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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-16, 18, and 20 are pending and are subject to this Office Action.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/08/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 06/08/2026.
Claims 1, 8, and 20 are amended.
Claims 17 and 19 are cancelled.
The objection of claim 19 is withdrawn due to cancellation of the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see pages 5-11, filed 06/08/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On page 6, the Applicant argues that since Zang describes complete coverage as the design objective, Zang cannot teach partial coverage of the first sub-film as claimed.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. All that is required of the claim is that the second sub-film partially covers the first sub-film and there is no requirement of the claims that the second sub-film cannot cover the entire surface of the first sub-film. The claim is not limited to only a partial covering and merely recites the first sub-film is partially covered which is taught by Zang.
Furthermore, Zang does in fact teach a partial covering of the first sub-film. Zang teaches the second sub-film completely covers the side of the first sub-film away from the oil guiding layer ([0007];[0024]), the other side (side facing away from the second sub-film) as well as the ends of the three-dimensional sub-film are not covered by the second sub-film (Figure 1), and therefore Zang does in fact teach a partial covering of the first sub-film.
Furthermore, Zang teaches it is known in the art to do a partial covering of the second sub-film and that in the embodiment of the disclosure it is preferred to do a covering of the first sub-film such that even heating is obtained ([0028]), however since Zang teaches partial coverings are known in the art, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Zang makes obvious this claim limitation.
On pages 7-8, the Applicant argues that LV, Liu, and Zhou do not describe a smaller-area sub-film that partially covers another sub-film.
The Examiner notes that LV, Liu, and Zhou are not required to teach something the primary reference already makes obvious, and therefore the arguments are unpersuasive. The Examiner further notes that the additional 103 rejection in view of LV has been withdrawn, due to the amendments made to the claims.
On page 8, the Applicant argues that the partial coverage geometry produces specific results and is not a routine design choice because paragraphs [0079] through [0081] describe uniform thermal field distribution, prevention of dry heating from local high temperature, and prevention of thermal-shock failure from inconsistent local resistance.
The Examiner notes that the “prevention of thermal-shock failure” and prevention of “dry heating” is a result of the first sub-film being located in the center of the second sub-film” which is not claimed and therefore not persuasive.
On pages 8-9, the Applicant argues that the noise level recited in claim 16 is not necessarily present in a Zang structure because low-porosity produces the recited noise level and that a multi-layer structure without a low-porosity second sub-film does not produce the claimed noise level.
The Examiner notes that Embodiments 1-5 and comparative examples 1-3 all have a noise of liquid explosion below 70 dB, except the sub-film without a second sub-film. The noise of liquid explosion appears to be only dependent on the inclusion of the second sub-film since that is what is described in the Applicant’s Specification [0064];[0095], and while there is correlation between the examples having a low porosity and a lower noise of liquid explosion, it appears that the contributing factor is the second sub-film and not the porosity. Regardless, the claimed porosities are made obvious by the rejections and absence evidence of the contrary, it would further be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a similar heating element with similar materials would result in the claimed noise of liquid explosion.
The Examiner further notes that unless the Applicant can show criticality and unexpected results in the claimed noise of liquid explosion values, the noise of liquid explosion of a similar sub-film and material is still considered obvious and the rejection is maintained.
An additional reference has been provided that teaches a lower porosity to advance prosecution.
On pages 9-10, the Applicant further argues that the reference Zhou et al. (US-20230337744-A1) should be removed under 35 U.S.C. exception 102(b)(2)(C).
The Examiner finds the arguments persuasive and the rejection has been withdrawn. However, the Examiner notes that the Chinese version of the argued reference, CN-112690507-A, is published over a year before the effective filing date of the instant invention and would not apply for any exceptions, therefore the rejection would still stand in view of the Chinese version. However, newly found prior art is provided below.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18 depends from now cancelled claim 17.
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 1-16, 18, and 20 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.
Claim 1, lines 13-14 are indefinite for reciting “an area of the second sub-film is smaller than an area of the first sub-film” because it is unclear if the recited area is a surface area, a total area of the sub-film, or an amount of area exposed. There is no definition provided in the Instant Specification and support for this amendment is provided in Applicant's Figures 3 and 5, however Figures 3 and 5 do not show this amendment. Figures 3 and 5 are unlabeled and it is not clear which part is the first sub-film and which is the second sub-film. Therefore, there is no clear definition of “area” and it is unclear what area the claims are referring to.
For purposes of examination the “area” is being interpreted as a total area of the sub-film.
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 1-3, 11-12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zang (CN-112931952-A, as cited in the IDS dated 02/26/2024 and hereinafter referring to the English translation provided) and further in view of LV et al. (CN-216453382-U, hereinafter referring to the English translation provided).
In regards to claim 1, Zang, directed to an atomizing core (i.e., heating element) ([0007]) comprising:
A porous oil guiding layer 10 (i.e., porous substrate) ([0029] and [0033]); and
A heating film comprising a preheating layer 20 (i.e., first sub-film) and a heating layer 30 (i.e., second sub-film) (multi-layer stack) ([0029]),
The first sub-film is located on a surface of the porous substrate (Figure 1) and comprising a porous structure ([0031]-[0032]),
The second sub-film is located on a side of the first sub-film away from the porous substrate (Figure 1),
Wherein the second sub-film comprises a porous structure ([0032]) and a porosity of the second sub-film is less than the first sub-film ([0032]),
wherein the thickness of the first sub-film is 50 to 100 micrometers ([0033]). The range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of the first sub-film having a thickness from 40 to 1000 micrometers, and is therefore considered prima facie obvious,
wherein the second sub-film has a thickness of 50 to 2000 micrometers ([0013]). The range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of the second sub-film having a thickness from 2 to 50 micrometers, and is therefore considered prima facie obvious, and
wherein the second sub-film can have a thickness less than the first sub-film. For example, Zang discloses the thickness of the first sub-film is 50 to 100 micrometers ([0033]) and a thickness of the second sub-film from 50 to 2000 micrometers. A lower end of the range in thickness for the second sub-film and a higher end of the thickness of the first sub-film would in fact result in a thinner second sub-film, and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Zang further discloses a partial covering of the first sub-film because Zang teaches the second sub-film completely covers the side of the first sub-film away from the oil guiding layer ([0007];[0024]), the other side (side facing away from the second sub-film) as well as the ends of the three-dimensional sub-film are not covered by the second sub-film (Figure 1).
Zang further teaches the second sub-film 30 has a total area that is smaller than that of the first sub-film 20. Refer to figure 1 provided below.
PNG
media_image1.png
592
772
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Zang further discloses that preferably the average pore size of the first sub-film is 10 to 30 micrometers (0.01 to 0.03 mm) and the average pore size of the second sub-film is 5 to 20 micrometers (0.005 to 0.02 mm) ([0010]), but does not explicitly disclose the average pore size of the first sub-film is 0.1 mm to 5 mm and the average pore size of the second sub-film is 0.1 mm to 1 mm. The Examiner notes that while Zang teaches a preferable average pore size of the sub-films, Zang is not limited to the disclosed average pore sizes in the disclosure because these are preferable embodiments and Zang explicitly discloses “the content of this specification should not be construed as a limitation of the present invention” ([0038]).
LV directed to an electronic atomizing device and an atomizer (i.e., heating element) ([0048]) comprising:
A porous substrate 111 ([0057]); and
A heating film 112 including an inorganic protective layer 112 and a metallic heating layer 1121 (i.e., heating film) ([0059]) comprising:
Multiple layers of sub-metal layers, including a sub-metal layer 1121b (i.e., second sub-film) and additional sub-metal layers including additional 1121a, 1121b and/or 1121c layers (i.e., at least one is the first sub-film) ([0059]),
The first sub-film 1121c being located on a surface of the porous substrate 111 (Figure 5) and comprising a porous structure ([0060]),
The second sub-film 1121b being arranged on a side of the first sub-film away from the porous substrate (Figures 4-5),
Wherein the second sub-film comprises a porous structure ([0060]).
LV further discloses the pore size and porosity of the heating film 112 can be adjusted by controlling the porosity and pore size of the porous substrate 111 and the thickness of the metal film ([0060]).
LV further discloses the porosity can be adjusted according to the composition of the aerosol generating matrix. For example, when the viscosity of the aerosol generating matrix is high, a higher porosity is selected to ensure the liquid conduction effect ([0055]).
LV further discloses the thickness of a single sub-metal layer can be adjusted according to actual needs ([0075]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Zang to have an adjustable average pore size, as taught by LV, because both are directed to heating elements comprising sub-films, LV teaches the pore size and porosity of the sub-films are adjustable according to what is needed ([0055] and [0060]), and this merely involves making the average pore size of a similar element and material adjustable, as it is known in the art to be, to yield predictable results.
Modified Zang does not explicitly disclose the average pore size of the first sub-film is 0.1 mm to 5 mm and the average pore size of the second sub-film is 0.1 mm to 1 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the average pore size of the sub-films since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed porosity is critical and has unexpected results. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the average pore size of the first and second sub-film motivated by the desire to control the porosity and pore size to form a continuous porous structure and to ensure proper liquid conduction ([0055] and [0060]).
In regards to claim 2, Zang discloses the porosity of the first sub-film 20 ranges from 45% to 60% ([0031]). The range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of the first sub-film having a porosity range from 3% to 80%, and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
In regards to claim 3, Modified Zang discloses the porosity of the heating layer is 40% to 60% (Zang [0031]) and does not explicitly disclose the porosity is less than or equal to 20%.
However, LV further discloses the porosity can be adjusted according to the composition of the aerosol generating matrix. For example, when the viscosity of the aerosol generating matrix is high, a higher porosity is selected to ensure the liquid conduction effect ([0055]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Zang to have an adjustable porosity, as taught by LV, because both are directed to heating elements comprising sub-films, LV teaches the pore size and porosity of the sub-films are adjustable according to what is needed ([0055] and [0060]), and this merely involves making the average pore size of a similar element and material adjustable, as it is known in the art to be, to yield predictable results.
Modified Zang does not explicitly disclose the porosity of the second sub-film is less than or equal to 20%. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize porosity of the sub-film since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed porosity is critical and has unexpected results. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the porosity of the second sub-film motivated by the desire to control the porosity and pore size to form a continuous porous structure and to ensure proper liquid conduction ([0055] and [0060]).
In regards to claim 11, Zang discloses an electronic atomizing device (i.e., vaporizer) comprising a liquid storage chamber configured to store the liquid to be vaporized and the atomizing core (i.e., heating element) configured to atomize the e-liquid storage in the liquid storage chamber ([0023]).
In regards to claim 12, Zang discloses an electronic vaporization device, comprising a power supply component, the vaporizer of claim 11, and the power supply component configured to supply power to the vaporizer ([0023]).
In regards to claim 18, Zang discloses the second sub-film comprising a metal or alloy as the conductive material ([0012]) and further discloses the pre-heating layer can also comprise conductive metallic elements (i.e., each sub-film comprise their own independent alloys or metal films) ([0025]).
Claims 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zang (CN-112931952-A, as cited in the IDS dated 02/26/2024 and hereinafter referring to the English translation provided) in view of LV et al. (CN-216453382-U, hereinafter referring to the English translation provided), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (EP-4449918-A1).
In regards to claim 4, Zang discloses at least two sub-film layers ([0029]), but does not explicitly disclose a third sub-film being arranged between the first sub-film and the second sub-film and comprising a porous structure, wherein the porosity of the first sub-film is greater than or equal to a porosity of the at least one third sub-film, and wherein the porosity of the at least one third sub-film is greater than or equal to the porosity of the second sub-film.
Liu, directed to a ceramic atomization core having a metal coating layer, discloses a porous ceramic body comprising a metal layer 2 comprising two porous layers 21 (i.e., third sub-film) and 22 (i.e., second sub-film) ([0039]) and a surface treatment layer 15 (i.e., first sub-film) ([0055]).
Liu further discloses the third sub-film is between the first and second sub-films (Figure 11) and the third sub-film 22 enhances the adhesion between the second sub-film and the porous ceramic substrate but also prevents reaction between the porous substrate and the heating layer ([0041]).
Liu further discloses the thickness of the third sub-film is less than the thickness of the second sub-film ([0051]-[0052]) and the metal layer comprising both the second and third sub-films comprises through film holes 20 in the position corresponding to the micropores 10 of the surface of the porous ceramic body so that aerosol can release from the film holes unobstructed and greatly increase the amount of atomized liquid ([0039]).
Liu does not explicitly disclose the third-sub film has a greater than or equal porosity of the second sub-film and a less than or equal to porosity of the first sub-film. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the porosity of the third sub-film since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed porosity is critical and has unexpected results. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the porosity of the third sub-film motivated by the desire to not obstruct the release of aerosol from the heating layer and to greatly increase the amount of atomized liquid, greatly increasing the user experience ([0039]). Therefore, it is considered obvious that the porosity of the third sub-film could be the same porosities claimed.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Zang by making the heating layer comprise an additional, third sub-film between the first and second sub-films and comprise a desired porosity, as taught by Liu, because both are directed to heating layers of vaporizers, Liu teaches the addition of the third sub-film 22 enhances the adhesion between the second sub-film and the porous ceramic substrate but also prevents reaction between the porous substrate and the heating layer ([0041]), and this merely involves applying an additional sub-film, which is a known technique in the art, of a similar device to yield predictable results
In regards to claim 5, Modified Zang discloses a plurality of first sub-films (151, 152, 153, and 154) (Liu Figure 12 and [0069]).
Liu further discloses the plurality of sub-films increase the thickness of the sub-film and better improve the flatness of the atomizer surface of the porous ceramic body so that the additional sub-film layers can better adhere to the porous ceramic body, further enhancing the adhesion of the heating layer and making it more uniform ([0069]), but does not explicitly disclose a plurality of third sub-films.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the third-sub film could also be duplicated into a plurality of third sub-films as claimed to better enhance the adhesion of the heating layer and make it more uniform ([0069]). It has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP 2144.04 VI. B).
Further, duplicating the third sub-film would result in the same porosity of the third sub-films adjacent layers and it is considered prima facie obvious that the additional third sub-films would each have the same porosity, therefore being equal in porosity, which makes obvious what is claimed.
In regards to claim 6, Zang discloses the first sub-film 20 can be a ceramic or metal-ceramic composite material with a metal oxide matrix (i.e., independent metal fil or alloy film) ([0026]) and the second sub-film comprises a conductive ceramic material, including al east one of oxides, nitrides, silicon carbide, borides, spinel, and cordierite (i.e., independent metal film or alloy film) ([0025]).
In regards to claim 7, Zang discloses the second sub-films are selected from one of a nickel film or nickel alloy ([0025]).
Zang further discloses the first sub-film can be a ceramic or metal-ceramic composite material with a metal oxide matrix. While Zang does not explicitly disclose what metals are used in the first sub-film, Zang does disclose the use of nickel and nickel alloys ([0025]) and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the metal oxides could include nickel.
In regards to claim 8, Zang discloses the first sub-film can be linear and rectangular (Figure 1) or curved (Figures 2-3).
In regards to claim 9, Zang discloses the e-liquid in the first sub-film is an intermediate layer between the porous substrate and the second sub-film, where the first sub-film transfers the liquid of the substrate to the second sub-film for heating (i.e., the pores of the porous substrate are in communication with the pores of the first substrate) ([0027]).
Zang further discloses the porous substrate comprises a porous ceramic ([0033]).
Zang further discloses the porosity of the porous substrate is 45%–60% ([0031]). The range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of the porous substrate having a porosity from 25 to 75%, and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
In regards to claim 10, Zang discloses the porous substrate is a porous ceramic matrix where the main material of which is preferably silicon dioxide (i.e., porous silica ceramic) ([0033]).
Claims 13-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zang (CN-112931952-A, as cited in the IDS dated 02/26/2024 and hereinafter referring to the English translation provided) in view of LV et al. (CN-216453382-U, hereinafter referring to the English translation provided), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhou et al. (CN-112690507-A, English translation provided).
In regards to claim 13, Zang discloses the porosity of the first sub-film 20 ranges from 45% to 60% ([0031]), but does not explicitly disclose the porosity of the first sub-film is 5 to 30% and does not explicitly disclose the porosity of the second sub-film is 0 to 20%. However, as discussed in claim 3 above, LV further discloses the porosity can be adjusted according to the composition of the aerosol generating matrix. For example, when the viscosity of the aerosol generating matrix is high, a higher porosity is selected to ensure the liquid conduction effect ([0055]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Zang to have an adjustable porosity, as taught by LV, because both are directed to heating elements comprising sub-films, LV teaches the pore size and porosity of the sub-films are adjustable according to what is needed ([0055] and [0060]), and this merely involves making the average pore size of a similar element and material adjustable, as it is known in the art to be, to yield predictable results.
Modified Zang does not explicitly disclose the porosity of the first sub-film is 5 to 30% and the second sub-film is less than or equal to 20%. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize porosity of the sub-films since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed porosity is critical and has unexpected results. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the porosity of the second sub-film motivated by the desire to control the porosity and pore size to form a continuous porous structure and to ensure proper liquid conduction ([0055] and [0060]).
Furthermore, Zhou, directed to a heating body for a vaporizer of an electronic device discloses a porous ceramic body including a substrate and a preheating member located on the substrate (abstract; [0009]-[[10]]).
Zhou further discloses the preheating element 112 (i.e., first sub-film) ([0044]) comprises a porosity from 30 to 80% ([0016]). The range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of the first sub-film having a porosity range from 5% to 30%, and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Modified Zang to be optimized to a known value of a first sub-film, as taught by Zhou, because all are directed to heating elements for aerosol generating devices, Zhou teaches it is known in the art that a first sub-film comprises a porosity in the range claimed ([0016]), and one would be motivated to optimize the porosity of a similar sub-film to ensure proper liquid conduction (LV [0055]) to yield predictable results.
In regards to claim 14, Zang discloses the thickness of the first sub-film is 50 to 100 micrometers ([0033]). The range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of the first sub-film having a thickness from 100 to 500 micrometers, and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Zang further discloses the second sub-film has a preferred thickness of 50 to 2000 micrometers ([0025]), but Zang does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the second sub-film being from 10 to 30 micrometers.
However, LV discloses “the total thickness of the second sub-metal layer 1121c can be 0.5μm-5μm, for example, 0.5μm, 1μm, 2μm, 3μm, 4μm, 5μm; the total thickness is the sum of the thicknesses of all the same sub-metal layers. The thickness of a single sub-metal layer can be adjusted according to actual needs. Usually, the thickness of a single sub-metal layer and the total thickness are adjusted in consideration of the resistance of the heating film 112.”
While LV does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the second sub-film being 10 to 30 micrometers, LV does disclose the thickness of the second sub-film can be adjusted according to actual needs, and therefore it would be it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the thickness of the second sub-film since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed thickness is critical and has unexpected results. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the thickness of the second sub-film motivated by the desire to adjust a single sub-metal layer to fit the actual needs of the heating film ([0075]).
In regards to claim 16, Modified Zang discloses a multi-layered heating film that reads on all of the limitations of claim 1, but modified Zang does not explicitly disclose the heating film configured to generate a liquid explosion noise level of less than 70 dB.
However, since both Zang and LV disclose multi-layered heating films and the Applicant’s instant specification attributes the second sub-film layer as being responsible for the noise level of less than 70 dB when liquid explosion occurs ([0095]), it appears to be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a similar multi-layered sub-film heating element would also generate a noise level of less than 70 dB and therefore the claimed noise level is considered a prima facie obvious limitation of the claim.
Claims 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zang (CN-112931952-A, as cited in the IDS dated 02/26/2024 and hereinafter referring to the English translation provided) in view of LV et al. (CN-216453382-U, hereinafter referring to the English translation provided) in view of Zhou et al. (CN-112690507-A, English Translation provided), as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Courbat et al. (US-20220039470-A1).
In regards to claims 15 and 20, Zang discloses the electrical resistance of the second sub-film is 0.2 to 2.5 Ω ([0013]) and further discloses the pre-heating layer can also comprise conductive metallic elements (i.e., each sub-film comprise their own independent alloys or metal films) ([0025]), but is silent regarding the electrical resistance of the entire heating film and therefore does not teach the heating film comprising a resistance of 0.8 to 1.4 Ω.
However, Zang teaches the pre-heating layer can also comprise conductive metallic elements (i.e., each sub-film comprise their own independent alloys or metal films) ([0025]) and since both the pre-heating layer and the heating layer (i.e., first and second sub-films) can comprise the same materials, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the entire heating film would have a similar electrical resistance of 0.2 to 2.5 Ω. The range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of the electrical resistance of the heating film ranging from 0.8 to 1.4 Ω, and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Courbat, directed to a heater assembly for an aerosol generating system, discloses a heater comprising a first layer 326 and a second layer 328 comprising electrically conductive material (abstract).
Courbat further discloses a porous ceramic substrate that the heater is deposited on ([0091]).
Courbat further discloses the heaters second layer modifies the electrical resistance of the entire heater to be between 0.3 and 4 Ohms, more particularly between 0.5 and 1.5 Ohms and yet more particularly 1 Ohm ([0030]). The range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of the electrical resistance of the heating film ranging from 0.8 to 1.4 Ω, and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Courbat further discloses it is generally advantageous to have a low overall resistance for the fluid permeable heater if the heater assembly is to be used with an aerosol-generating system powered by a battery. A low resistance, high current system allows for the delivery of high power to the fluid permeable heater. This allows the heater to be heated to a desired temperature quickly ([0030]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to modify Modified Zang by making the heating films electrical resistance range from 0.8 to 1.3 Ω, as taught by Courbat, because one of ordinary skill in the art would look to a similar reference for a known electrical resistance in the art of a similar heating element for a vaporizing device, especially when the original prior art is silent to one, all are directed to heater assemblies for aerosol generating devices, Courbat teaches a low overall resistance is advantageous because it allows the heater to be heated to a desired temperature quickly ([0030]), and this merely involves applying a known electrical resistance of a similar heating film to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADELEINE PAULINA DELACRUZ whose telephone number is (703)756-4544. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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, Philip Louie can be reached at (571)270-1241. 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.
/MADELEINE P DELACRUZ/Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
