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/Restriction
Applicant’s election of Species-(a) in the reply filed on 12-1-2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement (i.e., applicant did not indicate whether the election was made with traverse or without traverse), the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 1-20 encompass the elected species.
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:
●first sealing member in claims 1, 13, and 17
●first sealing portion in claims 1, 8, 9, and 17
●elastic sealing portion in claims 1, 2, 17, 18
●power supply device in claim 17
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 § 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, 7-10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fu (US 2021/0030072 A1).
Claim 1: Fu teaches a vaporization device 10 (¶17) comprising:
●a housing 1 (¶20) wherein a liquid storage bin 20 (¶65), an air passage 1t (¶59), and a vaporization bin 6C (¶32) are disposed in the housing 1 and:
●the liquid storage bin 6C is configured to store an aerosol matrix (¶64)
●the air passage 1t is in communication with the vaporization bin 6C (¶68)
●the housing 1 is provided with an air inlet (¶64-69 Fig4B) and an air outlet 1h
¶59)
●the air inlet and the air outlet 1h are both in communication with the outside
(¶59 ¶64-69 Fig4B)
●the air inlet is in communication with the vaporization bin 6C (¶64-69 Fig4B)
●the air outlet 1h is in communication with the air passage 1t (¶59)
●a vaporization component 3/5 (¶20)
●is fixed between the liquid storage bin 20 and the vaporization bin 6C (Fig2A
Fig4A)
●comprises a bracket 3 and a vaporization core 5 (¶23-25)
●the bracket 3 comprises a top bracket surface 3s1 (¶30 Fig3A) facing the liquid
storage bin 20 (Fig2A)
●the top bracket surface 3s1 comprises a first air exchange groove 3r2 (¶33)
●the first air exchange groove 3r2 comprises a first opening (see Fig3A
annotated below) facing to the liquid storage bin 20 (¶30-32)
●the vaporization core 5 is configured to vaporize the aerosol matrix and release
an aerosol toward the vaporization bin 6C (¶59)
●an air exchange passage comprising
●a first segment
●a second segment (see Fig4B annotated below)
●the first segment is formed in the first air exchange groove 3r2●the second segment is in communication with each of the first segment
thereabout and the vaporization bin 6C by way of an area wherein an
airflow 6f2 passes between the vaporization bin 6c and the first air exchange groove 3r2 (¶46 ¶64) (see Fig4B annotated below -- first Fig4B illustration)
●a first sealing member 2 (¶20) comprising
●a first sealing portion (see Fig4B annotated below -- second illustration)
●an elastic sealing portion (¶22) (see Fig4B annotated below – the second Fig4B
illustrated)
●the first sealing portion is disposed between the vaporization component 3/5
and the housing 1 (Fig4B)
●the elastic sealing portion covers the first opening (¶37)
●the elastic sealing portion is configured to open the first opening when a
pressure difference between the first segment and the liquid storage bin 20 is greater than a predetermined value, to communicate the first segment with the liquid storage bin 20 (¶70).
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
With respect to the claimed first sealing member, first sealing portion, and elastic sealing portion, 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. The instant specification teaches structures for the claimed items above to perform their functions. Fu teaches structures for the claimed items above to perform the same functions. Fu is thus considered to meet these limitations of the claim.
PNG
media_image1.png
603
618
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
910
1128
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
709
834
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 7: Fu teaches the vaporization device 10 according to claim 1 wherein
●the first air exchange groove 3r2 comprises an open end located at an edge of the
bracket 3 (Fig3C, for example)
●the first segment is in communication with the second segment through the open end
(see Fig3C annotated below).
PNG
media_image4.png
525
868
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 8: Fu teaches the vaporization device 10 according to claim 1, wherein the first sealing portion covers at least a part of an outer surface of the bracket 3 (Fig3A Fig4A).
With respect to the claimed first sealing portion, 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. The instant specification teaches a structure for the claimed item above to perform its function. Fu teaches a structure for the claimed item above to perform the same function. Fu is thus considered to meet this limitation of the claim.
Claim 9: Fu teaches the vaporization device 10 according to claim 8, wherein the second segment is defined between the first sealing portion and the bracket 3 (Fig3A Fig4A).
