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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendments filed 06/09/2026. Claims 1-16 are pending in this application. As directed, claims 1-2, 4, 11, and 13 have been amended; claim 16 has been newly added.
With respect to Claim Objections: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims filed on 06/09/2026 have overcome the Claim Objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 03/09/2026.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejections: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims filed on 06/09/2026 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Claim Rejection set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 03/09/2026.
Response to Arguments
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 102 & 103 Claim Rejections: Applicant(s)’ arguments filed on 06/09/2026 have been fully considered but are moot based on new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendments. Specifically, Applicant’s amendments to the Claims filed on 06/09/2026 have changed the scope of the claim; therefore, the claim interpretation has been changed. Specifically, the recessed part interpretation has been changed; accordingly, the set spacing between the recessed part of the outer surface and the stack surfaces has also been changed. In the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 set forth in this Office Action, the set spacing is defined as the distance between the top end of the through-holes 68 [i.e., the end of the through-holes 68 that is in direct contact with the openings 67, see Pelz Fig.16] and the stack surface, wherein the stack surface is the top surface of the second 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 the stack surface is interpreted to be the top surface of the second uppermost layer of the substrate 63, see detailed explanation in the rejection of claim 1 in the 35 U.S.C. 102 Claim Rejections section below. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument that the prior art of record Pelz does not disclose the limitation “a set spacing is maintained between the recessed part of the outer surface and the stack surface” as recited in the amended claim 1, is moot.
Additionally, Applicant argument’s regarding dependent claims 2-5, 11-15 are the same as those provided for the independent claim 1; since the set spacing is interpreted differently in this Office Action, the Applicant’s argument’s regarding the set spacing as set forth in the previous Office Action is moot. Thus, Examiner’s response to the independent claim 1 generally applies to dependent claims 2-5, 11-15.
Furthermore, Applicant argument’s regarding claims 6-10 are moot. Specifically, Applicant’s amendments to the Claims filed on 06/09/2026 have changed the scope of the claim; therefore, the claim interpretation has been changed. Specifically, the recessed part interpretation has been changed; accordingly, the modification of Pelz in view of Horton is no longer work, see detailed explanation in the Allowable Subject Matter section below. Therefore, claims 6-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, see detailed explanation in the Allowable Subject Matter section below.
Further still, Applicant argument’s regarding claim 16 is moot because as set forth in this Office Action, the newly added claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, see detailed explanation in the Allowable Subject Matter section below.
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, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pelz et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0397052 A1, previously cited).
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:
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 because the flow control layer 69 being formed of a physical material, inherently possesses a finite thermal conductivity and therefore is capable of conducting at least some thermal energy; therefore, the flow control layer 69 and insulating layer 70 is insulative and thermally conductive layer) having outer surface (outer surface is bottom surface of the flow control layer 69, 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.”) and a stack surface (stack surface is the top surface of the second 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 the stack surface is interpreted to be the top surface of the second uppermost layer of the substrate 63) opposite the outer surface (outer surface is bottom surface of the flow control layer 69, Pelz annotated Fig.16 below) wherein the stack surface (stack surface is the top surface of the second 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 the stack surface is interpreted to be the top surface of the second uppermost layer of the substrate 63) is 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; and the stack surface is interpreted to be the top surface of the second uppermost layer of the substrate 63; therefore, the stack surface is stacked on the heating layer);
wherein a part of the outer surface (outer surface is bottom surface of the flow control layer 69, Pelz annotated Fig.16 below) is relatively recessed (recessed to form through-holes 68, Pelz Fig.16) 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 the through-holes 68 are microchannels, specifically, Pelz Par.0157 discloses through-holes 68, through-openings 67, and channels 62 form continuous microchannels, to be more specific, 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.”; therefore, the through-holes 68 are microchannels), and wherein a set spacing (set spacing is the distance between the top end of the through-holes 68 [i.e., the end that is in direct contact with the openings 67, see Pelz Fig.16] and the stack surface, wherein the stack surface is the top surface of the second 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 the stack surface is interpreted to be the top surface of the second uppermost layer of the substrate 63) is maintained between the recessed part (recessed part is the flow control layer 69 with through-holes 68, Pelz Fig.16) of the outer surface (outer surface is bottom surface of the flow control layer 69, Pelz annotated Fig.16 below) and the stack surface (stack surface is the top surface of the second 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 the stack surface is interpreted to be the top surface of the second uppermost layer of the substrate 63) (It is noted that since the recessed part is the flow control layer 69 with through-holes 68, and the stack surface is the top surface of the second 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 the stack surface is interpreted to be the top surface of the second uppermost layer of the substrate 63; therefore, the set spacing is the distance between the top end of the through-holes 68 [i.e., the end that is in direct contact with the openings 67, see Pelz Fig.16] and the stack surface).
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.”);
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).
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 (first grooves formed by through-holes 68, Pelz Fig.16 & Par.0157) formed by recessing the outer surface (outer surface is bottom surface of the flow control layer 69, Pelz annotated Fig.16 below), each first groove of the plurality of first grooves (each first groove formed by each of through-holes 68, Pelz Fig.16 & Par.0157) integrally extending in the first direction (first direction, Pelz annotated Fig.16 below), the plurality of first grooves (first grooves formed by through-holes 68, 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, 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 13, 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 groove (groove formed by through-holes 68; 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).
PNG
media_image1.png
853
1102
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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
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 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, 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pelz et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0397052 A1, previously cited).
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, 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”, it is noted that Pelz Par.0157 discloses through-holes 68, through-openings 67, and channels 62 form continuous microchannels, to be more specific, 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.”; 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 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; it is noted that Pelz Par.0157 discloses through-holes 68, through-openings 67, and channels 62 form continuous microchannels, to be more specific, 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.”; thus, the distance between two microchannels 62 or two adjacent first grooves of the plurality of first grooves 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:
a recessing depth of each first groove is in a range of 0.01 μm to 100 μm
Regarding the limitation that a 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 Figure 16 where the reference Pelz discloses certain depth of each first groove formed by each of the through-holes 68), 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 each of the through-hole 68; 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 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, 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; 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”; it is noted that Pelz Par.0157 discloses through-holes 68, through-openings 67, and channels 62 form continuous microchannels, to be more specific, 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.”; therefore, Pelz discloses the range that is inside of the claimed range), a spacing between two adjacent counter bores of the plurality of counter bores (counter bores formed by through-holes 68; 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; it is noted that Pelz Par.0157 discloses through-holes 68, through-openings 67, and channels 62 form continuous microchannels, to be more specific, 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.”; 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 Figure 16 where the reference Pelz discloses certain depths of counter bores formed by the through-holes 68), 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; 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, Pelz Fig.16 & Par.0047; specifically, 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.”) 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.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 6, Pelz discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 3, Peltz 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.
Pelz does not disclose this arrangement. Pelz instead provides a flow-control layer 69 having through-holes 68 extending through the layer. Those through-holes are part of the liquid flow path from the liquid store 18 toward the through-openings 67 and microchannels 62. Pelz controls liquid passage through the through-holes 68 by electrowetting. When the inner wall of a through-hole is hydrophilic, liquid is permitted to enter and pass through the through-hole. When the inner wall of the through-hole is hydrophobic, liquid is blocked from passing through the through-hole. Thus, Pelz relies on the through-holes 68 as discrete, controlled liquid passages.
Horton et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,205,902 A, previously cited) discloses a different structure. In Fig.9F of Horton, Horton shows trenched channels in which a plurality of second grooves formed by recessing 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. However, Horton does not disclose this arrangement for controlling liquid by electrowetting and does not suggest that its cross-wise trenched channels should replace or modify the through-hole structure used by Pelz.
The proposed modification would not merely add an additional groove pattern to Pelz while leaving Pelz’s operation unchanged. Pelz depends on liquid being selectively permitted or prevented from passing through individual though-holes 68. If Pelz’s flow-control surface were modified to include intersecting and communicating grooves as taught by Horton, the recessed portions of Pelz would become laterally connected. Liquid entering one recessed portion could then spread into communicating other recessed portions rather than remaining confined to the discrete through-hole paths disclosed by Pelz. That change would alter the manner in which liquid is delivered and controlled at layer 69. This contrary to the function assigned to layer 69 in Pelz. Pelz explicitly discloses that the flow-control layer operates by switching between the free passage of liquid through the through-holes 68 and blocking such passage in order to control filling of microchannels 62. The discrete nature of the through-holes therefore has a functional relationship to Pelz’s electrowetting control. Changing that structure into, or supplementing it with intersecting and communicating recessed channels would change the liquid-flow paths on which Pelz relies and could allow liquid to migrate laterally between recessed portions, thereby interfering with the intended selective flow control. Further, Horton provides no reason for making such modification to an electrowetting liquid-control layer. Horton’s Fig.9F concerns alternative channel geometries for a microchannel electron multiplier, not control of an aerosol-forming liquid. The purpose served by Horton’s cross-wise trenched channels is therefore different from the purpose served by Pelz’s though-holes 68.
Therefore, when consider Applicant(s)’ claimed invention as a whole, Applicant(s)’ claim 6 encompasses an invention that the prior art does not disclose, teach, or otherwise render obvious. More specifically, Applicant(s)’ claim 6 recites: “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.”
Within the context of Applicant(s)’ claimed invention as a whole, these limitations do not appear to be disclosed, taught, nor otherwise rendered obvious by the prior art, alone or in combination.
Accordingly, claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 7-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable by virtue of their dependence on claim 6 if claim 6 is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 16, Pelz discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Peltz does not disclose:
wherein the recessed part of the outer surface cannot contact the aerosol-forming medium, and a non-recessed part of the outer surface forms a contact surface that directly contacts the aerosol-forming medium.
Pelz does not disclose or suggest this arrangement. Pelz discloses the arrangement contrary to the claimed limitation. Specifically, Pelz requires the liquid to enter and contact the inner surfaces of the through-holes 68. Pelz applies an electrical field to the liquid within the flow-control layer 69 to alter the contact angle between the liquid and the inner wall of each through-hole 68. When the inner wall is rendered hydrophilic, the liquid 50 is conveyed from the liquid store 18 into and through the through holes 68 and subsequently into the through-openings 67 and microchannels 62. Accordingly, contact between the liquid and the recessed portion of Pelz represented by the through-holes 68 is not merely incidental to Pelz, but is required for the disclosed flow-control operation. Pelz further explains that the function of the flow-control layer 69 is to selectively permit or block passage of liquid through the though-holes 68, and that the layer may operate as an EWOD (electro wetting on dielectrics) layer in which the inner walls of the through-holes are provided with a dielectric coating for controlling the liquid contact angle. Pelz does disclose another operating condition in which the through-holes 68 are rendered hydrophobic and the liquid is prevented from rising through the through-holes 68. However, this temporary blocking condition does not establish that the recessed portion “cannot contact” the aerosol-forming medium as required by claim 16. Rather, Pelz discloses that the same recessed structure is deliberately switchable between a state in which liquid passage is blocked and a state in which liquid enters and directly contacts the recessed surfaces. Pelz explicitly characterizes the function of flow-control layer 69 as switching between the free passage of liquid through the through-holes 68 and blocking such passage. Accordingly, the temporary absence of liquid from through holes 68 in the hydrophobic state is different from the claimed configuration in which the recessed part cannot contact the aerosol-forming medium. The claimed language requires more than existence of one operating condition in which contact happens not to occur. In the context of the claimed structural relationship between the recessed and non-recessed portions of the outer surface, “cannot contact” requires that the recessed portion be arranged or configured such that contact with aerosol-forming medium is precluded, while the non-recessed portion forms the direct contact surface. Pelz discloses the opposite technical arrangement. The recessed through-holes 68 are not isolated from the liquid. Instead, they form part of the intended liquid-flow path and their inner surfaces are specifically designed to interact with the liquid. The electrowetting function depends on controlling the liquid-inner wall interface within the through-holes. Thus, the capability of the recessed portions to contact the liquid is not incidental or optional in Pelz; it is operative feature of the flow-control mechanism. Furthermore, a modification of Pelz that prevented the aerosol-forming medium from contacting the recessed portion of the flow-control layer would therefore prevent the liquid from entering through-holes 68 and would eliminate the liquid/inner-wall interface required for the disclosed electrowetting mechanism. Such a modification would defeat the intended flow-control function of the layer 69 and would render Pelz’s disclosed arrangement unsuitable for its intended purpose of selectively conveying liquid from the liquid store 18 through through-holes 68 toward microchannels 62. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have had reason to modify Pelz to arrive at the claimed configuration of “the recessed part of the outer surface cannot contact the aerosol-forming medium, and a non-recessed part of the outer surface forms a contact surface that directly contacts the aerosol-forming medium”, as required by claim 16.
Therefore, when consider Applicant(s)’ claimed invention as a whole, Applicant(s)’ claim 16 encompasses an invention that the prior art does not disclose, teach, or otherwise render obvious. More specifically, Applicant(s)’ claim 16 recites: “wherein the recessed part of the outer surface cannot contact the aerosol-forming medium, and a non-recessed part of the outer surface forms a contact surface that directly contacts the aerosol-forming medium.”
Within the context of Applicant(s)’ claimed invention as a whole, these limitations do not appear to be disclosed, taught, nor otherwise rendered obvious by the prior art, alone or in combination.
Accordingly, claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The following prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Bell (U.S. Patent No. 9,968,136 B1) discloses heater element for a vaporizing device, a vaporizing device containing the heater element. The heater element includes a conductive material having a concave area. The concave area of the heater element captures and vaporizes fluid ejected from an ejection head in the vaporization device. The concave area of the heating element has a cavity volume that is at least sufficient to retain an entire volume of liquid to be vaporized.
Guo et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0216135 A1) discloses an ultrasonic electronic cigarette atomizer having a heating body arranged in an atomizer shell, wherein the heating body are in contact with a liquid guide structure, and the heating body communicates with an airflow passage.
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 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, STEVEN CRABB can be reached at (571) 270-5095. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THAO UYEN TRAN-LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 08/27/2026
Prosecution Insights