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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4 February 2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 22 January 2026. These drawings are unacceptable. New figure 14 has not been entered because they container new matter in that the specific distribution of protrusions does not find support in the original disclosure.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with C.F.R 1.84(t) because the drawing sheet numbering must be larger than the numbers used as reference characters to avoid confusion. MPEP 608.02 V.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with C.F.R 1.84(u)(2) because numbers and letters identifying the views must be larger than the numbers used for reference characters. MPEP 608.02 V.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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.
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.
Claim(s)1 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ren (US 20080105689) or in the alternative unpatentable over Ren (US 20080105689) further in view of Doyle (US 5628426).
Claim 1: Ren discloses a non-stick cooking utensil (P. 0023) comprising a body, wherein a plurality of protrusions are integrally formed on at least a partial area of an inner surface of the body, the plurality of protrusions are higher than the inner surface, gaps (fig. 1, 3, 5, & 7) between the plurality of protrusions are in communication with each other to allow gas or liquid to flow along the inner surface within the gaps, and a film (physical vapor deposition layer), formed by physical methods, is provided on a surface of each of the plurality of protrusions, wherein a cross-section of each of the plurality of protrusions is a circle, and wherein a diameter of each of the plurality of protrusions can be .2, .4, or .5 mm which each anticipate the range of 0.15-0.5 mm and a height of each of the plurality of protrusions is .05 or .1 mm which anticipate the range of 0.05-0.1 mm, and wherein a distribution density of the protrusions ranges from 10-60% with specific examples at at least 35, 40, and 60% (see P. 0009, 0011, 0027, & 0013, annotated fig. 2 below, and at least Embodiments 3, 21, and 22 of Table 1 in P. 0026).
The layer being a physical vapor deposition layer is a product-by-process limitation. “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) (citations omitted).
While difficult to ascertain, the Examiner believes that the disclosed uniform distribution of protrusions in an ortholinear array [see fig. 3 and P. 0011], disclosed distribution density of the protrusions, and disclosed diameters of protrusions results in distances between adjacent protrusions that include a specific example within the claimed range of 0.2-0.6 mm and a range which overlaps or touches the claimed range of 0.2-0.6 mm.
Additionally, figure 3 appears to depict distances between adjacent protrusions of approximately ½ the diameter of the protrusions, such that when the protrusions are disclosed as having a diameter of .4 or .5 mm the distance between adjacent protrusions is .2 or .25 mm which are both specific examples which fall within the claimed range of 0.2-0.6 mm.
En arguendo, if applicant does not believe that the disclosure of figure 3 is sufficient and does not believe that the disclosed relative dimensions and distribution density of protrusions results in a specific example of distances between adjacent protrusions with the claimed range or a range of distances between adjacent protrusions which overlaps or touches the claimed range, it would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made to have provided the cooking utensil with a distribution density of protrusions which resulted in a distance between adjacent protrusions in the range of 0.2-0.6 mm in order to have an appropriate projection area which promotes water repellency and reduces contact area between the cooking utensil surface and stick-wet foods and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In. re Aller, 105 USPW 233.
En arguendo, if applicant does not believe that the disclosure of figure 3 is sufficient, does not believe that the disclosed relative dimensions and distribution density of protrusions results in a specific example of distances between adjacent protrusions with the claimed range or a range of distances between adjacent protrusions which overlaps or touches the claimed range, and does not believe that the optimization of distribution density of protrusions results in a distance between adjacent protrusions in the range of 0.2-0.6 mm is obvious, Doyle teaches a frying pan 10 provided with a raised dot pattern 14, wherein individual dots 44, 46, 48 have a diameter 58 of about 2.0 mm and a spacing 50 of about 2.8 mm, resulting in a distance between adjacent dots of 0.8 mm which is close to the claimed range of 0.2-0.6 mm (see fig. 1-2 and C. 4 L. 8-11) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made the distance between the adjacent protrusions be 0.8 mm, in light of Doyle, in order to promote even distribution of cooking oils.
Examiner notes that no criticality has been established for the claimed diameter, distance, or height ranges.
PNG
media_image1.png
212
303
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 6: Ren or in alternative the combination discloses wherein an end face of each of the plurality of protrusions distal from the inner surface of the body is a curved surface (see annotated fig. 2 above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren (US 20080105689) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Qu (CN 108968700) or in the alternative over Ren (US 20080105689) and Doyle (US 5628426) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Qu (CN 108968700).
Claim 2: Ren discloses wherein the film (physical vapor deposition layer) can be a metal or nitrided film that can reduce the sticking intensity and stickiness between the food and the surface of the cooking utensil and which is made from metal materials not as harmful to the environment and human body, such as titanium, chromium and the like, wherein after each of the plurality of protrusions contacts with edible oil, there is a contact angle between the edible oil and each of the plurality of protrusions (see P. 0011 and annotated fig. 1 above).
Ren does not explicitly disclose that the contact angle is greater than or equal to 80 degrees.
Qu teaches a non-stick layer 4 having a contact angle of 100 to 120 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have designed the film (physical vapor deposition layer) to have a contact angle of 100 to 120 degrees, as taught by Qu, in order to have appropriate hydrophobic properties to reduce sticking.
Claim 3: The combination discloses wherein the contact angle ranges from 100 to 120 degrees.
Examiner notes that no criticality has been established for the specific claimed range of 90 to 136 degrees.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren (US 20080105689) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li (CN 117230434) or in the alternative over Ren (US 20080105689) and Doyle (US 5628426) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Qu (CN 108968700).
Claim 8: Ren discloses wherein the film (physical vapor deposition layer) can be a metal or nitrided film that can reduce the sticking intensity and stickiness between the food and the surface of the cooking utensil and which is made from metal materials not as harmful to the environment and human body, such as titanium, chromium and the like (see P. 0011 and annotated fig. 1 above).
Ren does not disclose wherein the physical vapor deposition layer is a physical vapor deposition (PVD) coating formed by depositing a PVD target material composed of 10-30% silicon by mass percentage and a balance of metal on the surface of each of the plurality of protrusions through a PVD process, the metal comprises one or more selected from a group consisting of chromium, zirconium, and titanium.
Li teaches a non-stick film for a non-stick pot formed by a titanium-silicon target material (PVD target material) which undergoes sputtering through a physical vapour deposition device in a nitrogen reaction gas, where the atomic percent content of the silicon element is 20%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used a titanium-silicon target material (PVD target material) with atomic percent content of the silicon element of 20% and a balance of metal consisting of titanium, as taught by Li, in order to provide the non-stick cooking utensil with a film (physical vapor deposition layer) having excellent non-stick performance, high temperature resistance and wear resistance and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
“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) (citations omitted).
Examiner notes that no criticality appears to have been established for the claimed range of silicon.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren (US 20080105689) and Li (CN 117230434) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Zhou (CN 11807507) or in the alternative over Ren (US 20080105689), Doyle (US 5628426) and Li (CN 117230434) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Qu (CN 108968700).
Claim 9: The combination discloses wherein the titanium-silicon target material (PVD target material) is composed of 20% silicon by mass percentage and the balance of metal where the metal is titanium.
The combination does not disclose the metal being a balance of chromium, titanium and chromium, or chromium, zirconium, and titanium.
Zhou teaches a non-stick pan having a surface layer which can be prepared by a magnetron sputtering process and which is a multi-element layer comprising a transition metal multi-element alloy layer with at least one transition metal element of Group IVB of titanium and zirconium and at least one transition metal element of Group VIB of chromium, molybdenum and tungsten, where the atomic percent content of Group IVB can be 20% and the atomic percent content of Group VIB can be 80%, where the multi-element alloy can further include silicon and additionally that a chromium-titanium-silicon alloy target material can be used.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the balance of metal in the titanium-silicon target material (PVD target material) to be 20% titanium and 80% chromium, as taught by Zhou, in order to reduce costs while maintaining desired properties and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
“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) (citations omitted).
Examiner notes that no criticality appears to have been established for the claimed range of silicon.
Claim 10: The combination discloses wherein the titanium-silicon target material (PVD target material) is composed of 20% silicon by mass percentage and the balance of metal where the metal is titanium.
The combination does not disclose the metal being chromium and titanium with a content of titanium of 0.001-3 wt% based on a total weight of the metal.
Zhou teaches a non-stick pan having a surface layer which can be prepared by a magnetron sputtering process and which is a multi-element layer comprising a transition metal multi-element alloy layer with at least one transition metal element of Group IVB of titanium and zirconium and at least one transition metal element of Group VIB of chromium, molybdenum and tungsten, where the atomic percent content of Group IVB can be 20% and the atomic percent content of Group VIB can be 80%, where the multi-element alloy can further include silicon and additionally that a chromium-titanium-silicon alloy target material can be used.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the balance of metal in the titanium-silicon target material (PVD target material) to have a low amount of titanium and high amount of chromium, as taught by Zhou, in order to reduce costs while maintaining desired properties and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used a content of titanium of 0.001-3 wt% in order to have the desired level of hardness and non-stick and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In. re Aller, 105 USPW 233.
“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) (citations omitted).
Examiner notes that no criticality appears to have been established for the claimed range of titanium.
Response to Arguments
The drawing objections in paragraph 5 of office action dated 20 November 2025 are withdrawn in light of the amended claims dated 22 January 2026. Examiner notes that resubmittal of sheets 1-13 will overcome the remaining drawing objections and that the limitation of each protrusion having a cross-section that is a circle and an end face that is an inclined surface has been deemed to be conventional and is a detailed illustration is not required for a proper understanding of the invention.
Applicant's arguments filed 22 January 2022 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that by adopting the above technical solution the isolation of oil droplets or food from the inner surface with air reduces direct contact with the inner surface, increases the contact angle significantly, and the oil droplets take on a spherical shape that rolls easily, thus maintaining excellent non-stick performance even at high temperatures and with the claimed cross-sectional shape and ranges the contact angle between the edible oil and each of the plurality of protrusions can reach 129 to 136 degrees and the surface of each of the protrusions has high hydrophobicity which makes the edible oil form a spherical shape on the surface of each of the protrusions which is not easily spread thereby reducing a contact area between the edible oil and the surface area of each of the protrusions and reducing a possibility of food adhesion, the Examiner initially replies that the range of 129 to 136 degrees cannot be found anywhere in the original disclosure. Further, the original disclosure at P. 0007 provides that it is a combination of structure off protrusions and the physical vapor deposition layer which results in the inner surface of the cooking utensil having extremely low surface energy which can significantly reduce a contact angle. The applicant has provided no evidence that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results. Arguments by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record MPEP 716.01(c) II.
In response to applicant’s argument that Ren teaches that the height is 0.02-0.999 mm which is a partial overlap with the claimed range of 0.05-0.1 mm but the range in Ren is wide, the Examiner replies that a specific example which is within a claimed range anticipates the range and prior art which teaches a range overlapping or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity. MPEP 2131.03. As Ren discloses a height of 100 microns (0.01 mm) and a specific height of 50 microns (0.05 mm), which are both specific examples within the claimed range of 0.05-0.1mm, the range is anticipated.
In response to applicant’s argument that protrusions with a height of 0.05-0.1 mm form micron-scale gaps and these gaps are in communication with each other, allowing gas or liquid to flow and generating an “air cushion effect”, that when the height is more than 0.1 mm the protrusions may be too large, making it easy for food to get embedded in the gaps which instead increases the risk of adhesion and that the range of 0.05-0.1 mm is precisely optimized to balance the air cushion effect and surface flatness (see P. 0071) of the present application, the Examiner responds that the table at P. 0071 cannot provide evidence that the range of 0.05-0.1 mm is precisely optimized and that a height greater than 0.1 mm may be too large, as the table does not include results with a height greater than 0.1 mm, let alone results over the entire claimed range. Arguments by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record MPEP 716.01(c) II.
In response to applicant’s argument that a stable air cushion is formed though the synergistic effect of specific dimensional parameters and gap connectivity so that when oil or water drops fall on the inner surface, the protrusions support the droplets, making them spherical and reducing the contact area, thereby preventing food from adhering (see P. 0007), the Examiner replies that the applicant has provided no evidence that the claimed range achieves unexpected results. Arguments by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record MPEP 716.01(c) II.
In response to applicant’s argument that the distinguishing features between currently amended claim 1 and Ren are at least: the cross-section of each of the plurality of protrusions in the cooking utensil of claim 1 is a circle, the diameter of each of the plurality of protrusions is 0.15-0.5 mm, the distance between adjacent protrusions of the plurality of protrusions is 0.2- 0.6 mm, and the height of each of the plurality of protrusions is 0.05-0.1 mm, the Examiner replies that Ren discloses the cross-section of each of the plurality of protrusions in the cooking utensil is a circle, the diameter of each of the plurality of protrusions can be .2, .4, or .5 mm which each anticipate the range of 0.15-0.5 mm and that the height of each of the plurality of protrusions can be .05 or .1 mm which anticipate the range of 0.05-0.1 mm (see annotated fig. 2 above and at least Embodiments 3, 21, and 22 of Table 1 in P. 0026). While Ren may not explicitly disclose the distance between adjacent protrusions of the plurality of protrusions being 0.2- 0.6 mm, Ren does disclose that the distribution density of the protrusions ranges from 10-60% with specific examples at at least 35, 40, and 60% (see P. 0010 and at least Embodiments 3, 21, and 22 of Table 1 in P. 0026). While difficult to ascertain, the Examiner believes that the disclosed uniform distribution of protrusions in an ortholinear array [see fig. 3 and P. 0011], disclosed distribution density of the protrusions, and disclosed diameters of protrusions results in distances between adjacent protrusions that include a specific example within the claimed range of 0.2-0.6 mm and a range which overlaps or touches the claimed range of 0.2-0.6 mm. Additionally, figure 3 appears to depict distances between adjacent protrusions of approximately ½ the diameter of the protrusions, such that when the protrusions are disclosed as having a diameter of .4 or .5 mm the distance between adjacent protrusions is .2 or .25 mm which are both specific examples which fall within the claimed range of 0.2-0.6 mm. En arguendo, if applicant does not believe that the disclosure of figure 3 is sufficient and does not believe that the disclosed relative dimensions and distribution density of protrusions results in a specific example of distances between adjacent protrusions with the claimed range or a range of distances between adjacent protrusions which overlaps or touches the claimed range, it would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made to have provided the cooking utensil with a distribution density of protrusions which resulted in a distance between adjacent protrusions in the range of 0.2-0.6 mm in order to have an appropriate projection area which promotes water repellency and reduces contact area between the cooking utensil surface and stick-wet foods and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In. re Aller, 105 USPW 233. En arguendo, if applicant does not believe that the disclosure of figure 3 is sufficient, does not believe that the disclosed relative dimensions and distribution density of protrusions results in a specific example of distances between adjacent protrusions with the claimed range or a range of distances between adjacent protrusions which overlaps or touches the claimed range, and does not believe that the optimization of distribution density of protrusions results in a distance between adjacent protrusions in the range of 0.2-0.6 mm is obvious, Doyle teaches a frying pan 10 provided with a raised dot pattern 14, wherein individual dots 44, 46, 48 have a diameter 58 of about 2.0 mm and a spacing 50 of about 2.8 mm, resulting in a distance between adjacent dots of 0.8 mm which is close to the claimed range of 0.2-0.6 mm (see fig. 1-2 and C. 4 L. 8-11) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made the distance between the adjacent protrusions be 0.8 mm, in light of Doyle, in order to promote even distribution of cooking oils. Examiner notes that no criticality has been established for the claimed diameter, distance, or height ranges.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLAN D STEVENS whose telephone number is (571)270-7798. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12-8 ET.
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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at (571)270-5531. 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.
/ALLAN D STEVENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736