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
This action is in response to applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 6/3/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination. Claims 13-15 are withdrawn from consideration.
Examiner’s Amendment
A telephone call was placed on 9/30/2026 by the Examiner to Salim Hasan to suggest an examiner’s amendment to amend the allowable subject matter in claim 19 into the independent claim 1 to put the case in position for allowance. On a second call on 10/2/2026, no agreement about the proposed examiner’s amendment was made.
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.
Claims 1-12, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 109875123).
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches a porous body (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 10 and 20 together)) for an electronic vaporization device (Fig. 7) comprising a first surface (Fig. 1, above layer 10) and a second surface (Fig. 1, below layer 20) and at least two-unit layers where one unit layer comprises a liquid locking advantage layer (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 10) and the other unit layer comprising a liquid storage advantage layer combined with a liquid locking advantage layer (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 20; Para. [0010]). Chen also teaches that the porosity of the liquid locking advantage layer (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 10) is 30% to 60% (Para. [0042]) and that the porosity of the liquid storage advantage layer (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 20) is higher than that (Para. [0043]).
Regarding claim 2, Chen teaches that the liquid storage advantage layer and the liquid locking advantage layer are arranged alternatively from the first to the second surface (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 10, 20).
Regarding claim 3, Chen does not explicitly teach the thickness of the liquid locking advantage layer (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 10); however, Chen teaches that the thickness of the liquid storage advantage layer (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 20) is 80 µm to 1000 µm (Para. [0046]) and clearly shows that the liquid locking advantage layer is thicker than the liquid storage advantage layer (Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the liquid locking advantage layer have a thickness of greater than 80 µm to 1000 µm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 10 µm to 1000 µm which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 4, Chen does not explicitly teach the thickness of the whole porous body (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 10 and 20); however, Chen teaches that the thickness of the liquid storage advantage layer (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 20) is .08 to 1 mm (Para. [0046]) and clearly shows that the liquid locking advantage layer is thicker than the liquid storage advantage layer (Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to for the whole porous body have a thickness of greater than .08 to 1 mm, which overlaps with the claimed range of .8 to 3 mm which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 5, Chen teaches that the porosity of the liquid locking advantage layer (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 10) is 30% to 60% (Para. [0042]) and that the porosity of the liquid storage advantage layer (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 20) is higher than that (Para. [0043]). That would make the porosity of the whole porous body greater than 30% to 60%, which overlaps with the claimed range of 50% to 75% which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 6, Chen does not explicitly teach the thickness of the liquid locking advantage layer (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 10); however, Chen teaches that the thickness of the liquid storage advantage layer (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 20) is .08 mm to 1 mm (Para. [0046]) and clearly shows that the liquid locking advantage layer is thicker than the liquid storage advantage layer (Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to each unit layer have a thickness of at least .08 mm to 1 mm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 1 mm to 1.5 mm which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 7, Chen teaches that the liquid storage advantage layer contains a large pore structure (Para. [0043]) and the liquid locking advantage layer has a small pore structure (Para. [0042]). Chen teaches that the pore size of the liquid storage advantage layer is larger than the pore size of the liquid locking advantage layer (Para. [0043]) which overlaps the claimed range of 1.5 to 2.5 times which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 8, Chen teaches that the liquid storage advantage layer contains a large pore structure (Para. [0043]) and the liquid locking advantage layer has a small pore structure (Para. [0042]). Chen teaches that the average pore size of the small pore structure is 5 to 60 µm (Para. [0042]), which overlaps the claimed range of 15 to 100 µm which is a prima facie case of obviousness. Chen also teaches that the average pore size of the large pore structure is greater than 5 to 60 µm (Para. [0043]), which overlaps the claimed range of 50 to 150 µm which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 9, Chen teaches that the liquid storage advantage layer contains a high porosity (Para. [0043]) and the liquid locking advantage layer has a low porosity (Para. [0042]). Chen teaches that the porosity of the liquid storage advantage layer is larger than the porosity of the liquid locking advantage layer (Para. [0043]) which overlaps the claimed range of 1.2 to 2 times which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 10, Chen teaches that the liquid storage advantage layer contains a high porosity (Para. [0043]) and the liquid locking advantage layer has a low porosity (Para. [0042]). Chen teaches that the porosity of the low porosity layer is 30% to 60% (Para. [0042]), which overlaps the claimed range of 45% to 70% which is a prima facie case of obviousness. Chen also teaches that the porosity of the high porosity layer is greater than 30% to 60% (Para. [0043]), which overlaps the claimed range of 55% to 90% which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 11, Chen teaches that the porous body comprises porous aluminum ceramics (Para. [0042]).
Regarding claim 12, Chen teaches that the thickness of the liquid storage advantage layer (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 20) is .08 to 1 mm (Para. [0046]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1 to 1.7 mm which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 16, Chen teaches a vaporization core (Fig. 7, Ref. Num. 200) for an electronic vaporization device (Fig. 7) comprising a heating body (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 30) and the porous body of claim 1 (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 10 and 20) where the heating body is arranged on the surface of the liquid storage advantage layer.
Regarding claim 17, Chen teaches that the heating body is made of a metal heating sheet (Para. [0042]).
Regarding claim 18, Chen teaches an electronic vaporization device (Fig. 7) comprising a liquid storage cavity (Fig. 7, Ref. Num. 120), a vaporization cavity (Fig. 7, Ref. Num. 320), and the vaporization core (Fig. 7, Ref. Num. 200) of claim 16. The surface of the porous body on which the heating body is arranged (Fig. 7, Ref. Num. 200; bottom surface) communicates with the vaporization cavity in an air guiding manner (Fig. 7, Ref. Num. R2) and the opposite surface of the porous body on which the heating body is arranged (Fig. 7, Ref. Num. 200; top surface) communicates with the liquid storage cavity in a liquid guiding manner (Fig. 7, Ref. Num. R1).
Regarding claim 20, Chen teaches that the porosity of the liquid locking advantage layer (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 10) is 30% to 60% (Para. [0042]) and that the porosity of the liquid storage advantage layer (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 20) is higher than that (Para. [0043]). Chen also teaches that the liquid storage advantage layer contains a large pore structure (Para. [0043]) and the liquid locking advantage layer has a small pore structure (Para. [0042]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is 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 of record is Chen (CN 109875123).
Regarding claim 19, Chen teaches that the liquid locking advantage layer (Fig. 6, Ref. Num. 10) is much thicker than the liquid storing advantage layer (Fig. 6, Ref. Num. 20). Modifying the layers so that the liquid locking advantage layer is thinner than the liquid storing advantage layer would destroy the reference for its intended purpose. It is the examiner’s opinion that without the improper use of hindsight or destroying the references for their intended use, it would not have been obvious to combine prior art references in the manner, as required by claim 19.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the liquid storing advantage layer and liquid locking advantage layer are not the same as the porous body and porous transition layer of Chen. Chen teaches that the porous body and transition layer are made of porous ceramics (Para. [0042]) that are the same type of material used by the instant application (Para. [0028]). Additionally, Chen has a pore size (Para. [0042], [0043]) and porosity ((Para. [0042], [0043]) that are within the ranges for the pore size (Para. [0025]) and porosity (Para. [0027]) of the instant application. Due to these structural similarities, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that the porous body and transition layer of Chen would perform the same function as the liquid storage and locking advantage layers.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NICHOLAS J WEILER whose telephone number is (571)272-2664. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:30pm.
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.
/N.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
