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.
Response to Remarks
The remarks filed 30 June 2026 have been fully considered.
In regards to the rejection of amended claim 1 (which includes the subject matter of former claim 7), the applicant argues that:
“Firstly, as the Examiner acknowledges, You, Bae and Dong do not disclose or teach the above distinguishing technical feature recited in claim 1 of the present application.”
“Secondly, Karhausen only discloses that ‘the strip (8) is guided by a control roll (12) at an entering angle β relative to the rolling line (6)’. Therefore, the technical solution disclosed in Karhausen merely relates to the entering angle and does not mention the feature that ‘the exiting direction of the strip (8) upon exiting the rolls is at an angle to the horizontal line’. Furthermore, although Karhausen discloses ranges for the entering angle β (including +/-10°, +/-5°, +/-3°, ±2a, etc.), this angle is an entering angle ‘relative to the rolling line’, and this angle is set for controlling the surface roughness of the aluminum alloy strip and the hydrodynamic entry of lubricant. Since the purpose of adjusting the entering angle β in Karhausen is to control the roughness distribution on the strip surface and the hydrodynamic lubrication, even if a person skilled in the art were to consider Karhausen, they could not derive therefrom any teaching or suggestion that ‘it is also necessary to set an exiting angle’.”
The argument is not persuasive. For clarity of the record, the Dong reference was not actually included in the rejections of claims 6 and 7 and, thus, the examiner only acknowledges that You and Bae do not explicitly disclose the alleged distinguishing technical feature recited in amended claim 1. The rejection of claims 6 and 7 in the previous Office Action (pg. 6-7) states “The proposed modification results in the entry and exit angles of modified You being between +/- 10 degrees.” (Emphasis added). Note that the applicant is attacking the Karhausen reference individually. However, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). You as modified by Bae in claim 1 teaches entering and exiting angles that are equal in value (see fig. 1 of Bae). Thus, it is not necessary for Karhausen to also teach an exiting angle. Karhausen is being relied upon only for the entry angle range of values which, when applied to You as modified by Bae in claim 1, by default results in modified You having an exiting angle between +/- 10 degrees, since the entering and exiting angles are equal due to the centralized location of the top roller 20 between the bottom rollers 22 (fig. 1 of Bae). Further, Karhausen’s purpose for providing an entering angle is largely irrelevant as the applicant is not claiming any particular reason for providing the claimed entering angle. If the applicant would like the purpose of providing the claimed entering and exiting angles to be given patentable weight, then the purpose(s) should be positively recited in the claims.
Next, the applicant argues regarding the Bozkaya reference that:
“Bozkaya explicitly discloses (see claim 1) ‘feeding the plate or sheet into rollers in a rolling mill at an angle of between 2-20 degrees above or below horizontal’, but the entire description and all drawings (Figures 1a-10) only describe the inclined angle when the strip enters the rolling mill, and never relate to or suggest the direction or angle when the strip leaves the rolling mill. Moreover, the purpose of adjusting the entry angle in Bozkaya is to control the internal shear strain and crystallographic texture of the material, and the workpiece on the exiting side is naturally ‘curled’ or irregular, but it is not set as an actively controlled process parameter.’
The argument is not persuasive. First, note that Bozkaya was not relied upon in the previous Office Action for any teaching or matter in the rejection of any of the claims and, thus, no further response is required here. Nevertheless, for completeness, the examiner notes that Bozkaya does in fact teach exiting angles (see the annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
252
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further, Bozkaya’s purpose for providing entering and exiting angles is largely irrelevant as the applicant is not claiming any particular reason for providing the claimed entering and exiting angles.
For at least the reasons set forth above, claims 1-6 and 8-9 stand rejected in view of the previously-cited prior art. See the current rejections below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: it appears “entering” in line 9 should be –exiting–. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
As a friendly reminder, 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. § 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.
Claims 1 and 6 are 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) and Karhausen et al. (US 2017/0355002).
In re claims 1 and 6: 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)).
Modified You does not explicitly teach the second angle formed between the exiting direction and the horizontal line is 5°-20°, and, from claim 6, the first angle formed between the entering direction and the horizontal line is 5°-20°. However, note that You, as modified by Bae, teaches entry and exit angles that are equal to each other due to the centralized location of the upper roller 20 relative to the bottom rollers 22 (see fig. 1 of Bae).
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. The proposed modification results in the first and second angles (entry and exit angles, respectively) of modified You being between +/- 10 degrees. This is at least because You as modified by Bae above teaches entry and exit angles that are equal to each other due to the centralized location of the upper roller 20 relative to the bottom rollers 22 (see fig. 1 of Bae). In other words, by changing one of the entry and exit angles the other is also, by default, simultaneously changed by the same degree.
Bozkaya et al. (US 2010/0031720) also teaches entering and exiting angles relative to a horizontal line that are between 5°-20° (e.g., fig. 1B and ¶¶ 25-26).
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over You, in view of Bae and Karhausen, 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 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over You, in view of Bae and Karhausen, 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
Applicant’s amendment necessitated any 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.
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