CTFR 18/268,817 CTFR 88268 DETAILED ACTION This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 03/16/26. As directed by the amendment: no claims have been amended; cancelled, nor added. Thus, claims 1-15 are presently pending in this application. 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batista et al. (US 11,896,052) in view of Viarbitskaya, Sviatlana et al., "Plasmonic Hot Printing in Gold Nanoprisms", May 8, 2015, ACS Photonics, 2015, 2,6,744-751, https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acsphotonics.5b00100 (Year: 2015) (hereafter “Sviatlana”) With regard to claim 1, Batista teaches a heating structure (244; FIGS. 6-8) for generating heat by surface plasmon resonance (“FIG. 8 shows a cross-sectional view through part of the planar heating portion 252. The planar heating portion 252 comprises a substrate layer 258, a thermally conductive layer 260 positioned on a first surface of the substrate layer 258 and a coating layer 262 positioned on a second surface of the substrate layer 258. The coating layer 262 comprises a plurality of metallic nanoparticles. The first heating element 244 is arranged so that the coating layer 262 faces the first light source 240. During use, the metallic nanoparticles of the coating layer 262 receive light from the first light source 240 and generate heat by surface plasmon resonance .”), the heating structure comprising: a substrate (258) comprising a first surface (upper surface of 258) and a second surface (lower surface of 258) opposite to the first surface (FIG. 8); and a first metal portion (260) positioned on the first surface (upper surface of 258) to at least partially form a void area (264) on the first surface (upper surface of 258)(FIG. 8). Batista does not teach first metal portion is a metal prism; however, Sviatlana from the same field of endeavor directed towards plasmonic hot printing in gold nanoprisms teaches: “Au nanoprisms evidences extremely localized sources of heat, the in-plane distribution of which varies with the particle shape and laser polarization.”, Abstract.. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Batista reference, such that the first metal portion is a metal prism, as suggested and taught by Sviatlana, for the purpose of providing localized heat at predetermined locations (Sviatlana: Abstract). With regard to claim 2, Sviatlana teaches the first metal prism (FIG. 3D) comprises a first base surface facing the first surface (lower surface of the prism), a second base surface opposite to the first base surface (upper surface of the prism), and a plurality of side surfaces (three side-surfaces between the lower and upper surfaces) between the first base surface and the second base surface (FIG. 3D). With regard to claim 3, Sviatlana teaches a distance between the first base surface and the second base surface is less than or equal to about 10 nm (“The modified apexes exhibit a 10 nm high protuberance, which represents about 50% of the initial prism thickness, while the center of the horizontal edge and the third apex retain their native thickness.”). With regard to claim 4, Sviatlana teaches at least one of the first side surface and the second side surface is substantially curved (FIGS. 1A/D illustrate sides of the side surfaces having a curvature). With regard to claim 5, although Batista teaches voids 264 in between individual heating portions 252, Batista does not explicitly teach the void area has a diameter ranging from about 300 nm to about 600 nm; however, it is submitted that such an adaptation would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention made as a matter of routine experimentation to achieve a desired heating intensity as the citation explicitly teaches that the voids 264: “allow air to flow through the planar heating portion 252. Therefore as shown in FIGS. 5 and 6 , during use, airflow enters the aerosol-generating device 210 through the airflow inlets 230, flows through the planar heating portion 252 of the first heating element 244, through the aerosol-generating article 228, through the planar heating portion of the second heating element 246, and out of the device cavity 226 through the airflow outlet 232.”. With regard to claim 6, Batista teaches a heating structure with metal particles that resonate with light having a wavelength of about 380 nm to about 780 nm (“the light source is configured to emit light comprising at least one wavelength between 380 nanometres and 700 nanometres. Preferably, the light source is configured for a peak emission wavelength of between about 495 nanometres and about 580 nanometres. As used herein, “peak emission wavelength” refers to the wavelength at which a light source exhibits maximum intensity. Advantageously, a peak emission wavelength of between about 495 nanometres and about 580 nanometres may provide maximum heating of the heating element by surface plasmon resonance, particularly when the plurality of metallic nanoparticles comprises at least one of gold, silver, platinum, and copper….”). With regard to claim 7, Batista teaches a second metal structure to at least partially form the void area together with the first metal structure (Batista at FIG. 8 illustrates several structures 252 with voids 264 therebetween). With regard to claim 8, as the combined teachings of Batista and Sviatlana teach the first metal prism as detailed above, the same adaptation is applicable to each of the heating portions 252 of Batista as illustrated in Batista in FIG. 8 which having respective voids therebetween as illustrated in FIG. 8. With regard to claim 9, the combined teaching of Batista and Sviatlana teach the first metal prism as detailed above, an entire perimeter of the void area 264 illustrated in FIG. 8 of Batista is defined by the heating portions 252. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 03/16/26 have been fully considered and are addressed hereafter. At pgs. 3-5 of Applicant’s office action response it is asserted that the second prior art citations teachings would generate insufficient heat to provide a heating function to the primary citation. However, the Examiner is submitting that the prior art rejection involves modifying the conductive layer 260 of the primary prior art citation to include the claimed metal prisms “on the first surface” (not replacing the conductive layer 260 of the primary prior art citation), thereby providing an additional heating function. Furthermore, it should additionally be noted that the secondary prior art citation explicitly teaches: “Hence our results directly link the local heat production to designable parameters such as the colloidal shape, size, and chemical composition”, thereby indicating that the various designable parameters can be modified to achieve a desired heating value. Additionally, it should be stressed (as indicated in MPEP 2141) that the Supreme Court in KSR v. Teleflex particularly emphasized: "’the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art,’Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1395, and discussed circumstances in which a patent might be determined to be obvious. Importantly, the Supreme Court reaffirmed principles based on its precedent that ‘[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.’Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. The Supreme Court stated that there are ‘[t]hree cases decided after Graham [that] illustrate this doctrine.’ Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. (1) ‘In United States v. Adams, . . . [t]he Court recognized that when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.’ Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. (2) ‘In Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., . . . [t]he two [pre-existing elements] in combination did no more than they would in separate, sequential operation.’Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. (3) ‘[I]n Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., the Court derived . . . the conclusion that when a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.’ Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1395-96 (Internal quotations omitted.). The principles underlining these cases are instructive when the question is whether a patent application claiming the combination of elements of prior art would have been obvious. The Supreme Court further stated that: When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396…..” Conclusion 07-39 AIA THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOSEPH W ISKRA whose telephone number is (313) 446-4866. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 09:00-17:00 EST. 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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /JOSEPH W ISKRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/268,817 Page 2 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/268,817 Page 3 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/268,817 Page 4 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/268,817 Page 5 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/268,817 Page 6 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/268,817 Page 7 Art Unit: 3761
Prosecution Insights