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
With respect to the drawing objection, applicant canceled claim 10 filed on 04/27/2026, which makes the drawing objection moot. Therefore the drawing objection is withdrawn. However, new drawing objection is raised due to the claim amendment.
With respect to the claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), applicant canceled claims 9 and 12, and amended claim 16 filed on 04/27/2026, which makes the claim rejection moot. Therefore the claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn. However, new claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is raised due to the claim amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues reference Fraser does not teach the sintered paste composition.
Examiner respectfully disagree. The sintered paste composition is directed to a product-by-process limitation of the exothermic layer. Sintered paste is merely a state of the raw materials to make the exothermic layer, and the exothermic layer is not and comprising sintered paste. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. Therefore the sintered paste does not limit the exothermic layer.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation
“the first insulating layer, the electrode layer, the exothermic layer, and the second insulating layer have a hole located at overlapping positions to expose the heater pipe, and wherein the laminated heater pipe further includes a thermocouple for temperature measurement directly welded to the metal body exposed through the hole” in claim 21.
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 17 are 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.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “the exothermic layer thin film has an electrical resistance of 0.6Ω to 1.4Ω measured in the electrode layer” is indefinite. It is unclear how the electrical resistance of the exothermic layer thin film can be measured in the electrode layer, since the exothermic layer thin film and the electrode layer are two independent structures.
For the purpose of examination, the limitation “the exothermic layer thin film has an electrical resistance of 0.6Ω to 1.4Ω measured in the electrode layer” is interpreted to “the exothermic layer thin film has an electrical resistance of 0.6Ω to 1.4Ω”.
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 16 and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fraser (WO 2021/170758) (previous cited) in view of Jeong (US 2021/0161212) (previous cited).
PNG
media_image1.png
576
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
394
348
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Fraser teaches a laminated heater pipe (heater assembly 1) for an aerosol generating device for transferring heat to an aerosol-forming article, the laminated heater pipe (heater assembly 1) comprising:
a body (heating chamber 60) formed of metal and having a shape of a hollow pipe for accommodating the aerosol-forming article (see figures 3-5 and page 16, line 24, “The heating chamber preferably comprises a metal”. Heating chamber 60 has a shape of a hollow pipe and it is capable for accommodating an article.);
a first insulating layer (flexible electrically insulating backing film 30) formed on an outer surface of the body (heating chamber 60) (See fig.5);
an exothermic layer (heating element track 21) which is a thin film and the first insulating layer (flexible electrically insulating backing film 30) (See fig.5);
a second insulating layer (heat shrink film 50) formed on the exothermic layer (heating element track 21).
Fraser does not explicitly teach an electrode layer printed on the first insulating layer, wherein an exothermic layer is formed on the electrode layer, and the exothermic layer thin film comprises a sintered paste composition including at least one of ruthenium, palladium, and silver.
However, Jeong teaches in the same field of endeavor of a heater pipe comprising an electrode layer (sensor pattern 113) printed on the first insulating layer (first insulating layer 112 a), wherein an exothermic layer (heating layer 111) is formed on the electrode layer (sensor pattern 113), and the exothermic layer thin film (heating layer 111) comprises a sintered paste composition including at least one of ruthenium, palladium, and silver (See para.[0087] “the sensor pattern 113 may include metal, and the metal forming the sensor pattern 113 may include at least one of silver (Ag) and palladium (Pd)”)..
PNG
media_image3.png
462
430
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the heater pipe of Fraser with the electrode layer as taught by Jeong, in order to measure the temperature of the heating layer (see para.[0082] of Jeong).
Regarding claim 24, the modification of Fraser and Jeong teaches the electrode layer (sensor pattern 113 of Jeong) is formed of silver (See para.[0087] “the sensor pattern 113 may include metal, and the metal forming the sensor pattern 113 may include at least one of silver (Ag) and palladium (Pd)”) and includes electrodes which are conductive printed patterns (see para.[0082] of Jeong “the sensor pattern 113 may be formed by printing a resistor”) to which a power line is soldered (see fig.5 of Jeong, sensor pattern 113 is connected to a power line.).
Regarding claim 25, the modification of Fraser and Jeong teaches the sintered paste composition is obtained by mixing silver and palladium or by mixing silver and ruthenium, and then sintering [Examiner’s note: The claimed limitation is a product-by-process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. See para.[0087] “the sensor pattern 113 may include metal, and the metal forming the sensor pattern 113 may include at least one of silver (Ag) and palladium (Pd)”).]
Regarding claim 23 and 26, Fraser does not explicitly teach the first insulating layer is a glass-ceramic layer formed on the outer surface of the metal body, wherein the second insulating layer is a glass layer formed on the exothermic layer.
However, Jeong teaches in the same field of endeavor of a heater pipe comprising a insulating layer made of glass frit or an inorganic oxide. The glass frit may refer to a glass material such as glass powder. The inorganic oxide may include at least one of silicon (Si) oxide, boron (B) oxide, calcium (Ca) oxide, zirconium (Zr) oxide, and aluminum (Al) oxide.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to replace the first and second insulating layers of the heater pipe of Fraser with the glass-ceramic insulating layer as taught by Jeong, in order to provide a conventional insulating material, so that reducing the cost of the manufacturing.
Claims 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Fraser and Jeong in view of Qi (WO2021129677).
Regarding claim 17, the modification of Fraser and Jeong does not explicitly teach the sintered paste composition has a composition such that the exothermic layer thin film has an electrical resistance of 0.6Ω to 1.4Ω.measured in the electrode layer
However, Qi teaches in the same field of endeavor of an aerosol generating device comprising heater pipe has an exothermic layer (resistance heating layer 131) has an electrical resistance of 0.6Ω to 1.4Ω (see line 401 “the resistance value of the resistance heating layer 131 may be 0.5 ohm-3 ohm”).
PNG
media_image4.png
562
234
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the heater pipe of the modification of Fraser and Jeong with a heater pipe has an exothermic layer (resistance heating layer 131) has an electrical resistance of 0.6Ω to 1.4Ω as taught by Qi, in order to generate proper heat for the heater pipe.
Regarding claim 18, the modification of Fraser and Jeong does not explicitly teach the electrode layer includes one or more negative (−) electrodes and two or more positive (+) electrodes.
However, Qi teaches in the same field of endeavor of an aerosol generating device comprising heater pipe has an electrode layer includes one or more negative (−) electrodes and one or more positive (+) electrodes. (see line 330 and fig.6, Qi teaches electrodes 132 and 133, which are a positive electrode and a negative electrode.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the electrode layer of modification of Fraser and Jeong with a electrode layer with a negative electrode and a positive electrode, in order to supply power to the electrodes (see line 330 of Qi), and further modify the positive electrodes to be two positive electrodes, in order to provide a desired heating circuit for the heater pipe, since it has been held that mere duplication of the working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 20, the modification of Fraser, Jeong, and Qi teaches a temperature change resistance (TCR) of the exothermic layer connected to the electrode layer is measured and used to control a temperature of the exothermic layer [Examiner’s note: The temperature resistance (TCR) is a characteristic of heating element track 21 of Fraser. Operator can measure and use the temperature resistance (TCR) characteristic of heating element track 21 of Fraser and control the temperature of characteristic of heating element track 21 of Fraser.]
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 CHRIS Q LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-8241. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/CHRIS Q LIU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights