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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/17/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 26: Claim 26 recites the limitation "the fluorocarbon resin" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 19, 21-24, 26-29, & 33-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buffard et al. (US Patent 6,596,380; hereafter ‘380).
Claims 19 & 24: ‘380, which is also directed towards non-stick coatings (title) teaches using an undercoat applied between the substrate and a fluorocarbon topcoat which comprises at least 50% by weight of PEEK (polymer oxy-1,4-phenylene-oxy-1,4-phenylene-carbonyl-1,4-phenylene; i.e. a PAEK, see abstract) which is used in combination with other polymers to improve adhesion (col. 1, lines 45-60, col. 2, lines 45-50) wherein the addition of the PEEK improves the durability of the top coat (title) and wherein the undercoat can be applied and heated to a temperature of at least 260ºC followed by application of the top coats and a single sintering at 400-420ºC (see col. 2, lines 60-70). ‘380 teaches the first heat treatment is a fusing process at a temperature of at least 340ºC followed by a final sintering of all layers at 400-420ºC (see claim 6).
Although the taught range of at least 340ºC is not explicitly the claimed range of less than 400ºC for the first heating step, it does overlap the claimed range. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated a value within the claimed range since in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Thus, it is apparent that ‘380 teaches a single sintering step of 400-420ºC.
Although the taught range of at least 50% is not explicitly the claimed range of 20-95%, it does overlap the claimed range. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated a value within the claimed range since in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 21: ‘380 further teaches depositing two layers of a non-stick coating comprising PTFE prior to the sintering step (see col. 3, lines 1-33).
Claim 22-23: The tie layer further comprises PES (see col. 1, lines 4-50).
Claim 26: The top coats comprise PTFE as discussed above.
Claim 27: The tie sublayer comprises inorganic reinforcing fillers (col. 1, lines 45-52).
Claim 28: The tie sublayer comprises inorganic reinforcing fillers selected from metal oxides (col. 1, lines 45-52).
Claim 29 The tie sublayer comprises inorganic reinforcing fillers selected from silica (col. 1, lines 45-52).
The Examiner notes that fumed silica is a well-known type of silica.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use fumed silica as the specific type of silica in the coating because it is a well-known type of silica which would have predictably been suitable.
Claim 33: The sublayer can comprise mica (i.e. a pigment, col. 1, line 50).
Claim 34: The tie sublayer has a thickness of 5-100 microns (col. 2, lines 5-10).
Although the taught range of 5-100 µm is not explicitly the claimed range of greater than 30µm, it does overlap the claimed range. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated a value within the claimed range since in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 35: The tie sublayer has a thickness of 5-100 microns (col. 2, lines 5-10).
Although the taught range of 5-100 µm is not explicitly the claimed range of 40-100µm, it does overlap the claimed range. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated a value within the claimed range since in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claims 36 & 37: ‘380 teaches that the coated substrate is cookware (col. 2, lines 10-25).
‘380 does not teach a specific piece of cookware.
Frying pans and lids are well known pieces of cookware of which non-stick coatings are applied.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a frying pan and lid as the particular substrates for the process of ‘798 such that the non-stick coating of ‘798 is applied to because frying pans and lids are art recognized substrates for non-stick coatings cookware and the use of a frying pan and lid would have predictably provided the desired cookware.
Claim 38: The metal support is a mono-layer support made of aluminum (col. 2, lines 15-25).
Claim 39: The tie sublayer is deposited by coating (col. 2, lines 25-30).
Claim 40: The sintering temperature is 400-420ºC as discussed above.
Although the taught range of 400-420ºC is not explicitly the claimed range of between 400 & 440ºC, it does overlap the claimed range. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated a value within the claimed range since in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 41: ‘380, which is also directed towards non-stick coatings (title) teaches using an undercoat applied between the substrate and a fluorocarbon topcoat which comprises at least 50% by weight of PEEK (polymer oxy-1,4-phenylene-oxy-1,4-phenylene-carbonyl-1,4-phenylene; i.e. a PAEK, see abstract) which is used in combination with other polymers to improve adhesion (col. 1, lines 45-60, col. 2, lines 45-50) wherein the addition of the PEEK improves the durability of the top coat (title) and wherein the undercoat can be applied and heated to a temperature of at least 260ºC followed by application of the top coats and a single sintering at 400-420ºC (see col. 2, lines 60-70). ‘380 teaches the first heat treatment is a fusing process at a temperature of at least 340ºC followed by a final sintering of all layers at 400-420ºC (see claim 6).
Although the taught range of at least 340ºC is not explicitly the claimed range of less than 400ºC for the first heating step, it does overlap the claimed range. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated a value within the claimed range since in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Thus, it is apparent that ‘380 teaches a single sintering step of 400-420ºC.
Although the taught range of at least 50% is not explicitly the claimed range of 20-95%, it does overlap the claimed range. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated a value within the claimed range since in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
‘380 teaches that the coating is applied to either the internal or external surface of a metal cookware (col. 2, lines 10-20).
I.e. it is apparent that the metal cookware has two opposite faces and that it has been shaped.
‘798 does not teach a specific shape of the culinary article.
However, changes in shapes and size are prima facie obvious. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A)&(B).
Claim 42: ‘380 teaches that the internal face of the support can be treated to improve adhesion (see col. 2, lines 20-25).
Claims 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘380 as applied above, and further in view of Perillon et al. (US PG Pub 2013/0320024; hereafter ‘024).
Claims 30-32: discloses a diluent but does not provide a specific one (col. 2, lines 30-40).
‘380 does not teach using an aprotic solvent.
However, ‘024, which is also directed towards non-stick coatings on cookware (see abstract & title) discloses a primer composition comprising PEEK (¶ 55) defoaming agents (¶ 17), NMP (an aprotic solvent suitable for dissolving PEEK; ¶s 17 & 129) and surfactants (¶ 129).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the teachings of ‘024 into the process of ‘380 and use NMP as the diluent and add a defoaming agent and surfactant to the composition of ‘380 because they are art recognized additives for primers which comprise PEEK in the field of applying non-stick coatings to cookware and would have predictably been suitable in the composition of ‘380.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M MELLOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-3593. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-4:30PM CST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/James M Mellott/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights