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 .
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.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claim 9 is 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 states that the curvature radius of the arc-shaped fragment is greater than 0.2. This language is indefinite as a curvature radius is not a unitless quantity. For the purpose of this Office action, “a curvature radius of the arc-shaped fragment being greater than 0.2” is interpreted as “the arc-shaped fragment has a curvature radius”.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei (CN 110384258 A, a translation of which is provided for reference).
Regarding claim 1, Lei discloses an atomization core of an e-cigarette (“heating component 10”, Fig. 2, ¶ 0046), comprising:
a porous body (“porous body 11”, Fig. 2, ¶ 0046) and a strip-shaped heating body (“heating element 12a”, Fig. 3, ¶ 0046),
the porous body having a liquid absorption end (“second substrate 112”, Fig. 3, ¶ 0047) and an atomization end (“first substrate 111”, Fig. 3, ¶ 0047), the atomization end having a first end surface (“atomizing surface 1111”, Fig. 3, ¶ 0046) that is away from the liquid absorption end (see Fig. 3), and the strip-shaped heating body being arranged on the first end surface (“atomizing surface 1111 for mounting the heating element 12a”, Fig. 3, ¶ 0046),
the first end surface having a first edge (see Fig. 3 below, annotated by examiner) and a second edge (see Fig. 3 below, annotated by examiner) that extend along a first direction and are spaced along a second direction (see Fig. 3 below, annotated by examiner), and a maximum distance between the first edge and the second edge in the second direction being a first dimension (i.e., the width of the first end surface), and
the first end surface having a third edge (see Fig. 3 below, annotated by examiner) and a fourth edge (see Fig. 3 below, annotated by examiner) that extend along the second direction and are spaced along the first direction (see Fig. 3 below, annotated by examiner), and a maximum distance between the third edge and the fourth edge in the first direction being a second dimension (i.e., the length of the first end surface).
Lei does not explicitly disclose the distances of the first and second dimensions to determine if the ratio of the second dimension to the first dimension is greater than or equal to 2 or if the first dimension falls within the range of 1.2 mm to 3.8 mm. However, the distances of the first and second dimensions determines the size of the first end surface, and Lei teaches that the first end surface is an atomizing surface for atomizing a liquid for inhalation by a user (¶ 0050). The efficacy of the first end surface for this result depends on the distances of the first and second dimensions. If the first and second dimensions are too small, then the first end surface will not be large enough to produce sufficient aerosol for the user. If the first and second dimensions are too big, then the first end surface will be too large for the atomization core to fit within a handheld e-cigarette (such as the “electronic cigarette” in Fig. 13, ¶ 0041). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the sizes of the first and second dimensions such that the ratio of the second dimension to the first dimension is greater than 2 and the first dimension falls within the range of 1.2 mm to 3.8 mm. "[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, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955); MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A)).
PNG
media_image1.png
426
774
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 3, Annotated by Examiner
Regarding claim 2, Lei discloses the atomization core of the e-cigarette according to claim 1 as stated above. Lei does not explicitly disclose the distance of the second dimension to determine if the second dimension falls within the range of 6.5 mm to 15 mm. However, the distance of the second dimension determines the size of the first end surface, and Lei teaches that the first end surface is an atomizing surface for atomizing a liquid for inhalation by a user (¶ 0050). The efficacy of the first end surface for this result depends on the distance of the second dimension. If the second dimension is too small, then the first end surface will not be large enough to produce sufficient aerosol for the user. If the second dimension is too big, then the first end surface will be too large for the atomization core to fit within a handheld e-cigarette (such as the “electronic cigarette” in Fig. 13, ¶ 0041). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the size of the second dimension such that the second dimension falls within the range of 6.5 mm to 15 mm. "[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, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955); MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A)).
Regarding claim 3, Lei discloses the atomization core of the e-cigarette according to claim 1 as stated above. Lei further discloses a bump (see Fig. 3 below, annotated by examiner) on the atomization end (see Fig. 3 below, annotated by examiner), the bump having a second end surface (portion of the first end surface on the bump, see Fig. 3 below, annotated by examiner) that is away from the liquid absorption end (see Fig. 3 below, annotated by examiner) and a side surface (see Fig. 3 below, annotated by examiner) that is located on an outer periphery of the bump (see Fig. 3 below, annotated by examiner), wherein the second end surface is an atomization surface (as it is a portion of “atomizing surface 1111”, see Fig. 3 below, annotated by examiner); and
the liquid absorption end has a third end surface (“second surface 1121”, Fig. 2, ¶ 0046).
PNG
media_image2.png
404
617
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 3, Annotated by Examiner
Regarding claim 4, Lei discloses the atomization core of the e-cigarette according to claim 3 as stated above. Lei further discloses wherein the liquid absorption surface has a fifth edge (see Fig. 2 below, annotated by examiner) and a sixth edge (see Fig. 2 below, annotated by examiner) that extend along the first direction and are spaced along the second direction (see Fig. 2 below, annotated by examiner), a maximum distance between the fifth edge and the sixth edge in the second direction being a fourth dimension (i.e., the width of the liquid absorption surface), and the fourth dimension being the same as the first dimension (the liquid absorption surface and the first end surface have the same width as shown in Figs. 2-3).
Regarding the limitation “the third dimension ranging from 7.5 mm to 22 mm”, this limitation only further limits the option in which a seventh edge and an eighth edge define a third dimension. As Lei teaches the option in which a fifth edge and a sixth edge define a fourth dimension, and this limitation regarding the third dimension does not further limit or prohibit the option with a fourth dimension, claim 4 is disclosed by Lei.
PNG
media_image3.png
484
716
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 2, Annotated by Examiner
Regarding claim 5, Lei discloses the atomization core of the e-cigarette according to claim 1 as stated above. Lei further discloses an embodiment of the strip-shaped heating body (“heating element 12b” in Fig. 6, where “Figure 6 shows a heating element 12b in some embodiments of the present invention, as an alternative to the heating element 12a of the heating assembly 10 described above.”, ¶ 0065) wherein the strip-shaped heating body extends in a curve on the first end surface (see Fig. 6); and
the heating body has two heating sections (adjacent two of the “at least one third straight section 123b”, ¶ 0066, see Fig. 6 below, annotated by examiner) that extend along the second direction and are adjacently arranged along the first direction (see Fig. 6 below, annotated by examiner); and wherein the two heating sections are connected by a bending section (“at least one first curved section 124b”, ¶ 0066, see Fig. 6 below, annotated by examiner), the bending section being bent toward the first edge.
Lei does not disclose the minimum distance between the two heating sections in the first direction to determine if it is a fifth dimension within the range 0.2 mm to 2 mm. However, the two heating sections generate heat to atomize a liquid (¶ 0008), and the efficacy of the heating sections for this result depends on the minimum spacing between the two heating sections. If the spacing is too large, then there will not be enough room for a sufficient size/number of heating sections to atomize enough liquid. If the spacing is too small, this risks forming electrical shorts between the heating sections. As such, the minimum spacing between the two heating sections is a result-effective variable to achieve sufficient atomization of the liquid. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrange the two heating sections such that the minimum distance between the two heating sections in the first direction is a fifth dimension within the range 0.2 mm to 2 mm. "[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, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955); MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A)).
PNG
media_image4.png
420
729
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 6, Annotated by Examiner
Regarding claim 6, Lei discloses the atomization core of the e-cigarette according to claim 5 as stated above. Lei further discloses wherein the bending section is bent towards the first edge (see Fig. 6 in the rejection of claim 5 above, annotated by examiner), and a shortest distance between the bending section and the second edge in the second direction ranges from 0.05 mm to 2 mm (the width of the heating body is “about 2/3” of the width of the first end surface, ¶ 0053; as the width of the first end surface has been optimized to be between 1.2 mm to 3.8 mm, the width of the heating body is 2/3 * 1.2 mm = 0.8 mm to 2/3 * 3.8 mm = 2.53 mm, which corresponds to a shortest distance between the bending section and the second edge in the second direction of (1.2 mm – 0.8 mm)/2 = 0.2 mm to (3.8 mm – 2.53 mm)/2 = 0.63 mm; the range 0.2 mm to 0.63 mm falls within the claimed range of 0.05 mm to 2 mm, see MPEP § 2131.03).
Regarding claim 7, Lei discloses the atomization core of the e-cigarette according to claim 1 as stated above. Lei further discloses an embodiment of the strip-shaped heating body (“heating element 12b” in Fig. 6, where “Figure 6 shows a heating element 12b in some embodiments of the present invention, as an alternative to the heating element 12a of the heating assembly 10 described above.”, ¶ 0065) wherein the strip-shaped heating body has a head end heating section (“first straight section 121b”, Fig. 6, ¶ 0065) and a tail end heating section (“second straight section 122b”, Fig. 6, ¶ 0065), and at least one of the head end heating section and the tail end heating section extends along the first direction (see Fig. 6 below, annotated by examiner).
PNG
media_image5.png
420
730
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 6, Annotated by Examiner
Regarding claim 8, Lei discloses the atomization core of the e-cigarette according to claim 7 as stated above. Lei further discloses wherein the head end heating section extends along the first direction (see Fig. 6 in the rejection of claim 7 above, annotated by examiner), and a shortest distance between the head end heating section and the second edge in the second direction is within the range of 0.05 mm to 2 mm (the width of the heating body is “about 2/3” of the width of the first end surface, ¶ 0053; as the width of the first end surface has been optimized to be between 1.2 mm to 3.8 mm, the width of the heating body is 2/3 * 1.2 mm = 0.8 mm to 2/3 * 3.8 mm = 2.53 mm, which corresponds to a shortest distance between the head end heating section and the second edge in the second direction of (1.2 mm – 0.8 mm)/2 = 0.2 mm to (3.8 mm – 2.53 mm)/2 = 0.63 mm; the range 0.2 mm to 0.63 mm falls within the claimed range of 0.05 mm to 2 mm, see MPEP § 2131.03).
Regarding claim 9, Lei discloses the atomization core of the e-cigarette according to claim 7 as stated above. Lei further discloses wherein the head end heating section and a heating section connected thereto (leftmost “third straight section 123b”, Fig. 6, ¶ 0066) are connected by an arc-shaped fragment (“first curved section 124b”, Fig. 6, ¶ 0066) which has a curvature radius (see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 10, Lei discloses the atomization core of the e-cigarette according to claim 1 as stated above. Lei further discloses that the width of the strip-shaped heating body is “about 2/3” of the width of the first end surface (¶ 0053). As the width of the first end surface has been optimized to be between 1.2 mm to 3.8 mm, the width of the strip-shaped heating body is 2/3 * 1.2 mm = 0.8 mm to 2/3 * 3.8 mm = 2.53 mm. Since the range 0.8 mm to 2.53 mm overlaps the claimed range of 0.05 mm to 2.3 mm, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
Lei does not disclose the total length of the strip-shaped heating body to determine if it falls within the range from 7 mm to 30 mm. However, the strip-shaped heating body generates heat to atomize a liquid (¶ 0008), and the efficacy of the strip-shaped heating body for this result depends on the total length of the strip-shaped heating body. If the length is too small, then the strip-shaped heating body will not have sufficient surface area to atomize enough liquid. If the length is too large, then the strip-shaped heating body risks generating too much heat which can burn the liquid (¶ 0073). As such, the total length of the strip-shaped heating body is a result-effective variable to achieve sufficient atomization of the liquid. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the length of the strip-shaped heating body to have a total length in the range from 7 mm to 30 mm. "[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, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955); MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A)).
Regarding claim 11, Lei discloses the atomization core of the e-cigarette according to claim 3 as stated above. Lei does not disclose the ratio of an area of the atomization surface to an area of the strip-shaped heating body to determine if it is less than 6. However, the strip-shaped heating body generates heat to atomize a liquid (¶ 0008) on the atomization surface for atomizing a liquid (¶ 0050), and the efficacy of the strip-shaped heating body and atomization surface for this result depends on the ratio of the area of the atomization surface to the area of the strip-shaped heating body. If the ratio is too large, then the atomization surface will not include sufficient surface area of the strip-shaped heating body to atomize enough liquid. If the ratio is too small, then the large surface area of the strip-shaped heating body relative to the atomization surface risks generating too much heat which can burn the liquid (¶ 0073). As such, the ratio of the area of the atomization surface to the area of the strip-shaped heating body is a result-effective variable to achieve sufficient atomization of the liquid. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the ratio of the area of the atomization surface to the area of the strip-shaped heating body such that it is less than 6. "[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, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955); MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A)).
Regarding claim 12, Lei discloses the atomization core of the e-cigarette according to claim 3 as stated above. Lei further discloses wherein a first patch board (“second electrode 142”, Fig. 4, ¶ 0054) and a second patch board (“first electrode 141”, Fig. 4, ¶ 0054) are arranged on the atomization surface (see Figs. 3-4); the liquid absorption surface and the atomization surface are arranged opposite to each other (see Fig. 3); and an extension direction from the liquid absorption surface to the atomization surface is a third direction (see Fig. 3 below, annotated by examiner), the first patch board having a first central axis in the third direction (see Fig. 3 below, annotated by examiner), and the second patch board having a second central axis in the third direction (see Fig. 3 below, annotated by examiner).
Lei does not disclose a distance between the first central axis and the second central axis to determine if it falls within the range of 1.2 mm to 14 mm. However, the distance between the first central axis and the second central axis corresponds to the length of the strip-shaped heating body. The strip-shaped heating body generates heat to atomize a liquid (¶ 0008), and the efficacy of the strip-shaped heating body for this result is dependent upon the distance between the first central axis and the second central axis. If the distance is too small, then the strip-shaped heating body will not have sufficient surface area to atomize enough liquid. If the distance is too large, then the strip-shaped heating body risks generating too much heat which can burn the liquid (¶ 0073). As such, the distance between the first central axis and the second central axis is a result-effective variable to achieve sufficient atomization of the atomizing material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the distance between the first central axis and the second central axis such that it is in the range from 1.2 mm to 14 mm. "[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, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955); MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A)).
PNG
media_image6.png
570
761
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figure 3, Annotated by Examiner
Regarding claim 13, Lei discloses the atomization core of the e-cigarette according to claim 12 as stated above. Lei further discloses wherein the first patch board has a first side surface (circular outside surface) that is close to the third edge (see Fig. 3 in the rejection of claim 12 above, annotated by examiner).
Lei does not disclose a shortest distance between the first side surface and the third edge in the first direction to determine if it falls within the range of 0.15 mm to 1 mm. However, the shortest distance between the first side surface and the third edge in the first direction corresponds to the length of the strip-shaped heating body, as it is related to the amount of space available on the atomization surface for the strip-shaped heating body. The strip-shaped heating body generates heat to atomize a liquid (¶ 0008), and the efficacy of the strip-shaped heating body for this result is dependent upon the shortest distance between the first side surface and the third edge in the first direction. If the shortest distance is too large, the strip-shaped heating body will not have sufficient surface area to atomize enough liquid. If the shortest distance is too small, then the strip-shaped heating body risks generating too much heat which can burn the liquid (¶ 0073). As such, the shortest distance between the first side surface and the third edge in the first direction is a result-effective variable to achieve sufficient atomization of the liquid. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the shortest distance between the first side surface and the third edge in the first direction such that it is in the range from 0.15 mm to 1 mm. "[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, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955); MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A)).
Regarding claim 14, Lei discloses the atomization core of the e-cigarette according to claim 12 as stated above. Lei does not disclose a maximum dimension of the first patch board in the first direction to determine if it falls within the range of 0.6 mm to 1 mm. However, the first patch board provides an electrical pathway to the strip-shaped heating body (¶ 0054) in order for the strip-shaped heating body to generate heat to atomize the liquid (¶ 0008), and the efficacy of the first patch board for this result is dependent upon the maximum dimension of the first patch board in the first direction. If the maximum dimension is too small, the first patch board will not provide sufficient current to the strip-shaped heating body to atomize enough liquid. If the maximum dimension is too large, the first patch board risks electrically shorting with other parts of the strip-shaped heating body, interfering with atomization. As such, the maximum dimension of the first patch board in the first direction is a result-effective variable to achieve sufficient atomization of the liquid. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the maximum dimension of the first patch board in the first direction such that it is in the range from 0.6 mm to 1 mm. "[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, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955); MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A)).
Regarding claim 15, Lei discloses the atomization core of the e-cigarette according to claim 12 as stated above. Lei further discloses wherein the strip-shaped heating body has a first heating section that is close to the first patch board (“first arc segment 123a”, Fig. 4, ¶ 0064), the first heating section extending along the second direction (see Fig. 4), and wherein the first patch board has a third side surface (circular outside surface) that is close to the strip-shaped heating body in the first direction (see Fig. 4).
Lei does not disclose a shortest distance between the first heating section and the third side surface to determine if it falls within the range of 0.3 mm to 1.5 mm. However, the shortest distance between the first heating section and the third side surface of the first patch board corresponds to the size of the strip-shaped heating body, as it is related to the amount of space available on the atomization surface for the strip-shaped heating body. The strip-shaped heating body generates heat to atomize a liquid (¶ 0008), and the efficacy of the strip-shaped heating body for this result is dependent upon the shortest distance between the first heating section and the third side surface. If the shortest distance is too large, the strip-shaped heating body will not have sufficient surface area to atomize enough liquid. If the shortest distance is too small, then the first heating section risks electrically shorting with the first patch board, interfering with atomization. As such, the shortest distance between the first heating section and the third side surface is a result-effective variable to achieve sufficient atomization of the liquid. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the shortest distance between the first heating section and the third side surface such that it is in the range from 0.3 mm to 1.5 mm. "[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, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955); MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A)).
Regarding claim 16, Lei discloses the atomization core of the e-cigarette according to claim 12 as stated above. Lei further discloses wherein along the extension direction from liquid absorption surface to the atomization surface, the atomization surface has a third central axis (see Fig. 3 below, annotated by examiner), wherein:
the first central axis offsets towards the second edge of the porous body by a first predetermined distance relative to the third central axis (see Fig. 3 below, annotated by examiner); and
the second central axis offsets towards the first edge of the porous body by a second predetermined distance relative to the third central axis (see Fig. 3 below, annotated by examiner).
PNG
media_image7.png
586
728
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Figure 3, Annotated by Examiner
Regarding claim 17, Lei discloses the atomization core of the e-cigarette according to claim 16 as stated above. Lei does not disclose the ratio of the first predetermined distance to the first dimension to determine if it falls within the range of 1/5 to 1/3. However, the first patch board provides an electrical pathway to the strip-shaped heating body (¶ 0054) in order for the strip-shaped heating body to generate heat to atomize the liquid (¶ 0008), and the efficacy of the first patch board and strip-shaped heating body for this result is dependent upon the ratio of the first predetermined distance to the first dimension. If the ratio is too large, then the first patch board will not fit entirely onto the atomization surface. If the ratio is too small, components (such as “second straight section 122a” and “first circular arc section 123a” in Fig. 4) of the strip-shaped heating body will be too close together, risking electrically shorting and interfering with atomization. As such, the ratio of the first predetermined distance to the first dimension is a result-effective variable to achieve sufficient atomization of liquid. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the ratio of the first predetermined distance to the first dimension such that it is in the range from 1/5 to 1/3. "[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, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955); MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A)).
Regarding claim 18, Lei discloses the atomization core of the e-cigarette according to claim 12 as stated above. Lei further discloses wherein
the strip-shaped heating body has a head end heating section (one of the “pads 13” which is directly under the first patch board, “second electrode 142”, Figs. 3-4, ¶ 0056), one end of the head end heating section (top end) is connected to the first patch board (see Fig. 4), and the head end heating section extends from the first patch board towards the first edge of the porous body (see Fig. 4); and
the strip-shaped heating body has a tail end heating section (one of the “pads 13” which is directly under the second patch board, “first electrode 141”, Figs. 3-4, ¶ 0056), one end of the tail end heating section (top end) is connected to the second patch board (see Fig. 4), and the tail end heating section extends from the second patch board towards the second edge of the porous body (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 19, Lei discloses the atomization core of the e-cigarette according to claim 1 as stated above. Lei further discloses an embodiment of the strip-shaped heating body (“heating element 12b” in Fig. 6, where “Figure 6 shows a heating element 12b in some embodiments of the present invention, as an alternative to the heating element 12a of the heating assembly 10 described above.”, ¶ 0065) wherein the strip-shaped heating body comprises a first side heating section, an intermediate heating section, and a second side heating section (see Fig. 6 below, annotated by examiner), wherein:
the first side heating section, the intermediate heating section, and the second side heating section extend along the second direction and are adjacently arranged in the first direction (see Fig. 6 below, annotated by examiner);
the intermediate heating section is located between the first side heating section and the second side heating section (see Fig. 6 below, annotated by examiner);
the first side heating section, the intermediate heating section, and the second side heating section are connected by two bending sections (see Fig. 6 below, annotated by examiner), the two bending sections tilt towards each other in the first direction (see Fig. 6 below, annotated by examiner); and
a width of the intermediate heating section is greater than a width of the first side heating section or a width of the second side heating section (see Fig. 6 below, annotated by examiner; as seen in the annotated copy of Fig. 6 below, the first and second side heating sections have a width that spans only a single width of the strip, while the intermediate heating section has a width than spans several multiples of the width of the strip).
PNG
media_image8.png
450
729
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Figure 6, Annotated by Examiner
Regarding claim 20, Lei discloses an e-cigarette (“electronic cigarette”, Fig. 13, ¶ 0041) comprising a housing (“atomizer 1”, Fig. 13, ¶ 0076) and the atomization core of the e-cigarette according to claim 1 that is arranged in the housing (“heating component 10 in the atomizer 1”, ¶ 0077).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY G CULBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-0874. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-4pm.
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.
/COURTNEY G CULBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights