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
Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 and supporting remarks filed 10/09/2025 (“Amendment”) have been entered. Accordingly, the previous rejections under 35 USC 103 and 112 are withdrawn. New rejections under 35 USC 103 are set forth below. The new grounds of rejection are not necessitated by the amendment and therefore they are non-final. Claims 1-10 remain pending and are examined herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim rejections under 35 USC 103 (Amendment p. 4-6) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “wherein the heating layer exhibits a temperature coefficient of resistance (TCR) temperature-sensitive characteristic, and wherein a ratio of the inorganic non-metal to the stainless steel in the heating layer is configured to adjust the TCR of the heating layer”. These limitations are considered to be inherent properties because one of ordinary skill in the art would know that the temperature coefficient of resistance (TCR) is simply a measure of a material’s change in electrical resistance as its temperature changes, which is a physical property determined by the composition of the material, particularly in view of the specification at [0022, 0032-33, 0064-66] and Table 1, which discloses adjusting the TCR of the heating layer 14 by changing the material composition. Therefore, for purposes of this office action, any prior art reference which teaches the claimed heating assembly with the ceramic substrate and the heating layer comprising stainless steel and inorganic non-metal is considered to inherently teach the quoted TCR limitations of claim 1. See MPEP 2112 and 2163.07(a); see also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
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.
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 1, 3, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding (CN 108078010 A, provided in IDS dated 07/31/2023, English translation provided herewith) in view of Xu (CN 106211378 A, provided in IDS dated 07/31/2023, English translation provided herewith).
Regarding claim 1, Ding is directed to an electronic cigarette with a surface heating element (Title), which is in the same field of endeavor as the instant claims, the heating element reading on a “heating assembly” as claimed:
The sheet-shaped heating element includes a porous ceramic substrate [0009-0012], which reads on the claimed “ceramic substrate”;
One side of the substrate is coated with a resistive paste which may include stainless steel [0013, 0017], which reads on “a heating layer comprising stainless steel”. The heating element uses the resistive paste to vaporize an e-liquid [0010-12], which reads on “wherein the heating layer is configured to heat a substrate to be vaporized to form an aerosol”;
Ding discloses that the ceramic substrate may include silicon dioxide, alumina, and silicon carbide [0018], which are each an “inorganic non-metal” (claim 3 recites such compounds as the inorganic non-metal). However, Ding fails to disclose the resistive paste including such materials, and thus fails to disclose “a heating layer comprising…inorganic non-metal” and “wherein the inorganic non-metal is incorporated into the stainless steel”.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that stainless steel has an electrical resistance which varies with temperature, and thus Ding’s resistive paste inherently reads on “wherein the heating layer exhibits a temperature coefficient of resistance (TCR) temperature-sensitive characteristic” (see Claim Interpretation; see also MPEP 2112.01; see also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)). However, Ding is silent on the “inorganic non-metal” as set forth above and thus fails to disclose “wherein a ratio of the inorganic non-metal to the stainless steel in the heating layer is configured to adjust the TCR of the heating layer” as claimed.
Xu is directed to a silicon carbide-silver-palladium composite resistive paste and its preparation method (Title), which is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (i.e., resistive heating assemblies), or is at least reasonably pertinent to the problems solved by the inventors of the instant application (i.e., controlling the temperature of a resistive heater via its composition, compare Applicant’s specification at [0003-5] with Xu describing controlling a slurry content to provide good temperature resistance at [0004-5 and 0041-42]). The resistive paste can be applied to a substrate such as a ceramic sheet [0035]. The resistive paste includes silicon carbide [0037] which reads on the claimed “inorganic non-metal” (claim 3 recites silicon carbide as the inorganic non-metal). The paste provides numerous advantages such as being sprayable onto substrates and providing good heating and electrical properties [0039-44]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Ding’s and Xu’s resistive pastes could be combined and applied to Ding’s ceramic substrate to predictably provide Xu’s advantages in Ding.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ding by combining Ding’s resistive paste with Xu’s silicon carbide-silver-palladium composite resistive paste, because Ding and Xu are analogous art to the claimed invention, Xu teaches applying such a paste to a ceramic substrate to provide advantageous heating and electrical properties, Ding already recognizes such materials as suitable for use in a heating element, and therefore this would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Modified Ding includes the “heating layer” of claim 1, and thus inherently reads on “wherein a ratio of the inorganic non-metal to the stainless steel in the heating layer is configured to adjust the TCR of the heating layer”, because this claim language merely describes the natural result that TCR changes based on the material composition of the heating layer (see Claim Interpretation; see also MPEP 2112; see also PAR Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. TWI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1195-96, 112 USPQ2d 1945, 1952 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Regarding claim 3, modified Ding includes Xu’s silicon carbide-silver-palladium composite resistive paste, as set forth above in the discussion of claim 1, which reads on “wherein the inorganic non-metal comprises…SiC”.
Regarding claim 9, Ding discloses that the heating element has a resistance in the range of 0.1-20 ohms [0016, 0030], which overlaps the claimed range and therefore renders it obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I); see also In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). One of ordinary skill in the art would expect modified Ding (including Xu’s resistive paste) to exhibit a different but similar magnitude of resistance, which would similarly overlap the claimed range. Alternatively, Ding teaches that the resistance can be adjusted to meet different power requirements which is an advantage over the prior art [0004, 0015, 0029], which alternatively renders the claimed range obvious as a matter of routine optimization. See MPEP 2144.05(II); see also In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 10, Ding discloses the electronic cigarette including the heating element (Title, [0002]), which reads on the claim.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding (CN 108078010 A) in view of Xu (CN 106211378 A) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Lv (CN 111387555 A, provided in IDS dated 07/31/2023, US 2022/0408817 A1 cited herein as English equivalent).
Regarding claim 2, Ding discloses the resistive paste including stainless steel, as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, but Ding and Xu fail to specifically disclose “one or more of 316L stainless steel, 304 stainless steel, and 430 stainless steel” as claimed.
Lv is directed to a vaporization element of an electronic vaporization device (Abstract). The vaporization element includes a porous substrate and a heating layer which includes a conductive layer and a stabilizing layer (Abstract). The conductive layer is the primary heating means for the vaporization element and the conductive layer is resistant to oxidation [0027]. A material for the conductive layer may include 316 stainless steel [0044], which renders obvious “316L stainless steel” as claimed (grades of stainless steel are well-known in the art, and thus the disclosure of 316 stainless steel renders obvious variants such as 316L and 316H). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Lv’s 316 stainless steel is a suitable material for use in a resistive heating layer and could be predictably used as Ding’s stainless steel.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ding by substituting Ding’s stainless steel with 316L stainless steel, because Ding and Lv are both in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, Ding teaches stainless steel but is silent on the specific grade, Lv teaches 316 stainless steel which renders obvious the variant 316L stainless steel, Lv teaches that 316 stainless steel is a suitable material for a conductive layer of a heating element, and this would involve a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 4, Ding and Xu fail to disclose “non-stainless steel metal, wherein the non-stainless steel metal comprises one or more of Mo, Ti, Zr, and Mg” as claimed.
Lv is directed to a vaporization element of an electronic vaporization device (Abstract). The vaporization element includes a porous substrate and a heating layer which includes a conductive layer and a stabilizing layer (Abstract). The conductive layer is the primary heating means for the vaporization element and the conductive layer is resistant to oxidation [0027]. A material for the conductive layer may include one or any combination of titanium and zirconium, and in a specific embodiment is a titanium-zirconium alloy [0044], which reads on “one or more of…Ti, Zr” as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Lv’s titanium and zirconium are suitable materials for use in a resistive heating layer and could be predictably used in Ding’s resistive paste.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ding by incorporating Lv’s titanium and/or zirconium into Ding’s resistive paste, because Ding and Lv are both in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, Lv teaches that titanium and zirconium are suitable materials for a conductive layer of a heating element and teaches a specific embodiment with a titanium-zirconium alloy, and this would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding (CN 108078010 A) in view of Xu (CN 106211378 A) and Lv (CN 111387555 A, US 2022/0408817 A1) as applied to claim 4, further in view of Liu (US 2021/0112869 A1).
Ding, Xu, and Lv fail to disclose “a glass phase, wherein the glass phase comprises one or more of a SiO2-ZnO-BaO system, a SiO2-CaO-ZnO system, a SiO2-ZnO-R2O system, and a SiO2-B2O3 system” as claimed.
Liu is directed to a composite ceramic atomizer (Title). The composite is integrally formed with two main bodies via glazing and sealing [0019]. The glaze includes a transparent frit comprising SiO2, ZnO, BaO, and CaO [0020], which reads on “a glass phase, wherein the glass phase comprises one or more of a SiO2-ZnO-BaO system, a SiO2-CaO-ZnO system” as claimed. The glaze facilitates sealing and integrally forming a heating ceramic material with a porous ceramic material, which advantageously prevents detachment of components and liquid overheating [0003-4, 0023-24]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Ding could similarly benefit by incorporating Liu’s glaze into Ding’s resistive paste to predictably improve sealing and integration of the resistive paste and porous ceramic substrate (see Ding [0012]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ding by incorporating Liu’s glaze including the transparent frit into Ding’s resistive paste, because both Ding and Liu are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, Liu teaches beneficially using the glaze to seal and integrally form porous and heating components which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize is similarly applicable to Ding, and this would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding (CN 108078010 A) in view of Xu (CN 106211378 A), Lv (CN 111387555 A, US 2022/0408817 A1), and Liu (US 2021/0112869 A1) as applied to claim 5, further in view of Waku (JP 2012001402 A, previously cited with English translation).
Regarding claim 6, in modified Ding, Ding’s resistive paste includes Xu’s silicon carbide-silver-palladium composite resistive paste (as set forth above in the discussion of claim 1), Lv’s titanium and/or zirconium (as set forth above in the discussion of claim 4), and Liu’s transparent frit (as set forth above in the discussion of claim 5), which reads on “wherein the heating layer comprises the stainless steel, the inorganic non-metallic material, the glass phase, and the non-stainless steel metal”.
Xu discloses 4-7 wt% silicon carbide powder in its resistive paste [0047, 0049, 0061, 0073, 0085]. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect this percentage to decrease when combining with the resistive paste of Ding, which overlaps the claimed range of 0.5-3 wt% and therefore renders it obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I); see also In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Xu further discloses using an “appropriate amount” of silicon carbide to provide conductivity, heating, stable electrical properties, and good dimensional stability [0037], and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to routinely optimize the amount of silicone carbide in Ding’s paste. See MPEP 2144.05(II); see also In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Thus, modified Ding in view of Xu reads on “the inorganic non-metallic material accounts for 0.5-3% by weight of the heating layer”.
Ding, Lv, and Liu fail to disclose “wherein the stainless steel accounts for 75-85% by weight of the heating layer…the glass phase accounts for 11.5-21.5% by weight of the heating layer, and the non-stainless steel metal accounts for 0.5-3% by weight of the heating layer”.
Waku is directed to an electrical resistance material whose temperature coefficient of resistance is controllable [0001], which is reasonably pertinent to the problems solved by the inventors of the instant application. Waku discloses controlling a material’s TCR by mixing and sintering glass and ceramics with metal particles, particularly by controlling the amounts of metals within the material which largely determine the TCR [0006-8]. Thus, it would be obvious to routinely optimize the amounts of Ding’s stainless steel and Lv’s titanium and/or zirconium. See MPEP 2144.05(II); see also In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Thus, the claimed “wherein the stainless steel accounts for 75-85% by weight of the heating layer…the non-stainless steel metal accounts for 0.5-3% by weight of the heating layer” is obvious in view of Waku.
Furthermore, it would be obvious to use Liu’s glaze including SiO2, ZnO, BaO, and CaO for the remainder of the heating layer, which reads on “the glass phase accounts for 11.5-21.5% by weight of the heating layer”.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify to include the claimed amounts of each of Ding’s stainless steel, Xu’s silicon carbide, Lv’s titanium and/or zirconium, and Liu’s glaze including SiO2, ZnO, BaO, and CaO, because Xu teaches an amount similar to the claimed range and further teaches optimizing such amount, Waku teaches optimizing the amount of metal to control TCR, and this would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 7, in modified Ding, Ding’s resistive paste includes Xu’s silicon carbide-silver-palladium composite resistive paste (as set forth above in the discussion of claim 1), Lv’s titanium and/or zirconium (as set forth above in the discussion of claim 4), and Liu’s transparent frit (as set forth above in the discussion of claim 5), which reads on “wherein the inorganic non-metal comprises one or more of SiO2, Al2O3, ZrO2 and SiC, wherein the non-stainless steel metal comprises one or more of Mo, Ti, Zr, and Mg, and wherein the glass phase comprises one or more of the SiO2-ZnO-BaO system, the SiO2-CaO-ZnO system, the SiO2-ZnO-R2O system, and the SiO2-B2O3 system”.
As set forth above in the discussion of claim 2, Lv discloses 316 stainless steel which would be obvious to incorporate into Ding for the same reasons as set forth above, which reads on “wherein the stainless steel comprises one or more of 316L stainless steel, 304 stainless steel, and 430 stainless steel”.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding (CN 108078010 A) in view of Xu (CN 106211378 A) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Zhang (WO 2022/068230 A1, English translation provided herewith).
Ding and Xu are silent on a thickness of the resistive paste and thus fail to disclose “wherein a thickness of the heating layer ranges from 100 µm to 120 µm” as claimed.
Zhang is directed to heating components and devices in the field of electronic cigarette technology (Title, [0003]). Zhang discloses forming a heating element 131 by printing and sintering a resistive paste onto an insulating layer 113 on a substrate 110 ([0062, 0067], Fig. 3). The thickness of the heating element 131 can be adjusted to set the resistance [0069]. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the thickness of the resistive paste is a result-effective variable regarding the resistance of the heating element, and would accordingly optimize the paste thickness by routine experimentation to be within the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(II); see also In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize from this disclosure that Ding’s resistive paste could similarly have its thickness adjusted to control the resistance thereof. Furthermore, Zhang discloses the thickness of the insulating layer to be 0.02-0.5 mm (20-500 microns) [0058] and the thickness of a protective layer 170 to be 0.1-0.5 mm (10-500 microns), and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the resistive paste thickness to be on a similar order of magnitude.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ding by forming the resistive paste with a thickness of 100-120 microns as claimed, because Ding and Zhang are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, Ding is silent on the paste thickness whereas Zhang teaches adjusting the paste thickness to optimize the resistance and teaches similar components with similar thicknesses as the claimed range, and this would involve the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL PATRICK MULLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2373. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7 ET.
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, Michael H. Wilson can be reached at (571) 270-3882. 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.
/MICHAEL PATRICK MULLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/ERIC YAARY/Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights