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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/07/2023, 08/07/2023, 1/23/2024, and 9/19/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 3, 9, and 14 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.
The term “substantially” in claims 3 and 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitation of “a substantially continuous surface” in claim 3 and “a substantially same shape” in claim 9 are rendered indefinite.
For purposes of the examination, the limitation in claim 3 is understood to be “a
The term “about” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitation of “an emissivity of the absorbing layer is about 1” is rendered indefinite. Applicant’s specification does not further describe the material of “the absorbing layer,” such that it is unclear what constitutes the “absorbing layer,” in particular to the emissivity. Applicant’s specification [0196] only describes the absorbing layer to be “a structure and/or material close to a substantially black body,” or “the absorbing layer 756 may be implemented as a gray body or a white body,” so it is unclear as to what material defines absorbing layer. For purposes of examination, the limitation is understood in view of application specification [0196], in which the absorbing layer as approximated as a black body, being a structure that is generally able to absorb light.
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 1-6 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (KR20210155238A) with citations made to attached machine translations.
PNG
media_image1.png
654
638
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Lee
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a heating structure, comprising:
a substrate (10) comprising a first surface (outer surface of tank/reservoir 10) and a second surface opposite to the first surface (inner surface of tank/reservoir 10);
a surface plasmon resonance (31, [0043] nanoparticles that generate heat by a surface plasmon resonance phenomenon by receiving light) structure positioned on the first surface (outer surface of tank 10); and
a first reflective layer positioned (42) above the first surface (30) and the SPR structure (31),
and comprising a pass-through area for passing light (Annotated Fig. 3) and a reflective area (Annotated Fig. 3) for reflecting light onto the SPR structure (31).
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches the heating structure of claim 1, wherein
the reflective area (Annotated Fig. 3) extends along the first surface (outer surface of tank/reservoir 10, where reflective area extends along a path in accordance with the path of the outer surface of tank/reservoir 10) and at least partially surrounds the substrate (10, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Lee teaches the heating structure of claim 1, wherein
the reflective area is formed as a substantially continuous surface (Annotated Fig. 3, where reflection is shown to be continuous about the reservoir 10).
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches the heating structure of claim 1, wherein
the reflective area (Annotated Fig. 3) is apart from the SPR structure (31).
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches the heating structure of claim 1, wherein the pass-through area (Annotated Fig. 3) comprises an opening (43).
Regarding claim 6, Lee teaches the heating structure of claim 1, wherein
the second surface (inner surface of tank/reservoir 10) forms a hollow portion (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 15, Lee teaches an aerosol generating device (5), comprising:
a light source (20); and
the heating structure (7) according to claim 1, the heating structure (7) configured to receive light from the light source (20).
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 7-9 and 11-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR20210155238A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sunwoo (KR20210078347A) with citations made to attached machine translation.
PNG
media_image2.png
652
638
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Lee
Regarding claim 7, Lee teaches the heating structure of claim 1, further comprising:
a second reflective layer (32) comprising a third surface (Annotated Fig. 3) facing the second surface (10) and a fourth surface opposite to the third surface (Annotated Fig. 3), but is silent on wherein the second reflective layer comprises a diffuse reflection feature formed on the third surface while facing the second surface.
PNG
media_image3.png
501
423
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 16b of Sunwoo
Sunwoo teaches wherein the second reflective layer (Annotated Fig. 16b) comprises a diffuse reflection feature (53) formed on the third surface (Annotated Fig. 16b) while facing the second surface (Annotated Fig. 16b).
Lee and Sunwoo are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aerosol devices. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the second reflective layer of Lee to incorporate the teachings of Sunwoo to have a diffuse reflection feature on the third surface facing the second surface in order to diffuse reflection of light incident from the light source to efficiently generate heat according to the surface plasmon resonance phenomenon in the metal nanoparticles (Sunwoo [0144]).
Regarding claim 8, Lee and Sunwoo teach the heating structure of claim 7, but Lee is silent on wherein the substrate further comprises a diffuse reflection feature formed on the second surface while facing the third surface.
