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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 5, 9-11 and 17-18 are amended. Claim 19 is newly added. Claims 1-19 are presently examined.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of 12/23/2025 are overcome.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection under 35 USC 112(d) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 12/23/2025 is overcome.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 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.
Regarding claims 1, 17 and 18, the claims recite the limitation “guide the airflow to the heating surface.” However, there are at least two heating surfaces in the vaporization body since there are at least two vaporization cores. It is therefore unclear whether the limitation requires airflow to be guided to only one of the heating surfaces or to all of them. For the purposes of this Office action the limitation will be interpreted as if it required the airflow to be guided to all of the heating surfaces. Claims 2-16 and 19 are indefinite by dependence.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, it is unclear whether the limitations “an air inlet channel being configured to communicate the vaporization cavity with an outside, and a diverging structure being arranged at an outlet of the air inlet channel that is close to the vaporization cavity, wherein the diverging structure is configured to diverge airflow from the air inlet channel and guide the airflow to the heating surface” refer to components that are part of each of the at least two vaporization cores or the vaporization body more broadly, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitations will be interpreted as if they referred to components that are part of the vaporization body but not the vaporization cores.
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 1-9 and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lord (US 10,278,421) in view of Garcia Garcia (US 2024/0057224) and Davis (US 10,602,775).
Regarding claim 1, Lord discloses an electronic vapor provision device (abstract) having a heating element support (figure 12, reference numeral 20) that defines a central channel within it (column 5, lines 23-36, figure 2, reference numeral 23), which is considered to define a vaporization cavity. Air enters the device through an air inlet (column 6, lines 57-64, figure 2, reference numeral 27), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an air inlet channel. An airflow channeler is located within the airflow passage, partially within the heating element support and partially outside it, and directs air towards a heating coil (column 8, lines 46-56, figure 12, reference numeral 50). The liquid is stored in a liquid store formed from a porous material (column 5, lines 6-15, figure 2, reference numeral 6), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a liquid storage cavity, that abuts the heater support element to transfer liquid to the heater support element (column 5, lines 23-36, figure 2, reference numeral 20), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a liquid absorbing body. The portion where the liquid store and heat support element abut is considered to meet the claim limitation of a liquid absorbing surface. Lord does not explicitly disclose (a) providing two vaporization cores and (b) the abutting liquid absorbing surface being opposite the heater.
Regarding (a), Garcia Garcia teaches a heating oven for an aerosol generating (abstract) having a tubular member (figure 13, reference numeral 12) having planar separation walls (figure 14, reference numeral 16) on which multiple planar heaters are provided that face each other are mounted (figure 14, reference numeral 18) to surround a large central cavity portion ([0189], figure 14, reference numeral 20). Garcia Garcia additionally teaches that this structure is a relatively simple structure [0084] that is easy and inexpensive to manufacture [0033].
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the heating element and heater support of Lord for the planar heaters of Garcia Garcia. One would have been motivated to do so since Garcia Garcia teaches a relatively simple heating structure that is easy and inexpensive to manufacture.
Regarding (b), Davis teaches an aerosol delivery device having a reservoir (figure 14, reference numeral 718) that surrounds a liquid transport element (figure 14, reference numeral 720) extending from the reservoir to the heating element (column 25, lines 6-12, figure 14, reference numeral 722). Davis additionally teaches that the liquid transport element has a different porosity than the reservoir so that aerosol precursor composition is drawn to the heating element (column 25, lines 13-25).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lord such that the liquid store surrounds each of the separate planar heaters and supports. One would have been motivated to do so since Davis teaches a suitable structure for effectively supplying aerosol precursor to heating elements.
Regarding claim 2, Lord discloses that the airflow channeler extends out of the heating element support and partially outside it (column 8, lines 46-56, figure 12, reference numeral 50).
Regarding claim 3, Lord discloses that the airflow channeler is secured in place by suitable connectors (column 6, lines 23-34). The portions around the circumference between the connectors are considered to multiple channels.
Regarding claim 4, Lord discloses that the surfaces of the channeler are inclined towards the sides of the heating element support (figure 12).
Regarding claim 5, Garcia Garcia teaches that the planar heaters face each other (figure 14, reference numeral 18). The heating surfaces are considered to be longitudinally arranged since they extend longitudinally.
Regarding claim 6, modified Lord teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Lord additionally discloses that the walls slant away from each other (figure 12), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a V shaped angle. Modified Lord does not explicitly teach the two sloped portions being formed between an area between the connectors.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the connectors such that they are located around the two sloped walls of the channeler. Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI C.
Regarding claim 7, Lord discloses that the airflow channeler is secured in place by suitable connectors (column 6, lines 23-34), which are considered to define diverging holes that extend axially that communicate the air inlet with the central channel.
Regarding claim 8, the heating element support of Lord is considered to meet the claim limitation of a base. The entrance to the central channel of the heating element support of Lord is considered to meet the claim limitation of an air inlet.
Regarding claim 9, Lord discloses that an air passageway extends through the liquid storage (column 5, lines 6-15, figure 2, reference numeral 18), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an air inlet boss, and leads to an air outlet (column 4, lines 28-39, figure 2, reference numeral 4), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an air outlet hole. Davis teaches that the reservoir forms an interior portion within it defined by an inner surface (figure 14), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a recessed inward portion.
Regarding claim 12, Lord discloses that the components are arranged in a mouthpiece case (figure 2, reference numeral 15), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a fixing base, that has a hole near the first end of the casing that forms the air inlet (column 4, lines 56-63). This is considered to meet the claim limitation of a ventilation hole.
Regarding claim 13, modified Lord teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Lord additionally discloses that the airflow channeler is secured in place by suitable connectors (column 6, lines 23-34). Modified Lord does not explicitly disclose the connectors integrally connecting the channeler to the heating support base and mouthpiece case.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the components of modified Lord be integral. The use of a one-piece, integrated construction instead of the structure disclosed or taught in the prior art would have been within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04 II A.
Regarding claim 14, Lord discloses that the mouthpiece casing is connected to a battery assembly casing that are connected together using a threaded connection (column 4, lines 64-67, column 5, lines 1-5), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of matched heating base.
Regarding claim 15, Lord discloses that the mouthpiece casing is connected to a battery assembly casing that are connected together using a threaded connection (column 5, lines 1-5) and have electrical contacts between them (column 4, lines 64-67, figure 2, reference numeral 10), which are considered to meet the claim limitation of electrode connection components. Garcia Garcia teaches that the heaters are mounted in parallel [0039].
Regarding claim 16, Lord discloses that the channeler extends a hole formed at the end of the air inlet (figure 12), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of integrated with a hole.
Regarding claim 17, Lord discloses an electronic vapor provision device that forms a vaporizer (abstract) having a heating element support (figure 12, reference numeral 20) that defines a central channel within it (column 5, lines 23-36, figure 2, reference numeral 23), which is considered to define a vaporization cavity. Air enters the device through an air inlet (column 6, lines 57-64, figure 2, reference numeral 27), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an air inlet channel. An airflow channeler is located within the airflow passage, partially within the heating element support and partially outside it, and directs air towards a heating coil (column 8, lines 46-56, figure 12, reference numeral 50). The liquid is stored in a liquid store formed from a porous material (column 5, lines 6-15, figure 2, reference numeral 6), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a liquid storage cavity, that abuts the heater support element to transfer liquid to the heater support element (column 5, lines 23-36, figure 2, reference numeral 20), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a liquid absorbing body. The portion where the liquid store and heat support element abut is considered to meet the claim limitation of a liquid absorbing surface. Lord does not explicitly disclose (a) providing two vaporization cores and (b) the abutting liquid absorbing surface being opposite the heater.
Regarding (a), Garcia Garcia teaches a heating oven for an aerosol generating (abstract) having a tubular member (figure 13, reference numeral 12) having planar separation walls (figure 14, reference numeral 16) on which multiple planar heaters are provided that face each other are mounted (figure 14, reference numeral 18) to surround a large central cavity portion ([0189], figure 14, reference numeral 20). Garcia Garcia additionally teaches that this structure is a relatively simple structure [0084] that is easy and inexpensive to manufacture [0033].
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the heating element and heater support of Lord for the planar heaters of Garcia Garcia. One would have been motivated to do so since Garcia Garcia teaches a relatively simple heating structure that is easy and inexpensive to manufacture.
Regarding (b), Davis teaches an aerosol delivery device having a reservoir (figure 14, reference numeral 718) that surrounds a liquid transport element (figure 14, reference numeral 720) extending from the reservoir to the heating element (column 25, lines 6-12, figure 14, reference numeral 722). Davis additionally teaches that the liquid transport element has a different porosity than the reservoir so that aerosol precursor composition is drawn to the heating element (column 25, lines 13-25).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lord such that the liquid store surrounds each of the separate planar heaters and supports. One would have been motivated to do so since Davis teaches a suitable structure for effectively supplying aerosol precursor to heating elements.
Regarding claim 18, Lord discloses an electronic vapor provision device (abstract), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an electronic vaporization device, having a heating element support (figure 12, reference numeral 20) that defines a central channel within it (column 5, lines 23-36, figure 2, reference numeral 23), which is considered to define a vaporization cavity. Air enters the device through an air inlet (column 6, lines 57-64, figure 2, reference numeral 27), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an air inlet channel. An airflow channeler is located within the airflow passage, partially within the heating element support and partially outside it, and directs air towards a heating coil (column 8, lines 46-56, figure 12, reference numeral 50). The liquid is stored in a liquid store formed from a porous material (column 5, lines 6-15, figure 2, reference numeral 6), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a liquid storage cavity, that abuts the heater support element to transfer liquid to the heater support element (column 5, lines 23-36, figure 2, reference numeral 20), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a liquid absorbing body. The portion where the liquid store and heat support element abut is considered to meet the claim limitation of a liquid absorbing surface. Lord does not explicitly disclose (a) providing two vaporization cores and (b) the abutting liquid absorbing surface being opposite the heater.
Regarding (a), Garcia Garcia teaches a heating oven for an aerosol generating (abstract) having a tubular member (figure 13, reference numeral 12) having planar separation walls (figure 14, reference numeral 16) on which multiple planar heaters are provided that face each other are mounted (figure 14, reference numeral 18) to surround a large central cavity portion ([0189], figure 14, reference numeral 20). Garcia Garcia additionally teaches that this structure is a relatively simple structure [0084] that is easy and inexpensive to manufacture [0033].
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the heating element and heater support of Lord for the planar heaters of Garcia Garcia. One would have been motivated to do so since Garcia Garcia teaches a relatively simple heating structure that is easy and inexpensive to manufacture.
Regarding (b), Davis teaches an aerosol delivery device having a reservoir (figure 14, reference numeral 718) that surrounds a liquid transport element (figure 14, reference numeral 720) extending from the reservoir to the heating element (column 25, lines 6-12, figure 14, reference numeral 722). Davis additionally teaches that the liquid transport element has a different porosity than the reservoir so that aerosol precursor composition is drawn to the heating element (column 25, lines 13-25).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lord such that the liquid store surrounds each of the separate planar heaters and supports. One would have been motivated to do so since Davis teaches a suitable structure for effectively supplying aerosol precursor to heating elements.
Claims 10-11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lord (US 10,278,421) in view of Garcia Garcia (US 2024/0057224) and Davis (US 10,602,775) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Alarcon (US 2016/0081394).
Regarding claim 10, modified Lord teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Lord does not explicitly teach (a) a mouthpiece having a plurality of outlet holes and (b) the holes being arranged in the claimed positions.
Regarding (a), Alarcon teaches a nozzle device having a plurality of through holes ([0069], figure 18A, reference numeral 1810) that limit the speed of flow through the nozzle [0070]. The nozzle forms a mouthpiece of an e-cigarette [0037]. Alarcon additionally teaches that limiting the flow speed avoids undesirable effects such as changes in particle size or turbulence [0043].
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the outlet of modified Lord with the multiple through holes of Alarcon. One would have been motivated to do so since Alarcon teaches a nozzle that limits the flow speed to avoid undesirable effects such as changes in particle size or turbulence.
Regarding (b), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the through holes of modified Lord in the claimed manner. Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI C.
Regarding claim 11, modified Lord teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Lord does not explicitly teach the inner through holes having a different shape from the outer through holes.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the inner through holes have a different shape from the outer through holes. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV B.
Regarding claim 19, modified Lord teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Lord does not explicitly teach the inner through holes having the same shape as the outer through holes.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the inner through holes have the same shape as the outer through holes. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV B.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection relying on Davis are made as set forth above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSSELL E SPARKS whose telephone number is (571)270-1426. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5 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, Philip Louie can be reached at 571-270-1241. 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.
/RUSSELL E SPARKS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights