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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 5 recites, “the two air guide grooves are located on a same straight line, or not on a same straight line,”. The claim does not include all the limitations of the preceding claim 4 which limits to parallel. Lines that are on the same straight line must be parallel so the limitation “not on the same straight line” does not include the limitation of the preceding claim.
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-5, 7, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20200015524 A1 (hereinafter RADO). RADO was made of record on applicant’s information disclosure statement filed July 25, 2024.
Regarding claim 1, RADO discloses a personal vaporizer to be used with a battery assembly (abstract). RADO discloses a heating component (Figs. 4-10, combination of base 60 and atomization cup 90, ¶48-¶52) and a vaporization base (Fig. 4, elongated delivery tube 160, ¶61) sleeved on the heating component (¶62). RADO discloses that the distal portion has an increased diameter to the proximal portion to engage with the base (¶62). RADO further discloses an air outlet channel (Fig. 5, vapor passage 152, ¶68) being provided on the vaporization base. RADO further discloses wherein the heating component comprises a vaporization surface arranged toward the air outlet channel. See annotated Fig. 5 below.
[AltContent: textbox (a vaporization surface arranged toward the air outlet channel)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
787
487
media_image1.png
Greyscale
RADO further discloses wherein an air guide structure configured to guide an airflow to the vaporization surface is arranged on the vaporization base. RADO further discloses (best shown in Figs. 7-8) that the air flows (represented by the arrow labeled “A”) through the wall structures of the vaporization base (¶68) and that the structure of the tube is to create turbulence (¶67).
Regarding claim 2, RADO discloses the vaporization assembly of claim 1 as discussed above. RADO further discloses the air guide structure comprises at least one air guide groove configured to guide the airflow to the vaporization surface (Fig. 6-8, distal space 176, ¶67) RADO discloses that the distal space is provided to achieve flow turbulence (¶67).
Regarding claim 3, RADO discloses the vaporization assembly of claim 2 as discussed above. RADO further discloses wherein the at least one air guide groove comprises two air guide grooves, and wherein the two air guide grooves are distributed on two opposite sides of the vaporization surface. RADO discloses the distal space 176 as discussed above. RADO further discloses additional spaces that are formed by grooves including atomizer inlet 174 that communicated with the distal space after turbulence is achieved to deliver the accelerated air to the vaporization chamber (¶67). 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, duplication of the air guide grooves does not produce an unexpected result and merely works to guide the flow of atmospheric air, a stated objective and improvement of RADO (¶10-¶11).
Regarding claim 4, RADO discloses the vaporization assembly of claim 3 as discussed above. RADO further discloses the two air guide grooves are provided in parallel. The air grooves as mapped in RADO are two radii stacked on a cylinder. As such these two grooves are necessarily geometrically parallel.
Regarding claim 5, RADO discloses the vaporization assembly of claim 4 as discussed above. RADO further discloses the two air guide grooves are located on a same straight line, or not on a same straight line. RADO shows the air grooves being along the same straight line that is represented by the arrow “A” at least in Fig. 7.
Regarding claim 7, RADO discloses the vaporization assembly of claim 1 as discussed above. RADO further discloses wherein a set distance is left between the air guide structure and the vaporization surface. RADO discloses that the spaces and areas created by the air guide structure to direct the air to the vaporization surface is set to achieve turbulence (¶67). This is a disclosure of a set distance.
Regarding claim 20, RADO discloses the vaporization assembly of claim 1 as discussed above. RADO further discloses [A] vaporizer (Fig. 3, personal vaporizer 50, ¶48), comprising: the vaporization assembly of claim 1; and a shell (Fig. 4, tank 70 defined by a tubular outer wall 72, ¶49) sleeved on an outer periphery of the vaporization assembly.
Regarding claim 21, RADO discloses the vaporizer of claim 20 as discussed above. RADO further discloses [A]n electronic vaporization device (assembled device as described in ¶48), comprising: the vaporizer of claim 20; and a power supply assembly (Figs. 1-2, battery assembly 20, ¶42) connected to the vaporizer.
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 6, 8, and 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RADO.
Regarding claim 6, RADO discloses the vaporization assembly of claim 2 as discussed above. RADO further teaches wherein an air inlet area of the two air guide grooves ranges from 0.6 mm2 to 1.5 mm2. RADO teaches that the cross section area of the distal area is optimized to create a turbulent air flow. Therefore, since RADO discloses that the area needs to be optimized to create turbulent air flow . As seen in ¶67-¶68, the cross sectional area of the distal space 176 creates turbulent air flow for optimal vaporization and as such area is a result effect variable in that changing the value changes the function. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to move the range as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that "[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 8, RADO discloses the vaporization assembly of claim 7 as discussed above. RADO further teaches the set distance ranges from 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 6 since the distance is a direct input variable to calculate the cross-sectional area of the distal space.
Regarding claim 9, RADO discloses the vaporization assembly of claim 1 as discussed above. RADO further discloses the heating component comprises a vaporization core (Figs. 4 and 8-9, vaporization chamber 100, ¶52) and a heating element (Figs. 4, 8-9, heating element 110, ¶52) arranged on the vaporization core, wherein the vaporization surface is formed on the vaporization core. As shown in at least Fig. 8, the vaporization surface (top of the heating element/wick) is formed on and within the vaporization core 100. RADO further discloses wherein the heating element is arranged on the vaporization surface (See Fig. 5 above). RADO does not disclose, but reasonably teaches wherein an air guide direction of the air guide structure is set to align with a position with a highest temperature on the heating element. RADO teaches that the air guide structure, as mapped to RADO 160 and its structure, is formed to direct air and to create turbulence on the way to the atomization chamber (¶66-¶67). This turbulent air is guided to the atomizer inlet (¶67). The turbulent air enables more entrainment of the atomized medium in the air leading to fuller vapor (¶68) as a result of the air delivered effectively to the heating coil and drawing it slowly over the wick to enhance absorption of the entrained vaporizing media. A person of ordinary skill in the art would immediately recognize this as the air being purposefully guided to a highest temperature of the heating element to achieve efficient and full vaporization of the air that is to become the vapor (¶67-¶68).
Regarding claim 10, RADO teaches the vaporization assembly of claim 9 as discussed above. RADO further discloses the heating element comprises at least one bent portion and at least one straight portion connected to the at least one bent portion, and wherein the air guide direction of the air guide structure is set to align with the at least one bent portion (Figs. 9-10). As shown in at least Figs. 9-10 the heating element is a coil (the coiled portion is considered to be bent) with a straight ends (second wire end 116) that is connected to the battery to achieve electrical circuit to heat the coil (¶56).
Regarding claim 11, RADO teaches the vaporization assembly of claim 9 as discussed above. RADO further discloses the vaporization core comprises a liquid guide portion (Fig. 10, elongated wick 112, ¶54) and a vaporization portion protruding from the liquid guide portion (See annotated Fig. 10 below).
[AltContent: textbox (a vaporization portion protruding from the liquid guide portion)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
538
386
media_image2.png
Greyscale
RADO further discloses wherein the vaporization surface is formed on the vaporization portion. The entire surface of the wick and coil is a vaporization surface including the vaporization portion as labeled above. RADO further discloses the vaporization base comprises an inner sleeve (Fig. 4, tapered portion 163 and extending to the distal portion 162) sleeved on an outer periphery of the vaporization portion. As shown in assembled Fig. 5, the delivery tube 160 sleeves the entire area containing the coil and wick. RADO further discloses the air guide structure is arranged on an end surface of the inner sleeve facing the vaporization surface as shown in Figs. 7-8.
Regarding claim 12, RADO teaches the vaporization assembly of claim 11 as discussed above. RADO further discloses the vaporization base comprises an outer sleeve sleeved on an outer periphery of the inner sleeve and matched with the liquid guide portion, wherein a gap is left between the outer sleeve and the inner sleeve to form an air storage cavity, wherein a vaporization cavity is formed in the inner sleeve, and wherein the air guide structure is in communication with the air storage cavity and the vaporization cavity. As best shown in Fig. 8, the elongated delivery tube 160 includes a distal flange 164 that overlaps to the bottom of the tank wall and sleeves the outside of the base 60 (¶62). There are air gaps formed in both the delivery tube and the atomizer cup 90 that align (shown in Fig. 8). Inside the cup and around the heating coil is an air cavity that is in communication with the vaporization cavity and the air storage cavity.
