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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 07/10/2023 and 02/24/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a spacing between two adjacent counter bores plurality of counter bores being in a range of 0.02 μm to 500 μm” in lines 4-5. This limitation should be changed to “a spacing between two adjacent counter bores of the plurality of counter bores being in a range of 0.02 μm to 500 μm”.
Claim 12 is objected by virtue of its dependence on claim 11.
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.
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 the limitation “thae recessing depth” in line 3. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation. Specifically, it is unclear if this limitation means “the recessing depth”. If the limitation “thae recessing depth” recited in claim 4 (line 3) means “the recessing depth”, there would be insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no “recessing depth” recited previously.
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 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 1-3, 5, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pelz et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0397052 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Pelz discloses a heating assembly (heating assembly includes the heating body 60, the insulation layer 70 and the flow control device 66, Pelz Fig.16), comprising:
an outer surface (outer surface, Pelz annotated Fig.16 below) configured to contact an aerosol-forming medium (liquid 50, Pelz Fig.16) (the liquid 50 is aerosol-forming medium because Pelz Par.0160 discloses: “The evaporator unit 20 evaporates liquid 50 by means of a heating body 60, which liquid is supplied to said evaporator unit from the liquid store 18, and adds the evaporated liquid into the air stream 34 as aerosol/vapour 22 at an outlet side 64.”),
wherein a part of the outer surface (outer surface, Pelz annotated Fig.16 below) is relatively recessed (as shown in Pelz annotated Fig.16 below) to form a low surface energy structure (low surface energy structure, Pelz annotated Fig.16 below) of the heating assembly (heating assembly includes the heating body 60, the insulation layer 70 and the flow control device 66, Pelz Fig.16), the low surface energy structure (low surface energy structure, Pelz annotated Fig.16 below) comprising a micro-scale structure and/or a nano-scale structure (It is noted that the limitation “a micro-scale structure and/or a nano-scale structure” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Pelz discloses micro-scale structure because Pelz Par.0157 discloses through-holes 68, through-openings 67, and channels 62 form continuous microchannels; specifically, Pelz Par.0157 discloses: “The through-openings 67 preferably correspond to the microchannels 62 and/or the through-holes 68, such that continuous microchannels are created from the liquid store 18 to the outlet openings 76 on the outlet side 64 of the substrate 63.”).
PNG
media_image1.png
853
1102
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Pelz discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Pelz also discloses further comprising:
a substrate (the uppermost layer of the substrate 63 because Pelz Par.0158 discloses the substrate 63 is formed by layer sequence; specifically, Pelz Par.0158 discloses: “In general, if a layer sequence is formed by the substrate 63 and the flow control layer 69 and/or the insulating layer 70 and/or at least one other layer, the microchannels 62 are advantageously arranged such that the longitudinal axes thereof are transverse to the layer sequence.”);
a heating layer (the heating layer is the heating body 60 except the uppermost layer of the substrate 63 because Pelz Fig.16 & Par.0153 discloses the heating body 60 having the block-shaped semiconductor substrate 63, and Pelz Par.0158 discloses the substrate 63 is formed by layer sequence; therefore, the heating layer is interpreted to be the heating body 60 except the uppermost layer of the substrate 63); and
an insulative and thermally conductive layer (insulative and thermally conductive layer includes the flow control layer 69 and the insulating layer 70, Pelz Fig.16) (Pelz Par.0156 discloses: “The flow control layer 69 can also advantageously or additionally be designed as an EWOD (electro wetting on dielectrics) layer”; it is known that the EWOD (electro wetting on dielectrics) layer is insulative and thermally conductive; therefore, the flow control layer 69 and insulating layer 70 is insulative and thermally conductive layer),
wherein the heating layer (the heating layer is the heating body 60 except the uppermost layer of the substrate 63 because Pelz Fig.16 & Par.0153 discloses the heating body 60 having the block-shaped semiconductor substrate 63, and Pelz Par.0158 discloses the substrate 63 is formed by layer sequence) is stacked between the substrate (the uppermost layer of the substrate 63 because Pelz Par.0158 discloses the substrate 63 is formed by layer sequence) and the insulative and thermally conductive layer (insulative and thermally conductive layer includes the flow control layer 69 and the insulating layer 70, Pelz Fig.16), and
wherein a surface of a side of the insulative and thermally conductive layer (flow control layer 69 and insulating layer 70, Pelz Fig.16) away from the heating layer (heating body 60, Pelz Fig.16) forms the outer surface (outer surface, Pelz annotated Fig.16 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
853
1102
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Pelz discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 2, Pelz also discloses:
wherein, using a first direction (first direction, Pelz annotated Fig.16 below) and a second direction (second direction, Pelz annotated Fig.16 below) perpendicular to each other as a reference, the low surface energy structure (low surface energy structure, Pelz annotated Fig.16 below) comprises a plurality of first grooves (through-holes 68, through-openings 67, and channels 62 form plurality of first grooves, Pelz Fig.16 & Par.0157) formed by recessing the outer surface (outer surface, Pelz annotated Fig.16 below), each first groove of the plurality of first grooves (each first groove formed by each of through-holes 68, through-openings 67, and channels 62, Pelz Fig.16 & Par.0157) integrally extending in the first direction (first direction, Pelz annotated Fig.16 below), the plurality of first grooves (through-holes 68, through-openings 67, and channels 62 form plurality of first grooves, Pelz Fig.16 & Par.0157) being arranged at intervals in the second direction (second direction, Pelz annotated Fig.16 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
920
1230
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Pelz discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 3, Pelz also discloses:
wherein each first groove (each first groove formed by each of through-holes 68, through-openings 67, and channels 62, Pelz Fig.16 & Par.0157) comprises a linear groove or a curved groove (It is noted that the limitation “a linear groove or a curved groove” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Pelz discloses linear groove as shown in Pelz Fig.16).
Regarding claim 14, Pelz discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Pelz also discloses:
wherein the low surface energy structure (low surface energy structure, Pelz annotated Fig.16 below) is formed by at least one of a chemical etching process, a laser etching process, a plasma etching process, and a machining process (It is noted that the limitation “at least one of a chemical etching process, a laser etching process, a plasma etching process, and a machining process” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Pelz discloses chemical etching process because Pelz Par.0089 discloses: “the opening 68 in the silicon substrate that forms the channel 62 can be formed, for example, by wet chemical etching using potassium hydroxide solution (KOH), in such a way that said opening advantageously tapers. This leads to low post-flow resistance and thus a large quantity of vapour that can be released. As already explained earlier, this wet etching can preferably be carried out from an inlet side of the heating body, while, for example, dry etching could be preferred and carried out from the outlet side.”).
PNG
media_image1.png
853
1102
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Pelz discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Pelz also discloses:
A heating and vaporization device (evaporator unit 20, Pelz Fig.16), comprising: the heating assembly (heating assembly includes the heating body 60, the insulation layer 70 and the flow control device 66, Pelz Fig.16) of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pelz et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0397052 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Pelz discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 3, Pelz also discloses:
wherein a width of each first groove (each first groove formed by each of through-holes 68, through-openings 67, and channels 62, Pelz Fig.16 & Par.0157) in the second direction (second direction, Pelz annotated Fig.16 below) is in a range of 0.01 μm to 500 μm (Pelz Par.0112 discloses: “The average diameter of the microchannels 62 is preferably in the range between 5 μm and 200 μm, more preferably in the range between 30 μm and 150 μm, even more preferably in the range between 50 μm and 100 μm”; therefore, Pelz discloses the range that is inside of the claimed range), a spacing between two adjacent first grooves of the plurality of first grooves (through-holes 68, through-openings 67, and channels 62 form plurality of first grooves, Pelz Fig.16 & Par.0157) is in a range of 0.02 μm to 500 μm (Pelz Par.0117 discloses: “The distance between two microchannels 62 is preferably at least 1.3 times the inner diameter of a microchannel 62, the distance being in relation to the central axes of the two microchannels 62.”, and Pelz Par.0112 discloses the average diameter of the microchannels 62 is preferably in the range between 5 μm and 200 μm, thus, the distance between two microchannels 62 is preferably in the range between 6.5 μm and 260 μm, which is inside of the claimed range).
PNG
media_image2.png
920
1230
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Pelz does not explicitly disclose:
the recessing depth of each first groove is in a range of 0.01 μm to 100 μm
Regarding the limitation that the recessing depth of each first groove is in a range of 0.01 μm to 100 μm, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disclosed in the prior art (see Figures 16 where the reference Pelz discloses certain depth of each first groove formed by the through-hole 68, through-opening 67, and channel 62; and Pelz Par.0138 discloses: “The heating body 60 can be advantageously produced from portions of a wafer using thin-film layer technology, which wafer has a layer thickness of preferably less than or equal to 1000 μm, more preferably less than or equal to 750 μm, even more preferably less than or equal to 500 μm.”), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 II.A).
In this case, the reference Pelz discloses certain depth of each first groove formed by the through-hole 68, through-opening 67, and channel 62; and having a specific depth of each first groove is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the depth of the first groove is recognized in the art as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, varying the depth of the first groove would affect the efficiency of the liquid being conveyed through the first grooves, thus, affect the aerosol generation. A heating assembly with an optimized depth of first grooves can ensure capillary forces occur in the liquid to be used, in order to convey the liquid through the first grooves so that a sufficient amount of liquid can be heated by the heating body of the heating assembly and evaporated to form aerosol. Thus, the depth of each first groove is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Pelz depth of each first groove by making the depth of each first groove to be in a range of 0.01 μm to 100 μm as a matter of routine optimization 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.”. MPEP 2144.05 II.A.
Regarding claim 11, Pelz discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 2, Pelz also discloses:
wherein the low surface energy structure (low surface energy structure, Pelz annotated Fig.16 below) comprises a plurality of counter bores (through-holes 68, through-openings 67, and channels 62 form plurality of counter bores because Pelz Par.0047 discloses: “The cross section of the microchannels can be square, rectangular, polygonal, round, oval or otherwise shaped and/or can vary in the longitudinal direction in portions, in particular can increase, decrease or remain constant.”) formed by recessing the outer surface (outer surface, Pelz annotated Fig.16 below), all counter bores of the plurality of counter bores (all counter bores formed by through-holes 68, through-openings 67, and channels 62, Pelz Fig.16 & Par.0047) being arranged in a matrix (as shown in Pelz Fig.16), sizes of cross sections of the counter bores of the plurality of counter bores (counter bores formed by through-holes 68, through-openings 67, and channels 62; Pelz Fig.16 & Par.0047) being in a range of 0.01 μm to 500 μm (Pelz Par.0112 discloses: “The average diameter of the microchannels 62 is preferably in the range between 5 μm and 200 μm, more preferably in the range between 30 μm and 150 μm, even more preferably in the range between 50 μm and 100 μm”; therefore, Pelz discloses the range that is inside of the claimed range), a spacing between two adjacent counter bores plurality of counter bores (counter bores formed by through-holes 68, through-openings 67, and channels 62; Pelz Fig.16 & Par.0047) being in a range of 0.02 μm to 500 μm (Pelz Par.0117 discloses: “The distance between two microchannels 62 is preferably at least 1.3 times the inner diameter of a microchannel 62, the distance being in relation to the central axes of the two microchannels 62.”, and Pelz Par.0112 discloses the average diameter of the microchannels 62 is preferably in the range between 5 μm and 200 μm, thus, the distance between two microchannels 62 is preferably in the range between 6.5 μm and 260 μm, which is inside of the claimed range).
PNG
media_image2.png
920
1230
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Pelz does not explicitly disclose:
recessing depths of the counter bores being in a range of 0.01 μm to 100 μm
Regarding the limitation that recessing depths of the counter bores being in a range of 0.01 μm to 100 μm, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disclosed in the prior art (see Figures 16 where the reference Pelz discloses certain depths of counter bores formed by the through-holes 68, through-openings 67, and channels 62; and Pelz Par.0138 discloses: “The heating body 60 can be advantageously produced from portions of a wafer using thin-film layer technology, which wafer has a layer thickness of preferably less than or equal to 1000 μm, more preferably less than or equal to 750 μm, even more preferably less than or equal to 500 μm.”), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 II.A).
In this case, the reference Pelz discloses certain depths of counter bores formed by the through-holes 68, through-openings 67, and channels 62; and having specific depths of counter bores is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the depths of the counter bores is recognized in the art as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, varying the depths of the counter bores would affect the efficiency of the liquid being conveyed through the counter bores, thus, affect the aerosol generation. A heating assembly with optimized depths of counter bores can ensure capillary forces occur in the liquid to be used, in order to convey the liquid through the counter bores so that a sufficient amount of liquid can be heated by the heating body of the heating assembly and evaporated to form aerosol. Thus, the depths of the counter bores are recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Pelz depths of counter bores by making the depths of the counter bores to be in a range of 0.01 μm to 100 μm as a matter of routine optimization 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.”. MPEP 2144.05 II.A.
Regarding claim 12, Pelz discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 11, Pelz also discloses:
wherein the cross sections of the counter bores (counter bores formed by through-holes 68, through-openings 67, and channels 62; Pelz Fig.16 & Par.0047) are in a shape of a circle, an oval, a rhombus, or a regular polygon (It is noted that the limitation “a circle, an oval, a rhombus, or a regular polygon” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Pelz discloses regular polygon as shown in Pelz Fig.16 and indicated by Pelz Par.0047: “The cross section of the microchannels can be square, rectangular, polygonal, round, oval or otherwise shaped and/or can vary in the longitudinal direction in portions, in particular can increase, decrease or remain constant.”).
Regarding claim 13, Pelz Embodiment Fig.16 discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 2, Pelz Embodiment Fig.16 also discloses:
wherein the low surface energy structure (low surface energy structure, Pelz annotated Fig.16 below) comprises a groove (groove formed by through-holes 68, through-openings 67, and channels 62; Pelz Fig.16 & Par.0157) or a counter bore (it is noted that the limitation “a groove or a counter bore” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination),
wherein the insulative and thermally conductive layer (insulative and thermally conductive layer includes the flow control layer 69 and the insulating layer 70, Pelz Fig.16) has a stack surface (stack surface, Pelz annotated Fig.16 below) stacked on the heating layer (the heating layer is the heating body 60 except the uppermost layer of the substrate 63 because Pelz Fig.16 & Par.0153 discloses the heating body 60 having the block-shaped semiconductor substrate 63, and Pelz Par.0158 discloses the substrate 63 is formed by layer sequence; therefore, the heating layer is interpreted to be the heating body 60 except the uppermost layer of the substrate 63) (it is noted that during manufacturing, the stack surface of the insulative and thermally conductive layer stacked on the heating layer as shown in Pelz Figs.3-5; it is further noted that Pelz Figs.3-5 are for illustration purposes only to show the manufacturing process of the heating assembly)
PNG
media_image3.png
853
1102
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Pelz Embodiment Fig.16 does not explicitly disclose:
wherein a set spacing is maintained between the groove or the counter bore and the stack surface.
Pelz Par.0034 teaches:
wherein a set spacing is maintained between the groove or the counter bore and the stack surface (Pelz Par.0034 teaches: “the channels could in particular also be etched from surfaces opposite one another, and this can occur, for example, with different cross-sectional sizes or diameters from the two sides, so that the relevant channel has different diameters in the course thereof, for example diameters which are stepped or conical in portions. This can promote the directed liquid flow and/or the portioning thereof”; thus, by making microchannels to have different diameters in the course thereof, for example diameters which are stepped or conical in portions, there is a set spacing between the stack surface and the groove or the counter bore formed by microchannels).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heating assembly of Pelz Embodiment Fig.16, by adding the teaching of set spacing is maintained between the groove or the counter bore and the stack surface, as taught by Pelz Par.0034, in order to promote the directed liquid flow, as recognized by Pelz [Pelz, Par.0034], so that a sufficient amount of liquid can be heated by the heating body of the heating assembly and evaporated to form aerosol.
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pelz et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0397052 A1) in view of Horton et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,205,902 A).
Regarding claim 6, Pelz discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 3, Pelz does not disclose:
wherein the low surface energy structure further comprises a plurality of second grooves formed by recessing the outer surface, each second groove of the plurality of second grooves integrally extending in the second direction, the plurality of second grooves being arranged at intervals in the first direction, and
wherein a respective first groove of the plurality of first grooves and a respective second groove of the plurality of second grooves intersect and communicate with each other.
Horton teaches (Horton Fig.9F):
wherein the low surface energy structure (low surface energy structure, Horton annotated Fig.9F below) further comprises a plurality of second grooves (second grooves, Horton annotated Fig.9F below) formed by recessing the outer surface (outer surface, Horton annotated Fig.9F below), each second groove of the plurality of second grooves (each of second grooves, Horton annotated Fig.9F below) integrally extending in the second direction (second direction, Horton annotated Fig.9F below), the plurality of second grooves (second grooves, Horton annotated Fig.9F below) being arranged at intervals in the first direction (first direction, Horton annotated Fig.9F below), and
wherein a respective first groove of the plurality of first grooves (first grooves, Horton annotated Fig.9F below) and a respective second groove of the plurality of second grooves (second grooves, Horton annotated Fig.9F below) intersect and communicate with each other (Horton annotated Fig.9F below shows a respective first groove of the plurality of first grooves and a respective second groove of the plurality of second grooves intersect and communicate with each other).
PNG
media_image4.png
840
1163
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heating assembly of Pelz, by adding plurality of second grooves formed by recessing the outer surface, each second groove of the plurality of second grooves integrally extending in the second direction, the plurality of second grooves being arranged at intervals in the first direction, and a respective first groove of the plurality of first grooves and a respective second groove of the plurality of second grooves intersect and communicate with each other, as taught by Horton, in order to enhance heat transfer during aerosol generation to ensure efficient liquid vaporization, maintain a consistent aerosol particle size, and optimize energy usage. The modification would also help to prevent dry spots and ensure uniform heating, which is essential for producing high-quality, stable aerosols.
Regarding claim 7, Pelz in view of Horton teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 6, Horton also teaches:
wherein a width of each second groove (each of second grooves, Horton annotated Fig.9F below, as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 6 above) in the first direction (first direction, Horton annotated Fig.9F below) is in a range of 0.01 μm to 500 μm (Horton Col.7 lines 15-16 teaches: “As a direct result of the present invention, smaller channel diameters, or widths less than about 4 μm”), a spacing between two adjacent second grooves of the plurality of second grooves is in a range of 0.02 μm to 500 μm (Horton Col.7 lines 15-19 teaches: “As a direct result of the present invention, smaller channel diameters, or widths less than about 4 μm and pitch, less than about 6 μm may be achieved thereby resulting in improved spatial and temporal characteristics”)
PNG
media_image4.png
840
1163
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Pelz in view of Horton does not explicitly teaches:
a recessing depth of each second groove is in a range of 0.01 μm to 100 μm.
Regarding the limitation that a recessing depth of each second groove is in a range of 0.01 μm to 100 μm, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disclosed in the prior art (see Horton annotated Figure 9F above where the reference Horton teaches certain depth for each second groove), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 II.A).
In this case, the reference Horton teaches certain depth for each second groove, and having a specific depth for each second groove is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the depth for each second groove is recognized in the art as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, varying the depth for each second groove would affect spatial and temporal characteristics (e.g. resolution and speed) of the microchannels, thus, in combination, it would affect the efficiency of the liquid being conveyed through the microchannels, thus, affect the aerosol generation. A heating assembly with optimized depth for each second groove can result in improved spatial and temporal characteristics (e.g. resolution and speed), thus, a sufficient amount of liquid can be heated by the heating body of the heating assembly and evaporated to form aerosol. Thus, the depth for each second groove is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Pelz in view of Horton depth for each second groove by making the depth for each second groove to be in a range of 0.01 μm to 100 μm as a matter of routine optimization 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.”. MPEP 2144.05 II.A.
Regarding claim 8, Pelz in view of Horton teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 6, Horton also teaches:
wherein each second groove (each of second grooves, Horton annotated Fig.9F below, as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 6 above) comprises a linear groove or a curved groove (It is noted that the limitation “a linear groove or a curved groove” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was given patentable weight during examination. In this case, Horton teaches linear groove as shown in Horton annotated Fig.9F below).
PNG
media_image4.png
840
1163
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Pelz in view of Horton teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 6, and also teaches:
wherein the insulative and thermally conductive layer (insulative and thermally conductive layer includes the flow control layer 69 and the insulating layer 70, Pelz Fig.16) comprises a plurality of protruding posts arranged in a matrix (in combination, by adding the Horton second grooves to the Pelz heating assembly, the insulative and thermally conductive layer of Pelz comprises a plurality of protruding posts arranged in a matrix formed by the plurality of first grooves and the plurality of second grooves), and wherein cross sections of each protruding post of the plurality of protruding posts are in a shape of a circle, an oval, a rectangle, a rhombus, or a regular polygon (It is noted that the limitation “a circle, an oval, a rectangle, a rhombus, or a regular polygon” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was given patentable weight during examination. In this case, Pelz in view of Horton teaches regular polygon because the plurality of first grooves and the plurality of second grooves are perpendicular to each other).
PNG
media_image2.png
920
1230
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
840
1163
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Pelz in view of Horton teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 9, and also teaches:
wherein for any adjacent two rows of protruding posts of the plurality of protruding posts (See adjacent two rows of protruding posts in Horton annotated Fig.9F below. It is noted that the any adjacent two rows of protruding posts in Horton annotated Fig.9F below is for illustration purposes only to show the locations of the two rows of protruding posts. It is further noted that in combination, by adding the Horton second grooves to the Pelz heating assembly, the insulative and thermally conductive layer of Pelz comprises plurality of protruding posts formed by the plurality of first grooves and the plurality of second grooves) arranged at intervals in the first direction (first direction, Horton annotated Fig.9F below), orthogonal projections of the two rows of protruding posts in the first direction completely overlap, partially overlap, or do not overlap (It is noted that the limitation “completely overlap, partially overlap, or do not overlap” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was given patentable weight during examination. In this case, in combination, Pelz in view of Horton teaches orthogonal projections of the two rows of protruding posts in the first direction do not overlap).
PNG
media_image5.png
840
1163
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The following prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Jun et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0084510 A1) discloses a microchannel array structure embedded in a silicon substrate and a fabrication method thereof.
Meinhart et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0015385 A1) discloses methods and apparatus for vaporizing liquid from a liquid source into the surrounding environment, where the apparatus comprises at least one manifold comprising at least one liquid port formed by a through-hole and at least one flow channel, wherein the liquid port is in fluid communication with the liquid source and the flow channel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAO TRAN-LE whose telephone number is (571)272-7535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:00 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, HELENA KOSANOVIC can be reached on (571) 272-9059. 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.
/THAO UYEN TRAN-LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 03/05/2026