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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Species A (Figure 1; [0153]) and Sub-Species 15 (Figures 26A-26F; [0477]). The traversal is on the ground(s) that A. The Requirement Does Not Correspond to the Claims; B. The Office's Identified Species Are Distinguished by Features That Do Not Appear in any Pending Claims; C. The Heater Is a Generic Element Common to Every Embodiment, Not a Species Distinguishing Feature; D. No Serious Search-and-Examination Burden Has Been Shown as to the Claimed Subject Matter. This is not found persuasive because each Species/ Sub-Species are independent or distinct because as disclosed the different species have mutually exclusive characteristics for each identified species/ sub-species; claim 8 is not a generic claim, because mentioned in Spec. [0909]: “In some embodiments… the heater structure may comprise a multilayer stack”. In addition, these species/ sub-species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record as mentioned in the Rest Election/Restrictions requirement issued 07/24/2026. Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are pending in the application. An action on the merits of claims 1-20 are as follow.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/01/2026 in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1. 97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-7, 9-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (US 2018/0140018 A1) in view of Quintana (US 2016/0053988 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Hu et al. disclose a vaporizing device comprising:
a fused-silica chamber body (quartz glass body 303, [0037], the fused silica glass, [0039]; Figs 2-3) defining at least a portion of a vaporization chamber
configured to receive a liquid precursor (for storing tobacco liquid, [0034]); and
a heater (heating element 304, 502; [0037], [0052]) formed on the fused-silica chamber body (the heating element 304 is encapsulated inside the quartz glass body 303, [0037]), the heater comprising a resistive heater material (the metal heating body and is resistant to high temperature, [0022]) that includes an alloy (made of a metal alloy, [0038), wherein the heater is configured to generate heat in response to applied electrical power and to transfer thermal energy through the fused-silica chamber body to heat the liquid precursor within the vaporization chamber to produce a vapor (the heating element 304 is capable of generating thermal radiation and infrared radiation outwardly through the quartz glass body 303 simultaneously to heat the tobacco liquid so that the tobacco liquid is evaporated to form aerosol [0037]).
Hu et al. disclose the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose the heater comprising a resistive heater material (taught by Hu et al. already) that includes an iron-based alloy in which iron constitutes a largest constituent by weight among metallic constituents of the resistive heater material.
Quintana teaches a vaporizing device (see Title), and the heater comprising a resistive heater material (taught by Hu et al. already) that includes an iron-based alloy in which iron constitutes a largest constituent by weight among metallic constituents of the resistive heater material (a heating element 106, [0020], Fig 2; the present disclosure, the composition of the heating element… chemical composition is about 35% nickel (Ni), 45% iron (Fe), and 20% chromium (Cr), [0016]). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hu et al. with Quintana’s further teaching of the heater comprising a resistive heater material that includes an iron-based alloy in which iron constitutes a largest constituent by weight among metallic constituents of the resistive heater material; because this involves applying a known teaching to a similar device to yield predictable results.
Claim 2, wherein the iron-based alloy comprises iron, nickel, and chromium (about 35% nickel (Ni), 45% iron (Fe), and 20% chromium (Cr), [0016], Quintana).
Claim 3, wherein the iron-based alloy comprises, by weight, about 60-68% iron, about 32-38% nickel, and about 10-14% chromium (about 35% nickel (Ni), 45% iron (Fe), and 20% chromium (Cr), [0016], Quintana).
Claim 4, wherein the iron-based alloy comprises, by weight, about 52-58% iron, about 34-40% nickel, and about 8-12% chromium (about 35% nickel (Ni), 45% iron (Fe), and 20% chromium (Cr), [0016], Quintana).
Claim 5, wherein the iron-based alloy comprises a stainless steel alloy (the chemical composition is about 35% nickel (Ni), 45% iron (Fe), and 20% chromium (Cr), [0016], Quintana).
Claim 6, wherein the stainless steel alloy comprises, by weight, about 17-19% chromium and about 8-10% nickel (20% chromium (Cr), about 35% nickel (Ni), [0016], Quintana). Quintana do not explicitly disclose that the nickel is about 8-10% by weight as claimed; however, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled person in the art at the time the invention was made to arrange the nickel by weight as claimed, since such a configurations would have involved a mere change in the component weight percentage of the alloy, a change in weight percentage is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237; also applicant has not disclosed that this kind of design solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose (see Spec. [0838] containing in weight percent of components with a range from broad to subrange respectively).
Claim 7, wherein the stainless steel alloy comprises, by weight, about 16-18% chromium, about 10-14% nickel, and about 2-3% molybdenum (the heating element of the vaporizing device may comprise iron, chromium, aluminum, nickel, titanium, platinum, molybdenum, or a combination thereof, [0005]). Quintana do not explicitly disclose that the stainless steel alloy comprises, by weight, about 16-18% chromium, about 10-14% nickel, and about 2-3% molybdenum; however, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled person in the art at the time the invention was made to arrange components by weight as claimed, since such a configurations would have involved a mere change in the components weight percentage of the alloy, change in weight percentage is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237; also applicant has not disclosed that this kind of design solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose (see Spec. [0838] containing in weight percent of components with a range from broad to subrange respectively).
Claim 9, wherein the iron-based alloy comprises an iron-chromium-aluminum alloy configured for resistive heating (the heating element may comprise one or more of the following materials: iron, chromium, aluminum… ,[0018], Quintana).
Regarding Independent Claim 10, Hu et al. disclose a vaporizing device comprising:
a fused-silica chamber body (quartz glass body 303, [0037], the fused silica glass, [0039]; Figs 2-3) defining at least a portion of a vaporization chamber
configured to receive a liquid precursor (for storing tobacco liquid, [0034]); and
a heater (heating element 304, 502; [0037], [0052]) formed on the fused-silica chamber body (the heating element 304 is encapsulated inside the quartz glass body 303, [0037]), the heater comprising a resistive heater material (the metal heating body and is resistant to high temperature, [0022]) that includes an alloy (made of a metal alloy, [0038), wherein the heater is configured to generate heat in response to applied electrical power and to transfer thermal energy through the fused-silica chamber body to heat the liquid precursor within the vaporization chamber to produce a vapor (the heating element 304 is capable of generating thermal radiation and infrared radiation outwardly through the quartz glass body 303 simultaneously to heat the tobacco liquid so that the tobacco liquid is evaporated to form aerosol [0037]).
Hu et al. disclose the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose the heater comprising a resistive heater material (taught by Hu et al. already) that includes a nickel-based alloy in which nickel constitutes a largest constituent by weight among metallic constituents of the resistive heater material.
Quintana teaches a vaporizing device (see Title), and the heater comprising a resistive heater material (taught by Hu et al. already) that includes a nickel-based alloy in which nickel constitutes a largest constituent by weight among metallic constituents of the resistive heater material (a heating element 106, [0020], Fig 2; nichrome is an alloy comprising approximately 80% nickel (Ni), [0016]). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hu et al. with Quintana’s further teaching of the heater comprising a resistive heater material that includes a nickel-based alloy in which nickel constitutes a largest constituent by weight among metallic constituents of the resistive heater material; because this involves applying a known teaching to a similar device to yield predictable results.
Claim 11, wherein the nickel-based alloy comprises, by weight, about 78-85% nickel and about 15-22% chromium (nichrome is an alloy comprising approximately 80% nickel (Ni) and 20% chromium (Cr), [0016], Quintana).
Claim 12, wherein the nickel-based alloy comprises, by weight, about 85-92% nickel and about 8-15% chromium (nichrome is an alloy comprising approximately 80% nickel (Ni) and 20% chromium (Cr), [0016], Quintana). Quintana do not explicitly disclose that the nickel-based alloy comprises, by weight, about 85-92% nickel and about 8-15% chromium; however, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled person in the art at the time the invention was made to arrange by weight, about 85-92% nickel and about 8-15% chromium as claimed, since such a configurations would have involved a mere change in components weight percentage of the alloy, a change in weight percentage is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237; also applicant has not disclosed that this kind of design solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose (see Spec. [0834] a nickel-based alloy that containing in weight percent of components with a range from broad to subrange respectively).
Claim 14, wherein the nickel-based alloy further comprises iron in an amount of about 0-25% by weight and comprises chromium in an amount of about 14-25% by weight (45% iron (Fe), and 20% chromium (Cr), [0016], Quintana). Quintana do not explicitly disclose that the iron in an amount of about 0-25% by weight; however, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled person in the art at the time the invention was made to arrange the iron in an amount of about 0-25% by weight as claimed, since such a configurations would have involved a mere change in component weight percentage of the alloy, a change in weight percentage is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237; also applicant has not disclosed that this kind of design solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose (see Spec. [0834] a nickel-based alloy that containing in weight percent of iron with a range from broad to subrange respectively).
Claims 8 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. in view of Quintana as applied to claims 1 and 10 respectively, further in view of Novak, III et al. (US 2020/0113243 A1).
Regarding Claims 8 and 13, Hu et al. in view of Quintana teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose Claims 8 and 13.
Novak, III et al. teach a vaporizing device (see Title), and Claim 8, wherein the heater (heating member 2320, [0242], Fig 20. Note: “the heater” taught by Hu et al. already) comprises a layered stack including:
an adhesion layer interfacing with the fused-silica chamber body (the heating member 2320 may be retained by the collar portion 2360 via… an adhesive, [0242], a vaporization chamber 2340 is located above the heating member 2320, [0247], Fig 20. Note: “the fused-silica chamber body” taught by Hu et al. already);
a resistive layer formed over the adhesion layer (a heater trace thereon e.g., a resistive element, [0131]), the resistive layer comprising the iron based alloy (Note: “the iron based alloy” taught by Quintana already); and
a protective layer formed over the resistive layer (A passivating layer (e.g., aluminum oxide) may be provided over the heater trace, [0131]) and configured to modify at least one of mechanical, thermal, and electrical behavior of the resistive layer during intended operation of the vaporizing device (Clearly, the “protective layer formed over the resistive layer” capable of “configured to modify at least one of mechanical, thermal, and electrical behavior of the resistive layer during intended operation of the vaporizing device” as claimed).
Claim 13, wherein the nickel-based alloy (heating member 320, [0131]. Note: “the nickel-based alloy” taught by Quintana already) further comprises silicon (boron-doped silicon, [0131]) in an amount of about 0.5-2.5% by weight. Quintana do not explicitly disclose that the nickel-based alloy further comprises silicon in an amount of about 0.5-2.5% by weight; however, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled person in the art at the time the invention was made to arrange that the nickel-based alloy further comprises silicon in an amount of about 0.5-2.5% by weight as claimed, since such a configurations would have involved a mere change in component weight percentage of the alloy, a change in weight percentage is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237; also applicant has not disclosed that this kind of design solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose (see Spec. [0834] a nickel-based alloy that containing in weight percent of silicon with a range from broad to subrange). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hu et al. with Novak, III et al.’s further teaching of Claims 8 and 13; because this involves applying a known teaching to a similar device to yield predictable results.
Claims 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (US 2018/0140018 A1) in view of Quintana (US 2016/0053988 A1) as applied to claim 10, further in view of CADIEUX et al. (US 2016/0021934 A1).
Regarding Claims 15-16, Hu et al. in view of Quintana disclose the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose Claims 15-16.
CADIEUX et al. teach a vaporizing device (an electronic vaping device 60, [0030], Fig 1), and Claim 15, wherein the nickel-based alloy (materials that may be used to form the electrically resistive heater 82 include metals, alloys, and superalloys. For example, metals such as but not limited to nickel, [0046]. Note: “the nickel-based alloy” taught by Hu et al. already) further comprises molybdenum in an amount of about 8-10% by weight and niobium in an amount of about 3-4% by weight (metals such as… niobium, molybdenum, [0046]). Claim 16, wherein the nickel-based alloy further comprises aluminum in an amount of about 2.0-3.5% by weight and copper in an amount of about 0-3% by weight (For example, metals such as but not limited to… aluminum… copper, [0046]). CADIEUX do not explicitly disclose that Claim 15, molybdenum in an amount of about 8-10% by weight and niobium in an amount of about 3-4% by weight; Claim 16, aluminum in an amount of about 2.0-3.5% by weight and copper in an amount of about 0-3% by weight; however, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled person in the art at the time the invention was made to arrange the components each in an amount by weight as claimed, since such a configurations would have involved a mere change in components weight percentage of the alloy, a change in weight percentage is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237; also applicant has not disclosed that this kind of design solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose (see Spec. [0834] a nickel-based alloy that containing in weight percent of molybdenum, niobium, aluminum and copper with a range from broad to subrange respectively).
Claims 17- 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (US 2018/0140018 A1) in view of HANS (US 2,256,395).
Regarding Independent Claims 17, Hu et al. disclose a vaporizing device comprising:
a fused-silica chamber body (quartz glass body 303, [0037], the fused silica glass, [0039]; Figs 2-3) defining at least a portion of a vaporization chamber
configured to receive a liquid precursor (for storing tobacco liquid, [0034]); and
a heater (heating element 304, 502; [0037], [0052]) formed on the fused-silica chamber body (the heating element 304 is encapsulated inside the quartz glass body 303, [0037]), the heater comprising a resistive heater material (the metal heating body and is resistant to high temperature, [0022]) that includes an alloy (made of a metal alloy, [0038), and wherein the heater is configured to generate heat in response to applied electrical power and to transfer thermal energy through the fused-silica chamber body to heat the liquid precursor within the vaporization chamber to produce a vapor during intended operation of the vaporizing device (the heating element 304 is capable of generating thermal radiation and infrared radiation outwardly through the quartz glass body 303 simultaneously to heat the tobacco liquid so that the tobacco liquid is evaporated to form aerosol [0037]).
Hu et al. disclose the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose the heater comprising a resistive heater material (taught by Hu et al. already) that includes a copper-based alloy in which copper constitutes a largest constituent by weight among metallic constituents of the resistive heater material, wherein the copper-based alloy comprises, by weight, about 50-90% copper and further comprises at least one of nickel and manganese.
HANS teaches a heater comprising a resistive heater material (The resistors in the ratio arms, P 1 Col. 2 line 23) that includes a copper-based alloy in which copper constitutes a largest constituent by weight among metallic constituents of the resistive heater material, wherein the copper-based alloy comprises, by weight, about 50-90% copper and further comprises at least one of nickel and manganese (The resistors in the ratio arms comprise materials… such as Manganin, an alloy composed of 84% copper, 12% manganese and 4% nickel, or Constantan, an alloy composed of 60% copper and 40% nickel, P 1 Col. 2 line 23-29). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hu et al. with HANS’s further teaching of the heater comprising a resistive heater material that includes a copper-based alloy in which copper constitutes a largest constituent by weight among metallic constituents of the resistive heater material, wherein the copper-based alloy comprises, by weight, about 50-90% copper and further comprises at least one of nickel and manganese; because this involves applying a known teaching to a similar device to yield predictable results.
Claim 18, wherein the copper-based alloy comprises, by weight, about 55-62% copper and about 38-45% nickel (Constantan, an alloy composed of 60% copper and 40% nickel, P 1 Col. 2 line 28-29, HANS).
Claim 19, wherein the copper-based alloy comprises, by weight, about 80-88% copper, about 8-14% manganese, and about 2-6% nickel (Manganin, an alloy composed of 84% copper, 12% manganese and 4% nickel, P 1 Col. 2 line 26, HANS).
Claim 20, wherein the heater comprises a copper-based alloy configured to exhibit a temperature coefficient of resistance characteristic of manganin-type resistor alloys during intended operation of the vaporizing device (Manganin, an alloy composed of 84% copper, 12% manganese and 4% nickel, P 1 Col. 2 line 26-28, HANS).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is advised to refer to the Notice of References Cited for pertinent prior art. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUANGYUE CHEN whose telephone number is 571/272-8224. The examiner can normally be reached on 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, supervisor Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571/270-5569, supervisor Steven Crabb can be reached on 571/270-5095, or supervisor Edward Landrum can be reached on 571/272-5567. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571/273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866/217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800/786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571/272-1000.
/KUANGYUE CHEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
