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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 1/26/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 1/26/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that all claims depend from claim 1 so all claims encompass claim 1. This is not found persuasive because invention I is a product and invention II is a method of making the product so as long as the product can be shown to be able to be made by a materially different method restriction is valid regardless of what common limitations they contain.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 11, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (CN 109875123 – of Record).
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]).
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 11, Chen teaches that the porous body comprises porous aluminum ceramics (Para. [0042]).
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).
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 3-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 109875123).
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 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.
Conclusion
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