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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: ATOMIZING DEVICE WITH DIVIDER AND ELECTRONIC CIGARETTE.
The use of the term Teflon, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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 7 and 16 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.
Claims 7 and 16 contain the trademark/trade name Teflon. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a sleeve material and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. For purposes of this office action, claims 7 and 16 are interpreted as reciting “polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)” instead of “Teflon” in each instance, PTFE being well-known as the primary constituent of Teflon. The Examiner encourages the Applicant to amend the claims to recite PTFE rather than Teflon and to amend the specification to note that Teflon includes PTFE.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 10-12, 15, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nie (CN 107183789 A, provided in IDS dated 08/21/2025, English translation provided herewith and cited herein) in view of Rogan (US 2021/0059310 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Nie is directed to a heated non-combustible cigarette device (“electronic cigarette” of claim 10) [0002]. The cigarette device includes a heating device [0018], which reads on an “atomizing device” per claims 1 and 10.
The device 10 includes a heating element housing 100 (“housing”) which has a “housing body” as shown in Figs. 1-3 [0071-72]. The housing 100 further has a heating element cover 200 (“tail cap”) disposed at one end ([0072-73], Figs. 1-3). The cover 200 has an air inlet 220 (“first air inlet hole”) and an exhaust port 210 (“air outlet hole”) ([0075, 0077], Fig. 1). However, the cover 200 does not have a “second air inlet hole” as claimed.
A side heat insulation component 420 (“divider”) has a cylindrical shape and is disposed within the housing 100 ([0074], Figs. 1-3). An airflow gap 500 (“first air passage”) is formed between the exterior of the insulation component 420 and the housing 100 ([0074], Figs. 1-3). The airflow gap 500 communicates with the air inlet 220 ([0077], Figs. 1-2).
An atomizing component 300 (“heating element”) is disposed within the side heat insulation component 420 ([0074], Figs. 1-3). The atomizing component 300 has a heating chamber 320 (“middle air passage”) which is centrally located and communicates with the exhaust port 210 ([0079], Figs. 1-3, 6). The heating chamber 320 also communicates with the airflow gap 500 (which reads on “the first air passage…communicate[s] with the middle air passage”) and receives a smoke cartridge 310 (“to-be-atomized object”) ([0078], Figs. 1-2).
Nie discloses a single air inlet 220 and a single airflow gap 500, and thus fails to disclose “a second air inlet hole”, “a second air passage is formed between the heating element and an inner side wall of the divider”, “the second air passage communicates with the second air inlet hole” and “the first air passage and the second air passage separately communicate with the middle air passage”.
Nie provides the side heat insulation component 420 and airflow gap 500 to improve heat insulation within the device, in order to avoid a user being burnt while holding the device and to improve temperature control, which are problems in other heating devices [0004, 0008, 0026, 0076, 0087, 0102].
PNG
media_image1.png
900
510
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
718
468
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Rogan is directed to an induction heating assembly for a vapour generating device (Title). The device may include two or more layers of air vents surrounding an induction coil [0018]. This airflow arrangement cools the induction coil which prevents the exterior device surface from becoming too hot for a user [0010, 0012, 0018, 0020], which is the same motivation set forth by Nie. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore recognize that Rogan’s two or more layers of air vents could be incorporated into Nie to further increase the airflow cooling. For instance, as shown in Fig. 6, Rogan discloses a device wherein an air inlet and corresponding air vent 14 (“second air inlet hole” and “second air passage”, respectively) are arranged between an inner wall 28 and an intermediate wall, and an additional air inlet and corresponding air vent 14 between the intermediate wall and an outer wall [0069]. Rogan’s air vents 14 “separately communicate” with a heating compartment 12 within the coil 16 ([0073-75], Figs. 6 and 8).
PNG
media_image3.png
422
426
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
342
442
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Nie by forming one of Rogan’s air inlets in Nie’s cover 200 and forming one of Rogan’s corresponding air vents 14 between Nie’s side heat insulation component 420 and atomizing component 300 (which reads on “a second air inlet hole”, “a second air passage is formed between the heating element and an inner side wall of the divider”, “the second air passage communicates with the second air inlet hole” and “the first air passage and the second air passage separately communicate with the middle air passage”), because both Nie and Rogan are directed to vaporization assemblies, this modification would create multiple layers of air vents which would advantageously provide additional airflow cooling as taught by both Nie and Rogan, and this would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Nie discloses four air inlets 220 evenly distributed around the circumference of the cover 200 [0078] (which reads on “wherein a plurality of first air inlet holes are provided and are equiangularly distributed in a circular matrix around the air outlet hole”). Nie fails to disclose “a plurality of second air inlet holes are provided and are equiangularly distributed in a circular matrix around the air outlet hole”.
As shown in Fig. 6, Rogan discloses three independent inner air inlets and air vents 14, as well as three independent outer air inlets and air vents 14. Thus, in modified Nie, it would be obvious to similarly form three of Rogan’s inner air inlets in Nie’s cover 200 (which reads on “a plurality of second air inlet holes are provided and are equiangularly distributed in a circular matrix around the air outlet hole”), for the same reasons as set forth above in the discussion of claim 1.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Nie’s side heat insulation component 420 has a cylindrical shape as shown in Figs. 1-3 and therefore reads on a “dividing cylinder” as claimed. The component 420 includes a thermal insulation ring 423 [0087], which has a bottom surface (“dividing plate”) at one end as shown in Figs. 1-3. As shown in Figs. 1-2, the air gap 500 is formed between the housing 100 and the side heat insulation component 420 (which reads on “the first air passage is formed between the housing body and an outer side wall of the dividing cylinder”). In modified Nie as set forth above in the discussion of claim 1, Rogan’s air vent 14 would be arranged between the side heat insulation component 420 and the atomizing component 300 (which reads on “the second air passage is formed between the heating element and an inner side wall of the dividing cylinder”).
Nie discloses a control unit housing 700 (“head cap”) is connected to an end of the housing 100 ([0089], Figs. 5-7), and the control unit housing 700 includes components such as a silicone pad 704 abutting the end of the housing 100 [0091]. As shown particularly in Figs. 2 and 6, a chamber (“confluence chamber”) is formed between the bottom surface of the thermal insulation ring 423 and the control unit housing 700 which delivers air from the air gap 500 into the heating chamber 320 (which reads on “the first air passage communicates with the confluence chamber”). In modified Nie, it would be further obvious to form air holes (“fourth through holes”) in the bottom surface of the thermal insulation ring 423, in order to continue Rogan’s air vent 14 and connect it to the air gap 500 (which reads on “the second air passage communicates with the confluence chamber through the plurality of fourth through holes”), similar to what is shown in Rogan’s Fig. 8 with two connected air vents 14, for the same reasons as set forth above in the discussion of claim 1. Nie discloses a single air hole (“fifth through hole”) in the bottom surface of thermal insulation ring 423 communicating with heating chamber 320 as shown in Figs. 1-3 and 6, and thus fails to disclose a “plurality of fifth through holes” as claimed. However, it would be obvious to provide multiple air holes in the bottom surface of thermal insulation ring 423 because this would be a simple duplication of parts. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B); see also In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). The heating chamber 320 is in communication with the chamber via the bottom of the thermal insulation ring 423 as shown in Fig. 2, which reads on “the middle air passage communicates with the confluence chamber through the plurality of fifth through holes”.
Regarding claims 6, 15, and 19, Nie illustrates a cylindrical shell (“support”) defining the heating chamber 320, as shown particularly in Fig. 3. However, Nie fails to disclose “an electromagnetic induction coil wound around an outside of the support and an induction heating body fixedly disposed on an inside of the support, the second air passage is formed between the support, the electromagnetic induction coil and the inner side wall of the divider, the induction heating body has the middle air passage, and the induction heating body is configured to be capable of generating a corresponding eddy current and radiating heat under a magnetic field formed by the electromagnetic induction coil”.
Rogan discloses an induction coil 16 (“electromagnetic induction coil”) embedded in a wall 28 ([0059], Figs. 5-8). As shown particularly in Figs. 7-8, the coil 16 is “wound around” an inner surface of the wall 28 as claimed. Rogan further discloses a susceptor 24 (“induction heating body”) within a cartridge 20 which is received within the heating compartment 12 ([0008, 0053], Figs. 1-2. The susceptor 24 is not “fixedly disposed” to the wall 28 as claimed because the cartridge 20 is removable, but providing the susceptor 24 on the interior of the wall 28 instead of in the cartridge 20 would be a mere rearrangement of parts which is prima facie obvious, particularly because Rogan discloses providing additional susceptors within the device [0030]. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C); see also In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); see also In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). If Nie were further modified such that Nie’s heating element 330 were replaced with Rogan’s induction coil 16 and susceptor 24, then the air vent 14 would be located between the heating chamber 320/induction coil 16 and the heat side insulation component 420 (see Nie Figs. 1-3) (which reads on “the second air passage is formed between the support, the electromagnetic induction coil and the inner side wall of the divider”), and the susceptor 24 would surround the heating chamber 320 (which reads on “the induction heating body has the middle air passage”). The susceptor 24 generates heat due to eddy currents via the coil 16 [0009, 0057] (which reads on “the induction heating body is configured to be capable of generating a corresponding eddy current and radiating heat under a magnetic field formed by the electromagnetic induction coil”). Induction heating is generally well-known in the art and Rogan discloses that induction advantageously allows for controlled heating and vapor generation [0005], particularly in combination with the airflow assembly discussed above [0010].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify Nie by replacing the heating element 330 with Rogan’s induction coil 16 and susceptor 24, the coil 16 being arranged around the shell of the heating chamber 320 and the susceptor 24 being arranged within the shell, for the same reasons as set forth above in the discussion of claim 1, and because induction heating is generally well-known in the art, Rogan discloses that induction advantageously allows for controlled heating and vapor generation, and this would involve a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claims 8, 17, and 20, Nie fails to disclose the recited limitations.
Rogan discloses ribs supporting and mechanically connecting the outer body, induction coil, and dividing the air vents into segments [0019]. As shown in Fig. 6, a rib 40 may be provided between an intermediate wall 42 and an outer wall 34 (such rib 40 reading on a “first positioning protrusion” in combination with Nie) and another rib 40 (“second positioning protrusion”) may be provided between the intermediate wall 42 and the induction coil 16 [0066-69]. The ribs 40 appear to be integral with the surrounding walls as shown in Fig. 6, and thus Rogan fails to specifically disclose a “first positioning recess” and a “second positioning recess” which receive the ribs 40. However, making the ribs 40 separable from one or more of the outer wall 34, intermediate wall 28, and induction coil 16 would result in such walls having a “first positioning recess” and a “second positioning recess” to receive the ribs 40, and such a modification would be obvious because it is merely making prior art components separable from one another. See MPEP 2144.04(V)(C); see also In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). Additionally, mechanical connection means such as recesses for snap fitting, interference fitting, and other fittings are generally well-known in the art of electronic vaporization devices.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify Nie by incorporating Rogan’s ribs 40 between the side heat insulation component 420 and the housing 100 and between the side heat insulation component 420 and the atomizing component 300, and forming recesses in the side heat insulation component 420, housing 100, and/or atomizing component 300 for receiving the ribs 40, for the same reasons as set forth above in the discussion of claim 1, and further because Rogan teaches that such ribs 40 advantageously provide mechanical support to the device and because providing such slots for receiving the ribs 40 would be merely making the ribs 40 separable from their accompanying walls which is prima facie obvious.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nie (CN 107183789 A) in view of Rogan (US 2021/0059310 A1) as applied to claims 6 and 15, further in view of Qi (US 2022/0295895 A1).
Modified Nie discloses the atomizing device and electronic cigarette of claims 6 and 15, as set forth above. However, the references fail to disclose “wherein the induction heating body comprises a metal core and a Teflon sleeve enclosing an outer surface of the metal core, and the Teflon sleeve is limited in the support” as recited in claims 7 and 16.
Qi is directed to a susceptor used in an aerosol generating device and the aerosol generating device (Title). The susceptor 30 has a metal body 31 (“metal core”) and a protective layer 32 (“Teflon sleeve”) surrounding the surface of the metal body 31 ([0039], Fig. 3). The protective layer 32 may include a PTFE composite (which reads on “Teflon”, see 112b rejection above) [0043]. Providing the protective layer 32 advantageously reduces the adhesion of organic substances on the susceptor surface [0004-5], which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize is similarly applicable to Rogan’s susceptor 24. If Nie were further modified by replacing Rogan’s susceptor 24 with Qi’s susceptor 30, the protective layer 32 would be arranged in and contacting the cylindrical shell of Nie’s heating chamber 320 (which reads on “the Teflon sleeve is limited in the support”).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Nie by replacing Rogan’s susceptor 24 with Qi’s susceptor 30 having the metal body 31 and protective layer 32, because Nie, Rogan, and Qi are directed to aerosol generating devices, Qi teaches that the protective layer advantageously prevents tobacco from adhering to the susceptor surface, and this would involve a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 9, 13-14, and 18 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:
Regarding claims 4-5 and 13-14, Nie and Rogan disclose the atomizing device of claims 1-3 and the electronic cigarette of claims 10-12 as set forth above. However, the references fail to disclose “wherein the housing further comprises a support plate disposed in the confluence chamber and fixedly connected to an inner wall of the housing body, the support plate has a plurality of first flow-dividing holes communicating with the first air passage, a plurality of second flow-dividing holes communicating with the second air passage and a third flow-dividing hole communicating with the middle air passage, and the plurality of second flow-dividing holes are in one-to-one correspondence with the plurality of fourth through holes” as recited in claims 4 and 13. The references disclose the claimed “confluence chamber”, “first air passage”, “second air passage”, “middle air passage”, and “plurality of fourth through holes” as set forth above, but the references fail to disclose a “support plate” connected to such components as recited in claims 4 and 13. No other prior art is known to the Examiner to remedy this deficiency. Claims 5 and 14 are dependent on claims 4 and 13, respectively, and are therefore similarly allowable.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Nie and Rogan disclose the atomizing device of claim 1 and the electronic cigarette of claim 10 as set forth above. However, the references fail to disclose “wherein the tail cap has a plurality of third positioning protrusions, the inner wall of the housing body has a plurality of third positioning recesses, the plurality of third positioning recesses are in one-to-one correspondence with the plurality of third positioning protrusions, and one of the plurality of third positioning protrusions is configured to be placed in a respective one of the plurality of third positioning recesses; and each of at least one of the plurality of third positioning protrusions is fixedly connected to a fourth positioning protrusion, the inner wall of the housing body has a fourth positioning recess corresponding to the fourth positioning protrusion, the divider has a fifth positioning recess corresponding to the fourth positioning protrusion, a part of the fourth positioning protrusion is configured to be placed in the fourth positioning recess, and another part of the fourth positioning protrusion is configured to be placed in the fifth positioning recess” as recited in claims 9 and 18. The references disclose the claimed “tail cap”, “housing body”, and “divider” as set forth above, but the references fail to disclose the claimed “plurality of third positioning protrusions”, “plurality of third positioning recesses”, “fourth positioning protrusion”, “fourth positioning recess”, and “fifth positioning recess” connected to such components as recited in claims 9 and 18. No other prior art is known to the Examiner to remedy this deficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL PATRICK MULLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2373. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7 ET.
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.
/MICHAEL PATRICK MULLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights