DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to applicant’s election filed June 17, 2026. Claims 9-20 are withdrawn. Claims 1-8 are rejected.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected heating atomization core, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 17, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4-6, and 8-9 objected to because of the following informalities detailed below. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 – the recitation “stacking multiple layers of liquid transfer cloth (21), at least one side of at least one layer of liquid transfer cloth (21) has grain” is a comma splice and should be separated by “wherein” (i.e., wherein at least one side of at least one layer…”.
Claim 4 – the term “horizontally” in the recitation “such that micro-grooves (22) which are horizontally on the whole are formed” lines 27-28 should recite: --horizontal-- as in line 24.
Claim 5 – the recitation, “staggered on a radial direction” should recite: --staggered in a radial direction--.
Claim 6 – the second recitation “a same direction on the whole” should recite: --the same direction on the whole”.
Claims 8-9 – reference numeral (2) is suddenly introduced here for the “liquid transfer unit” and should either be removed from these claim or added into all other claims which respectively recite “liquid transfer unit” without the reference numeral for consistency.
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 and 5 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.
Claim 3 recites, “wherein a side without grains of one layer of liquid transfer cloth (21) is attached to a side with grains of the other layer of liquid transfer cloth (21). Claim 1 establishes, “multiple layers” which can mean two or more layers. The recitation “the other layer” lacks a precise antecedent basis because it implies there are only two layers in total. (should recite, “another layer”). For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted to recite “another layer”.
Claim 5 recites, “…the micro-grooves (22) on the different layers of liquid transfer cloth (21)…”. The recitation, “the different layers” lacks an explicit antecedent basis in claim 4 (perhaps should recites, “on different layers” or be mapped back to specific vertical/horizontal layers defined in claim 4). For purposes of examination the claim will be interpreted to recite “on different layers”.
Claim Interpretation
As informed by applicant’s specification the term “grain” is defined in the specification to be, “the grains are not patterns in the traditional sense, and refer to recesses or protrusions formed on the surface of the liquid transfer cloth 21 by weaving during the textile process of the liquid transfer cloth 21, or recesses or protrusions shown on the surface of the liquid transfer cloth 21 by some technical means such as by pressing with a die, adjusting textile parameter settings, or extrusion.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-3, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN-112656032-A (hereinafter YAN). See machine translation relied upon for citations from office action sent May 14, 2026.
Regarding claim 1, YAN discloses an oil guide structure of an atomizer where the oil guide structure is used for guiding the smoke oil in the oil storage chamber to the heating assembly (abstract). YAN discloses the liquid transfer unit is formed by stacking multiple layers (page 2, YAN discloses a first oil guide layer and at least two overlapped second oil guide layers) of liquid transfer cloth (21). YAN discloses that there is a cross-paved plain weave fiber made from, “any one of common viscose fibre, tencel, copper ammonia fibre, wood pulp cotton and cotton nonwoven fabric” this is considered to read upon the limitation of cloth. YAN further discloses , at least one side of at least one layer of liquid transfer cloth (21) has grains (page 2). YAN discloses on page 2 that the oil guide layer structure is formed with a plurality of net-shaped oil guide holes. This formation of a sheet with small holes (diameters of 0.1mm-0.65mm across the various layers) is considered to read upon applicant’s recitation of “grain”. As explained in the claim interpretation above, the “grain” is a formation of recesses (holes and the borders of the holes) and protrusions (the solid portion forming the hole). YAN discloses that this layer is formed in an orderly laminated fashion. YAN discloses, in other embodiments (page 6), that the oil guide layers are made of cross-paved cellulose and grid regenerated cellulose. These formations are considered to read upon applicant’s recitation of “grain”. YAN further discloses such that at least two adjacent layers of liquid transfer cloth (21) are not completely attached to each other to form micro-grooves (22), and the micro-grooves (22) are connected to form a liquid chamber. YAN discloses that the oil guide layers are laminated together and the aperture of the hole in the at least two overlapped oil guide layers is gradually reduced along the direction of the first oil guide layer and the transition layer (page 2, highlighted section). This is considered to read upon the layers being stacked, though not attached to each other to form micro-grooves (i.e. apertures). YAN discloses that the oil guide layers may have a transition layer of cross-laid plain-grain regenerated cellulose (page 5). YAN discloses that the oil guide layer is formed with a plurality of net-shaped oil guide holes 111 that improve the oil guide efficiency and improve the atomized gas taste (page 4). YAN discloses that the grooves are micro-grooves insomuch as YAN discloses that the aperture of the liquid guide hole in the inner layer is 0.1-0.2mm. When all three layers: the oil guide layer 110, the transition layer 120, and the heat-resistant layer are combined a liquid chamber is formed that can bear high temperature and improve the service life of the oil guide structure (bottom page 4).
Regarding claim 2, YAN discloses the liquid transfer unit for an atomization core according to claim 1 as discussed above. YAN further discloses wherein the grains on adjacent sides of the at least two adjacent layers of liquid transfer cloth (21) are staggered to form the micro-grooves (22). YAN discloses that the oil guide layers may have a transition layer of cross-laid plain-grain regenerated cellulose (page 5). YAN discloses that the oil guide layer is formed with a plurality of net-shaped oil guide holes 111 that improve the oil guide efficiency and improve the atomized gas taste (page 4). This formation of holes and varying apertures due to the stacking of the layers is explicitly disclosed, “the aperture of the oil guide hole in the at least two overlapped second oil guide layers is gradually reduced along the direction of the first oil guide layer and the transition layer”. YAN discloses that the grooves are micro-grooves insomuch as YAN discloses that the aperture of the liquid guide hole in the inner layer is 0.1-0.2mm.
Regarding claim 3, YAN discloses the liquid transfer unit for an atomization core according to claim 1 as discussed above. YAN further discloses wherein a side without grains of one layer of liquid transfer cloth (21) is attached to a side with grains of the other layer of liquid transfer cloth (21) to form the micro-grooves (22). This is shown in Fig. 1 where the oil guide layer has net like holes and the transition layer does not (i.e. without grains). See page 4.
Regarding claim 6, YAN discloses the liquid transfer unit for an atomization core according to claim 1 as discussed above. YAN further discloses the grains of the liquid transfer cloth (21) are in a same direction and arranged regularly, or the grains of the liquid transfer cloth (21) are in a same direction on the whole. This is shown in Fig. 1 where the net-like holes are arranged uniformly on the cloth.
Regarding claim 8, YAN discloses the liquid transfer unit for an atomization core according to claim 1 as discussed above. YAN further discloses the liquid transfer unit (2) is a cylindrical structure or a platelike structure. As shown on Fig. 1, the liquid transfer unit is a platelike, stacked structure. The claim recites “or” in the limitation which means that one of the options reads upon the limitation of the claim.
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.
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 4-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAN.
Regarding claim 4, YAN discloses the liquid transfer unit for an atomization core according to claim 1 as discussed above. YAN further teaches additional embodiments wherein the multiple layers of liquid transfer cloth (21) comprise at least two layers of vertical- grain liquid transfer cloth (211), or comprise at least two layers of horizontal-grain liquid transfer cloth (212), or comprise at least one layer of vertical-grain liquid transfer cloth (211) and at least one layer of horizontal-grain liquid transfer cloth (212);wherein when the multiple layers of liquid transfer cloth (21) comprise vertical-grain liquid transfer cloth (211), the vertical-grain liquid transfer cloth (211) has grains which are configured vertically on the whole, such that micro-grooves (22) which are vertical on the whole are formed; and when the multiple layers of liquid transfer cloth (21) comprise horizontal-grain liquid transfer cloth (212), the horizontal-grain liquid transfer cloth (212) has grains which are configured horizontally on the whole, such that micro-grooves (22) which are horizontally on the whole are formed. The recitation of the word “or” results in the limitation being met if one of the list of possible combinations is met. YAN teaches embodiments where there are multiple layers of transfer cloth (See Fig. 5, pages 5-6). YAN teaches that in these embodiments the first oil guide layer, and at least two overlapped second guide layers are overlapped and near the storage chamber (See Fig. 5, pages 5-6). YAN teaches that this configuration form the holes in a way that makes smaller holes to allow for interception of smoke oil that optimizes the taste reduction of the atomized gas to the largest extent (page 5-6).
[AltContent: textbox (Multiple layers (302, 303, 304) with vertical grain.
These layers are made from the sheet as shown in Fig. 2 and when stacked would form apertures (i.e. grooves) that YAN teaches affect taste (page 6) through optimization of the apertures formed by the at least two overlapped layer structure.)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
331
318
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the teachings of YAN to provide multiple layers of cloth configured in either uniform horizontal or vertical directions and/or non-uniform directions. Doing so would optimize the interception of smoke oil to provide for the best taste to the user (YAN pages 5-6). This is an example of (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143, I, (D). A person of ordinary skill in the art would apply the teachings and embodiments of YAN to optimize the taste for the user through intercepting the smoke oil on the grains with predictable results.
Regarding claim 5, YAN teaches the liquid transfer unit for an atomization core according to claim 4 as discussed above. YAN further teaches the liquid transfer unit is formed by 2-8 layers of liquid transfer cloth (21), and the micro-grooves (22) on the different layers of liquid transfer cloth (21) are at least partially staggered on a radial direction. The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04, VI, Part B. In this case, YAN teaches embodiments with inclusion of additional transfer cloth in ranges that overlap with the instant application. YAN teaches that would optimize the interception of smoke oil to provide for the best taste to the user (YAN pages 5-6).
Regarding claim 7, YAN discloses the liquid transfer unit for an atomization core according to claim 1 as discussed above. YAN further discloses a height of the micro-grooves (22) is within 0.1 mm. YAN teaches that the grooves are micro-grooves insomuch as YAN discloses that the aperture of the liquid guide hole in the inner layer is 0.1-0.2mm. This is considered to be a touching range. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further YAN discloses that the value hole size needs to be optimized to optimize the taste reduction degree of the atomized gas to the largest extent. As discussed on pages 5-6, the hole size influences taste and as such the hole is a result effect variable in that changing the value changes the function. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to move the range as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05.II.A).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE L MOORE whose telephone number is (313)446-6537. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 9 am to 5 pm.
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.
/STEPHANIE LYNN MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights