DETAILED ACTION
Summary
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted on January 16, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently claims 1-9, 13-14, and 17 are amended and claims 10-12 and 18 are withdrawn, resulting in claims 1-9 and 13-17 pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 5, 8-9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the second hydrophilic layer” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “wherein the hydrophilic fiber comprises a lyocell fiber” in line 7. Earlier claim 13 defines the heat resistant layer as comprising a hydrophilic fiber and the liquid guiding layer as comprising a hydrophilic fiber. The limitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether the recitation of “the hydrophilic fiber” in line 7 limits the hydrophilic fiber in the heat resistant layer, the hydrophilic fiber in the liquid guiding layer, or both. For the purposes of examination the limitation will be interpreted as limiting both the hydrophilic fiber in the heat resistant layer and the liquid guiding layer.
Claim 5 recites the limitations “the heat resistant fiber comprises …” and “the hydrophilic fiber comprises …” and lists materials that do not include the polyimide fiber and the lyocell fiber required by claim 14. The limitation is therefore indefinite because it is unclear whether the materials listed in claim 5 further limit the heat resistant fiber and the hydrophilic fiber. For the purposes of examination the heat resistant fiber and the hydrophilic fiber will be interpreted as further comprising at least one of the listed materials as well as the polyimide fiber and lyocell fiber required by claim 14.
Amending the claim to recite –the heat resistant fiber further comprises—and –the hydrophilic fiber further comprises--, or a similar amendment, would aid in overcoming the rejection.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the hydrophilic fiber” in line 5. Similar to claim 13 it is unclear whether “the hydrophilic fiber” refers to the hydrophilic fiber in the heat resistant layer, the hydrophilic fiber in the liquid guiding layer, or both. For the purposes of examination the limitation in line 5 will be interpreted as limiting both the hydrophilic fiber in the heat resistant layer and the liquid guiding layer.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the hydrophilic fiber” in lines 2 and 3. Similar to claim 13 it is unclear whether “the hydrophilic fiber” refers to the hydrophilic fiber in the heat resistant layer, the hydrophilic fiber in the liquid guiding layer, or both. For the purposes of examination the limitation in lines 2 and 3 will be interpreted as limiting both the hydrophilic fiber in the heat resistant layer and the liquid guiding layer.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the hydrophilic fiber” in lines 2 and 3. Similar to claim 13 it is unclear whether “the hydrophilic fiber” refers to the hydrophilic fiber in the heat resistant layer, the hydrophilic fiber in the liquid guiding layer, or both. For the purposes of examination the limitation in lines 2 and 3 will be interpreted as limiting both the hydrophilic fiber in the heat resistant layer and the liquid guiding layer.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
Claims 14-17, 2-4, and 6-7 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With respect to claim 14, the prior art does not teach or suggest a heating assembly, comprising: a fiber composite material comprising a heat resistant layer and a liquid guiding layer that are stacked; and a heating body in contact with the heat resistant layer, wherein a material of the heat resistant layer comprises a heat resistant fiber and a hydrophilic fiber, wherein a material of the liquid guiding layer comprises a hydrophilic fiber, and wherein the heat resistant fiber comprises a polyimide fiber as recited in claim 14.
Liu (US 2017/0035109), previously cited as relevant prior art, is considered the closest prior art of record. Liu teaches an atomizer including an electronic heating element which is used to atomize the cigarette liquid and a first liquid guide cloth used to transfer the cigarette liquid to the electric heating element (paragraph [0009]). The atomizer further includes a substrate made of a heat resistive material, where the substrate abuts against a side of the first liquid guide cloth (stacked) (paragraphs [0017]-[0018]). The substrate has a side provided with a metal layer formed by printing or electroplating a metallic material on the substrate to serve as the electric heating element (a heating body in contact with the heat resistant layer) (paragraph [0019]). The heat resistive substrate preferably uses polyimide (paragraph [0136]).
Liu is silent as to the polyimide being a fiber, the heat resistant layer including a hydrophilic fiber, and the liquid guiding layer comprising a hydrophilic fiber.
Yamazaki (JP 2012-167894), cited in the previous office action, is considered relevant to the claimed invention. Yamazaki teaches an evaporation sheet made of felt comprising absorbent fiber (hydrophilic fiber), heat-fusible fiber, and heat-resistant fiber (paragraph [0009]). Examples of the water-absorbent fiber (hydrophilic fiber) include lyocell and Tencel (paragraph [0019]). Examples of the heat-resistant fiber include polyimide fiber (paragraph [0022]). Yamazaki teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Yamazaki further teaches the evaporation sheet comprises 25-70% by weight, preferably 25-60% by weight, of absorbent fiber (hydrophilic fiber) and 0-35% by weight, preferably 10-35% by weight, of heat-resistant fibers (paragraphs [0009]-[0010]). Yamazaki further teaches the heat-fusible fibers may be low-melting polyester fibers (high resilience fiber) (paragraph [0020]). Yamazaki further teaches the heat-resistant fiber may be a blend comprising PPS (polyphenylene sulfide) (paragraph [0022]). The water-absorbent fiber (hydrophilic fiber) may include chitosan (paragraph [0019]). Yamazaki further teaches the evaporation sheet comprises 25-70% by weight, preferably 25-60% by weight, of absorbent fiber (hydrophilic fiber), 0-35% by weight, preferably 10-35% by weight, of heat-resistant fibers, and 25-45% by weight heat-fusible fibers (high resilience fiber) (paragraphs [0009]-[0010]).
Yamazaki does not remedy the deficiencies of Liu identified above.
Duque (US 2018/0177240), cited previously as relevant prior art, is considered relevant to the claimed invention. Duque discloses vaporizers having a thermal wick (abstract). A thermal wick may include a combination of an electrically insulating porous wicking material surrounding, enclosing, covering or embedded within a thermally conductive material (abstract). The thermally conductive material has a thermal conductance greater than that of the porous wicking material (abstract). The thermal wick reduces the viscosity of vaporizable material by transferring heat throughout the wick and warming the vaporizable material and providing a high void volume (abstract). The thermal wick allows for substantially higher total particulate masses of vaporizable material than traditional wicks (abstract).
Duque does not remedy the deficiencies of Liu identified above.
Xu (US 2019/0001077), cited previously as relevant prior art, is considered relevant to the claimed invention. Xu discloses a composite wick for use in a micro-vaporizer having a fluid reservoir and a heating element (abstract). The composite wick comprises a wick body positionable so that its upstream surface is in fluid communication with the fluid reservoir and the downstream surface is disposed in opposition to a surface of the heating element (abstract). The wick body comprises at least one base wick structure having a plurality of tortuous passages that collectively provide a capillary effect to draw fluid from the reservoir and transport it toward the downstream surface (abstract). The wick body further comprises an active material positioned within the wick body so that vaporizable fluid drawn through the wick body contacts and interacts with the active material (abstract). The active material is selected to impart a desired characteristic to the vaporizable fluid (abstract).
Xu does not remedy the deficiencies of Liu identified above.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §112
Some of the rejections of claims 1-9 and 13-17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention, are overcome by Applicants amendments to the claims in the response filed January 16, 2026.
In light of the amendments to the claims new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been applied above.
On page 8 of the response Applicant submits that claim 5 is definite and includes all previous materials recited due to the use of “comprising”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether the materials listed in claim 5 further limit the heat resistant fiber and the hydrophilic fiber. In other words, it is unclear whether claim 5 meets the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(d) for including all the limitations of a previous claim because it is unclear whether the materials in claim 5 replace or are in addition to the previously cited materials.
Amending the claim to recite –the heat resistant fiber further comprises— and –the hydrophilic fiber further comprises--, or a similar amendment, would aid in overcoming the rejection.
On page 8 of the response Applicant submits that with respect to the two recitations of “a hydrophilic fiber” in claim 14, from which claims 5 and 8-9 all now depend, the recitations of “the hydrophilic fiber” corresponds to both instances of “a hydrophilic fiber” in claim 14.
The Examiner appreciates the clarification, however the claim language itself remains unclear that the intent is to limit both instances of “a hydrophilic fiber” in claim 14. MPEP 2173.05(e) provides an example where if two different levers are recited earlier in the claim, the recitation of “said lever” in the same or subsequent claims would be unclear where it is uncertain which of the two levers was intended. In the instant case, it is unclear whether the recitation of “the hydrophilic fiber” refers to the hydrophilic fiber in the heat resistant layer, the liquid guiding layer, or both.
Amending the claims to recite first and second hydrophilic fibers as in amended claim 1 would aid in overcoming the rejection. Similarly, amending the claims to recite –wherein the hydrophilic fiber of the heat resistant layer and the hydrophilic fiber of the liquid guiding layer— or a similar amendment, would aid in overcoming the rejection.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §103
The rejections of claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki (JP 2012-167894) have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims filed January 16, 2026.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 Larissa Rowe Emrich whose telephone number is (571)272-2506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 4:00pm EST.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
LARISSA ROWE EMRICH
Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/LARISSA ROWE EMRICH/Examiner, Art Unit 1789