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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to claims 1-16 and supporting remarks filed 12/15/2025 (“Amendment”) have been entered. Accordingly, the objection to claim 1, the claim rejections under 35 USC 112 and for double patenting, and the rejection of claim 4 under 35 USC 102 are withdrawn. However, the other claim rejections under 35 USC 102-103 are maintained and a new rejection of claim 4 under 35 USC 103 is necessitated by the amendment. Claims 1-16 remain pending, claims 8-16 remain withdrawn, and claims 1-7 are examined herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim element “the number of parts of the graphene or the additive is not zero” (Amendment p. 6) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As explained in the Claim Interpretation below, the recited additive solution is not present in the claimed structure member due to drying of the liquid (see also Non-Final Rejection mailed 09/25/2025 at p. 2-4). Thus, the additive is not a required element, and since the amount of graphene may be zero, Huang still reads on claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claimed “glass powder” and Huang’s “water glass” (Amendment p. 6-7) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner acknowledges that “glass powder” is a solid whereas “water glass” as disclosed in Huang is an aqueous sodium silicate solution; however, the final product formed in Huang appears to be substantially identical to the claimed structure member as set forth in the rejections below. See MPEP 2113(II). Applicant admits that glass powder melts into a liquid phase under heating (Amendment p. 6-7), and thus the argument that the prior art is distinguished by solid/liquid phases is not persuasive, because both glass powder and water glass appear to be in liquid form in the final product. The term “glass powder” is not defined in the specification, the specification is silent as to what materials “glass powder” includes, and glass powder is generally known to contain silica. Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term, Huang’s water glass reads on the recited glass powder.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-7 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 p. 6-7 stating that glass powder melts into a liquid phase during the heating process). Similarly, in claims 6-7, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the binder “solution” to be absent from the produced structure member.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang (CN 110467441 A, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Huang is directed to a porous ceramic substrate for an atomizer and a manufacturing method thereof (Title). The porous ceramic substrate is prepared from a raw material mixture including an aggregate (“main materials”), water glass (“glass powder”), a pore former (“carbon fibers”), and a binder (“binder”) [0024-25]. The aggregate is a ceramic material which may include aluminum oxide (“alumina”) [0024-25]. Although Huang’s water glass is not a “powder” as claimed, the resulting structure of the porous ceramic substrate is patentably indistinct from the claimed structure member (see Claim Interpretation and Response to Arguments above). The pore former may include carbon fiber [0027]. Huang discloses carbon fiber but is silent on “graphene” and an “additive” as claimed, which reads on “0-20 parts of graphene”, “0-30 parts of an additive”, and “wherein the number of parts of the graphene and or additive is not zero”, and “the additive is an aluminium dihydrogen phosphate solution with a mass fraction of 50%-95%”. Since the graphene is an optional component and the additive is not present in the final structure member as discussed above in Claim Interpretation, limitations directed to the graphene and the additive are not required claim elements.
Huang generally discloses that the pore former accounts for 15-30% of the aggregate by weight and the binder accounts for 5-30% of the aggregate [0024]. The Examiner recognizes that it is difficult to compare the claimed ratios to the disclosure of Huang, because (1) the claimed masses of parts are not percentages and do not necessarily add to any particular total value, and (2) Huang discloses component masses as percentages of the aggregate, rather than percentages of the total mass. The comparison below is made by first converting each of Huang’s disclosures to a weight percentage of the total mass of the mixture, and then assuming a number of “main materials” and calculating corresponding numbers of other components. Huang’s mixture with overlapping part weights produces a porous ceramic substrate which is structurally indistinguishable from the claimed structure member. See MPEP 2113.
In Example 1, Huang discloses a porous ceramic substrate with an aggregate, starch which is 20 wt% of the aggregate, carbon fiber which is 0.5 wt% of the aggregate, and a binder of CMC and glycerol which is 25 wt% of the aggregate [0044]. Additionally, water glass which is 40 wt% of the aggregate is added [0047]. This yields total weight percentages in the mixture of 53.9 wt% for the aggregate, 21.6 wt% for the water glass, 0.27 wt% for the carbon fiber, and 13.5 wt% for the binder (as well as 10.8 wt% for the starch, which is not mapped to any claimed component). Assuming 35.0 parts of aggregate (“30-50 parts of main materials”), this yields 14.0 parts of water glass (“5-20 parts of glass powder”), 0.13 parts of carbon fiber (“0-20 parts of carbon fiber”), and 8.8 parts of binder (“0-10 parts of a binder”), all of which fall within the ranges of claim 1 and therefore anticipate them.
Regarding claims 6-7, the claimed binder solution is not present in the claimed structure member (see Claim Interpretation above). Thus, Huang’s porous ceramic substrate anticipates the structure member of claims 6-7 for the same reasons as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1. Additionally, Huang discloses a binder selected from polyvinyl alcohol and/or carboxymethyl cellulose [0029], and specifically discloses Example 1 wherein carboxymethylcellulose and sodium silicate are added to form a wet mixture [0044-47]. These disclosures further support the proposition that Huang’s porous ceramic substrate is structurally indistinguishable from the claimed structure member, which cites similar raw materials in claims 6-7.
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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (CN 110467441 A) as applied to claim 1, in view of Yan (CN 113173801 A, English translation provided herewith).
Regarding claim 2, Huang discloses the porous ceramic substrate including an aggregate with silica and alumina, as set forth above, but 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 Huang’s disclosure would look to Yan because Huang is silent on particle size 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 Huang by providing the alumina with an average particle size of 200 mesh, because both Huang 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, Huang discloses the porous ceramic substrate including a sodium silicate water glass [0038], but 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 includes a sintering aid which may include a silicate glass with an average particle size of greater than 300 mesh [n0007-11, n0028], which overlaps the claimed range. One of ordinary skill in the art seeking to implement Huang’s disclosure would look to Yan because Huang is silent on particle size of its the sodium silicate particles used to form the water glass, 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 Huang by providing the sodium silicate water glass with using sodium silicate particles with an average particle size of greater than 300 mesh, because both Huang 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).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (CN 110467441 A, previously cited) 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).
Huang is silent on the claimed graphene as set forth above, and thus fails to disclose “wherein the number of parts of the graphene is not zero and the thickness of the graphene is 3 nm-9 nm”.
Lv is directed to the effect of graphene addition on a borosilicate glass/alumina composite for LTCC technology (Title). Lv discloses forming composites from borosilicate glass powder and graphene nanoplatelets (2.1 Preparation of composites). The graphene nanoplatelets are formed in 3-5 layers each with thickness of 1-3 nm (id.), yielding a total thickness of 3-15 nm, which encompasses the range of claim 4. The graphene nanoplatelets are provided in an amount of 0-1.25 wt% (Table 2), which reads on “0-20 parts of graphene” per claim 1. 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 Huang’s porous ceramic substrate.
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 Huang by incorporating Lv’s graphene nanoplatelets into Huang’s porous ceramic substrate at 0-1.25 wt% and 3-15 nm thickness, because both Huang and Lv are directed to ceramic composite substrates, Lv teaches that the graphene nanoplatelets introduce various performance advantages, 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).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (CN 110467441 A) as applied to claim 1, in view of Li (CN 112645721 A, English translation provided herewith).
Huang discloses the porous ceramic substrate with carbon fiber as set forth above, but fails to disclose “wherein the granularity of the carbon fibers is 80-600 meshes”.
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 preparation method includes crushing and sieving carbon fiber to a particle size of less than or equal to 400 mesh [n0011-13], which overlaps the claimed range. The addition of the carbon fiber enhances the mechanical properties of the refractory material [n0021]. One of ordinary skill in the art seeking to implement Huang’s disclosure would look to Li because Huang is silent on particle size of its carbon fiber, and Li teaches a similar material for the purpose of enhancing mechanical properties.
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 Huang’s carbon fibers to have particle sizes of less than or equal to 400 mesh, because Huang is directed to a porous ceramic substrate for an atomizer which is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and Li is reasonably pertinent to the claimed invention, 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
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 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