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
Claims 1-11 are pending and are subject to this office action. Claim 12 is withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s response filed on 12/23/2025 containing amendments and remarks to the claims.
Applicant has corrected the term “anti-oxidization” in claims 1-4, 6, 8, and 12. Therefore the objection to claims 1-11 is withdrawn.
Applicant has revised claim 6 to recite a single range of anti-oxidation layer thickness. Therefore, the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pg. 7, Applicant argues that the cited references fail to disclose the limitation, “an anti-oxidation layer, formed on at least a part of a surface of the carbon material heating film and covering a part of the conductive element”, as required by claim 1. The rejection of claim 1 in the Non-Final Rejection dated 09/23/2025 relied on 2 interpretations of Kim (KR 20190058436 A). On pg. 4-5, the insulation layer (20) was considered to be an antioxidation layer which is formed on part of the inner surface of the heating element (40, “carbon material heating film”) and covers a part of the inner surface of the wiring pattern (30, “conductive element”, Fig. 3, Fig. 13). On pg. 5-6, the cover layer (50) was considered to be an antioxidation layer which is formed on part of a surface of the heating element (40, “carbon material heating film”) and covers a part of a surface of the wiring pattern (30, “conductive element”, Fig. 3, Fig. 13). The Examiner notes that the Applicant has not pointed out how the reference fails to meet the limitation.
Therefore, the prior art rejections below are maintained.
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 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (KR 20190058436 A, as cited on IDS dated 05/27/2024, hereinafter referring to English Translation provided).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses an electronic cigarette (100, Fig. 1, [0032]), comprising:
A power supply unit in the form of a battery to supply power to the heater (80, [0041])
A tubular heater (80, “at least one infrared heater”) having a chamber configured to receive a cigarette (95, Fig. 1, [0032, 0035]), where the tubular heater (80) comprises:
a metal plate (10, “support member”),
an insulating layer (20, “anti-oxidation layer”),
an electrode wiring pattern (30, “conductive element”),
planar heating elements (40, “carbon material heating film”), and
a cover layer (50, Fig. 3, Fig. 13, [0046]).
The heating elements (40) are formed of carbon nanotube and graphite particles and printed on the insulating layer (20, [0014, 0046])
The heating elements (26) generate heat by receiving power from the electrode wiring pattern (30, [0046])
The metal plate (10) forms the inner surface of the heater (80) and therefore provides support for the heating elements (40, Fig. 2, Fig. 3, Fig. 13)
The insulating layer (20) covers the inner surface of the heating elements (40, Fig. 3, Fig. 13) which protects the heating elements (40) from oxidation and therefore meet the claim limitation of an antioxidation layer.
The insulating layer (20) covers an inner surface of the wiring pattern (30, Fig. 3, Fig. 13)
Regarding claim 10, Kim discloses:
The electrode wiring pattern (30, “conductive element”) is arranged between the heating elements (40, “carbon material heating film”) and the insulating layer (20, “antioxidation layer”, Fig. 3)
The electrode wiring pattern (30, “conductive element”) comprises electrode terminals (35, “conductive portion”) and electrode pads (31, “coupling portion”) which extend out of the insulating layer (20, “antioxidation layer”, Fig. 14).
Claims 1 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (KR 20190058436 A, as cited on IDS dated 05/27/2024, hereinafter referring to English Translation provided).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses an electronic cigarette (100, Fig. 1, [0032]), comprising:
A power supply unit in the form of a battery to supply power to the heater (80, [0041])
A tubular heater (80, “at least one infrared heater”) having a chamber configured to receive a cigarette (95, Fig. 1, [0032, 0035]), where the tubular heater (80) comprises:
a metal plate (10, “support member”),
an insulating layer (20),
an electrode wiring pattern (30, “conductive element”),
planar heating elements (40, “carbon material heating film”), and
a cover layer (50, “anti-oxidation layer”, Fig. 3, Fig. 13, [0046]).
The heating elements (40) are formed of carbon nanotube and graphite particles and printed on the insulating layer (20, [0014, 0046])
The heating elements (26) generate heat by receiving power from the electrode wiring pattern (30, [0046])
The metal plate (10) forms the inner surface of the heater (80) and therefore provides support for the heating elements (40, Fig. 2, Fig. 3, Fig. 13)
The cover layer (50, “antioxidation layer”) covers the electrode wiring pattern (30) and the heating elements (40, Fig. 13) and protects the electrode wiring pattern (30) and the heating elements (40) from the external environment ([0093]).
Regarding claim 7, Kim discloses the heating elements (40) extends in an axial direction and partially surround the chamber (Fig. 2, Fig. 12, heater 80 is joined at portion 17 to form a tube).
Regarding claim 8, Kim discloses the planar heating elements (40, “carbon material heating film”) has a first/inner surface facing the chamber and an opposite second/outer surface, the metal plate (10, “support member”) is bound to the first/inner surface and the cover layer (50, “antioxidation layer”) is formed on the second/outer surface (Fig. 2, Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 9, Kim discloses the metal plate (10, “support member”) is a tube extending in the axial direction and surrounding the chamber (Fig. 2).
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.
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20190058436 A, as cited on IDS dated 05/27/2024, hereinafter referring to English Translation provided), as applied to claims 1, and 7-9 above, in view of Rossoll (US 20200029623 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses that the cover layer (50) is laminated ([0047, 0093]).
Kim does not explicitly disclose the cover layer is formed by brushing, dip coating, spraying, physical vapor deposition, or chemical vapor deposition.
However, Rossoll, directed to a multilayer susceptor assembly (1, Fig. 1), discloses:
An anti-corrosion covering (30) applied to a susceptor layer by dip coating, spraying, roll coating, electroplating or cladding ([0036, 0054], Fig. 1).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kim by applying the cover layer/antioxidation layer using dip coating or spraying as taught by Rossoll because both Kim and Rossoll are directed to multilayer heaters with a protective layer, Kim teaches laminating the cover layer to the assembly and Rossoll teaches dip coating or spraying the covering, and this involves substituting one known application method of a protective layer for another in a similar heater to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses a tubular heater (80) comprising a cover layer (50, “anti-oxidation layer”, Fig. 3, Fig. 13, [0046]).
Kim is silent to the thickness of the cover layer.
However, Rossoll, directed to a multilayer susceptor assembly (1, Fig. 1), discloses:
An anti-corrosion covering (30) applied to a susceptor layer, where the anti-corrosion covering has a thickness (T30) of 10µm ([0070], Fig. 2). The thickness taught by the prior art lies within the claimed range and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kim by providing the cover layer with a thickness of 10µm as taught by Rossoll because both Kim and Rossoll are directed to multilayer heaters with a protective layer, Kim is silent to the thickness of the cover layer, Rossoll teaches a known thickness of a protective layer on a heater, and one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to similar protective layers for workable ranges of thickness and this involves applying a known protective layer thickness to a similar heater to yield predictable results.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20190058436 A, as cited on IDS dated 05/27/2024, hereinafter referring to English Translation provided) in view of Rossoll (US 20200029623 A1), as applied to claim 2 above, further in view of Sawamura (US 5756215 A).
Regarding claim 3, Rossoll discloses anti-corrosion covering formed by dip coating ([0036, 0054]) and the anti-corrosion layer may comprise at least one of a corrosion-proof metal, an inert metal, a corrosion-proof alloy, a corrosion-proof organic coating, or an anti-corrosion paint ([0023]).
Kim or Rossoll do not explicitly disclose the layer is formed of silicon dioxide, aluminum oxide, magnesium oxide, calcium oxide, zinc oxide, titanium dioxide, tin oxide, lanthanum oxide, or bismuth oxide.
However, Sawamura, directed to a multilayer ceramic heater (Fig. 1), discloses:
A protective film covering the outer surface of the heater element which is oxidation resistant (col. 4 lines 64-67)
The protective film is made of alumina, titania, silica, or tin oxide (col. 13 lines 52-58).
The protective film is chemically and thermally stable, heat resistant, and oxidation resistant (col. 24 lines 29-32).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kim, in view of Rossoll, by using a cover layer comprising alumina, titania, silica, or tin oxide as taught by Sawamura because both Kim and Sawamura are directed to multilayer heaters with a protective layer, Sawamura discloses the protective film is oxidation resistant, and this involves applying a known anti-oxidation composition as a protective layer to a similar heater to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, Rossoll discloses anti-corrosion covering formed by spraying ([0036, 0054]) and the anti-corrosion layer may comprise at least one of a corrosion-proof metal, an inert metal, a corrosion-proof alloy, a corrosion-proof organic coating, or an anti-corrosion paint ([0023]).
Kim or Rossoll do not explicitly disclose the layer is formed of at least one of silicon dioxide, aluminum oxide, zirconium oxide, zinc oxide, titanium dioxide, cerium oxide, and lanthanum oxide.
However, Sawamura, directed to a multilayer ceramic heater (Fig. 1), discloses:
A protective film covering the outer surface of the heater element which is oxidation resistant (col. 4 lines 64-67)
The protective film is made of alumina, titania, or silica (col. 13 lines 52-58).
The protective film is chemically and thermally stable, heat resistant, and oxidation resistant (col. 24 lines 29-32).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kim, in view of Rossoll, by using a cover layer comprising alumina, titania, or silica as taught by Sawamura because both Kim and Sawamura are directed to multilayer heaters with a protective layer, Sawamura discloses the protective film is oxidation resistant, and this involves applying a known anti-oxidation composition as a protective layer to a similar heater to yield predictable results.
Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20190058436 A, as cited on IDS dated 05/27/2024, hereinafter referring to English Translation provided) in view of Rossoll (US 20200029623 A1) and Sawamura (US 5756215 A) as applied to claim 4 above, further in view of Reven (US 4588700 A).
Regarding claim 5, Rossoll discloses an anti-corrosion covering (30) applied by spraying ([0036, 0054], Fig. 1).
Rossoll does not explicitly disclose the spraying solution comprising a dispersing agent, defoaming agent, or a bonding agent.
However, Reven, directed to an anti-oxidation coating for carbon electrodes (abstract), discloses:
A coating composition comprising silicon dioxide, titanium dioxide, and dispersants to ease application by keeping the components dispersed (col. 1 lines 50-62, col. 3 lines 19-22).
The composition is applied to the carbon electrodes by spraying (col. 3 lines 65-67, col 4 lines 1-2).,
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kim, in view of Rossoll and Sawamura, by providing a dispersant in the cover layer composition as taught by Reven because both Kim and Reven are directed to protective coverings for electrical components, Reven discloses the dispersant promotes easy application of the coating, and this involves applying a dispersant to a coating solution in a known manner to yield predictable results.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20190058436 A, as cited on IDS dated 05/27/2024, hereinafter referring to English Translation provided) in view of England (US 20170042221 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Kim discloses an electronic cigarette (100) comprising a tubular heater (80, “at least one infrared heater”) and a control unit (93, Fig. 1, [0032, 0034-0035]).
Kim does not explicitly disclose a first and second infrared heater that are constructed to independently start to implement segmented heating.
However, England, directed to an aerosol generating apparatus (121 Fig. 12), discloses:
A heater support sleeve (129) comprising a plurality of infrared heater segments (135, i.e. a first and second infrared heater) where the electrical control circuitry (127) is arranged such that the heater segments (135) can be powered independently to heat selected zones of the smokable material (125, [0098], Fig. 13, Fig. 14)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kim by providing the electronic cigarette with a first and second infrared heater and configuring the control unit to independently power the heaters as taught by England because both Kim and England are directed to aerosol generation devices, England teaches providing multiple independent heaters allows the device to heat different zones of the smokable material, and this involves applying a known heater arrangement to a similar device to yield predictable results.
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 MORGAN FAITH DEZENDORF whose telephone number is (571)272-0155. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-430pm 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.
/M.F.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755