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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/30/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 8-10 and 14, 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In this case, claim 8 recites “A culinary article, free from a heating means” is not described in the original disclosure because nowhere in the original disclosure describes any culinary article free from a heating means as that of instantly claimed. On the contrary, instantly claimed culinary article having a surface being coated with conductive fillers which being used as induction means for heating, therefore, the claimed culinary article comprises a heating means. All claim 8’s depending claims are rejected for similar reasons.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 8-10 and 14, 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gabriel (US2015/0125687).
Gabriel also teaches such electrically conductivity coating is known in the art used for controlling induction cookers (para. [0005]). Gabriel further teaches an electrically conducting coating layer being a sol-gel coating composition (para. [0016], [0017]), wherein such coating composition comprising 20 to 80 wt. % of electrically conductive pigment (i.e. fillers) (para. [0094], claim 36) based on the total sol-gel coating composition. Gabriel further teaches such coating composition is applied onto substrate used in baking and cooking appliances, such as steam cooker (para. [0061]-[0063]). Gabriel teaches an electrically conductive coated substrate can be used as a cooktop wherein the electrically conducting coating in this case can be applied both in the cold region of the cooktop, for example, in the display region, as well as in the hot region, i.e., in the cooking-zone region (para. [0061], [0106]). Therefore, it would have been obvious choice for one of ordinary skill in the art to apply such conductive coating onto a cooking appliance (i.e. cooker) cooking-zone region (i.e. outer surface) because applying such known technique of conductive coating onto a known device, i.e. cooker’s cooking region for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP § 2143 KSR).
Since Gabriel already teaches cooking or baking appliances (i.e. a culinary article) comprising a substrate which has two surfaces, with electrically conductive coated onto a surface of the substrate, such cooking or baking appliances is substantially the same as that of instantly claimed culinary article.
Regarding claim 8, as for the claimed “inner face configured to be in contact with food”, or “an outer surface configured to be disposed towards induction heating means”, such limitations are just material or article worked upon by apparatus, inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claimed apparatus, i.e. the claimed culinary article hereof (See MPEP §2115).
Since Gabriel already teaches such electrically conductivity coating is known in the art used for controlling induction cookers (para. [0005]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt a cooker (i.e., a culinary article) comprising an “inner face configured to be in contact with food” and “an outer surface to be disposed towards induction heating means” because by doing so can help provide a cooker with an outer layer coated with such sol-gel coating composition for desired induction heating to achieve successful cooking.
Furthermore, Gabriel already teaches a substantially the same culinary article (cooking or baking appliance ) comprising substantially the same support coated with a same or substantially the same sol-gel coating comprising at least one layer of a same or substantially the same sol-gel coating composition comprising same or substantially the same electrically conductive fillers (for cooking-zone) as that of instantly claimed, therefore, same or substantially the same “inner face configured to be in contact with food” and “an outer surface configured to be disposed towards induction heating means” as those of instantly claimed would be expected.
Regarding claim 8, as for the claimed “free from a heating means”, since Gabriel disclosed culinary article, i.e. cooker being an induction cooker, which is free from a heating means, such as free from a flame heating means, or free from an electrical resistance heating means.
Regarding claim 9 and 14, Gabriel expressly teaches the substrate (support) can be glass (para.[0054], [0058], [0105]).
Regarding claim 10, Gabriel already teaches the sol-gel coating composition can be applied to the cooking region, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to “obvious to try” to apply such sol-gel coating composition to the outside of the glass substrate of the cooktops for forming a desired cooking zone/region in such cooktops.
Regarding claim 18-19, Gabriel teaches the sol-gel based binding agent is alkoxysilane (para. [0019]), specifically methyltriethoxysilane (MTEOS) and/or tetraethoxysilane (TEOS) (example A-E), wherein such methyltriethoxysilane (MTEOS) reads onto the claimed formula [Chem 2 ] with M2 being Si, while R2, R2’ both being CH3 being CH3, while n=3; while TEOS reads onto the claimed formula [Chem 1] with M1 being Si, while R1 being C2H5, while n=5.
Regarding claim 20-21, Gabriel already teaches such limitations as discussed above.
Claims 16-17 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gabriel (US2015/0125687) as applied above, and in view of Lee et al. (US 20070228033).
Regarding claim 16, Gabriel does not expressly teach the conductive fillers being ferromagnetic, diamagnetic or paramagnetic.
Lee et al. teaches a layer used in a domestic appliance (e.g., rice cookers, sterilizers, hot-plates, hot-pots, grills (claim 16-17, para. [0029]) comprising electrically conductive fillers selected from silver or silver alloy (claim 14, para. [0039], example 7-9). It is noted that silver is diamagnetic (see instant application published application US 20220095829 para. [0027]). Lee et al. also teaches conductive fillers can be graphite or carbon black (claim 15).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such diamagnetic silver as shown by Lee et al to modify the sol-gel coating composition of Gabriel because such silver particles can provide oxidation resistance for a conductive layer in heating elements of cooktops as suggested by Lee et al. (para. [0039]). Furthermore, applying such known silver as conductive fillers to a known sol-gel coating layer of cooktops for improvement would yield predictable results for one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2143 KSR).
Regarding claim 17, such limitations are met as discussed above.
Regarding claim 22, Lee teaches the culinary article can be rice-cookers, grills, hot-pots. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known rice-cookers, grills and/or hot-pots as shown by Lee to practice the cooking appliance or cooker of Gabriel because adopting such known rice-cookers, grills and/or hot-pots as a cooking pot (i.e. cooking appliance) would have predictable results for one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2143 KSR).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s arguments about claim 8 recites “free from a heating means”, it is noted that instant disclosure does not even describe such limitation. Secondly, as broadest and reasonable interpretation, Gabriel disclosed cooking appliance not limited to the disclosed steam cooker, Gabriel expressly teaches electrically conductive coating can be used to control induction heating cooker (para. [0005]), wherein Gabriel teaches a same or substantially the same culinary article being inducting heating, therefore, it is free from a heating means, such as free from resistive heating means.
In response to applicant’s arguments about claim 8 recited “inner face configured to be in contact with food”, or “an outer surface configured to be disposed towards induction heating means”, such limitations are just material or article worked upon by apparatus, inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claimed apparatus, i.e. the claimed culinary article hereof (See MPEP §2115). In the instant case, Gabriel already teaches cooking or baking appliances (i.e. a culinary article) comprising a substrate which has two surfaces, with electrically conductive coated onto a surface of the substrate, such cooking or baking appliances is substantially the same as that of instantly claimed culinary article.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-5858. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/JUN LI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732