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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it recites the phrase “so that electronic atomization apparatus the structural arrangement is simplified,” which is not grammatically correct. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The word “whole” is used where “hole” would be appropriate (second page, ninth paragraph), and because the pages of the specification have each been numbered “1” at the top of the pages, giving rise to confusion as to whether the requirements of 37 CFR 1.52(b)(5) are met. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The word “whole” is used where “hole” would be appropriate. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation “the assembly window is further used as a replacement window of a consumable material, to replace the consumable material through the assembly window,” which is considered to be a limitation regarding the intended use of the claimed assembly window. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP § 2114. Therefore, for the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it required the assembly window to be an opening since any opening could provide access to an object on the other side.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites the limitation “when the supported portion is supported by the supporting portion, the blocked portion is blocked by the blocking portion,” which is considered to be a limitation regarding the intended use of the claimed article. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP § 2114. Therefore, for the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it required blocking and supporting portions that could function simultaneously.
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 1-11, 13-16 and 18-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation “the assembly window is configured to provide an opening for assembling the aerosol base material storage tank, the aerosol generating apparatus, and the power supply assembly in the housing.” It is unclear how the assembly window performs these functions since it is a void rather than a structure that could cause the claimed assembly to happen. The claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it required an assembly window.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “consumable material” is used by the claim to mean “a hollow bin” or “an aerosol base material storage tank,” while the accepted meaning is “a substrate that is consumed during operation of an electronic cigarette.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. For the purposes of this Office action, the term will be interpreted as if it required any rigid housing that accommodates an electronic cigarette substrate. Claims 2-11, 13-16 and 18-20 are indefinite by dependence.
Regarding claim 2, it is unclear what direction an assembly direction of the consumable material is, and therefore what direction the consumable material is required to move when a force is applied to it. The claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the claim will be interpreted as if it required the capability to apply force through the operation window to a component located in the receiving groove so that the component exits the housing through the receiving groove. Claims 3-5 are indefinite by dependence.
Regarding claim 6, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the rear wall” in the claim, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it recited a rear wall. Claims 7 and 8 are indefinite by dependence.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, it is unclear what shapes would be considered “ellipse-like,” rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it required an elliptic shape.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites the limitation “the consumable material at least partially abuts against a side wall of the housing elastically in the housing.” It is unclear what kinds of abutting are elastic abuttings, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the claim will be interpreted as if it required a housing having a side wall that a consumable could abut against. Claims 10 and 11 are indefinite by dependence.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites the limitation “the annular boss elastically abuts against an outer ring of a third air duct of the suction nozzle assembly to be in sealed connection with the suction nozzle assembly.” It is unclear what kinds of abutting are elastic abuttings, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the claim will be interpreted as if it required an elastic portion of the annular boss to be in contact with the outer ring of the third air duct.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites the limitation “the side edge of the battery rod moves relative to the clamping portion with interference.” It is unclear what kind of movement is movement with interference. Does that mean that the two components must be in contact, that one of them exerts pressure on the other, or merely that they merely can be placed in contact. The claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will not be considered to limit the claim.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Dong (CN 211153796, machine translation relied upon) in view of Nettenstrom (US 2019/0099562).
Regarding claim 1, Dong discloses an electronic cigarette [0002] having a base with a base body (figure 3, reference numeral 21), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a housing, that contains a receiving groove ([0046], figure 3, reference numeral 211), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a receiving groove. An oil reservoir atomizer is placed in the receiving groove ([0046], figure 4, reference numeral 10), which is considered to indicate that parts could be assembled and replaced in the receiving groove. The atomizer includes an e-liquid chamber for storing e-liquid [0039], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an aerosol base material storage tank configured to store aerosol base material. The e-liquid is atomized when a user inhales [0046], indicating that the cigarette has some form of aerosol generating apparatus. The receiving groove is opened and closed by a sliding cover ([0041], figure 1, reference numeral 30), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a cover body. Dong does not explicitly disclose the base body having a power supply assembly that is connected to an aerosol generating apparatus.
Nettenstrom teaches an electronic cigarette having a cartomizer (figure 1, reference numeral 200) that contains a reservoir and a heater (figure 1, reference numeral 500) that heats an e-liquid in the reservoir to form an aerosol and a control unit (figure 1, reference numeral 300) that contains a battery that supplies power to the heater ([0019], figure 1, reference numeral 350).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the base body of Dong with the battery of Nettenstrom and the atomizer of Dong with the heater of Nettenstrom. One would have been motivated to do so since Nettenstrom teaches an electronic cigarette having two sections that contain different parts that cooperate to generate an aerosol.
Regarding claim 2, Dong discloses that an operating hole is formed in the base body that communicates with the receiving groove and is on an opposite side of the body from the entrance to the receiving groove ([0040], figure 3, reference numeral 212), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an operation window. It is evident that a force applied to an object in the receiving groove through the operating hole would result in the object leaving the body through the receiving groove since the operating hole is located opposite the entrance to the receiving groove (figure 3).
Regarding claim 3, it is evident that light could be transmitted through the operating hole of Dong since the operating hole is open (figure 3, reference numeral 212).
Regarding claim 4, Dong discloses that the operating window is a hole located on the back side of the body (figure 3, reference numeral 212).
Regarding claim 6, Dong discloses that the body has a side wall with arcuate corners, a rear wall, and a front wall that contains the assembly window, all of which are connected to each other (figure 3).
Regarding claim 7, modified Dong discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Dong does not explicitly disclose the body being elliptical.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the body elliptical. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV B.
Regarding claim 8, modified Dong discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Dong does not explicitly disclose the body and receiving groove having the claimed shapes.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the body and receiving groove have the claimed shapes. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV B.
Regarding claim 9, Dong discloses that the base abuts against the oil storage atomizer ([0046], figure 4).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Dong (CN 211153796, machine translation relied upon) in view of Nettenstrom (US 2019/0099562) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Schennum (US 8,689,786).
Regarding claim 5, modified Dong teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Dong does not explicitly teach a flexible film.
Schennum teaches an aerosol generator device (abstract) having an opening that is covered by a flexible member in the form of a film (figure 6a, reference numeral 7) so that the body has a smooth and continuous exterior surface (column 4, lines 14-21) through which a force can be applied by pressing the flexible member (column 3, lines 4-11).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the operating hole of modified Dong with the flexible cover of Schennum. One would have been motivated to do so since Schennum teaches a cover that provides a smooth and continuous exterior surface while also allowing the application of force through it.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Dong (CN 211153796, machine translation relied upon) in view of Nettenstrom (US 2019/0099562) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Sweedler (US 11,241,037).
Regarding claim 10, modified Dong teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Nettenstrom additionally teaches that the cartomizer includes a PCB ([0045], figure 4, reference numeral 471) that forms contact pads ([0068], figure 8A, reference numerals 810A, 810B) that contact pins from the control unit [0069]. Modified Dong does not explicitly teach the atomizer having a resilient connector.
Sweedler teaches a vaporization device (abstract) in which electrical connectors of a substrate cartridge are spring loaded, which is considered to meet the claim limitation of elastic, to urge their connection when the cartridge is inserted in a housing of a main body portion (column 6, lines 21-33).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the contact pads of modified Dong with the spring loaded electrical connectors of Sweedler. One would have been motivated to do so since Sweedler teaches electrical contacts that urge making a connection.
Claims 13-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Dong (CN 211153796, machine translation relied upon) in view of Nettenstrom (US 2019/0099562) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu (US 2016/0338405).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, modified Dong teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Dong does not explicitly teach a clamping portion on the body that interacts with a corresponding clamping fitting portion on the housing of the atomizer.
Liu teaches an electronic cigarette (abstract) having an atomizing assembly with a recessed open area that has an elastic positioning unit ([0070], figure 5, reference numeral 501), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a clamping portion, that corresponds with a second clamping buckle, which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a clamping fitting portion, to prevent displacement of the clamping buckle relative to the elastic positioning unit [0073], which evidently includes longitudinal displacement. The second clamping buckle is mounted on a connection section of the atomizing assembly ([0062], [0063]). The flat surface of the elastic positioning unit is considered to meet the claim limitation of a blocked portion, and it is evident that the surface of the second clamping buckle must interact with the flat surface to prevent relative movement. The surface of the second clamping buckle is therefore considered to meet the claim limitation of a blocking portion.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the body of modified Dong with the elastic positioning unit of Liu and the atomizer of modified Dong with the second clamping buckle of Liu. One would have been motivated to do so since Liu teaches an elastic clamping unit in a recess that prevents displacement of a component inserted into the recess.
Regarding claim 15, Nettenstrom teaches that the lower portion of the battery, which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a supported portion, rests on flanges of the housing, which are considered to meet the claim limitation of a supporting portion (figure 1).
Regarding claim 16, modified Dong teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. the inside portions of the flanges of Nettenstrom are considered to meet the claim limitation of a support table, and the vertical inside portions of the flanges are considered to meet the claim limitation of a support surface. Modified Dong does not explicitly teach (a) the rear wall being arc shaped and (b) the support portions mounted on the rear wall such that their inner vertical sides face away from the rear wall.
Regarding (a), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the rear wall be arc shaped. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV B.
Regarding (b), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mount the flanges of modified Dong on the rear wall of modified Dong. One would have been motivated to do so since there is no evidence of record that the specific side wall on which the flanges are mounted is critical. Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI C.
Regarding claim 18, Nettenstrom teaches that the cartridge is located above the control unit (figure 1), indicating that the blocking portions would be located above the battery as well, and therefore above the flanges. It is evident that both the blocking and supporting portions could function at the same time.
Regarding claim 20, Liu teaches that the elastic positioning unit has a position limiting groove, which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a guide groove, that interacts with the clamping buckle to prevent displacement [0073], indicating that there must be corresponding guide strip of the clamping buckle since the guide groove would otherwise be ineffective.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Dong (CN 211153796, machine translation relied upon) in view of Nettenstrom (US 2019/0099562) and Liu (US 2016/0338405) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Contreras (US 2016/0331029).
Regarding claim 19, modified Dong teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Nettenstrom additionally teaches that the battery is located in a cavity (figure 1). Modified Dong does not explicitly teach a battery access panel.
Contreras teaches an electronic cigarette (abstract) having a rechargeable battery that is accessible through a door located on the side of the device ([0013], figure 4, reference numeral 26). The battery is considered to define part of an end surface of the opening since the battery is accessible through the opening and would block access to further parts of the device when starting from the opening.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the body of modified Dong with the side battery access door of Contreras. One would have been motivated to do so since Contreras teaches a door that allows access to a battery.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of the reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
Dong (CN 211153796, machine translation relied upon) teaches an electronic cigarette [0002] having a base with a base body (figure 3, reference numeral 21), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a housing, that contains a receiving groove ([0046], figure 3, reference numeral 211), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a receiving groove. An oil reservoir atomizer is placed in the receiving groove ([0046], figure 4, reference numeral 10), which is considered to indicate that parts could be assembled and replaced in the receiving groove. The atomizer includes an e-liquid chamber for storing e-liquid [0039], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an aerosol base material storage tank configured to store aerosol base material. The e-liquid is atomized when a user inhales [0046], indicating that the cigarette has some form of aerosol generating apparatus. The receiving groove is opened and closed by a sliding cover ([0041], figure 1, reference numeral 30), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a cover body. A mouthpiece is connected to the oil reservoir atomizer after the atomizer is inserted into the receiving slot ([0046], figure 5, reference numeral 22). However, Dong does not teach or suggest an elastic annular boss arranged at a near end of an elastic connector and abutting an air duct of the mouthpiece to form a sealed connection.
Tan (US 12,599,170) teaches a cartridge for a vapor generating system (abstract) having a sealing gasket (figure 1, reference numeral 34) that couples the air outlet (figure 1, reference numeral 32) to the mouthpiece to prevent liquid leaking from the reservoir to the mouthpiece (column 6, lines 15-36, figure 1, reference numeral 24). However, Tan does not teach or suggest the gasket being located on an elastic connector.
The prior art does not teach or suggest a connector fixed to an aerosol base material storage tank, the connector is at least partially elastic, wherein a suction nozzle assembly is arranged at a near end of a housing, and an annular boss is arranged at a near end of the connector, wherein the annular boss is at least partially elastic, and the annular boss elastically abuts against an outer ring of a third air duct of the suction nozzle assembly to in sealed connection with the suction nozzle assembly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSSELL E SPARKS whose telephone number is (571)270-1426. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-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, 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.
/RUSSELL E SPARKS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights