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. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-20 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 “one or more liquid inlet holes” in line 2. Then in lines 5 and 7 “the liquid inlet holes” is recited. This recitation implies that there are more than one holes in the claim, and there cannot be only one hole as is the scope outlined in line 2. Thus, “the liquid inlet holes” is indefinite. Claims 2-15 are rejected for depending from claim 1. Claim 16 recites “one or more liquid inlet holes” in line 5. Then in lines 8 and 10 “the liquid inlet holes” is recited. This recitation implies that there are more than one holes in the claim, and there cannot be only one hole as is the scope outlined in line 5. Thus, “the liquid inlet holes” is indefinite. Claims 17-20 are rejected for depending from claim 16. 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. Claims 9 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 18, from which claim 19 depends, requires that a bottom end of the liquid absorbing member is high than the liquid inlet holes. However, claim 19 includes a distance of 0 mm is also claimed as this distance. Thus, claim 19 includes a bottom end of the liquid absorbing member is at the level (e.g., not higher) than the top of the inlet hole. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. It is noted that claim 10 is not also rejected for being dependent from claim 9. Claim 10 requires a distance between the bottom end of the liquid absorbing member and the top of the hole. Claim 19 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 18, from which claim 19 depends, requires that a bottom end of the liquid absorbing member is high than the liquid inlet holes. However, claim 19 includes a distance of 0 mm is also claimed as this distance. Thus, claim 19 includes a bottom end of the liquid absorbing member is at the level (e.g., not higher) than the top of the inlet hole. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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. Claim(s) 1 , 11, 12, 15, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by RADO (US 2022/0022539) . With respect to claim 1, RADO discloses an atomizer (Abstract) comprising an atomizing tube, 120, (Paragraph [0065]) comprising one or more liquid inlets, 149, (Paragraph [0068]; Figures 10, 12, 15 and 17); a liquid reservoir, 80, disposed on an outer side of the atomizer tube and fluidly interconnected to the tube through the liquid inlet holes (Paragraph [0068]; Figures 2, 3 and 10); a liquid conducting member, 132, fitted to an inner side wall of the atomizer tube and fluidly connected to the inlet holes (Paragraphs [0065], [0066], [0089]; Figure 10); an atomizing assembly, 134, disposed in the atomizer tube and in contact with the liquid conducting member and the top of the atomizing assembly is positioned higher than the liquid inlets holes in an axial direction of the atomizer tube (Paragraphs [0065], [0066]; Figure 10). With respect to claim 11 ¸ RADO discloses that the atomizer comprises a base, 62; the liquid reservoir is disposed on the base and sealed at a bottom end by o-rings , 72,, the atomizer tube is disposed in a space formed by the liquid reservoir and the base (Paragraph [0061]; Figure 2). With respect to claim 12 ¸ RADO discloses a positioning sleeve, 147, disposed on the base, and the atomizer tube is sleeved on the positioning sleeve and the liquid conducting member is disposed between the atomizer tube and positioned sleeve (Paragraph [0067]; Figure 2). With respect to claim 15 , RADO shows that the liquid inlets are disposed on a lower portion of the side wall (Figure 2). Specifically , the inlets are disposed on the opposing end of the side wall to the mouthpiece end. With respect to claim 16, RADO discloses an aerosol generating device (Abstract; Figure 2) comprising a housing (Paragraphs [0059]-[0062]; Figure 2) and an atomizer, 142, (Paragraph [0065]) in the housing; wherein the atomizer comprises an atomizing tube, 120, (Paragraph [0065]) comprising one or more liquid inlets, 149, (Paragraph [0068]; Figures 10, 12, 15 and 17); a liquid reservoir, 80, disposed on an outer side of the atomizer tube and fluidly interconnected to the tube through the liquid inlet holes (Paragraph [0068]; Figures 2, 3 and 10); a liquid conducting member, 132, fitted to an inner side wall of the atomizer tube and fluidly connected to the inlet holes (Paragraphs [0065], [0066], [0089]; Figure 10); an atomizing assembly, 134, disposed in the atomizer tube and in contact with the liquid conducting member and the top of the atomizing assembly is positioned higher than the liquid inlets holes in an axial direction of the atomizer tube (Paragraphs [0065], [0066]; Figure 10). With respect to claim 20, RADO shows that the liquid inlets are disposed on a lower portion of the side wall (Figure 2). Specifically , the inlets are disposed on the opposing end of the side wall to the mouthpiece end. 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. _____________________________________________________________________ Claim (s) 2 -5 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RADO (US 2022/0022539) in view of GAVRIELOV et al. (US 2020/0146357) . With respect to claim 2, RADO does not explicitly disclose that the liquid conducting member comprises a first member and a second member arranged sequentially from bottom to top, as claimed. GAVRIELOV et al. discloses that the liquid conducting member, 150, comprises a first liquid conducting member and a second liquid conducting member, 150 and 155 respectively, arranged sequentially from bottom to top along the axial direction of the atomizer, and the atomizing assembly is disposed in the second liquid conducting member, 155 (Paragraphs [0070]-[0072]; Figures 2 and 4). This allows the first liquid conducting member to be more conductive to liquid relative to the reservoir and allows the liquid to flow faster towards the heater while the second liquid conducting member is more liquid retentive (Paragraphs [0072]-[0074]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a first and second liquid conducting members in the arrangement disclosed by GAVRIELOV et al. to substitute for the single conducting member in RADO so that the first liquid conducting member to be more conductive to liquid relative to the reservoir and allows the liquid to flow faster towards the heater while the second liquid conducting member is more liquid retentive. With respect to claim 3, GAVRIELOV et al. discloses that the length of each liquid absorbing member, in the axial direction, is different (Paragraph [0074]). While it isn’t disclose which liquid conducting member is longer, there are only two options on which to make longer. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a longer first liquid conducting member so that more liquid can be transferred faster to the second liquid conducting member in order to allow for a greater volume of liquid to be vaporized. With respect to claim 4, GAVRIELOV et al. discloses that the radial thickness of the first and second liquid conducting members is about 2 mm (Paragraph [0074]). The courts have generally held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . MPEP 2144.05. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the thickness of the liquid absorption members of RADO to within the claimed range so that they can hold a greater volume of liquid. Moreover, the courts have generally held that “about” 2 mm allows for values greater than 2 mm. Thus, the range may also overlap. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . MPEP 2144.05, I. With respect to claim 5, GAVRIELOV et al. shows that the outer sides of the first and second liquid absorbing members are fitted to the side wall of its surrounding tube (e.g., atomizer tube of RADO ) (Figure 2). With respect to claim 17 ¸ RADO does not explicitly disclose that the liquid conducting member comprises a first member and a second member arranged sequentially from bottom to top, as claimed. GAVRIELOV et al. discloses that the liquid conducting member, 150, comprises a first liquid conducting member and a second liquid conducting member, 150 and 155 respectively, arranged sequentially from bottom to top along the axial direction of the atomizer, and the atomizing assembly is disposed in the second liquid conducting member, 155 (Paragraphs [0070]-[0072]; Figures 2 and 4). This allows the first liquid conducting member to be more conductive to liquid relative to the reservoir and allows the liquid to flow faster towards the heater while the second liquid conducting member is more liquid retentive (Paragraphs [0072]-[0074]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a first and second liquid conducting members in the arrangement disclosed by GAVRIELOV et al. to substitute for the single conducting member in RADO so that the first liquid conducting member to be more conductive to liquid relative to the reservoir and allows the liquid to flow faster towards the heater while the second liquid conducting member is more liquid retentive. _____________________________________________________________________ Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RADO (US 2022/0022539) in view of GAVRIELOV et al. (US 2020/0146357) as applied to claim s 2-5 and 17 above, and further in view of THORENS et al. (US 2016/0081395) . With respect to claim 6, modified RADO does not explicitly disclose the direction of the fibers in the first and second liquid conducting members. THORENS et al. discloses an electrically heated aerosol delivery system (Abstract). The wick fibers are generally aligned in the longitudinal direction of the cartridge (emphasis added) (Paragraph [0073]) so that the liquid can be transported to the vaporizer by capillary action. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to generally align the fibers of the first and second liquid conducting members along the axial direction of the vaporizer of modified RADO , as taught by THORENS et al. so that the liquid can be transported to the heating element. By “generally” aligning the fibers in the longitudinal direction, there are also fibers not aligned longitudinally. Thus, some fibers will also extend in a radial direction to a degree. Thus, both liquid conducting members will have fibers that extend in the longitudinal direction and the radial direction. ______________________________________________________________________ Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RADO (US 2022/0022539) in view of GAVRIELOV et al. (US 2020/0146357) as applied to claims 2-5 and 17 above, and further in view of THORENS et al. (US 2016/0081395) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of TERRY et al. (US 2013/0056013) . With respect to claim 7 , modified RADO does not explicitly disclose the porosity of the wick. TERRY et al. disclose that the wicking element has a porosity of less than approximately 90% to improve the balance between aspiration and wicking efficiency (Paragraph [0187]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the first and second liquid conducting elements of modified RADO with a porosity of less than approximately 90%, as taught by TERRY et al. so as to improve the balance between aspiration and wicking efficiency. The courts have generally held that “approximately” 90% porosity allows for greater than 90%. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . MPEP 2144.05, I. Thus, the claimed range overlaps with the porosity disclosed by TERRY et al. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 8-10, 13, 14, 18 and 19 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, as well as addressing the various rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2 nd and 4 th paragraphs. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With respect to claims 8 and 18, RADO does not include a liquid absorbing member, in addition to the liquid conducting member, per se. LORD (US 2016/0353804) discloses an electronic vaporizer (abstract). The vaporizer comprises a wicking element , 65, (Paragraphs [0085]-[0086]) with a heating element therein, 17 (Figure 3). Within the heating element is a heating element support (Paragraphs [0091]-[0092]; Figure 3A) (e.g., liquid absorbing member). However, this additional element is heating element is not wrapped by the liquid absorbing member, per se. With respect to claim 13, RADO discloses that the heater is embedded into the liquid conducting member (See rejection of claim 1), and does not indicate that a cotton coating is present on the wire of the heater, per se. The prior art does not cure this deficiency. While the wick may be cotton (Paragraph [0066]), and thus the wire may be embedded in cotton, the claim requires the further addition of a cotton coated wire. Thus, this cotton must be in addition to the liquid conducting element. Moreover, the top of the metal member does not abut against the bottom end of the atomizing assembly, per se. With respect to claim 14, RADO shows grooves (Figure 2) into which o-rings , 72, are embedded. However, the reservoir does not have access to these grooves. Therefore, the reservoir cannot be embedded into any annular sealing groove in RADO. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ALEX B EFTA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (313)446-6548 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 8AM-5PM EST M-F . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Philip Tucker can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /ALEX B EFTA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745