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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein the euhedral crystal shape…” and should state “wherein the euhedral shape…”
Claim 4 recites “wherein the particle size of the diamond crystals…” in lines 1-2 and should recite “wherein a particle size of the diamond crystals…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hort (EP 2,586,892) in view of Campos et al. (WO 2014/006119).
Regarding claim 1, Hort teaches a non-stick and highly heat conducting coating on the inner base of a kitchen appliance including diamonds which are large in order to improve thermal conductivity and abrasion resistance (“a diamond non-stick surface”) (Paragraph [0004]; [0010]). The kitchen appliance may be a pot or pan and is formed from a material such as steel (“a metal substrate”) (Paragraph [0029]). Figure 1 illustrates the layer structure on the surface of the kitchen appliance including the diamonds (“a diamond non-stick layer adhered to the metal substrate”) (Paragraphs [0027]; [0029]). The layer structure includes a primer layer (“a metal bonding layer”), a non-stick coating layer (“a gap filler made from a non-stick coating”) and diamonds which protrude from the layer structure (“a plurality of diamond crystals bonded to the metal substrate via the metal bonding layer” and “the gap filler made from a non-stick coating, disposed in the gaps between adjacent diamond crystals and atop the metal bonding layer”) (Fig. 1; Paragraphs [0027]; [0029]). As mentioned above, the diamonds protrude from the layer structure (“the sum of a first average thickness of the metal bonding layer and a second average thickness of the gap filler is less than a sieving particle size of the diamond crystals”).
Hort is silent with respect to the shape of the diamonds having a euhedral shape. It is further recognized that the meaning of euhedral from dictionary.com includes crystals having a perfectly formed, unconstrained shapes, such as cubo-octahedral shapes.
Campos teaches the use of diamonds in a sawing wire wherein the diamonds are taught to have a cubo-octahedral shape, which is taught to provide the diamonds with a stronger particle and will fracture less than irregularly shaped and rough surfaced crushed diamonds (Paragraphs [9]; [10]; [17]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the diamonds of Hort, which are taught to be larger to provide improved abrasion, to have a cubo-octahedral shape in order to improve the strength of the diamonds versus irregularly shaped diamonds as taught by Campos.
Regarding claim 2, Hort teaches the kitchen appliances as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the coatings include diamonds with a cubo-octahedral shape.
Claim 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hort (EP 2,586,892) in view of Campos et al. (WO 2014/006119) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Sung (US 2007/0051354).
Regarding claim 3, Hort teaches the kitchen appliances as discussed above with respect to claim 2.
Hort is silent with respect to the primer layer being a brazing layer.
Sung teaches tools having diamond particles chemically bonded to a substrate (Paragraph [0003]). The bonding is preferably done via brazing and a brazing alloy in order to attach diamonds to a metal substrate (Paragraphs [0033]; [0093]). This method provides a chemical bond with the substrate which is much stronger than mechanical attachments and maximizes the efficiency, useful life, and other performance characteristics of the tools the diamonds are attached to (Paragraph [0016]; [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the layer structure of Hort such that the primer layer is formed as a brazing layer which is taught by Sung to provide a much stronger method of bonding diamonds to a metal substrate allowing for maximizing the efficiency, useful life, and other performance characteristics of the kitchen appliances the diamonds are attached to.
Regarding claim 4, Hort teaches the kitchen appliances as discussed above with respect to claim 3. As discussed above, larger diamonds may be used in order to improve thermal conductivity and abrasion resistance.
Sung teaches the methods of brazing diamond particles to metal substrates as discussed above. Sung further teaches the particles having a size of 100 to 350 microns (Paragraph [0108]). Sung further teaches the particles may have a mesh size of 40/50 and 50/60 (Paragraph [0143]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to provide the diamonds of Hort, which are designed to be larger in order to provide abrasion resistance, such that those sizes are a mesh size of 40/50 and 50/60 and 100 to 350 microns.
Regarding claim 5, Hort teaches the kitchen appliances as discussed above with respect to claim 4. Hort further teaches the non-stick coating to have a thickness of 15 to 30 microns (Paragraph [0029]).
Sung teaches the methods of brazing diamond particles to metal substrates as discussed above. Sung further teaches the particles having a size of 100 to 350 microns (Paragraph [0108]). Sung further teaches the layer of brazing material to be less than that of the diamond particles (Paragraph [0164]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to provide the layer structure of Hort with the brazing alloy to have a thickness less than that of the diamond particles, which would be less than 100-350 microns, in order to provide the desired chemical bond.
Regarding claim 6, Hort teaches the kitchen appliances as discussed above with respect to claim 5.
Sung further teaches the brazing alloys, to achieve the desired chemical bond, to have 2 wt% to 50 wt% of chromium and the metal substrate may be stainless steel (Paragraph [0093]; [0123]-[0124]).
Regarding claim 7, Hort teaches the kitchen appliances as discussed above with respect to claim 6. Hort further teaches the non-stick coating to be PTFE (Paragraph [0034]).
Regarding claim 8, Hort teaches the kitchen appliances as discussed above with respect to claim 5.
Sung further teaches the brazing alloys, to achieve the desired chemical bond, to have 2 wt% to 50 wt% of titanium (Paragraph [0123]-[0124]).
Regarding claim 9, Hort teaches the kitchen appliances as discussed above with respect to claim 8. Hort further teaches the non-stick coating to be PTFE (Paragraph [0034]).
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hort (EP 2,586,892) in view of Campos et al. (WO 2014/006119).
Regarding claim 1, Hort teaches a non-stick and highly heat conducting coating on the inner base of a kitchen appliance including diamonds which are large in order to improve thermal conductivity and abrasion resistance (“a diamond non-stick surface”) (Paragraph [0004]; [0010]). The kitchen appliance may be a pot or pan and is formed from a material such as steel (“a metal substrate”) (Paragraph [0029]). Figure 1 illustrates the layer structure on the surface of the kitchen appliance including the diamonds (“a diamond non-stick layer adhered to the metal substrate”) (Paragraphs [0027]; [0029]). The layer structure includes a primer layer (“a metal bonding layer”), a non-stick coating layer (“a gap filler made from a non-stick coating”) and diamonds which protrude from the layer structure (“a plurality of diamond crystals bonded to the metal substrate via the metal bonding layer” and “the gap filler made from a non-stick coating, disposed in the gaps between adjacent diamond crystals and atop the metal bonding layer”) (Fig. 1; Paragraphs [0027]; [0029]). As mentioned above, the diamonds protrude from the layer structure (“the sum of a first average thickness of the metal bonding layer and a second average thickness of the gap filler is less than a sieving particle size of the diamond crystals”).
Hort is silent with respect to the shape of the diamonds having a euhedral shape.
Campos teaches the use of diamonds in a sawing wire wherein the diamonds are taught to have a cubo-octahedral shape, which is taught to provide the diamonds with a stronger particle and will fracture less than irregularly shaped and rough surfaced crushed diamonds (Paragraphs [9]; [10]; [17]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the diamonds of Hort, which are taught to be larger to provide improved abrasion, to have a cubo-octahedral shape in order to improve the strength of the diamonds versus irregularly shaped diamonds as taught by Campos.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P DILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8 AM to 5 PM.
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, MARIA V EWALD can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/DANIEL P DILLON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights