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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the Applicants’ arguments/remarks and affidavit/declaration filed 1-16-2026.
Claims 1, 19, and 20 are amended.
Claims 5 and 15 are canceled.
Claims 1-4, 6-14 and 16-22 are presently examined.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DUC (US 20170360100 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, DUC discloses an atomization core comprising:
a substrate having a back side and a heating side (see DUC annotated FIG 1C below, [0054] and [0055])
a plurality of fluidic transferring channels comprising perforations arranged in an array of rows and columns (see DUC annotated FIG 1C below, [0045], [0049]),
the perforations extending from the back side to the heating side of the substrate (see DUC annotated FIG 1C below, and [0045]); and
a heating layer deposited on the heating side of the substrate between the perforations (see DUC annotated FIG 1C below, [0055]).
PNG
media_image1.png
392
784
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Although DUC does not explicitly disclose each row or column of the perforations if offset from an adjacent row or column of the perforations it would be an obvious engineering choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of the substrate array perforation layout to any desired shape, such as a triangular shape with each row or column of the perforations being offset from an adjacent row or column of the perforations. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV B.
Additionally, DUC discloses electrodes (electronically conductive contact regions provided in the peripheral area of the substrate adapted to establish electrical contact) formed on the substrate [0060]. DUC also teaches that the heating element may extend over the full width of the glass substrate [0058], and contact regions are provided in the peripheral area of the glass substrate to connect power to the heating array [0060].
Although DUC does not explicitly disclose the electrodes are connected at opposing ends DUC does disclose the electrodes are electronically connected in the peripheral areas of the substrate adapted to establish electrical connection as explained above, [0060].
Therefore, It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of DUC to modify the electrical contact regions to connect the electrodes across a width of the heating layer at opposing ends in order to attached the electrodes to electrically conductive contact regions that are provided in the peripheral areas of the substrate in order to establish electrical contact across the substrate as required by DUC as an ordinary artisan would appreciate is necessary to electrify the width of the array.
Regarding Claim 2, DUC discloses all of the claim limitations as disclosed above. Additionally, DUC discloses the perforations have a uniform diameter (see DUC annotated FIG 1C above and [0077]).
Regarding Claim 3 and 22, DUC discloses all of the claim limitations as disclosed above. However although, DUC fails to explicitly disclose a spacing between two adjacent perforations in one of the rows or columns is equal to a spacing between two adjacent perforations arranged along a diagonal direction, it would have been an obvious engineering choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the spacing between two adjacent perforation in one of the rows or columns to be equal to a spacing between two adjacent perforations arranged along a diagonal direction. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV B.
Regarding Claim 4, DUC discloses all of the claim limitations as disclosed above. Additionally, DUC discloses 4 a passive layer deposited on the heating layer ([0056], e.g., glass layer).
Regarding Claim 6, DUC discloses all of the claim limitations as disclosed above.
Additionally, DUC discloses each perforation has a diameter of less than 250 μm (microns). Specifically, DUC discloses each perforation has a diameter in a range of 10 – 150 microns [0048], which anticipates the claim limitation of less than 250 microns. Furthermore, DUC gives a specific example where the width is 50 microns in [0077] which anticipates the claim.
Regarding Claim 7, DUC discloses all of the claim limitations as disclosed above.
Additionally, DUC discloses each perforation is spaced from an adjacent perforation by less than 500 μm (microns). Specifically, DUC discloses each perforation has a diameter in a range of 10 – 150 microns [0048], which anticipates the claim limitation of less than 500 microns. Furthermore, DUC gives a specific example where the width is 50 microns in [0077] which anticipates the claim.
Regarding Claim 8, DUC discloses all of the claim limitations as disclosed above.
Additionally, DUC discloses each perforation is defined by a wall (wall of the perforation) and wherein the heating layer is deposited on the heating side of the substrate between the walls of the perforations ([0059], e.g., the heating elements are provided in the perforations, heating the aerosol forming liquid directly as its passing through the perforations). While the reference does not specifically say the perforations have walls, it is clear from the reference and figures that the perforations are defined by walls, as can be seen in FIG 1C, and that the heating layer is thus deposited on the heating side of the substrate (surface facing the aerosol generating liquid [0059]) between the walls of the perforations.
Regarding Claim 19, DUC discloses all of the claim limitations as disclosed above.
Additionally, DUC discloses an atomization core comprising:
a substrate having a back side and a heating side (see DUC annotated FIG 1C above, [0054], and [0055]);
a plurality of fluidic transferring channels comprising perforations having a uniform diameter (see DUC annotated FIG 1C above, [0045] and [0049]) and
a uniform spacing defined in the substrate (see DUC annotated FIG 1C above),
the perforations extending from the back side to the heating side of the substrate (see DUC annotated FIG 1C above and [0045]);
a heating layer deposited on the heating side of the substrate between the perforations (see DUC annotated FIG 1C above and [0055]).
Although DUC does not explicitly disclose each row or column of the perforations if offset from an adjacent row or column of the perforations it would be an obvious engineering choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of the substrate array perforation layout to any desired shape, such as a triangular shape with each row or column of the perforations being offset from an adjacent row or column of the perforations. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV B.
Additionally, DUC discloses electrodes (electronically conductive contact regions provided in the peripheral area of the substrate adapted to establish electrical contact) formed on the substrate [0060]. DUC also teaches that the heating element may extend over the full width of the glass substrate [0058], and contact regions are provided in the peripheral area of the glass substrate to connect power to the heating array [0060].
Although DUC does not explicitly disclose the electrodes are connected at opposing ends DUC does disclose the electrodes are electronically connected in the peripheral areas of the substrate adapted to establish electrical connection as explained above, [0060].
Therefore, It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of DUC to modify the electrical contact regions to connect the electrodes across a width of the heating layer at opposing ends in order to attached the electrodes to electrically conductive contact regions that are provided in the peripheral areas of the substrate in order to establish electrical contact across the substrate as required by DUC as an ordinary artisan would appreciate is necessary to electrify the width of the array.
Regarding Claim 20, DUC discloses all of the claim limitations as disclosed above.
Additionally, DUC discloses an atomization device comprising an atomization core, wherein the atomization core comprises:
a substrate having a back side and a heating side (see DUC annotated FIG 1C above, [0054], and [0055]);
a plurality of fluidic transferring channels comprising perforations defined in the substrate (see DUC annotated FIG 1C above, [0045] and [0049]),
the perforations extending from the back side to the heating side of the substrate (see DUC annotated FIG 1C above and [0045]); and
a heating layer deposited on the heating side of the substrate between the perforations (see DUC annotated FIG 1C above and [0055]).
Although DUC does not explicitly disclose each row or column of the perforations if offset from an adjacent row or column of the perforations it would be an obvious engineering choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of the substrate array perforation layout to any desired shape, such as a triangular shape with each row or column of the perforations being offset from an adjacent row or column of the perforations. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV B.
Additionally, DUC discloses electrodes (electronically conductive contact regions provided in the peripheral area of the substrate adapted to establish electrical contact) formed on the substrate [0060]. DUC also teaches that the heating element may extend over the full width of the glass substrate [0058], and contact regions are provided in the peripheral area of the glass substrate to connect power to the heating array [0060].
Although DUC does not explicitly disclose the electrodes are connected at opposing ends DUC does disclose the electrodes are electronically connected in the peripheral areas of the substrate adapted to establish electrical connection as explained above, [0060].
Therefore, It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of DUC to modify the electrical contact regions to connect the electrodes across a width of the heating layer at opposing ends in order to attached the electrodes to electrically conductive contact regions that are provided in the peripheral areas of the substrate in order to establish electrical contact across the substrate as required by DUC as an ordinary artisan would appreciate is necessary to electrify the width of the array.
Regarding Claim 21, although DUC fails to explicitly disclose the perforations are laser processed, the product has perforations and appears to be the same or similar product to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process.
Regarding the method limitations recited in claim 21 (the perforations are laser processed) the examiner notes that even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As the court stated in Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966 (The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969). If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.).
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DUC (US 20170360100 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Zhang (CN109222251A), English machine translation relied upon.
Regarding Claim 9, DUC discloses all of the claim limitations as disclosed above. DUC discloses the substrate is made generically from glass but fails to explicitly disclose the that the substrate is monocrystalline alumina and additionally fails to specify any specific types of substrate materials that would be appropriate for usage as a substrate in the invention of DUC.
Zhang teaches the substrate is monocrystalline alumina (aluminium oxide monocrystalline) and also teaches that monocrystalline alumina is high temperature resistant and corrosion resistant (page 3 lines 1-3).
As DUC fails to identify any specific material to use as a substrate for the disclosed atomization core a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look at heating element substrate materials known in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to identify appropriate materials to construct the substrate of DUC. A person of ordinary skill would have bene motivated to modify the atomization core of DUC with the substrate of Zhang to provide a substrate that would be resistant to corrosion and high temperature with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DUC (US 20170360100 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Xu (CN110089778A), English machine translation relied upon.
Regarding Claim 10, DUC discloses all of the claim limitations as disclosed above. DUC discloses the substrate is made generically from glass but fails to explicitly disclose the that the substrate is monocrystalline silicon and additionally fails to specify any specific types of substrate materials that would be appropriate for usage as a substrate in the invention of DUC.
Xu teaches the substrate (silicon substrate, example 1 page 6) is monocrystalline silicon (last paragraph page 7) (Xu also teaches the substrate can comprise a gold film, page 8 paragraph 2) and also teaches that the silicon substrate can better focus heat on the heating area compared to existing technology (second paragraph from bottom on page 6).
As DUC fails to identify any specific material to use as a substrate for the disclosed atomization core a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look at heating element substrate materials known in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to identify appropriate materials to construct the substrate of DUC. A person of ordinary skill would have bene motivated to modify the atomization core of DUC with the substrate of Xu to provide a substrate that can better focus heat on the heating area compared to existing technology with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 18, DUC discloses all of the claim limitations as disclosed above. Additionally, Xu discloses the passive layer comprises an Au film (page 8 paragraph 2, Au film)
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DUC (US 20170360100 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Li (CN102256386A), English machine translation relied upon.
Regarding Claim 11, DUC discloses all of the claim limitations as disclosed above. DUC discloses the heater substrate is made generically from glass but fails to explicitly disclose the that the substrate is polycrystalline silicon and additionally fails to specify any specific types of materials that would be appropriate for usage as a heater substrate in the invention of DUC.
Li teaches the substrate is made from polycrystalline silicon. (see claim 7 on page 6; “preparation method for micro heater…selecting a substrate…silicon oxide…polycrystalline semiconductor material”). ‘Li teaches materials for substrates for micro heaters known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heater substrate of DUC with the polycrystalline silicon substrate of Li, because both DUC and Li are directed to heater substrates, DUC is silent in regards to suitable materials for use in heater substrates and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to a similar reference to find suitable heater substrates. Li teaches known materials for use in heater substrates, and this merely involves applying suitable characteristics to a similar product with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DUC (US 20170360100 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Ding (CN107874322A), English machine translation relied upon.
Regarding Claim 12, DUC discloses all of the claim limitations as disclosed above. DUC discloses the substrate is made generically from glass but fails to explicitly disclose the that the substrate is a dense ceramic material and additionally fails to specify any specific types of materials that would be appropriate for usage as a substrate in the invention of DUC.
Ding teaches heating element substrates for electronic cigarettes. Ding teaches the substrate in the electronic cigarette heating element is dense ceramic material (see claim 3, heating element is a dense ceramic material)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heater substrate of DUC with the dense ceramic substrate material of Ding, because both DUC and Ding are directed to heater substrates for use in electronic cigarettes, DUC is silent in regards to suitable materials for use in heater substrates and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to a similar reference to find suitable heater substrates. Ding teaches known materials for use in heater substrates, and this merely involves applying suitable characteristics to a similar product with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DUC (US 20170360100 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Zhou (CN109123804A), English machine translation relied upon.
Regarding Claim 13, DUC teaches all of the claim limitations as disclosed above. Additionally, DUC teaches the heating layer comprises a metal film (see [0055], metallic thin film). However, DUC fails to explicitly disclose that the metallic thin film is a pure metal film.
Zhou teaches the heating layer comprises a pure metal film (page 5 paragraph 4, “the sheet-like substrate 212 is made of conductive metal or alloy”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention that Zhou is teaching two possible embodiments for the metallic thin film heating layer and that distinction is being made between pure metals and alloys and both are envisioned and taught by Zhou in this embodiment. Zhou also teaches low temperature, small dissipation of heat, and effective utilization of energy (last paragraph of summary, page 3, about half way down the page).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the heater substrate of DUC with the heating layer of Zhou to product a heating element substrate heating layer with a low temperature, a small dissipation of heat, and effective utilization of energy.
Regarding Claim 14, DUC discloses all of the claim limitations as disclosed above. Additionally, Zhou teaches the heating layer comprises an alloy film (page 5 paragraph 4, “the sheet-like substrate 212 is made of conductive metal or alloy”).
Regarding Claim 15, DUC teaches all of the claim limitations as disclosed above. Additionally, Zhou teaches the heating layer comprises a film with low oxygen content. (page 5 paragraph 4, “the sheet-like substrate 212 is made of conductive metal or alloy”, wherein metal is low in oxygen content. Zhou also teaches steel (page 4, last paragraph) can be the heating layer film which is well known to have a low oxygen content.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DUC (US 20170360100 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Deluca (EP0187256A1), English machine translation relied upon.
Regarding Claim 16, DUC discloses all of the claim limitations as disclosed above. DUC teaches the heating element can include a glass film layer to protect the metal foil from the aerosol forming substrate and the environment (see [0056], “the header maybe provided as a thin metal foil sandwiched between two layers of glass substrate”). However, DUC fails to disclose the exact glass composition that is used and fails to explicitly disclose that the heating layer comprises a titanium oxide film.
Deluca teaches various inert oxides including tantalum oxide and titanium dioxide (titanium oxide) that can be added to the admixture (see page 14 lines 25-30) to produce an inert ceramic glass that would be suitable to produce a glass film layer that would be suitable to protect the metal foil from the aerosol forming substrate and the environment. Thus, Deluca teaches the heating layer comprises titanium oxide.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the glass substrate layer of DUC, to include the additives of the ceramic admixture of Deluca, because both DUC and Deluca are directed to ceramic articles with metalized surfaces that need an inert layer of protection, DUC is silent in regards to suitable inert oxides for use in the ceramic composition and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to a similar reference to find suitable inert oxides that would be suitable to produce the desired glass layer composition to protect the thin metal foil, Deluca teaches known inert oxides, such as titanium and tantalum oxide, and this merely involves applying suitable characteristics to a similar product with a reasonable expectation of success. Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the titanium oxide of Deluca with the glass film layer of DUC to produce a heating layer that comprises a titanium oxide film.
Regarding Claim 17, DUC discloses all of the claim limitations as disclosed above. DUC teaches the heating element can include a glass film layer to protect the metal foil from the aerosol forming substrate and the environment (see [0056], “the header maybe provided as a thin metal foil sandwiched between two layers of glass substrate”). However, DUC fails to disclose the exact glass composition that is used and DUC fails to explicitly disclose that the heating layer comprises a tantalum oxide film.
However, Deluca teaches various inert oxides including tantalum oxide that can be added to the admixture (see page 14 lines 25-30). It would be obvious to combine the glass film layer of DUC with the tantalum oxide admixture of Deluca to produce a heating layer with a tantalum oxide film.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed 5-5-2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4, 6-14 and 16-22 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
Applicant argues regarding the array of DUC and point 1 on page 5 of the arguments:
PNG
media_image2.png
107
628
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This is not found persuasive because DUC discloses a perforated glass substrate having holes arranged in a rectangular array.
Additionally, as set forth above it would be obvious to modify the array of DUC to have holes arranged in a triangular array as a matter of obvious design choice as set forth above, which meets the amended required claim limitation. These arguments are not found persuasive because it would be an obvious engineering choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of the substrate array perforation layout of DUC to any desired shape, such as a “triangle” shape with each row or column of the perforations being offset from an adjacent row or column of the perforations as claimed above. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV B. Additionally, the depending claims are rejected for the reasons set forth above.
Applicant argues on Page 6 regarding point 2:
PNG
media_image3.png
325
633
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 1-16-2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-4, 6-14 and 16-22, based upon DUC as set forth in the last Office action because:
Applicant argues that the declaration provides unexpected results that overcome the obviousness teachings of DUC regarding the obvious change in shape of the holes in the heating array. This is not found persuasive because applicant asserts that the amount of liquid processed by the heating element Γ has an unexpectedly higher value with the offset triangular array than the rectangular array and additionally argues the variation of electrical work of the offset triangular array is unexpectedly lower (and therefore more efficient and has a greater heating performance) than an equivalent rectangular array.
This is not found persuasive because, (1) although applicant included results, the results only include 2 data points, e.g., for triangular arrays and rectangular arrays, there are no results for other datapoints such as hole array shapes such as random or other geometric arrangements of holes. And (2) the unexpected results are not of statistical and practical significance as required by MPEP 716.02(b), because although the measurements for the triangular hole array in the affidavit shows superior results for the triangular vs the rectangular hole array in liquid processing and electrical efficiency, these results are not demonstrated as being of statistical and practical significance for the reasons above and therefore the results are not persuasively unexpected.
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 Michael T Fulton whose telephone number is (703)756-1998. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 - 4:30 ET.
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 H 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.
/M.T.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747