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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-17 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1-17 recite the phrase “characterized by comprising” and “characterized in.” It is suggested to amend to -comprising- and -wherein- respectively. 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: “gas supply unit” and “control unit” in claim 1.
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.
In light of the specification, the limitation “gas supply unit” has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure “a miniature peristaltic air pump or a miniature motor-driving-piston device” as described in paragraph 0025.
In light of the specification, the limitation “control unit” has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure “a housing 41, and arranged inside the housing 41 are a battery mounting frame 42, a battery 43, a control switch 44, a control circuit board 45, and electrode spring pins 46.” as described in paragraph 0061.
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 § 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 3-4 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.
The term “gradually” in claims 3 and 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “gradually” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claims do not specify the degree of progression, as a result, it is unclear where the boundary lies between.
The term “miniature” in claim 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “miniature” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The Examiner cannot determine what size of the peristaltic air pump is miniature or not miniature.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8-12, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (US 2020/0281278 A1) in view of Lei et al. (CN 111631437 A).
With regard to claim 1, Davis discloses an electronic atomizer (100), characterized by comprising a liquid storage unit (62) in which an atomizable liquid is storable (Fig. 2), an atomization unit (79) arranged at a rear side of the liquid storage unit (62), and a control unit (30) for controlling operation of the atomization unit (79) and the gas supply unit (20); the liquid storage unit (62) comprising a liquid storage compartment (62), a sealing member (56) arranged between the liquid storage compartment (62) and the atomization unit (79), the sealing member (56) hermetically sealing the liquid storage compartment (62); the sealing member (56) being provided with a gas conducting hole (60) through which an atomized gas is conducted out, at least one liquid ingress one-way valve (68); and the liquid ingress one-way valve (68) being operable to control the atomizable liquid in the liquid storage compartment (62) to move, in a one-way manner, into the atomization unit (79) for atomization.
Davis does not disclose that a gas supply unit configured for supplying gas to the liquid storage unit, the sealing member being provide with at least one gas ingress one-way valve, and the gas ingress one-way valve being connected to the gas supply unit to supply gas, in a one-way manner, into the liquid storage compartment.
However, Lei teaches an electronic atomizer comprising a gas supply unit (“external gas”) configured for supplying gas to a liquid storage unit (120), a sealing member (140) being provide with at least one gas ingress one-way valve (142), and the gas ingress one-way valve (142) being connected to the gas supply unit to supply gas (“external gas”), in a one-way manner, into the liquid storage compartment (120).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic atomizer of Davis, by incorporating the gas supply unit and the gas ingress one-way valve at the sealing member as taught by Lei, doing it would provide external gas enters the liquid storage cavity through the air supply valve, replenishing the air pressure in the liquid storage cavity, avoiding the liquid storage cavity in the air pressure is too low, liquid cannot be penetrated to the atomizing assembly for atomizing condition, improving the atomization liquid supply fluency, It avoids the situation that the atomizing assembly is dry-burned and overheated caused by the unsmooth liquid supply (Par. [0039]).
With regard to claim 2, the electronic atomizer of Davis as modified by Lei discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Davis in view of Lei further discloses that the liquid ingress one-way valve (68) comprises a hollow liquid ingress portion for directional liquid ingress and a liquid ingress valve core that is arranged at a liquid egress end of the liquid ingress portion and comprises a liquid ingress slit (structures of valve 68), the atomization unit (79) being arranged to correspond to a liquid egress end of the liquid ingress slit (Fig. 2) of the liquid ingress valve core (68); and the gas ingress one-way valve (142 of Lei) comprises a hollow gas ingress portion for directional gas ingress and a gas ingress valve core that is arranged at a gas egress end of the gas ingress portion and comprises a gas ingress slit (structures of valve 142).
With regard to claim 5, the electronic atomizer of Davis as modified by Lei discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 2 above. Davis in view of Lei further discloses that in the sealing member (56 of Davis), at least the liquid ingress valve core (68 of Davis) and the gas ingress valve core (142 of Lei) are made of an elastic material (Par. [0040] of Lei), an output end of the gas supply unit (“external gas” of Lei) being in communication with the gas ingress portion for pushing open the gas ingress valve core to feed gas into the liquid storage unit (Par. [0039] of Lei), the gas supply unit (“external gas” of Lei) providing a gas pressure to push open the liquid ingress valve core, so as to supply the atomizable liquid to the atomization unit, the control unit (30 of Davis) configured for controlling activation and deactivation of the operation of the gas supply unit and the atomization unit (Par. [0067] of Davis).
With regard to claim 8, the electronic atomizer of Davis as modified by Lei discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 2 above. Davis in view of Lei further discloses that the gas ingress portion (1422 of Lei) and the gas ingress valve core (142 of Lei) are separate structures and are fixedly connected (Fig. 2); or alternatively, the gas ingress portion and the gas ingress valve core are formed together as a one-piece structure; and the liquid ingress portion (64 of Davis) and the liquid ingress valve core (68 of Davis) are separate structures and are fixedly connected; or alternatively, the liquid ingress portion and the liquid ingress valve core are formed together as a one-piece structure (Fig. 2).
With regard to claim 9, the electronic atomizer of Davis as modified by Lei discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Davis further discloses that the liquid storage unit (62) further comprises a base (Fig. 2), and the liquid storage compartment (Fig. 2), the sealing member (56), and the base are combined to form an atomization unit mounting seat (Fig. 2), the atomization unit (79) being mounted in the atomization unit mounting seat (Fig .2).
With regard to claim 10, the electronic atomizer of Davis as modified by Lei discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 9 above. Lei further discloses that the base (Fig. 2) defines a gas flow orifice, the gas flow orifice being in communication with a gas ingress end of the gas ingress one-way valve (142).
With regard to claim 11, the electronic atomizer of Davis as modified by Lei discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 10 above. Lei further discloses that a first gas guide tube (150) is further connected between the gas supply unit (“external gas”) and the base of the liquid storage unit (120) to convey the gas into the liquid storage compartment, the first gas guide tube (150) being in communication with the gas flow orifice (Fig. 10).
With regard to claim 12, the electronic atomizer of Davis as modified by Lei discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Davis further discloses that the atomization unit (79) comprises a liquid-conducting body (20, Fig. 2) and a heat-generating body (22) wrapping around an outside wall of the liquid-conducting body (Fig. 2), the liquid-conducting body (20) being arranged to correspond to a bottom of a liquid egress end of the liquid ingress one-way valve (68, Fig. 2).
With regard to claim 15, the electronic atomizer of Davis as modified by Lei discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Davis further discloses that the control unit (30) comprises a housing (Fig. 2), and a battery mounting frame (Fig. 2), a battery (42), a control switch (Fig. 2), a control circuit board (Fig. 2), and electrode spring pins (54) are arranged inside the housing (41), wherein the battery (42) is mounted on the battery mounting frame (Fig. 2), and the control circuit board (30), the control switch (Fig. 2) are electrically connected with the gas supply unit and the atomization unit (79) to control the gas supply unit and the atomization unit (79) to turn on or shut down, the electrode spring pins (54) electrically connecting the atomization unit (79) with the battery (42).
With regard to claim 16, the electronic atomizer of Davis as modified by Lei discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Davis further discloses that the control switch comprises at least one of a microphone switch, a pressure sensitive switch, and a button switch (Par. [0060]).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Lei as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Hejazi et al. (US 2020/0367572 A1).
With regard to claim 13, the electronic atomizer of Davis as modified by Lei discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 12 above. Davis does not disclose that the atomization unit further comprises a mounting seat and lead-out electrodes, the heat-generating body and the liquid-conducting body being mounted on the mounting seat, the heat-generating body comprising a heat-generating circuit and electrode connecting members, the mounting seat being formed with electrode insertion holes, the lead-out electrodes extending through the electrode insertion holes to connect to the electrode connecting members respectively.
Hejazi teaches an electronic atomizer comprising an atomization unit (380) further comprises a mounting seat (180) and lead-out electrodes (185), the heat-generating body (134) and the liquid-conducting body (134) being mounted on the mounting seat (180), the heat-generating body (134) comprising a heat-generating circuit and electrode connecting members (187), the mounting seat being formed with electrode insertion holes (192), the lead-out electrodes (185) extending through the electrode insertion holes (Fig. 3) to connect to the electrode connecting members (187) respectively, the lead-out electrodes (185) are formed, in tops thereof, with mounting troughs (Fig. 5B), the electrode connecting members (187) being inserted into the mounting troughs (Fig. 2) to electrically connect to the lead-out electrodes (185) respectively.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic atomizer of Davis, by replacing the atomization unit as taught by Hejazi, since the modification is a simple substitution of one known element for another (heating device) to obtain predictable results is one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 B).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Lei as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Murison (CA 2997119 A1).
With regard to claim 17, the electronic atomizer of Davis as modified by Lei discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Davis does not disclose that the gas supply unit comprises a miniature peristaltic air pump or a miniature motor-driving-piston device.
Murison teaches an electronic atomizer comprising a miniature peristaltic air pump or a miniature motor-driving-piston device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic atomizer of Davis, by incorporating the peristalitic air pump as taught by Murison, for the benefit of providing sufficient and adjustable air supply to operate the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 6-7 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-1163. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM.
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, ARTHUR HALL can be reached at 5712701814. 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.
JOEL . ZHOU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/QINGZHANG ZHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights