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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 7/26/2023 and 1/21/2025 have been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
3 Claims 4, 10-11 and 13 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 line 2 should read “…and an upper end surface of the liquid storage housing” because this was not previously introduced.
Claim 10 line 2 should read “…a base arranged at a lower end”, because this was not previously introduced.
Claim 11 line 1 should read “…wherein a lower end of the vent tube”, because this was not previously introduced.
Claim 13 line 2 should read “…and an outer surface of the electrode pin”, because this was not previously introduced.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4, 6-11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metz (WO2017082728A1) in view of Liu (CN110250579A).
Regarding claim 1, Metz discloses a vaporizer (see Figs. 1-2 which show the E-cigarette according to the invention which contains the atomizer assembly [pgs. 1-2 of machine translation]), comprising:
a liquid storage housing (as in Fig. 9, “952” may be considered to be the liquid storage housing, which surrounds the liquid storage cavity “954”),
a vent tube arranged in the liquid storage housing (the tubular element “956” as in Fig. 9 is arranged inside of the liquid storage housing and is considered to be the vent tube. “956” runs from an inside portion around the vaporization assembly to the left of the figure towards an inhalation channel to a right of the figure), a liquid storage cavity being formed between an inner surface of the liquid storage housing and an outer surface of the vent tube (the liquid reservoir “954” in Fig. 9 is located between the inner surface of “952” and the outer surface of “956”),
a piston sealingly arrange between the inner surface of the liquid storage housing and the outer surface of the vent tube (as in Fig. 9, piston “960” is provided in the reservoir “954” and is clearly disposed between the housing and the vent tube as defined [pg. 15 of machine translation]), the piston having a first surface and a second surface arranged opposite to each other (the second surface is considered to be the left surface in Fig. 9 which contacts the liquid reservoir “954”. The first surface would be considered the opposite surface which faces the right),
the piston is movable in the liquid storage housing and changes a volume of the liquid storage cavity (the piston “960” as in Fig. 9 is movable and it moves so as to push towards the left of the figure to move liquid towards the atomizer [pg. 15 of machine translation], such that the volume of the cavity would necessarily change when the piston moves positions).
Metz does not explicitly have the first surface in communication with the atmosphere and the piston moveable under air pressure of the atmosphere to change the volume of the cavity. However, such an arrangement is well understood in the art. Liu teaches an electronic atomizing device (title), such that the invention of Liu would clearly be highly relevant to Metz and the instant application. As in Figs. 3-4, the device includes a liquid storage shell “140”, a liquid medium “160”, and a sealing piston “150” [pgs. 2-3 of machine translation], wherein the liquid is heated by the atomizing assembly “130” so as to form the vapor. The sealing piston “150” comprises a bottom surface which faces the liquid medium “160” and a top surface opposite to the bottom surface, wherein the top surface is connected with the external environment through the air supplementing hole “1430” on the upper end of the liquid storage shell “140” [pg. 2-3 of machine translation]. The piston with the connection with the atmosphere can balance the air pressure in the liquid storage cavity because of the movement of the piston [pg. 1 of machine translation]. The sealing piston 150 and the liquid storage cavity 141 of the inner wall surface friction connection, and the friction force between the sealing piston 150 and the inner wall surface of the liquid storage cavity 141 is greater than the gravity of the sealing piston 150. [pg. 2-3 of machine translation]. Fig. 4 shows that the air supplementing hold may be from the outside of the device and would cut into it to enter the housing.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the mechanism of moving the piston of Metz to be moveable under air pressure as is suggested by Liu. This simple substitution of one known element for another would have been obvious and would have produced the predictable results as detailed in Liu, such as balancing the air pressure in the cavity, preventing dry burning phenomenon, and preventing the leakage problem caused by air pressure imbalance [pg. 2-3 of machine translation]. With such a modification, the region to the right of the first surface of the piston of Metz (as in Fig. 9) would be open to the atmosphere via the air supplementing hole which would be in the area of “962” in Fig. 9.
Regarding claim 4, modified Metz makes obvious a mouthpiece arranged at an upper end of the liquid storage housing, comprising a mouthpiece portion (in Figs. 1B and 3, the vapor is shown to flow out and to the right to the user, such that the mouthpiece would be located to the right of the storage housing/cavity. The fluid path after the heater is preferably embodied as a mouthpiece which enables the user to inhale at the outlet [pg. 2 of machine translation]. And additionally, as in Fig. 2, the mouthpiece is shown so as to be provided as “40” at the outlet from the atomization assembly. Therefore, the person of ordinary skill in the art would consider for the innermost portion of the mouthpiece portion to be as shown in the annotated Figure 9 below, with the connection between the mouthpiece and the liquid storage housing “952”. It being noted that the mouthpiece portion defined as such is in a substantially similar arrangement to as shown in the instant Figs. 3-4),
PNG
media_image1.png
425
832
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein an air cavity that is annular is formed between a lower end surface of the mouthpiece portion and the first surface, the air cavity being in communication with the atmosphere (as in the rejection of claim 1 above, it would have been obvious to modify Metz so as to have the piston movable via the atmospheric pressure as in Liu, wherein there is an air supplementing hole “1430” as in Figs. 3-4 of Liu. The air supplementing hole would therefore be considered the air cavity, as it leads directly from the top portion of the cavity (above the first surface) to the outside of the device, as shown in Fig. 4 of Liu. This air cavity would necessarily be formed between a lower end surface of the mouthpiece portion and between the first surface of the piston. And as in Figs. 3-4 of Metz in the atomizing device, this cavity would also clearly be in an annular shape. And additionally, it has been noted that a change in shape is an obvious matter of choice for the person of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape was significant. See MPEP 2144.04 IV.).
Regarding claim 6, modified Metz further makes obvious a mouthpiece comprising a limiting portion extending downward from the lower end surface thereof (as in the annotated Fig. 9 above, the mouthpiece portions has several different extending portions, and the limiting portion is considered to be the portion of the mouthpiece that reaches inward and touches the outermost portion of the cavity), and wherein the piston has a first position abutting against the limiting portion (as in the annotated Fig. 9 above, the limiting portion as defined would contact the outer portion of the upper air cavity, such that when the piston is all the way extended upwards (to the right in Fig. 9) it would be contacting the outer wall of the housing and would be next to/touching the limiting portion. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “abut”, the limiting portion would be abutted against a first position of the piston thereof).
Regarding claim 7, modified Metz further makes obvious the mouthpiece comprises a sleeve portion which extends downwards from the limiting portion and is embedded in the vent tube (as in the annotated Fig. 9 above, the sleeve portion of the mouthpiece is considered to be the most inward extending portion thereof, and this is clearly attached to the limiting portion and extends inwards (left in Fig. 9) such that it is located within the vent tube “956”).
Regarding claim 8, modified Metz further makes obvious a vaporization assembly arranged in the liquid storage housing, which comprises a liquid absorbing element in fluid communication with the liquid storage cavity and a heating element arranged in the liquid absorbing element (the vaporization assembly is formed around the heating coil to the left of Fig. 9, such that it is clearly formed inside of the liquid storage housing. Liquid travels through the opening “958” from the reservoir to the vaporization assembly [pg. 15 of machine translation]. In the device of Metz, there is a ceramic core “34” where the liquid is adsorbed in the porous ceramic layer, and there is a heater wire “32” which is heated by passing electric current therethrough [Fig. 1, pg. 13 of machine translation], such that the heating of the wire results in the E-liquid to be atomized. Therefore, the liquid absorbing element would be considered the core and the heating element would be considered to heating wire, where together this arrangement forms the vaporization assembly [pg. 13 of machine translation]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Metz makes obvious the vaporization assembly is arranged in the vent tube (as in the rejection of claim 1 above and the annotated Fig. 9 of Metz below, the vaporization assembly (comprising the core and heating element) is clearly located inside of the vent tube “956” at a leftmost end in Fig. 9).
PNG
media_image2.png
300
782
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, modified Metz makes obvious a base arranged at a lower end of the housing and an electrode pin extending through the base (as in the annotated Fig. 9 above, the base is identified as being a portion to the leftmost of Fig. 9, where this is clearly at a lower portion of the housing “952”. And the electrode pin extending through the base is considered to be the bottom of the two electrodes called out in the figure, where the electrode would extend further leftwards to the battery/electronics (not shown in the figure)), and the electrode pin is connected to the first electrode of the liquid absorbing element (the first electrode may be considered to be the top electrode which is connected to the heating element/core in the figure above)).
Regarding claim 11, modified Metz makes obvious a lower end of the vent tube is embedded in the base (as in the annotated Fig. 9 above, the vent tube “956” has a leftmost portion in the figure that is located to the inside of what is considered the base, such that the vent tube would necessarily have its lower end thereof embedded in the base).
Regarding claim 13, modified Metz makes obvious an insulating sleeve arranged between the inner surface of the vent tube and an outer surface of the electrode pin (Metz suggests that the tubular element may be at least partially provided with an insulating layer or insulating element [pg. 3 of machine translation]. For example, the insulated part may be to the outside of the heater so as to significantly improve temperature control when in use [pg. 3 of machine translation]. The insulator positioned as such would be located at least partially between the inner surface of the vent tube and an outer surface of the electrode pin, wherein the electrode pin would be located in/attached to the heater as in Figs. 4-5 and Fig. 9. See pg. 3 of machine translation).
Regarding claim 14, modified Metz makes obvious an electronic vaporization device comprising the vaporizer of claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above. And this vaporizer is clearly formed inside of an electronic vaporization device, as the vaporizer may be used in an electronic cigarette or any other personal electronic delivery system [pgs. 1-2 of machine translation]).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metz (WO2017082728A1) in view of Liu (CN110250579A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Daryani (US2018/0317551).
Regarding claims 2-3, Metz does not explicitly state that the inner/outer surfaces of the piston form a fist/second seal ring so as to seal the inner/outer surfaces of the vent tube and liquid storage housing. However, as the piston of Metz/Liu are designed to have one of their surfaces contacting a liquid reservoir and the other opposite surface to contact the atmosphere, it would be obvious that there would need to be a sufficient sealing structure between the surrounding surfaces. Daryani teaches an electronic smoking device which has a piston [Figs. 2-3]. The piston “130” has an inner gasket ring “132” at the inner surface of the piston and an outer gasket ring “131” at the outer surface of the piston [0032]. The gasket rings may have an annular shape [0032]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include seal rings for the piston of Metz/Liu as suggested by Daryani. One would have been motivated so as to appropriately seal the piston in regards to its surrounding surfaces [0032], which therefore allow for the volume and pressure of the cavity to be properly adjusted [0033]. And when the piston of Metz/Liu is modified as such, it would respectively have an inner surface with a first seal ring and a outer surface with a second seal ring which would respectively seal against their respective surfaces.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metz (WO2017082728A1) in view of Liu (CN110250579A), as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of at least one of Liao (US2023/0157367A1) or Potson (US2014/0069424A1).
Regarding claim 5, Metz does not explicitly show a spacing formed between the lower end surface of the mouthpiece portion and an upper end surface of the liquid storage housing. Liao discloses a vaporizer and electronic vaporization device [see Figs. 8-9]. An annular cavity “122” is formed between the lower end surface of the end cap body “52” (considered to be the bottom surface of the mouthpiece) and the upper end surface of the liquid storage member “12” [0066, Figs. 8-9]. As seen in the figures, there is clearly a large spacing formed between the mouthpiece and housing thereof. The spacing “122” communicates with the atmosphere through the air-pressure balance channel [0075-0078].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the structure of Metz/Liu so as to have a spacing formed between the housing and the mouthpiece portion as suggested by Liao. One would have been motivated so as to prevent liquid leakage [0066, 0075-0078]. By this modification, the air communication hole would clearly communicate out to the atmosphere via the annular cavity “122”.
Alternatively, Potson teaches a device for vaporizing liquid for inhalation [title]. The device may have a liquid reservoir “210”, which is in communication with a plunger portion “250” [0111, Figs. 2-3]. The plunger portion moves in a longitudinal manner in the plunger chamber “252”. The outermost portion of the plunger chamber/portion is in communication with the atmosphere via an intake orifice “208”. This intake orifice of the atmosphere is in a stepped shape (see Figs. 2-3), such that there is an air cavity/spacing located between a housing and mouthpiece portions thereof, and there is then a stepped in portion where the plunger “250” would contact which is extends fully to the right as in Figs. 2-3.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the air communication hole to be as suggested by Potson. One would have been motivated so as to allow for movement of the reservoir and constant access for the air passage into the intake orifice [0108-0111], and one would have had a reasonable expectation for success given the similarities between that of Potson and of Metz/Liu in making such a stepped configuration.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metz (WO2017082728A1) in view of Liu (CN110250579A), as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Liu2 (WO2016074236A1) or Chen (WO2016141556A1).
Regarding claim 12, Metz states that the inner tube may comprise different parts such as heat conductive parts to enable effective heat transfer [pg. 12 of machine translation]. Metz does not specifically have the vent conductive and electrically connected to a second electrode. Liu2 is tied to an electronic cigarette [title], wherein the vent tube is made of a conductive material [pg. 11 of machine translation], and wherein this is electrically connected to the electrode [pg. 11 of machine translation]. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the vent tube/electrode of Metz to be conductive and electrically connected as suggested by Liu2. One would have been motivated so as to improve the assembly efficiency [pg. 11 of machine translation].
In the alternate, Chen teaches an atomizing assembly [Fig. 10] which comprises a vent tube “23” which is an electrically conductive member [pg. 6 of machine translation]. The vent tube is electrically connected to the heat generating member and the battery and the electrode of the batter device [pg. 6 of machine translation]. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the vent tube/electrode of Metz to be conductive and electrically connected as suggested by Chen. One would have been motivated so as to improve the efficiency and enable electrical connections between the various parts of the atomizing assembly thus improving the device [pg. 6 of machine translation].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS F SCHNEIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-4857. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/T.F.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749