With respect to the claimed first sealing portion, 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. The instant specification teaches a structure for the claimed item above to perform its function. Fu teaches a structure for the claimed item above to perform the same function. Fu is thus considered to meet this limitation of the claim.
Claim 10: Fu teaches the vaporization device according to claim 1 wherein
●an installation cavity 10A (¶17) and an air exchange cavity (¶68-71 ¶74), separated
from each other (the installation cavity 10A is separated from the air exchange cavity by way of, for example, the first sealing member 2 being therebetween), are formed on the bracket 3 (see Fig4B annotated below)
●the vaporization component 3/5 is fixedly installed in the installation cavity 10A (¶20
¶73-74 Fig2A Fig2B Fig4A)
●the second segment is in communication with the air exchange cavity (see Fig4B
annotated below)
●the air exchange cavity is in communication with the vaporization bin 6C (¶70).
PNG
media_image5.png
1132
1291
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 17: the above discussion of Fu with respect to claim 1 applies herein. Also, Fu teaches an electronic cigarette (¶3 ¶8 ¶63) comprising:
●a power supply device (¶18)
●the vaporization device 10 according to claim 1
●the power supply device is configured to supply electric energy to the vaporization
device 10 (¶18).
With respect to the claimed first sealing member, first sealing portion, elastic sealing portion, and power supply device, 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. The instant specification teaches structures for the claimed items above to perform their functions. Fu teaches structures for the claimed items above to perform the same function. Fu is thus considered to meet these limitations of the claim.
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 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu.
Claim 11: Fu teaches the vaporization device 10 according to claim 10, wherein:
●the liquid storage bin 20 and the vaporization bin 6C are distributed along a first
direction (see Fig4A annotated below)
●the air exchange cavity runs on a side surface of the bracket 3 in the first direction
(Fig4B and Fig4B annotated above under discussion of claim 10).
PNG
media_image6.png
1115
593
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim 11: Fu does not teach that the air exchange cavity runs through the side surface of the bracket 3.
However, Fu does illustrate using grooves to help direct airflow as needed such as the air exchange groove 3r2 (¶33 ¶70 Fig3A).
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 Fu that the air exchange cavity runs through a side surface of the bracket 3 (as a groove) given that Fu teaches that doing so helps to direct airflow as needed.
Claim 12: Fu teaches the vaporization device 10 according to claim 11, wherein
●an air exchange hole 3h3 and a second air exchange groove 3r1 are at least partially
formed on an outer peripheral surface of the bracket 3 (¶32-33)
●the air exchange hole 3h3 runs through an outer peripheral wall of the bracket 3
(Fig3A) and is in communication with an interior of the air exchange cavity by way of the vaporization bin 6C (¶64 ¶70-71 Fig4B: note that airflows 6f1 and 6f2 at the vaporization bin 6C)
●one end of the second air exchange groove 3r1 is connected with the air exchange
hole 3h3 (¶32 Fig3A)
●another end (¶32: the end at the pillar portions 3w1 and 3w2) of the second air
exchange groove 3r1 runs through another side surface of the bracket 3 in the first direction (¶32: the end at pillar portions 3w1 and 3w2; Fig3A).
Claim 13: Fu teaches the vaporization device 10 according to claim 12, wherein
●the second segment (see location of the second segment in Fig4B under claim 1
above -- first occurrence) is jointly defined between a portion of the second air exchange groove 3r1 (i.e., the first segment)
●the first sealing member 2. See Figure 4A where the second segment is covered on its
side by the first sealing portion.
With respect to the claimed first sealing member, 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. The instant specification teaches a structure for the claimed item above to perform its function. Fu teaches a structure for the claimed item above to perform the same function. Fu is thus considered to meet this limitation of the claim.
Claim 14: Fu teaches the vaporization device 10 according to claim 12.
Claim 14: Fu does not teach that a length of the second air exchange groove 3r1 is greater than a distance between the air exchange hole 3h3 and the first air exchange groove 3r2.
However, with respect to this claim limitation, the length of the second air exchange groove 3r1 that one skilled in the art would consider using (relative to the distance between the air exchange hole 3h3 and the first air exchange groove 3r2) is a function of, among other variables, the overall size of the vaporization device, the pressure differences within the device during use, the temperature of the device during use, and the material of bracket 3. 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 length of the second air exchange groove 3r1 that one skilled in the art would consider using (relative to the distance between the air exchange hole 3h3 and the first air exchange groove 3r2) based on known variables, such as those listed, to help achieve a vaporization device 10 which, overall, functions at optimal performance; and, thus, the claimed length 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 15: Fu teaches the vaporization device 10 according to claim 12, wherein the second air exchange groove 3r1 has a uniform cross-sectional area as seen in Figure 3A.
Claim 16: Fu teaches the vaporization device 10 according to claim 12, wherein a position of connection between the second air exchange groove 3r1 and the air exchange hole 3h3 is distant from the liquid storage bin 20 relative to the air exchange hole 3h3. Specifically, Figure 4A illustrates that the second air exchange groove 3r1 and the air exchange hole 3h3 meet at the top bracket surface 3s1; and, this meeting-point is distant from (apart from/separated from) the liquid storage bin 20 relative to the air exchange hole 3h3.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 and 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claim 2, Fu, alone or in combination with the other prior art of record, does not teach or fairly suggest that the side-groove wall, of the first air exchange groove, at least partially protrudes from the top bracket surface to form a rib wherein the rib is configured to press against the elastic sealing portion.
Specifically, Fu teaches that the first sealing member 2 covers the air exchange groove 3r2 on the top bracket surface 3s1 (¶60). Fu teaches that the pressure difference between the vaporization bin 6C and the liquid storage bin 20 causes the airflow 6f2 from the vaporization bin 6C to reach a junction of the air exchange groove 3r2 and the first sealing member 2 through the channel 3c5 (which comprises at least that air exchange groove 3r2). The airflow 6f2 partially pushes open the first sealing member 2. The airflow 6f2 partially deforms the first sealing member 2. The airflow 6f2 enter the liquid storage bin 20 through a gap generated by the deformation of the first sealing member 2 (¶70).
A side-groove wall partially protruding from the top bracket surface 3s1 forming a rib configured to press against the elastic sealing portion would interfere with the seal between the first sealing member 2 and the first opening wherein this interference would disrupt the pressure difference between the vaporization bin 6C and the liquid storage bin 20. MPEP 2143.01(V) indicates the following: If a proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, there may be no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification. In Fu, with respect to a side-groove wall partially protruding from the top bracket surface 3s1 forming a rib configured to press against the elastic sealing portion – it is considered that such a modification would render the invention of Fu unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claim 18, Fu, alone or in combination with the other prior art of record, does not teach or fairly suggest that the side-groove wall, of the first air exchange groove, at least partially protrudes from the top bracket surface to form a rib wherein the rib is configured to press against the elastic sealing portion.
Specifically, Fu teaches that the first sealing member 2 covers the air exchange groove 3r2 on the top bracket surface 3s1 (¶60). Fu teaches that the pressure difference between the vaporization bin 6C and the liquid storage bin 20 causes the airflow 6f2 from the vaporization bin 6C to reach a junction of the air exchange groove 3r2 and the first sealing member 2 through the channel 3c5 (which comprises at least that air exchange groove 3r2). The airflow 6f2 partially pushes open the first sealing member 2. The airflow 6f2 partially deforms the first sealing member 2. The airflow 6f2 enter the liquid storage bin 20 through a gap generated by the deformation of the first sealing member 2 (¶70).
A side-groove wall partially protruding from the top bracket surface 3s1 forming a rib configured to press against the elastic sealing portion would interfere with the seal between the first sealing member 2 and the first opening wherein this interference would disrupt the pressure difference between the vaporization bin 6C and the liquid storage bin 20. MPEP 2143.01(V) indicates the following: If a proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, there may be no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification. In Fu, with respect to a side-groove wall partially protruding from the top bracket surface 3s1 forming a rib configured to press against the elastic sealing portion – it is considered that such a modification would render the invention of Fu unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Prior Art of Record
The following prior art is made of record: Chen teaches a vaporization device having an airflow sensor. Lei teaches a vaporizer that uses pressure differences. Fornarilli teaches a vaporizing device with pressure differences relative to tank 12.
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. 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.
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.
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