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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “180” has been used to designate both the liquid inlet holes and the airflow channel (see Figs. 3-5 and paragraph [0038]). 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. 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 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4, line 3, "at least part a the lower end surface" has grammatical issues. Examiner suggests --at least part of a lower end surface--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
"anti-counterfeiting module" in claim 1
"vaporization component" in claim 5
The terms use generic placeholders ("module" or "component") coupled with functional language ("anti-counterfeiting" or "vaporization") without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 20140020696) in view of Lin (CN 110447972, with English machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses a vaporizer (see smoking unit 90), comprising:
an electrically conductive base (male connecting element / second electrode 5, [0036,0037]);
an ejector pin disposed on the electrically conductive base in an insulated manner (see first electrode 13, which is insulated from base via insulating ring 14 [0037], see Figs. 3; Liu discloses the first and second electrodes are connected to power supply and serve as positive and negative electrodes for the atomizing device ([0036,0037]).
Liu does not disclose an anti-counterfeiting module electrically connected to the electrically conductive base and ejector pin. In the same field of endeavor of vaporizers, Lin discloses an atomizer and battery assembly having an encryption chip 11 for anti-counterfeiting ([0047]). Lin discloses the encryption chip 11 is connected to electrodes 13 of the battery assembly 2 at the bottom of the atomizer ([0045]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the vaporizer of Liu with an anti-counterfeiting module since Lin discloses providing an anti-counterfeiting module at the base of an atomizer and electrically connected to electrodes to identify and prevent counterfeiting of genuine electronic cigarette atomizers ([0007,0045]). Given that the conductive base (connecting element/second electrode 5) and ejector pin (first electrode 4) of Liu provide power to the atomizer ([0036,0037]), one would have obviously electrically connected the anti-counterfeiting module to the base and ejector pin of Liu to supply power to the module.
Regarding claim 5, Liu discloses a housing with a liquid storage cavity formed inside (see liquid reservoir 3); and a vaporization component disposed in the housing and in fluid communication with the liquid storage cavity (see atomizer 21 made of heating wire 211 and fiber element 212), wherein the vaporization component is electrically connected to the electrically conductive base and the ejector pin, respectively (heating wire penetrates the reservoir 3 to electrically connect with positive and negative electrodes ([0039]).
Regarding claim 15, Lin discloses a vent tube disposed in the housing (see conduit 35), wherein the liquid storage cavity is defined between an inner wall surface of the housing and an outer wall surface of the vent tube (see Fig. 3, reservoir between cylinder 1 and conduit 35), and wherein the vaporization component is disposed in the vent tube (see atomizer element 21 within tube).
Regarding claim 18, while Lin and Liu do not expressly disclose a PCB circuit board, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the module on a PCB since Examiner takes Official Notice that it is very well known and conventional in the art to provide electronic modules on PCBs.
Regarding claim 19, Lin discloses an electronic vaporization device comprising the vaporizer (atomizer device 2, Figs. 1, 2).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 20140020696) in view of Lin (CN 110447972, with English machine translation) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Liu-2 (CN 203398240, with English machine translation).
Regarding claim 2, Liu and Lin do not disclose a through hole on the anti-counterfeiting module and the ejector pin penetrating the through hole. Examiner notes that Liu illustrates the base of the atomizer with ejector pin (electrode 13) extending centrally within the cavity (see Fig. 2). In providing an anticounterfeiting module in the base of the atomizer as directed by Lin, one of ordinary skill in the art would have obviously positioned the anti-counterfeiting module within this space so as to provide electrical contact with the electrode. While Lin does not disclose providing through holes for electrodes, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the anti-counterfeiting module with a through hole for the central electrode since Liu-2, similarly directed towards an atomizer, discloses providing electrodes 70, 80, and circuit board 40 within an atomizer wherein the electrode pins are arranged to penetrate through holes in the circuit board 40 so as to connect to a battery ([0039]). One would have been motivated to provide a through hole to accommodate the extension of electrode pin 13 when positioning the anti-counterfeiting module within the atomizer base of Liu.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the anti-counterfeiting module to electrically connect with the ejector pin and electrically conductive base since (1) Lin discloses the encryption chip 11 is connected to electrodes 13 of the battery assembly 2 at the bottom of the atomizer ([0045]), and (2) one would have been motivated to connect the module where the module contacts the first and second electrodes, which in the above combination, would be the through hole and base. As to the step, Lin discloses step portions formed at the base of the atomizer (see Fig. 3).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 20140020696) in view of Lin (CN 110447972, with English machine translation) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Takeuchi (US 20180296779).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Liu does not disclose air inlet holes in the electrically conductive base or an air inlet channel in the ejector pin; however, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the vaporizer of Liu with air inlets and channel as claimed since Takeuchi, similarly directed towards a vaporizer, teaches providing ventilation openings 120in to be used for inhalation action on the sides of the connector/electrode 121 as well as air conduit 122 within electrode 128 ([0066,0083]). One would have been motivated to provide air inlets and an air channel in Liu to enable air to be drawn through the device during vaporization of the smoke liquid. As to the block wall of claim 17, the walls of the connecting element 5 (Liu; analogous to electrode 121 in Takeuchi) are construed as a block wall. Examiner notes that the air inlet holes (openings 121in) of Takeuchi are provided in the lower portion (below the insulating member) which separates the air inlets from the upper cavity of the device.
Claims 1, 5, 15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 104872822, with English machine translation) in view of Lin (CN 110447972, with English machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a vaporizer (see atomization device 10), comprising:
an electrically conductive base (see conductive threaded sleeve 13, [0045,0048]);
an ejector pin disposed on the electrically conductive base in an insulated manner (see ejector pin 14, which is insulated from base 13, [0045,0048,0057], see Figs. 2-6). Chen discloses electrodes are connected to sleeve 13 and the ejector pin 14 to provide power to the atomizer ([0048,0057]).
Chen does not disclose an anti-counterfeiting module electrically connected to the electrically conductive base and ejector pin. In the same field of endeavor of vaporizers, Lin discloses an atomizer and battery assembly having an encryption chip 11 for anti-counterfeiting ([0047]). Lin discloses the encryption chip 11 is connected to electrodes 13 of the battery assembly 2 at the bottom of the atomizer ([0045]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the vaporizer of Chen with an anti-counterfeiting module since Lin discloses providing an anti-counterfeiting module at the base of an atomizer and electrically connected to electrodes to identify and prevent counterfeiting of genuine electronic cigarette atomizers ([0007,0045]). Given that the conductive base (sleeve 13) and ejector pin (14) of Chen provide power to the atomizer ([0048,0057]), one would have obviously electrically connected the anti-counterfeiting module to the sleeve and ejector pin of Chen to supply power to the module.
Regarding claim 5, Chen discloses a housing with a liquid storage cavity formed inside (see liquid storage cavity 114); and a vaporization component disposed in the housing and in fluid communication with the liquid storage cavity (see liquid guiding body 121 formed of porous ceramic with heating layer 122), wherein the vaporization component is electrically connected to the electrically conductive base and the ejector pin, respectively (see [0048]).
Regarding claim 15, Chen discloses a vent tube disposed in the housing (see gas channel 113), wherein the liquid storage cavity is defined between an inner wall surface of the housing and an outer wall surface of the vent tube (see Fig. 2), and wherein the vaporization component is disposed in the vent tube (second pipe section 1265 forms part of vaporization component structure and extends into vent tube 113, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 18, while Chen and Liu do not expressly disclose a PCB circuit board, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the module on a PCB since Examiner takes Official Notice that it is very well known and conventional in the art to provide electronic modules on PCBs.
Regarding claim 19, Chen discloses an electronic vaporization device comprising the vaporizer ([0045], atomizing device 10 and power supply).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-14 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 of record is represented by Liu (US 20140020696), Lin (CN 110447972), Liu (CN 203398240), Chen (CN 104872822). The references disclose vaporizers having electrodes and vaporization component electrically connected to electrodes at the base of the vaporizer. The references fail to further teach or suggest the vaporization component comprising a first pin and second pin, wherein a first via and second via, and for the first pin and second pin to pass through are respectively provided on the anti-counterfeiting module. Examiner notes that a "via" is a term of art in the electronics art. Lin discloses an anti-counterfeiting module but does not disclose vias or association with pins from the vaporization/heating elements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT C DYE whose telephone number is (571)270-7059. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Anna Momper can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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.
/ROBERT C DYE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619