Regarding claim 13, RADO teaches the vaporization assembly of claim 12 as discussed above. RADO further teaches a vent groove configured to ventilate the vaporization core is provided on the outer sleeve. In another embodiment, RADO teaches that the air flows in from the side and then vents the heated vapor out the opposite side (See Fig. 15). A person of ordinary skill in the art would immediately recognize that the groove that is formed in Fig. 15 to create the side where the “V” passageway travels is a groove to ventilate the core on the outer sleeve. Further, 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.
Regarding claim 14, RADO teaches the vaporization assembly of claim 13 as discussed above. RADO further teaches a through hole (Fig. 6, access aperture 86 matched with feed apertures 168, ¶72) is provided on the outer sleeve for the liquid guide portion to pass through, and the vent groove is in communication with the through hole. When assembled the portions are in communication with each other to vent the vapor to the user and away from the core.
Regarding claim 15, RADO teaches the vaporization assembly of claim 14 as discussed above. RADO further teaches a base (Figs. 1-2, battery assembly 20, ¶42), wherein the outer sleeve comprises a first sleeve portion sleeved on an outer periphery of the liquid guide portion. This limitation is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 12. RADIO further teaches and a second sleeve portion arranged at the end of the first sleeve portion and sleeved on the base. As shown in Fig. 2, the battery assembly (i.e. base) narrows and tapers to form a mount boss 40 for connecting to the vaporizing structures (¶43). A person of ordinary skill in the art would immediately recognize that when these structures are assembled the connections are sleeved to connect the portions with predictable results. RADO further discloses wherein the through hole is provided on the first sleeve portion and is provided close to the second sleeve portion, and wherein the vent groove is provided on an end surface on which the first sleeve portion is connected to the second sleeve portion for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 14. When the device is assembled the through holes are close to the sleeve portions and cooperate with the vents to provide a vapor to the user. Further, 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.
Regarding claim 16, RADO teaches the vaporization assembly of claim 13 as discussed above. RADO further teaches the vent groove comprises at least one air outlet groove in communication with an outside and at least one air inlet groove that is in communication with the air outlet grooves and the air storage cavity. RADO teaches several air outlets and air inlet groove that are necessarily in communication with the air storage cavity because when assembled the air and vapor passages of RADO are in communication to transform atmospheric air to vapor for user inhalation (¶66).
Regarding claim 17, RADO teaches the vaporization assembly of claim 16 as discussed above. RADO further teaches the at least one air outlet groove comprises a plurality of air outlet grooves and/or the at least one air inlet groove comprises a plurality of air inlet grooves. As shown in the drawings of RADO there are a plurality of air inlet grooves (Fig. 6, inlet passages 138 matched with inlets 118, ¶59). The proximal end of the elongated delivery tube 160 (i.e. vaporization base) is connected to the intake insert (¶61). A person of ordinary skill in the art would provide multiple air inlets on the device to provide atmospheric air to the vaporization chamber with predictable results. 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.
Regarding claim 18, RADO discloses the vaporization assembly of claim 1 as discussed above. RADO further teaches wherein a vaporization cavity is provided in the vaporization base. As best shown in Fig. 8, the elongated delivery tube 160 includes a distal flange 164 that overlaps to the bottom of the tank wall and sleeves the outside of the base 60 (¶62). There are air gaps formed in both the delivery tube and the atomizer cup 90 that align (shown in Fig. 8). Inside the cup and around the heating coil is an air cavity that is in communication with the vaporization cavity and the air storage cavity. Regarding the limitation the vaporization cavity comprising a first connection portion, a second connection portion arranged at one end of the first connection portion, and a third connection portion arranged at one end of the second connection portion and extending toward the air outlet channel, RADO teaches multiple connection structures for assembling the different parts and assemblies of the device (¶43). RADO teaches that the portions may be connected through threaded connections (¶44), detents, friction fits, J-locks, and the like (¶46, ¶79). 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 broadly applied the teachings of RADO to connect the sleeved and nested portions of RADO while ensuring air flow. Doing so would securely engage the portions (¶46)
Regarding claim 19, RADO discloses the vaporization assembly of claim 18 as discussed above. RADO further teaches wherein the first connection portion comprises a plane, the second connection portion comprises an arc surface, and the third connection portion comprises a plane, or wherein the first connection portion, the second connection portion, and the third connection portion all comprise arc surfaces, or wherein the first connection comprises is a plane, the second connection portion comprises an arc surface, and the third connection portion comprises an arc surface, for the same reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 18.
Conclusion
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