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 .
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.
Claim 4 is 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 4 recites for a chemical composition of a-SiOx:CHy but it is unclear what numerical value can be given for the sub “x” and “y”. For purposes of examining, SiOx would be interpreted as a silicon oxide/dioxide or silica; and CHy as a hydrocarbon material.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8, 11, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moloney et al (US 2021/0093011) in view of Ding et al (US 2020/0315251) and Anderson et al (US 2004/0204676).
Moloney discloses the method claimed including manufacturing a heating chamber (112) comprising a thermally conductive shell or tube (which is made of stainless steel; also, see para 0024) and an opening (106) for receiving an aerosol substance (e.g., aerosol medium 102), and a heating element shown by a resistive thin film heater (120) that is attached or wrapped around an external surface of the heating chamber (par 0024). But, Moloney does not discloses the heating element comprises at least one of stainless steel, nickel, nickel-based alloy, or silver wherein a layer of electrically insulating material is deposited onto an outer surface of the conductive shell using vacuum deposition wherein the layer of electrically insulating material prevents any contact between the heating element and the thermally conductive shell.
Ding discloses it is known to provide an electric heating element that is made of silver or stainless steel (para 0013 and 0036) that is printed or coated on a substrate (e.g., ceramic) that is known to provide a high heating temperature.
Anderson discloses it is known to provide a substrate that is deposited with a layer of electrically insulating material wherein Anderson further discloses that the electrically insulating material can be deposited using vacuum deposition (para 0016) wherein a conductive material (e.g., a heating element 512) is formed over and is in contact with the electrically insulative layer (511). Also, see Abstract; and Figures 5A-5D.
In view of Ding and Anderson, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Moloney with the heating element that is include silver or stainless steel that is known to generate a high heating temperature which would predictably bring the chamber to a high heating temperature to effectively and rapidly heat an aerosol generated in the chamber wherein an outer surface of the conductive shell of the heating chamber would be provided with a deposited layer of electrically insulating material using a vacuum deposition which is well known in the art so that the electrical heating element which is attached to the heating chamber can be electrically insulated to prevent any electrical short between the electric heating element and the heating chamber (which is made of a metallic stainless steel) and predictably ensure a safe use of the electrical heating element.
With respect to claims 2 and 3, Moloney in view of Anderson discloses that the vacuum depositing includes chemical vapor deposition wherein the electrically insulating material includes silicon oxide (also, see para 0016 of Anderson).
With respect to claim 5, Anderson further discloses that the electrically insulative material includes a thickness of that can range from .06 um to 5.65 um (for silicon nitride see Table 1; para 0022-0023) which overlaps with the claimed range of 1 um to 5 um wherein it would have been obvious to provide the electrically insulating material having the claimed thickness as a matter of routine operation that depends on the magnitude of the electrical power/volts applied to the heating element to effectively provide for the electrical election insulation.
With respect to claim 8, Moloney discloses that the heating chamber is a tubular heating chamber comprising a tubular thermally conductive shell with the heating element (a thin film heater; para 0024) that is wrapped around the heating chamber (para 0024), and as Anderson discloses for the electrically insulating material that is provided between a base/substrate and a conductive material (e.g., a heating element; also, see Figures 5A-5D of Anderson), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the electrically insulating material between the conductive shell of the heating chamber and the electrical heating element (i.e., the thin film heater) to prevent any electrical short therebetween and predictably ensure a safe use of the electrical heating element.
With respect to claim 11, Anderson further discloses the vacuum deposition includes plasma assisted (or enhanced) vapor deposition (para 0016).
With respect to claim 14, Moloney discloses a heating chamber (112) for an aerosol generating device (100).
With respect to claim 15, Moloney discloses an aerosol generating device (100) including a heating chamber (112).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moloney in view of Ding and Anderson as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 8, 11, 14 and 15 above, and further in view of Domes (US 4,942,061).
Moloney in view of Ding and Anderson discloses the method claimed except for the electrically insulating material comprising a-SiOx:CHy as claimed.
Domes discloses it is known to provide an electrically insulating material that includes silica with hydrocarbon which provides an excellent insulation against electric current (column 4, lines 50; column 5, lines 29-31).
In view of Domes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Moloney, as modified by Ding and Anderson, with the electrically insulating material that includes silica and hydrocarbon as an another alternative substitute that is known to provide an excellent electrical insulation for the protection of the heating element and the heating chamber.
Claim(s) 6, 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moloney in view of Ding and Anderson as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 8, 9, 11, 14 and 15 above, and further in view of Roberts et al (US 2018/0027612).
Moloney in view of Ding and Anderson discloses the method claimed including a thin film heater that is attached or wrapped to the heating chamber but does not explicitly show the heating element and a flexible backing film on which the heating element is supported thereon.
Roberts discloses it is known to provide a thin film heater that can be flexible (para 0052) wherein the thin film heater includes a heating element (111) with a base layer (112) as a flexible backing film on which the heating element is supported thereon (also, see Figure 1), and Roberts further discloses that the thin film heater can be used in a high voltage and high temperature applications.
In view of Roberts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the thin film heater of Moloney that includes a resistive layer with a flexible backing film/layer that is capable of being applied in high voltage and high temperature applications which would predictably allow a suitable and adequate heating capability to effectively produce heated aerosol produced in the aerosol generating device.
With respect to claim 7, Roberts discloses that the backing film/layer can be polyimide or poly either ketone (PEEK; para 0029) which would provide a high thermal resistance or strength that can withstand high temperature applications.
With respect to claim 9, Moloney discloses that the heating chamber is a tubular heating chamber comprising a tubular thermally conductive shell with the heating element (a thin film heater; para 0024) that is wrapped around the heating chamber (para 0024), and as Anderson discloses for the electrically insulating material that is provided between a base/substrate and a conductive material (e.g., a heating element; also, see Figures 5A-5D of Anderson), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the electrically insulating material between the conductive shell of the heating chamber and the electrical heating element (i.e., the thin film heater) to prevent any electrical short therebetween and predictably ensure a safe use of the electrical heating element.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moloney in view of Ding and Anderson as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 8, 11, 14 and 15 above, and further in view of Grise (US 4,581,521).
Moloney in view of Ding and Anderson discloses the method claimed except for a heat shrink film around the heating chamber to secure the heating element to the heating chamber.
Grise discloses it is known to provide a heating element (14) which is provided over a cylindrical body (12) is covered or wrapped with an insulating sleeve (16) which is heat shrink fitted for the protection and attachment of the heating element thereto. Also, see column 2, lines 9-31.
In view of Grise, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Moloney, as modified by Anderson, with a heat shrink film or layer that covers over the heating element provided on the heating chamber not only for an improved insulation of the heating element but also for a secured attachment of the heating element to the heating chamber.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moloney in view of Ding and Anderson as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 8, 11, 14 and 15 above, and further in view of Chang et al (US 5,767,578).
Moloney in view of Ding and Anderson discloses the method claimed except for using a radio frequency electrical excitation source and a carrier gas comprising CH4 to deposit a thin film comprising diamond as claimed.
Chang discloses it is known to use a diamond film as an electrical insulation layer wherein the diamond film is known to provide both electrical insulation and thermal conductivity (see Abstract), and Chang further discloses that the diamond film is deposited using an excitation source including radio frequency plasma (column 9, lines 31-38) with a methane (which is known to be CH4) gas, as a carrier gas, to form the thin film (e.g., .5 to 10 um; column 9, lines 56-57).
In view of Chang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Moloney, as modified by Anderson, with the electrically insulating material including diamond that is deposited using a radio frequency excitation source along with a methane (CH4) gas as applying a known technique to predictably and effectively achieve a thin electrical insulating film including diamond that is also known to provide both good electrical insulation and thermal conductivity.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moloney in view of Ding and Anderson as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 8, 11, 14 and 15 above, and further in view of Kuehnle et al (US 5,211,995).
Moloney in view of Ding and Anderson discloses the method claimed including depositing a thin film of silicon oxide as the electrical insulating material (para 0016 of Anderson) but does not show using a microwave frequency electrical excitation source and a carrier gas comprising silane to deposit the thin film comprising silicon oxide.
Kuehnle discloses it is known to provide a thin film/coating of silicon oxide (column 4, lines 17-23) which is known to be deposited using a microwave frequency excitation source (column 3, lines 66-68) with silane gas which further provides a good mechanical and chemical resistance.
In view of Kuehnle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Moloney, as modified by Ding and Anderson, with the electrical insulating material including silicon oxide is deposited using a microwave frequency electrical excitation source and a carrier gas comprising silane as applying a known technique to predictably and effectively achieve the thin electrical insulating film as desired which can also provide a good mechanical and chemical resistance that prolongs the life of the heating chamber against harsh environment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection including Ding which is applied to show the heating element can be made of the stainless steel or silver as stated in the ground of rejection.
With respect to the 112 rejection of claim 4 regarding the insulating material comprising a-SiOx:CHy, Applicant argues that such coating structure is commercially available and known under the trademark Durson. It is noted the trademark by which a-SiOx:CHy is associated with does not define its claim scope since there is no clear showing what value can be given to “x” and “y”. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
With regard to Anderson, Applicant argues that Anderson is non-analogous art because Anderson is related to “shape memory alloy actuators” for medical devices and not relate to the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention which relates to an aerosol generating device.
It is noted that Anderson is applied to teach a known method of using vacuum deposition to deposit an electrically insulating material on a base substrate wherein a conductive material (e.g., a heating element) is formed over and in contact with the insulating layer which allows the conductive material to be electrically insulated from the base substrate. While Anderson is related to a shape memory alloy actuator, it is noted that such actuator includes a heating element which generate a high heating temperature wherein providing an electrically insulating material, via a vacuum deposition, between the heating element and a base substrate (such as a chamber of Anderson) is known and would have been applicable to protect and insulate the heating element from coming in direct contact with the base substrate (or the chamber of Anderson when modified). Thus, as vacuum deposition of an electrically insulating material is known and used with base substrate for the protection of a heating element applied thereto, it would also have been obvious to employ such technique to a heated chamber of Anderson wherein the heating element would be electrically insulated from the chamber that is made of a highly conductive and electrically conductive material (stainless steel) and predictably prevent electric shorting therebetween as stated in the ground of rejection.
Applicant also argues that Anderson discloses for a thickness of the insulating material is between .5 um to 1 um which is not within 1 um to 5 um as claimed. This argument is not deemed persuasive since Anderson discloses for the thickness that is approximately 1 um which would include a thickness of 1 um, and furthermore it is also noted that a thickness of the insulating material can range from .06 um to 5.65 um that depends on the power/voltage applied to the heating element (also ,see para 0022 and Table 1 in para 0023 of Anderson). Thus, it would have been obvious to provide the electrically insulating material having the claimed thickness as a matter of routine operation that depends on the magnitude of the electrical power/volts applied to the heating element to effectively provide for the desired electrical insulation as stated in the ground of rejection.
Thus, the Applicant’s arguments are not deemed persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG Y PAIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4783. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30; M-F.
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 W. 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.
/SANG Y PAIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights