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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected mouthpiece, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/20/26.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s Supplemental Amendment dated 8/27/26 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9-12, and 14 are currently amended. Claims 15-20 remain withdrawn. This leaves claims 1-14 currently active and pending.
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)(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 1-6 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lau et al. (US 2022/0015426).
Regarding claim 1, Lau teaches an atomizer assembly (e-vape device, Lau para 1,3) comprising: a mouthpiece portion (item 110) that includes a vapor outlet channel (item 112) operable to permit vapor from an atomizer to pass to an outlet port for a user to inhale (Lau para 54) ; and one or more radial vent channels in communication with the vapor outlet channel (items 122,a,b) (Lau para 64).
Regarding claim 2, Lau teaches an atomizer assembly as above for claim 1. Lau further teaches an inlet port at a second distal end (Lau para 63-65) of the mouthpiece portion that is configured to couple to a longitudinal vapor channel of a fluid reservoir (Lau para 63-65, fig 7, item 130, and unnumbered base of mouthpiece).
Regarding claims 3-5, Lau teaches an atomizer assembly as above for claim 2. Lau further teaches the inlet port of the mouthpiece portion is in communication with a female receptacle configured to receive a corresponding male coupler of the fluid reservoir portion (see annotated Lau fig 7, below). It is further noted that this is a press-fit type coupling and would intrinsically possess a coupling length (Lau para 104).
PNG
media_image1.png
792
300
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Lau teaches an atomizer assembly as above for claim 5. Lau further teaches that the one or more radial channels (items 122a,b) connect the vapor outlet channel with the external the mouthpiece portion (Lau para 110).
Regarding claims 10-14, Lau teaches an atomizer assembly as above for claim 1. Lau further teaches that the mouthpiece portion is coupled to a first distal end of a fluid reservoir portion, the atomizer is coupled to a second distal end of the fluid reservoir portion, where the second distal end is opposite from the first distal end such that the atomizer is below/beneath the reservoir portion, along the longitudinal axis of the reservoir, and finally that the mouthpiece is above both the atomizer and the fluid reservoir along the longitudinal axis of the reservoir (see annotated Lau fig 7, below). This may be considered an ‘underfeeder design’ as the atomizer is beneath/below the reservoir and thus conveys fluid from the reservoir volume above the atomizer to the atomizer below (Lau para 72).
PNG
media_image2.png
792
306
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Li et al. (US 2017/0265522).
Regarding claim 9, Lau teaches an atomizer assembly as above for claim 1.
Lau is silent with respect to the one or more radial vent channels also possess pressure-regulating radial vent channels, configured to provide pressure relief to a reservoir volume while in a first position and configured to provide pressurization of the reservoir volume while in a second position longitudinally different than the first position.
Examiner’s note: There does not appear to be special structure required in the specification for the ‘configured to,’ with the instant Specification at paragraph 60, simply stating that there is a blocking effect applied to the radial vent channels; when there is less blockage, there is pressure relief, and when more blockage there is an increase in pressure.
Lau and Li are related in the field of mouthpieces for electronic cigarettes. Li teaches that the base 120 of a mouthpiece further includes a blocking element 130 configured (i.e., structured and arranged) for blocking air from passing through. The blocking element 130 defines a through hole 131. The mouthpiece 120 is capable of driving the blocking element 130 to rotate relative to the base 120, so that an area of an opening formed by the through hole 131 and the air inlet 121 can be changed, thus adjusting an amount of air output from the air outlet 114. When the through hole is miss-aligned with the air inlet 121, the blocking element 130 prevents air from passing through the air inlet 121. In the present embodiment, the blocking element prevents air from passing through the air inlet (Li para 18). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a blocking element as taught by Li in the mouthpiece of Lau because this would provide for the ability of the user to control the amount of airflow of the device. Further, it is noted that this is the same kind of structure, providing the same function as suggested by Applicant in the Instant Specification at paragraph 60, Lau in view of Li may be considered “configured to” provide pressure relief and pressurization.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 8 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 prior art of record does not teach or suggest that the male coupler of the fluid reservoir portion is capable of being inserted to at least two different depths of the female receptacle of the mouthpiece such that when the male is inserted in the deeper depth air is prevent from venting from the reservoir into the vapor outlet channel.
Claim 8 is allowable for its dependency from claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA B FIGG whose telephone number is (571)272-9882. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9a-6p Mountain.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/LAURA B FIGG/Examiner, Art Unit 1781 9/25/26
