DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 04/09/2026.
3. Claims 1-6 are pending. Claims 1-6 are under examination on the merits. Claims 1, 4-5 are amended. Claim 6 is newly added.
4. The objections and rejections not addressed below are deemed withdrawn.
5. Applicant's arguments filed 04/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, thus claims 1-5 stand rejected as set forth in Office action dated 01/13/2026 and further discussed in the Response to Arguments below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. Claim 6 is 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 6 is newly added which recites “the top coating layer consists of a curing agent and a fluorine resin”.
No basis has been pointed to for this new limitation and none is apparent. A review of the specification, drawings, and claims of the application as originally filed shows support for “a top coating layer including a curing agent formed on surfaces of the primer layer and the thermochromic layer” (Page 1, [0012; Page 1, [0016]; Page 2, [0030]; Page 3, [008]; Page 3, [0045]; Page 4, Claim 1). However, this does not provide a basis for the claims as amended. Additionally, applicant’s remarks do not point to specific support for these limitations (i.e., applicant refers to Page 3, Example 1, and Page 4 , Claim 1). In the absence of support, claim 6 is deemed to constitute new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Jae Bong Son (KR 10-2085595 B1, machine translation, hereinafter “’595”) in view of Yoon et al. (KR 10-1920562 B1, machine translation, hereinafter “’562”).
Regarding claims 1,6: ‘595 teaches cooking equipment (Page 5, [0008]) comprising a thermochromic composite coating layer (Page 5, [0012]) including bismuth vanadate, the cooking equipment comprising: a metal substrate (10) (Page 6, [0033]), a primer layer (20) (Page 6, [0035]) which is formed on the surface where the metal substrate (10) (Page 6, [0035]) and a substance being cooked come into contact and is formed from a primer agent comprising 100 parts by weight of a fluorine based base resin, 5-50 parts by weight of a second pigment, 1-15 parts by weight of a phosphoric acid ester-based compound, and 0.5-5 parts by weight of germanium oxide (Page 6, [0037]; Page 7, [0039]). ‘595 teaches a thermochromic layer (40) formed by pad printing a thermochromic coating agent including a thermochromic compound and a discoloration pigment on at least a part of the surface of the primer layer (20) (Page 8, [0066]), and a top coating layer (50) formed by coating a top coating agent including a fluorine-based resin on the surface of the primer layer (20) where the thermochromic layer (40) is formed (Page 9, [0081]; Page 15, [0153], Figs.1-4). ‘595 teaches a thermochromic composite coating layer, wherein the thermochromic compound (Page 5, [0012]) comprises at least one of a mercury iodide complex salt and a vanadium oxide, and the second pigment of the primer layer (20) and a first pigment of the top coating agent may comprise bismuth vanadate and the like (Page 7, [0039]; Page 9, ]; Page 9, [0071]-[0072]; Page 10, [0089]; Page 15, Fig. 2). ‘595 does not expressly teach the cooking equipment having a thermochromic layer including a thermochromic pigment for a temperature sensor, wherein thermochromic pigment for a temperature sensor is using bismuth vanadate, and wherein the thermochromic pigment consists of bismuth vanadate made by a process comprising: mixing ammonium metavanadate and bismuth (III) nitrate at a 1:1 molar ratio and forming a precipitate of bismuth vanadate consisting of bismuth and vanadate, heat treating the precipitate.
However, ‘562 teaches a non-toxic reversible thermochromic pigment such as bismuth vanadate which can be utilized for the kitchen tableware including skillet and pots (Page 5, [0013]).
In an analogous art of the cooking appliances comprising thermochromic layer having thermochromic pigment, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the thermochromic layer by ‘595, so as to include the cooking equipment having a thermochromic layer comprises a thermochromic pigment for a temperature sensor, wherein thermochromic pigment for a temperature sensor is using bismuth vanadate as taught by ‘562, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing a non-toxic reversible thermochromic pigment such as bismuth vanadate which can be utilized for the kitchen tableware including skillet and pots (Page 5, [0013]).
Thus, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, since the substitution of equivalents (i.e., in view of the art recognized functional equivalence of the two thermochromic pigments) requires no express motivation as long as the prior art recognizes the equivalency. In re Fount USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt, 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. Inc. v Linde Air Products Co., 85 USPQ 328 (USSC).
It is submitted that process steps in claim 1 is viewed as product-by-process claims and hence the methods they are created by are not pertinent, unless applicant can show a different product is produced. Even 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.” See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 2: The disclosure of ‘595 in view of ‘562 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘562 teaches the cooking utensil having a thermochromic layer including a thermochromic pigment for a temperature sensor, wherein the thermochromic layer of the cooking utensil reversibly undergoes a color change within a temperature range from room temperature to 200 °C, and a difference between a CIELAB coordinate value exhibited at 25 °C and a CIELAB coordinate value exhibited at 200 °C is 20 to 25 (Page 5, [0020]).
"Where ... the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical ... the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product such as a difference between a CIELAB coordinate value exhibited at 25 °C and a CIELAB coordinate value exhibited at 200 °C is 20 to 25." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977) (citations and footnote omitted). The mere recitation of a property or characteristic not disclosed by the prior art does not necessarily confer patentability to a composition or a method of using that composition. See In re Skoner, 51 7 F .2d 94 7, 950 ( CCP A 197 5).
Regarding claim 3: The disclosure of ‘595 in view of ‘562 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘595 teaches the cooking utensil having a thermochromic layer including a thermochromic pigment for a temperature sensor, wherein the thermochromic pigment of the thermochromic layer has an average particle size of 0.1 to 25 µm (Page 9, [0070].
Thus, the subject as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549. It
Regarding claim 4: The disclosure of ‘595 in view of ‘562 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘595 teaches a method for manufacturing cooking equipment (Page 5, [0008]) comprising a thermochromic composite coating layer (Page 5, [0012]) including bismuth vanadate, the cooking equipment comprising: a metal substrate (10) (Page 6, [0033]), a primer layer (20) (Page 6, [0035]) which is formed on the surface where the metal substrate (10) (Page 6, [0035]) and a substance being cooked come into contact and is formed from a primer agent comprising 100 parts by weight of a fluorine based base resin, 5-50 parts by weight of a second pigment, 1-15 parts by weight of a phosphoric acid ester-based compound, and 0.5-5 parts by weight of germanium oxide (Page 6, [0037]; Page 7, [0039]). ‘595 teaches a thermochromic layer (40) formed by pad printing a thermochromic coating agent including a thermochromic compound and a discoloration pigment on at least a part of the surface of the primer layer (20) (Page 8, [0066]), and a top coating layer (50) formed by coating a top coating agent including a fluorine-based resin on the surface of the primer layer (20) where the thermochromic layer (40) is formed (Page 9, [0081]; Page 15, [0153], Figs.1-4). ‘595 teaches a thermochromic composite coating layer, wherein the thermochromic compound (Page 5, [0012]) comprises at least one of a mercury iodide complex salt and a vanadium oxide, and the second pigment of the primer layer (20) and a first pigment of the top coating agent may comprise bismuth vanadate and the like (Page 7, [0039]; Page 9, [0071]-[0072]; Page 10, [0089]; Page 15, Fig. 2). ‘595 does not expressly teach the cooking equipment having a thermochromic layer including a thermochromic pigment for a temperature sensor, wherein thermochromic pigment for a temperature sensor is using bismuth vanadate.
However, ‘562 teaches a non-toxic reversible thermochromic pigment such as bismuth vanadate which can be utilized for the kitchen tableware including skillet and pots (Page 5, [0013]).
In an analogous art of the cooking appliances comprising thermochromic layer having thermochromic pigment, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the thermochromic layer by ‘595, so as to include the cooking equipment having a thermochromic layer comprises a thermochromic pigment for a temperature sensor, wherein thermochromic pigment for a temperature sensor is using bismuth vanadate as taught by ‘562, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing a non-toxic reversible thermochromic pigment such as bismuth vanadate which can be utilized for the kitchen tableware including skillet and pots (Page 5, [0013]).
Thus, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, since the substitution of equivalents (i.e., in view of the art recognized functional equivalence of the two thermochromic pigments) requires no express motivation as long as the prior art recognizes the equivalency. In re Fount USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt, 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. Inc. v Linde Air Products Co., 85 USPQ 328 (USSC).
Regarding claim 5: The disclosure of ‘595 in view of ‘562 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘595 teaches the thermochromic layer includes 5 to 100 parts by weight of a thermochromic pigment based on 100 parts by weight of a fluorine-based resin, and the thermochromic pigment includes bismuth vanadate (Page 9, [0071]). ‘562 teaches a non-toxic reversible thermochromic pigment such as bismuth vanadate which can be utilized for the kitchen tableware including skillet and pots (Page 5, [0013]).
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant's arguments filed 04/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive,
In response to the Applicant’s argument that KR '562 does not disclose or suggest the presently claimed invention because it does not disclose or suggest a thermochromic pigment that consists of pure bismuth vanadate, where there is no dopant present.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 recites “the thermochromic pigment is a thermochromic pigment for a temperature sensor using bismuth vanadate”. Applicant’s argument lacks persuasive merit at least because the claims do not include language that requires thermochromic pigment that consists of pure bismuth vanadate, where there is no dopant present. Limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (“[A]pplicant’s arguments fail from the outset because . . . they are not based on limitations appearing in the claims.”)
It is submitted that process steps in claim 1 is viewed as product-by-process claims and hence the methods they are created by are not pertinent, unless applicant can show a different product is produced. Even 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.” See MPEP 2113.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that KR’595 does not disclose or suggest a multilayer structure in which a separate and distinct thermochromic layer is provided.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. ‘595 teaches cooking equipment (Page 5, [0008]) comprising a thermochromic composite coating layer (Page 5, [0012]) including bismuth vanadate, the cooking equipment comprising: a metal substrate (10) (Page 6, [0033]), a primer layer (20) (Page 6, [0035]) which is formed on the surface where the metal substrate (10) (Page 6, [0035]) and a substance being cooked come into contact and is formed from a primer agent comprising 100 parts by weight of a fluorine based base resin, 5-50 parts by weight of a second pigment, 1-15 parts by weight of a phosphoric acid ester-based compound, and 0.5-5 parts by weight of germanium oxide (Page 6, [0037]; Page 7, [0039]). ‘595 teaches a thermochromic layer (40) formed by pad printing a thermochromic coating agent including a thermochromic compound and a discoloration pigment on at least a part of the surface of the primer layer (20) (Page 8, [0066]), and a top coating layer (50) formed by coating a top coating agent including a fluorine-based resin on the surface of the primer layer (20) where the thermochromic layer (40) is formed (Page 9, [0081]; Page 15, [0153], Figs.1-4). ‘595 teaches a thermochromic composite coating layer, wherein the thermochromic compound (Page 5, [0012]) comprises at least one of a mercury iodide complex salt and a vanadium oxide, and the second pigment of the primer layer (20) and a first pigment of the top coating agent may comprise bismuth vanadate and the like (Page 7, [0039]; Page 9, ]; Page 9, [0071]-[0072]; Page 10, [0089]; Page 15, Fig. 2).
In response to the Applicant’s argument that the presently claimed invention unexpectedly solves the issues above and overcomes the phase transition and degradation problems by employing the presently claimed multi-layer structure, including a thermochromic layer and a top coating layer, while still enabling clear observation of color change even in the separated structure (as confirmed by the experimental data and differences in CIELAB coordinates reported in the present specification).
The examiner respectfully disagree. Turning to Applicant’s argument regarding unexpected results, examiner agrees that Applicant’s proffered evidence of the Examples 1-3 of the Specification, is insufficient to establish unexpected results for claim 1. Whether an invention has produced unexpected results is a question of fact. In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 1997). "[T]here is no hard and-fast rule for determining whether evidence of unexpected results is sufficient to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness." Kao Corp. v. 7 Appeal 2017-004282 Application 13/877,156 Unilever US., Inc., 441 F.3d 963, 970 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692-93 (Fed. Cir.1990) ("[e]ach situation must be considered on its own facts."). However, a party asserting unexpected results as evidence of nonobviousness has the burden of proving that the results are unexpected. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-70 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Such burden requires Applicant to proffer factual evidence that actually shows unexpected results relative to the closest prior art, see In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991), and that is reasonably commensurate in scope with the protection sought by claim 1, In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1035 (CCPA 1980); In re Hyson, 453 F.2d 764, 786 (CCPA 1972). "[I]t is not enough to show that results are obtained which differ from those obtained in the prior art: that difference must be shown to be an unexpected difference." In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080 (CCPA 1972). The extent of the showing relied upon by Applicant also must reasonably support the entire scope of the claims at issue. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
The applicant is invited to submit any declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 to overcome the rejection based upon reference applied under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as set forth in this Office action to compare their invention product (i.e., a cooking utensil having a thermochromic layer including a thermochromic pigment for a temperature sensor) and show the product is actually different from and unexpectedly better than the teachings of the references. It is noted that the burden is on the applicant to establish that the results are in fact unexpected, unobvious, and of statistical and practical significance. See MPEP 716.02(b). See also Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992), and such a showing also must be commensurate with the scope of the claimed invention, i.e., must bear a reasonable correlation to the scope of the claimed invention.
11. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Examiner Information
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bijan Ahvazi, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571) 270-3449. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9.00 A.M. -7 P.M..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on 571-272-1130. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Bijan Ahvazi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
04/22/2026
bijan.ahvazi@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights