DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-8 and 21-22 are pending and are subject to this Office Action. Claims 9-20 are canceled. Claims 21-22 are withdrawn. This is the first Office Action on the merits of the claims.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 08/21/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claims 21 and 22 no longer incorporate features associated with alternative vaporizer devices and there is search and examination can be conducted without serious burden.
This is not found persuasive because although claims 21 and 22 shared the vaporizer device of claim 1, the mere presence of common subject matter does not, by itself, establish unity of invention. The present application is a national stage application entered under 35 U.S.C. 371 and therefore the applicable standard for determining restriction is based on the standard set forth in 37 CFR 1.475, wherein the claimed inventions must be linked to form a single general inventive concept through a technical relationship involving the same or corresponding special technical features. In this case, the three groups: claims 1-8, claim 21, and claim 22, share the technical features of vaporizer device described in claim 1. However, the shared technical features do not make a contribution over the prior art, as evidenced by Cornils (DE 102019103987 A1) and Fessehatzion (US 20210111300 A1), as described in the rejection of claim 1 below. Once the shared technical features are considered in view of the prior art, the claimed inventions do not form a single general inventive concept. Thus, the Applicant’s amendment of claims 21 and 22 does not overcome the lack of unity of invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Germany on 11/10/2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the DE 102021129264.6 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornils (DE 102019103987 A1, as cited in IDS dated 05/01/2024 and hereinafter using English language equivalent US 2022151295 A1, as cited in IDS dated 05/01/2024), and further in view of Fessehatzion (US 20210111300 A1).
With regard to Claim 1, Cornils, directed to an evaporator device for an inhaler, teaches (i) a vaporizer used for vaporizing liquid supplied to the vaporizer [0040]. The vaporizer may comprise a doped silicon block, (ii) which comprises a metallization layer that can be bonded to an electrical line [0016]. (iii) The metallization layer may be applied directly to a primer, such as a seed layer of aluminum, wherein the primer is arranged in contact with the vaporizer [0018 & 0061].
(iv) The metallization layer may further comprise nickel to prepare the surface of the vaporizer for the material bond [0017] between the electrical line and the vaporizer [0011]. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the nickel in the metallization layer functions to promote adhesiveness since it prepares the surface of the vaporizer for material bonding [0011 & 0017]. (v) Cornils further teaches a contact area made of gold in order to provide good electrical conductivity with the vaporizer [0015-0016]. The metallization layer allows electrical contact between the electrical line in the contact area and the vaporizer [0016]. Cornils teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however Cornils is silent to:
A diffusion barrier comprising a titanium content
Fessehatzion, directed to a thin film deposition system, teaches a titanium diffusion barrier between adjacent electrically functional layers [0016-0018]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the diffusion barrier of Fessehatzion between the contact and adhesive layers of Cornils to suppress diffusion from one material or layer into an adjacent electrode to resist adverse effects on the multilayer structure [0018].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the layer sequence of Cornils to comprise a diffusion barrier comprising a titanium content because both Cornils and Fessehatzion are directed to multilayer electrical structures in semiconductor-based devices. Fessehatzion teaches a titanium diffusion barrier to suppress diffusion from one material or layer into an adjacent electrode [0018] and this merely involves applying a known layer to a known layer sequence ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With regard to Claim 5, Cornils teaches wherein the metallization layer may be applied directly to a primer, such as a seed layer of aluminum, wherein the primer is arranged in contact with the vaporizer [0018 & 0061]. 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.II(A)). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that selecting a concentration of the aluminum material would have been a matter of routine optimization to obtain desired electrical conductivity characteristics of the seed layer [0018]. Further, one would understand that where the seed layer consists only of aluminum, the amount of aluminum constitutes 100 wt.%, absent an indication of other metals. [0018].
With regard to Claim 6, Cornils, as modified by Fessehatzion, teaches a titanium diffusion barrier. 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.II(A)). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine an appropriate concentration of titanium through routine experimentation in order to obtain an effective diffusion barrier creating the desired diffusion and suppression properties [0018]. Further, one would understand that where the diffusion barrier consists only of titanium, the amount of titanium constitutes 100 wt.%, absent an indication of other metals.
With regard to Claim 7, Cornils teaches wherein the metallization layer may further comprise nickel to prepare the surface of the vaporizer for the material bond [0017] between the electrical line and the vaporizer [0011]. 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.II(A)). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine an appropriate concentration of nickel through routine experimentation in order to prepare the vaporizer for the material bond [0017]. Further, one would understand that where the layer for creating a material bond consists only of nickel, the amount of nickel constitutes 100 wt.%, absent an indication of other metals [0017].
With regard to Claim 8, Cornils teaches a contact area made of gold material [0015]. The metallization layer allows electrical contact between the electrical line in the contact area and the vaporizer [0016]. 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.II(A)). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine an appropriate concentration of gold through routine experimentation in order to provide good electrical conductivity with the vaporizer [0015-0016]. Further, one would understand that where the contact area consists only of gold, the amount of gold constitutes 100 wt.%, absent an indication of other metals. [0015-0016].
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornils (DE 102019103987 A1, as cited in IDS dated 05/01/2024 and hereinafter using English language equivalent US 2022151295 A1, as cited in IDS dated 05/01/2024) and Fessehatzion (US 20210111300 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rath (US 20190183180 A1).
With regard to Claim 2, modified Cornils teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Cornils is silent to:
A surface of the contact layer that is not covered by the vaporizer or by the diffusion barrier is covered by a passivation layer
Rath, directed to a vaporizer device, teaches a passivating coating applied to a metal film, wherein the passivation coating is configured to envelop exposed regions of the metal film and regions not in contact with a polymer film [0059]. Regions intended to accommodate electrical components are excluded from the passivation coating [0059]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the passivation coating of Rath to the contact layer of modified Cornils to prevent the transport of undesirable substances [0059].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the contact layer of modified Cornils to wherein a surface of the contact layer that is not covered by the vaporizer or by the diffusion barrier is covered by a passivation layer because both Cornils and Rath are directed to multilayered heating structures of vaporizer devices. Rath teaches a passivating coating to prevent the transport of undesirable substances [0059] and this merely involves applying a known layer to a known layer sequence ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With regard to Claim 3, modified Cornils teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Cornils is silent to:
Wherein the passivation layer comprises at least 80 wt.% of silicon dioxide, at least 80 wt.% of silicon nitride or at least 80 wt.% of silicon carbide
Rath teaches wherein the passivating coating may consist of silicon dioxide to prevent parts of the metal film from disconnecting [0011]. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that if silicon dioxide is the selected material of the passivating coating, silicon dioxide would be the only material constituting that layer, constituting 100 wt.%. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the concentration of the silicon dioxide through routine experimentation to obtain an effective amount for providing the desired passivation (MPEP 2144(II)).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the passivation layer of modified Cornils to the passivation layer comprises at least 80 wt.% of silicon dioxide, at least 80 wt.% of silicon nitride or at least 80 wt.% of silicon carbide because both Cornils and Rath are directed to multilayered heating structures of vaporizer devices. Rath teaches a passivating coating consisting silicon dioxide to prevent parts of the metal film from disconnecting [0011] and this merely involves the use of a known material to improve similar devices in the same way.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornils (DE 102019103987 A1, as cited in IDS dated 05/01/2024 and hereinafter using English language equivalent US 2022151295 A1, as cited in IDS dated 05/01/2024), Fessehatzion (US 20210111300 A1), and Rath (US 20190183180 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Byrne (US 5136364 A).
With regard to Claim 4, modified Cornils teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Cornils is silent to:
Wherein the passivation layer is overlapped by at least one further layer
Byrne, directed to semiconductor die sealing, teaches wherein a succession of conductive layers may overlap a passivation coat (Claim 1) to prevent corrosion resistance and allow electrical connection (Col. 2, Lines 35-46).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the passivation layer of modified Cornils to wherein the passivation layer is overlapped by at least one further layer because both Cornils and Byrne are directed to semiconductors having multilayer metallization structures. Byrne teaches an overlapped passivation coat to prevent corrosion resistance and allow electrical connection (Col. 2, Lines 35-46) and this merely involves applying a known overlapping technique to a known multilayer structure ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUWATOSIN O DIYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0789. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 am - 6 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Philip Louie can be reached at 571-270-1241. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/O.O.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights