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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/17/2026 has been entered.
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.
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, 3-14, 22 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (US 2015/0090725) in view of Flammang (US 5,506,062), Byung-Ok (KR 2004-42812) and Oh (WO 2013/035994).
The examiner has provided a machine translation of KR 2004-42812 with the Office Action mailed 08/22/2025 and a machine translation of WO 2013/035994. The citation of prior art in the rejection refers to the provided machine translations.
In reference to claims 1, Cheng teaches a cookware article ([0004]) (corresponding to a cookware article). The article comprises a horizontal bottom having an interior bottom surface and an exterior bottom surface on the side opposing the interior bottom surface ([0010]) (corresponding to a base material; a first surface of the base material; a second surface of the base material, the second surface being opposite to the first surface).
A metal mesh is embedded in an exterior bottom surface ([0010]). The mesh includes portions of grid material between mesh openings ([0032]) (corresponding to a second mesh comprising a plurality of second network segments embedded into a second surface of the base material; the plurality of second network segments define a plurality of second interior regions between adjacent second network segments). The mesh is stainless steel and is partially exposed on the exterior bottom surface ([0012]; claim 1) (corresponding to the plurality of second network segments extend outward of the second surface of the base material).
The cookware is formed of aluminum or alloys thereof ([0024]) (corresponding to a base material comprising a metal or metal alloy).
Cheng does not explicitly teach a first mesh embedded into the interior bottom surface of the article, as presently claimed.
Flammang teaches a cooking vessel constituting an article (col. 1, lines 15-16). The article includes a plate produced from a relatively soft first metal, such as aluminum, and a metallic element in the form of a perforated sheet or a grid produced from a second metal or alloy harder than that of the plate, the metallic element being at least partially embedded in the plate (col. 1, lines 52-59; col. 2, lines 20-21). The grid is stainless steel and has a wire diameter lying between several tenths of a mm and one mm (col. 4, lines 5-8). The grid includes any kind of meshes, square, rectangular or hexagonal (col. 4, lines 11-12) (corresponding to a first mesh comprising a plurality of first network segments; the plurality of first network segments comprises a metal; the plurality of first network segments define a plurality of interior regions between adjacent first network segments).
The grid is only partially embedded in the metal of the bottom of the plate, so that it projects from the inner surface of the cooking vessel (col. 6, lines 63-65; FIG. 19) (corresponding to a plurality of first network segments embedded into the first surface of the base material; the plurality of first network segments extends outward of the base material). The grid is driven into the plate over a depth which corresponds substantially to half the diameter of the wire of the grid (col. 3, lines 54-56).
Flammang further teaches the technical advantage of the grid embedded into the inner surface provides a harder inner surface and enables the contact surface of the food with the surface of the vessel to be limited which limits even further attachment of the food to this surface (col. 7, lines 6-22).
In light of the motivation of Flammang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the cookware article of Cheng include the grid partially embedded in the interior bottom surface, in order to provide a harder inner surface and limit further attachment of food to the interior bottom surface of the cookware article.
Cheng in view of Flammang teaches the partially embedded grid has a diameter of several tenths of a mm and one mm and is embedded to a depth which corresponds substantially to half the diameter of the wire of the grid (Flammang, col. 4, lines 5-8; col. 3, lines 54-56). While the metal mesh embedded on the exterior surface and substantially all of the metal mesh is fully embedded in the exterior surface (Cheng, FIGS. 5A-5B; [0010]; [0012]; claim 1). Thus, it is clear the metal mesh includes portions in which the mesh portions are embedded deeper into the bottom than the grid (corresponding to the plurality of second network segments are embedded deeper in the base material than the plurality of first network segments).
Cheng in view of Flammang does not explicitly teach the gird extends beyond an organic nonstick material and penetrates through the organic nonstick material, as presently claimed. However, Cheng and Flammang teach organic nonstick coating on the bottom interior surface (Cheng, [0028]; Flammang, col. 6, line 66 – col. 7, line 1) (corresponding to an organic nonstick material coating at least a first surface of the base material).
Byung-Ok teaches a cooking vessel that prevents food from sticking to or carbonizing at the bottom surface of the cooking vessel during the cooking process (page 1). The cooking vessel includes an aluminum floor plate, a stainless steel buffer member and a Teflon film layer on an exposed portion of the floor plate (page 3, line 20- page 4, line 20; page 8, lines 20-21). The upper surface of the buffer member formed of stainless steel does not emit toxicity, so a film is unnecessary, and since film formation is impossible due to the nature of the hard film, a hard film layer is formed only on the exposed portions of the floor plate formed of aluminum (page 9, lines 3-9).
In light of the disclosure of Byung-Ok, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the polytetrafluoroethylene (i.e., Teflon) coating of Cheng in view of Flammang form only on the base plate and not on the upper surface of the grid, in order to reduce the amount of polytetrafluoroethylene coating needed, ensure no damage to a coating on the grid structure occurs during use (even in very small zones) and given that the stainless steel grid does not emit toxicity such a coating is unnecessary.
Cheng in view of Flammang and Byung-Oka does not explicitly teach an outer surface of the organic nonstick coating surface of the organic nonstick material is spaced below a planar outer first mesh surface defined by the plurality of first network segments by an amount greater than 0 mm and less than 0.1 mm, as presently claimed.
Oh teaches a coating structure for an inner surface of cooking utensils, such as pots and frying pans (Description p. 1, paragraph 1). The coating structure includes foaming a coating layer only on concave portions of irregularities on the inner surface of the cooking utensil (Description p. 1, paragraph 5). By forming the coating layer only on the concave portions of the uneven surface and ensuring that the utensil contacts only the upper surface of the convex portions, direct friction is prevented, such as when the coating layer is scratched or peeled off by high-strength utensils, thereby preventing damage to the coating layer (Description p. 2, paragraph 8). Oh further teaches an upper surface of the coating layer formed in the concave portion of the inner surface of the cooking utensil is formed to be lower than the upper surface of a convex portion of the inner surface by a step (Description p. 4, paragraph 2). The step is 2 to 3 µm (i.e., 0.002-0.003 mm) (Description p. 4, paragraph 2) (corresponding to an outer organic nonstick coating surface of the organic nonstick material is spaced below a planar outer first mesh surface defined by the plurality of first network segments by an amount greater than 0 mm and less than 0.1 mm).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In light of the motivation of Oh, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have an upper surface of the organic nonstick coating of Cheng in view of Flammang and Byung-Oka be spaced below an upper surface of the grid by an amount of 0.002-0.003 mm, in order to prevent the nonstick coating from being damaged by utensils, peeling off and extend the lifespan of the cookware, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
In reference to claim 3, Cheng in view of Flammang, Byung-Ok and Oh teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Given that Cheng in view of Flammang Byung-Ok and Oh teaches the polytetrafluoroethylene coating is only on the base plate between the grid (Byung-Ok, Fig. 2b), it is clear the coating comprises a plurality of discrete surfaces interspersed between the grid elements (corresponding to the outer organic nonstick coating surface of the organic nonstick material comprises a plurality of discrete surfaces interspersed between the plurality of first network segments).
PNG
media_image1.png
461
989
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 4, Cheng in view of Flammang, Byung-Ok and Oh teaches the limitations of claim 3, as discussed above. The grid is made of interconnected grid elements (Flammang, FIG. 15) (corresponding to the plurality of first network segments are interconnected and laterally surround the plurality of interior regions).
In reference to claim 5, Cheng in view of Flammang, Byung-Ok and Oh teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. The vessel is formed from aluminum or alloys of aluminum (Cheng, [0010]) (corresponding to the metal or metal alloy of the base material comprises aluminum). The grid is stainless steel (Flammang, col. 2, lines 48-49; col. 3, lines 66-67) (corresponding to the metal or metal alloy of the plurality of first network segments comprises stainless steel).
In reference to claim 6, Cheng in view of Flammang, Byung-Ok and Oh teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. The cookware article is a pot or pan (Cheng, [0004]) (corresponding to the cookware article is one of a pot, a pan).
In reference to claims 7 and 8, Cheng in view of Flammang, Byung-Ok and Oh teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. The grid has meshes that are square, rectangular or hexagonal (Flammang, col. 4, lines 11-12) (corresponding to the adjacent first network segments define one of parallelogram, hexagonal, or rhomboidal interior regions; the adjacent first network segments define hexagonal interior regions).
In reference to claims 9-11 and 13-14, Cheng in view of Flammang, Byung-Ok and Oh teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. The grid is composed of wires having a wire diameter lying between several tenths of a mm and one mm (Flammang, col. 4, lines 5-8) (corresponding to the plurality of first network segments have a width of between about 0.3 mm and about 0.5mm; the plurality of first network segments have a thickness between about 0.5 mm to about 1 mm normal to a surface of the cookware article). The distance between two neighboring wires of the grid should preferably not exceed several mm (Flammang, col. 7, lines 22-24) (corresponding to the plurality of interior regions have a surface dimension between about 0.8 mm and about 2 mm).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In reference to claim 12, Cheng in view of Flammang, Byung-Ok and Oh teaches the limitations of claim 11, as discussed above. Cheng further teaches the vessel pre-from has a bottom thickness of about 3 mm ([0026]) (corresponding to the base material is between 3 mm and 4 mm thick).
In reference to claim 22, Cheng in view of Flammang, Byung-Ok and Oh teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Cheng teaches the metal mesh is stainless steel ([0012]). Flammang teaches including a magnetic stainless steel in the bottom exterior surface of a cooking vessel allows the cooking vessel to be heated inductively (col. 6, lines 25-41; col. 2, lines 45-49).
In light of the motivation of Flammang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the stainless steel of the metal mesh be a magnetic stainless steel, in order to allow the cooking vessel be heated inductively, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
In reference to claim 28, Cheng in view of Flammang, Byung-Ok and Oh teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Cheng in view of Flammang Byung-Ok and Oh further teaches the vessel is aluminum or an alloy thereof and the grid is stainless steel (Cheng, [0010]; Flammang, col. 2, lines 48-49; col. 3, lines 66-67). The grid is harder than the vessel (Flammang, col. 3, lines 36-43, 61-62; col. 4, line 5) (corresponding to the metal or metal alloy of the plurality of first network segments is harder than the metal or metal alloy of the base material).
In reference to claims 29 and 30, Cheng in view of Flammang, Byung-Ok and Oh teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Cheng teaches the metal mesh may have holes of any shape, for example square or hexagonal (FIG. 1, [0029]). Flammang teaches the grid includes any kind of meshes, square, rectangular or hexagonal (col. 4, lines 11-12).
Given that Cheng in view of Flammang, Byung-Ok and Oh teaches the metal mesh having openings of any shape, for example hexagonal or square, and the grid is a mesh including square, rectangular or hexagonal openings, it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to use any combination of openings for the metal mesh and grid, including the same shaped opening (i.e., both square or both hexagonal) or different shaped openings (i.e., square and hexagonal; square and rectangular, etc.) which is both disclosed by Cheng in view of Flammang, Byung-Ok and Oh and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the openings in the meal mesh and grid be either the same shape or a different shape, since it has been held that the configuration was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration claimed was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Response to Arguments
In response to amended claim 1, which now requires an outer organic nonstick coating surface of the organic nonstick material is spaced below a planar outer first mesh surface defined by the plurality of first network segments by an amount greater than 0 mm and less than 0.1 mm, it is noted that Cheng, Flammang and Byung-Ok, either alone or in combination, no longer meet the presently claimed invention. Therefore, the previous 35 USC 103 rejections over Cheng in view of Flammang and Byung-Ok are withdrawn. However, the amendments necessitate a new set of rejection as discussed above.
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/17/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary I Omori whose telephone number is (571)270-1203. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
/MARY I OMORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights