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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the drawings are light and barely legible. This is also apparent in the Pre-grant publication of the application. Examination was possible, but new drawings are required to permit clarity to the application overall. 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.
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 1-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150196058 A1 (hereinafter LORD).
Regarding claim 1, LORD discloses an electronic vapor provision device (abstract). LORD discloses an atomizing core (Fig. 6, heating rod 30, ¶59) , comprising: an atomizing base (Fig. 5, heating element support 20, ¶54), configured to be in contact with an atomizing medium (Fig. 2, liquid store 6, ¶45). LORD discloses that the heating element support comprises a hollow cylinder of rigid, porous material that abuts the liquid store (¶54). LORD discloses that the support is configured to wick liquid to the heating element and then to the mouthpiece (¶55). LORD further discloses wherein the atomizing base is provided with an atomizing passage inside (Fig. 7, vaporization cavity 19 , ¶53). LORD further discloses an air inlet and an air outlet of the atomizing passage are respectively in communication with two end faces of the atomizing base. See annotated Fig. 5.
[AltContent: textbox (Air outlet)][AltContent: textbox (Air inlet)]
PNG
media_image1.png
234
454
media_image1.png
Greyscale
LORD further discloses a cross section of the atomizing passage perpendicular to an extending direction of the atomizing passage has at least two shapes (¶66). LORD discloses that the cross section shape of the channel results in the creation of gaps in the central channel (¶66). As can be seen in Fig. 7, there the center of the channel is circular and the hollow is square. LORD discloses that these varying cross-sectional shapes result in facilitating the wicking of liquid to the coil and exposing more of the coil for increased vaporization in these areas (¶66).
LORD further discloses a heating member (Fig. 5, heating member 21, ¶54), disposed in the atomizing passage, wherein the heating member is arranged in a circumferential direction of the atomizing passage. This is best seen in Fig. 5.
LORD further teaches the heating member at least covers more than half of the atomizing passage in the circumferential direction. LORD teaches that the area that the wire contacts the inner surface needs to be optimized to wick the liquid and provide proper vaporization (¶66). The area covered facilitates wicking and increases vaporization. As such area the heating member covers in the atomizing passage is a result effect variable in that changing the area 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 change the areas covered by heating member 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).
Regarding claim 2, LORD teaches the atomizing core according to claim 1 as discussed above. LORD further discloses wherein the atomizing passage comprises, along an airflow inhalation direction, a first atomizing passage (Fig. 7, inner surface 28, ¶59) and a second atomizing passage (Fig. 7, channel 23, ¶59), and an area of a cross section of the second atomizing passage perpendicular to the extending direction of the second atomizing passage is smaller than an area of a cross section of the first atomizing passage perpendicular to the extending direction of the first atomizing passage. As depicted in Fig. 7, there is a first atomizing passage, inner surface 28, and a second atomizing passage, channel 23. The area of an inscribed circle is smaller than the total area of the square that surrounds it. LORD discloses that this variation results in facilitated wicking and increased vaporization (¶66).
Regarding claim 3, LORD teaches the atomizing core according to claim 2 as discussed above. LORD further discloses wherein the cross section of the first atomizing passage perpendicular to the extending direction of the first atomizing passage is square, and the cross section of the second atomizing passage perpendicular to the extending direction of the second atomizing passage is any one of circle, ellipse, race-track shaped, or rectangle. This is shown in Figs. 4-7.
Regarding claim 4, LORD teaches the atomizing core according to claim 2 as discussed above. LORD further teaches along the airflow inhalation direction, the area of the cross section of the second atomizing passage perpendicular to the extending direction of the second atomizing passage gradually decreases. LORD teaches that the heating element (which forms the cross section of the second atomizing passage) is not restricted to being uniform (¶90). The coil may be the same length as the support, or shorter, or longer. These encouraged teachings of LORD to vary the coil length, and therefore the area of the cross section, are considered to be routine optimization of the device for wicking and atomization and are therefore rejected for the same reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Further, the cross section area of the overall air passage of the device decreases as shown in Fig. 2 where the air inlet 27 is wider than the cross section at the mouthpiece air outlet 4.
Regarding claim 5, LORD teaches the atomizing core according to claim 2 as discussed above. LORD further discloses an inner wall of the first atomizing passage is an atomizing surface, a circumferential surface of the atomizing base is a liquid-absorbing surface (¶54, ¶59). LORD further discloses a distance from the liquid-absorbing surface to the atomizing surface is a wall thickness of the atomizing base and the wall thickness of the atomizing base is at least partially unequal. As shown in the annotated Fig. 5 below the annotated arrows represent a wall thickness and as can be seen those two wall thicknesses vary.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Varying wall thicknesses)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
234
454
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, LORD teaches the atomizing core according to claim 2 as discussed above. LORD further discloses an end-face portion of an air inlet of the second atomizing passage covers an air outlet of the first atomizing passage. LORD discloses shapes (circle and square) that cover each other to form the vaporization cavity. As shown in at least Figs. 5-7, the end face portion of the air inlet of the second atomizing passage has a circular shape that extends to the air outlet of the first atomizing passage which is a square and the passages cover one another. Given that the shape and geometry of the atomizing core of the instant application are the same or substantially the same the shape and geometry taught by LORD to result in an atomization core having the claimed end-face portion of an air inlet of the second atomizing passage covers an air outlet of the first atomizing passage, end face covering of the atomization core taught by LORD is expected inherently to be the same. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. General Electric v. Jewe Incandescent Lamp Co., 67 USPQ 155. Titanium Metal Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 773. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 597, In re Best, 195 USPQ 430.
Regarding claim 7, LORD teaches the atomizing core according to claim 2 as discussed above. LORD further discloses the heating member is disposed in the first atomizing passage, the first atomizing passage comprises four inner walls arranged in sequence and perpendicular to one another, and the heating member at least covers three inner walls of the first atomizing passage. This is shown in Fig. 7
Regarding claim 8, LORD teaches the atomizing core according to claim 5 as discussed above. LORD further discloses wherein a plurality of liquid inlet channels are arranged on the liquid-absorbing surface. LORD discloses that the structure of the base is a porous material (¶54). LORD discloses that porous materials are able to become saturated in liquid (¶51).
Although it is not taught that a liquid inlet direction of each of the liquid inlet channels is perpendicular to the inner wall of the first atomizing passage, 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 a porous material is made of liquid inlets that are perpendicular and other orientations with respect to the inner wall of the atomizing passage but the device transfer liquid to result in delivery of liquid to the atomizing passage with predictable results.
Regarding claim 9, LORD teaches the atomizing core according to claim 7 as discussed above. LORD further discloses the heating member comprises two electrode pins (Fig. 5, two leads 25, ¶56) , and the two electrode pins are disposed on two opposite inner walls of the first atomizing passage (as shown in Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 11, LORD discloses an electronic vapor provision device (abstract). LORD discloses an atomizing device (Fig. 1, electronic vapor provision device 1, ¶44), comprising: a liquid storage assembly (Fig. 2, mouthpiece 2, ¶45), provided with a liquid storage cavity (Fig. 2, liquid store 6, ¶45) inside. LORD further discloses an air path assembly (Fig. 2, air passageway 18, ¶51), disposed in the liquid storage cavity and provided with an air channel and a liquid inlet hole connected to the air channel and the liquid storage cavity. When assembled the air channel and liquid inlet hole are all connected to one another to provide fluid to the heating element support and then vapor in the cavity for delivery to the user (¶64). LORD further discloses an atomizing core (Fig. 6, heating rod 30, ¶59), disposed at a position in the air channel corresponding to the liquid inlet hole, wherein the atomizing core comprises: an atomizing base (Fig. 5, heating element support 20, ¶54), configured to be in contact with an atomizing medium (¶54), wherein the atomizing base is provided with an atomizing passage inside (Fig. 7, vaporization cavity 19 , ¶53), wherein an air inlet and an air outlet of the atomizing passage are respectively in communication with two end faces of the atomizing base. See annotated Fig. 5 in the rejection of claim 1 above. LORD further discloses wherein a cross section of the atomizing passage perpendicular to an extending direction of the atomizing passage has at least two shapes LORD discloses that the cross section shape of the channel results in the creation of gaps in the central channel (¶66). As can be seen in Fig. 7, there the center of the channel is circular and the hollow is square. LORD discloses that these varying cross-sectional shapes result in facilitating the wicking of liquid to the coil and exposing more of the coil for increased vaporization in these areas (¶66). LORD further discloses a circumferential surface of the atomizing base of the atomizing core is in contact with an atomizing medium in the liquid storage cavity via the liquid inlet hole. LORD discloses that the heating element support comprises a hollow cylinder of rigid, porous material that abuts the liquid store (¶54). LORD discloses that the support is configured to wick liquid to the heating element and then to the mouthpiece (¶55).
LORD further discloses a heating member (Fig. 5, heating member 21, ¶54), disposed in the atomizing passage, wherein the heating member is arranged in a circumferential direction of the atomizing passage. This is best seen in Fig. 5.
LORD further teaches the heating member at least covers more than half of the atomizing passage in the circumferential direction. LORD teaches that the area that the wire contacts the inner surface needs to be optimized to wick the liquid and provide proper vaporization (¶66). The area covered facilitates wicking and increases vaporization. As such area the heating member covers in the atomizing passage is a result effect variable in that changing the area 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 change the areas covered by heating member 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).
LORD further discloses a power supply assembly (Fig. 2, body 3, ¶45) electrically connected to the atomizing core and configured to enable the heating member of the atomizing core to convert electric energy into thermal energy in order to heat and atomize the atomizing medium into an aerosol (¶45, ¶56, ¶63).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LORD as applied to claim 1 above in view of US 20200114094 A1 (hereinafter ATKINS).
Regarding claim 10, LORD teaches the atomizing core according to claim 1 as discussed above. LORD does not disclose the heating member comprises a plurality of heating units connected in series, and each of the heating units is provided with a fixing portion which is attached and parallel to an inner wall of the atomizing passage and extends along the atomizing base.
ATKINS teaches heating elements for vaporization cartridges comprising a reservoir, a wicking element (abstract). ATKINS teaches that in some embodiments the heating element will have many heating portions 104 with tines 102 to connect the segments in series (Figs. 11-24, ¶142-¶143). ATKINS teaches that the connections provide desired amounts of resistance (¶142).
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 LORD to provide the heating member comprises a plurality of heating units connected in series, and each of the heating units is provided with a fixing portion which is attached and parallel to an inner wall of the atomizing passage and extends along the atomizing base as taught in ATKINS. A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously include a heating member with a plurality of heating units. Doing so would allow for desired amounts of resistance (ATKINS ¶142). When these segments are optimized they maximize energy efficiency (ATKINS ¶143). Regarding arranging them in parallel, a person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously arrange these tines in both parallel and perpendicular orientations to provide for maximized electrical efficiency and heating (¶143).
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