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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 30 April 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 30 April 2026:
Claims 1 and 3-9 are pending
Claims 1, 7 and 9 are amended
Claim 2, 8 and 10-18 are cancelled
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments to the claims filed 30 April 2026 have been acknowledged. The rejection to Claims 1 and 3-9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn due to amendments to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On Pages 5-7 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant has amended Claim 1 to include the limitations from cancelled Claim 8 while further requiring that the embedding positions for embedding the electrodes are provided during a forming process of the adsorption substrate. Applicant argues that Suzuki does not disclose embedding portions (i.e., holes on the electrodes) that are similar to that of the Applicants because the embedding process does not occur during the forming of the adsorption substrate. Applicant appears to be equating the ceramic sheet 12 and ceramic shaft 16 to the finished adsorption substrate to argue that the insertion of the shaft through the ceramic sheet and electrode hole portions occur after the formation of the adsorption substrate (i.e., the sheet alone) and thus would not meet the limitations recited in amended Claim 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant because the determination of patentability is based upon the product or apparatus structure itself. Patentability does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the 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 (see MPEP § 2113.I).
Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing a nonobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product (see MPEP § 2113.II).
In this case, the final product produced by Suzuki’s disclosure should be the ceramic block with built in (i.e., embedded) electrodes. The individual ceramic sheets and ceramic shaft cannot be considered equivalent to Applicant’s adsorption substrate component as they are merely material parts used during the molding (i.e., forming) process of the ceramic block (i.e., the adsorption substrate).
Reading further into Suzuki’s disclosure, while the ceramic sheets and shaft (12/16) are also formed via CIP molding/lamination processes, these are intermediary steps which lead to the assembly of the sheet, shaft, and electrodes via the holes (i.e., embedding portions) on each component so that said component can undergo a further and final CIP forming step to strongly bond (i.e., embed) the components together. Thus, Suzuki’s disclosure shows an embedding process during lamination formation produces a similar product as that of the Applicant’s, which is an adsorption ceramic substrate with embedded electrodes.
As such, Examiner maintains that Wang in view of Suzuki would still disclose all the limitations recited in amended Claim 1.
On Pages 8-9 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant argues that there is no motivation to modify Wang ‘231 with Suzuki’s disclosure because the objective of Suzuki’s forming process for integral electrodes provides the benefit of reducing high residual stress which is different from the objective of the Applicant’s disclosure which is to improve the stability of the combination of the electrode and adsorption substrate.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because one ordinarily skilled in the art does not need to have the same objective as the Applicant’s for finding motivation for obvious modifications. Suzuki’s disclosure notes that their forming process having benefits towards reducing stress would be enough for one ordinarily skilled in the art to modify Wang ‘231 which would be the driving reason for modifying Wang ‘231, which would result in a similar product as Applicant’s disclosure regardless of the differing disclosed benefits.
Furthermore, Examiner also notes that “improving the stability” of the electrode and adsorption substrate is a broad objective which one ordinarily skilled in the art would reasonably broadly interpret as anything that improves the integrity of the electrode and adsorption substrate to prevent separation specifically pointed out by the Applicant. In fact, if one ordinarily skilled in the art were to make such an interpretation, the reduction of residual stress disclosed in Suzuki can be considered a type of stability improvement as it prevents cracking and thus, reduced cracking means reduction in separation and thus higher stability.
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.
Claims 1, 4-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (Publication No. US20230136231A1, henceforth referred as Wang '231) in view of Liu et al (Publication No. US20240260666A1) and Suzuki et al (Publication No. US20070286985A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Wang ‘231 discloses an atomizing assembly (i.e., atomizing unit) comprising an adsorption substrate (Liquid conducting member 200), a heating member (Heating assembly 100), and a first and second lead (40) (Figs. 1-5; [0057]; Figure 5 illustrates two leads which can be considered as the first and second leads);
wherein the adsorption substrate (200) is configured to adsorb a liquid atomizable medium (300) (Figs. 2, 4; [0054-0055]);
wherein the heating member (100) comprises a heating body (Heating portions 20) and a first and second electrode (30) connected with the heating body (see Figs. 5-6; [0057]; electrode portions are shown to be connected with the heating body; each electrode portion which the first and second leads are attached to are considered as a first and second electrode);
wherein the adsorption substrate (200) is a column having a through hole in the middle (see Figs. 1, 3; the substrate is shown to be cylindrical/is a column; the liquid conducting member/substrate is shown to have a hole through the middle of the column);
and the heating body (20) is located on a sidewall of the through hole or an outer wall of the adsorption substrate (see Figs. 1 and 4; it is shown that the heating body can be located on either the inner side wall or the outer wall of the substrate 200);
the heating body (20) is curled in a circumferential direction of the heating body (Figs. 1-5; [0053]; discloses a tubular heating assembly/member which implies that the heating body is curled in a circumferential direction);
and the first and second electrode (30) are partially embedded in the adsorption substrate (Figs. 2-5; [0101]; the substrate comprises a tubular body 210 and step 220, wherein the electrodes are partially embedded in the step portion of the substrate);
and wherein the first and second lead (40) is electrically connected with a portion of the first and second electrode (30) that are located in the adsorption substrate (200) (see Figs. 2-6; [0057, 0101]; electrodes are disclosed to be embedded in the substrate at the annular step portion, considered equivalent to being located in the adsorption substrate);
and the first and second lead (40) are led out from a middle of an end surface of the sidewall of the adsorption substrate (200) in an axial direction (see Annotated Fig. 1 and Figs. 2-4; the leads are shown to be parallel to each other in such a manner that it divides the end surface of the substrate into two semi-circular halves, which indicates that they are located on a middle of the end surface; leads extend downwards from said middle position).
PNG
media_image1.png
900
1194
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wang ‘231 does not disclose the following:
the first and second electrodes (30) are disposed at two opposite ends in the circumferential direction of the heating body (20);
wherein the two electrodes (30) are integrally formed and provided with an embedded position configured for embedding of a portion of the adsorption substrate therein during a forming process of the adsorption substrate.
Regarding (I), it should be noted that Liu, directed to an atomizing device with an atomizing core (i.e., atomizing assembly), discloses a heating component (24) (i.e., heating member) comprising a heating element (241) (i.e., heating body) connected to a first pin (242) and second pin (243) (i.e., electrodes), wherein the pins are electrically connected to a positive and/or negative electrode lead (see Figs. 7, 10, 17a; [0106, 0123-0126]).
Liu illustrates that first and second pins (i.e., electrodes) to be located at opposite ends of the heating element/body, wherein the heating element/body is curved by bending the ends with the pins/electrodes which is considered equivalent to the circumferential direction (see Figs. 17a-19; [0132]; the ends of the heating element where the pins are located are disposed along the entire edge/surface which gets bent; they therefore considered equivalent to the circumferential ends of the heating element).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the bent heating body and electrodes disclosed by Wang’231 with the heating body/element comprising of electrodes disposed on ends of the heating body in the circumferential direction disclosed by Liu, as both are directed to an atomizing assembly, where this involves substituting a known heating body design with a curved heating element with electrodes and leads disclosed by Wang’231 with another similar heating element design disclosed by Liu, to predictably yield a heating body comprising of electrodes disposed on ends of said heating body in the circumferential curved direction that can be embedded/disposed on a liquid adsorption substrate to heat and atomize liquid.
Regarding (II), Suzuki, directed to a ceramic block (i.e., adsorption substrate) with built-in (i.e., integrally formed) electrodes for a ceramic heater, discloses said electrode (2) is provided with a through hole (14c) that matches with a similar through hole on the ceramic sheets (12/14) (Figs. 1-3; [0018]). When the ceramic and electrode sheets are overlaid such that the electrode is between the ceramic sheets, ceramic shafts (16) are inserted into said through holes and the sheets laminated to form the final ceramic block (see Figs. 1-4; [0019-0021]; the figures illustrate the process of embedding and forming the ceramic block from ceramic and electrode sheets through a fitting/embedding process via the through holes).
The final ceramic block (i.e., adsorption substrate) is completely formed once the ceramic sheets, shaft and electrode sheets are completely bonded together through a final molding step via CIP lamination to form the complete block/substrate with the embedded electrodes (see Figs. 1-4; [0019-0021]; the electrode, shaft and sheet are completely bonded in the final CIP molding step which is considered equivalent to using the embedding portions during the forming of the substrate because the substrate is considered completely formed when the ceramic block itself is produced after the final molding step).
Though Suzuki does not explicitly state that the through holes located on the electrode sheets are embedding positions, they can be considered as such; the through holes are used to fit the electrode and ceramic sheets together via a ceramic shaft, which is equivalent to an embedded position for embedding an electrode into a (ceramic) substrate.
It should be noted that while Suzuki does not explicitly state that the ceramic material is an adsorption substrate, it is disclosed that their invention is related to the field of ceramic heaters with adsorption forces/properties [0002, 0007]. Applicant has disclosed that a suitable material for the adsorption substrate is porous ceramic (see Applicant’s Specification, [0013]).
Since Suzuki reveals that their ceramic electrode block is utilized in ceramic heaters with adsorption forces/properties and the present application discloses a porous ceramic substrate for adsorption, one ordinarily skilled in the art would reasonably assume that Suzuki’s ceramic substrate with adsorption forces is equivalent to the ceramic adsorption substrate recited in the present application.
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 electrodes disclosed by Modified Wang ‘231 to have through holes (i.e., embedded positions) for fitting a substrate material (i.e., ceramic) to said electrodes as disclosed by Suzuki, as both are directed to a heater with embedded electrodes, where one ordinarily skilled in the art could reasonably apply the teachings of creating through holes for fitting/embedding electrodes as disclosed by Suzuki, to the similar electrode and adsorbing substrate material of a heater disclosed by Wang ‘231, to predictably yield electrodes with embedding positions (i.e., through holes) that are capable of fitting/embedding said electrodes to a substrate.
Furthermore, it should be noted that determination of patentability is based upon the product or apparatus structure itself. Patentability does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the 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 (see MPEP § 2113.I).
Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing a nonobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product (see MPEP § 2113.II).
In this case, the final product produced by Suzuki’s disclosure should be the ceramic block with built in (i.e., embedded) electrodes. The individual ceramic sheets and ceramic shaft cannot be considered equivalent to Applicant’s adsorption substrate component as they are merely material parts used during the molding (i.e., forming) process of the ceramic block (i.e., the adsorption substrate).
Reading further into Suzuki’s disclosure, while the ceramic sheets and shaft (12/16) are also formed via CIP molding/lamination processes, these are intermediary steps which lead to the assembly of the sheet, shaft, and electrodes via the holes (i.e., embedding portions) on each component so that said component can undergo a further and final CIP forming step to strongly bond (i.e., embed) the components together. Thus, Suzuki’s disclosure shows an embedding process during lamination formation produces a similar product as that of the Applicant’s, which is an adsorption ceramic substrate with embedded electrodes.
Regarding Claim 4, Wang ‘231 further discloses the through hole is circular (see Fig. 1; the substrate 200 is shown to have a circular central through hole where the heating member 100 is located in).
Regarding Claim 5, Modified Wang ‘231 further discloses the heating body is a mesh shape (see Liu, Fig. 10; [0063]; see Claim 1 rejection for substituting Wang’231 heating body with Liu’s similar heating body).
Regarding Claim 6, Wang ‘231 further discloses the adsorption substrate (200) is a porous ceramic [0102].
Regarding Claim 7, Modified Wang ‘231 further discloses the first and second electrodes are flat (see Wang, Fig. 6; [0068]; see Liu, Fig. 10; both Wang and Liu show flat electrodes/pins).
Regarding Claim 9, Modified Wang ‘231 further discloses the embedded position are holes or slots such that the portions of the adsorption substrate are embedded in the holes or slots when the adsorption substrate is formed (Suzuki, see Fig. 4; [0019-0021]; ceramic block substrate is formed by inserting the block substrate’s shaft portion into the holes of said electrode sheet to completely form the adsorption substrate block after a final molding step using CIP lamination).
Examiner notes that while Applicant’s claim is directed to a product-by-process limitation, determination of patentability is based upon the product or apparatus structure itself. Patentability does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the 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 (see MPEP § 2113.I).
Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing a nonobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product (see MPEP § 2113.II).
In this case, the final product produced by Suzuki’s disclosure should be the ceramic block with built in (i.e., embedded) electrodes. Suzuki’s ceramic block is structurally the same as the Applicant’s claimed atomizing assembly, as it has electrodes, portions wherein there are holes (see Fig. 4) wherein embedding occurs via insertion of the substrate into the holes to form the integrated electrode/ceramic substrate block structure. As such, Modified Wang’ 231 when modified and constructed in a manner as disclosed by Suzuki, would arrive at the Applicant’s same invention structurally regardless of the forming process it undergoes unless evidence of the contrary is provided.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (Publication No. US20230136231A1, henceforth referred as Wang '231) in view of Liu et al (Publication No. US20240260666A1) and Suzuki et al (Publication No. US20070286985A1) as applied to Claim 2 above, and further in view of Wang (Publication No. US11439182B1, henceforth referred as Wang '182).
Regarding Claim 3, Modified Wang ‘231 further discloses the heating body (20) is located on a sidewall of the through hole or an outer wall of the adsorption substrate (Wang,’231, see Figs. 1 and 4; it is shown that the heating body can be located on either the inner side wall or the outer wall of the substrate 200; see Claim 1 rejection for substituting Wang’231 heating body with Liu’s).
Modified Wang ‘231 discloses that the electrode portions are partially embedded into the substrate, but does not explicitly disclose that the heating body is also embedded into the substrate.
However, Wang ‘182, directed to an atomizer core (i.e., assembly), discloses a fluid absorbing element 100/201 (i.e., adsorption substrate), heating element 101 (i.e., heating body), and conductive wires 104 (i.e., lead) (Figs. 1-6; Col. 5, Lines 38-65 and Col. 6, Lines 1-19; absorbing elements 100 and 201 are considered equivalent). The heating element is further disclosed to be embedded in an inner wall (i.e., sidewall) of the absorption substrate/element which is illustrated to have a column shape with a through hole (202) through the center of the substrate (see Figs. 5-6; Col. 6, Lines 1-19).
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 atomizing assembly disclosed by Modified Wang ‘231 to have the heating body embedded in the sidewall of the absorption substrate as disclosed by Wang ‘182, as both are directed to an atomizing assembly, where one ordinarily skilled in the art could reasonably apply the teachings of embedding a heating element in a sidewall of a columnar absorption substrate as disclosed by Wang ‘182, to the similar atomizing assembly comprising a heating element and columnar substrate as disclosed by Modified Wang ‘231, to predictably yield an embedded heating element capable of heating an atomizing liquid from an absorption substrate.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhou et al (Publication No. US20220071290A1) – Manufacturing method for an atomization assembly wherein the assembly heating body component is formed by stamping and sintering a porous ceramic matrix. The assembly further comprises two electrodes with positioning holes that can be secured to the heating body via positioning pegs and ceramic paste before finally being integrally formed together to produce integrally formed ceramic substrate and electrode heating body.
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