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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/23/2026 (“Amendment”) has been entered, which includes amendments to claims 1 and 3-4, cancellation of claim 7, new claims 17-20, and supporting remarks. Accordingly, the previous claim rejections under 35 USC 102-103 are withdrawn. A new objection to claim 1 and new claim rejections under 35 USC 103 are set forth below. Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are pending, claims 8-16 are withdrawn, and claims 1-6 and 17-20 are examined herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the Huang reference (Amendment p. 5-7) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments regarding the Lv reference and claim 4 (Amendment p. 6) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Lv focuses on thermal conductivity, Lv fails to teach graphene in atomizing cores, the present application increases bending strength as shown in Embodiment 4, and thus Lv’s graphene serves a different purpose than that of the present application (Amendment p. 6). The Examiner respectfully disagrees because these arguments do not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, they do not establish a lack of motivation to combine, and they do not otherwise rebut the prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2143.
Applicant’s arguments fail to point out any claim limitation which is allegedly not taught by the prior art. The arguments regarding wrapping and intertwining, improved bending strength, and Embodiment 4 do not pertain to any features recited in claims 1 and 4. Motivation to combine exists because (1) Lv is reasonably pertinent to the claimed invention (see MPEP 2141.01(a)(I)) as set forth in the rejection below, and (2) one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply Lv’s graphene to Yu’s porous ceramic (which is used for an atomizing core) because Lv teaches graphene providing improvements in thermal conductivity and tensile strength in sintered ceramic materials (Abstract; 3. Results and discussion), which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize is applicable to Yu’s porous ceramic. The motivation to combine is derived from the prior art, not from Applicant’s specification, and thus the argument that “the function/purpose of the graphene of Lv is different from that of the present invention” does not rebut the motivation to combine nor distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP 2141.01(a)(I); see also MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-6 and 17-20 are considered product-by-process claims because they recite a final product with limitations on the preceding mixture used to make that final product. See MPEP 2113; see also claim rejections under 35 USC 112(b) in Non-Final Office Action mailed 09/25/2025 at p. 2-4. Specifically, claim 1 recites a “structure member for an atomizing core, formed from a mixture comprising…”. Therefore, the claim scope is limited to the structure resulting from the recited mixture. For instance, in claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the recited “aluminum dihydrogen phosphate solution” would not be present in the claimed “structure member” because such liquid solution would be dried off in drying and sintering steps (see specification at [0012-15]). Additionally, the recited “glass powder” of claim 1 would not be present in the claimed “structure member” because such powder would melt into a liquid (see Amendment filed 12/15/2025 p. 6-7 stating that glass powder melts into a liquid phase during the heating process). Similarly, in claim 6, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the binder “solution” (i.e., liquid) to be absent from the produced structure member.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because it recites “thermos-setting” which appears to be a typo of “thermo[[s]]-setting”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4-6, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (CN 111153686 A, provided in IDS dated 08/18/2025, English translation provided herewith) in view of Lv, Yuanyuan et al: "Effect of graphene addition on a borosilicate glass/alumina composite for LTCC technology", Ceramics International, Vol. 47, No. 9, 1 May 2021, Pages 13035-13042 (previously cited) and Liu (CN 104311109 A, previously cited with English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Yu is directed to porous ceramics for electronic cigarettes, atomizing cores containing such porous ceramics, and their preparation methods (Title), the porous ceramic being formed by sintering a mixture [0016-20], which reads on “A structure member of an atomizing core, formed from a mixture” as claimed. The porous ceramic includes, by weight:
35-60% ceramic powder (which reads on “30-50 parts of main materials” because claim 1 recites a total of approximately 40-130 parts (with 0 parts of carbon fiber), and thus Yu’s 35-60 wt% overlaps the claimed range) [0010], the ceramic powder including alumina [0011] (“the main materials comprise at least one of alumina”);
5-30% sintering aid (“5-20 parts of glass powder”) [0010], the sintering aid including glass powder [0014];
15-35% adhesive (“0-10 parts of a binder”) [0010];
Yu is silent on carbon fiber which reads on “0-20 parts of carbon fibers”;
Yu fails to disclose “0-20 parts of graphene…wherein the number of parts of the graphene is not zero” and “5-30 parts of an additive…the additive is an aluminium dihydrogen phosphate solution with a mass fraction of 50%-95%; wherein the structure member comprises thermos-setting tridymite- and cristobalite-type aluminum phosphate”.
Lv is directed to the effect of graphene nanoplatelets on thermal conductivity of ceramic materials based on sintered glass/alumina composites for potential applications in electronic devices (Abstract), which is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventors of the claimed invention (see Applicant’s specification at [0019] explaining “The structure of an atomizing core is a ceramic structure member”, emphasis added). Lv discloses forming composites from borosilicate glass powder and graphene nanoplatelets (2.1 Preparation of composites). The graphene nanoplatelets are provided in an amount of 0-1.25 wt% (Table 2) (which reads on “0-20 parts of graphene…wherein the number of parts of the graphene is not zero”). Lv explains various performance advantages of the composites including the graphene nanoplatelets over those without graphene, such as improvements in thermal conductivity and tensile strength (3. Results and discussion). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply Lv’s graphene nanoplatelets to Yu’s mixture when forming the porous ceramic.
Liu is directed to a method for preparing foam ceramics by foam injection molding and aluminum dihydrogen phosphate bonding (Title), which is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventors of the claimed invention (see Applicant’s specification at [0019] explaining “The structure of an atomizing core is a ceramic structure member”, emphasis added). Liu discloses sintering alumina as a main raw material and aluminum dihydrogen phosphate as a binder to produce ceramics [0002]. Liu discloses a homemade liquid aluminum dihydrogen phosphate solution comprising 1500 mL of 84 wt% phosphoric acid, 120 mL water, and 539 g Al(OH)3 [0024], which yields a mass fraction of approximately 95.7% (the density of phosphoric acid is approximately 1.68 g/mL (see handymath.com, The Complete Aqueous Phosphoric Acid Solutions Density-Concentration Calculator [online] [retrieved on 2026-07-29]. Retrieved from the Internet <URL: https://www.handymath.com/cgi-bin/phostble.cgi?tmptr=22&spcfgrv=&conc=85&submit=Calculate>), which yields 2116.8 g phosphoric acid, and the density of water is 1 g/mL which yields 120 g water, and thus the total mass fraction of phosphoric acid + aluminum hydroxide is 95.7%), which is close to the claimed range and therefore renders obvious “the additive is an aluminium dihydrogen phosphate solution with a mass fraction of 50%-95%”. See MPEP 2144.05(I); see also Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Liu discloses 45 parts by mass of the homemade liquid aluminum dihydrogen phosphate out of a total 231.1 parts [0025] (which reads on “5-30 parts of an additive” because claim 1 recites a total of approximately 40-130 parts with 0 parts of carbon fiber, and thus Liu’s 45/231.1 parts falls within the claimed range). Liu discloses that aluminum dihydrogen phosphate is a well-known adhesive in the field of refractory materials, which has favorable physical properties and can advantageously increase the strength and refractoriness of ceramics [0012]. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply Liu’s aluminum dihydrogen phosphate to Yu’s mixture when forming the porous ceramic. After combining Yu and Liu and sintering such mixture as taught by Yu, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the mixture would produce a porous ceramic having the claimed “thermos-setting tridymite- and cristobalite-type aluminum phosphate”, because the porous ceramic and the claimed structure member are substantially identical in composition and produced by substantially identical processes (see MPEP 2112.01(I); see also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); see also Applicant’s specification at [0029] explaining that aluminium dihydrogen phosphate contains “phosphoric acid or phosphate [which] can react with the alumina…to form thermo-setting tridymite and cristobalite-like aluminium phosphate”).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Yu by incorporating Lv’s graphene nanoplatelets and Liu’s aluminum dihydrogen phosphate into Yu’s mixture when forming Yu’s porous ceramic, because Yu is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and Lv and Liu are reasonably pertinent thereto, Lv teaches improved thermal conductivity and tensile strength when incorporating graphene into ceramics, Liu teaches that aluminum dihydrogen phosphate has favorable physical properties and can advantageously increase the strength and refractoriness of ceramics, and this would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 4, Lv discloses forming the graphene nanoplatelets in 3-5 layers each with thickness of 1-3 nm (2.1 Preparation of composites), yielding a total thickness of 3-15 nm, which encompasses the range of claim 4. It would be obvious to provide graphene nanoplatelets with such thickness in Yu for the same reasons as set forth above in the discussion of claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, modified Yu as set forth above in the discussion of claim 1 further reads on the structure member of claim 5, because the carbon fibers are not required to be present in the structure member of claims 1 and 5 (no carbon fiber reads on “0-20 parts of carbon fibers” per claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Yu as set forth above in the discussion of claim 1 further reads on the structure member of claim 6, because the claimed binder solution is not present in the claimed structure member (see Claim Interpretation above).
Regarding claim 17, modified Yu fails to explicitly disclose “wherein the structure member has a bending strength equal to or greater than 136.41MPa”. However, the claimed bending strength would be obvious via routine optimization. See MPEP 2144.05(II); see also In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Yu teaches that the strength of the porous ceramic plays a crucial role in the atomization effect and inhalation taste (Yu [0004]), Lv teaches that an appropriate amount of graphene nanoplatelets can increase tensile strength (3. Results and discussion, p. 13036-7), and Liu teaches that adding aluminum dihydrogen phosphate to ceramics increases the bending strength [0012], and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize the compositional amounts of graphene and aluminum dihydrogen phosphate in order to raise the bending strength of modified Yu’s porous ceramic, which renders the claimed range of bending strength obvious.
Regarding claim 18, Lv discloses forming the graphene nanoplatelets in 3-5 layers each with thickness of 1-3 nm (2.1 Preparation of composites), yielding a total thickness of 3-15 nm, which encompasses the range of claim 18. It would be obvious to provide graphene nanoplatelets with such thickness in Yu for the same reasons as set forth above in the discussion of claim 1.
Claims 2-3 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (CN 111153686 A) in view of Liu (CN 104311109 A) and Lv, Yuanyuan et al as applied to claims 1 and 18, further in view of Yan (CN 113173801 A, previously cited with English translation).
Regarding claim 2, modified Yu is silent on the granularity of alumina and therefore fails to disclose “wherein the granularity of the main materials is 200-2000 meshes”.
Yan is directed to a porous material and preparation method thereof for an atomizing device (Title, [n0001]). The porous material includes a ceramic base material which may include an aluminum silicate ceramic fiber with an average particle size of 200 mesh [n0007-10], which overlaps the claimed range. One of ordinary skill in the art seeking to implement Yu’s disclosure would look to Yan because Yu is silent on the granularity of its alumina, and Yan teaches similar materials for a similar purpose.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Yu by providing the alumina with an average particle size of 200 mesh, because both Yu and Yan are directed to porous ceramics for atomizers, and this would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 3, modified Yu is silent on the granularity of glass powder and therefore fails to disclose “wherein the granularity of the glass powder is 80-600 meshes”.
Yan is directed to a porous material and preparation method thereof for an atomizing device (Title, [n0001]). The porous material is prepared from a sintering aid which may include glass powder with an average particle size of greater than 300 mesh [n0028], which overlaps the claimed range. One of ordinary skill in the art seeking to implement Yu’s disclosure would look to Yan because Yu is silent on the granularity of its glass powder, and Yan teaches a similar material for a similar purpose.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Yu by providing the glass powder with an average particle size of greater than 300 mesh, because both Yu and Yan are directed to porous ceramics for atomizers, and this would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 19, modified Yu as set forth above in the discussion of claim 18 further reads on “the granularity of the carbon fibers is 80-600 meshes”, because the carbon fibers are not required to be present in the structure member of claim 19 (no carbon fiber reads on “0-20 parts of carbon fibers” per claim 1). Modified Yu as set forth above in the discussion of claim 18 fails to disclose “wherein the granularity of the main materials is 200-2000 meshes; the granularity of the glass powder is 80-600 meshes”. However, these limitations are the same as those recited in claims 2-3, and it would be obvious to modify Yu in the same manner and for the same reasons as set forth above in the discussions of claims 2-3.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (CN 111153686 A) in view of Liu (CN 104311109 A) and Lv, Yuanyuan et al as applied to claim 1, further in view of Li (CN 112645721 A, previously cited with English translation).
As set forth above in the discussion of claim 1, Lv discloses providing the graphene nanoplatelets in an amount of 0-1.25 wt% (which is close to and therefore renders obvious the claimed range of “3-20 parts of the graphene” because claim 20 recites a total of approximately 46-150 parts; see MPEP 2144.05(I); see also Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985)) (Lv at Table 2). Modified Yu fails to disclose “wherein the mixture comprises….3-20 parts of carbon fibers”.
Li is directed to a refractory material for high temperature kiln and preparation method thereof, which is reasonably pertinent to the problems solved by the inventors of the instant application (i.e., providing a structure capable of withstanding high temperatures, see Applicant’s specification at [0001-2]). The mass of carbon fiber accounts for 2.5-3.0% of the total mass of fused quartz powder [n0009] (which reads on the claimed range of “3-20 parts of carbon fibers” because claim 20 recites a total of approximately 46-150 parts). The addition of the carbon fiber enhances the mechanical properties of the refractory material [n0021].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Yu by incorporating Li’s carbon fiber into Yu’s mixture, because Yu is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and Li is reasonably pertinent thereto, Li teaches that carbon fiber enhances the mechanical properties of the refractory material, and this would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL PATRICK MULLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2373. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael H. Wilson can be reached at (571) 270-3882. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL PATRICK MULLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights