DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed 1/22/2026 has been entered. Currently, claims 1-3, 5-12, 18-23 and 26-29 are pending, claims 4, 13-17, 24 and 25 are canceled and claims 12 and 28 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 23 on line 3, the phrase “receiving the food” lacks antecedent basis in the claims. This rejection can be overcome by changing the phrase to “for receiving food” which is how the claim will be interpreted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3, 7-9, 11, 18-23, 26, 27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caillier et al. (WO 2017/153698) of which US 2019/0099780 is the US national stage and will be used as a translation.
With regard to claims 1, 3, 8, 11, 18-20, 22 and 29, Caillier et al. disclose a heat-stable coating on a substrate, which reads on applicants’ coated household article [0011]-[0013]. The heat-stable coating can be multiple layers and can comprise a binder that may be formed from a metal alkoxide sol-gel coating, which reads on applicants’ coating obtained from a sol-gel composition [0014], [0061] and [0091]. In Example 14, there can be a first printed layer having bismuth vanadate applied directly to a substrate, which reads on applicants’ decoration (a), and a second printed layer having iron oxide pigment, which reads on the temperature reference pigment of applicants’ decoration (b), that is printed to at least partially cover the first layer, which reads on the partially overlapping decorations [0227]-[0232]. Bismuth vanadate has a formula of BiVO4 and is thermochromic [0084]. There can also be included a primer layer or a protective layer, which reads on applicants’ finish coat [0099]; however, Caillier et al. does not specifically teach a sol-gel coating as the binder in Example 14.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have substituted a sol-gel binder for the binder materials of Example 14. This would have been a simple substitution of binder materials as Caillier et al. recognizes it as equivalents for fluorocarbon resins at [0062]. Also, there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in forming a working heat-stable coating with these materials as Caillier et al. teaches that they can be used.
With regard to claim 2, Caillier et al. teach that both the first layer and the second layer in the Example 14 are printed [0227]-[0232]; however, they do not specifically teach that the first and second layer are non-overlapping.
It would have been obvious to have printed the first and second printed layers of Caillier et al. in a non-overlapping manner depending on the desired appearance of the layers. This is a mere design choice on how one wanted the colors and decorations to appear in the final product.
With regard to claim 7, Caillier et al. teaches that the binder should be 30 to 70% by dry weight of the composition for forming the heat-stable coating [0021]; however, they do not specifically teach the weight percent of BIVO4 in their first printed layer.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have mixed in the BIVO4 in any amount of the remaining weight percent of the layer that was not the binder, including making the BiVO4 be from 0.1 to at least 30 weight % of the dried coating. It would have been obvious to have mixed in enough BIVO4 to have the layer possess the desired color when mixed with cobalt blue, while not adding so much as to waste money.
With regard to claim 9, the Examiner notes that this claim has product-by-process limitations. It has been held that “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” Please see MPEP 2112 and In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The structure of the final product of the first and second printed layers of Caillier et al. will be the same as the structure of the final product resultant from the product-by-process limitations.
With regard to claim 21, the sol-gel binder is formed from metal alkoxides, which reads on applicants’ precursors including a metal alkoxide [0068]. The bismuth vanadate in the coating reads on the metal oxide claimed.
With regard to claims 23 and 26, the substrate can be a frying pan with the coating on the inner face, which reads on applicants’ cookware with the coating on the food receiving face, or an iron with the coating on the soleplate [0104]-[0108].
With regard to claim 27, Caillier et al. also teach that the coating can be placed on one of the heating plates of a straightening iron, which reads on applicants’ hair straightener [0109]; however, they do not specifically teach placing the coating on multiple plates of the straightening iron.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have placed the heat-stable coating on multiple plates of the straightening iron so as to provide the thermochromic effect on both plates, which would allow a user to know when the straightening iron was hot.
Claims 5, 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caillier et al. (WO 2017/153698) in view of Xu (CN 201822599 U), machine translation included.
Caillier et al. disclose all of the limitations of claim 1 above; however, they do not specifically teach the ΔE* and the crystal structure of the BiVO4.
Xu teaches a pot for cooking that has a thermochromic layer that includes BiVO4 [0021]. The thermochromic BiVO4 goes through a color change of yellow (room temperature) to orange (120 C) to red (200 C) [0011].
Since Caillier et al. and Xu are both drawn to thermochromic BiVO4 for cooking pots, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to have used the BiVO4 of Xu as the BiVO4 of Caillier et al. The results of such a substitution would have been predictable to one having ordinary skill. The rationale to use this pigment is to determine the temperature of cooking oils so that one cooks at the correct temperature [0014] and [0015].
The color change of the BiVO4 of Xu has the exact same color progression as that disclosed by applicants in their specification (page 18). As such, the BiVO4 of the Caillier et al. in view of Xu will intrinsically possess the same monoclinic scheelite structure and the ΔE* at 150 and 200 C relative to room temperature as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 1/22/2026, with respect to the claim objections, the 112(b) rejections of 1-3, 5-11, 18-22, 26, 27 and 29 and the prior art rejections based on Le Bris et al. (US 2012/0052265) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The relevant objections/rejections have been withdrawn.
The current action is being made a non-final as the previous action did not properly meet the limitations of “at least a thermochromic pigment composition in the form of particles consisting of” the bismuth/vanadium oxide-based pigment claimed, wherein this phrase is defined at page 8, lines 4-6 of applicants’ specification. This definition would exclude the composite pigments disclosed in Le Bris et al. (US 2012/0052265), and therefore the previous rejections based on Le Bris et al. was not proper.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERARD T HIGGINS whose telephone number is (571)270-3467. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/Gerard Higgins/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785