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 .
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 16 and 17 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.
Claims 16 recites the limitation "arrangement positions" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
It is unclear what “arrangement positions” refers to because claim 1 does not disclose any “arrangement positions” relating to the “seal portions”. Arrangement of absorbing surfaces, vaporizing surface, and heating body are claimed; however, these do not appear have anything to do with the arrangement of “seal portions”.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 7, 9-20 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atkins et al. (US 20190373953 A1) in view of Murison et al. (US 20160366946)
Regarding claim 1-3, 7, 13, 16, 20, Atkins et al. disclose a vaporization apparatus comprising the following elements:
housing (see figure 25, element 2205 or 2200, below),
e-liquid storage tank or reservoir (2234),
airflow channel (2218 external air inlet, first airflow path 2220, through internal channel 2224),
vaporization assembly (i.e. atomizer 2228), including the following:
porous body (2230),
with an absorbing surface (facing the reservoir 2234),
and a vaporization surface opposite with a,
heating body (i.e. surface heater 2226) that is opposite the absorbing surface,
PNG
media_image1.png
574
334
media_image1.png
Greyscale
vent channel (2236) on the porous body with one end in communication with the e-liquid storage tank, and the other end in communication with external air (as illustrated with dotted lines and arrows).
The vent of Atkins et al. allows negative pressure that builds up in the reservoir because fluid is being vaporized from the porous substrate to be relieved by incoming air through the vent.
Although Atkins et al. disclose that the vent can be an active or passive valve and “…can include any number of features for allowing air to pass into the reservoir chamber 2006, 2106 to relieve negative pressure created in the reservoir chamber”, they do not disclose a seal member being sleeved on the vaporization assembly with at least one seal portion corresponding to the vent channel providing a seal portion that open and closes the vent channel.
However, Murison et al. disclose a similar reservoir that is affected by negative pressure and discloses a similar vent [0381]. Murison et al. disclose the vent can have a fluid impermeable film or a simple mechanical valve such as a duckbill valve [0378]. A duckbill valve is considered to be a first seal member that opens and closes the vent channel to allow external air into and does not allow liquid out of the reservoir. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing to use a duckbill valve as the passive valve in the vent to relieve negative pressure.
Regarding claims 4, Atkins et al. disclose a first and second cover body (2210, 2211, 2214, 2210b, 2204d), and accommodating cavity (cartridge receptacle (2212)), and a liquid flowing hole (2218).
Regarding claim 6, Atkins et al. disclose a second seal that forms the reservoir (i.e. sidewalls 2209a).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Atkins et al. disclose using more than one vent [0191] and in view of Murison et al., each would have a seal and seal portion (i.e. valve) covering each hole.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Atkins et al. illustrates the vent in the porous body but also disclose that the vent can be located, “in a variety of positions adjacent or forming a part of the atomizer,” [0199]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to locate the vent in the side of the porous body as described by Atkins et al. to be adjacent to the atomizer. Furthermore, Murison et al. disclose a grove in the porous body where the vent it located. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a groove in the porous body so that the vent and valve can be located adjacent to the atomizer.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Atkins et al. disclose using more than one vent [0191].
Regarding claim 16, a quantity of vents includes a single vent (i.e. inherently a 1 to 1 ratio of seals to vents).
Regarding claim 17, Atkins et al. and Murison et al. disclose a valve or check valve, but do not disclose multiple valves. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to duplicate a check valve to further prevent the leaking of fluid, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Atkins et al. disclose other body arrangements including figure 2A where a lower cover is arranged on a lower end of the second, outer cover. The lower cover has an air inlet and a vent (mouthpiece) in communication.
Claim(s) 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atkins et al. (US 20190373953 A1) and Murison et al. (US 20160366946) as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Althorpe et al. (US 20170367407).
Regarding claims 5, Atkins et al. and Murison et al. make obvious the use of vents and mechanical valves to release negative pressure in a e-liquid storage reservoir but do not disclose a valve that closes and opens by deforming toward and away from the e-liquid storage tank to open and close. In particular, the duckbill valve disclose by Murison et al. would not result in that arrangement. However, Althorpe et al. disclose a similar vent in an atomizer and disclose that a check valve may be used to permit air ingress and prevent undesired nicotine solution leakage [0084]. Althorpe et al. do not expressly disclose the structure of the check valve. However, it is notoriously well known in the art, as well as outside the art, that numerous check valves structures exist and most (ball, piston, disc, butterfly, etc.) have valve structures that move from a closed position toward the flow direction when opening. In this case, the flow direction is inherently the reservoir and the valve structure will open when the pressure is lower in the reservoir than the outside causing the valve structure to deform toward the reservoir to open and then return toward the heater vaporization side when pressure is equalized.
Regarding claim 8, it would have been obvious to use place the check valve of Althorpe et al. in the hole of Atkins et al. at the top or the bottom of the hole as the valve would need to be inserted into or onto the hole.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J FELTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4805. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Thursday-Friday 7:00-4:30, Wednesday 7:00-1:00.
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, Michael H Wilson can be reached at 571-270-3882. 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.
/Michael J Felton/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1747