Sunwoo teaches the substrate (Annotated Fig. 16b) further comprises a diffuse reflection feature (51) formed on the second surface (Annotated Fig. 16b) while facing the third surface (Annotated Fig. 16b).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the substrate of Lee to incorporate the teachings of Sunwoo to have a diffuse reflection feature on the second surface facing the third surface in order to diffuse reflection of light incident from the light source to efficiently generate heat according to the surface plasmon resonance phenomenon in the metal nanoparticles (Sunwoo [0144]).
Regarding claim 9, Lee and Sunwoo teach the heating structure of claim 8, but Lee is silent on the diffuse reflection feature of the substrate and the diffuse reflection feature of the second reflective layer have a substantially same shape.
Sunwoo teaches the diffuse reflection feature (51) of the substrate (Annotated Fig. 16b) and the diffuse reflection feature (53) of the second reflective layer (Annotated Fig. 16b) have a substantially same shape (Fig. 16b).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Sunwoo to have a diffuse reflection feature of both the substrate and second reflective layer be the same shape in order to diffuse reflection of light incident from the light source to efficiently generate heat according to thesurface plasmon resonance phenomenon in the metal nanoparticles (Sunwoo [0144]).
Regarding claim 11, Lee and Sunwoo teach the heating structure of claim 8, but Lee is silent on the diffuse reflection feature of the substrate is formed as a rough surface having a predetermined roughness.
Sunwoo teaches the diffuse reflection feature (51) of the substrate (Annotated Fig. 16b) is formed as a rough surface having a predetermined roughness ([0144] Concave-convex).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Sunwoo to have the diffuse reflection feature of the substrate be a rough surface with a predetermined roughness in order to diffuse reflection of light incident from the light source to efficiently generate heat according to the surface plasmon resonance phenomenon in the metal nanoparticles (Sunwoo [0144]).
Regarding claim 12, Lee and Sunwoo teach the heating structure of claim 7, but Lee is silent on the diffuse reflection feature of the second reflective layer is formed on an entire area of the third surface.
Sunwoo teaches the diffuse reflection feature (53) of the second reflective layer (Annotated Fig. 16b) is formed on an entire area of the third surface (Annotated Fig. 16b).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Sunwoo to have the diffuse reflection feature of the second reflective layer to be on the entire area of the third surface in order to diffuse reflection of light incident from the light source to efficiently generate heat according to the surface plasmon resonance phenomenon in the metal nanoparticles (Sunwoo [0144]).
PNG
media_image4.png
766
788
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 of Lee
Regarding claim 13, Lee and Sunwoo teach the heating structure of claim 7, and Lee teaches further comprising an absorbing layer (17) positioned on the second reflective layer (32, Fig. 4).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR20210155238A) and Sunwoo (KR20210078347A) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Geisow (WO2012101393A1).
Regarding claim 10, Lee and Sunwoo teach the heating structure of claim 8, but is silent on the diffuse reflection feature of the substrate and the diffuse reflection feature of the second reflective layer at least partially contact each other.
Geisow the diffuse reflection feature (15) of the substrate (3) and the diffuse reflection feature (11) of the second reflective layer (7) at least partially contact each other (Pg. 4 lines 1-3 reflector layer 15, having a textured topography, sandwiched between transparent substrate 7 and transparent layer 17).
Lee, Sunwoo, and Geisow are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of devices having light transmission. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lee and Sunwoo to incorporate the teachings of Geisow to have a diffuse reflection feature on the substrate and the second reflective layer be in contact as this enables sufficiently high reflectance of selected wavelengths in accordance with a desired spectral reflectance profile for an application of the structure (Geisow Pg. 3 lines 10-20).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR20210155238A) and Sunwoo (KR20210078347A) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Chang (US20170020190A1).
Regarding claim 14, Lee and Sunwoo teach the heating structure of claim 13, but is silent on an emissivity of the absorbing layer is about 1.
Chang teaches an emissivity of the absorbing layer is about 1 ([0104] an emissivity that is close to 1).
Lee, Sun, and Chang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of heating and light transmitting devices. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lee and Geisow to incorporate the teachings of Chang to have an emissivity of the absorbing layer to be about 1 so that all incident radiation may be absorbed regardless of frequency or angle of incidence (Chang [0104]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL RHUE whose telephone number is (571)272-4615. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10-6.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/ABIGAIL H RHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 4/29/2026
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights