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 and 6-19 are pending and are subject to this office action.
Claim 1 is amended.
Claims 2-5 are canceled.
Claims 13-19 are newly added.
Claim 12 was previously withdrawn from consideration, as being directed to a non-elected invention.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s response filed on 04/20/2026 containing amendments and remarks to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 6-8, filed 04/20/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 7-10 under 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Kim does not explicitly disclose an anti-oxidation layer comprising a glaze or nanoscale ceramic powder. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of a combination of previously applied prior art and newly found prior art.
Therefore, the rejections below are maintained and modified based on Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “the anti-oxidation layer comprises a glaze” in line 12. It is unclear if the term, “glaze” refers to a layer comprising glass or any protective layer formed from a coating or finish. The specification appears to disclose the antioxidation layer is formed from a coating of glaze liquid comprising a metal oxide ([0045-0048]). Therefore, for the purposes of examination, “glaze” in claim 1 will be interpreted as any protective layer formed from a coating or finish.
Claims 6-11, and 13-19 are also rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
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 1, and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keum (KR 20200067711 A, hereinafter referring to the English Machine translation provided) in view of Kim (KR 20190058436 A, as cited on IDS dated 05/27/2024, hereinafter referring to English Translation provided in the Non-Final Rejected dated 09/03/2025) and Liu (US 20100147829 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Keum discloses an aerosol generation device (100, Fig. 1, [0002, 0032]) comprising:
A chamber (central cavity of insertion tube 110) configured to receive an aerosol forming substrate (heating body 10, Fig. 1, Fig. 3, [0033, 0047]),
An infrared heater (heating unit 100a) comprising a carbon material containing heating film (heating element 130 comprising a carbon nanotube material, Fig. 1, Fig. 3, [0036, 0047]),
A power source (not shown in Figures) which supplies power through a conductive element (main electrode 140) of the infrared heater (100a, Fig. 1, Fig. 3, [0036, 0039]).
Keum does not explicitly disclose the power source is a battery cell. However, Kim, directed to an electronic cigarette (100, Fig. 1, [0032]), discloses:
A power supply unit in the form of a battery to supply power to a tubular heater (80, [0041]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Keum by providing a battery for the power source as taught by Kim, because both Keum and Kim are directed to electronic cigarettes, Keum teaches an electronic cigarette powered by a power source but is silent to the power source used, Kim teaches a similar electronic cigarette powered by a battery, and this involves applying a known power source to a similar electronic cigarette to yield predictable results.
Keum does not explicitly disclose the infrared heater comprises an antioxidation layer comprising a glaze or nano-scale ceramic powder.
However, Liu, directed to a hollow heater (20, Fig. 19, [0159]), discloses a hollow heater (20) comprising:
A chamber (282) configured to receive an object to be heated (Fig. 19, Fig. 20, [0160, 0166]),
A carbon material containing heating film (heating element 26) comprising a carbon nanotube film structure configured to radiate heat towards the chamber (282) to heat an object received in the chamber ([0159-0162, 0166]),
A support member (hollow supporter 28) configured to support the heating element (26, “carbon material containing heating film”, [0159-0160]),
A conductive element (first electrode 22, second electrode 24) configured to provide power to the heating element (26, “carbon material containing heating film”, [0159, 0163, 0166]),
An anti-oxidation layer (protecting layer) formed on the exposed outer circumferential surface of the carbon material containing heating film (heating element 26) and covering the conductive element (22, 24, protecting layer is applied on the electrodes, [0183], Fig. 19, Fig. 20, [0083, 0165]), and;
The anti-oxidation layer (protecting layer) may be a coating comprising a resin (“a glaze”, [0083, 0172]).
PNG
media_image1.png
583
1128
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Keum, in view of Kim, by substituting the heating unit with the hollow heater of Liu, because both Keum and Liu are directed to hollow infrared heaters, Keum teaches an electronic cigarette comprising a hollow carbon nanotube heater, Liu teaches a similar hollow carbon nanotube heater comprising the claimed antioxidation layer, this involves substituting one known infrared heater for another in a similar device to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, Liu discloses the anti-oxidation layer (protecting layer) may have a thickness of 0.5µm to 2mm ([0083]). The claimed range overlaps with the range taught by the prior art and therefore the claimed range is considered prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 7, Liu discloses the carbon material heating film (26) extends in axial direction of the chamber (282) and surrounds the chamber (282, Fig. 19, Fig. 20, [0162, 0166]).
Regarding claim 8, Liu discloses the carbon material heating film (26) has a first surface facing the chamber (282) and an opposite second surface, the support member (28) is bound to the first surface, and the anti-oxidation layer (protecting layer applied to exposed outer surface of heating element, [0165]) is formed on the second surface (Fig. 19, Fig. 20).
Regarding claim 9, Liu discloses a support member (28) constructed as a tube extending in an axial direction of the chamber (282) and surrounding the chamber (282, Fig. 19, Fig. 20, [0160]).
Regarding claim 10, Liu discloses that embodiments of the electrodes within the disclosure can be incorporated into the hollow heater ([0163]).
Liu discloses an embodiment where the conductive element comprising a conductive portion (first electrode 12, second electrode 14) arranged between carbon material heating film (heating element 16) and the anti-oxidation layer (protective layer 15) and a coupling portion (wires 19, Fig. 1) extending out of the anti-oxidation layer (protecting layer 15, Fig. 1, Fig. 2, [0053]). Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art could have reasonably applied the conductive element having a conductive portion (first electrode 12, second electrode 14) and a coupling portion (wires 19, Fig. 1) to the hollow heater (20) illustrated in Fig. 19 to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keum (KR 20200067711 A, hereinafter referring to the English Machine translation provided) in view of Kim (KR 20190058436 A, as cited on IDS dated 05/27/2024, hereinafter referring to English Translation provided in the Non-Final Rejected dated 09/03/2025) and Liu (US 20100147829 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of England (US 20170042221 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Keum discloses an electronic cigarette (100, Fig. 1, [0002, 0032]) comprising an infrared heater (heating unit 100a) and control unit (Fig. 1, Fig. 3, [0036, 0046-0047]),
Keum 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 Keum, in view of Kim and Liu, 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 Kum 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.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keum (KR 20200067711 A, hereinafter referring to the English Machine translation provided) in view of Kim (KR 20190058436 A, as cited on IDS dated 05/27/2024, hereinafter referring to English Translation provided in the Non-Final Rejected dated 09/03/2025) and Liu (US 20100147829 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Rossoll (US 20200029623 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Liu discloses the anti-oxidation layer (protecting layer) may be a coating comprising a resin (“a glaze”, [0083, 0172]) and the coating may be formed on the exposed outer circumferential surface of the carbon material containing heating film (heating element 26, Fig. 19, Fig. 20, [0083, 0165]).
Liu does not explicitly disclose the antioxidation layer (protecting layer) is formed on a surface of the carbon material containing heating film (26) by dip coating.
However, Rossoll, directed to a multilayer susceptor assembly (1, Fig. 1), discloses:
An anti-corrosion covering (30) comprising a glass or ceramic is applied to a susceptor layer by dip coating ([0023, 0036, 0054, 0081], 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 Keum, in view of Kim and Liu, by applying the antioxidation layer using dip coating as taught by Rossoll because both Keum and Rossoll are directed to heaters for aerosol generating devices, Liu teaches the protecting layer/anti-oxidation layer is applied by coating but is silent to the coating method, and Rossoll teaches a similar protective layer applied by dip coating, and this involves applying a known application method of a protective layer in a similar heater to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 14, Liu discloses the anti-oxidation layer (protecting layer) is coated on the carbon material containing film ([0172, 0183]). Rossoll discloses an anti-corrosion covering (30) applied by dip coating ([0023, 0036, 0054, 0081], Fig. 1).
Keum, in view of Kim, Liu, and Rossoll, does not explicitly disclose the dip coating comprises the steps recited in claim 14. However, the Examiner notes that claim 14 is directed to an aerosol generation device and the dip coating process steps recited in claim 14 are product by process limitations. Product by process claims are only limited to the structure implied by the steps, and 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). In this case, the prior art discloses an anti-oxidation layer comprising a glaze (Liu: protecting layer) dip coated (Rossoll: [0054]) on the carbon material containing heating film (Liu: 26, Fig. 19, Fig. 20, [0083, 0165, 0172]). The recited process steps in claim 14 do not appear to impart a structural difference in the claimed invention, and therefore the aerosol generation device of Keum, in view of Kim, Liu, and Rossoll, is considered to comprise each of the structural limitations required by the claim.
Claim 15 is rejected is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keum (KR 20200067711 A, hereinafter referring to the English Machine translation provided) in view of Kim (KR 20190058436 A, as cited on IDS dated 05/27/2024, hereinafter referring to English Translation provided in the Non-Final Rejected dated 09/03/2025) Liu (US 20100147829 A1), and Rossoll (US 20200029623 A1), as applied to claim 14 above, further in view of Sawamura (US 5756215 A).
Regarding claim 15, Liu discloses the anti-oxidation layer (protecting layer) may be a coating comprising a resin (“a glaze”, [0083, 0172]).
Liu 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 Keum, in view of Kim, Liu, and Rossoll, by providing alumina, titania, silica, or tin oxide in the anti-oxidation layer 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.
Claims 16-18 are under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keum (KR 20200067711 A, hereinafter referring to the English Machine translation provided) in view of Kim (KR 20190058436 A, as cited on IDS dated 05/27/2024, hereinafter referring to English Translation provided in the Non-Final Rejected dated 09/03/2025) and Liu (US 20100147829 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Shi (US 20220338543 A1) and Rossoll (US 20200029623 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Liu discloses anti-oxidation layer (protecting layer) may be a coating comprising a resin (“a glaze”, [0083, 0172]), the anti-oxidation layer (protecting layer) can electrically and thermally insulate the heater from the external environment and protect from outside contaminants ([0083]).
Liu does not explicitly disclose the coating comprises a nano-scale ceramic powder.
However, Shi, directed to a vaporizer (1, Fig. 1, [0069], discloses:
A heating body (20, 20a) comprising an isolation layer (24, 24d) providing heat insulation and anti-corrosion (Fig. 2, Fig. 14, [0081,0087])
The isolation layer (24, 24d) comprises nano-alumina (“nanoscale ceramic powder, [0047, 0081]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Keum, in view of Kim and Liu, by including nano-alumina in the anti-oxidation layer/protecting layer as taught by Shi because both Keum and Shi are directed to aerosol generating devices, Liu teaches a protecting layer/anti-oxidation may comprise a resin but is silent to the inclusion of a nano ceramic powder, and Shi teaches a similar protective layer formed of nano-scale alumina, and one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to similar protective layer for suitable materials, and this involves applying a known material to a similar protective layer in a similar device to yield predictable results.
Further regarding claim 16, Liu discloses the anti-oxidation layer (protecting layer) may be a coating formed on the exposed outer circumferential surface of the carbon material containing heating film (heating element 26, Fig. 19, Fig. 20, [0083, 0165, 0172]).
Liu does not explicitly disclose the antioxidation layer (protecting layer) is formed on a surface of the carbon material containing heating film (26) by spraying.
However, Rossoll, directed to a multilayer susceptor assembly (1, Fig. 1), discloses:
An anti-corrosion covering (30) comprising a glass or ceramic is applied to a susceptor layer by spraying ([0023, 0036, 0054, 0081], 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 Keum, in view of Kim, Liu and Shi, by applying the antioxidation layer by spraying as taught by Rossoll because both Keum and Rossoll are directed to heaters for aerosol generating devices, Liu teaches the protecting layer/anti-oxidation layer is applied by coating but is silent to the coating method, and Rossoll teaches a similar protective layer applied by spraying, and this involves applying a known application method of a protective layer in a similar heater to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 17, Liu discloses the anti-oxidation layer (protecting layer) is coated on the carbon material containing film ([0172, 0183]). Shi discloses an isolation layer (24, 24d) comprising nano-alumina (“nanoscale ceramic powder, [0047, 0081]). Rossoll discloses an anti-corrosion covering (30) applied by spraying ([ 0054], Fig. 1).
Keum, in view of Kim, Liu, Shi, and Rossoll, does not explicitly disclose the spraying comprises the steps recited in claim 17. However, the Examiner notes that claim 17 is directed to an aerosol generation device and the spray coating process steps recited in claim 17 are product by process limitations. Product by process claims are only limited to the structure implied by the steps, and 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). In this case, the prior art discloses an
anti-oxidation layer (Liu: protecting layer) comprising nano-alumina (Shi: “nanoscale ceramic powder, [0047, 0081]) spray coated (Rossoll: [0054]) on the carbon material containing heating film (Liu: 26, Fig. 19, Fig. 20, [0083, 0165, 0172]). The recited process steps in claim 17 do not appear to impart a structural difference in the claimed invention, and therefore the aerosol generation device of Keum, in view of Kim, Liu, Shi, and Rossoll, is considered to comprise each of the structural limitations required by the claim.
Regarding claim 18, Shi discloses the isolation layer (24, 24d) comprises nano-alumina (i.e. aluminum oxide, [0047, 0081]).
Claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keum (KR 20200067711 A, hereinafter referring to the English Machine translation provided) in view of Kim (KR 20190058436 A, as cited on IDS dated 05/27/2024, hereinafter referring to English Translation provided in the Non-Final Rejected dated 09/03/2025), Shi (US 20220338543 A1) and Rossoll (US 20200029623 A1), as applied to claim 17 above, further in view of Reven (US 4588700 A).
Regarding claim 19, 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 Keum, in view of Kim, Liu, Shi, and Rossoll, by providing a dispersant in the coating composition as taught by Reven because both Keum 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.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights