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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending and are subject to this Office Action. This is the first Office Action on the merits of the claims.
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-18) in the reply
filed on 07/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 19-20 are withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected invention.
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 9 and 15 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 9 recites the limitation "the other opposite side" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 is further indefinite for reciting “opposite sides of the housing” since there is nowhere in the disclosure wherein the plurality of micropores are located on the housing and instead the micropores are located on the noise reduction cavity, therefore it is unclear how the micropores are located on two opposite sides of the housing when the claim they depend from recites the micropores are located on opposite sides of the noise reduction cavity. The claim is further indefinite because there is no definition provided for “the other opposite side” and therefore it is unclear what the other opposite side is.
For purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted as the at least two first and second micropores are located on opposite sides of the noise reduction cavity, as recited in claim 4.
Claim 15 is indefinite for reciting “and the plurality of micropores is formed inside the housing” since the claim 15 depends from recites the plurality of micropores are respectively formed on two opposite sides of the holder and therefore it is unclear if claim 15 is changing the location of the micropores. It is further unclear if the air passage is in communication with the at least one air inlet hole and the plurality of micropores or if the micropores are a location. The claim language is obscure.
For purposes of examination the plurality of micropores are being interpreted as located on the holder and the air passage is in communication with the at least one air inlet hole.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhou et al. (CN-210988218-U, hereinafter referring to the English Translation provided).
Regarding claim 1, Zhou directed to an electronic atomization device, discloses a power supply unit ([0004]) comprising:
Housing 18 provided with at least one vent 1413 (i.e., air inlet hole) (Figure 4; [0030];[0044]) and a base with noise prevention, which comprises a cavity (i.e., noise reduction cavity) (Figure 4; [0055])
And a plurality of micro-holes 1441 (i.e., micropores) connecting the air intake channel 151 and the atomizing channel ([0049]), and since the inlet is also connected to the air intake channel, the air inlet hole is in communication with the noise reduction cavity ([0044]),
The plurality of micropores are formed in a baffle 144 located within the housing 18 ([0049])
In regards to claim 2, Zhou discloses the diameter of each micro-hole is 0.1 to 0.6 mm, such as 0.5 mm ([0050]) which anticipates the claimed range of each micropore being in the range from 0.3 to 1 mm since 0.5 mm is within the claimed range.
In regards to claim 11, Zhou discloses a pneumatic switch, which can sense the suction or gas flow, (i.e., airflow sensor) and a vent pipe 163 (i.e., sensing channel) which extends into the air intake channel (the air intake channel is what communicates with the noise reduction cavity) and the other end is connected to the airflow sensor ([0044]).
In regards to claim 12, Zhou discloses the sensing channel 163 is located on a side of the noise reduction cavity in communication with the plurality of micropores (Figures 2 and 4; [0044]).
In regards to claim 13, Zhou discloses the air inlet end of the sensing channel extends into the vent/air inlet of the noise reduction cavity (i.e., extends into the noise reduction cavity) (Figure 4; [0044]) and an end of the sensing channel is located higher than a bottom surface of the noise reduction cavity (Figures 2-4).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (CN-210988218-U, hereinafter referring to the English Translation provided) as applied to claim 1 above.
In regards to claim 3, Zhou does not explicitly disclose the cross sectional area of the noise reduction cavity is greater than a total air inlet area of the plurality of micropores, however Zhou clearly teaches a cavity section greater than the micropores (Figure 4) and further teaches the total micropores cross-sectional area is 1.2 to 2, and therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the cross-sectional area of the entire cavity would be greater than that of the micropores, and is considered prima facie obvious.
Claim(s) 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (CN-210988218-U, hereinafter referring to the English Translation provided) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tang (WO-2023000507-A1, hereinafter referring to the English Translation provided).
Regarding claim 4, Zhou teaches the micropores 1441 on one side of the cavity (baffle 144), but does not teach two baffles and thus does not teach a plurality of micropores on opposite ends of the cavity.
However, Zhou does teach the baffle wall can prevent the liquid collected on the lower body from flowing out of the atomizer and can block part of the atomized gas after atomization by the heating element, preventing the atomized gas from diverting to the air inlet channel at this point, so that the atomized gas flows to the mouthpiece along the air outlet channel, resulting in a fuller taste ([0018]). So while Zhou does not explicitly disclose two baffle walls, there is nothing within the disclosure of Zhou that would prevent one of ordinary skill in the art providing an additional baffle wall on the opposite end of the cavity to further prevent liquid collected and give a fuller taste for the user, and therefore it is considered obvious within the disclosure to apply an additional baffle wall to further optimize the atomizer.
Furthermore, Tang directed to an electronic cigarette, discloses a power supply apparatus comprising a cavity with a plurality of through holes ([0099]).
Tang further discloses “outside air enters through the first air inlet 211, and then enters the atomization chamber 20 through the second air inlet 212. By arranging at least three second through holes in the second air inlet 212, the air flow entering the air intake channel 21 can be divided, and the trajectory of the air flow will not be significantly changed, and the air flow will not generate vortices, and the airflow can flow in a relatively moderate state, reducing collision vibration and reducing noise (i.e., noise reduction cavity comprising a plurality of holes)” ([0099]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhou by applying additional air holes around the noise reduction cavity, as taught by Tang because both are directed to electronic cigarettes comprising noise reduction cavities, Tang teaches the additional air holes allow the air to flow through without generating vortices and therefore reduce noise ([0099]), and this merely involves applying a known technique of using additional airholes in a plurality of locations of a similar device to yield predictable results.
While Modified Zhou does not explicitly disclose the plurality of holes provided on opposite ends of the noise reduction cavity, one would have been motivated to provide additional through holes/micropores to further divide the airflow and reduce noise. The configuration of micropores in claim 4 is a design choice, and it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to place the additional micropores based on the airflow paths of the device, such that they are opposite each other and can help further reduce the amount of noise generated.
In regards to claim 5, Modified Zhou does not explicitly disclose the quantity of the at least two first micropores is equal to or different from a quantity of the at least two second micropores. However, Modified Zhou teaches there can be plurality of holes in different locations, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that producing the same micro-holes in a different location would result in both sets of micropores having an equal amount of micropores, and is considered prima facie obvious.
In regards to claim 6, Zhou discloses each of the plurality of micropores have an air intake cross-sectional area within a set range, such as 1.5 which guarantees good ventilation and still prevents leakage ([0050]). Modified Zhou does not explicitly disclose a total air inlet area of the first two first micropores is equal to a total air inlet area of the at least two second micropores, but since Modified Zhou teaches there can be plurality of holes in different locations, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that producing the same micro holes in a different location would result in both sets of micropores having an equal air inlet area, and is considered prima facie obvious.
In regards to claim 7, Modified Zhou does not explicitly disclose the projections of the at least two first micropores and the at least two second micropores along an air inlet direction at least partially overlap, however since it has been acknowledged that the location of the plurality of micropores is a mere design choice, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the micropores such that the projections of the two overlap in an air inlet direction, absent evidence of the contrary, and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Claims 1-10 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang (WO-2023000507-A1, hereinafter referring to the English Translation provided) and further in view of Zhou et al. (CN-210988218-U, hereinafter referring to the English Translation provided).
In regards to claim 1, Tang discloses an electronic cigarette (i.e., power supply apparatus) ([0004]) comprising:
A shell 1 (i.e., housing) further comprising an air inlet hole 211 and a noise reduction cavity (Figure 10; [0056]) (See Figure 9 provided below); and
central through hole 2121 and edge through holes 2122 (i.e., plurality of through holes) ([0100]) configured to communicate with the noise reduction cavity ([0097]-[0099]) and formed within the housing (Figure 1 and 10).
PNG
media_image1.png
392
543
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tang does not explicitly disclose the through holes are micropores.
Zhou, directed to an electronic atomization device, discloses a power supply unit ([0004]) comprising a noise reduction cavity which comprises at least one air inlet micropore ([0009]-[0010]).
Zhou further discloses the air inlet holes are micropores so that a surface tension film can be formed on the inner surface of each air inlet micropore ([0009]) and can help facilitate airflow ([0018]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Tang by making the through holes of Tang micropores, as taught by Zhou because both are directed to electronic cigarettes comprising noise reduction cavities, Zhou teaches the micropore size and dimension allows a surface tension film to be formed on the inner surface of each micropore ([0009]), and this merely involves applying a known technique of using micropores on noise reduction cavities of a similar device to yield predictable results, especially when the prior art is silent to the dimensions of the through holes.
In regards to claim 2, Modified Tang discloses the diameter of each micro-hole is 0.1 to 0.6 mm, such as 0.5 mm (Zhou [0050]) which overlaps the claimed range of each micropore being in the range from 0.3 to 1 mm since 0.5, and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
In regards to claim 3, Tang does not explicitly disclose the cross sectional area of the noise reduction cavity is greater than a total air inlet area of the plurality of micropores, however Modified Tang clearly teaches a cavity section greater than the micropores (Tang Figures 9-10 and Zhou Figure 4) and further teaches the total micropores cross-sectional area is 1.2 to 2 (Zhou [0050]), and therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the cross-sectional area of the entire cavity would be greater than that of the micropores, and is considered prima facie obvious.
In regards to claims 4 and 9, Modified Tang discloses a plurality of micropores located in a central portion of the noise reduction cavity (Figure 9; Zhou [0049]).
Tang further discloses “outside air enters through the first air inlet 211, and then enters the atomization chamber 20 through the second air inlet 212. By arranging at least three second through holes in the second air inlet 212, the air flow entering the air intake channel 21 can be divided, and the trajectory of the air flow will not be significantly changed, and the air flow will not generate vortices, and the airflow can flow in a relatively moderate state, reducing collision vibration and reducing noise” (i.e., noise reduction cavity comprising a plurality of holes) ([0098]).
Modified Tang does not explicitly disclose the first and second micropores are located on opposite sides of the noise reduction cavity.
While Modified Tang does not explicitly disclose the plurality of holes provided on opposite ends of the noise reduction cavity, one would have been motivated to provide additional through holes/micropores to further divide the airflow and reduce noise. The configuration of micropores in claim 4 is a design choice, and it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to place the additional micropores based on the airflow paths of the device, such that they are opposite each other and can help further reduce the amount of noise generated.
In regards to claim 5, Modified Tang does not explicitly disclose the quantity of the at least two first micropores is equal to or different from a quantity of the at least two second micropores. However, Tang teaches there can be plurality of holes in different locations, it would be obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art that producing the same micro holes in a different location would result in both sets of micropores having an equal amount of micropores, and is considered prima facie obvious.
In regards to claim 6, Modified Tang discloses each of the plurality of micropores have an air intake cross-sectional area within a set range, such as 1.5 which guarantees good ventilation and still prevents leakage (Zhou [0050]). Modified Tang does not explicitly disclose a total air inlet area of the first two first micropores is equal to a total air inlet area of the at least two second micropores, but since Tang teaches there can be plurality of holes in different locations, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that producing the same micro holes in a different location would result in both sets of micropores having an equal air inlet area, and is considered prima facie obvious.
In regards to claim 7, Modified Tang does not explicitly disclose the projections of the at least two first micropores and the at least two second micropores along an air inlet direction at least partially overlap, however since it has been acknowledged that the location of the plurality of micropores is a mere design choice, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the micropores such that the projections of the two overlap in an air inlet direction, absent evidence of the contrary, and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
In regards to claim 8, Tang discloses at least one air inlet 211 located on the housing (Figure 10). Tang further discloses two air inlets 22 located on opposite ends of the cavity and extending down towards the housing (Figures 9-10). Tang does not explicitly disclose the two air inlets are arranged on two opposite sides of the housing; however, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the two air inlets 22, which are located on opposite sides of the housing likely extend all the way down to the housing and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
In regards to claim 10, Modified Tang discloses the plurality of micropores are arranged in a staggered manner along a circumferential direction of the housing (Tang Figure 9).
In regards to claim 14, Tang discloses a lower base 2 (i.e., holder) wherein the lower base is arranged at least partially inside the housing (Figure 2; [0056]).
Tang further discloses the noise reduction cavity is formed through a downward depression of a top surface of the holder (annotated Figure 9).
Modified Tang does not explicitly disclose the plurality of micropores formed on two opposite sides of the holder.
However, Tang discloses “outside air enters through the first air inlet 211, and then enters the atomization chamber 20 through the second air inlet 212. By arranging at least three second through holes in the second air inlet 212, the air flow entering the air intake channel 21 can be divided, and the trajectory of the air flow will not be significantly changed, and the air flow will not generate vortices, and the airflow can flow in a relatively moderate state, reducing collision vibration and reducing noise” (i.e., noise reduction cavity comprising a plurality of holes) ([0098]). Therefore, one would have been motivated to provide additional through holes/micropores to further divide the airflow and reduce noise. The configuration of micropores in claim 4 is a design choice, and it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to place the additional micropores based on the airflow paths of the device, such that they are opposite each other and can help further reduce the amount of noise generated.
In regards to claim 15, Tang discloses the holder comprising an air intake channel 21 (i.e., air passage) ([0010];[0056]) which is connected to the air inlet 211 and the plurality of micropores (Figure 10;[0056]).
In regards to claim 16, Tang discloses the air passage is annular (Figure 10; [0056]).
In regards to claim 17, Tang discloses the holder comprises an inward depression of an outer surface of the holder. Refer to annotated Figure 10 provided below
PNG
media_image2.png
375
599
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Tang further discloses the plurality of micropores 2121 is formed by an inward depression of an inner surface of the air passage 21 (Figures 9-10).
PNG
media_image3.png
366
457
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 18, Tang discloses the holder comprises a seal 7 which connects an inner wall of the housing to the holder ([0103]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADELEINE PAULINA DELACRUZ whose telephone number is (703)756-4544. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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.
/MADELEINE P DELACRUZ/Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights