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 without traverse of Species-(a) (Figure 4) – indicating that the elected species encompasses claims 1-12 and 14-20 – is acknowledged. Upon review of the restriction requirement mailed 1-14-26, the instant specification and claims, and the state of the prior art: the application is not considered to include patentably distinct species among Figures 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. The restriction requirement is withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the features of claim 20 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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:
●heating body in claims 1, 15, 19, 20
●liquid absorbing member in claim 19
●electrical component in claim 20
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.
Claim 20 is 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 20 recites the limitation “electrical component” which 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. The written description does not define what is encompassed under “electrical component. 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.
Also for claim 20, the claim and the instant specification do not clearly define what constitutes an electrical component and does not clearly set for the relationship between the electrical component and the heating body so as to be able to supply power to the heating body.
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 1-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong (US 2022/0132925 A1).
Claims 1-17: Jeong teaches a cartridge, having a housing and airway 12 and an air inlet in communication with a vaporization cavity (vaporization region – discussed further below) (Fig1: where bottom most arrow is located), comprising a vaporization core (inside the housing) for an e-cigarette which vaporizes a stored aerosol-generating material (¶2 ¶53 ¶60 Abstract Fig2), the vaporization core comprising
●liquid porous guide body 15 having a rectangular parallelepiped shape (¶60; ¶103
Lns13-15; see portion of Figure 1 annotated below) comprising
►a first side surface (top surface of liquid guide body 15 facing (and in
communication with) liquid storage tank 13 and arranged along the length direction [width and height directions also) (¶60)
●at least a part of the first side surface forming a liquid absorbingregion (¶63 ¶64)
►a second side surface (bottom surface of liquid guide body 15 facing lower
case 17 and arranged along the length direction) (¶60)
●arranged opposite to the first side surface (Fig1)
●at least a part of the second side surface forming a vaporization
region (comprising at least heating body 16 and open space thereabout; the vaporization region in communication with airway 12 by way of the vaporization core and in communication with the second side surface) (¶63 ¶64 ¶73)
►a liquid guide portion which stores liquid in use (liquid storage portion; of same
material: ceramic ¶88 (i.e. beads); of equal area) (see portion of Figure 1
annotated below)
●being a part of the liquid guide body 15 between the first side
surface and a position obtained by translating the first side surface to the second side surface
●heating body 16 (¶63 ¶64 ¶73)
●arranged at the vaporization region of the second side surface
(¶63 ¶64 ¶73)
●is a heating circuit pattern 161 (¶74) (claim 12: “printed” refers to
how the heating body is formed and is not considered to be a structural limitation to the claimed structure (i.e. vaporization core)).
PNG
media_image1.png
600
506
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
320
773
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Also for claims 1, 5-6, 8, and 10-11, and 13: with respect to the claimed distance between the first side surface and the second side surface (i.e. height of the liquid guide portion being 0.5mm to 1.5mm), Jeong does not teach 0.5mm to 1.5mm. Jeong teaches the liquid guide portion has a rectangular parallelepiped shape with a height of 2mm (¶103 Lns13-15: “and the porous wick has a rectangular parallelepiped shape having a height of 2.0 mm, a width of 2.0 mm, and a length of 11 mm”). However, it has been held that values which are so close (i.e. 1.5mm claimed and 2mm in prior art Jeong), there is a prima facie case of obviousness in that one skilled in the art can expect them to have the same properties (MPEP 2144.05(I). Also, the height of the liquid guide portion, to which one skilled in the art would consider providing, is a function of, among other variables, the desired operating temperature vaporization core, the particular material of the vaporization core, pressure inside the device which uses the vaporization core, and size of the first and second faces. 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 height of the liquid guide portion, to which one skilled in the art would consider providing, based on known variables – such as those listed for example; and thus the claimed height of the liquid guide portion 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 1: with respect to the claim limitation of “a liquid storage amount …. 3T1” (Lns7-9) this limitation refers to an amount of aerosol-generating liquid. However, the claim does not recite that the vaporization core includes a liquid such that the limitation is not considered to be a structural limitation of the claimed structure (i.e. vaporization core). Also, the limitation refers to a feature that is present when the vaporization core is being used (intended use limitation) and not to a structural limitation of the claimed structure.
Claim 1: with respect to the claimed heating body, 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 heating body to perform the claimed function. Jeong teaches a structure for the heating body to perform the same claimed function. Jeong is thus considered to meet this limitation of the claim.
Claims 2-9: with respect to the claimed limitations, these limitations refer to an amount of an inhalation amount and the amount of aerosol-generating liquid. However, the claims do not recite that the vaporization core includes a liquid such that the limitations are not considered to be structural limitations of the claimed structure (i.e. vaporization core). Also, the limitations refer to features present when the vaporization core is being used (intended use limitation) – not to structural limitations of the claimed structure. The same applies to the limitations in claim 5 at lines 4-9 beginning with “a liquid storage amount Q2”. The same applies to the limitations in claim 6, last line. The same applies to claim 8, lines 5-6.
Also for claim 13: an orthographic projection area of the liquid guide portion would be equal to an orthographic projection area of the liquid storage portion within a plane perpendicular to a direction from the first side surface to the second side surface (see discussion of claim 1: a liquid guide portion which stores liquid in use (liquid storage portion)) – and such have a cuboid shape (Fig2 Fig6 Fig7).
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.
Also for claim 13: with respect to the relative maximum dimensions the length, width, and height of the housing, these relationships, to which one skilled in the art would consider providing, is a function of, among other variables, the size of the vaporization core, the materials making up each of the housing, internal temperature, and internal pressure. 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 these relationships, to which one skilled in the art would consider providing, based on known variables – such as those listed for example; and thus the claimed relationships 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).
Also for claim 16: the cartridge for the e-cigarette further comprises vaporization core fixing member 17 arranged inside the housing, the vaporization core fixing member separating the liquid storage cavity and the vaporization cavity, vaporization core fixing member 17 having a mounting groove (the inside portion forming the groove on both the left and right sides), the vaporization core being arranged in the mounting grooves, vaporization core fixing member 17 having a communication channel (Fig1 – see channel at bottom), and the mounting groove and the communication channel being arranged along the width direction of the housing as well as the length and height direction; and a top end of the communication channel is connected with the airway through the vaporization core, and a bottom end of the communication channel is in communication with the vaporization cavity (¶s80-84; Fig1 Fig2).
Also for claim 17: the air inlet comprises an outer air inlet section (the bottom facing the outside) and an inner air inlet section (that closest to the vaporization core), both the outer air inlet section and the inner air inlet section extend along the length direction of the housing (and the width and height directions also), the inner air inlet section is in communication with the vaporization cavity, and the outer air inlet section is in communication with the outside; and the inner air inlet section is offset by a predetermined distance in a direction away from a lower portion of the communication channel relative to the outer air inlet section along the width direction of the housing (and lengths and height directions also) --- illustrated in Figure 1.
Claim 20: Jeong teaches an e-cigarette, comprising:
●the cartridge according to claim 14 (see entire discussion of claim 15 above) and
●a cigarette rod (¶56).
As discussed above under 35 U.S.C. 112(b): claim 20 and the instant specification do not clearly define what constitutes an electrical component and does not clearly set for the relationship between the electrical component and the heating body so as to be able to supply power to the heating body. Thus, as best understood – claim 20 requires an electrical component, as part of the e-cigarette, connected to the heating body and configured to supply power to the heating body. Jeong teaches one or more terminal electrically connected to a battery to power heating body 16 (¶35 ¶s74-75). 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 20, with respect to claimed heating body, 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 heating body to perform the claimed function. Jeong teaches a structure for the heating body to perform the same claimed function. Jeong is thus considered to meet this limitation of the claim.
Claim 20, with respect to claimed electrical component, 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. Jeong teaches a structure for the electrical component to perform the claimed function. Jeong is thus considered to meet this limitation of the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-19 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 18, the closest prior art of record to Jeong, alone or in combination with the other prior art of record, does not teach or fairly suggest the cartridge further comprising an upper seal member, the upper seal member having an encapsulation portion and a plug portion, wherein an end portion of the communication channel has an opening along the width direction and/or the thickness direction of the housing, the encapsulation portion is sleeved on the vaporization core fixing member, and the encapsulation portion forming a press-fit relationship with the vaporization core fixing member and an inner wall of the housing, and the plug portion blocking the opening, and the plug portion forming a press-fit relationship with the opening and the inner wall of the housing, wherein: a vent channel is formed between the upper seal member and the vaporization core fixing member, and the vent channel is configured to communicate the vaporization cavity and the liquid storage cavity; and the vaporization core fixing member has a vent sinking groove spaced apart from the mounting groove, a through hole is formed on a side wall of the vent sinking groove, and the through hole is in communication with the vaporization cavity; and a communication groove is formed on an outer circumferential surface of the vaporization core fixing member, an end of the communication groove is in communication with the through hole, and another end of the communication groove is in communication with the liquid storage cavity; and the upper seal member covers the through hole and the communication groove, the upper seal member, the through hole, and the communication groove forms a vent channel, and when a pressure of the vaporization cavity is greater than a pressure of the liquid storage cavity, the upper seal member is deformed with a pressure difference to open the vent channel.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claim 19, the closest prior art of record to Jeong, alone or in combination with the other prior art of record, does not teach or fairly suggest the cartridge further comprising the housing comprises a main housing and a lower cover, the air outlet is formed at an end of the main housing, another end of the main housing is open and covered by the lower cover, and the air inlet is formed on the lower cover, wherein: the lower cover comprises a bottom plate and a side plate extending from the bottom plate toward the vaporization cavity, a liquid absorbing member covers on an inner surface of the bottom plate, and the liquid absorbing member is arranged around the air inlet, or the liquid absorbing member is supported on the side plate; and a conductive pin extends through the lower cover, an end of the conductive pin abuts against the heating body, and another end of the conductive pin protrudes from an outer surface of the lower cover.
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).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/344,881 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of instant claims 1-14 are within the claims and/or claim combinations of the reference application. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/344,885 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of instant claims 1-14 are within the claims and/or claim combinations of the reference application. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/820,314 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of instant claims 1-14 are within the claims and/or claim combinations of the reference application. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/820,306 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of instant claims 1-14 are within the claims and/or claim combinations of the reference application. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Prior Art of Record
The following prior art is made of record. Guo teaches an atomizing core having uniform porosity. Song teaches an atomizing core of porous ceramic.
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