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 .
Examiner Notes
Claims 1-10 are pending, of which claims 7-10 are withdrawn. Claims 1-6 have been amended.
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 1-6 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.
Claim 1 recites the raised checkers configured to “support a cooking utensil.” Applicant points to support the new limitation is paragraphs 0029 and 0033 of the published application. However, the specification does not provide written support for all cooking utensils. The cited paragraphs, and the specification as a whole do not recite different cooking utensils and the only supported cooking utensil is “a spatula.” Disclosure of a spatula does not provide support for every possible cooking utensil and which would have vastly different structure from a spatula.
Claims 2-6 are rejected as being dependent upon indefinite claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cheng et al. (US 2022/0110475).
Regarding claim 1, Cheng discloses a cookware surface comprising a base material layer (110) of aluminum (0021) and a metal mesh layer (120; 0027) embedded in the base layer. The upper end of the metal mesh extending from the upper surface of the base layer to form raised checkers (Fig. 2A and 2B). Due to the height difference from the mesh and base, there is a plurality of recessed regions on the upper surface of the base layer (Fig. 2a). As Cheng teaches the same structure of a mesh forming raised checkers above the basal plate and defining a plurality of recessed regions, the raised checkers of the metal mesh would be configured to support a cooking utensil at a height above the recessed regions to prevent the cooking utensil from contacting a surface of the basal plate within the recessed regions as claimed. Additionally, Cheng teaches the height of the mesh protecting the recessed surface from a knife blade (0030).
Regarding claim 2, Cheng teaches using force to embed the mesh into the base material (0026; i.e., compression connection).
Regarding claim 3, Cheng teaches several methods for forming the mesh layer (0029).
Please note, claims 2 and 3 include product by process language with regards to the recitation of “the connecting mode” or “formed by”. The above arguments establish a rationale tending to show the claimed product is the same as what is taught by the prior art. “[E]ven 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.” (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 4, Cheng teaches the mesh having different shapes including a polygons (0028, Fig. 1B and 2B).
Regarding claim 5, Cheng teaches the metal being stainless steel (0027).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Lee (KR 20040104891A).
Regarding claim 6, Chen discloses the limitations of claim 5 as discussed above. Cheng does not specify that the stainless steel is one of 430, 304, or 316 stainless steel.
Lee, in the analogous field of composite plates (page 2, summary of the invention), teaches a metal mesh insert formed of 430 stainless steel (page 3, example).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the stainless steel mesh of Cheng to comprise 430-stainless steel, as taught by Lee, as it is widely used because of its good cold workability and corrosion resistance (page 3, example).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed 02/02/2026 have been entered. Accordingly, the 25 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 2-6 have been withdrawn. However, due to applicant’s amendments a new 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection has been made.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Cheng’s protrusion would not prevent a standard cooking “shovel” from contacting the coating in the interior regions.
Cheng teaches the surface protrusions of the mesh protect the recessed regions from a knife blade (0030). A knife blade is a cooking utensil and thus the raised checkers of the mesh are providing the same function as claimed.
The claims further do not recite nor does the specification provide any quantitative data in the form of evidence that a specific height is required to meet the claimed function.
Applicant argues that Lee is combined with Cheng but the motivation is different from the reason used by applicant.
The reason or motivation to modify a reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant (see MPEP 2144.IV).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1727. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-4.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781