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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
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 1-2, 5-6, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Phan et al. (US 2019/0098935, previously cited).
Claim 1: Phan teaches a sintered body coated with an electrically conductive coating (i.e. a coated sintered body) (paragraph 0002). The sintered body may be made of glass or glass ceramics and has an open porosity in a range from 10 to 90% based on the volume of the sintered body (i.e. has a surface formed by open pores having an open porosity of 10-90%) (paragraph 0023). The electrically conductive coating is bonded to the surface of the sintered body and, when a voltage is applied to the sintered body, a current will flow through the entire volume of the sintered body which will therefore be heated throughout its volume (i.e. the coating being configured to heat the sintered body) (paragraph 0027). Phan teaches that not only the pores on the lateral surfaces of the porous sintered body are provided with the electrically conductive coating, but also the pores in the interior of the sintered body throughout the volume of the sintered body and is lining the pores located in the interior of the sintered body (paragraph 0027) and further teaches that the entire surface area of the sintered body as defined by the open pores is covered with the electrically conductive coating, wherein the term “entire surface” includes the surface of the pores in the interior of the body (paragraph 0031). This is considered to teach where the electrically conductive coating is on substantially an entire internal pore surface area of the sintered body. Phan further teaches that the electrically conductive coating may have a homogeneous layer thickness within the sintered body (paragraph 0038). A homogeneous layer thickness is considered to have a variance of substantially zero, which lies within the instantly claimed range and therefore anticipates the range. See MPEP § 2131.03.
Claim 2: Phan teaches that the electrically conductive coating may have a homogeneous layer thickness within the sintered body (paragraph 0038). As outlined above, a substantially homogeneous layer thickness is considered to have a variance of substantially zero, which lies within the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2131.03.
Claim 5: Phan teaches a sintered body made of glass or glass ceramics (paragraph 0023) and an electrically conductive coating bonded to the surface of the sintered body (paragraph 0027), wherein the electrically conductive coating may consist of a metal or a metal oxide (paragraph 0033). Since the coating is bonded to the surface of the sintered body and the sintered body and the electrically conductive coating are made of different materials, the coated sintered body is considered to be a composite.
Claim 6: Phan teaches the electrically conductive coating may consist of a metal or a metal oxide (paragraph 0033) (i.e. a material selected from a metal or metal oxide).
Claim 14: Phan teaches the electrically conductive coating may be silver, gold, platinum, indium tin oxide, aluminum-doped zinc oxide (i.e. also considered to comprise aluminum), etc. (paragraph 0033).
Claim 15: Phan teaches that the coated sintered body may have one or more further coatings in addition to the electrically conductive coating, such as an oxidic layer between the sintered body and a metallic coating or a further layer on the electrically conductive coating such as a protective layer or passivation layer (paragraphs 0076-0077). That is, the coating having more than one layer is considered where the electrically conductive coating is formed of at least two sublayers.
Claim 16: Phan teaches that the coated sintered body may have one or more further coatings in addition to the electrically conductive coating, such as an oxidic layer between the sintered body and a metallic coating or a further layer on the electrically conductive coating such as a protective layer or passivation layer (paragraphs 0076-0077). That is, the coating having more than one layer is considered where the electrically conductive coating is formed of at least two sublayers, and an oxidic layer and a metallic layer are considered to have different compositions from one another.
Claim 17: Phan teaches that the coated sintered body may have one or more further coatings in addition to the electrically conductive coating, such as an oxidic layer between the sintered body and a metallic coating or a further layer on the electrically conductive coating such as a protective layer or passivation layer (paragraphs 0076-0077).
Claim 18: Phan teaches that the coated sintered body may have one or more further coatings in addition to the electrically conductive coating, such as an oxidic layer between the sintered body and a metallic coating, wherein the oxidic layer is effective as an adhesion promoter (i.e. an adhesion promoter layer) (paragraphs 0076- 0077).
Claim 19: Phan teaches the electrically conductive layer can be deposited by condensation or precipitation from a dispersion or solution or gas phase, or by a galvanic process (paragraph 0085). While not reciting specifically being an atomic layer deposition layer, this limitation is considered to be a product-by-process limitation and therefore is not limited to the manipulations of the recited step, only the structure implied by the steps, absent a showing of a non-obvious difference. See MPEP § 2113.
Claim 20: Phan teaches the sintered body (i.e. the coated sintered body) can be used as a vaporizer in electronic cigarettes (paragraph 0035) (i.e. is configured for use as a heating element in a vaporizer or an electrical cigarette).
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.
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.
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 3 and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phan et al. (US 2019/0098935, previously cited) as applied to claim 1 above.
Claim 3: The teachings of Phan regarding claim 1 are outlined above. Phan teaches that the layer thickness of the electrically conductive coating is in a range from 1 nm to 800 µm, advantageously from 200 nm to 200 µm or 200 nm to 10 µm (paragraph 0036), and these ranges overlap the instantly claimed ranges. See MPEP § 2144.05. While not teaching the specific instantly claimed range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date because the ranges overlap and the courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap, lie inside of, or are close to ranges in the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is noted that as of the writing of this Office Action, no demonstration of a criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented. Since these ranges overlap, one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 7-8: The teachings of Phan regarding claim 6 are outlined above. Phan teaches the electrically conductive coating may consist of a metal or a metal oxide (paragraph 0033) (i.e. a material selected from a metal or metal oxide). Phan further teaches the electrically conductive coating (i.e. the material) preferably has an electrical conductivity in a range from 0.001 to 106 S/m (paragraph 0034) (i.e. an electrical resistivity of about 10-6 to about 1000 Ω∙m, where resistivity is the inverse of conductivity). An electrical resistivity of about 10-6 Ω∙m is about 1 µΩ∙m, and therefore the resistivity of the coating taught by Phan overlaps the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05. While not teaching the specific instantly claimed range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date as the ranges overlap, which the courts have held to be prima facie obvious, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 9: Phan teaches the electrically conductive coating may be a metal such as silver, gold, etc., or a metal oxide such as aluminum-doped zinc oxide (i.e. includes aluminum metal atoms), etc. (paragraph 0033), and the layer thickness of the electrically conductive coating is in a range from 1 nm to 800 µm (paragraph 0036), which overlaps the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 10 and 12: Phan teaches the electrically conductive coating may be a metal or a metal oxide (paragraph 0033). The electrically conductive coating (i.e. the material) preferably has an electrical conductivity in a range from 0.001 to 106 S/m (paragraph 0034) (i.e. an electrical resistivity of about 10-6 to about 1000 Ω∙m, where resistivity is the inverse of conductivity). An electrical resistivity of about 10-6 Ω∙m is about 1 µΩ∙m and about 1000 Ω∙m is about 109 µΩ∙m, and therefore the resistivity of the coating taught by Phan overlaps the instantly claimed ranges. See MPEP § 2144.05. Phan further teaches that the electrically conductive coating has a layer thickness in a range from 1 nm to 800 µm (paragraph 0036), which overlaps the instantly claimed ranges. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 11 and 13: Phan teaches the electrically conductive coating may be silver, gold, platinum, indium tin oxide, aluminum-doped zinc oxide (i.e. includes zinc), etc. (paragraph 0033).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phan et al. (US 2019/0098935, previously cited) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang (CN 109832673, previously cited).
Claim 4: The teachings of Phan regarding claim 1 are outlined above. Phan teaches a sintered body coated with an electrically conductive coating (i.e. a coated sintered body) (paragraph 0002) that can be used as a vaporizer in electronic cigarettes (paragraph 0035). Phan further teaches the electrically conductive coating (i.e. the material) preferably has an electrical conductivity in a range from 0.001 to 106 S/m (paragraph 0034) (i.e. an electrical resistivity of about 10-6 to about 1000 Ω∙m, where resistivity is the inverse of conductivity). When a voltage is applied, a current will flow through the entire volume of the sintered body which will therefore be heated throughout its volume (paragraph 0027). However, Phan does not teach titanium nitride as a material for the electrically conductive coating.
In a related field of endeavor, Wang teaches an electronic cigarette atomizer (i.e. a vaporizer for an electronic cigarette) (paragraph 0002) that includes a porous body having a three-dimensional heating network (paragraph 0009). The heating network is preferably made of conductive ceramic material that preferably includes at least one of titanium nitride, titanium carbide or titanium silicon carbon and having a resistivity of 0.5-2.5 mΩ∙cm (i.e. about 5-25 µΩ∙m) (paragraphs 0012-0013).
As Phan and Wang both teach a vaporizer/atomizer for an electronic cigarette of a porous body with a heating network throughout the body, they are analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the electrically conductive coating of Phan to include a conductive ceramic such as titanium nitride because Wang teaches the conductive ceramic has a resistivity in the range of conductivity/resistivity of the electrically conductive coating of Phan and Wang teaches titanium nitride as a material usable for a heating network in an electronic cigarette atomizer (i.e. this is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; see MPEP § 2143B), and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Peuchert et al. (US 2018/0162769) teaches a liquid reservoir suitable for use in electronic cigarettes, thermally heated evaporators, etc. The liquid reservoir is a sintered body made of open-pore sintered glass with an electrically conductive sheet resistor type coating applied as a heating element.
Phan et al. (US 2019/0216132) teaches a porous sintered body as a vaporizer unit in electronic cigarettes, etc. The sintered body is sintered glass or glass ceramic and has an open porosity of 10 to 90%. An electrically conductive coating is bonded to the surface of the sintered body including pores on the lateral surface and pores in the interior of the sintered body so that when a voltage is applied to the sintered body a current will flow through the entire volume of the sintered body and therefore be heated throughout its volume.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIM S HORGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5904. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 4:00 PM 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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/KIM S. HORGER/Examiner, Art Unit 1784