DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in view of amendment filed 3/2/2026 with respect to the rejection(s) of the claims under 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as detailed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 4, 8-9, 32, 34-42, and 55-56 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hon (US 2012/0111347) in view of Liu (WO 2011/124033; equivalent US 2012/0285475 used for citation).
Regarding claim 1, Hon [Fig. 1-4] teaches an electronic cigarette (vapor provision device) comprising: a housing 8’ (casing) [0034]; a liquid store 3 situated within the casing; a heating element 5; a liquid permeating component 6 (heating element support) situated within the casing and configured to support the heating element; and a vaporization cavity (interior channel of heating element support 6) defined at least partially inside the heating element support 6; wherein the heating element 5 is supported by the heating element support 6 so that at least a part of the heating element is arranged inside the vaporization cavity [0024, 0041].
Hon teaches the cross-sectional shape of the heating element support is circular and thus does not comprise a plurality of spaced apart walls. Liu teaches an electronic cigarette wherein a hollow tubular bracket 3 in which heating element 5 is held [Fig. 3] may have a circular cross-sectional shape [Fig. 4-1], or alternatively a cross-sectional shape such that the bracket has a plurality of spaced apart walls [Fig. 4-2 or Fig. 4-3]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cross-sectional shape of the heating element support of Hon such that the support comprises a plurality of spaced apart walls to achieve the same, predictable result of providing an interior channel for the heating element and vaporization cavity. It is further noted that absent evidence of criticality, this limitation is merely a change in shape. The courts have held changes in shape to be prima facie obvious, see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), MPEP 2144.04 IV. B.
Regarding claim 4, Hon teaches the heating element comprises a heating coil [Fig. 3; 0020].
Regarding claim 8, Hon teaches the heating element 5 and the heating element support 6 are arranged so that a longest dimension of the heating element and a longest dimension of the heating element support are parallel [Fig. 3].
Regarding claim 9, Hon teaches the heating element 5 resides entirely within the vaporization cavity (interior of heating element support 6) [Fig. 3].
Regarding claim 32, Hon teaches the heating element support ceramic fiber, quartz fiber, glass fiber, aramid fiber, common fiber, paper, fabric or non-woven fabric material [0040]. These materials are interpreted as being solid.
Regarding claims 34-35, Hon teaches the heating element 5 is configured to define an inner region 51, wherein the heating element 5 is not supported within the inner region 51 of the heating element [Fig. 3-4].
Regarding claims 36-37, Hon teaches a first end 101 of the casing 8’ has an inner dimension, and the heating element support has an outer dimension that matches the inner dimension of the first end of the casing, wherein the casing is open at the first end 101 [Fig. 2 and 4].
Regarding claim 38, Hon teaches at least a portion of the heating element is in contact with at least a portion of the heating element support at one or more points along a length of the heating element support [Fig. 3].
Regarding claim 39, Hon teaches a liquid conduction component 7 (wicking element) configured to wick liquid from the liquid store into contact with the heating element [0035].
Regarding claim 40, Hon teaches a length of a longest dimension of the heating element 5 is less than a length of a longest dimension of the heating element support 6 [Fig. 3].
Regarding claim 41, Hon teaches a liquid conduction component 7 (wicking element) configured to wick liquid from the liquid store into contact with the heating element [0035], the heating element 5 and the heating element support 6 are arranged so that a longest dimension of the heating element and a longest dimension of the heating element support are parallel, and a length of a longest dimension of the heating element 5 is less than a length of a longest dimension of the heating element support 6 [Fig. 3].
Regarding claim 42, by modifying the cross-sectional shape of heating element support 6 of Hon [Fig. 3-4] to have spaced apart walls as applied to claim 1 above, this is interpreted to result in at least one gap being formed between the heating element 5 and the heating element support 6.
Regarding claim 55, Hon [Fig. 1-4] teaches an electronic cigarette (vapor provision device) comprising: a housing 8’ (casing) having a first end 101 and a second end a, the first end being substantially open and the second end comprising an air outlet [0034, 0039]; a liquid store 3 situated within the casing towards the second end of the casing; a heating element 5; a liquid permeating component 6 (heating element support) situated within the casing and configured to support the heating element; and a vaporization cavity (interior channel of heating element support 6) defined at least partially inside the heating element support 6; wherein the heating element 5 is supported by the heating element support 6 so that at least a part of the heating element is arranged inside the vaporization cavity [0024, 0041], wherein the heating element support 6 has an outer dimension that matches an inner dimension of the casing toward the first end 101 of the casing where the heating element support is situated [Fig. 2 and 4].
Hon teaches the cross-sectional shape of the heating element support is circular and thus does not comprise a plurality of spaced apart walls. Liu teaches an electronic cigarette wherein a hollow tubular bracket 3 in which heating element 5 is held [Fig. 3] may have a circular cross-sectional shape [Fig. 4-1], or alternatively a cross-sectional shape such that the bracket has a plurality of spaced apart walls [Fig. 4-2 or Fig. 4-3]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cross-sectional shape of the heating element support of Hon such that the support comprises a plurality of spaced apart walls to achieve the same, predictable result of providing an interior channel for the heating element and vaporization cavity. It is further noted that absent evidence of criticality, this limitation is merely a change in shape. The courts have held changes in shape to be prima facie obvious, see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), MPEP 2144.04 IV. B.
Regarding claim 56, Hon teaches the heating element 5 and the heating element support 6 are arranged so that a longest dimension of the heating element and a longest dimension of the heating element support are parallel [Fig. 3].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 31 and 33 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.
Claims 43-54 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter and an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 31, there is no teaching or reasonable suggestion in the prior art to modify the device of Hon and Liu as applied to claim 1 above such that the heating element support comprises three walls so as to define an open-sided configuration. The same reasoning applies to claim 43 regarding a heating element support situated within the casing and comprising a plurality of walls configured as an open-sided channel.
Regarding claim 31, there is no teaching or reasonable suggestion in the prior art to modify the device of Hon and Liu as applied to claim 1 above such that the heating element support is non-porous. The heating element support 6 of Hon is made of porous materials for permeating liquid [0040]. Providing a non-porous element 6 would destroy the mode of operation of Hon.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
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 ERIC YAARY whose telephone number is (571)272-3273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
/ERIC YAARY/Examiner, Art Unit 1755