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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 17 March 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 – 20 remain pending in the application. Claims 17 – 20 were previously withdrawn from consideration.
The Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 17 March 2026 is sufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1 – 16 based upon Groll ‘895 (US 2017/0157895 A1) and Groll ‘405 (US 2015/0313405 A1) under 35 U.S.C. 103. In this Declaration, the examiner particularly considers ¶¶ 12 and 13, as well as Fig. 4, therein as reasons to withdraw these rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 – 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4 – 6, 9 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,930,956 (hereinafter “Groll ‘956”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, Groll ‘956’s claim 1 is directed to cookware made from a bonded multi-layer blank assembly, the cookware comprising:
a first metal layer;
a second metal layer having a cavity with a plurality of spaced-apart posts protruding from a bottom surface of the cavity; and
a perforated graphite layer having a thickness of at least 0.010 in. (0.254 mm) and a plurality of spaced-apart holes formed therethrough,
wherein the perforated graphite layer is positioned within the cavity of the second metal layer such that the plurality of spaced-apart posts extend through the plurality of spaced-apart holes, and
wherein the second metal layer is metallurgically bonded to the first metal layer at least via the plurality of spaced-apart posts.
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Groll ‘956’s claim 1 further recites the cookware further comprising a third metal layer metallurgically bonded to a planar side of the second metal layer opposite the cavity.
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the limitations of claim 2, Groll ‘956’s claim 6 recites the third metal layer is made of stainless steel.
Regarding claim 4, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Groll ‘956’s claim 2 recites a surface of the second metal layer surrounding the cavity is metallurgically bonded to the first metal layer.
Regarding claim 5, in addition to the limitations of claim 4, Groll ‘956’s claim 1 recites the surface of the second metal layer surrounding the cavity is planar.
Regarding claim 6, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Groll ‘956’s claim 5 recites a depth of the cavity is smaller, the same, or larger than the thickness of the perforated graphite layer.
Regarding claim 7, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Groll ‘956’s claim 4 recites the plurality of spaced-apart posts have a circular cross-section or polygonal cross-section.
Regarding claim 8, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Groll ‘956’s claims 9 and 11 each recite the first metal layer is made of aluminum or stainless steel, Groll ‘956’s claim 5 recites the perforated graphite layer is made from anisotropic graphite, and Groll ‘956’s claim 12 recites the second metal layer is made of aluminum.
Regarding claim 9, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Groll ‘956’s claim 9 recites the first metal layer comprises a first sub-layer made of aluminum and a second sub-layer made of stainless steel, and Groll ‘956’s claim 10 recites wherein the second metal layer is metallurgically bonded to the first sub-layer of the first metal layer.
Regarding claim 10, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Groll ‘956’s claim 12 recites the aluminum is an alloyed aluminum material clad with thin pure layers of aluminum on either side to accommodate metallurgical bonding.
Regarding claim 11, Groll ‘956’s claim 11 is directed to a multi-layer blank assembly for manufacture of cookware, the multi-layer blank assembly comprising:
a first metal layer;
a second metal layer having a cavity with a plurality of spaced-apart posts protruding from a bottom surface of the cavity; and
a perforated graphite layer having a thickness of at least 0.010 in. (0.254 mm) and a plurality of spaced-apart holes formed therethrough,
wherein the perforated graphite layer is configured to be positioned within the cavity of the second metal layer such that the plurality of spaced-apart posts extend through the plurality of spaced-apart holes, and
wherein the second metal layer is configured to be metallurgically bonded to the first metal layer at least via the plurality of spaced-apart posts.
Regarding claim 12, in addition to the limitations of claim 11, Groll ‘956’s claim 1 further recites the cookware further comprising a third metal layer metallurgically bonded to a planar side of the second metal layer opposite the cavity.
Regarding claim 13, in addition to the limitations of claim 12, Groll ‘956’s claim 6 recites the third metal layer is made of stainless steel.
Regarding claim 14, in addition to the limitations of claim 11, Groll ‘956’s claim 2 recites a surface of the second metal layer surrounding the cavity is metallurgically bonded to the first metal layer.
Regarding claim 15, in addition to the limitations of claim 11, Groll ‘956’s claim 4 recites the plurality of spaced-apart posts have a circular cross-section or polygonal cross-section.
Regarding claim 16, in addition to the limitations of claim 11, Groll ‘956’s claim 5 recites the perforated graphite layer is made from anisotropic graphite, Groll ‘956’s claim 9 recites the first metal layer is made of aluminum or stainless steel, and Groll ‘956’s claim 12 recites the second metal layer is made of aluminum.
Response to Arguments
The examiner acknowledges Applicant’s comments regarding the double patenting rejections on p. 6 of the Remarks filed 17 March 2026. In light of Applicant not presenting any arguments to traverse these rejections on their merits, the examiner maintains said rejections herein.
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 6, filed 17 March 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. This rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 6 – 9, filed 17 March 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 – 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. These rejections have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ETHAN A UTT whose telephone number is (571)270-0356. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Central.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/ETHAN A. UTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights