DETAILED ACTION
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 1-8, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2016/0270442) in view of Potter (US 2021/0274846).
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches an electronic-cigarette atomizer (vaporization device) [Fig. 3 and 6], comprising: a liquid container 4 (housing) [0041], comprising a liquid storage chamber 41 (e-liquid storage bin [0042], the housing being provided with an airflow passage 3 communicated with outside air [0060]; a vaporization component, comprising a liquid guiding wick 20 (e-liquid absorption body) and a heating wire 21 (heating element), the heating element being arranged on the e-liquid absorption body, and the e-liquid absorption body being communicated with the e-liquid storage bin [0047]; and a supporting seat 23 (first bracket), arranged in the housing, the vaporization component being arranged on the first bracket, the first bracket being provided with a first air guide hole (right open end of first bracket 23 shown in Fig. 3) communicated with the airflow passage,
Liu does not teach a barrier portion being arranged on an inner wall of the first bracket, and the barrier portion being corresponding to a position of the first air guide hole to change an airflow direction of air passing through the first air guide hole. Potter teaches an electronic cigarette vapor provision device [0002] wherein upstream of wick 140, the bottom of reservoir 110 acts as a barrier portion corresponding to a position of an air guide hole (adjacent to first bend 181) to change an airflow direction of air passing through the first air guide hole [Fig. 2; 0040]. Potter teaches that this forms a convoluted passage which helps reduce the risk of liquid leakage [0037, 0042]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that applying this concept to the device of Liu would involve providing a barrier portion arranged on an inner wall of the first bracket 23, located upstream of wick 20. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to arrange a barrier portion on an inner wall of the first bracket, the barrier portion corresponding to a position of the first air guide hole to change an airflow direction of air passing through the first air guide hole, to help reduce the risk of liquid leakage as suggested by Potter.
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Liu teaches the inner wall of the first bracket 23 is defined as a first side wall [Fig. 3]. Liu does not teach the first air guide hole is arranged at a joint of a bottom wall of the first bracket and the first side wall, and the barrier portion is arranged on one side of the first air guide hole facing the liquid storage bin. However, similar to the reasons as applied to claim 1 above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to arrange the position of the first air guide hole and barrier portion in this manner in order to provide the air flow path as suggested by Potter [Fig. 2] and thus help reduce the risk of liquid leakage. Correspondingly, the first air guide hole would run through the bottom wall along a thickness direction of the bottom wall.
Regarding claim 3, as shown in Fig. 3 and 6 of Liu, the e-liquid absorption body 20 extends across the device, through the airflow pathway. Thus, the e-liquid absorption body is interpreted as dividing the airflow direction of the air passing through the first air guide hole into two airflow directions, and the air in the two airflow directions respectively contacts with two sides of the e-liquid absorption body and is then led out through the airflow passage.
Regarding claim 5, as shown in Fig. 2 of Potter, the barrier portion is spaced apart from the first air guide hole, which ne of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply to Liu for the same reason of helping reduce the risk of liquid leakage. Although it is not specifically disclosed that a cross section of the first air guide hole is rectangular, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any shape for allowing air to enter the first air guide hole. Absent evidence of criticality, the claimed limitation is merely a change in shape. The courts have held changes in shape and aesthetic design changes to be prima facie obvious, see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claims 6-7, Liu does not teach a side surface of the barrier portion facing the vaporization component is defined as a second side wall, and the first side wall is arranged opposite to the second side wall. As shown in Fig. 2 of Potter, the barrier portion horizontally extends from the side wall of the device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply this to Liu such that the barrier portion horizontally extends from the first side wall toward the vaporization component for the same reason of helping reduce the risk of liquid leakage. Thus, a side surface of the barrier portion facing the vaporization component is defined as a second side wall, and the first side wall is arranged opposite to the second side wall.
Regarding claim 8, Liu teaches the first air guide hole extends across the entire inner length of the first bracket 23 [Fig. 3]. Thus, in modified Liu, where this air guide hole is retained, a horizontal extending dimension of the barrier portion would necessarily be smaller than a length dimension of the cross section of the first air guide hole.
Regarding claim 18, Liu teaches the vaporization component is a cotton core vaporizer [0047].
Regarding claim 20, Liu teaches the electronic cigarette vaporization device is part of an electronic cigarette [0058, Fig. 7].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu and Potter as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hon (US 2012/0111347).
Modified Lin does not teach the length dimension of the cross section of the first air guide hole ranges from 1 mm to 2 mm. Hon teaches an atomizing electronic cigarette wherein a through hole diameter is from 0.5 to 4 mm [0021]. As this is a conventional air hole diameter known in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply to the first air guide hole of modified Lin to achieve predictable results, i.e. allowing air to flow through.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-17 and 19 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: There is no teaching or reasonable suggestion in the prior art to modify the device of Liu and Potter as applied to claim 2 above to further include a second bracket, arranged in the housing, wherein the second bracket is provided with a second air guide hole and at least one e-liquid guide hole, the second air guide hole is communicated with the airflow passage, the at least one e-liquid guide hole is communicated with the e-liquid storage bin, the e-liquid absorption body is arranged in the second bracket, and the e-liquid absorption body is connected to the at least one e-liquid guide hole; and a cover, sleeved on one side of the second bracket close to the first bracket, wherein an accommodating cavity is defined between the cover and the second bracket, the vaporization component and the first bracket are arranged in the accommodating cavity, the cover is provided with an air inlet, and the air inlet is communicated with the airflow passage through the first air guide hole and the second air guide hole.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC YAARY whose telephone number is (571)272-3273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Philip Louie can be reached at (571)270-1241. 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.
/ERIC YAARY/Examiner, Art Unit 1755