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 .
Status of the Claims
This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 21 April 2026:
Claims 1-9, 12-14, and 16-23 are pending
Claims 1 and 3 are amended
Claims 10-11 and 15 are cancelled
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments to the claims filed 21 April 2026 have been acknowledged. The rejection to Claims 10-11 and 15 are withdrawn due to cancellation of the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 21 April 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
On Pages 6-9 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant has amended the claims to recite new ranges for the oxide layer thickness and argues that Mitsuda does not disclose the newly recited ranges in Applicant’s amended claims. Therefore, Mitsuda and the other prior art references provided by the Examiner does not cure the deficiencies of Modified Plojoux in regards to the specific thickness of the oxide layer.
Examiner has reviewed and confirmed that Mitsuda and the previously presented prior art do not disclose the new ranges recited in Applicant’s amended claims and therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Zhang et al (Publication No. CN108513378A, see provided English Translation).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-5, 7-18 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plojoux et al (Publication No. US20140305449A1) in view of Isobe et al (Patent No. US3413441A), Zhang et al (Publication No. CN108513378A, see provided English Translation), and Abbot (Publication No. US20080217324A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Plojoux discloses a heater (20) configured to heat an aerosol generation substrate (2) to volatize a component of the substrate (Fig. 1; [0052]);
wherein the heater comprises a metal base (External heater elements 24/26) (see Figs. 2-3b; [0020, 0023]);
an oxide film (i.e., polyethylene oxide) on the metal base ([0023]; the external heater can incorporate a heat sink made of polyethylene oxide);
and transfer the heat to an oxide film (i.e., polyethylene oxide) such that the oxide film is heated by the heat and the temperature thereof rises ([0023]; the oxide acts as a heat sink for the heating element, storing generated heat and releasing it to the aerosol-forming substrate).
Plojoux further discloses that the external heating element (i.e., metal body) is connected to a power supply through electrical contacts located on a sleeve (60) (Fig. 4; [0017, 0066]) and may further comprise one or more infrared heating elements [0020].
Plojoux does not explicitly disclose the following details:
the oxide film is formed on the inner surface of the metal base, the oxide film being configured to generate infrared rays and at least radiatively heat the aerosol generation substrate;
the oxide film is formed by oxidation, wherein the thickness of the oxide film is 200 nm-1000 nm;
the heating body is provided on the outer surface of the metal base and configured to receive electric power from a power supply to generate heat transfer the heat to the oxide film and transfer the heat to the oxide film such that the oxide film is heated by the heat and the temperature thereof rises, to generate infrared rays;
Regarding (I), it should be noted that Plojoux states that the heat sink (i.e., oxide film) can be arranged such that it is in direct contact with the substrate (2) for the purposes of transferring heat to said substrate [0023]. Since Plojoux shows in Figure 2 that the substrate is inserted inside the cylindrical hollow shape formed by the external heaters, it would imply that if the heat sink/oxide layer is formed on the external heater’s inner surface such that it can be in direct contact with said substrate (see Figs. 2-3b; [0023]; the external heater’s surface that forms the inner cavity of the hollow shape is considered the inner surface; substrate is shown to be inserted into said hollow cavity which would imply that direct contact with the heat sink would only be achieved if said heat sink was arranged on the inner surface).
Furthermore, Isobe, directed to a heating device, discloses a hollow cylindrical heating element made of electrically resistant material (i.e., metal body) with an inner surface (2) and an outer surface (3) (Fig. 1; Col. 2, Lines 11-22). The inner surface is treated with a coating of ferric oxide (i.e., oxide film) which generates far infrared rays to heat a substance/material (Col. 2, Lines 23-31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the oxide layer on the metal body disclosed by Plojoux to have a ferric oxide layer on the inner surface of the metal body as disclosed by Isobe, as both are directed to a heater, where Isobe teaches the advantage of having the ferric oxide layer on the inner metal body surface to generate infrared waves that produce uniform radiating heat with substantially high efficiency [Col. 1, Lines 42-44; Col. 2, Lines 27-31]; this also involves substitution of one known heating element/body with another known heating body to a similar device to yield predictable results.
Regarding (II), Zhang, directed to a thin-film resistance heater and its preparation method, wherein said thin-film resistance heater comprises an electrode layer, heating layer (i.e., metal base), and metal oxide layer ([0009-0010, 0023, 0026]; the heating layer is a metal material such as tantalum, titanium or aluminum; the metal heating layer serves as the base for forming the oxide layer and therefore, is equivalent to a metal base).
The oxide layer is generated on the surface of the metal base heating layer via anodic oxidation process, wherein said oxide layer’s thickness can be adjusted based on application requirements but is usually greater than 10 nm ([0013, 0023, 0026]; the claimed range of 200 nm – 1000 nm overlaps with > 10 nm range disclosed by Zhang and therefore is considered prima facie obvious, see MPEP § 2144.05.I). This preparation process has the benefit of being a simple and low cost process that creates tightly bonded layers and a uniform and dense oxide layer which can effectively resist moisture erosion and has good stability [0023, 0026].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to construct the ferric oxide layer on the inner surface of a metal base as disclosed by Plojoux in view of Isobe, where said oxide film is formed via [anodic] oxidation on a titanium metal base/sheet to form an oxide layer with a thickness greater than 10 nm (i.e., could be 200-1000 nm range) as disclosed by Zhang, as both are directed to a metal body/material with an oxide surface layer, where Zhang teaches the advantage of manufacturing the oxide layer on a titanium sheet via anodic oxidation to produce tightly bonded layers and a uniform and dense oxide layer which can effectively resist moisture erosion and has good stability [0023, 0026].
Regarding (III), Plojoux discloses that the external heating can have other suitable forms such as having one or more flexible heating foils, a flexible printed circuit board, or may be formed using a coating technique such as vapor deposition (i.e., heating body) on a suitable substrate (i.e., external heater’s metal body) [0021-0023].
Plojoux does not explicitly disclose that the flexible circuit or deposited coating layer for the heating element is on an outer surface of a metal body.
However, Abbot, directed to a heating apparatus, discloses an electric resistance heater (200) comprising a metal substrate (Housing 411) comprising a resistive heater coating layer (413) (i.e., heating body/element) on the outer surface of said substrate via thermal spray/deposition process (see Figs. 4A-B; [0069]; the heater coating illustrated to be on the peripheral surface of the metal body/housing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the metal body disclosed by Plojoux to construct a heating body/layer on the outer surface of said metal body as disclosed by Abbot, as both are directed to a heater, where Abbot teaches the advantage of using a heating coating layer as it is easy to form around the shape and contour of the body/housing and can be deposited on an insulating layer to prevent electrical shorts (Abbot, [0069]).
Regarding Claim 2, Modified Plojoux further discloses that the ferric oxide layer/film is formed on the inner surface of the metal base by performing anodic oxidation (Mitsuda, [0058]).
Regarding Claim 3, Modified Plojoux further discloses the oxide film is 200 nm-400 nm in thickness (Zhang, [0013, 0023, 0026]; the claimed range overlaps with the > 10 nm range disclosed by Zhang and therefore is considered prima facie obvious, see MPEP § 2144.05.I).
Regarding Claim 4, Modified Plojoux further discloses the infrared emissivity of the oxide film is at least 0.8 (Isobe, Col. 2, Lines 23-27; disclosed emissivity is ~0.9).
Regarding Claim 5, Modified Plojoux further discloses the metal base is made of at least one of the following materials: titanium, aluminum, zirconium, nickel, tin, iron, chromium, cobalt, manganese, molybdenum, and alloys thereof (Plojoux, [0020-0021]).
Regarding Claim 7, Modified Plojoux further discloses the heating body comprises a resistive heating layer formed on the outer surface of the metal base, and electrodes electrically connected to the resistive heating layer (Plojoux, Fig. 4; [0017, 0066]; and Abbot, see Figs. 4A-B; [0069]; heater coating layer is constructed as a circuit 415 connected electrical connectors 418/419);
and the electrodes are configured to feed electric power from the power supply to the resistive heating layer (Plojoux, [0017, 0066]; Abbot, [0069]).
Regarding Claim 8, Abbot further discloses the resistive heating layer is a patterned conductive track formed on the outer surface of the metal base (Abbot, see Figs. 4A-B; [0069]; heater coating layer is electrically conductive and is constructed as a circuit 415 which is equivalent to a patterned track).
Regarding Claim 9, Abbot further discloses the patterned conductive track is a spiral resistive heating tape (see Fig. 8A-B; [0081]; discloses an alternative embodiment where the heater coating, which is a thin layer equivalent to a film or tape, is applied on the surface of a vane/metal body which has a spiral structure extending from said body);
and the resistive heating tape spirally extends along the longitudinal direction of the metal base (see Fig. 8A-B; [0081]; the spiral structure/vane extends longitudinally which conversely means the tape also has to extend longitudinally as it is deposited on the spiral’s surface).
Regarding Claim 12, Abbot further discloses the resistive heating layer is a continuous conductive film wrapped on the outer surface of the metal base (see Fig. 4A; [0069]; the circuit conductive layer/film is illustrated to be a continuous serpentine track around the metal body).
Regarding Claim 13, Modified Plojoux does not disclose the resistance value of the resistive heating layer is 0.1 ohm-10 ohm.
However, it should be noted that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (see MPEP § 2144.05.II).
Abbot discloses that the resistance of a deposited coating/layer can be determined based on the power needed to generate a desired quantity of heat when voltage is applied, which can be calculated from the length, cross-sectional area, and resistivity constant value of the particular material used for the resistive layer [0038-0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to find the optimal/workable ranges of resistance for the resistive layer as described within the claims (i.e., 0.1 to 10 ohms) by performing routine experimentation with the layer’s length and cross-sectional area to meet a specific desired operating heat/power.
Alternatively, it should be noted that modified Plojoux discloses that the resistive heating layer comprises of similar materials as disclosed by the applicant such as metal, carbon (i.e., carbide), or semiconductor (i.e., silicon) material materials (Abbot, [0045-46]).
Therefore, one ordinarily skilled in the art could reasonably conclude that the resistive layer of modified Plojoux would have similar resistance values to the values disclosed by the applicant, if the disclosed materials for the resistive layers are the same.
Regarding Claim 14, Modified Plojoux further discloses the resistive heating layer comprising of metal, carbon (i.e., carbide), or semiconductor (i.e., silicon) material materials (Abbot, [0045-46]).
Regarding Claim 16, Modified Plojoux further discloses that the heating element/body is electrically connected to electrodes which are configured to feed the electric power from the power supply to the heating element (Plojoux, [0017, 0066]; Abbot, [0069]). Modified Plojoux does not disclose that the heating element/body is separable from the metal base.
However, it should be noted that making known elements separable is within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.04.V.C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to construct the heating body/element to be separable from the metal base with a reasonable expectation that the heating element is capable of generating heat so long as the heating element is still operable and connected to the power supply via electrodes.
Regarding Claim 17, Modified Plojoux further discloses the heating element comprises a ceramic heater or a flexible printed circuit board on the outer surface of the metal base (Plojoux, see Fig. 4; [0017, 0022, 0066]; it is implied that the heating element would have to be constructed on the outer surface of the metal body so it maintains electrical contact with the power supply via sleeve 60).
Regarding Claim 18, Plojoux discloses a smoking set (aerosol generating system 100) comprising:
a housing assembly (10);
a heater (2) provided within the housing assembly [0052];
Plojoux does not disclose the heater as disclosed in Claim 1. However, Modified Plojoux discloses the heater as disclosed in Claim 1 (see Claim 1 rejection).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to replace the heater disclosed by Plojoux with the heater of modified Plojoux according to Claim 1, as both are directed to a heater/heating element, and this involves substitution of one known heating element design with another known heating element design to a similar device to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 20, Plojoux further discloses the metal base (External heater elements 24/26) has a hollow cylindrical shape for receiving the aerosol generation substrate therein (see Figs. 2-3b; [0020, 0023]; external heater elements are shown to have a curved cylindrical shape that creates a hollow cavity for receiving an aerosol-forming substrate);
the metal base having a first end being opened for entry of the aerosol generation substrate (see annotated Fig. 3 below; first end is the top end wherein the inner surface arrow points);
and a second end being disposed opposite to the first end (see annotated Fig. 3 below; second end is the end near element 21, opposite to the top end);
and having an inner surface and an outer surface facing opposite away from each other, the inner surface of the metal base facing the aerosol generation substrate; (Fig. 2, see annotated Fig. 3b-3c; [0020-0023]; heater elements can comprise an electrically resistive material such as titanium or other metal alloys, where the external and internal heaters are considered equivalent; the inner and outer surfaces are on opposite sides away from each other as shown in annotated Fig. 3B; inner surfaces form a receiving cavity for the aerosol-forming substrate).
PNG
media_image1.png
512
934
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Plojoux does not explicitly disclose the inner surface of the metal base facing the aerosol generation substrate extends continuously to form as a completely continuous cylindrical face between the first end and the second end.
However, it should be noted that the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design (see MPEP § 2144.04.IV.B).
In that regard, while Plojoux provides sample embodiments of the external heaters that are non-continuous (i.e., is formed from two discrete heaters or a heater with holes), it is also explicitly stated that said external heaters are not limited by the illustrations and can be formed from any one or more heaters of any shape [0071-0072].
In fact, Plojoux notes that while the heater shown in Figure 3b does not extend around the entire perimeter to provide uniform temperature distribution, Plojoux notes that this can also be achieved with a single heater around the entire perimeter by adjusting the supplied power [0061]. This implies that the heat sink, which is part of the external heater, would also have a similar continuous shape and surface.
Therefore, one ordinarily skilled in the art could take Plojoux’s disclosure to modify their external heater element and said heating element’s heat sink to be constructed from a single heater around the entire perimeter of the substrate to form a hollow cylindrical shape with a continuous inner surface, and reasonably expect to yield a heating element with a continuous surface and oxide film heating sink that is capable of heating a substrate with a uniform temperature distribution.
Regarding Claim 21, Modified Plojoux further discloses the thickness of the oxide film is 400 nm- 1000 nm (Zhang, [0013, 0023, 0026]; the claimed range overlaps with the > 10 nm range disclosed by Zhang and therefore is considered prima facie obvious, see MPEP § 2144.05.I).
Regarding Claim 22, Modified Plojoux further discloses the thickness of the oxide film is 500 nm- 1000 nm (Zhang, [0013, 0023, 0026]; the claimed range overlaps with the > 10 nm range disclosed by Zhang and therefore is considered prima facie obvious, see MPEP § 2144.05.I).
Regarding Claim 23, Modified Plojoux further discloses the thickness of the oxide film is 600 nm- 1000 nm (Zhang, [0013, 0023, 0026]; the claimed range overlaps with the > 10 nm range disclosed by Zhang and therefore is considered prima facie obvious, see MPEP § 2144.05.I).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plojoux et al (Publication No. US20140305449A1) in view of Isobe et al (Patent No. US3413441A), Zhang et al (Publication No. CN108513378A, see provided English Translation), and Abbot (Publication No. US20080217324A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Sutton et al (Publication No. US20240122256A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Modified Plojoux does not disclose the metal base has a thickness of 0.1 to 1 mm.
However, Sutton, directed to an aerosol device, discloses a heater formed from a NiCr metal alloy (i.e., metal body) which has a thickness of 600um or less ([0039, 0041]; is equivalent to 0.6 mm thickness).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the metal body disclosed in modified Plojoux to have a thickness as disclosed by Sutton, as both are directed to an aerosol device heater, where one ordinarily skilled in the art can apply Sutton’s teaching of a known heater thickness to a similar heater such as the one disclosed by modified Plojoux, with a reasonable expectation that the resulting heater will be functional and useful.
It should be noted that the claimed range for Claim 6 overlap with the range disclosed by Sutton and therefore considered prima facie obvious (See MPEP § 2144.05.I).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plojoux et al (Publication No. US20140305449A1) in view of Isobe et al (Patent No. US3413441A), Zhang et al (Publication No. CN108513378A, see provided English Translation), and Abbot (Publication No. US20080217324A1) as applied to Claim 18 above, and further in view of Paprocki et al (Publication No. US20160255879A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Modified Plojoux does not disclose the heater comprising a hollow insulating pipe provided on the heater’s periphery and configured to at least partially prevent heat from being transferred to the housing assembly from the heater.
However, Paprocki, directed to a smoking apparatus, discloses a heater support (10) sleeve (i.e., hollow pipe) that contains the heating chamber/heater (4) (i.e., provided on the periphery) and assists/prevents heat being transferred to the outer housing (2) (i.e., housing assembly) (Figs. 2-4; [0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the heater of modified Plojoux to include a heater support sleeve (i.e., insulating hollow pipe) as disclosed by Paprocki, as both are directed to a smoking/aerosol-generating device, where Paprocki teaches the advantage of having an insulating sleeve between the housing and heater to prevent the housing from becoming too hot (Paprocki, [0054]).
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 Vu P Pham whose telephone number is (703)756-4515. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th (7:30AM-4:00PM EST).
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.
/V.P./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights