DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. The response submitted on May 1, 2026 has been entered in the above-identified application. Claims 1 and 11 are amended. Claims 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, and 17-20 are canceled. New claims 21-29 have been added. Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16, and 21-29 are pending of which claims 1-5, 7, and 8 are withdrawn and claims 11, 12, 15, 16, and 21-29 are now under consideration.
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.
3. Claims 27 and 28 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.
New claim 27 and 28 recite that “the laminate does not include any glue, adhesive, or intervening layer whose sole purpose is to facilitate bonding between the stainless steel substrate and the non-stick film” and “the cooking utensil does not include a reinforcement layer designed to reinforce the non-stick film”, respectively. However, it unclear, from both the Specification and the claims, how one determines whether the sole purpose of any intervening layer is to facilitate bonding between the stainless steel substrate and the non-stick film or that a reinforcement layer is designed to reinforce the non-stick film. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
4. Claims 11, 12, 15, 16, 21, 24, and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li et al. (CN 109706419 A)
Li et al. discloses cookware (corresponding to claimed cooking utensil) comprising a substrate and a non-stick coating formed on (directly bonded to) the substrate (0011). The substrate includes stainless steel (0043). The nonstick surface has a thickness of 10-300 microns or 0.004-0.012 inches (0056). The nonstick coating includes ceramic particles (corresponding to claimed filler) and fluorinated resin particles (0013) where the fluorinated resin includes PTFE (0041). There is no disclosure that the nonstick layer comprises solvent or mesh layer.
With regards to the limitation that the non-stick film is a free-standing prefabricated non-stick film, is non-porous and free from solvent and that it displays substantially no voids upon dye penetrant inspection, the Examiner takes the position that such a property limitation is inherent in the cookware taught by Li et al. given that the composition of the cookware as taught by Li et al. and that of the claimed invention are identical. All limitations of claims 11, 12, 15, 16, 21, 24, and 26-29 are disclosed or inherent in the above reference.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
5. Claims 11, 12, 15, 16, and 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perillon et al. (US 2012/0132655 A1).
Perillon et al. disclose a cooking utensil (equivalent to the cooking utensil of the claimed invention) comprising a hollow bowl with a base and a side wall rising from the base. The utensil is coated successively, from the bowl, with a hard base and a nonstick coating, which covers the hard base and includes at least one layer containing at least one fluorocarbon resin. It is known to those skilled in the art to reinforce the nonstick coating with hard fillers. The hollow bowl constituted of a multilayer support comprising from the exterior to the interior the following layers ferritic stainless steel/aluminum/austenitic stainless steel or stainless steel/aluminum/copper/aluminum/austenitic stainless steel or a bowl of casting aluminum, aluminum or aluminum alloys doubled with an outer bottom made of stainless steel (equivalent to the stainless steel substrate of the claimed invention). The nonstick coating (equivalent to the nonstick film of the claimed invention) contains at least one fluorocarbon resin alone or in a mixture with a resin that is thermostable and resistant to at least 200oC., with these resins forming after baking a sintered continuous network. The fluorocarbon resin is advantageously selected from among polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) (meeting the limitations of claim 16), copolymer of tetrafluoroethylene and of perfluoropropylvinylether (PFA), copolymer of tetrafluoroethylene and of hexafluoropropylene (FEP), and their mixtures (in particular a mixture of PTFE and PFA). The nonstick coating comprises successively, from the hard base, a bonding primer layer, and at least one top layer. Thes primer layer can also advantageously include fillers and/or pigments. In terms of the fillers that can be used in the primer layer of the nonstick coating, colloidal silica, mica flakes covered with TiO2, alumina, corundum, silicon carbide, quartz and mixtures of these can in particular be mentioned (meeting the limitations of claim 16). FIGS. 1 to 3 show, by way of example of a cooking utensil according to the disclosed invention, a frying pan 1 comprising a metal support 2 having the form of a hollow bowl and a grasping handle 5. The support 2 comprises an inner surface 24 which is the surface oriented towards the side of the food able to be received in the frying pan 1, and an outer surface 25 which is intended to be arranged towards an external heat source. The inner surface 24 is coated successively, from the support 2, with a hard base 3, and with a nonstick coating 4 which successively includes from the hard base 3 a bonding primer layer 41 and two top layers 42, 43. In one embodiment, the drops of the ceramic and/or metal and/or polymer material 31 dispersed on the surface of the inner surface 24 are embedded in the primer layer 41 of the nonstick coating 4, in such a way as to allow for the bonding of the primer layer to the hard base 3. Such a hard base 3 leads to an increased mechanical reinforcement of the nonstick coating 4, particularly in terms of hardness and of adherence to the underlying hard base 3. Indeed, the particles of sintered fluorocarbon resin and the fillers of the primer layer 41 by penetrating between the drops of the solidified ceramic and/or metal and/or polymer material 31 deposited on the surface of the inner surface 24, reinforce the adherence of the primer layer 41 on the hard base 3. Therefore, the mechanical reinforcement of the nonstick coating 4 is increased thanks to the fillers in the primer layer 41 as well as to the dispersion of drops 31 of the hard base 3 which play a role analogous to that of a reinforcing filler in the interpenetration area of the two layers 3, 41. (See Abstract and paragraphs 0004, 009, 0029, 0038-0042, 0046-0059, 0072-0077, and claim 12).
With regards to the limitation that the non-stick film has a thickness greater than 0.002 inches to less than 0.015, the Examiner would like to point out that workable physical properties such as thicknesses are deemed to be obvious routine optimizations to one of ordinary skill in the art, motivated by the desire to obtain the required properties. Differences in thickness will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentrations are critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
With regards to claim 15, no mesh layer is taught by Perillon et al. and hence the limitations of claim 15 are met. With regards to the nonstick coating taught by Perillon et al. is a solid layer comprising successively, from the hard base, a bonding primer layer, and at least one top layer and hence is free from solvent and is non-porous.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed on May 1, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants traverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li et al. (CN 109706419 A) and submit that claim 11, as amended, now expressly requires that the non-stick film be a free-standing prefabricated non-stick film that is non-porous and free from solvent and that Li does not disclose these limitations. Applicants state that the specification of the present application expressly distinguishes between coatings formed in situ by spray coating and the free-standing prefabricated film of the claimed invention and that as explained in the instant Specification, conventional spray-applied coatings are inherently porous because the spray coating process uses a solvent which must be evaporated, thereby reducing density and forming pores in the resulting non-stick coating and that Li's coating is spray-applied and must result in a final product that contains voids and residual solvent contamination.
However, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product 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. The Examiner realizes that the claimed properties are not positively stated by the reference. However, the reference teaches all of the claimed components. Therefore, the claimed properties would be inherently necessarily be capable of being achieved by the prior art. If it is Applicant’s position that this would not be the case then persuasive evidence would need to be provided to support this position and to establish that the process of manufacture imparts distinctive structural characteristics to the final product. Furthermore, the limitation that the non-stick film is a free-standing prefabricated non-stick film, describes an intermediate product and the not the non-stick film in the final claimed laminate.
Applicants further traverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perillon et al. (US 2012/0132655 A1) and submit that Perillon's nonstick coating is formed by spray coating a fluorocarbon resin composition onto a hard base and then sintering it and it is the Applicant’s position that this is precisely the type of spray coating process that the present application expressly distinguishes and the claimed thickness range is not merely an obvious design choice.
As to the assertion of unexpected results, a showing of unexpected results must be based on evidence, not argument or speculation. The specification presents no factual evidence to show that results were actually unexpected in comparison to the results in the prior art. The Examiner invites that Applicants to conclusively establish the unexpected results and to present claims that are commensurate in scope with any showing.
The above art rejections of record are maintained given that the amendments to the independent claims do not change the scope of the claims.
Conclusion
7. 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.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEEBA AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-1504. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-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, CALLIE SHOSHO can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/SHEEBA AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights