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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 9 objected to because of the following informalities: It is believed that the recitation of “electrically connected to a power supply o the atomization device” is a typo and should read “electrically connected to a power supply to the atomization device”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-3 and 11 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 2 recites the limitation “the atomization module is a strip-like structure”. This is considered to be indefinite because it is unclear what is and is not a “strip-like” structure. For purposes of examination, strip like structure is given its plain meaning of a narrow piece, comparatively long. This definition is further indefinite given that Fig. 3 illustrates the atomization module and it does not appear to be a strip like structure because it has multiple parts, extending for multiple angles (i.e. perpendicular to one another). This is not strip-like overall.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected insomuch as they depend from claim 2.
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 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20170208868 A1 (hereinafter LI).
Regarding claim 1, LI discloses and electronic cigarette comprising a sleeve, a battery module, an atomizing unit and a blocking module (abstract). LI discloses a housing (Figs. 3-5, sleeve 20, ¶57), an oil storage bin (Figs. 4-5, oil cup 27, ¶70), a mouth (Figs. 3-5, mouthpiece 25, ¶57) and an atomization module (Fig. 4-5, atomizing unit 23, ¶57). LI discloses that the atomization unit includes both the absorption element 230 and the heating element 232 (¶62). LI discloses the housing comprising a receiving room (Figs. 4-5, reservoir 22, ¶57) with a passageway (Fig. 4, ventilation tube 28, ¶58) therein, the oil storage bin received in the receiving room (¶70), the mouth connected to the housing and the passageway (¶58); and wherein the atomization module is detachably connected to the housing (¶12, ¶69), and is connected to both the oil storage bin and the passageway. LI discloses that the oil cup is detachably arranged in the sleeve and that the ventilation tube is arranged in the oil cup allowing air in the sleeve to reach the user through the ventilation tube (¶73-¶74). LI further discloses that the atomization unit includes an absorption element 230 that has two ends extended into the reservoir to suck the tobacco liquid therein to provide the liquid for being atomized by the heating element (¶62). LI discloses that the wherein the atomization module is configured to atomize e-liquid within the oil storage bin and discharge the e-liquid that is atomized from the passageway (¶7). LI disclose that in use the electronic cigarette is assembled such that the atomizing unit is configured to atomize the tobacco liquid to form an aerosol that is carried to the user (¶7, ¶61). LI discloses, “When inhaling through mouthpiece 25, air gets into the sleeve 20 from the air inlet 200, and passes through the ventilation tube 28 and carries the aerosol generated by the atomizing unit 23, and then reaches the mouth of user” (¶58). Also see ¶42.
Regarding claim 5, LI discloses the atomization device of claim 1 as discussed above. LI further discloses wherein the mouth is detachably connected to the housing (¶12, ¶69), and an opening is arranged on a side of the oil storage bin close to the mouth, the opening of the oil storage bin connected to the mouth (¶52). LI discloses that to prevent the tobacco liquid from spoiling and keep a long shelf life, a sealing plug is plugged into the mouthpiece (¶52).
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.
Claims 2-4, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LI as applied to claim 1 in view of US 20210093006 A1 (hereinafter POTTER).
Regarding claim 2, LI discloses the atomization device of claim 1 as discussed above. LI further discloses the passageway is arranged inside the oil storage bin (as shown in Fig. 4).
LI does not disclose a rubber ring installed on a lateral wall of the oil storage bin, and the atomization module is a strip-like structure, and passes through the rubber ring to enter the oil storage bin, the rubber ring tightly connected to a side surface of the atomization module.
POTTER teaches an aerosol source for a vapor provisions system with a reservoir for holding source liquid and a liquid transport element for delivering liquid from the reservoir to the vapor generating element (abstract). POTTER teaches an embodiment that includes a ring shaped member 68 (Fig. 5, ¶46). The ring shaped member is fitted on the opening 50 of the plane of the wall 34 so that the ring can provide a bore for the wick (atomization module) to pass through (¶46). The ring provides a sealing effect to inhibit fluid from being able to leave the reservoir other than by absorption in the end part of the wick (¶46). The ring may be formed of rubber such that compression is provided (¶46).
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 modified LI to provide a rubber ring installed on a lateral wall of the oil storage bin, and the atomization module is a strip-like structure, and passes through the rubber ring to enter the oil storage bin, the rubber ring tightly connected to a side surface of the atomization module as taught in POTTER. A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously include a rubber ring for the atomizer to pass through to gain access to the liquid. Doing so would seal the liquid to inhibit the fluid from leaving other than by absorption of the wick (POTTER¶46). Regarding the limitation “the atomization module is a strip-like structure”, strip like structure is given its plain meaning of a narrow piece, comparatively long. Both the structures of LI and POTTER are considered to be strip-like in nature because they are long, narrow pieces of absorption material.
Regarding claim 3, modified LI discloses the atomization device of claim 2 as discussed above. LI further discloses wherein an oil storage cotton is arrange in the oil storage bin (¶41). LI further discloses sizes of pores of the oil storage cotton smaller than that of oil molecules of the e-liquid (¶44). LI discloses that the tobacco liquid is absorbed and moved through capillary action of the microporous (¶44). LI discloses the passageway passing through the oil storage cotton (shown in Fig. 4). LI further discloses and the atomization module passing through the oil storage bin and inserted into the passageway (Shown in Fig. 5), a guiding cotton (Fig. 5, absorption element 230, ¶62) arranged in the atomization module and connected to the oil storage cotton (¶62). LI discloses that the absorption element has two ends that extend into the reservoir to suck the tobacco liquid to be atomized by the heating element.
Regarding claim 4, modified LI discloses the atomization device of claim 2 as discussed above. LI further discloses wherein the atomization device further comprises a seat (Fig. 5, sealing stopper 242, ¶68) provided for installing a holder (Fig. 5, plugging block 244, ¶68), the holder connected to the passageway. LI discloses that the plugging block is in the ventilation hole which is in communication with the passageway (¶68). LI further discloses a gap (Fig. 5, ventilation hole 240, ¶68) formed on the seat and connected to external atmosphere. LI discloses that before use the plugging block is unplugged which connects the ventilation hole to the external atmosphere for use (¶69).
LI further teaches another embodiment wherein the sleeve is divided into two sections that are connected rotatably to each other so that the ventilation hole can be switched between a closed state and an open state (Figs. 7-8, ¶79). LI teaches a plurality of inlets (Fig. 8, Fig. 8, 440a and 440b, ¶80) arranged at the side surface of the atomization module around the circumference of the side surface of the atomization module. These holes are located on a side of the atomization module. LI further teaches and wherein aperture sizes of the plurality of inlets are different, and one of the plurality of inlets is connected to the gap (¶80).
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 teaches of LI to provide a plurality of inlets to the atomization module. Doing so would allow for the opening and closing of the device for use (LI ¶80). A person of ordinary skill in the art would apply the modifications to isolate the modules and ensure that the tobacco liquid would not leak while also allowing switching to provide convenient and time-saving advantages (LI ¶83). This is a combination supported by the rationale 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)).
Regarding the limitations both the seat and the rubber ring arranged on the same side of the oil storage bin, the atomization module passing through the seat, this is considered to be an obvious rearrangement of parts. Courts have held that rearrangement of parts of the prior art is unpatentable. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and MPEP 2144.04, IV., part C. In this case a person of ordinary skill in the art would arrange the seat and rubber ring on the same side of the oil storage bin to prevent leaking with predictable and desirable results to keep electronic portions free from liquid. Further, the location of the atomization module passing through the seat is supported by the same rational of the seal of POTTER to provide the atomization module in the proper location for vaporizing the liquid, with predictable results.
Regarding claim 9, modified LI discloses the atomization device of claim 4 as discussed above. LI further teaches wherein a recess is formed on the seat and configured that a base of the atomization module is inserted therein, a sidewall of the recess abutting against the base, and when the base in inserted into the recess, the base is electrically connected to a power supply o the atomization device. See annotated Fig. 5 below. As with the rejection of claim 4 above, rearrangement of parts is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. In this case, a person of ordinary skill in the art would immediately recognize that the atomization module is inserted at least partially into the recess and that this supports the atomization module. Further connection to the power supply is required to heat the device and is also an obvious connection to make to enable aerosolization of the liquid.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Electrically connected)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (abutting)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (recess)]
PNG
media_image1.png
623
451
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, modified LI discloses the atomization device of claim 3 as discussed above. Regarding the limitation wherein a diameter of a part where the atomization module is inserted into the passageway is greater than or equal to a diameter of the passageway. this is a change of shape or size. Although it is not taught diameter of a part where the atomization module is inserted into the passageway is greater than or equal to a diameter of the passageway, the courts have held changes in proportion or shape to be prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the atomization device may be of a different shape or size, however that would not change the function of the atomization device to store and heat liquid for aerosolization. Further LI supports changes to shape and size to prevent leaks (¶10, ¶55-¶56, ¶80).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LI as applied to claim 1 in view of US 20120048266 A1 (hereinafter ALELOV).
Regarding claim 6, LI discloses the atomization device of claim 1 as discussed above. LI does not disclose the atomization device further comprises a display screen, and a printed circuit board received in the receiving room and electrically connected to the atomization module, the printed circuit board configured to estimate a value of the e-liquid within the oil storage bin based on a suction time of the atomization module, the display screen electrically connected to the printed circuit board and configured to display an estimated value of the e-liquid within the oil storage bin.
ALELOV teaches an inhalation device with a cartridge, a sensor, and a controller (abstract). ALELOV teaches a display 250 that can be an liquid crystal display (i.e. screen ) (Fig. 2, display 250, ¶34). ALELOV teaches that the inhalation device has a control system 200 that can be integrated as a printed circuit board assembly (Fig. 2, ¶27). ALELOV teaches that the device can includes snesors with air speed measurement to estimate the quantity of substance used whenever the user draw through the device to calculate a more accurate amount of the substance use (¶41). ALELOV teaches that this information can then be displayed as a number of cigarette equivalents left to go and give information on current use or expiration (¶45). ALELOV teaches that the communication can indicate a number of puffs remaining or allowed (¶46).
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 modified LI to provide the atomization device further comprises a display screen, and a printed circuit board received in the receiving room and electrically connected to the atomization module, the printed circuit board configured to estimate a value of the e-liquid within the oil storage bin based on a suction time of the atomization module, the display screen electrically connected to the printed circuit board and configured to display an estimated value of the e-liquid within the oil storage bin as taught in ALELOV. A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously use a display screen and printed circuit board. Doing so would communicate control to the user (ALELOV ¶34). Further a person of ordinary skill in the art would communicate estimated value of e-liquid left in the oil storage bin. Doing so would help the user keep track of his use of the device (ALELOV ¶34)
Regarding claim 7, modified LI discloses the atomization device of claim 6 as discussed above. LI does not disclose a reset button is arranged on the housing and electrically connected to the printed circuit board, the reset button configured to reset an amount of the e-liquid that is displayed on the display screen.
ALELOV teaches that the device may have a switch or dial for sending reprograming instructions to the controller to allow a certain number of puffs (¶32). ALELOV teaches that the manual switch is a dial that will set the limit or reprogram the device (¶33). ALELOV teaches that the device may have one or more dials to reprogram settings or set a number of puffs allowed per use (Fig. 7, ¶45, ¶49). In the embodiments described the dial can be used to change the number of cigarette equivalents remaining or available (¶49).
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 modified LI to provide a reset button is arranged on the housing and electrically connected to the printed circuit board, the reset button configured to reset an amount of the e-liquid that is displayed on the display screen as taught in ALELOV. A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously provide a reset button on the housing to reset an amount of liquid on the display screen. Doing so would allow the user to modify the settings of the puffs and calculate the amount of puffs left (ALELOV ¶49).
Regarding claim 8, modified LI discloses the atomization device of claim 7 as discussed above. LI does not disclose wherein the reset button extends outwardly from the housing.
ALELOV teaches that the device may have a switch or dial for sending reprograming instructions to the controller to allow a certain number of puffs (¶32). ALELOV teaches that a button may also be used (¶45). ALELOV teaches that the manual switch is a dial that will set the limit or reprogram the device (¶33). ALELOV teaches that the device may have one or more dials to reprogram settings or set a number of puffs allowed per use (Fig. 7, ¶45, ¶49). In the embodiments described the dial can be used to change the number of cigarette equivalents remaining or available (¶49). ALELOV teaches that the dial may have a bezel (¶49).
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 modified LI provide wherein the reset button extends outwardly from the housing as taught in ALELOV. A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously provide a button extending from the housing. Doing so would allow the user to modify the settings of the puffs and calculate the amount of puffs left (ALELOV ¶49). Further the use of a bezel would enable the user to locate the button and/or dial on the housing. As shown in the embodiments on Figs. 4-5 the dials 471 and 571 are shown on the housing. The feature of extending outward is considered to be a rearrangement of parts and design choice that is within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to choose and obvious from the teachings of a bezel in ALELOV.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LI.
Regarding claim 10, LI discloses the atomization device of claim 1 as discussed above. Regarding the limitation a front end of the atomization module contracts along a direction of an axis of the atomization module, this is a change of shape or size. Although it is not taught that the front end of the atomization module contracts, the courts have held changes in proportion or shape to be prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the atomization device of a different shape or size, would not change the function of the atomization device to store and heat liquid for aerosolization. Further LI supports changes to shape and size to prevent leaks (¶10, ¶55-¶56, ¶80).
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