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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of an atomization core (Claims 1-12 and 19-20) in the reply filed on 2/3/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/3/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 5/24/2023 and 7/18/2024 has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 9-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 4 should read “a permeation rate”, because this was not previously introduced
Claim 1 line 5 should read “…a thermal conductivity”, because this was not previously introduced
Claim 2 line 1 should read “…a pore size”, because this was not previously introduced
Claim 3 line 1 should read “…a porosity of the porous ceramic substrate”, because this was not previously introduced
Claim 9 line 1 should read “…a bending strength”, because this was not previously introduced
Claim 10 line 1 should read “…a thickness”, because this was not previously introduced
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 and 19-20 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 claims “an atomization core”, where the claim recites “…wherein the permeation rate of the porous ceramic substrate is in a range of 0.8 mg/s.bar.mm2 to 4.0 mg/s.bar.mm2”. This permeation rate, in addition to being related to the characteristics of the porous ceramic substrate of the atomization core, is also dependent upon what liquid is chosen to permeate across the surface. Pg. 4-5 of the instant specification acknowledges this, stating that the viscosity of the e-liquid affects the permeation rate. This is further supported by Darcy’s law (which governs the flow of fluids through porous media). According to Darcy’s law, the fluid’s viscosity, the substrate’s permeability, and the pressure gradient determine the flow rate at any given location in the substrate.
PNG
media_image1.png
203
355
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As the claims do not recite what the viscosity of the liquid is to be, nor do the claims in any way claim the liquid (as the claims are tied to “an atomization core” which do not encompass any liquid, and are rather tied to a structure of the atomization core and ceramic thereof), it is not clear how it is possible to determine whether the permeability of the substrate to be within the claimed range. Said another way, a single atomization core when taken on its own can have any number of different permeation rates reliant on what material is utilized with the atomization core. Applicant is asked to amend and clarify without the addition of new matter. Claims 2-11 and 19-20 are rejected for relying upon a rejected claim, and claim 19 is additionally rejected for having additional limitations tied to the “permeation rate” which is not possible to be calculated. The claims will be examined such that any porous ceramic substrate would satisfy the claimed permeation rate, given that any liquid may be chosen so as to have the claimed permeation rate with any specified substrate.
Claim 8 recites “…wherein a scratch resistance of the porous ceramic substrate is in a range of 3 wt % to 10 wt %”. These units for scratch resistance are not conventional within the art, and the instant specification does not specifically define what is meant by a “wt %” in regards to a scratch resistance of the porous ceramic substrate nor how to calculate these results. The claim is therefore considered indefinite, as it is not clear how the scratch resistance is to be calculated. The claim will be examined such that the scratch resistance is satisfied if the composition, pore size, or porosity of the substrate meet the specified ranges in the application (as these factors are stated as affecting a scratch resistance, pg. 6 of instant specification).
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.
Claim 1-2, 4, 6, 11, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Yu (CN111700310A).
Regarding claim 1, Yu teaches an atomization core (porous gradient ceramic heating body “100” as in Fig. 1-2), comprising:
a porous ceramic substrate (transition layer “30” as in Fig. 2),
a heating layer arranged on the porous ceramic substrate (heating atomizing layer “10” is a part of the body “100” and on the layer “30”, as in Fig. 2),
wherein the permeation rate is in a range of 0.8 mg/s.bar.mm2 to 4.0 mg/s.bar.mm2 (as in the 112(b) rejection above, because the permeation rate is directly dependent upon the liquid substrate used which is not claimed nor a part of the “atomization core” which the claims are tied to, any porous ceramic substrate would have a permeation rate in the range claimed depending on the specific liquid that is utilized),
or, the thermal conductivity of the porous ceramic substrate is in a range of 0.5 W/mK to 1.0 W/mK (in an embodiment, the thermal conductivity may be 0.5 W/mK [pg. 8 of machine translation]).
Regarding claim 2, Yu teaches an atomization core wherein a pore size of the porous ceramic substrate is in a range of 15um to 25um (in the same embodiment listed above, the diameter of the pores of the layer “30” may be 23um [pg. 8 of machine translation]).
Regarding claims 4, Yu teaches the porous ceramic substrate comprises a first material, second material, and a pore-forming agent (the transition layer may comprise ceramic powder which may comprise at least one of silicon nitride, silicon oxide, etc., [pg. 5 of machine translation] and ceramic may comprise alumina ceramic, zirconia ceramic, etc., [pg. 5-6 of machine translation]. The transition layer may also comprise pore-forming agent [pg. 3 of machine translation], which may be carbon powder or starch for example [pg. 6 of machine translation]. It is noted that only one of these materials is required to actually comprise the material listed in the claim, because of the use of “and/or” in the claim limitation, such that only one of the materials is required to be the chemical listed. Therefore, the claim is clearly satisfied, at least through a first, second, or pore-forming material which comprise one of the materials as listed herein).
Regarding claim 6, Yu teaches the porous ceramic substrate comprises a first material, second material, sintering aid, and a pore-forming agent (the transition layer may comprise ceramic powder which may comprise at least one of silicon nitride, silicon oxide, etc., [pg. 5 of machine translation] and may comprise alumina ceramic, zirconia ceramic, etc., [pg. 5-6 of machine translation]. The transition layer may also comprise pore-forming agent [pg. 3 of machine translation], which may be carbon powder or starch for example [pg. 6 of machine translation]. The transition layer may comprise a sintering auxiliary agent such as glass powder or glaze [pg. 6 of machine translation]. It is noted that only one of these materials is actually required to comprise the material listed in the claim, because of the use of “and/or” in the claim limitation, such that only one of the materials is required to be the chemical listed. Therefore, the claim is clearly satisfied, at least through a first, second, or pore-forming material which comprise one of the materials as listed herein).
Regarding claim 11, Yu teaches an atomization core wherein the thermal conductivity of the porous ceramic substrate is in a range of 0.5 W/mK to 0.8 W/mK (in an embodiment, the thermal conductivity may be 0.5 W/mK [pg. 8 of machine translation]).
Regarding claim 19, Yu teaches an atomization core wherein the permeation rate is 1.5 to 4.0 (as in the rejection of claim 1 above, because the permeation rate is directly dependent upon the liquid substrate used which is not claimed nor a part of the “atomization core” which the claims are tied to, any porous ceramic substrate would have a permeation rate in the range claimed depending on the specific liquid that is utilized).
Claim 1, 12, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Li (WO2020051749A1).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches an atomization core (atomizing assembly “100” comprises the atomizing element “40”),
a porous ceramic substrate (porous substrate “42” as in Fig. 4),
a heating layer arranged on the porous ceramic substrate (first and second coated films “44” and “46” are used for generating heat to heat and atomize an e-liquid on the surface [abstract], such that either of these may be considered the heat heating layer),
wherein the permeation rate is in a range of 0.8 mg/s.bar.mm2 to 4.0 mg/s.bar.mm2 (as in the 112(b) rejection above, because the permeation rate is directly dependent upon the liquid substrate used which is not claimed nor a part of the “atomization core” which the claims are tied to, any porous ceramic substrate would have a permeation rate in the range claimed depending on the specific liquid that is utilized).
Regarding claim 12, Li teaches the heating layer comprises a heating wire (heating wires are used to heat the medium [pg. 2 of machine translation], such that it is considered that the layer “44” or “46” either is or comprises a heating “wire”), wherein the wire is one of several materials (Li states that “44” or “46” may comprise “platinum, palladium, palladium-copper alloy, gold-silver-platinum alloy, gold-silver alloy”, etc., [pg. 8 of machine translation]).
Regarding claim 19, Li teaches an atomization core wherein the permeation rate is 1.5 to 4.0 (as in the rejection of claim 1 above, because the permeation rate is directly dependent upon the liquid substrate used which is not claimed nor a part of the “atomization core” which the claims are tied to, any porous ceramic substrate would have a permeation rate in the range claimed depending on the specific liquid that is utilized).
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.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 7-8, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (CN111700310A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yu (CN111700310A).
Regarding claim 3, Yu suggests that the pore diameter of the porous ceramic substrate may be from 40-60%, and the transition layer may range from 50-70% [pg. 2-3 of machine translation]. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to work within the cited ranges, and they would have landed upon values within the claimed range for benefits of having adequate porosity of the surface to allow liquid substrate through to be atomized [pg. 3 of machine translation]).
Regarding claim 5, Yu suggests a weight ratio of the first material, second material, and pore-forming agent in the claimed weight ranges (it is noted that claim 4, of which this claim depends, only specifically requires that one of the materials comprises the chemical as claimed, that being the first, second, or pore-forming agent (by the use of “and/or” in the claim). The ceramic powder material may be 40-50% and which may comprise aluminum nitride or other materials, wherein the rest of the weight material of the substrate layer may be considered to be portions of a second material and of a pore-forming agent. It being noted again, that as it is not specifically required that these materials be any specific type of chemical, it would reasonably be considered within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim that the remaining portions of the composition consisted of second material and pore-forming agent, wherein the specific chemicals of these components are not limited by the claim and may be considered any other material of the portion of the composition. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claim 7, Yu suggests a weight ratio of the first material, second material, sintering aid, and pore-forming agent (it is noted that claim 6, of which this claim depends, only specifically requires that one of the materials comprises the chemical as claimed, that being the first, second, sintering, or pore-forming agent (by the use of “and/or” in the claim). The ceramic powder material may be 40-50% and which may comprise aluminum nitride or other materials, wherein the rest of the weight material of the substrate layer may be considered to be portions of a second material, sintering aide, and of a pore-forming agent. It being noted again, that as it is not specifically required that these materials be any specific type of chemical, it would reasonably be considered within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim that the remaining portions of the composition consisted of second material, sintering, and pore-forming agent, wherein the specific chemicals of these components are not limited by the claim and may be considered any other material of the portion of the composition. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claim 8, Yu suggests a scratch resistance of the porous ceramic substrate in a range from 3-10wt% (as in the 112(b) section above, as the application does not define what is meant by wt% nor is this a conventional value in the art, it is considered that the claimed property is met when the pore size of the layer satisfies the claimed range which is noted to affect the scratch resistance. As the diameter of the pore of the layer “30” may be 23um [pg. 8 of machine translation] within the preferred range, and that the porosity may range from 40-60%, and the transition layer may range from 50-70% [pg. 2-3 of machine translation] significantly overlapping with the preferred ranges, it is reasonably considered that Yu’s porous ceramic substrate would have similarly had a scratch resistance within the claimed range of 3-10wt%).
Regarding claim 20, Yu suggests that the pore diameter of the porous ceramic substrate may be from 40-60%, and the transition layer may range from 50-70% [pg. 2-3 of machine translation]. Yu additionally suggests that the diameter of the pores of the layer “30” may be 23um [pg. 8 of machine translation]). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to work within the cited ranges, and they would have landed upon values within the claimed range for benefits of having adequate porosity of the surface to allow liquid substrate through to be atomized [pg. 3 of machine translation]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (CN111700310A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhou (US2016/0316819A1).
Regarding claim 9, Yu does not specifically disclose the bending strength of the porous ceramic substrate. Zhou is similarly tied to porous ceramic materials in electronic cigarettes [Figs. 2-3]. Zhou teaches an embodiment where the bending strength of the porous ceramic material is 9.60MPa, and a host of examples wherein the bending strength ranges from 10.7 MPa to 20MPa [0108-0109]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the bending strength of Yu so as to be within the ranges as suggested by Zhou. One would have been motivated so as to ensure good mechanical properties, ensure the design of the ceramic material, and to ensure that the material is not deformed or damaged [0108-0110]. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (CN111700310A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhou2 (CN111053291A).
Regarding claim 10, Yu does not specifically give a thickness of the porous ceramic substrate. Zhou2, similarly tied to an atomizing core in an electronic cigarette [title], has an atomizing core comprising a porous ceramic substrate with a heating layer on the substrate [abstract]. Zhou2 teaches that the thickness of the porous ceramic substrate should be from 1-4mm [pg. 5 of machine translation]. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the porous ceramic substrate thickness to be as suggested by Zhou2. One would have been motivated in order to shorten the delivery path so that liquid can flow smoothly, and to avoid dry burning [Zhou2, pg. 2 of machine translation].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (CN111700310A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li (WO2020051749A1).
Regarding claim 12, Yu states that the laminated heating atomizing layer is comprised with a heating circuit [abstract, Fig. 2], wherein a heating circuit is considered akin to a heating “wire” within the broadest reasonable interpretation thereof. Yu does not specifically state the material of this circuit, however such listed heat wire materials are well known within the art. Li suggests an atomizing assembly for an electronic cigarette, wherein the layers “44” and/or “46” provide the heating to the atomization surface [abstract]. These heating wires may comprise “platinum, palladium, palladium-copper alloy, gold-silver-platinum alloy, gold-silver alloy”, etc., [pg. 8 of machine translation]. Because Yu is silent as to the material of its heating wire, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to look for conventional examples of heating materials to apply to Yu. One would have utilized any of the materials as suggested by Li in order to obtain the conventional benefits of proper resistance of the heating element [Li, pg. 8 of machine translation].
Claim(s) 2-3, 8, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (WO2020051749A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li (WO2020051749A1).
Regarding claim 2, Li suggests that the average diameter of the pores may be from 10-35um [pg. 6 of machine translation], so that the atomization effect can be improved [pg. 6 of machine translation]. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to work within the claimed range of pore sizes, and one would have landed upon a size within the claimed range in order to improve the atomization effect thereof [pg. 6 of machine translation].
Regarding claim 3, Li suggests that the porosity of the porous ceramic is from 30%-70%, or from 50-60% [pg. 5-6 of machine translation]. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to work within the claimed range of pore sizes, and one would have landed upon a size within the claimed range in order to ensure good liquid conductivity, preventing dry burning, and improving the atomization effect [pg. 5-6 of machine translation].
Regarding claim 8, Li suggests a scratch resistance of the porous ceramic substrate in a range from 3-10wt% (as in the 112(b) section above, as the application does not define what is meant by wt% nor is this a conventional value in the art, it is considered that the claimed property is met when the pore size of the layer satisfies the claimed range which is noted to affect the scratch resistance. As the diameter of the pores and the overall porosity significantly overlaps with the preferred ranges (see rejections of claims 2-3 above), it is reasonably considered that Li’s porous ceramic substrate would have similarly had a scratch resistance within the claimed range of 3-10wt%).
Regarding claim 20, Li suggests that the pore diameter of the porous ceramic substrate may be from 30-70% or from 50-60% [pg. 5-6 of machine translation]. Li additionally suggests that the diameter of the pores may be 10-35um [pg. 6 of machine translation]). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to work within the cited ranges, and they would have landed upon values within the claimed range for benefits of having improving the atomization effect [pg. 5-6 of machine translation]).
Claims 4-7, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (WO2020051749A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yu (CN111700310A1).
Regarding claims 4, Li does not explicitly provide the materials/composition of its porous ceramic substrate. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to look to the conventional materials used in the art for these substrates. Yu, for example, is similarly tied porous ceramic substrates, wherein a variety of materials may be utilized. Yu teaches a variety of components which comprise the ceramic layer, including the transition layer 30, oil storage layer 40, and disinfecting layer 20. Yu teaches that the layers may comprise ceramic powder which may comprise at least one of silicon nitride, silicon oxide, etc., [pg. 5 of machine translation] and ceramic may comprise alumina ceramic, zirconia ceramic, etc., [pg. 5-6 of machine translation]. The layers may also comprise pore-forming agent [pg. 3 of machine translation], which may be carbon powder or starch for example [pg. 6 of machine translation]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize compositions as suggested by Yu, as Li is silent as to the composition of its porous ceramic substrate. One would have been motivated so as to improve the atomization process [Yu, pg. 6-7 of machine translation]. It is noted that only one of these materials is required to actually comprise the material listed in the claim, because of the use of “and/or” in the claim limitation, such that only one of the materials is required to be the chemical listed. Therefore, the claim is clearly satisfied, at least through a first, second, or pore-forming material which comprise one of the materials as listed herein.
Regarding claim 5, modified Li makes obvious the claimed weight ratios (it is noted that claim 4, of which this claim depends, only specifically requires that one of the materials comprises the chemical as claimed, that being the first, second, or pore-forming agent (by the use of “and/or” in the claim). The ceramic powder material may be 40-50% and which may comprise aluminum nitride or other materials, wherein the rest of the weight material of the substrate layer may be considered to be portions of a second material and of a pore-forming agent. It being noted again, that as it is not specifically required that these materials be any specific type of chemical, it would reasonably be considered within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim that the remaining portions of the composition consisted of second material and pore-forming agent, wherein the specific chemicals of these components are not limited by the claim and may be considered any other material of the portion of the composition. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claims 6, Li does not explicitly provide the materials/composition of its porous ceramic substrate. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to look to the conventional materials used in the art for these substrates. Yu, for example, is similarly tied porous ceramic substrates, wherein a variety of materials may be utilized. Yu teaches a variety of components which comprise the ceramic layer, including the transition layer 30, oil storage layer 40, and disinfecting layer 20. Yu teaches that the layers may comprise ceramic power which may comprise at least one of silicon nitride, silicon oxide, etc., [pg. 5 of machine translation] and may comprise alumina ceramic, zirconia ceramic, etc., [pg. 5-6 of machine translation]. The layers may also comprise pore-forming agent [pg. 3 of machine translation], which may be carbon powder or starch for example [pg. 6 of machine translation]. The layers may comprise a sintering auxiliary agent such as glass powder or glaze [pg. 6 of machine translation]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize compositions as suggested by Yu, as Li is silent as to the composition of its porous ceramic substrate. One would have been motivated so as to improve the atomization process [Yu, pg. 6-7 of machine translation]. It is noted that only one of these materials is required to actually comprise the material listed in the claim, because of the use of “and/or” in the claim limitation, such that only one of the materials is required to be the chemical listed. Therefore, the claim is clearly satisfied, at least through a first, second, or pore-forming material which comprise one of the materials as listed herein.
Regarding claim 7, modified Li makes obvious the claimed weight ratios (it is noted that claim 6, of which this claim depends, only specifically requires that one of the materials comprises the chemical as claimed, that being the first, second, sintering, or pore-forming agent (by the use of “and/or” in the claim). The ceramic powder material may be 40-50% and which may comprise aluminum nitride or other materials, wherein the rest of the weight material of the substrate layer may be considered to be portions of a second material, sintering aide, and of a pore-forming agent. It being noted again, that as it is not specifically required that these materials be any specific type of chemical, it would reasonably be considered within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim that the remaining portions of the composition consisted of second material, sintering, and pore-forming agent, wherein the specific chemicals of these components are not limited by the claim and may be considered any other material of the portion of the composition. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claim 11, Li does not explicitly give the thermal conductivity of the porous ceramic substrate. Yu, which is similarly tied to atomization cores and porous ceramic substrates, has a thermal conductivity of its porous ceramic substrate that may range from 0.03 to 4 W/(m*K) [pg. 5 of machine translation]. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the porous ceramic substrate of Li to have a thermal conductivity as suggested by Yu. One would have been motivated so as to improve the taste and improve the user experience [Yu, pg. 5 of machine translation].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (WO2020051749A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhou (US2016/0316819A1).
Regarding claim 9, Li does not specifically disclose the bending strength of the porous ceramic substrate. Zhou is similarly tied to porous ceramic materials in electronic cigarettes [Figs. 2-3]. Zhou teaches an embodiment where the bending strength of the porous ceramic material is 9.60MPa, and a host of examples wherein the bending strength ranges from 10.7 MPa to 20MPa [0108-0109]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the bending strength of Li so as to be within the ranges as suggested by Zhou. One would have been motivated so as to ensure good mechanical properties, ensure the design of the ceramic material, and to ensure that the material is not deformed or damaged [0108-0110]. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (WO2020051749A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhou2 (CN111053291A).
Regarding claim 10, Li does not specifically give a thickness of the porous ceramic substrate. Zhou2, similarly tied to an atomizing core in an electronic cigarette [title], has an atomizing core comprising a porous ceramic substrate with a heating layer on the substrate [abstract]. Zhou2 teaches that the thickness of the porous ceramic substrate should be from 1-4mm [pg. 5 of machine translation]. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the porous ceramic substrate thickness to be as suggested by Zhou2. One would have been motivated in order to shorten the delivery path so that liquid can flow smoothly, and to avoid dry burning [Zhou2, pg. 2 of machine translation].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS F SCHNEIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-4857. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/T.F.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749