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 .
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
“an etched exothermic pattern is formed between the first insulating layer and the second insulating layer of the lower surface” in claim 10
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 9 and 12-21 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 9, the limitation “the first insulating layer, the second insulating layer, and the sensor layer have an extension portion partially extending to the outside of the body” is indefinite. It is unclear whether each of the first insulating layer, the second insulating layer, and the sensor layer have the extension portion, or one of the first insulating layer, the second insulating layer and the sensor layer has the extension portion.
For the purpose of examination, the limitation “the first insulating layer, the second insulating layer, and the sensor layer have an extension portion partially extending to the outside of the body” is interpreted to a portion of the first insulating layer, a portion of the second insulating layer, and a portion of the sensor layer form an extension portion partially extending to the outside of the body.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “A laminated heater pipe formed by vertically laminating a plurality of heater pipes of claim 1, wherein a cross-sectional area of a hollow of a heater pipe laminated at the bottom is smaller than or equal to a cross-sectional area of a hollow of a heater pipe laminated at the top” is indefinite. 1) Claim 1 does not disclose a plurality of heater pipes, but only one heater pipe. It is unclear whether the heater pipes is same as the heater pipe in claim 1. 2) It is unclear whether the heater pipes of “a cross-sectional area of a hollow of a heater pipe” is one of the plurality of heater pipes in the preamble, and whether the heater pipes of “a cross-sectional area of a hollow of a heater pipe” is same as the heater pipe in claim 1. The metes and bounds of the limitation is unclear.
For the purpose of examination, the limitation “A laminated heater pipe formed by vertically laminating a plurality of heater pipes of claim 1, wherein a cross-sectional area of a hollow of a heater pipe laminated at the bottom is smaller than or equal to a cross-sectional area of a hollow of a heater pipe laminated at the top” is interpreted to a laminated heater pipe formed by vertically laminating a plurality of the heater pipes of claim 1, wherein a cross-sectional area of a hollow of a heater pipe of the plurality of the heater pipes laminated at the bottom is smaller than or equal to a cross-sectional area of a hollow of a heater pipe of the plurality of the heater pipes laminated at the top.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “an exothermic layer is formed on the electrode layer, and is a thin film formed by applying a paste composition including at least one of platinum-based ruthenium, palladium, and silver and then sintering” is indefinite. It is unclear the “exothermic layer” is the same exothermic layer in claim 1 or an additional exothermic layer.
For the purpose of examination, the limitation “an exothermic layer is formed on the electrode layer, and is a thin film formed by applying a paste composition including at least one of platinum-based ruthenium, palladium, and silver and then sintering” is interpreted to the exothermic layer of the heater pipe is formed on the electrode layer, and is a thin film formed by applying a paste composition including at least one of platinum-based ruthenium, palladium, and silver and then sintering.
Regarding claims 13-20, these claims are rejected due to its dependency on an indefinite claim as shown above.
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 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fraser (WO 2021/170758) (cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Fraser teaches a heater pipe (heater assembly 1) for an aerosol generating device for transferring heat to an aerosol-forming article, the 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) formed on the first insulating layer (backing film 30) by deposition (See fig.5); and
a second insulating layer (heat shrink film 50) formed on the exothermic layer (heating element track 21).
PNG
media_image1.png
576
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
394
348
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, Fraser teaches an aerosol generating device comprising the heater pipe of claim 1 (See the rejection of claim 1).
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 2-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fraser in view of Gage (US 2020/0128880) (cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 2, Fraser does not explicitly teach the exothermic layer is a graphene layer.
However, Gage teaches in the same field of endeavor of an heating device comprising an exothermic layer that is made of a graphene (See para.[0072] “a heat or thermally conductive material such as, for example, a metallic foil (e.g., silver), a conductive carbon material (e.g., graphene), or any other suitable heat conductive material or combinations thereof, may be deposited on or otherwise attached in various configurations (e.g., discrete strip, full sheet, complete coating, etc.) to a conventional cigarette paper, e.g., using a “island placement” or selective deposition/engagement technology”).
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 by replacing the material of exothermic layer of Fraser with a exothermic layer made of graphene as taught by Gage, in order to improve the taste or sensory perception of the generated aerosol to the user (para.[0072] of Gage).
Regarding claim 3, the modification of Fraser and Gage teaches a connector portion formed by removing a portion of the second insulating layer, and exposed to the outside, wherein the graphene layer is connected to an external power source through the connector portion (see fig.5 of Fraser, the portion of heat shrink film connecting heating element track 21 is the connector portion).
Regarding claim 4, the modification of Fraser and Gage teaches the graphene layer is formed by depositing graphene in a pattern [Examiner 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.[0072] of Gage “a heat or thermally conductive material such as, for example, a metallic foil (e.g., silver), a conductive carbon material (e.g., graphene), or any other suitable heat conductive material or combinations thereof, may be deposited on or otherwise attached in various configurations (e.g., discrete strip, full sheet, complete coating, etc.) to a conventional cigarette paper, e.g., using a “island placement” or selective deposition/engagement technology.”]
Regarding claim 5, the modification of Fraser and Gage teaches at least one of the first insulating layer (flexible electrically insulating backing film 30) and the second insulating layer (heat shrink film 50) is a polyimide film (see page.16, lines 6-9 of Fraser “The flexible dielectric backing film 30 must have suitable properties to provide a flexible substrate to support and electrically insulate the heating element 20. Appropriate materials include polyimide, PEEK and fluoropolymers such as PTFE.”)
Regarding claim 6, the modification of Fraser and Gage teaches the first insulating layer, the graphene layer, and the second insulating layer partially extend from the outer surface of the body to form a lower surface of a pipe heater (see figs.3-5 of Fraser, flexible electrically insulating backing film 30, heating element track 21, and heat shrink film 50 from the outer surface of the body to form a lower surface of a pipe heater).
Regarding claim 7, the modification of Fraser and Gage teaches the first insulating layer and the second insulating layer have an extension portion partially extending to the outside of the body, and a connector portion connecting the graphene layer to an external power source is formed on the extension portion (see figs.3-5 of Fraser, flexible electrically insulating backing film 30, heating element track 21, and heat shrink film 50 from the outer surface of the body, and a connector portion connecting the heating element track 21 to an external power source.).
Regarding claim 8, the modification of Fraser and Gage teaches a sensor layer (temperature sensor 70 of Fraser) attached to an outer surface of the second insulating layer (heat shrink film 50) and having a sensor pattern (temperature sensor 70 of Fraser) for sensing a temperature printed on the insulating film (See page 12, lines 24-25 of Fraser “Because the temperature sensor is arranged such that the temperature sensing element 71 overlaps with a portion 21a of the heating element track 21.”)
Regarding claim 9, the modification of Fraser and Gage teaches the first insulating layer (flexible electrically insulating backing film 30 of Fraser), the second insulating layer (heat shrink film 50 of Fraser), and the sensor layer (temperature sensor 70 of Fraser) have an extension portion partially extending to the outside of the body (see fig.3 of Fraser), and a connector portion connecting the graphene layer (heating element track 21 of Fraser) to an external power source and a terminal portion extending from the sensor pattern are provided on the extension portion (See page 15, lines 24-28 of Fraser “The heating element is preferably a planar heating element 20 including a heater track 21 which follows a circuitous path over a heating area 22 within the plane of the heating element 20. The heating element has two contact legs 23 allowing connection to a power source, the contact legs 23 extending away from the heater track 21 in the plane of the heating element 20.”).
Regarding claim 10, the modification of Fraser and Gage teaches the first insulating layer and the second insulating layer partially extend from the outer surface of the body to form a lower surface of a pipe heater [Examiner’s note: This is an intended function of first and second insulating layers. Partial portions of the first and second insulating layers are capable to form lower surface of a pipe heater.], and an etched exothermic pattern (heating element track 21 of Fraser) is formed between the first insulating layer (flexible electrically insulating backing film 30 of Fraser) and the second insulating layer (heat shrink film 50 of Fraser) of the lower surface (See fig.3 of Fraser).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Fraser and Gage in view of Qiu (US 2021/0195960).
Regarding claim 11, the modification of Fraser and Gage does not explicitly teach the graphene layer is connected to an external power source through a boost converter to increase a supplied voltage.
However, Qiu teaches in the same field of endeavor of an aerosol generating device comprising a heating device (atomizer 40) is connected to an external power source (battery 30) through a boost converter (voltage transformation device 10) (See para.[0048] “the voltage transformation device 10 is a chip integrated with a buck converter and a boost converter”).
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 Gage by adding a boost converter as taught Qiu, in order to provide a conventional device to control voltage of the heater pipe.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fraser.
Regarding claim 12, Fraser does not explicitly teach a plurality of heater pipes.
However, 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 to be two heater pipe stacked together, so that the cross-sectional area of the stacked heater pipe at the bottom equal to the cross-sectional area of the stacked heater pipe at the top, in order to provide a desired length or form of a heater, since it has been held that mere duplication of the heater pipe of Fraser and it involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fraser in view of Qi (WO2021129677) (cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 13, Fraser does not explicitly teach wherein a cross-section of an outer surface of the laminated heater pipe is circular, and a cross-section of the hollow thereof is also circular.
However, Qi teaches in the same field of endeavor of an aerosol generating device comprising heater pipe has a circular a cross-section of an outer surface and circular a cross-section of the hollow (see fig.1).
PNG
media_image3.png
412
348
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 shape of the heater pipe of Fraser with a heater pipe has a circular a cross-section of an outer surface and circular a cross-section of the hollow as taught by Qi, in order to a heater pipe with desired shape, since applicant states the shape of the heater pipe is optional in the specification and does not disclose the shape of the heater pipe solved any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, and therefore the shape of the heater pipe is an obvious design choice (MPEP 2144).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fraser in view of Cheng (CN 110842472).
Regarding claim 14, Fraser does not explicitly teach a cross-section of an outer surface of the laminated heater pipe is quadrangular, and a cross-section of the hollow thereof is circular.
However, Cheng teaches in the same field of endeavor of a heater pipe has a quadrangular a cross-section of an outer surface and circular a cross-section of the circular (see fig.12)
PNG
media_image4.png
376
408
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 shape of the heater pipe of Fraser with a heater pipe has a quadrangular a cross-section of an outer surface and circular a cross-section of the hollow as taught by Cheng, in order to a heater pipe with desired shape, since applicant states the shape of the heater pipe is optional in the specification and does not disclose the shape of the heater pipe solved any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, and therefore the shape of the heater pipe is an obvious design choice (MPEP 2144).
Regarding claim 15, Fraser does not explicitly teach a cross-section of an outer surface of the laminated heater pipe is quadrangular, and a cross-section of the hollow thereof is also quadrangular.
However, Cheng teaches in the same field of endeavor of a heater pipe has a quadrangular a cross-section of an outer surface and circular a cross-section of the quadrangular (see fig.6)
PNG
media_image5.png
484
314
media_image5.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 shape of the heater pipe of Fraser with a heater pipe has a quadrangular a cross-section of an outer surface and quadrangular a cross-section of the hollow as taught by Cheng, in order to privoide a heater pipe with desired shape, since applicant states the shape of the heater pipe is optional in the specification and does not disclose the shape of the heater pipe solved any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, and therefore the shape of the heater pipe is an obvious design choice (MPEP 2144).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fraser in view of Jeong (US 2021/0161212).
Regarding claim 16, 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 is a thin film formed by applying a paste composition including at least one of platinum-based ruthenium, palladium, and silver and then sintering.
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, and is a thin film formed by applying a paste composition including at least one of platinum-based ruthenium, palladium, and silver and then sintering (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_image6.png
462
430
media_image6.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 with the electrode layer as taught by Jeong, in order to measure the temperature of the heating layer (see para.[0082] of Jeong).
Claims 17-18 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 exothermic layer has an electrical resistance of 0.6Ω to 1.4Ω.
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_image7.png
562
234
media_image7.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).
Conclusion
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