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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 7-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 23 March 2026. The examiner notes that the Applicant elected the product/apparatus claims. As a result, claims 7-12, which are directed to process claims, will be considered for rejoinder in the event that the product/apparatus claims are determined to be allowable and if the process claims are amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
Photographs (figs. 7A-B; referring to the revised drawings filed 11 July 2023) are not ordinarily permitted. Furthermore, it is apparent from publication US20240010548A1 that these drawings are of insufficient quality so that all details in the photographs are reproducible in the printed patent (MPEP 608.01.f / 37 CFR 1.84). Recommend revising or deleting figs. 7A-B.
Figs. 1-2 show solid black shading, which is not permitted for cross sections (MPEP 608.02 / 37 CFR 1.84).
Fig. 3 is a cross section, which uses shading. Such shading is preferred in the case of parts shown in perspective, but not for cross sections (MPEP 608.02 / 37 CFR 1.84).
Figs. 1-3 show the glass ceramic layer 24 as being a metal. However, glass is not a metal. Recommend using a different symbol for the glass ceramic layer 24, which is an important feature of the invention (MPEP 608.02.IX).
Figs. 8A-B and figs. 9A-B show a unit of measurement for the distance as meters for the x-axis, which does not appear to be correct (suggests the top plate has a length of 200 meters).
In fig. 12, “USRFACE” appears to be a misspelling for “SURFACE.”
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “cooking vessel C.”
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in paragraph 0058, recommend deleting the unit of measurement for the coefficient of friction: “µm.” The examiner understands the coefficient of friction to be a ratio that does not have a unit of measurement, which is reflected in claim 5.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: recommend amending line 2 of claim 1 to recite: “a cooking apparatus.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-4 and 14 are 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.
Claims 2-4 and 14 use the phrase: “…one …. selected from…” It is unclear if these limitations are Markush groups of closed alternatives or instead an open-ended list of alternatives (MPEP 2111). Although the phrase “one selected from” is used, the phrase does not include the term “consisting of” (MPEP 2173.05.h). As a result, the claims are indefinite because the metes and bounds (closed or open claim language?) are unclear. For the purpose of the examination, the limitations will be interpreted under their broadest reasonable interpretation as not being Markush groups (open claim language).
The term “basic” in claims 2 and 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “basic” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As a result, it is unclear what the difference is between a composition that is considered to be “basic” and a composition that is considered to not be “basic.” For the purpose of the examination, any composition that is taught in the prior art will be interpreted as being a “basic composition.”
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lestringant et al. (US-20160338152-A1) in view of Bockmeyer et al. (US-20130273320-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lestringant teaches a cooking apparatus top plate (“Induction cooking plate,” title) on which a cooking vessel (“cookware,” para 0002) is placeable to be heated by the cooking apparatus (the plate is heated by “at least one inductor disposed beneath the above-defined plate,” para 0009; the “cooking apparatus” is interpreted as an intended use for the “top plate,” MPEP 2111.02, and not as limiting the claim structure), the top plate comprising:
a glass ceramic substrate (“glass with a lithium alumino-silicate-type composition,” para 0008; this composition is construed as being a “glass-ceramic plate,” paras 0002-0003) having a chemically strengthened top surface (“strengthened with potassium,” para 0056; “said plate having a surface zone at least 5 μm thick that comprises potassium ions in replacement of the lithium ions of the glass,” para 0008; the “surface zone” is construed as being the claimed “top surface;” the Specification of the Instant Application discloses that ion exchange can be used to chemically strengthen the top surface).
Lestringant does not explicitly disclose a cooking apparatus; glass ceramic substrate that has an uneven structure with an average surface roughness Ra of 0.1 to 1.0 µm..
However, in the same field of endeavor of glass ceramics for cookers, Bockmeyer teaches a glass ceramic substrate (“glass ceramic substrate,” para 0100) that has an uneven structure (layer 21 with fragments 31 and sphere 24 is construed as the claimed “uneven structure” that is on the top surface of the substrate 20, fig. 3) with an average surface roughness Ra of 0.1 to 1.0 µm (Table 2 in para 0101 shows that for variation A with rough haptics and a mass ratio of 1.5, the surface roughness equals 0.82 µm, which is within the claimed range).
Bockmeyer, fig. 3
PNG
media_image1.png
1038
817
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Lestringant, in view of the teachings of Bockmeyer, by attaching a paste-like material in a layer 21 with a glass-flow, mass ratio of 1.5 using rough haptics particles 24 and 31, as taught by Bockmeyer in fig. 3, on the surface zone of the glass substrate that has been strengthened with potassium, as taught by Lestringant, in order to create a produced layer that is easy to clean, insensitive to fingerprints, and physically resistant to mechanically acting cleaners such as scouring pads or glass ceramic scrapers (Lestringant, paras 0111-0113 and 0150-0152).
Regarding claim 2, Lestringant teaches wherein the glass ceramic substrate includes: lithium aluminosilicate-based (“lithium aluminosilicate,” paras 0002 and 0014) crystalline glass including Li2O (“Li2O: 1.5%-5.5%,” para 0028), Al2O3 (“Al2O3: 18%-27%,” para 0028) and SiO2 (“SiO2: 52%-75%,” para 0028) as a basic composition (“preferred chemical composition,” para 0028), and at least one crystal phase selected from β-quartz, β-spodumene, (“crystals of beta-quartz or beta-spodumene structure,” para 0002) and β-eucryptite crystal phases (not explicitly disclosed).
Regarding claim 3, Lestringant teaches wherein the glass ceramic substrate further includes at least one element selected from the group consisting of V (not explicitly disclosed), Mg (“MgO: 0%-3%,” para 0028), P (“P2O5: 0%-8%,” para 0028), Fe (“Fe,” para 0046), Ti (“TiO2: 0%-5.5%,” para 0028) and Zr (“ZrO2: 0%-3%,” para 0028).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lestringant et al. (US-20160338152-A1) in view of Bockmeyer et al. (US-20130273320-A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Lee et al. (US-20190248702-A1).
Lestringant teaches wherein the top surface (“surface zone,” para 0008) of the glass ceramic substrate is chemically strengthened by ion exchange (“ion exchange,” para 0008) with at least one strengthening salt (“potassium salt,” para 0010).
Lestringant does not explicitly disclose at least one strengthening salt selected from KNO3 and NaNO3.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of strengthening a glass substrate, Lee teaches at least one strengthening salt selected from KNO3 and NaNO3 (“a salt mixed with sodium nitrate (NaNO3) and potassium nitrate (KNO3),” para 0108).
Lee, fig. 4
PNG
media_image2.png
524
690
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Lestringant, in view of the teachings of Lee, by using a salt mixed with sodium nitrate and potassium nitrate, as taught by Lee, instead of potassium oxide, as taught by Lestringant, because this amounts to a simple substitution of one salt known in the art for another with predictable results, i.e., the presence of nitrogen in the salt does not impede the ion exchange change but instead will still allow the ion exchange to take place (fig. 4 of Lee; Lestringant teaches that sodium ion exchange can also take place in addition to the potassium ion exchange, paras 0022 and 0029).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lestringant et al. (US-20160338152-A1) in view of Bockmeyer et al. (US-20130273320-A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Nishibi et al. (JP-2005049050-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure).
The combination of Lestringant in view of Bockmeyer as set forth above regarding claim 1 partially teaches the invention of claim 5. Specifically, Bockmeyer teaches wherein the glass ceramic substrate has a friction coefficient of 0.42 to 0.71 (Table 3 in para 0103 shows that for variation A with rough haptics and a mass ratio of 1.5, the mean dynamic friction value is 0.51, which is within the claimed range).
Lestringant/Bockmeyer do not explicitly disclose wherein the glass ceramic substrate has a Vickers hardness of 950 to 1,200 Hv.
However, in the same field of endeavor of glass ceramics for cookers, Nishibi teaches wherein the glass ceramic substrate (glass substrate 11, fig. 2) has a Vickers hardness of 950 to 1,200 Hv (the Mohs hardness for SiO2 is “7,” page 5; a Mohs hardness of 7 converts to 1161 HV, which is inside the claimed range).
Nishibi, fig. 2
PNG
media_image3.png
456
626
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Lestringant/Bockmeyer, in view of the teachings of Nishibi, by using SiO2 particles, as taught by Nishibi, for the haptic particles 24 and 31, as taught by Bockmeyer, in order to a Mohs hardness for the microprojection particles that is preferably 6.5 or more, for the advantage of ensuring the particles do not scrape away from the coating layer when the glass substrate is heated (Nishibi, page 5).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lestringant et al. (US-20160338152-A1) in view of Bockmeyer et al. (US-20130273320-A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Aihara et al. (US-20160258631-A1).
Regarding claim 6, Lestringant teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: a printed layer under the glass ceramic substrate, the printed layer including a background printed layer and a shielding printed layer under the background printed layer.
However, in the same field of endeavor of glass ceramics for cookers, Aihara teaches further comprising: a printed layer (layers 6 and 7, fig. 6B; both layers are “printed,” para 0148) under the glass ceramic substrate (crystallized glass 9, fig. 6B), the printed layer including a background printed layer (design layer 6, fig. 6B; construed as background because the layer has a “black-based color,” para 0112) and a shielding printed layer (blocking layer 8, fig. 6B) under the background printed layer.
Aihara, fig. 6B
PNG
media_image4.png
448
740
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Lestringant, in view of the teachings of Aihara, by printing a black colored design layer 6 and a blocking layer 8, as taught by Aihara, under the glass plate, as taught by Lestringant, in order to use a display that can be easily printed under the transparent top plate, and which provides excellent light-blocking properties as well as light-transmitting properties that can be used to display the state of heating, because in induction heating systems, the state of the heating is hard to recognize (Aihara, paras 0004-0006 and 0151).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lestringant et al. (US-20160338152-A1) in view of Bockmeyer et al. (US-20130273320-A1) and Yun et al. (US-20190021141-A1).
Regarding claim 13, Lestringant teaches an induction heating apparatus (“induction heating elements,” para 0022) comprising:
a cooking apparatus top plate (“a plate intended for covering or receiving induction heating elements,” para 0022) on which a cooking vessel (“cookware,” para 0002) is placeable, the cooking apparatus top plate including a glass ceramic substrate (“glass with a lithium alumino-silicate-type composition,” para 0008; this composition is construed as being a “glass-ceramic plate,” paras 0002-0003) having a chemically strengthened top surface (“strengthened with potassium,” para 0056; “said plate having a surface zone at least 5 μm thick that comprises potassium ions in replacement of the lithium ions of the glass,” para 0008; the “surface zone” is construed as being the claimed “top surface;” the Specification of the Instant Application discloses that ion exchange can be used to chemically strengthen the top surface); and
a plurality of induction heating coils (not explicitly disclosed) under the cooking apparatus top plate (“a plate intended for covering or receiving induction heating elements,” para 0022) and configured to, with the cooking vessel placed on the top plate, generate magnetic fields to heat the cooking vessel (“heated by virtue of the electric current induced within them by the magnetic field generated by the inductors,” para 0002).
Lestringant does not explicitly disclose a glass ceramic substrate that has an uneven structure with an average surface roughness Ra of 0.1 to 1.0 µm; a plurality of induction heating coils.
However, in the same field of endeavor of glass ceramics for cookers, Bockmeyer teaches a glass ceramic substrate (“glass ceramic substrate,” para 0100) that has an uneven structure (layer 21 with fragments 31 and sphere 24 is construed as the claimed “uneven structure” that is on the top surface of the substrate 20, fig. 3) with an average surface roughness Ra of 0.1 to 1.0 µm (Table 2 in para 0101 shows that for variation A with rough haptics and a mass ratio of 1.5, the surface roughness equals 0.82 µm, which is within the claimed range).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Lestringant, in view of the teachings of Bockmeyer, by attaching a paste-like material in a layer 21 with a glass-flow, mass ratio of 1.5 using rough haptics particles 24 and 31, as taught by Bockmeyer in fig. 3, on the surface zone of the glass substrate that has been strengthened with potassium, as taught by Lestringant, in order to create a produced layer that is easy to clean, insensitive to fingerprints, and physically resistant to mechanically acting cleaners such as scouring pads or glass ceramic scrapers (Lestringant, paras 0111-0113 and 0150-0152).
Lestringant/Bockmeyer does not explicitly disclose a plurality of induction heating coils.
However, in the same field of endeavor of glass ceramics for cookers, Yun teaches a plurality of induction heating coils (coils L1 through L4, fig. 2).
Yun, fig. 2
PNG
media_image5.png
1224
765
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Lestringant, in view of the teachings of Yun, by using induction coils, as taught by Yun, for the inductors, as taught by Lestringant, because in induction heating, induction coils can be used to generate the magnetic field that causes Joule heating of the resistive component within the cooking vessel, for the advantage of using magnetic induction to cook the food that is within the cooking vessel (Yun, paras 0004-0005).
Regarding claim 14, Lestringant teaches wherein the glass ceramic substrate includes: lithium aluminosilicate-based (“lithium aluminosilicate,” paras 0002 and 0014) crystalline glass including Li2O (“Li2O: 1.5%-5.5%,” para 0028), Al2O3 (“Al2O3: 18%-27%,” para 0028) and SiO2 (“SiO2: 52%-75%,” para 0028) as a basic composition (“preferred chemical composition,” para 0028), and at least one crystal phase selected from β-quartz, β-spodumene, (“crystals of beta-quartz or beta-spodumene structure,” para 0002) and β-eucryptite crystal phases (not explicitly disclosed).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lestringant et al. (US-20160338152-A1) in view of Bockmeyer et al. (US-20130273320-A1) and Yun et al. (US-20190021141-A1) as applied to claim 13 above and further in view of Nishibi et al. (JP-2005049050-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure).
The combination of Lestringant in view of Bockmeyer and Yun as set forth above regarding claim 13 partially teaches the invention of claim 15. Specifically, Bockmeyer teaches wherein the glass ceramic substrate has a friction coefficient of 0.42 to 0.71 (Table 3 in para 0103 shows that for variation A with rough haptics and a mass ratio of 1.5, the mean dynamic friction value is 0.51, which is within the claimed range).
Lestringant/Bockmeyer do not explicitly disclose wherein the glass ceramic substrate has a Vickers hardness of 950 to 1,200 Hv.
However, in the same field of endeavor of glass ceramics for cookers, Nishibi teaches wherein the glass ceramic substrate (glass substrate 11, fig. 2) has a Vickers hardness of 950 to 1,200 Hv (the Mohs hardness for SiO2 is “7,” page 5; a Mohs hardness of 7 converts to 1161 HV, which is inside the claimed range).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Lestringant/Bockmeyer, in view of the teachings of Nishibi, by using SiO2 particles, as taught by Nishibi, for the haptic particles 24 and 31, as taught by Bockmeyer, in order to a Mohs hardness for the microprojection particles that is preferably 6.5 or more, for the advantage of ensuring the particles do not scrape away from the coating layer when the glass substrate is heated (Nishibi, page 5).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Song et al. (US-20230227351-A1) teach an invention similar to the Instant Application.
Song et al. (US-20230391662-A1) teach an invention similar to the Instant Application.
Kim et al. (US-20240179808-A1) teach an invention similar to the Instant Application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at 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 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 4/29/2026
Prosecution Insights