above and not repeated here.
Applicant’s new claims 15-18 have been considered and are rejected as detailed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20200128874 A1 to ATKINS. ATKINS discloses a vaporization device and a cartridge (abstract) with grooves defined in the walls to collect fluid and drain condensate ([0581] and [0588]).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE L MOORE whose telephone number is (313)446-6537. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 9 am to 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, Michael H Wilson can be reached at 571-270-3882. 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.
/STEPHANIE LYNN MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights