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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 25-44 in the reply filed on 04/21/2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show a culinary item (1) comprising a hollow metal cap (2), a hard sublayer (3) and a non-stick coating (4) as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
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.
Claims 25-44 are 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.
As to claim 25, it is unclear whether a mixture with at least one thermostable bonding resin refers to a combination of at least one fluorocarbon and at least one thermostable bonding resin.
Further, the claim is seen as ambiguous because it is not clear which combination refers to the mixtures thereof.
Additionally, it is not clear what is meant by porosity fraction. Does Applicant want to convey porosity, pore volume or volume fraction?
As to claim 32, it is not clear what is meant by porosity fraction. Does Applicant want to convey porosity, pore volume or volume fraction? Substitution of “wherein” for “characterized by” is appropriate in accordance with US Patent Practice.
As to claim 33, pores’ volume should be changed to pore volume in accordance with US Patent Practice.
As to claim 36, it is unclear whether alumina particles or zirconia particles are the same or different than “particles of one or more metal oxide”.
As to claims 37 and 38, it is confusing whether the non-fluorinated polymer material or materials refer to the one or more non-fluorinated polymer materials described in parent claim 25. The claim could be rewritten as follows: the one or more non-fluorinated polymer materials are present in an amount of more than 50% by weight based on a total weight of the hard sublayer.
As to claim 39, the claim recites the limitation "the hard inorganic fillers" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As to claim 44, there appears to be a grammatical error with the claim.
It could be rewritten as follows to avoid the issue of indefiniteness.
The culinary item as claimed in claim 25, wherein the cap is:
a single layer support made from aluminum, aluminum alloy, aluminum casting, stainless steel, steel casting or copper; or
a multilayer support sequentially comprising, from the exterior to the interior:
ferritic stainless steel/aluminum/austenitic stainless steel,
stainless steel/aluminum/copper/aluminum/austenitic stainless steel, or
a layer of aluminum casting, aluminum, or aluminum alloy that is lined with an outer bottom layer of stainless steel.
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 25, 29-33, 37, 38, and 40-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0132655 to Perillon et al. (hereinafter “Perillon).
As to claims 25, and 40, Perillon discloses a culinary item comprising a hollow metal cap that comprises a bottom and a sidewall extending up from the bottom, the cap 2 having a concave interior surface to accept food, and a convex exterior surface, the interior surface being coated with a coating consisting of a hard base layer 3 and a non-stick coating 4 (abstract; and figure 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
319
492
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The hard base layer is a discontinuous layer made of polyether ether ketone (PEEK), having a surface roughness of 2 to 12 microns (paragraphs 42 and 43). This overlaps the claimed range.
In the case, where the claimed ranges overlap or touch the range disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The claim is not rendered unobvious because discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Difference in the surface roughness of the hard base layer will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating that the surface roughness of the hard base layer is critical or provides unexpected results.
Therefore, in the absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the surface roughness of the hard base layer in the range instantly claimed, motivated by the desire to a good balance of adequate adherence and surface smoothness of the non-stick coating. This is in line with In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 which holds discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
The non-stick coating comprises from the hard base layer, a bonding primer layer 41, and two top layers 42 and 43 (paragraph 73). The bonding primer layer is made of particles of sintered fluorocarbon resin and fillers (paragraph 76).
Perillon does not explicitly disclose the hard base layer comprising (i) pores, and (ii) the coating having an overall porosity greater than 8%.
However, it appears that the coating of Perillon meets all structural limitations and made of the same method described in the Applicant’s disclosure. The coating consists of a hard base layer 3, and a non-stick coating 4 (abstract; and figure 3).
The hard base layer is a discontinuous layer made of polyether ether ketone (PEEK), having a surface roughness of 2 to 12 microns (paragraphs 42 and 43).
The non-stick coating comprises from the hard base layer, a bonding primer layer 41, and two top layers 42 and 43 (paragraph 73). The bonding primer layer is made of particles of sintered fluorocarbon resin and fillers (paragraph 76).
The hard base layer is obtained through a flame spraying. The coating is formed by covering the hard base layer with a primer layer and a top layer of PTFE. The coating is sintered at a temperature of 415oC for 7 mins (paragraphs 53-66, 100 and 101).
Therefore, the examiner takes the position that the formation of the pores in the hard base layer and the coating porosity greater than 8% would inherently be present as like material has like property. This is in line with In re Spada, 15 USPQ 2d 1655 (1990) which holds that products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.
As to claim 29-33, Perillon does not explicitly disclose(i) the hard base layer comprising pores with an average pore diameter greater than 8 microns; (ii) at least 1% of the pores in the hard base layer having an average pore diameter greater than 30 microns; (iii) a coating porosity greater than 10% and (iv) more than 50% of the pore volume of the coating occupied in the hard base layer.
However, it appears that the coating of Perillon meets all structural limitations and made of the same method described in the Applicant’s disclosure. The coating consists of a hard base layer 3, and a non-stick coating 4 (abstract; and figure 3).
The hard base layer is a discontinuous layer made of polyether ether ketone (PEEK), having a surface roughness of 2 to 12 microns (paragraphs 42 and 43).
The non-stick coating comprises from the hard base layer, a bonding primer layer 41, and two top layers 42 and 43 (paragraph 73). The bonding primer layer is made of particles of sintered fluorocarbon resin and fillers (paragraph 76).
The hard base layer is obtained through a flame spraying. The coating is formed by covering the hard base layer with a primer layer and a top layer of PTFE. The coating is sintered at a temperature of 415oC for 7 mins (paragraphs 53-66, 100 and 101).
Therefore, the examiner takes the position that elements (i)-(iv) would inherently be present as like material has like property. This is in line with In re Spada, 15 USPQ 2d 1655 (1990) which holds that products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.
As to claims 37 and 38, Perillon discloses that the hard base layer is made of 100% PEEK (example 8).
As to claims 41, Perillon discloses that the hard base layer is made of PEEK (example 8).
As to claims 42, Perillon discloses that the top layer of the non-stick coating is made of PTFE (example 8).
As to claim 43, Perillon discloses that the hard base layer is made of PEEK resin and polyamide-imide (PAI) resin (paragraph 42). The PAI resin reads on the claimed thermostable bonding resin.
As to claim 44, Perillon discloses that the cap is a single layer support made of aluminum (paragraph 28).
Claims 26-28, 36, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perillon, as applied to claim 25 above, further in view of US 6,596,380 to Buffard et al. (hereinafter “Buffard I”).
As to claim 26, 27, 36, and 39, Perillon does not explicitly disclose the hard base layer comprising more than 20% by weight of fillers, and less than 3% by weight of additive.
Buffard I, however, discloses a non-stick coating with improved scratch resistance, comprising an undercoat applied to a substrate coated with a primary coat comprising a fluorocarbon resin and one or more fluorocarbon resin-based outer coats (abstract). The undercoat comprises at least 50% by weight of PEEK and a remaining proportion being composed of thermostable polymers, and inert fillers such as silica and mica particles (column 1, lines 30-55). That is to say, the content of the inert fillers is less than 50% by weight of the undercoat. This overlaps the claimed range.
Buffard I also discloses the undercoat comprising a thickener in an amount of less than 3% by weight of the undercoat (column 2, lines 30-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the inert fillers disclosed in Buffard I in the hard base layer disclosed in Perillon, motivated by the desire to increase hardness/toughness of the hard base layer, thereby improving scratch and abrasion resistance of the coating.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a thickener disclosed in Buffard I in the hard base layer disclosed in Perillon motivated by the desire to facilitate processing and handling of the material.
As to claim 28, Perillon does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the hard base layer.
Buffard I, however, discloses a non-stick coating with improved scratch resistance, comprising an undercoat applied to a substrate coated with a primary coat comprising a fluorocarbon resin and one or more fluorocarbon resin-based outer coats (abstract). The undercoat comprises at least 50% by weight of PEEK and a remaining proportion being composed of thermostable polymers, and inert fillers such as silica and mica particles (column 1, lines 30-55). The undercoat has a thickness of 5 to 100 microns (column 2, lines 5-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the hard base layer disclosed in Perillon having a thickness disclosed in Buffard I, motivated by the desire to provide adequate toughness and hardness, thereby improving scratch and abrasion resistance of the coating.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perillon in view of Buffard I as applied to claim 25, further in view of US 2008/0131703 to Buffard et al. (hereinafter “Buffard II”).
Neither Perillon nor Buffard I discloses or suggests a thickness of the non-stick coating.
Buffard II, however, a non-stick coating with improved resistance to scratching for a substrate of a culinary item, comprising at least one first base coat and one or serval top coats based on fluorocarbon resin (abstract). The non-stick coating has a thickness of 12 to 25 microns (paragraph 64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the non-stick coating disclosed in Perillon having a thickness disclosed in Buffard II, motivated by the desire to obtain improved scratch and abrasion resistance.
Buffard I discloses the hard base layer having a thickness of 5 to 100 microns (column 2, lines 5-10). Buffard II disclosed the non-stick coating has a thickness of 12 to 25 microns (paragraph 64). Hence, the combined teachings of Perillon and Buffard references result in a culinary item where the coating applied to the metal cap has a combined thickness of the hard base layer and the non-stick coating in a range of 17 to 125 microns.
Claims 26-28, 34-36, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perillon, as applied to claim 25 above, further in view of KR101247025 to Koo (hereinafter “Koo”).
As to claim 26, 27, 35, 36, and 39, Perillon does not explicitly disclose the hard base layer comprising more than 20% by weight of fillers, and less than 3% by weight of additive.
Koo, however, discloses an inner port for an electric rice cooker comprising: a container 10 with an open top surface, a base coating layer 20 on the inner surface of the container, a top coating layer 30 on the base coating layer and a textured layer 40 on the top coating layer (figure 1; and paragraph 31).
PNG
media_image2.png
374
316
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The base coating layer is obtained from a composition comprising a fluorocarbon resin, a heat-stable binder and a diluent (paragraph 40). In particular, the base coating composition comprises 5-40 wt% of the fluorocarbon resin, 5-30 wt% of the heat-stable binder and 30-90 wt% of the diluent, relative to the total weight of the composition (paragraphs 43, 47 and 50). The base coating composition further comprises 0.5 to 20 parts by weight of inert fillers and 1.0 to 10 parts by weight of additives, based on 100 parts by weight of the composition (paragraphs 51-53). The inner fillers are metal oxide particles and colloidal silica (paragraph 51). The additives are wetting agents, dispersants, anti-setting agents and pH adjusters (paragraph 51).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the inert fillers disclosed in Koo in the hard base layer disclosed in Perillon, motivated by the desire to increase hardness/toughness of the hard base layer, thereby improving scratch and abrasion resistance of the coating.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a wetting agent disclosed in Koo in the hard base layer disclosed in Perillon motivated by the desire to facilitate processing and handling of the material while enhancing the adhesion of the hard base layer.
As to claim 28, Perillon does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the hard base layer.
Koo, however, discloses an inner port for an electric rice cooker comprising: a container 10 with an open top surface, a base coating layer 20 on the inner surface of the container, a top coating layer 30 on the base coating layer and a textured layer 40 on the top coating layer (figure 1; and paragraph 31).
The base coating layer is obtained from a composition comprising a fluorocarbon resin, a heat-stable binder and a diluent (paragraph 40). In particular, the base coating composition comprises 5-40 wt% of the fluorocarbon resin, 5-30 wt% of the heat-stable binder and 30-90 wt% of the diluent, relative to the total weight of the composition (paragraphs 43, 47 and 50). The base coating composition further comprises 0.5 to 20 parts by weight of inert fillers and 1.0 to 10 parts by weight of additives, based on 100 parts by weight of the composition (paragraphs 51-53). The inner fillers are metal oxide particles and colloidal silica (paragraph 51). The additives are wetting agents, dispersants, anti-setting agents and pH adjusters (paragraph 51). The base coating layer has a thickness of 5 to 20 microns (paragraph 54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the hard base layer disclosed in Perillon having a thickness disclosed in Koo, motivated by the desire to provide adequate toughness and hardness, thereby improving scratch and abrasion resistance of the coating.
As to claim 34, Perillon does not explicitly disclose the coating composed of the hard base layer and the non-stick coating layer, having a thickness of 15 to 200 microns.
Koo, however, discloses an inner port for an electric rice cooker comprising: a container 10 with an open top surface, a base coating layer 20 on the inner surface of the container, a top coating layer 30 on the base coating layer and a textured layer 40 on the top coating layer (figure 1; and paragraph 31).
The base coating layer is obtained from a composition comprising a fluorocarbon resin, a heat-stable binder and a diluent (paragraph 40). In particular, the base coating composition comprises 5-40 wt% of the fluorocarbon resin, 5-30 wt% of the heat-stable binder and 30-90 wt% of the diluent, relative to the total weight of the composition (paragraphs 43, 47 and 50). The base coating composition further comprises 0.5 to 20 parts by weight of inert fillers and 1.0 to 10 parts by weight of additives, based on 100 parts by weight of the composition (paragraphs 51-53). The inner fillers are metal oxide particles and colloidal silica (paragraph 51). The additives are wetting agents, dispersants, anti-setting agents and pH adjusters (paragraph 51). The base coating layer, the top coating layer and the textured layer have a thickness of 5-20 microns (paragraph 54), 10-90 microns (paragraph 71), and 5-40 microns, respectively (paragraph 74). Hence, a total thickness of the coating is in a range of 20 to 150 microns.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the thickness of the coating disclosed in Perillon in the range disclosed in Koo, motivated by the desire to obtain improved scratch and abrasion resistance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hai Vo whose telephone number is (571)272-1485. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am - 6:00 pm with every other Friday off.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
/Hai Vo/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights