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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "3621" and "3641" have both been used to designate a ring electrode (figures 9, 10). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 10 is 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 10, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the electrically conductive rings” in the claim, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it recited electrically conductive rings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 8 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang (CN 104397878, machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Huang discloses a non combustion electronic cigarette atomizer having an atomizer housing ([0026], figure 1, reference numeral 201), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a heating base body. The atomizer housing contains e-liquid and is hollow ([0026], figure 1), indicating that the hollow area forms a heating cavity since the e-liquid must be located there. A far infrared electrothermal coating is located on the outside of the housing ([0026], figure 2, reference numeral 203). Two conductive coatings are in electrical contact with a power supply, which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a powering unit, and the infrared coating ([0028], figure 2, reference numeral 202). The conductive coatings are considered to meet the claim limitations of first and second electric modules. The entire coating layer is disposed between the two conductive coatings (figure 2). The coating generates heat when it is energized using electricity [0017], which is evidently provided through the electrodes since they are energized by the power supply [0030]. The atomizer housing is a mica housing [0031], and applicant’s specification discloses that a heating base body made from mica [0025] allows penetration by the emitted infrared lights [0055]. It is therefore evident that the mica housing of Huang would also allow penetration by the emitted infrared light.
Regarding claim 2, Huang discloses that the conductive coatings extend as strips along the length of the housing and are spaced apart from each other (figures 1, 2). The two stripes are located on opposite sides of the housing (figure 2), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of overlapping since they overlap when moving along the width of the article. The infrared coating extends circumferentially (figure 2), indicating that that the electrical current would flow along the circumferential path to connect the two electrodes.
Regarding claim 8, Huang discloses that the conductive coatings extend as strips along the length of the housing and are spaced apart from each other (figures 1, 2). The two stripes are located on opposite sides of the housing (figure 2), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of overlapping since they overlap when moving along the width of the article. The infrared coating extends circumferentially (figure 2), indicating that that the electrical current would flow along the circumferential path to connect the two electrodes.
Regarding claim 12, Huang discloses that the conductive coatings are layers (figure 2).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (CN 109077358, machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses an electronic cigarette based on a nano far infrared segmented heating device [0002] having a hollow heat conducting component (figure 2, reference numeral 20), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a heating base body, that has a heating chamber for filling tobacco formed within it ([0029], figure 2, reference numeral 26), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a heating cabinet. The outer surface of the heat conducting component is covered with a nano far infrared component (figure 2, reference numerals 24, 25) that have multiple conductive components on top of them ([0030], figure 2, reference numerals 21, 22, 23), which are considered to meet the claim limitation of first and second electric modules. The conductive coatings are electrically to an external power source to energize the nano far infrared coating so that generated infrared light heats the tobacco in the heating chamber [0030]. The heat conducting component is made from a material that is transparent to infrared light [0035].
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 3-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (CN 104397878, machine translation relied upon) in view of Satomura (US 4,628,183).
Regarding claim 3, Huang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Huang does not explicitly disclose two rings.
Satomura teaches a roller having a heat generating layer formed as a coating on its surface (abstract) having conductors that form lengthwise patterns on top of the heat generating layer (column 4, lines 27-38, figure 3, reference numerals 5A, 5B). The conductors form electrodes, and each electrode is connected to a terminating electrode wrapped around the roller in a ring shape such that alternating conductors around the circumference of the roller have opposite polarities (column 4, lines 50-61, figure 3, reference numerals 5A’, 5B’), which are considered to meet the claim limitations of first and second ring portions, so that heat is generated in a circumferential direction (column 5, lines 13-33) through power supplied through the terminating electrodes (column 4, lines 62-68, column 5, lines 1-4).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect each of the conductive stripes of Huang to one of the terminating electrodes of Satomura using the structure of Satomura. One would have been motivated to do so since Satomura teaches an arrangement that provides power to a roller that generates heat using a conductive coating.
Regarding claim 4, Satumora teaches that the heat generating layer terminates at an electrically insulating flange that separates the conductors from the terminating conductors (column 5, lines 34-61, figure 3, reference numeral 52), thus creating an aera on the surface of the roller that does not have the heat generating layer applied to it and ensuring that the distance between the two terminating conductors is greater than the length of the lengthwise conductors (figure 3).
Regarding claim 6, modified Huang teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Huang does not explicitly teach both of the conductive electrodes having positive and negative electrodes.
Satomura teaches a roller having a heat generating layer formed as a coating on its surface (abstract) having conductors that form lengthwise patterns on top of the heat generating layer (column 4, lines 27-38, figure 3, reference numerals 5A, 5B). The conductors form electrodes, and each electrode is connected to a terminating electrode wrapped around the roller in a ring shape such that alternating conductors around the circumference of the roller have opposite polarities (column 4, lines 50-61, figure 3, reference numerals 5A’, 5B’), which are considered to meet the claim limitations of first and second ring portions, so that heat is generated in a circumferential direction (column 5, lines 13-33) through power supplied through the terminating electrodes (column 4, lines 62-68, column 5, lines 1-4).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect each set of the conductive stripes of modified Huang to one of the terminating electrodes of Satomura using the structure of Satomura to form two sets of electrodes that each contain electrodes with opposite polarity along the length of the heating body of modified Huang. One would have been motivated to do so since Satomura teaches an arrangement that provides power to a roller that generates heat using a conductive coating.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (CN 104397878, machine translation relied upon) in view of Satomura (US 4,628,183) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Lee (US 2019/0234654).
Regarding claim 7, modified Huang teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Satomura additionally teaches that the heat generating layer terminates at an electrically insulating flange that separates the conductors from the terminating conductors (column 5, lines 34-61, figure 3, reference numeral 52), thus creating an aera on the surface of the roller that does not have the heat generating layer applied to it and ensuring that the distance between the two terminating conductors is greater than the length of the lengthwise conductors (figure 3). Modified Huang does not explicitly teach the two terminating electrodes in the middle of the heating body overlapping each other.
Lee teaches a heating arrangement in which two electrodes are either not overlapped [0138] or overlapped with an insulating material provided between them [0070].
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to overlap the two terminating electrodes in the middle of the heating body and provide an insulating layer between them. One would have been motivated to do so since Lee teaches that electrodes can either be overlapping or non overlapping.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (CN 104397878, machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claim 5, Huang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Huang does not explicitly disclose the conductive electrodes of Huang being split into two separate sets of conductive electrodes along the length of the heating body.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide two separate sets of conductive electrodes along the length of the heating body. The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI B.
Regarding claim 14, Huang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Huang does not explicitly disclose a third and fourth section of conductive coating.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an additional pair of electrodes extending lengthwise along the housing of Dong and offset from the existing electrodes. The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI B.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (CN 104397878, machine translation relied upon) in view of Nystrom (US 6,560,383).
Regarding claim 9, Huang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Huang additionally discloses that a heat insulation ceramic sleeve is located outside the atomizer ([0034], figure 4, reference numeral 4). The insulation sleeve must be tubular since it surrounds the atomizer housing which is itself round (figure 1). Huang does not explicitly disclose a sealed aerosol between two tubes.
Nystrom teaches an insulating structure having first and second membranes that have an insulating aerogel material between them and are sealed at their ends (column 5, lines 34-52) to minimize heat loss (column 2, lines 60-67, column 3, lines 1-8).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the ceramic insulation of Huang for the membranes filled with aerogel of Nystrom. One would have been motivated to do so since Nystrom teaches an insulator that minimizes heat loss. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See MPEP § 2143, B.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 109077358, machine translation relied upon) in view of Egoyants (US 9,357,803).
Regarding claim 10, Chen discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Chen additionally discloses that the conductive components form rings (figure 1). Chen does not disclose insulation.
Egoyants teaches an apparatus for heating smokable material (abstract) having a layer of thermal insulation (figure 1, reference numeral 18) that surrounds and is in direct with a heating chamber to reduce heat loss (column 12, lines 56-67, column 13, lines 1-2, figure 1, reference numeral 4).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to clamp the heating structure of Chen with the insulation of Egoyants. One would have been motivated to do so since Egoyants teaches insulation that reduces heat loss.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (CN 104397878, machine translation relied upon) in view of Nystrom (US 6,560,383) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Egoyants (US 9,357,803).
Regarding claim 11, modified Huang teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Huang additionally discloses that a heat insulation ceramic sleeve is located outside the atomizer and is in contact with the housing ([0034], figure 4, reference numeral 4). The insulation sleeve must be tubular since it surrounds the atomizer housing which is itself round (figure 1). Modified Huang does not teach a layer reflecting infrared rays.
Egoyants teaches an apparatus for heating smokable material (abstract) having a layer of insulation (figure 1, reference numeral 18) that surrounds a heating chamber (column 12, lines 56-67, column 13, lines 1-2, figure 1, reference numeral 4) and has a coating of aluminum that reflects infrared radiation to minimize heat loss due to radiation propagation (column 13, lines 3-33).
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 insulation of modified Huang with the inner infrared reflective coating of Egoyants. One would have been motivated to do so since Egoyants teaches a coating that minimizes heat loss.
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 and 12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 8-9, 11 and 17-19 of copending Application No. 17/758,886 (hereafter referred to as Qi) in view of Huang (CN 104397878, machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Qi claims a heating device configured for heating an aerosol generating substrate product and comprising a heating body having a base body with a chamber that receives the product, which is considered to indicate the base body is hollow. An infrared electrothermal coating is formed on the outer surface of the base body, and an electrode coating that is coated on part of the outer surface of the infrared electrothermal coating and configured for supplying electric power to the infrared coating (claim 1). Qi does not explicitly claim a power supply.
Huang teaches a non combustion electronic cigarette atomizer having two conductive coatings are in electrical contact with a power supply [0027], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a powering unit, and the infrared coating ([0028], figure 2, reference numeral 202). The power supply causes the infrared coating to heat up [0027].
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 heating device of Qi with the power supply of Huang. One would have been motivated to do so since Huang teaches a power supply that causes an infrared coating to heat up.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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