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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they fail to meet the requirements of 37 CFR 1.84(p)(1) which require that the drawing view numbers are not used in association with brackets (the drawing view numbers should not be enclosed in brackets, e.g., “[FIG. 1]” should be written as “FIG. 1”… etc.) Appropriate correction is required.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the Applicants’ arguments/remarks filed 8-5-2026.
Regarding Objection to claim 1: Applicant’s arguments, see amendments to claim 1 and Remarks filed 8-5-2026, with respect to the objection to formalities to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Regarding Drawing Objections: Applicant’s arguments, see amendments to the specification 8-5-2026, with respect to the drawing objections have been fully considered and are persuasive, however, a new drawing objection is set made as set forth above.
Claims 1, 7, and 19 are amended.
Claim 16 is new.
Claims 1-16 are currently examined.
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.
Claims 1-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (US 20220361578A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Hu discloses a cartridge comprising:
first chamber (24) configured to store a liquid (liquid storing cavity 24 stores liquid tobacco [0045]);
second chamber (531) including an inlet and an outlet (FIG 6 and [0051], second chamber 531 comprises an atomizing channel with a first opening (left side of the second chamber 531 relative to FIG 3) and second opening (right side of the second chamber 531 relative to FIG 3, see also [0056] and annotated FIG 3 below);
wick (51, body 51 is a porous ceramic body, conducts liquid material via capillary effect, and is therefore a wick [0051]-[0052]) disposed at the second chamber to be in communication with the first chamber (see [0050], liquid tobacco in 24 flows (is in communication with) to wick 51); and
heater (52) configured to heat the wick (51)(see [0051 and FIG 6), wherein
the second chamber comprises a curved surface defining at least a portion thereof between the inlet and the outlet (the chamber is cylindrical [0051], see also FIG 6, and cylinders have curved surfaces).
PNG
media_image1.png
634
567
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Hu fails to explicitly disclose that the curved surface defining the second chamber has circumference that gradually decreases from an inner part of the second chamber towards at least one of the inlet or the outlet.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of an end portion of Hu’s cylindrical atomizing channel 513 such that the circumference gradually decreases from an inner part of the second chamber towards the inlet and/or outlet as a matter of design choice. The change in the form or shape of the channel without a new or unexpected result, is an obvious engineering design choice. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding Claim 2, Hu discloses the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally Hu discloses the second chamber comprises an outlet curved surface that defines the second chamber at a periphery of the outlet and is formed in a curved manner (e.g., the chamber 513 is a cylinder, the outlet of the chamber is a continuation of the cylinder, the outlet curved surface periphery of the outlet is the end of the cylinder nearest the outlet and is interpreted to be curved because it’s a cylinder [0051]).
Regarding Claim 3, Hu discloses the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Hu teaches the outlet includes a curved surface as set forth above, but fails to explicitly disclose the outlet curved surface comprises a first outlet curved surface that surrounds the outlet and having a center of curvature located outside the second chamber, and wherein a circumference of the first outlet curved surface gradually decreases outward from an inner part of the second chamber.
However, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the outlet surface of Hu to comprise a first outlet curved surface that surrounds the outlet and having a center of curvature located outside the second chamber, and wherein a circumference of the first outlet curved surface gradually decreases outward from an inner part of the second chamber. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV B.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Hu teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, although Hu does not explicitly disclose the first outlet curved surface has a bell-mouth shape, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the first outlet curved surface of Hu to have a bellmouth shape as a design preference. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV B.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Hu teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Hu teaches the outlet is cylindrical and has curved surfaces as set forth above. However, although Hu fails to explicitly disclose the outlet curved surface comprises a second outlet curved surface curved outwardly, wherein a circumference of the second outlet curved surface gradually decreases toward the outlet.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the surface of Hu and change its shape so that the outlet curved surface comprises a second outlet curved surface curved outwardly, wherein a circumference of the second outlet curved surface gradually decreases toward the outlet as a design choice. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV B.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Hu teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. However Hu fails to explicitly disclose the outlet curved surface comprises: a first outlet curved surface surrounding the outlet and having a center of curvature located outside the second chamber, wherein a circumference of the first outlet curved surface gradually decreases outward from an inner part of the outlet; and a second outlet curved surface curved outwardly, wherein a circumference of the second outlet curved surface gradually decreases toward the outlet, wherein the second outlet curved surface and the first outlet curved surface are adjacent to define a continuous surface.
It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of the first outlet curved surface of Hu such that the outlet curved surface comprises: a first outlet curved surface surrounding the outlet and having a center of curvature located outside the second chamber, wherein a circumference of the first outlet curved surface gradually decreases outward from an inner part of the outlet; and a second outlet curved surface curved outwardly, wherein a circumference of the second outlet curved surface gradually decreases toward the outlet, wherein the second outlet curved surface and the first outlet curved surface are adjacent to define a continuous surface. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV B.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Hu teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Hu discloses the second chamber is a cylinder as set forth above and therefore comprises an inlet curved surface that defines the second chamber at a periphery of the inlet and is formed in a curved manner (the chamber is a cylinder and the inlet and outlet ends have curved periphery which is interpreted as the ends of the cylinder are also curved as cylinders are curved).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Hu teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Hu teaches the inlet of the second chamber has a curved surface as the second chamber is a cylinder. Hu fails to explicitly disclose the inlet curved surface comprises a first inlet curved surface that surrounds the inlet and having a center of curvature located outside the second chamber, and wherein a circumference of the first inlet curved surface gradually increases inward from an outer part of the second chamber.
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of the second chamber of Hu such that the inlet curved surface comprises a first inlet curved surface that surrounds the inlet and having a center of curvature located outside the second chamber, and wherein a circumference of the first inlet curved surface gradually increases inward from an outer part of the second chamber. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV B.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Hu teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Hu fails to explicitly disclose the first inlet curved surface has a bell-mouth shape.
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first inlet curved surface of Hu to have a bell mouth shape. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV B.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Hu teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Hu fails to explicitly disclose the inlet curved surface comprises a second inlet curved surface curved outwardly, wherein a circumference of the second inlet curved surface gradually increases in a direction from the inlet toward the second chamber.
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of the inlet curved surface of Hu such that the inlet curved surface comprises a second inlet curved surface curved outwardly, wherein a circumference of the second inlet curved surface gradually increases in a direction from the inlet toward the second chamber. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV B.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Hu teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Addiitonally Hu teaches the inlet surface is curved and is a continuous surface (e.g., the cylinder surface is curved and has a continuous surface.)
However, Hu fails to explicitly disclose the inlet curved surface comprises: a first inlet curved surface surrounding the inlet and having a center of curvature located outside the second chamber, wherein a circumference of the first inlet curved surface gradually increases inward from an outer part of the second chamber; and a second inlet curved surface curved outwardly, wherein a circumference of the second inlet curved surface gradually increases from the inlet toward the second chamber, wherein the second inlet curved surface and the first inlet curved surface are adjacent to define a continuous surface.
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of the inlet curved surface of Hu such that the inlet curved surface comprises: a first inlet curved surface surrounding the inlet and having a center of curvature located outside the second chamber, wherein a circumference of the first inlet curved surface gradually increases inward from an outer part of the second chamber; and a second inlet curved surface curved outwardly, wherein a circumference of the second inlet curved surface gradually increases from the inlet toward the second chamber, wherein the second inlet curved surface and the first inlet curved surface are adjacent to define a continuous surface. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV B.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Hu teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally Hu teaches the wick is disposed between the inlet and the outlet to be extended to one side (the wick 51 extends between the inlet and outlet which includes an extension to one side), wherein
at least one of the inlet or the outlet faces the wick in a direction intersecting a longitudinal direction of the wick (see FIG 3, the wick extends in the direction of the inlet and outlet faces and therefore intersects a longitudinal direction of the wick), and wherein
Hu fails to explicitly disclose a diameter of the at least one of the inlet or the outlet along a first axis along the longitudinal direction of the wick is greater than its diameter along a second axis orthogonal to the first axis.
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of the inlet or outlet of Hu such that a diameter of the at least one of the inlet or the outlet along a first axis along the longitudinal direction of the wick is greater than its diameter along a second axis orthogonal to the first axis. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV B.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Hu teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Hu fails to explicitly disclose the second chamber comprises an inlet curved surface having a circumference that gradually increases from the inlet toward the wick, the inlet curved surface defining a portion of the second chamber.
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of the second chamber of Hu and its inlet curved surface such that the second chamber comprises an inlet curved surface having a circumference that gradually increases from the inlet toward the wick, the inlet curved surface defining a portion of the second chamber. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV B.
Regarding Claim 14, modified Hu teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. However Hu fails to explicitly disclose the second chamber comprises an outlet curved surface having a circumference that gradually decreases toward the outlet from the wick, the outlet curved surface defining a portion of the second chamber.
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of the second chamber of Hu such that the second chamber comprises an outlet curved surface having a circumference that gradually decreases toward the outlet from the wick, the outlet curved surface defining a portion of the second chamber. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV B.
Regarding Claim 16, modified Hu teaches the claim limitations as set forth above.
Hu fails to explicitly disclose the second chamber further comprises a straight portion that is located between the curved surface and an additional curved surface that defines an additional portion of the second chamber between the inlet and the outlet.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the respective end portions of Hu’s atomizing channel 513 to include curved transition surfaces while retaining the intervening straight portion of the channel. The resulting configuration is an obvious change in the shape of the flow passage, without any identified new or unexpected result, and would have been an obvious engineering design choice. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (US 20220361578A1) in view of Hou (CN 113142652A), English machine translation relied upon.
Regarding Claim 15, modified Hu teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Hu fails to explicitly disclose a baffle installed at the inlet and having a plurality of holes.
However, Hou teaches a similar atomizing device (See FIG 1) and teaches a baffle 228 located between the atomizer and the air inlet [n0023] and FIG 1 (at the air inlet) and teaches the baffle has a plurality of micro air holes [n0023], and teaches the baffle blocks the eliquid and condensate from flowing into the air intake channel. [n0023]
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Hu to include a baffle at the inlet having a plurality of holes as taught by Hou to block the eliquid and condensate from flowing into the air intake channel.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8-5-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues starting on page 7 that continues to page 9 that the rejection of record fails to meet the claim amendment to claim 1, including the circumference that gradually decreases from an inner part of the second chamber toward at least one of the inlet or outlet. This is found persuasive, and the 35 USC 102 rejection has been withdrawn. However, a new rejection under 35 USC 103 has been set forth in view of Hu as set forth above.
Regarding the dependent claims 3-14 applicant argues starting on page 9 that Hu does not teach the various geometries in the claims and argues that it would not be obvious to change the design of the geometry of the device.
To show significant benefit to the shape of the device applicant argues that the claimed curved surface is significant because it prevents a vortex caused by an abrupt or sudden change in the direction of air flowing from the chamber inlet 542 and to reduce the flow resistance caused when air passes through the cartridge and that the curved surfaces may prevent air molecule collusions.
Applicants cited specification passages have been considered. These passages describe asserted advantages of the disclosed geometries, but do not provide comparative results establishing that the particular claimed geometries claimed produce an unexpected improvement over Hu. Accordingly they have not established unexpected results.
This is further not found persuasive because establishing that a configuration serves a useful function does not necessarily establish that the configuration would have been non obvious. The pertinent inquiry is whether it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hu to provide the claimed design geometry with a reasonable expectation of that geometry obtaining the associated benefit.
Hu’s failure to expressly disclose the claimed geometries or to recognize the related benefit attained from those geometries does not by itself defeat an obviousness rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael T Fulton whose telephone number is (703)756-1998. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 - 4:30 ET.
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.
/M.T.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/RUSSELL E SPARKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights