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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 4 of claim 20 reads “the nozzle and he liquid storage” which appears to be a typographical error and should be replaced with – the nozzle and the liquid storage --. Appropriate correction is required.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-6, 15, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 203341009) (claims are mapped to the English translation provided) in view of Scarpulla (US 2017/0105448) and Yao et al. (CN 108296140) (claims are mapped to the English translation provided).
Claims 1, 2, and 3. Liu et al. discloses an electronic cigarette atomizer comprising a housing 1 which is an integrated structure including suction nozzle 15 (nozzle), air duct 13, and oil storage chamber 14 (liquid storage pipe). Atomizing core 4 (atomizing assembly) is arranged at the tail end of the oil storage chamber 14 (liquid storage pipe) (Figure 1; Page 6, paragraphs 2 and 3). Liu et al. further teaches that the housing 1 is made of transparent plastic (polished surface) and includes an oil volume scale on the oil storage chamber 14 (liquid storage pipe) which allows the user to see how much oil is in the oil storage chamber 14 (liquid storage pipe) (Figure 2; Page 6, paragraph 3).
Liu et al. does not explicitly disclose that at least a portion of an outer surface of the suction nozzle 15 (nozzle) away from the oil storage chamber 14 (liquid storage pipe), or the entire outer surface of the suction nozzle 15 (nozzle) comprises a matte surface having a first rugosity.
Scarpulla discloses a personal vaporizer having a mouthpiece 100 which is inserted into a user's mouth and held between lips. The mouthpiece 100 is coated with textured surface 110, to make the sidewall 112 of the mouthpiece 100 more appealing and less jarring upon touch ([0033]). Scarpulla teaches a mouthpiece having a textured surface, but does not explicitly disclose that the texture is a matte surface.
Yao et al. discloses a process of spraying a finishing coat on a smoking set machine (Abstract). The method includes spraying a high gloss oil or matte oil to give the surface a high light or matte effect (Page 10, paragraph 1). Yao et al. teaches that the disclosed surface finishing process allows for the smoking machine body to have a plurality of different colors or patterns on its surface so that the appearance of the surface of the smoking machine body is diversified “thereby achieving the user’s demand and having strong practicality” (Page 7, paragraph 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply a textured surface to the suction nozzle 15 (nozzle) of the electronic cigarette of Liu et al. to “make the sidewall 112 of the mouthpiece 100 more appealing and less jarring upon touch” as taught by Scarpulla ([0033]).
Claim 4. Modified Liu et al. discloses the atomizer of claim 2 wherein the oil storage chamber 14 (liquid storage pipe) is made of transparent plastic (polished surface) and includes an oil volume scale on the oil storage chamber 14 (liquid storage pipe) which allows the user to see how much oil is in the oil storage chamber 14 (liquid storage pipe) (Liu Figure 2; Page 6, paragraph 3).
Modified Liu et al. does not explicitly disclose that the outer surface of the oil storage chamber 14 (liquid storage pipe) comprises a first polished surface and a second matte surface, wherein the first polished surface is located between the suction nozzle 15 (nozzle) and the second matte surface. However, Yao et al. specifically teaches a process by which three separate areas are treated to have different colors or patterns, wherein each area is individually treated while the other two areas are shielded (Yao Page 9, paragraphs 1 and 2). Yao et al. teaches that the disclosed surface finishing process allows for the smoking machine body to have a plurality of different colors or patterns on its surface so that the appearance of the surface of the smoking machine body is diversified “thereby achieving the user’s demand and having strong practicality” (Yao Page 7, paragraph 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that the outer surface of the oil storage chamber 14 (liquid storage pipe) be treated to have a first polished surface and a second matte surface, wherein the first polished surface is located between the suction nozzle 15 (nozzle) and the second matte surface, as a matter of aesthetic design choice and so that the appearance of the surface of the smoking machine body is diversified “thereby achieving the user’s demand and having strong practicality” (Yao Page 7, paragraph 3).
Claim 5. Modified Liu et al. discloses the atomizer of claim 4 but does not explicitly disclose that the rugosity of the first matte surface is substantially equal to the rugosity of the second matte surface.
Yao et al. discloses a process of spraying a finishing coat on a smoking set machine (Abstract). The method includes spraying a high gloss oil or matte oil to give the surface a high light or matte effect (Page 10, paragraph 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that where the process of Yao is used to give a matte effect to two separate surfaces of the oil storage chamber 14 (liquid storage pipe), the same method may be used for each surface thus resulting in two separate matte surfaces each having a rugosity that is substantially equal.
Claim 6. Modified Liu et al. discloses the atomizer of claim 1 wherein the suction nozzle 15 (nozzle) has a matte surface but does not explicitly disclose that the suction nozzle 15 (nozzle) further comprises a polished surface between the matte surface and the oil storage chamber 14 (liquid storage pipe). However, Yao et al. specifically teaches a process by which three separate areas are treated to have different colors or patterns, wherein each area is individually treated while the other two areas are shielded (Yao Page 9, paragraphs 1 and 2). Yao et al. teaches that the disclosed surface finishing process allows for the smoking machine body to have a plurality of different colors or patterns on its surface so that the appearance of the surface of the smoking machine body is diversified “thereby achieving the user’s demand and having strong practicality” (Yao Page 7, paragraph 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that the outer surface of the suction nozzle 15 (nozzle) be treated to have a polished surface between the matte surface and the oil storage chamber 14 (liquid storage pipe) as a matter of aesthetic design choice and so that the appearance of the surface of the smoking machine body is diversified “thereby achieving the user’s demand and having strong practicality” (Yao Page 7, paragraph 3).
Claim 15. Modified Liu et al. discloses that the housing 1 is an integrated structure comprising suction nozzle 15 (nozzle), oil storage chamber 14 (liquid storage pipe), and air duct 13 (gas exiting pipe) which is located within oil storage chamber 14 (liquid storage pipe). The tail end (gas exiting hole) of the suction nozzle 15 (nozzle) is connected to the air duct 13 (gas exiting pipe) and connected with the air path of the air duct 13 (Liu Figure 2; Page 6, paragraph 3).
Claim 17. Modified Liu et al. discloses that the housing 1, including the suction nozzle 15 (nozzle) and oil storage chamber 14 (liquid storage pipe), are made of transparent plastic (polished surface) (Liu Figure 2; Page 6, paragraph 3).
Claim 18. Liu et al. discloses an electronic cigarette atomizer comprising a housing 1 which is an integrated structure including suction nozzle 15 (nozzle), air duct 13, and oil storage chamber 14 (liquid storage pipe). The outer wall of the oil storage chamber 14 (liquid storage pipe) defines the side wall of housing 1 and the top of suction nozzle 15 (nozzle) is an end wall connected to the side wall (Figure 1). Atomizing core 4 (atomizing assembly) is arranged at the tail end of the oil storage chamber 14 (liquid storage pipe). The tail end (gas exiting hole) of the suction nozzle 15 (nozzle) is connected to the air duct 13 (gas exiting pipe) and connected with the air path of the air duct 13 (Figures 1 and 2; Page 6, paragraphs 2 and 3). Liu et al. further teaches that the housing 1 is made of transparent plastic (polished surface) and includes an oil volume scale on the oil storage chamber 14 (liquid storage pipe) which allows the user to see how much oil is in the oil storage chamber 14 (liquid storage pipe) (Figure 2; Page 6, paragraph 3).
Liu et al. does not explicitly disclose that at least a portion of an outer surface of the suction nozzle 15 (nozzle) away from the oil storage chamber 14 (liquid storage pipe), or the entire outer surface of the suction nozzle 15 (nozzle) comprises a matte surface having a first rugosity.
Scarpulla discloses a personal vaporizer having a mouthpiece 100 which is inserted into a user's mouth and held between lips. The mouthpiece 100 is coated with textured surface 110, to make the sidewall 112 of the mouthpiece 100 more appealing and less jarring upon touch ([0033]). Scarpulla teaches a mouthpiece having a textured surface, but does not explicitly disclose that the texture is a matte surface.
Yao et al. discloses a process of spraying a finishing coat on a smoking set machine (Abstract). The method includes spraying a high gloss oil or matte oil to give the surface a high light or matte effect (Page 10, paragraph 1). Yao et al. teaches that the disclosed surface finishing process allows for the smoking machine body to have a plurality of different colors or patterns on its surface so that the appearance of the surface of the smoking machine body is diversified “thereby achieving the user’s demand and having strong practicality” (Page 7, paragraph 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply a textured surface to the suction nozzle 15 (nozzle) of the electronic cigarette of Liu et al. to “make the sidewall 112 of the mouthpiece 100 more appealing and less jarring upon touch” as taught by Scarpulla ([0033]). Furthermore, since Scarpulla does not disclose a particular texture or process for treating the mouthpiece surface, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the textured surface be a matte surface that is applied using the process taught by Yao et al. which achieves the user’s demand for smoking articles having a plurality of patterns on its surface.
Claim 20. Liu et al. discloses an electronic cigarette atomizer comprising a housing 1 which is an integrated structure including suction nozzle 15 (nozzle), air duct 13, and oil storage chamber 14 (liquid storage pipe). Atomizing core 4 (atomizing assembly) is arranged at the tail end of the oil storage chamber 14 (liquid storage pipe) (Figure 1; Page 6, paragraphs 2 and 3). Liu et al. further teaches that the housing 1 is made of transparent plastic (polished surface) and includes an oil volume scale on the oil storage chamber 14 (liquid storage pipe) which allows the user to see how much oil is in the oil storage chamber 14 (liquid storage pipe) (Figure 2; Page 6, paragraph 3).
Liu et al. does not explicitly disclose a battery assembly connected to the atomizer, however, Liu et al. teaches an atomizing core 4 (atomizing assembly) arranged between housing 1 and base 3. The atomizing core 4 comprises a heating wire 7 and electrode 12 (Liu Figures 1 and 2; Page 6, paragraphs 2-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that the base 3 is configured for connection to a battery assembly which is necessary to provide power to the disclosed atomizing core 4 (atomizing assembly).
Liu et al. does not explicitly disclose that at least a portion of an outer surface of the suction nozzle 15 (nozzle) away from the oil storage chamber 14 (liquid storage pipe), or the entire outer surface of the suction nozzle 15 (nozzle) comprises a matte surface having a first rugosity.
Scarpulla discloses a personal vaporizer having a mouthpiece 100 which is inserted into a user's mouth and held between lips. The mouthpiece 100 is coated with textured surface 110, to make the sidewall 112 of the mouthpiece 100 more appealing and less jarring upon touch ([0033]). Scarpulla teaches a mouthpiece having a textured surface, but does not explicitly disclose that the texture is a matte surface.
Yao et al. discloses a process of spraying a finishing coat on a smoking set machine (Abstract). The method includes spraying a high gloss oil or matte oil to give the surface a high light or matte effect (Page 10, paragraph 1). Yao et al. teaches that the disclosed surface finishing process allows for the smoking machine body to have a plurality of different colors or patterns on its surface so that the appearance of the surface of the smoking machine body is diversified “thereby achieving the user’s demand and having strong practicality” (Page 7, paragraph 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply a textured surface to the suction nozzle 15 (nozzle) of the electronic cigarette of Liu et al. to “make the sidewall 112 of the mouthpiece 100 more appealing and less jarring upon touch” as taught by Scarpulla ([0033]). Furthermore, since Scarpulla does not disclose a particular texture or process for treating the mouthpiece surface, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the textured surface be a matte surface that is applied using the process taught by Yao et al. which achieves the user’s demand for smoking articles having a plurality of patterns on its surface.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 203341009) (claims are mapped to the English translation provided) in view of Scarpulla (US 2017/0105448), Yao et al. (CN 108296140) (claims are mapped to the English translation provided), and Odaira (US 2003/0132507).
Claim 7. Modified Liu et al. discloses the atomizer of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose that the light transmittance of the matte surface ranges from 10% to 80% and the light transmittance of the polished surface ranges from 30% to 100%.
Odaira discloses a matte resin film having a matte texture and a transmittance of 40 to 70%. Odaira teaches that if transmittance is lower than 40%, the translucency of the lights in the film may be poor. If transmittance is higher than 70%, matte texture of the film may be poor ([0035]).
Although Yao et al. does not disclose a transmittance value for the matte surface, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that the matte surface of Yao et al. would exhibit similar transmittance properties as the matte film of Odaira which has a transmittance of 40%-70%. Since Odaira also teaches that matte texture is poor if transmittance is higher than 70% ([0035]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that the transmittance of the polished surface would be higher than 70%.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 203341009) (claims are mapped to the English translation provided) in view of Scarpulla (US 2017/0105448) and Yao et al. (CN 108296140) (claims are mapped to the English translation provided), and further in view of Furudono et al. (US 2019/0037929).
Claim 10. Modified Liu et al. discloses the atomizer of claim 1 wherein the cross-section of the housing tapers from the oil storage chamber 14 (liquid storage pipe) towards the suction nozzle 15 (nozzle) (Liu Figures 1 and 2).
Modified Liu et al. does not explicitly disclose that the end of the suction nozzle 15 (nozzle) has a rectangular or oval configuration.
Furudono et al. discloses a flavor aspirator having a shape which tapers from housing 12 towards mouthpiece 13 wherein the housing may be cylindrical or alternatively may be formed into a tubular shape having a rectangular cross section (Figure 1; [0099]).
Since Furudono et al. teaches a flavor aspirator having a cylindrical or rectangular shape, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that the cylindrical atomizer of Liu et al. may alternatively be in a tubular shape with a rectangular cross-section since changes in shape are considered 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 (MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B)).
Claims 11, 12, and 13. Modified Liu et al. further in view of Furudono et al. discloses the atomizer of claim 10, but the references do not explicitly disclose dimensions of the atomizer, specifically the length and width of the suction nozzle 15 (nozzle) at its end furthest from the oil storage chamber 14 (liquid storage pipe) and the length a width at a predetermined distance from the end of the suction nozzle 15 (nozzle). However, Liu et al. and Furudono et al. both disclose that the cross-section of the housing tapers the suction nozzle 15 (nozzle) (Liu Figures 1 and 2) or mouthpiece 13 (Furudono Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that the suction nozzle 15 (nozzle) could be modified to have the claimed dimensions. Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is 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 is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Claims 10, 11, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 203341009) (claims are mapped to the English translation provided) in view of Scarpulla (US 2017/0105448) and Yao et al. (CN 108296140) (claims are mapped to the English translation provided), and further in view of Lin (US 2016/0366941).
Claim 10. Modified Liu et al. discloses the atomizer of claim 1 wherein the cross-section of the housing tapers from the oil storage chamber 14 (liquid storage pipe) towards the suction nozzle 15 (nozzle) (Liu Figures 1 and 2).
Modified Liu et al. does not explicitly disclose that the end of the suction nozzle 15 (nozzle) has a rectangular or oval configuration.
Lin discloses an oval-shaped electronic cigarette (Abstract; [0001]). The outer housings of the electronic cigarette have an oval-shaped cross-section as does the mouthpiece ([0004]; Figure 1).
Since Lin teaches an oval-shaped electronic cigarette, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that the cylindrical atomizer of Liu et al. may alternatively have an oval-shaped cross-section as known in the art and evidenced by Lin. Furthermore, changes in shape are considered 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 (MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B)).
Claims 11, 12, and 14. Modified Liu et al. further in view of Lin discloses the atomizer of claim 10, but the references do not explicitly disclose dimensions of the atomizer, specifically the length and width of the suction nozzle 15 (nozzle) at its end furthest from the oil storage chamber 14 (liquid storage pipe) and the length a width at a predetermined distance from the end of the suction nozzle 15 (nozzle). However, Liu et al. and Lin both disclose that the cross-section of the housing tapers the suction nozzle 15 (nozzle) (Liu Figures 1 and 2) or mouthpiece 14 (Lin Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that the suction nozzle 15 (nozzle) could be modified to have the claimed dimensions. Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is 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 is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 203341009) (claims are mapped to the English translation provided) in view of Scarpulla (US 2017/0105448) and Yao et al. (CN 108296140) (claims are mapped to the English translation provided), and further in view of Song et al. (US 2018/0338533).
Claim 16. Modified Liu et al. discloses the atomizer of claim 15 but does not explicitly disclose an oleophobic layer provided on an inner side wall of the gas exiting pipe.
Song et al. discloses an atomizer having an inner chamber of the air pipe and the inner chamber of the mouthpiece together forming an aerosol channel, and a hydrophobic oleophobic surface or super oleophobic surface is formed on an inner wall of the air pipe and/or mouthpiece ([0006]).
Song et al. teaches that the antifouling structure/ hydrophobic oleophobic surface or super oleophobic surface prevents condensed droplets from accumulating and adhering to the inner wall of the aerosol channel or the liquid storage chamber, thereby avoiding users inhaling the condensed droplets into their mouths when smoking next time (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an oleophobic layer provided on an inner side wall of the air duct 13 (gas exiting pipe) of Liu et al. to prevent condensed droplets from accumulating and adhering to the inner wall of the aerosol channel as taught by Song et al.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 203341009) (claims are mapped to the English translation provded) in view of Scarpulla (US 2017/0105448) and Yao et al. (CN 108296140) (claims are mapped to the English translation provided), and further in view of Liu (CN 202932038) (claims are mapped to the English translation provided).
Claim 19. Modified Liu et al. discloses the atomizer of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose that the translucent material of the housing comprises PCTG.
Liu discloses an electronic cigarette comprising a transparent tube body made of PCTG (Abstract; [0006]).
Liu teaches that PCTG is able to adapt to relatively strong temperature difference change and impact resistance, not easy to break, and it is convenient to observe the inner smoke oil storage condition ([0006]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the housing of Liu et al. out of PCTG which is known in the art for its impact resistance, ability to adapt to large changes in temperature, and its transparency as taught by Liu ([0006]). Furthermore, selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP § 2144.07).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7, 9-17, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 9, 11-17, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12053031. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 1 of the ‘031 patent contains all limitations of claim 1 of the instant application along with additional limitations regarding light transmittance, the accommodation cavity, and the polished surface being thinner than the matte surface.
Claims 2-6 of the ‘031 patent are identical to claims 2-6 of the instant application.
All limitations of claims 7 and 9 of the instant invention are contained in claim 1 of the ‘031 patent.
Claim 9 of the ‘031 patent is identical to claim 10 of the instant application.
Claims 11-17 of the ‘031 patent are identical to claims 11-17 of the instant application.
Claim 20 of the ‘031 patent contains all limitations of claim 20 of the instant application along with additional limitations regarding light transmittance, the accommodation cavity, and the polished surface being thinner than the matte surface.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art is Liu et al. (CN 203341009) in view of Scarpulla (US 2017/0105448), and Yao et al. (CN 108296140).
Regarding claim 8, the cited references do not teach the housing being made from a forming die in only one injection process to obtain the integrated structure, the forming die defines a first die cavity configured to form the nozzle of the housing and a second die cavity configured to form the liquid storage pipe of the housing; the first die cavity communicates with the second die cavity; a portion of an outer side wall of the first die cavity away from the second die cavity comprises a surface having a first rugosity such that a portion of the outer surface of the nozzle away from the liquid storage pipe formed by using the forming die comprises the matte surface having the first rugosity; at least a portion of the outer side walls of the first die cavity and an outer side wall of the second die cavity comprises a polished surface such that at least a portion of the outer surface of the housing formed by using the forming die is the polished surface.
Regarding claim 9, Liu et al. discloses an electronic cigarette atomizer comprising a housing 1 which is an integrated structure including suction nozzle 15 (nozzle), air duct 13, and oil storage chamber 14 (liquid storage pipe) (Figure 1; Page 6, paragraphs 2 and 3). Since the matte surface is formed by the application of a matte oil on the surface of the housing (Yao Page 10, paragraph 1), the transparent plastic (polished surface) which does not have an oil coating on its surface is understood to be “thinner” than the portions of the housing having the matte oil coating. Liu et al. does not disclose that the suction nozzle 15 (nozzle) comprises an accommodation cavity configured to store aerosol-generating substrate and wherein the accommodation cavity is in fluid communication with a reservoir of the oil storage chamber 14 (liquid storage pipe) and the portion of the housing corresponding to the polished surface is thinner than the portion corresponding to the matte surface.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katherine A Will whose telephone number is (571)270-0516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00AM-6:00PM(EST).
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 Wilson can be reached on (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.
/KATHERINE A WILL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights