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 Brooks et al. (US 4947875) and further in view of Hon (US 7832410) regarding claims 81, 91.
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 two conductive elements A/B through 502/504 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 [shown at A/B] resides in the interior of the housing 1 the two conductive elements A/B connected by 502/504 at switch 18 to the power source 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 insert 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 [the outer surface being intended for engagement with the users mouth] and cap [the inner cap portion providing an airflow path for the passage of aerosol].
PNG
media_image1.png
416
389
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fang does not explicitly disclose that the cap and the mouthpiece be separate components.
Regarding independent claim 80 relates to the cartridge assembly portion claimed in independent claim 90. see above, mutatis mutandis.
PNG
media_image2.png
1365
965
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Brooks discloses a aerosol delivery device similarly providing a cap, for providing an airflow path for the aerosol and a separate mouthpiece 24 intended for engagement with the user’s mouth.
PNG
media_image3.png
319
1006
media_image3.png
Greyscale
One of skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the Fang device to include the separate mouthpiece component 24 as taught by Brooks in order to provide a disposable mouth engaging surface such that multiple users can safely use the same aerosol device.
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_image4.png
370
719
media_image4.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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 80-99 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the Fang reference strictly as applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant’s depiction of the cap 104 “exploded” into the mouthpiece and cap portions is only one way to conceive of the two separate portions of the cap. See the further clarification provided above. With regard to Applicant’s argument regarding the two conductive elements 502/504 previous indicated by the Examiner as meeting the limitation of “two conductive elements configured to electrically couple to the power source when the cartridge is mechanically coupled with the power source, wherein at least a portion of each of the two conductive elements resides in the interior of the housing”, further clarification is provided above consistent with the discussion held during the interview of 03/12/2026. Noting the conductive elements 502/504 are understood to connect through conductors now shown as A/B.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights