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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim7-12 and 17-20 being withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected manufacturing method of a non-coated non-stick cookware, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/05/2026.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 2022115278550, filed on 11/30/2022.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because reference character 1 is labeled as being plate instead of established anti-sticking hole in paragraph 32 or on amended specification in paragraph 33. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character not mentioned in the description: A. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-2, 6, and 15 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 with it being depending on claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US-12,220,079-B1 in view of Wang (CN-111387795-A). US-12,220,079-B1 and Wang are analogous as they both set out to make a physically non-stick pan for cooking, avoiding chemical coatings.
Regarding claim 1, Patent US-12,220,079-B1 teaches of a non-coated non-stick cookware (see e.g. titanium non-stick pan claim 1), comprising a cookware body, wherein a plurality of anti-sticking holes are distributed on an inner surface of the cookware body (see e.g. concave-convex structure from the inner surface of the pan in claim 1), an inner wall and/or a bottom wall of the anti-sticking hole is provided with an micro-arc oxide layer which has a plurality of nano-scale micropores (see e.g. micro-arc oxidation with plurality of pores in claim 5). However, Patent US-12,220,079-B1 does not teach that the edges of some or all of the micropores are of mastoid-shaped.
Wang teaches that the edges of some of the micropores of the oxide layer are of a mastoid-shape (see e.g. oxide film that creates micron-cale to nano-scale rough porous structures that may take the form of “mastoids” 2 in paragraph 14 and Figure 2 below)
It would be obvious to change the shape of the pores taught in US-12,220,079-B1 to a mastoid shape taught in Wang because it would limit the surface area that touches the food, making the pan more non-stick
Regarding claim 2, Patent US-12,220,079-B1 teaches that the oxide layer has a thickness of 10 µm to 50 µm (see e.g. 8 µm-20 µm in claim 1)
Regarding claim 6, Patent US-12,220,079-B1 teaches the cookware body can be made of aluminum, titanium, or magnesium; or made of a composite material and the inner surface of the cookware body is made of aluminum, titanium, or magnesium (see e.g. base metal layer and titanium metal layer in claim 1).
Regarding claim 15, Patent US-12,220,079-B1 teaches the cookware body can be made of aluminum, titanium, or magnesium; or made of a composite material and the inner surface of the cookware body is made of aluminum, titanium, or magnesium (see e.g. base metal layer and titanium metal layer in claim 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang (CN-111387795-A).
Regarding Claim 1, Wang teaches of a non-coated non-stick cookware (see e.g. physical concave-convex structure making a non-stick pot in abstract), comprising a cookware body, wherein a plurality of anti-sticking holes are distributed on an inner surface of the cookware body (see e.g. “concave-convex structure” 11 that is made up of “depressed regions” 112 and “ribs” 111 where the ribs only account to up to 20% in paragraphs 12 and 18, and Figure 2), an inner wall and/or a bottom wall of the anti-sticking hole is provided with an oxide layer which has a plurality of nano-scale micropores, and edges of some or all of the micropores are of mastoid-shaped (see e.g. oxide film that creates micron-cale to nano-scale rough porous structures that may take the form of “mastoids” 2 in paragraph 14 and Figure 2). However, Wang does not teach that you can use micro-arc oxide as the oxide layer.
PNG
media_image1.png
480
789
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 2: Labeled Wang (CN-111387795-A) Published in 2020
Even though Wang does not explicitly say the oxide layer is formed by micro-arc oxidation, a regular oxidation would yield a similar result. 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.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding Claim 2, Wang teaches that the oxide layer has a thickness of 10 µm to 50 µm (see e.g. oxide film has a thickness of 3 to 35 microns in paragraph 28-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Even though Wang does not explicitly say the oxide layer is formed by micro-arc oxidation, a regular oxidation would yield a similar result. 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.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding Claim 5, Wang teaches that the anti-sticking hole is formed by etching or punching a plate which constitutes the cookware body (see e.g. “concave-convex structure” 11 is formed by chemical etching or mechanical pressing using an iron or stainless steel plate in paragraph 61).
Regarding Claim 16, Wang teaches the micropores are provided on a surface and in an interior of the oxide layer, and the edges of some or all of the micropores on the surface of the oxide layer are of mastoid-shaped (see e.g. oxide film that creates micron-cale to nano-scale rough, porous structures that may take the form of “mastoids” 2 in paragraph 14 and Figure 2). However, Wang does not teach that you can use micro-arc oxide as the oxide layer.
Where, even though Wang does not explicitly say the oxide layer is formed by micro-arc oxidation, a regular oxidation could yield a similar result. 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.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
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.
Claims 3, 6, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN-111387795-A) as applied to claim 1-2 in further view of Gi Whan (KR-101324031-B1) as evidenced by Lee et al (CN-107495826-A).
Regarding Claim 3, Wang et al does not disclose the shape of any of the anti-sticking holes. Instead remarks that no changes in shape or structure effects the technical invention (see e.g. that regardless of any changes in shape or structure, the technical solution is the same in paragraph 72).
Gi Whan discloses that the anti-sticking hole is a circle and/or a polygon, and when the anti-sticking hole is a circle, an aperture thereof is a diameter of the circle; and when the anti-sticking hole is a polygon, an outer diameter thereof is a diameter of a circumscribed circle of the polygon (see e.g. “unevenness” 3 is formed in a net shape and where the desired size and shape of the “unevenness” 3, can be formed in paragraphs 20 and 25 and the holes or “concave portions” 5 are visually shown as being circular polygons in Figure 3).
It would be obvious by the finding that shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
PNG
media_image2.png
684
483
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 3: Labeled Gi Whan (KR-101324031-B1) Published in 2013
Wang et al and Gi Whan are analogous in the art as both are using physical designs to make an anti-stick cooking utensil. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the unspecified shape taught in Wang, by the polygon shaped holes taught in Gi Whan because results in a high thermal conductivity and heat efficiency, allowing for uniform cooking (see e.g. paragraph 20). It would also be obvious by the finding that shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding Claim 6, Wang et al teaches the cookware body can be made of a composite material (see e.g. stainless steel with alloys such as Cr, Ni, Ti, Mn, N, Nb, Mo, Si, Cu etc. in paragraph 49). However, Wang et al does not teach that it is ok for the inside of the pot be made out of a composite layer and in particular cannot be made out of aluminum (see e.g. inner working layer must be stainless steel or iron and an aluminum alloy cannot be used in paragraph 49).
Gi Whan teaches that the cookware body is made of aluminum, titanium or magnesium; or the cookware body is made of a composite material, and the inner surface of the cookware body is made of aluminum, magnesium or titanium (see e.g. aluminum or stainless steel are preferred in the interior of the cookware body in paragraph 21).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the material of the cookware as taught in Wang et al by the aluminum as taught in Gi Whan because high-purity aluminum has high thermal conductivity, allows for a more uniform temperature leading to a reduction in sticking as evidenced in Lee et al (see e.g. paragraph 43 of Lee et al).
Regarding Claim 13, Wang et al does not teaches the shape of the anti-sticking holes explicitly, and instead remarks that no changes in shape or structure effects the technical invention (see e.g. that regardless of any changes in shape or structure, the technical solution is the same in paragraph 72).
Gi Whan teaches that the anti-sticking hole is a circle and/or a polygon, and when the anti-sticking hole is a circle, an aperture thereof is a diameter of the circle; and when the anti-sticking hole is a polygon, an outer diameter thereof is a diameter of a circumscribed circle of the polygon. (see e.g. “unevenness” 3 is formed in a net shape and where the desired size and shape of the “unevenness” 3, can be formed in paragraphs 20 and 25 and the holes or “concave portions” 5 are visually shown as being circular polygons in Figure 3).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the unspecified shape taught in Wang, by the polygon shaped holes taught in Gi Whan because results in a high thermal conductivity and heat efficiency, allowing for uniform cooking (see e.g. paragraph 20). It would also be obvious by the finding that shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
It would be obvious by the finding that shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding Claim 15, Wang et al teaches the cookware body can be made of a composite material (see e.g. stainless steel with alloys such as Cr, Ni, Ti, Mn, N, Nb, Mo, Si, Cu etc. in paragraph 49). However, Wang et al does not teach that it is ok for the inside of the pot be made out of a composite layer and in particular cannot be made out of aluminum (see e.g. inner working layer must be stainless steel or iron and an aluminum alloy cannot be used in paragraph 49).
Gi Whan teaches that the cookware body is made of aluminum, titanium or magnesium; or the cookware body is made of a composite material, and the inner surface of the cookware body is made of aluminum, magnesium or titanium (see e.g. aluminum or stainless steel are preferred in the interior of the cookware body in paragraph 21).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the material of the cookware as taught in Wang et al by the aluminum as taught in Gi Whan because high-purity aluminum has high thermal conductivity, allows for a more uniform temperature leading to a reduction in sticking as evidenced in Lee et al (see e.g. paragraph 43 of Lee et al).
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN-111387795-A) as in claim 2 in further view of Ying (CN-103844877-A).
Regarding Claim 4, Wang teaches the anti-sticking hole has a depth of 50 µm to 200 µm (see e.g. concave depth of 0.01-0.13 mm (10-130 µm), preferably 0.05-0.06 mm (50-60 µm) in paragraph 61). Wang does not teach that the holes have a specific aperture or diameter.
Ying teaches the anti-sticking hole has an aperture of 0.5 mm to 3 mm (see e.g. diameter of the inscribed circle of the hexagon is 3-12mm in paragraph 11).
Wang et al and Ying are analogous in the art because they are both using physicality to create a non-stick plate, and further Wang et al referenced Ying. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the depressed regions taught in Wang by the dimensions taught in Ying as the less surface area touching the food, the more non-stick the cooking surface. By having a large diameter between the convex portions, it allows for the food to more easily glide over the pan.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 14, Wang teaches the anti-sticking hole has a depth of 50 µm to 200 µm (see e.g. concave depth of 0.01-0.13 mm (10-130 µm), preferably 0.05-0.06 mm (50-60 µm) in paragraph 61); or the anti-sticking hole is formed by etching or punching a plate which constitutes the cookware body (see e.g. “concave-convex structure” 11 is formed by chemical etching or mechanical pressing using an iron or stainless steel plate in paragraph 61). Wang et al does not teach of a diameter or aperture of the holes.
Ying teaches that the anti-sticking hole has an aperture of 0.5 mm to 3 mm (see e.g. diameter of the inscribed circle of the hexagon is 3-12mm in paragraph 11).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the depressed regions taught in Wang by the dimensions taught in Ying as the less surface area touching the food, the more non-stick the cooking surface. By having a large diameter between the convex portions, it allows for the food to more easily glide over the pan.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Additional References
Dong et al (US-20260130540-A1) and Dong et al (US-20260174280-A1) are very similar applications, Zhang et al (Cn-206950017-U) is drawn toward a physical non-stick pot, Wang et al (CN-113080683-A) is drawn to the micro-arc oxide layer but without the non-stick holes, Wu (CN-110552038-A) shows a process of using micro-arc oxidation to obtain an ideal nano-structure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARA N WHIPKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-0873. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5pm.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/T.N.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights