DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 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.
Abstract Objections
The abstract is objected to because of the following informalities: the abstract would be in proper form if it were amended such that “A method of manufacturing a pan is disclosed. The method includes: preparing a roll of stainless-steel” in lines 1-2 read as –A method of manufacturing a pan includes preparing a roll of stainless-steel plate–. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4 and 6-7 are objected to because of the following informalities.
In re claim 1:
“for rolling to forma pattern” in lines 3-4 should be –and rolling the stainless-steel plate to form a pattern– to put the claim in better form;
“a entering” should be –an entering– to be grammatically correct;
“an angle” in line 6 should be –a first angle– to put the claim in better form;
“a exiting” should be –an exiting– to be grammatically correct;
“an angle” in line 8 should be –a second angle– to put the claim in better form;
“a shape of” in line 10 should be deleted to put the claim in better form;
“after punching” in lines 11-12 should –after the punching– since they are referring to the previously-recited step of punching;
“the coating on” should be –the anti-stick coating from–.
In re claim 2:
“formed” should be deleted to put the claim in better form.
In re claim 3:
“formed” should be deleted to put the claim in better form.
In re claim 4:
“S2, upon” should be –S2, based upon– to be grammatically correct;
“before the stainless-steel plate entering into the roller” should be –the stainless-steel plate– to put the claim in better form.
In re claim 6:
the claim would be in better form if “upon the condition that the stainless-steel plate enters into the roller” were deleted.
In re claim 7:
the claim would be in better form if “upon the condition that the stainless-steel plate enters exits from the roller” were deleted.
Appropriate correction for the above list of issues is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “sandblasting part or all of the inner surface of the pan body to form a rough surface on the inner surface of the pan body”. Any inner surface of a pan body that has been sandblasted is being interpreted as the claimed “rough surface”.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Any claims not directly addressed are only rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
In re claim 1: the claim recites “polishing the sandblasted or sprayed surface in the pan body to remove the coating” which implies that polishing the sprayed surface is optional. However, it is unclear if this actually what the applicant intended to claim since the sprayed surface is the surface that has the coating. How can one remove a coating from a surface that was not previously sprayed with a coating? The examiner suggests reciting “polishing the sprayed surface in the pan body to remove the coating”.
In re claim 4: there is no antecedent basis in the claims for “the grooves to be machined”. Are these the same as the previously-recited grooves?
In re claim 5: there is no antecedent basis in the claims for “the angle”. The examiner suggests replacing it with –the first angle– in accordance with the examiner’s suggestion in the claim objections above.
In re claim 6: there is no antecedent basis in the claims for “the angle”. The examiner suggests replacing it with –the second angle– in accordance with the examiner’s suggestion in the objections to claim 1 above.
Appropriate correction for the above list of issues is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over You (CN 111 802 899 A), in view of Bae (KR 10-2397743 B1).
In re claim 1: You discloses a method of manufacturing a pan, comprising:
S2, feeding the stainless-steel plate to a roller with a convex grain for rolling to form a pattern with a concave and convex structure on a side of the stainless-steel plate (pg. 2, “rolling the surface of the stainless steel substrate to form a concave-convex pattern”), wherein the pattern comprises ribs and grooves (fig. 6);
S3, punching the rolled stainless-steel plate to form a shape of a pan body (pg. 2, “pressing the stainless steel base material into the shape of the cooker”), wherein the pattern is located on an inner surface of the pan body after punching (pg. 2, “rolling the concave-convex pattern on the inner surface”;
S4, compounding a bottom of the pan body obtained after punching with a uniform heating layer and a heating layer in sequence (pg. 3, “the bottom of the base material cookware is brazed to the upper aluminum sheet layer and the magnetic sheet layer, so that the bottom of the base material cookware is thickened and heated uniformly” and “sanding the bottom of the cookware so as to make the grain on the surface of the magnetic sheet layer uniform” and “the base material cookware welded together; the aluminum sheet layer and the magnetic sheet layer are put in the composite mold; the common hot pressing composite method is used for compounding”) (this limitation is also taught by Groll et al. (US 9,078,539));
S5, sandblasting part or all of the inner surface of the pan body to form a rough surface on the inner surface of the pan body (pg. 2, “spraying sand to the inner surface of the base material pot to increase the surface roughness”);
S6, spraying the sandblasted surface in the pan body to form an anti-stick coating on the inner surface of the pan body (pg. 2, “spraying non-stick coating on the inner surface of the base material pot”); and
S7, polishing the sprayed surface in the pan body to remove the coating on a top surface of each of the ribs (pg. 2, “Inner sanding: and grinding the non-stick coating on the surface of the convex-concave pattern of the inner surface of the cooker”), so as to expose stainless-steel on the top surface of each of the ribs (see fig. 6).
You does not explicitly disclose preparing a roll of stainless-steel plate, wherein the stainless-steel plate enters into the roller in a entering direction with an angle formed between the entering direction and a horizontal line, and the stainless-steel plate exits from the roller in a exiting direction with an angle formed between the entering direction and a horizontal line.
Bae teaches cooking vessel manufacturing methods comprising preparing a roll of stainless-steel plate 10, 12, 14 (fig. 1 and §§ [0025], [0050]), wherein the stainless-steel plate enters into a roller 20 in an entering direction with an angle formed between the entering direction and a horizontal line, and the stainless-steel plate exits from the roller in an exit direction with an angle formed between the entering direction and a horizontal line (see fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of You in the claimed manner, as taught by Bae, since it has been held that applying known techniques to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over You, in view of Bae, and further in view of Dong et al. (US 2025/0040751).
In re claim 2, which depends on claim 1: modified You does not explicitly teach a width of the top surface of each of the ribs in the pattern after the rolling is 0.15-0.6 mm.
Dong teaches a method of making a non-stick pan (abstract and fig. 1) comprising ribs 14, wherein a width L2 of a top surface of the ribs after rolling is 0.2-0.5 mm (fig. 9-10 and ¶ 71). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify You in the claimed manner, as taught by Dong, because selecting from known sizes of ribs allowing for sufficient functionality would be obvious to the ordinary artisan. Zhang et al. (US 2024/0298842) also teaches this limitation.
In re claims 3, 4 and 5, which depend on claims 1, 3 and 4: modified You does not explicitly teach a depth of each of the grooves in the pattern after the rolling is greater than 0.08 mm.
Dong further teaches a depth H1 (fig. 9) of each of the grooves in the pattern after the rolling (fig. 1) can be greater than 0.08 mm (¶ 71). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify You in the claimed manner, as taught by Dong, because selecting from known depths of grooves allowing for sufficient functionality would be obvious to the ordinary artisan. Cheng (US 2003/0126996) also teaches this limitation.
Modified You does not explicitly teach feeding the stainless-steel plate to a preheating furnace for heating and softening before the stainless-steel plate entering into the roller, and then feeding the softened stainless-steel plate to the roller, wherein a temperature inside the preheating furnace is 200°C-600°C.
Dong further teaches feeding a stainless-steel plate 1 to a preheating furnace 2 for heating and softening before the stainless-steel plate entering into the rollers 3, 4, and then feeding the softened stainless-steel plate to the rollers, wherein a temperature inside the preheating furnace is 200°C-600°C (¶¶ 47, 50-51). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify You in the claimed manner, thereby softening the stainless-steel plate for easy subsequent processing by the roller, as taught by Dong (¶ 50). Shen (CN 112 872 033 A) also teaches this limitation.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over You, in view of Bae, and further in view of Karhausen et al. (US 2017/0355002).
In re claims 6 and 7, which depend on claim 1: modified You does not explicitly teach both of the angles are 5°-20° relative to a horizontal line.
Karhausen teaches a method of embossing a surface of a metal plate 8 in a roll stand 2, 4, wherein an adjustable entry angle β of the plate into the roll stand is +/- 10 degrees (¶ 45). Karhausen teaches that by changing the entry angle the embossing of the surface structure onto the plate can be controlled (¶ 41). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify You in the claimed manner, thereby controlling the embossing of the surface structure onto the stainless-steel plate, as taught by Karhausen. Bozkaya et al. (US 2010/0031720) also teaches this limitation. The proposed modification results in the entry and exit angles of modified You being between +/- 10 degrees.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over You, in view of Bae, and further in view of Allemand (US 2019/0313842).
In re claim 8, which depends on claim 1: modified You does not explicitly teach the heating layer is made of ferritic stainless-steel.
Allemand teaches a method of producing a cooking vessel comprising a heating layer 9 made of ferritic stainless-steel (fig. 5 and ¶ 79). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify You such that the heating layer is made of ferritic stainless-steel, as taught by Allemand, because selecting from known materials allowing for sufficient functionality would be obvious to the ordinary artisan.
In re claim 9, which depends on claim 1: modified You does not explicitly teach the uniform heating layer is made of aluminum alloy.
Allemand further teaches a uniform heating layer 8 made of aluminum alloy (fig. 5 and ¶ 79). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify You such that the uniform heating layer is made of aluminum alloy, as taught by Allemand, because selecting from known materials allowing for sufficient functionality would be obvious to the ordinary artisan.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jared O. Brown whose telephone number is 303-297-4445. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday: 8:00 - 5:00 (Mountain Time).
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 complete and submit the Automated Interview Request (AIR) form located at the following website: http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher (“Chris”) L. Templeton can be reached at 571-270-1477. 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. For more information about Patent Center, visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center; and for information about filing in DOCX format, visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx. 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 THE USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JARED O BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights