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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed on 10/20/2025 are acknowledged and entered. According to the Amendments to the claims, claims 1 and 10 has /have been amended, claims 5, 7-9 and 17 were previously cancelled. Accordingly, claims 1-4, 6, 10-16 and 18-20 are pending in the application with claims 16 and 18-20 previously withdrawn. An action on the merits for claims 1-4, 6 and 10-15 are as follow.
The previous 112 (b) Claim Rejections and objections to the specification are withdrawn in accordance with applicant's amendment to the claims and the specification with no new matter added.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because FIGS. 1-3 with numerical 4 point at the rim, FIG. 4 with numerical 4 point at the center, FIGS. 6 ,8 and 10-11 with numerical 1 point at the center respectively, and FIGS. 7 and 10 with numerical 1 point at the rim respectively. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6 and 10-15 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. (MPEP 2161(l); MPEP 2163 (ll)(A)(3)(a)-(b))
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the bonded metal alloy comprises a stainless steel/aluminum/stainless steel bonded structure” in line 4. There is nothing in the original disclosure that describes “the bonded metal alloy comprises a stainless steel/aluminum/stainless steel bonded structure” in the specification, only the term “430” which may refer to one species of stainless steel but this is still unclear as the term 430 is never used in conjunction with the term “steel” or “stainless steel”; therefore, “wherein the bonded metal alloy comprises a stainless steel/aluminum/stainless steel bonded structure” constitutes new matter.
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 1-4, 6, 11-12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bengston (US 1,869,041) in view of Imura (US 2005/0242086 A1) and Popescu (US 2010/0000980 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Bengston discloses a pizza warming serve tray device for providing an increase in a cooling time of a pizza, the device comprising:
a pan (in aluminum cooking utensils, Page 4 line 126) having an upper surface and a lower surface (Clearly, the cooking utensils of Bengston “having an upper surface and a lower surface” as claimed), the pan comprising a bonded metal sheet made of a bonded metal alloy (applicable of any article of aluminum or its alloys, Page 5 line 12-13. Clearly, the cooking utensils is “comprising a bonded metal sheet made of a bonded metal alloy” as claimed);
a silicone base, wherein the silicone base coats the lower surface of the pan and is made of a food-grade silicone (aluminum alloys containing silicon, the coating may also contain… SiO2, Page 1 line 75; clearly a cooking utensil need to use a food-grade silicone to meets FDA standards for cooking safety, because it is non-toxic, heat resistant, and free from harmful chemicals) molded from a silicone mold (Clearly, the silicone base capable of “molded from a silicone mold” as claimed. Note: “silicone mold” are not part of the pizza warming serve tray device as claimed), wherein the silicon base: (i) -comprises air pockets (While the coatings are pervious, the pores are not visible, Page 1 line 76-77) configured to increase thermal resistivity (the coating is resistant to heat, Page 4 line 21) of the lower surface of the pan (aluminum alloys containing silicon, the coating may also contain… SiO2, Page 1 line 75; Aluminum articles under the present invention carry a hard, pervious coating, Page 1 line 67-68),
(ii) -is configured to insulate heat contained within the pan and prevent excess heat from escaping through the lower surface of the pan (Clearly, the silicon base taught by Bengston is capable of “insulate heat contained within the pan and prevent excess heat from escaping through the lower surface of the pan” as claimed), and
(iii) is configured to allow the pan to be carried by hand when the pan remains at a temperature above 200°F (Clearly, the silicon base taught by Bengston is capable of “allow the pan to be carried by hand when the pan remains at a temperature above 200°F” as claimed); and
wherein an initial temperature of the pan after heating is 190-220°F (Clearly, the cooking utensil taught by Bengston is capable of having “an initial temperature of the pan after heating is 190-220°F” as claimed); and
wherein the device is configured to maintain a pizza at a temperature above 130°F for a period of 30-45 minutes (Clearly, the device taught by Bengston is capable of “maintain a pizza at a temperature above 130°F for a period of 30-45 minutes” as claimed).
Bengston discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose: wherein the bonded metal alloy comprises a stainless steel/aluminum/stainless steel bonded structure; and an induction base heating unit comprising an interface board, controller board, induction coil and housing; wherein the induction base heating unit is configured to heat the pan;
Imura teaches a device with a pan (cookware object 10 including pan body 20, [0048], Fig 1. Note: “a pan” taught by Bengston already), and wherein the bonded metal alloy comprises a stainless steel/aluminum/stainless steel bonded structure (pan body 20… including a first layer of magnetic stainless steel forming the interior cooking surface of the pan, a second inner-layer of 3003 pure aluminum, a third inner-layer of 1145 aluminum alloy, a fourth inner-layer of 1145 aluminum, and a fifth layer of magnetic stainless steel forming the exterior surface of the pan, [0049]. Note: “the bonded metal alloy” taught by Bengston already);
And Popescu further teaches a device with a pan (pan 202, [0087], Fig 20. Note: “a pan” taught by Bengston already), and an induction base heating unit (an induction heating unit 200, [0088], Fig 20) comprising an interface board (user interface 216, [0089], Fig 21), controller board (a micro-controller 207… a printed circuit board and wired, [0088], Fig 20), induction coil (a primary coil 204, [0088], Fig 20) and housing (the housing of 200, Fig 20);
wherein the induction base heating unit is configured to heat the pan (pan 202… seating on a hob (209) of an inductive heating unit (200), [0088], Fig 20);
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 Bengston with Imura’s teaching of wherein the bonded metal alloy comprises a stainless steel/ aluminum/ stainless steel bonded structure; because Imura teaches, in Para. [0049], of providing an excellent cooking pan with two surface layers of magnetic stainless steel provide strength, durability, easy cleaning and a long-lasting, attractive appearance to the pan body; and further modify Bengston in view of Imura with Popescu’s further teaching of an induction base heating unit comprising an interface board, controller board, induction coil and housing; wherein the induction base heating unit is configured to heat the pan; because Popescu teaches, in Abstract, of providing an excellent inductive heating systems for more efficiently work for modern inductive hot plated during cooking processing.
Claim 2, wherein the bonded metal alloy is aluminum alloy (applicable of any article of aluminum or its alloys, Page 5 line 12-13, Bengston).
Claim 3, wherein said induction base heating unit (an induction heating unit 200, [0088], Fig 20, Popescu) is configured to heat the pan to 190-220°F in 25-30 seconds (in aluminum cooking utensils, Page 4 line 126, Bengston. Clearly, the induction base heating unit of Popescu is capable of “heat the pan to 190-220°F in 25-30 seconds” as claimed).
Claim 4, wherein the pan has a thickness of 0.050-0.120 inches (see Fig 20, Popescu). Bengston in view of Popescu do not explicitly disclose that the pan has a thickness of 0.050-0.120 inches; 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 that the pan has a thickness of 0.050-0.120 inches, since such a configurations would have involved a mere change in the thickness of a component, a change in thickness 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.
Claim 6, wherein said interface board of said induction base heating unit comprises indicator lights for indicating when the pan is being heated (user interface may include display functions, including temperature display and system alerts, [0089], Popescu).
Claim 11, wherein the induction base heating unit is 12-20 inches in diameter. (See induction base heating unit 200 in Fig 20, Popescu). Bengston in view of Popescu do not explicitly disclose that the induction base heating unit is 12-20 inches in diameter; 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 that the induction base heating unit is 12-20 inches in diameter, since such a configurations would have involved a mere change in diameter of a component, a change in diameter 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.
Claim 12, wherein the induction base heating unit is 1.25-2 inches in height (See induction base heating unit 200 in Fig 20, Popescu). Bengston in view of Popescu do not explicitly disclose wherein the induction base heating unit is 1.25-2 inches in height; 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 that the induction base heating unit is 1.25-2 inches in height, since such a configurations would have involved a mere change in height of a component, a change in height 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.
Claim 15, wherein one of the indicator lights indicates that an optimal temperature range of 190-220°F for the pan has been reached (controls for adjusting the temperature and setting a timer, [0089], Popescu. Clearly, the induction base heating unit of Popescu is capable of with “one of the indicator lights indicates that an optimal temperature range of 190-220°F for the pan has been reached” as claimed).
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bengston in view of Imura and Popescu applied to claim 1, further in view of Yeung (US 2009/0107345 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Bengston in view of Imura and Popescu disclose the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose Claim 10.
Yeung teaches Claim 10, wherein the food-grade silicone (“the food-grade silicone” taught by Bengston already) is an industrial grade room-temperature-vulcanizing (RTV) silicone (the silicone rubber disclosed herein is a one component RTV rubber, a two-component RTV rubber, [0052]). 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 Bengston in view of Imura and Popescu with Yeung’s further teaching of the food-grade silicone is an industrial grade room-temperature-vulcanizing (RTV) silicone; because Yeung teaches, in Abstract and [0099], of providing an excellent silicone coated cookware that have heat resistant and retain shape after deformation; and can be used to prepared a variety of consumer and industrial products that can be found in every room of a typical home.
Claims 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bengston in view of Imura and Popescu applied to claim 1, further in view of Naber et al. (US 2019/0289677 A1).
Regarding Claims 13 and 14, Bengston in view of Imura and Popescu disclose the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose Claims 13 and 14.
Naber et al. teach a cookware (induction cooking pot or pan, [0017]), and Claim 13, wherein the housing comprises a heat-resistant top (a ceramic top panel, [0007], Fig 1). Claim 14, wherein the heat-resistant top comprises a ceramic material (an induction cooktop system 100 includes a housing 120 with a ceramic top panel, [0007], Fig 1). 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 Bengston in view of Imura and Popescu with Naber et al.’s further teaching of Claims 13 and 14; because Naber et al. teach, in [0017], of providing an induction cooker with a ceramic glass or any other suitable magnetically permeable and/or heat resilient material for an excellent cooking efficiency during operation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-4, 6 and 10-15 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action as stated above.
A. The applicant's argument on Remarks, namely “Applicant submits that the cited portions of Bengston neither disclose nor suggest, the claimed silicone base, as required by amended claim 1. There is nothing in Bengston, or any of the cited Art, that discloses the silicone base "wherein the silicone base coats the lower surface of the pan and is made of a food-grade silicone molded from a silicone mold, wherein the silicon base: (i) comprises air pockets configured to increase thermal resistivity of the lower surface of the pan, (ii) is configured to insulate heat contained within the pan and prevent excess heat from escaping through the lower surface of the pan, and (iii) is configured to allow the pan to be carried by hand when the pan remains at a temperature above 200°F." The relied on portions of Bengston, that simply refer to "aluminum alloys containing silicon," that "the coating may also contain a little SiO2," and that, "[ w ]hile the coatings are pervious, the pores are not visible, being of sub-microscopic magnitude," (Bengston, page 1, lines 75-77), do not disclose or in any way suggest features (i), (ii), and (iii) of the claimed "silicone base" that "comprises "air pockets." The reference to "pores" that are "not visible" and are of "submicroscopic magnitude" is not a disclosure of, equivalent to, or suggestive of "air pockets" in the silicone base, as claimed”.
The examiner’s response: The combination of Bengston in view of Imura and Popescu disclosed all the limitations as recited in the independent claim 1 as shown above; during examination, a claim must be given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. Because the applicant has the opportunity to amend claims during prosecution, giving a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation will reduce the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989)”. “Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention” (MPEP 2173.01(I)). Therefore, the examiner maintains the rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 Kosanovic Helena can be reached on 571/272-9059, 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
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights