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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I and accompanying withdrawal of claims 6, 9-12, and 14, in the reply filed on 06/16/2026, is acknowledged. Claims 1-5, 7-8, 13, and 15-17 are examined herein.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 45, described as a mouthpiece locking structure at [0076].
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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: VAPING DEVICE WITH ONE OR MORE RIBS EXTENDING RADIALLY OUTWARDLY INTO A RESERVOIR.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “saturation characteristic” in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The specification at [0027] explains that saturation characteristics generally “promote and/or improve adhesion of an oil or liquid to components of the vaporizing device. Saturation characteristics aid in proper saturation, i.e., an atomizing assembly that is sufficiently saturated but not over-saturated or flooded”. The specification further discloses various specific structures for the saturation characteristics, including one or more [0077] of ribs 27 [0035], void recesses 6 [0053], a circumferential channel 29 [0060], beveled edges 30a, 30b of a radially extending flange 27 [0071], and a recessed band 31 [0074]. Notably, the void recesses 6, circumferential channel 29, beveled edges 30a, 30b, and recessed band 31 are currently withdrawn due to the species election, and thus for purposes of this office action, the “saturation characteristic” of claim 8 is interpreted to cover one or more ribs.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
(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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fang (US 2016/0353803 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fang is directed to an atomizer and electronic cigarette using the same (Title).
The electronic cigarette includes a container 100 (“cartridge”) with a smoke channel 106 (“center post”) defined by walls of a liquid tank 2 in a middle thereof ([0013-14], Figs. 1-2);
The container 100 includes the liquid tank 2 (“reservoir”) [0014] which is located “between an inner wall” of the container 100 and the smoke channel 106 as shown in Figs. 1-2;
The smoke channel 106 has “proximal and distal ends and a body extending therebetween” as shown in Figs. 1-2. One end of the smoke channel 106 communicates with a cavity 122 of the atomizer 200 [0016] and receives the atomizer 200 as shown in Figs. 1-3 (which reads on “the body defining an internal channel capable of receiving an atomizing assembly in the distal end thereof”);
The walls of the smoke channel 106 at the one end define a liquid outlet 107 and gap 108 (“one or more voids”) allowing liquid to flow from the liquid tank 2 to an absorbent element 3 and to the atomizer 200 ([0014-16], Figs. 1-3) (which reads on “the distal end of the center post comprising: one or more voids in fluid communication with the internal channel”). The walls of the smoke channel 106 at the one end form an outlet-defining element 120 (“one or more ribs”) [0015] which extend radially outwardly into the liquid tank 2 and are at least partially above the liquid outlet 107 and gap 108, as shown in Figs. 1-3 (which reads on “one or more ribs positioned proximally above the one or more voids, the one or more ribs extending radially outwardly into the reservoir of the cartridge of the vaporizing device”).
PNG
media_image1.png
948
396
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
542
490
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the outlet-defining element 120 slows the velocity of the liquid flowing to the absorbent element 3 and atomizer 200 [0015] (which reads on “wherein the one or more ribs reduce flooding of the atomizing assembly during an oil filling process”).
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.
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 1-5, 7-8, 13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (CN 217089638 U, English translation provided herewith) in view of Deng (US 2018/0070637 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cheng is directed to a short-circuit-proof electrode-isolated atomizer (Title).
The atomizer includes an oil cup 12 (“cartridge”) containing a connecting post 6 (which is a “center post” as shown in Fig. 3) ([n0021-22], Figs. 1-4);
The oil cup 12 defines an interior space (“reservoir”) ([n0021-22], Figs. 1-4) for storing oil, which is located between an inner wall of the atomizer and the connecting post 6 as shown in Fig. 3;
The connecting post 6 has “proximal and distal ends and a body extending therebetween” as shown in Figs. 2-3. The post 6 has an inner cavity (“internal channel”) for receiving a ceramic heating core 1 (“atomizing assembly”) at a distal end ([n0022], Figs. 2-3);
The distal end of the connecting post 6 has multiple holes (“one or more voids”) which allow liquid to travel from the oil cup 12 to a fabric 4 wrapped around the heating core 1 ([n0021-22], Figs. 2-4);
Cheng fails to disclose “one or more ribs positioned proximally above the one or more voids, the one or more ribs extending radially outwardly into the reservoir of the cartridge of the vaporizing device”.
PNG
media_image3.png
934
650
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
846
338
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Deng is directed to an atomizing device for electronic cigarette (Title). The atomizing device 10 includes a central vapor transportation pipe 113 defining a liquid storage chamber 102 ([0019], Fig. 1). In use, liquid flows from the chamber 102 to a liquid absorbing unit 103 and a heating element 104 [0020]. The device 10 includes at least one annular step 1051 (“one or more ribs”) which protrudes into and narrows a liquid flow channel 107 in order to advantageously control the liquid flow and prevent leakage ([0022, 0026], Figs. 1-2). The step 1051 is formed on the peripheral wall of an upper holding unit 105 [0026] which is adjacent to the vapor transportation pipe 113 as shown in Figs. 1-2. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Deng’s at least one annular step 1051 could similarly be used in Cheng to control the liquid flow to the fabric 4, specifically by forming at least one step 1051 on Cheng’s connecting post 6 immediately above the holes communicating with the fabric 4 (compare Deng Figs. 1-2 with Cheng Figs. 2-3) (which reads on the step 1051 being “positioned proximally above the one or more voids” and “extending radially outwardly into the reservoir”).
PNG
media_image5.png
974
430
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
468
680
media_image6.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 Cheng by providing Deng’s at least one step 1051 on Cheng’s connecting post 6 immediately above the holes communicating with the fabric 4, because Cheng and Deng are both directed to atomizing devices which is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, Deng teaches that the step 1051 advantageously controls liquid flow to prevent leakage, 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 claim 2, Deng discloses that the step 1051 defines the liquid flow channel 107 at an appropriate width for liquid to slowly flow and permeate into the liquid absorbing unit 103 ([0022], Figs. 1-2). In modified Cheng as set forth above, Deng’s step 1051 would similarly slow the liquid flow into Cheng’s fabric 4 (which reads on “reduce flooding of the atomizing assembly during an oil filling process”).
Regarding claim 3, Cheng’s oil cup 12 receives injected oil which is delivered to the fabric 4 ([n0021-22], Figs. 1-4), and the oil cup 12 defines the interior space having a width as shown in Fig. 3 (which reads on “wherein the reservoir defines a space for receiving oil to be vaporized, the reservoir having a width”).
Deng’s step 1051 extends into the liquid storage chamber 102 to define the liquid flow channel 107 having a width of 0.6-1.1 mm, which creates sufficient tension for controlling the liquid flow ([0022], Figs. 1-2). Deng fails to explicitly disclose the step 1051 extending “about 40% to 85% of the width” of the chamber 102 as claimed, but Deng discloses that the gap forming the channel 107 should be sufficiently small for adequate tension, and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the width of the step 1051 (and resulting width of the channel 107) is a result-effective variable which should be optimized in modified Cheng to control the liquid flow, which renders the claimed width range obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(II); see also In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 4-5, Deng’s step 1051 extends into the liquid storage chamber 102 to define the liquid flow channel 107 having a width of 0.6-1.1 mm, which creates sufficient tension for controlling the liquid flow ([0022], Figs. 1-2). Deng fails to explicitly disclose the step 1051 extending “about 50% of the width” or “about 65% of the width” of the chamber 102 as recited in claims 4 and 5, respectively, but Deng discloses that the gap forming the channel 107 should be sufficiently small for adequate tension, and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the width of the step 1051 (and resulting width of the channel 107) is a result-effective variable which should be optimized in modified Cheng to control the liquid flow, which renders the claimed width values obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(II); see also In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 7, for the same reasons as set forth above in the discussion of claim 1, modified Cheng’s connecting post 6 reads on the claimed “center post”, the holes of the connecting post 6 read on the claimed “one or more voids”, the step 1051 reads on the claimed “rib”, and the oil cup 12 reads on the claimed “cartridge”.
Furthermore, the oil cup 12 (which further reads on a “tank”) has “proximal and distal ends” and has an “inner wall” defining a “reservoir” for storing the oil to be heated by the heating core 1 ([n0021-22], Figs. 2-4). The step 1051 of modified Cheng reads on “the rib extends about 50% to 85% of a width of the reservoir” for the same reasons as set forth above in the discussions of claims 3-5. Cheng further discloses a base 9 (“base”) sleeved on the distal end of the post 6 [n0021-22], which is “abutting the distal end” of the oil cup 12 as shown in Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 8, Deng discloses at least one step 1051 to form a ladder-like flow channel 107 ([0022], emphasis added). Therefore, in modified Cheng, it would similarly be obvious to provide a second step 1051 above the holes of the connecting post 6, which reads on “at least one saturation characteristic”. See Claim Interpretation above stating that the saturation characteristic is considered to cover “one or more ribs” per 35 USC 112(f).
Regarding claim 13, the step 1051 reads on the claim language for the same reasons as set forth above in the discussion of claim 2.
Regarding claim 15, Deng discloses that the step 1051 produces a tension action on the liquid molecules (“promotes (i) adhesion of the oil to the distal end of the center post”) to control their flow into the liquid absorbing unit 103 and heating element 104 (“(ii) saturation of a core contained within a cavity defined by the distal end of the center post”) [0021-22]. The step 1051 would function similarly in modified Cheng to control liquid flow into the fabric 4 and heating core 1.
Regarding claim 16, Deng discloses at least one step 1051 to form a ladder-like flow channel 107 ([0022], emphasis added). Therefore, in modified Cheng, it would similarly be obvious to provide a second step 1051 above the holes of the connecting post 6, which reads on the claim language.
Regarding claim 17, for the same reasons as set forth above in the discussion of claims 1 and 7, modified Cheng’s connecting post 6 reads on the claimed “center post”, the step 1051 reads on the claimed “rib”, the holes of the connecting post 6 read on the claimed “one or more voids”, the oil cup 12 reads on the claimed “cartridge” and the claimed “tank”. The step 1051 of modified Cheng reads on “the rib extends radially outwardly at least 50% of the width of the reservoir” for the same reasons as set forth above in the discussions of claims 3-5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Atkins (US 2022/0256922 A1) discloses a collector 1313 which prevents a vaporizable material 1302 from leaking out of a vaporizer cartridge 1320 or excessively saturating a wicking element 1362 ([0124], Figs. 2A-G). The collector 1313 is considered particularly relevant to the claimed “rib(s)”.
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