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: VAPORIZER AND ELECTRONIC VAPORIZATION DEVICE WITH PREHEATING MEMBER.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 10-11 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 10 recites the limitations “the vaporization member” and “the seal member”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 11 is rejected due to its dependency on claim 10.
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 1-3, 6, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin (EP 3981272 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lin is directed to an electronic cigarette atomizer capable of preheating e-liquid (Title), which reads on a “vaporizer” as claimed. The vaporizer includes:
a mouthpiece housing 1 (“shell”) [0024], which partially defines an exterior of the vaporizer ([0025], Figs. 1-3);
a vaporizing base 5 and annular support frame 7 (together a “support”), which define a bottom of a liquid storage chamber 13 (“liquid storage cavity”) ([0025, 0027], Fig. 3), with the housing 1 defining another portion of the chamber 13 ([0024], Fig. 3);
a vaporizing unit 4 (“vaporization assembly”) which is positioned on the vaporizing base 5 and support frame 7 ([0025, 0028], Figs. 3-5), and which heats a cigarette liquid [0025];
a heat conductive tube 3 (“preheating member”) which has a lower end mounted to the vaporizing base 5 ([0027-28], Fig. 3), receives heat from the vaporizing unit 4 to preheat the cigarette liquid ([0025-26], Fig. 3), and is sleeved on a sealing sleeve 2 and partially defines the liquid storage chamber 13 ([0025], Fig. 3) (which reads on “a second end extending into the liquid storage cavity”).
PNG
media_image1.png
400
426
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the lower end of the heat conducting tube 3 contacts a liquid guiding strip 41 of the vaporizing unit 4 ([0026, 0028], Figs. 5-6).
Regarding claim 3, the vaporizing base 5 has an annular groove 55 (“mounting channel”) for receiving the heat conductive tube 3 to be sleeved around a surrounding wall 51 ([0028, 0030], Figs. 7-9) (as shown in Figs. 3, 5, and 7-9, only a lower end of the heat conductive tube 3 is sleeved on the wall 51 and thus is “partially sleeved” as claimed). The vaporizing base 5 has semi-annular grooves 54 (“notch”) which allow the liquid guiding strip 41 to pass through and contact the heat conducting tube 3 ([0028], Figs. 7-8) (the grooves 54 are “in communication with” the groove 55 and are “facing” the vaporizing unit 4 above as claimed, as shown in Figs. 3 and 7-8).
Regarding claim 6, the heat conductive tube 3 is made of highly thermally conductive material such as metal material [0026].
Regarding claim 13, Lin discloses an electronic cigarette comprising a battery rod (“battery assembly”) electrically connected with the vaporizer [0002, 0024].
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (EP 3981272 A1) as applied to claim 3, in view of Huang (US 2023/0240363 A1).
Lin discloses that the heat conductive tube 3 is fixed and secured in the annular groove 55 with a tight connection [0030]. Lin fails to specifically disclose an “interference fit” as claimed. Generally, interference fits are well-known in the art of electronic vaporization devices as a manner of attaching two components such that they are firmly fixed.
Huang is directed to an e-liquid filling structure and assembly and e-liquid injection method (Title). Huang discloses a base 2 with a first sealing end 22 extending into an e-liquid cartridge 13 ([0050], Figs. 1-2). A base silica gel 23 and the first sealing end 22 form an interference fit with the cartridge 13, which seals the gap between the cartridge 13 and the base 2 [0050]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that such an interference fit could similarly be used to seal any potential gap between Lin’s heat conductive tube 3 and liquid storage chamber 13 (see Lin Fig. 3).
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 Lin by securing the heat conductive tube 3 in the annular groove 55 with an interference fit as taught by Huang, because both Lin and Huang are directed to electronic vaporization devices, interference fits are well-known in the art, Huang teaches that this advantageously seals a gap from potential liquid leakage which is similarly applicable to Lin, 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).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (EP 3981272 A1) as applied to claim 2, in view of Zhou (US 2023/0062960 A1).
Lin’s vaporizer unit 4 includes the liquid guiding strip 41 and a heating coil 42 (together a “vaporization member”) [0025]. Lin discloses a plurality of sealing rings 58 (“sealing member”) on the vaporizer base 5 for preventing liquid leakage ([0029], Figs. 6-7). As shown in Figs. 6-7, the sealing rings 58 are “sleeved outside” the components of the vaporization unit 4 and are “hermetically sleeved” on the base 5 (Lin merely discloses the rings 58 being liquid-tight and thus fails to specifically disclose the seal being “hermetic”, i.e., gas- and liquid-tight, but it would be obvious for the sealing rings 58 to similarly be capable of preventing air and other gases from passing, particularly in view of Zhou as discussed immediately below). However, the heat conducting tube 3 is not in “direct contact” with the sealing rings 58 as claimed.
PNG
media_image2.png
544
504
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Zhou is directed to an electronic atomization device and atomizer thereof (Title). The device includes a seal member 40 with portions 44, 46, and 48 in order to prevent liquid leakage ([0040, 0063-64], Fig. 3). The first seal portion 44 is arranged in contact with a smoke tube 26 (see Figs. 2-3) and includes an air guiding port 442 in communication with a vaporization cavity 32, which creates a vapor path while the first seal portion 44 prevents liquid leakage into the smoke tube 26 [0064]. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect the first seal portion 44 to be air-tight (and thus hermetic) in order to establish the vapor path disclosed by Zhou. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Zhou’s first seal portion 44 could similarly be applied to Lin’s vaporizing unit 4 in contact with the heat conducting tube 3 (which similarly establishes a vapor path as shown in Lin’s Fig. 3) in order to further prevent liquid leakage.
PNG
media_image3.png
454
446
media_image3.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 Lin by modifying the vaporizing base 5 to further include Zhou’s first seal portion 44 above Lin’s sealing rings 58 and in contact with the heat conducting tube 3, because both Lin and Zhou are directed to electronic vaporization devices, both Lin and Zhou teach using seals to prevent liquid leakage and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Zhou’s first seal portion 44 provides additional sealing which could be applied to Lin, 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 and 12 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: the closest prior art to dependent claim 7 is Lin (EP 3981272 A1) and Chen (US 2021/0093018 A1). Lin discloses the heat conductive tube 3 as set forth above, and further discloses an air intake pipe 66 which reads on the claimed “air inlet channel” ([0034], Fig. 11), but Lin fails to disclose “wherein a vent channel is arranged inside the preheating member…wherein the vent channel is in communication between the air inlet channel and the liquid storage cavity”.
Chen is directed to a core cartridge for electronic cigarette (Title). Chen discloses a pressure balancing tube 61 extending from an air switch 51 to a liquid storage compartment 24, which allows air communication between the ambient environment and the liquid storage compartment 24 ([0031], Fig. 4). However, Chen’s pressure balancing tube 61 is not a preheating structure. Chen does not provide sufficient motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lin’s heat conductive tube 3 in a manner that forms a pressure balancing tube 61. No other prior art is known to the Examiner to remedy such deficiency.
Claims 8-9 and 12 similarly contain allowable subject matter at least due to their dependency on claim 7.
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
/ERIC YAARY/Examiner, Art Unit 1755