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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 9/5/2023 has been considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because: in the description of the Drawings in paragraphs 0046-0047 of the specification, a “vaporization assembly 13” is referred to specifically in reference to Figs. 3-5. The reference number “13” is not shown in any of Figs. 3-5. The drawings should be amended to include this reference number in at least one of the figures. Additionally, in the description of the Drawings in paragraphs 0093 of the specification, a vaporization assembly “13” is referred to in reference to Fig. 8 (a separate embodiment from Figs. 3-5), wherein the reference number “13” is not shown. Fig. 8 should also be amended to include this reference number. No new matter should be added. 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 line 2 should read “…the hole wall surface of the electrode hole”, because the hole wall surface was introduced in claim 3.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-6 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 2 recites on the final line “…mounting hole is recessed to form at least one vent channel”. Claim 1 of which this claim depends previously introduced “…wherein the at least one vent channel”. From this recitation in claim 2, it is not clear whether Applicant is introducing a separate vent channel from the previously introduced vent channel in claim 1, or whether Applicant is intending to refer to the same “at least one vent channel” that was previously introduced in claim 1. Applicant is asked to amend and clarify without the addition of new matter. Claims 3-6 are rejected for relying upon a rejected claim. The claim will be examined as if claim 2 recites “…recessed to form the at least one vent channel”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the hole wall surface of the electrode hole" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 4-6 are rejected for relying upon a rejected claim. It is noted that depending how this is amended, the “a hole wall” of claim 4 may also be amended for proper antecedent basis.
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, 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu (US2022/0287363A1).
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches a vaporizer (atomizer as shown in Fig. 1), comprising:
a shell (main body “1” as in Fig. 4);
a base inserted into a lower end of the shell (the sealing member “3” and the associated structure is considered the base, which is disposed in “1” [0034, Fig. 4]);
a vent tube passing through the shell (airflow channel “104” and air duct “101” passes through the main body “1” [Fig. 4, 0031]);
a liquid storage cavity formed between an outer wall surface of the vent tube and an inner wall surface of the shell (e-liquid chamber “103” is clearly formed between the vent tube and the base [see Fig. 4]),
a vaporization core provided in the vent tube and in communication with the liquid storage cavity in a liquid guide manner (the heating element “2” is disposed in the inner passage and in the air duct to atomize the e-liquid [0045], wherein as in Fig. 4 this atomization section clearly is clearly located at least partially within the vent tube. The e-liquid moves from the e-liquid chamber “103” to the heating element to be atomized [0045]),
wherein a lower end of the vent tube is inserted into the base (as in Fig. 4, the vent tube 104/101 is clearly inserted into the sealing member “3” and its surrounding associated structure),
at least one vent channel communicating the liquid storage cavity with an outside, and the at least one vent channel is formed between the base and the shell and/or the base and the vent tube (“External air flows along the airflow channel, through the air vent, and into the e-liquid chamber, to supply air into the e-liquid tank. The air vent allows only air to flow through while preventing the passage of the e-liquid. Preferably, the air vent communicates with atmosphere.” [0032]. As in Fig. 4 and 8, the device comprises external air that enters through the air duct, and there are formed grooves “102” and “105” which communicate this external air (atmospheric) into the e-liquid chamber [0038-0040]. The vent channel may be considered to be “102” and/or “105”, where both of these channels are located between the base and the vent tube, and at least partially located between the base and the shell as well).
Regarding claim 2, Liu teaches the vaporizer wherein an upper end surface of the base extends downward to form a mounting hole (as in Figs. 3-4 for example, the top and middle of “3” clearly extends downward and is what is considered the mounting hole),
Wherein the vent tube comprises an accommodating section accommodated in the mounting hole (the accommodating section of the vent tube is considered to be the portion of 101/104 which is inserted into the mounting hole of the base, i.e., the lowest portion thereof which is clearly located within “3”, as in Figs. 3-4),
Wherein an outer wall surface of the accommodating section and/or a hole wall surface of the mounting hole is recessed to form at least one vent channel (grooves “102” and “105” are formed between the base and the vent tube, which are formed between the accommodating section and the wall surface of the mounting hole, such that these vent channels of “102” and “105” would necessarily have a recessed surface in at least one of these surfaces to form the grooves).
Regarding claim 8, Liu teaches the vaporizer wherein the at least one vent channel extends in a linear shape (as in Figs. 3-5, each of the individual grooves of “102” and “105” appear to be in a largely linear shape, such that when considered individually that are in a linear shape).
Regarding claim 9, Liu teaches the vaporizer wherein the at least one vent channel extends in a nonlinear shape (as in Figs. 3-5, when the vent channel is considered to be the combination of “102” and “105” together, the overall shape would be nonlinear as the direction of these grooves/vents clearly changes direction).
Regarding claim 10, Liu teaches the vaporizer wherein the nonlinear shape comprises at least one of a zigzag, helical, or curved shape (as in Figs. 3-5, the grooves “102” and “105” together go in differing directions, such that the vent channel comprising both of these grooves may be considered to be “zigzag” under the broadest reasonable interpretation thereof, as the vent channel clearly has alternate left/right turns which is a defining feature of a zigzag).
Regarding claim 11, Liu teaches an electronic vaporization device comprises the vaporizer of claim 1 (as in the rejection of claim 1 above, Liu teaches the vaporizer of claim 1. This vaporizer is made in an electronic cigarette [title, 0030]).
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 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US2022/0287363A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xiao (US2023/0088232A1).
Regarding claim 3, Liu teaches a vaporizer which may have external air flow entering the device from a bottom of the device [see Fig. 7]. This air flow would necessarily be in communication with the vent channel, as both are in air communication with the vent tube 101/104, of which the vent channels “102” and “105” are in communication with. The device may have a lower end surface of the base extending upwards to form an electrode hole (see Figs. 3-4, wherein the bottom surface is clearly raised, and where electrodes “6” may be formed). This section would necessarily be in communication with the mounting hole through at least the atomization location.
Liu does not explicitly have the vent gap formed at locations where the electrode column passes through the electrode hole. However, it is well known in the art for air flow channels to be formed around electrodes/electrode holes, such that it would have been obvious to modify Liu so as to have the electrode/vent gap/vent channel be in similar locations. Xiao teaches a vaporizer (Fig. 2) with a liquid storage cavity “20”, a vaporization channel “35”, a shell “10”, electrode “70”, and a base portion that connects with the shell/vent tube [see Fig. 2]. The electrode is located in the base portion. External air enters the device so as to flow through a hollow channel of the first electrode, and flows through an insulation member which is annularly formed around the electrode “70” [0020, 0046]. The air inlet of the external air may be located on the side of the base/electrode hole [see “215” in Fig. 2], and there is further an air channel “92” and “90” leading to the vent channels that go through the electrode and the insulating member around the electrode [0051, Fig. 2]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the electrode/electrode hole/vents of Liu so as to have airflow through the electrode and insulating sleeve as suggested by Xiao. One would have been motivated in order to allow for multiple branches or air flow, to optimize the vaporization effect [0020, 0046]. And when such electrode airflows are utilized, the vent channel of Liu would necessarily communicate with the vent gap/air flow of Xiao as both have the air flow communicating through the air outlet channel leaving the vaporizer. And additionally, as vent air flows are extremely common within the art of vapes as demonstrate here, a rearrangement of parts so as to utilize different air flow paths would have been obvious to have the air flow move in a variety of different paths, as the movement of the air flow from the external air to the inside of the device would not have modified the operation of the device nor have provided any additional benefits beyond what is demonstrate in Liu/Xiao. See MPEP 2144.04 VI.C.
Regarding claim 4, modified Liu makes obvious an air inlet hole provided in a hole wall of the electrode hole to communicate the vent gap to the outside (as in both Liu Fig 7 comprising an air inlet passage for allowing external air to enter, and in Xiao providing air inlet “215” on an outer wall surface for external air to enter, modified Liu clearly would have an air inlet hole provided which communicates with the vent gap).
Regarding claim 5, modified Liu makes obvious an insulating sleeve between an outer wall surface of the electrode column and a hole wall surface of the electrode hole (as in the rejection of claim 3 above, Xiao makes obvious having an insulation member “50” located around and partly sleeved around the electrode “70” [Fig. 2, 0046]. The insulating member insulates the electrode, and is clearly located between the outer surface of the electrode and a hole surface of the electrode hole.), wherein at least one vent passage is formed on the insulating sleeve and the vent gap is in communication with the outside via the at least one vent passage (external air flow can enter the vaporization channel through the air channel between the first electrode “70” and the insulating member “50” [0046], such that there may be increased airflow and improved vaporization [0046]. In this manner, the vent gap and the vent passage would clearly be in communication with each other and with the outside air, such that the claim would reasonably be satisfied under the broadest reasonable interpretation thereof).
Regarding claim 6, modified Liu makes obvious a diameter of the mounting hole is larger than a diameter of the electrode hole (as in Figs. 3-4 of Liu, the upper diameter of the base of the mounting hole is clearly larger than that of the lower diameter around the electrode hole of the base), and wherein the diameter of the mounting hole matches an outer diameter of the accommodating section (as especially in Fig. 4, because the mounting hole and the accommodating section meet and “fit in” together, the outer diameters would clearly necessarily be substantially the same so as for this accommodation to fit).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US2022/0287363A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhou (US2022/0279856A1).
Regarding claim 7, Liu does not explicitly show the outer wall surface of the base recessed to form the at least one vent channel. However, it is known in the art to recess an outer wall surface of the base located between the shell and the base which is connected with the atmosphere. Zhou teaches a vaporizer (Fig. 3), which comprises a liquid storage cavity ‘12”, a vent tube “14”, and a base “20”. The base “20” includes pressure regulating channels “22” which are formed on it, where these channels are clearly formed as recesses into the outer surfaces of the base [Figs. 4, 6-8]. These channels “22” are clearly formed between the base and the shell [see Fig. 4]. These channels on the base allow for external airflow to enter the liquid storage cavity “12” through the first pressure regulating channel, so that the air pressure in the liquid storage cavity 12 and the normal air pressure maintain dynamic balance [0055].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the vaporizer of Liu to have the pressure regulating channels on the outer wall surface of the base as in Zhou. One would have been motivated so as to further ensure adequate pressure of the liquid storage cavity, so as to reduce the risks of leakage and non-smooth liquid flowing of the vaporizer [0055].
In the alternate, claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US2022/0287363A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu (US2022/0287363A1).
In the alternate regarding claims 9-10, Liu teaches that vaporizer which may have grooves “102” and “105” which are vent channels of which atmospheric pressure may enter the e-liquid holding tank. Regarding the change of shape of these grooves, it would have been obvious for the person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize other shapes beyond the shapes explicitly shown in Liu. “The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.” See MPEP 2144.04 IV. B. In this case, the specific shape of the vent channel has not been demonstrated by Applicant to be of particular significance/importance, as the shape of the vent channel in the written specification merely provides alternatives without any supposed discussion or results regarding the benefits of using any shape versus any other. As such, it would have been obvious for the person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize any of a variety of shapes of these grooves/vent channels so as to satisfy the overall design criteria of the vaporizer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS F SCHNEIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-4857. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/T.F.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749