Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/181,782

ELECTRONIC VAPORIZER

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Apr 17, 2025
Examiner
CAMPBELL, THOR S
Art Unit
3761
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Njoy LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
76%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allow Rate
954 granted / 1276 resolved
+4.8% vs TC avg
Minimal +1% lift
Without
With
+0.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
57 currently pending
Career history
1333
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
44.9%
+4.9% vs TC avg
§102
35.0%
-5.0% vs TC avg
§112
12.8%
-27.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1276 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: (a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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. The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. EXEMPLARY RATIONALES Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include: (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; (C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; (F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Claims 90-99 and 80-89 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fang (US 9022026B2) in view of Hon (US 7832410). Fang discloses the claimed invention except in reference to claim: 90 (independent) . An electronic vaporizer 400 comprising: a power source 300 including a battery 23, a light emitting diode 27, a sensor 514, and a controller 19; and a cartridge 200 mechanically and electrically coupled with the power source 300, the cartridge 200 including, a housing 1 having an interior and a solution holding reservoir 2/110 configured to hold a liquid solution, the housing having a first end at 102 and a second end at 104 that is opposite the first end, wherein the second end includes an end cap at 104 (see annotated figure 1) constructed of a polymer (The inhalation element 1 and the liquid tank 2 may be made of food-grade polypropylene (PP) and is disposable), the housing having a first aperture at the first end and a second aperture at a center of the end cap (see annotated figure 1), the first aperture 102 and the second aperture 104 in communication with one another to permit an airflow from the first aperture to the second aperture at least partially through a cylindrical airflow passageway 106 (as shown below) in the interior of the housing 1, the cylindrical airflow passageway 106 extending through the center of the housing 1 for at least a majority of an axial length of the housing, and the solution holding reservoir 2/110 surrounding at least a portion of the cylindrical airflow passageway 106, the housing 1 configured to releasably mechanically couple to the power source 300, two conductive elements502/504 configured to electrically couple to the power source 300 when the cartridge 200 is mechanically coupled with the power source 300, wherein at least a portion of each of the two conductive elements 502/504 resides in the interior of the housing (as seen at 18), a resistive heating element 7 located in the interior of the housing 1, the resistive heating element including a coil 7 extending transversely to a central longitudinal axis of the housing (see figure 1), the resistive heating element 7 located between the first aperture 102 and the second 104 aperture such that the airflow passes on both transverse sides (When the heating wire 7 is heated by electricity, the liquid is vaporized and then passes through the smoke channel 106 and the inhalation hole 104 to reach a user's mouth. figure 1 implies and makes obvious to the artisan that the airflow traverses past both sides of heating element 7 since it is implied that the air flow must be able to pass the heating element and the implication is that the heating element is centrally located within the housing.) of the resistive heating element during use of the electronic vaporizer 400, a wicking material 3, 4, 5,6 8 configured to draw the liquid solution held by the solution holding reservoir 110 toward the resistive heating element 7, the resistive heating element 7 electrically coupled with the two conductive elements 502/504 at switch 18 and configured to vaporize at least a portion of the liquid solution, the resistive heating element 7 responsive to electrical power received from the power source 300, and a mouthpiece (end of housing 1 near cap at 104—note Fang discloses the user to inert the end at 104 orally for use.) positioned on the second end of the housing, wherein the mouthpiece is configured to be received orally by an individual, wherein the controller is configured to receive readings from the sensor (note the sensor is responsive to pressure caused by the user drawing on the device) and to cause power to be supplied to the resistive heating element when the individual is drawing on the electronic vaporizer. Note that the endpiece at 104 as shown in annotated figure 1 serves as both mouthpiece and cap. Regarding independent claim 80 relates to the cartridge assembly portion claimed in independent claim 90. see above, mutatis mutandis. PNG media_image1.png 1365 965 media_image1.png Greyscale 91. The electronic vaporizer of claim 90, further comprising a solution in the solution holding reservoir, the solution comprising one of propylene glycol and nicotine. Fang discloses a tobacco flavored liquid, without explicitly disclosing the use of propylene glycol and nicotine Hon discloses the use propylene glycol and nicotine in a electronic cigarette. Specifically, The nicotine solution for atomization contains 0.4-3.5% nicotine, 0.05-2% cigarette essence, 0.1-3.1% organic acid, 0.1-0.5% anti-oxidation agent, and the rest is 1,2-propylene glycol. As the use of nicotine in e-cigarettes is well known, the use of a tobacco flavored liquid containing nicotine and prolylene glycol would have been obvious to one of skill in the art. 92. The electronic vaporizer of claim 90, wherein only the resistive heating element and the wicking material divert the airflow along the central longitudinal axis of the housing between the first aperture and the second aperture. Note that only heating element 7 and the wicking material 6 are positioned along the he airflow passageway so as to impede the air flow therethrough. 93. The electronic vaporizer of claim 90, wherein the cylindrical airflow passageway extends at least partially into the end cap. See airflow passageway 106 below including a portion within cap 104 PNG media_image2.png 370 719 media_image2.png Greyscale 94. The electronic vaporizer of claim 90, wherein the mouthpiece is constructed of a polymer. The inhalation element 1 and the liquid tank 2 may be made of food-grade polypropylene (PP) and is disposable). Note Figure 1 suggests the cap and mouthpiece are made of the same material as the housing element 1 and tank 2. The skilled artisan would find it therefore obvious to make the mouthpiece of a polymer. 95. The electronic vaporizer of claim 90, wherein at least a portion of the cylindrical airflow passageway is downstream of the resistive heating element. See Fig. 1 96. The electronic vaporizer of claim 90, wherein the housing is configured to releasably mechanically couple to the power source via a snap connection. Note the use of snap fit connection means in place of threaded connection means as disclosed by Fang is known in the art as evidenced by Nichols et al. (US 6311694). Nichols discloses for instance, the holder 4 and sleeve 6 can be glued together or joined by a screw-type coupling mechanism or a snap-fit coupling mechanism. Since the suitability of snap fit and threaded joining means are known in the prior art, the artisan would find it an obvious design choice to provide a snap fit connection in place of the threaded connection of Fang. 97. The electronic vaporizer of claim 90, wherein the resistive heating element is located between opposite sides (left and right sides of housing 1 which is part of the reservoir 2/110) of the solution holding reservoir. 98. The electronic vaporizer of claim 90, wherein the wicking material 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 extends from the solution holding reservoir 2/110 to the resistive heating element 7, and the wicking material is configured to channel the liquid solution through the wicking material from the solution holding reservoir to the resistive heating element 7. 99. The electronic vaporizer of claim 90, wherein the wicking material comprises a fibrous bundle. See portion 8 of wicking material. Regarding Claims 80-89, the explanation above applies, mutatis mutandis. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOR S CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4776. The examiner can normally be reached M,W-F 6:30-10:30, 12-4. 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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 5712705569. 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. /THOR S CAMPBELL/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 3761 tsc
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 17, 2025
Application Filed
Dec 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 06, 2026
Interview Requested
Mar 12, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 12, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604369
HEAT SOURCE DEVICE, SUBSTRATE SUPPORT DEVICE AND SUBSTRATE PROCESSING FACILITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595934
Water Heater Controller
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590732
HEATING SYSTEM AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588467
OPTICAL SENSORS FOR MEASURING PROPERTIES OF CONSUMABLE PARTS IN A SEMICONDUCTOR PLASMA PROCESSING CHAMBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12568556
ELECTRODE HEATING UNIT AND DEVICE, AND CONTROL METHOD FOR PROTECTING ELECTRICAL SHORT THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
76%
With Interview (+0.8%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1276 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month