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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 02/14/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The prior art of KR20150030719 and KR20160099388 disclosed on page 2 of the instant specification and cited on IDS filed on 02/14/2025 in addition to US 20150211501A1 and US 20160239260A1 cited on DIS filed 02/14/2025 are appear to be erroneous and irrelevant to the claimed invention and as such, have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the lower tool and upper tool of hydraulic or mechanical press (as in claims 21-22), wherein the plane of the surface of the upper tool relative to the plane of the surface of the lower tool has an angle comprised between 0.01° and 0.5° (as in claim 29), wherein the plane of the surface of the upper tool, relative to the plane of the surface of the lower tool, has an angle comprised between 0.15° and 0.25° (as in claim 30) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it appears to be a verbatim of the claim language and it is not in a narrative form (short sentences) and under 150 words in length . A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In specification, page 2, the citation of prior art of KR20150030719 and KR20160099388 appear to be erroneous and as the text of the references are not relevant to the claimed invention.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 20-44 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 20, there are several minor issues which could result in confusion in understanding of the claim terms. The following amendment is just one sample suggested in an attempt to overcome some of these issues:
20. (Currently Amended) A method for manufacturing a coated cooking element, the method comprising the following steps:
i) providing a metal substrate having a face, to be coated with a film;
ii) providing said film, said film comprising a layer to be brought in contact with said face of said metal substrate, said layer comprising:
50-100% by weight of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) and 0-50% by weight of one or more thermoplastic polymers different from the PTFE, with each of the % by weight a total weight of the PTFE and said one or more thermoplastic polymer(s);
iii) heating said metal substrate;
iv) positioning said film such that the layer faces said face of the metal substrate heated in step [[iii.]] iii); and
v) assembling said metal substrate and said film by hot stamping, said metal substrate being at a temperature between 350°C and 550°C during the assembling,
wherein the film is heated during the assembling in step [[v.]] v).
In claims 21, 24-28, 31, 40 and 43, amend the phrase v. to v) for better consistency.
In claim 33, lines 4-5, the phrase “or a combination of these different techniques” could be amended to - - or a combination thereof - - to prevent any antecedent basis issues of the claim term.
In claim 36, line 2, the phrase “a single layer also forming a cooking face” could be amended to - - a single layer that forms a cooking face - - for better clarity.
In claim 37, line 2, the phrase “another layer forming a cooking face” could either remain the same or be amended to - - another layer that forms a cooking face - - depending on how claim 36 is amended.
In claim 35, line 13, amend the limitation “(PBI)” to - - (PBI), - - .
In claim 35, line 17, insert a period at the end of the line.
In claim 37, lines 8, 11, 13 and 17, insert a “,” at the end of the line.
In claim 38, lines 8, 11, 12 and 16, insert a “,” at the end of the line.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 43 and 44 are directed to a method for shaping a coated cooking element obtained from claim 20. However, the cooking element obtained from claim 20 is considered as product-by-process claim and as such, the resulting structure of the end product as claimed is indiscernible from an end product produced by any other manufacturing steps. Therefore, none of the process steps of claim 20 are given any patentable weight except that the product obtained at the end of claim 20 is a multilayered element made of a metal substrate with a bonded coating of PTFE film on one surface of the substrate.
It is noted that:
"[E]ven 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).
The structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art, especially where the product can only be defined by the process steps by which the product is made, or where the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product. See, e.g., In re Gamero, 412 F.2d 276, 279, 162 USPQ 221,223 (CCPA 1979).
Claim 43 which is directed to a method for shaping the end product of claim 20 recites a step (a) of press-forming the coated cooking element obtained at the end of claim 20. The specification discloses Figure 3 as showing the press-forming of the cooking element (a frying pan). Claim 44 which depends from claim 43 further recites a step (b) of drawing the coated cooking element after step (a) which is a press-forming step. The specification discloses Example 4 as press-forming a saucepan and further discloses press-forming-drawing to form the saucepan. In addition, the specification further discloses Figure 5 as press-forming-stretching operation. Although not explicitly disclosed, it appears that there are two embodiments that both include press forming the coated substrate with one using a stretching technique (i.e., rollers and spinning) and one being drawing (deep drawing) technique. It is very confusing and unclear what exactly the differences between the press-forming step in claim 43 and the drawing in claim 44 are. Phrase it differently, it appears that claim 44 need to be amended to recite that the press-forming step of claim 43 is a press-forming-drawing step rather being two different steps. For examination purposes, the examiner considers that once the flat composite cooking element obtained at the end of claim 20 is subjected to a drawing operation to form into a pan/pot, it meets both the press-forming and drawing steps in claims 43 and 44.
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 29-30, and 40-42 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 for claims 29-30, it is unclear what exactly the surfaces of the upper and lower dies are being claimed. Are the claimed planes of surfaces directed to the working surfaces that are facing each other and in contact with the workpieces (metal substrate and PTFE film) or not. Is the angle between the planes of surfaces means the two planes are not parallel with each other. For examination any portions of the surfaces of the upper and lower dies are considered to be readable on these limitations.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the plane of the surface of the upper tool" and “the plane of the surface of the lower tool” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the plane of the surface of the upper tool" and “the plane of the surface of the lower tool” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 40 recites the limitation "the face of the layer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 41 recites the limitation "the thickness" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 20-22, 32-33, 35, 37-39 and 41-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lim et al. (US 20180344082 A1, hereinafter “Lim”).
As applied to claim 20, Lim teaches a method for manufacturing and shaping a coated cooking element, the method comprising the steps of i) providing a metal substrate (30) having a face, to be coated with a film (10); ii) providing said film, said film comprising a layer to be brought in contact with said face of said metal substrate (the face in contact with surface of 30, Fig. 3), said layer comprising 50-100% by weight of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) and 0-50% by weight of one or more thermoplastic polymers different from PTFE, with each of the % by weight being relative to a total weight of PTFE and said one or more thermoplastic polymer(paragraph [0012] teaches the % volume but based on the disclosed ranges of 5 to 50% by volume for second layer and 25% or less by volume for third layer, then it is possible to have the first layer of PTFE to have 95% by total volume which converts to weight within the range of 50-100% by total weight of PTFE based on density of PTFE being 2.2 g/
c
m
3
); iii) heating said metal substrate (Fig. 3, heated press); iv) positioning said film such that the layer faces said face of the metal substrate heated in step iii (Fig. 3); and v) assembling said metal substrate and said film by hot stamping (Fig. 3), said metal substrate being at a temperature between 350°C and 550°C during the assembling, wherein the film is heated essentially by conduction when brought in contact with the metal substrate during the assembling in step v (paragraphs [0012] to [0015], [0036], [0042], [0043], [0047], [0050], [0053], [0055] and [0058], Figs. 3 and 4).
As applied to claims 21-22, Lim teaches the invention cited including wherein the assembly by hot stamping in step v is carried out by means of a hydraulic or mechanical press comprising a lower tool and an upper tool between which the metal substrate and the film are assembled (lower and upper mechanical press, Fig. 3); and wherein said metal substrate (30) is in contact with the lower tool and said film (10) is in contact with the upper tool (Fig. 3).
As applied to claim 32, Lim teaches the invention cited including wherein the metal substrate is an aluminum and stainless steel substrates (paragraph [0042]).
As applied to claim 33, Lim teaches the invention cited including wherein the metal substrate has undergone surface treatment including brushing and sandblasting (paragraph [0043]).
As applied to claim 35, Lim teaches the invention cited including wherein the said one or more thermoplastic polymers different from PTFE of the layer are selected from “PFA” and “FEP” amongst others (paragraph [0012]).
As applied to claim 37, Lim teaches the invention cited including wherein the said film further comprises another layer forming a cooking face, said other layer comprising one or more polymer selected from “PFA” and “FEP” amongst others (paragraph [0012], multilayered film).
As applied to claim 38, Lim teaches the invention cited including wherein the said film further comprises at least one intermediate layer positioned between the layer and the other layer, said intermediate layer comprising one or more polymer selected from “PFA” and “FEP” amongst others (paragraph [0012], multilayered film).
As applied to claim 39, Lim teaches the invention cited including wherein the film further comprises at least one filler (inorganic filler, abstract, paragraph [0011]).
As applied to claims 41-42, Lim teaches the invention cited including wherein the thickness of the film is between 2 µm to 25 µm (paragraph [0036]) which overlaps the claim ranges of 5 to 500 µm (in claim 41) and 25 to 150 µm (in claim 42).
Claim(s) 43-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Spring et al. (US 20070292706 A1, hereinafter “Spring”).
As applied to claims 43-44, Spring teaches a method wherein a multilayered coated cooking element comprised of a metal substrate (layers 1, 2, 3, 4) and PTFE film (6) is subjected to press-forming and drawing steps to form a multilayer coated cookware (paragraph [0029], see claims 1 and 13, Fig. 7).
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.
Claim(s) 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 20180344082 A1, hereinafter “Lim”) in view of Okayama et al. (US 20210114364A1, hereinafter “Okayama”).
As applied to claims 23-24, Lim teaches the invention cited including assembling the metal substrate and the film by hot stamping press wherein the metal substrate and the film are maintained under certain pressure but does not explicitly teach the pressure comprised between 100 MPa and 800 MPa.
Okayama teaches fabricating a multilayered metal structure using a pressing pressure of 300 MPa or more (overlapping claim ranges of 100-800 MPa and 350-500 MPa) to bond the metal layers to each other (stainless steel sheet and copper foil, col. 3, lines 53-67 and col. 7, lines 19-26). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to subject the metal substrate and the coating layer of Lim under a compressive pressure of 300 MPa or more, as taught by Okayama, as a matter of use of known technique to improve similar methods in the same way (see MPEP 2143, KSR, Rationale “C”). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would reasonably expect that the use of a hot stamping device with higher clamping pressure would advantageously provide improved and maximum flexibility as taught by Okayama in forming a laminated metal structure having excellent adhesive strength (abstract).
Claim(s) 23, alternatively, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 20180344082 A1, hereinafter “Lim”) in view of Haug et al. (US 8,257,646, hereinafter “Haug”).
As applied to claim 23, Lim teaches the invention cited including assembling the metal substrate and the film by hot stamping press wherein the metal substrate and the film are maintained under certain pressure but does not explicitly teach the pressure comprised between 100 MPa and 800 MPa.
Huang teaches that steel substrates are preferably hot formed at a process pressure below 150 to 180 MPa (overlapping range of 100-800 MPa, col. 6, lines 30-31). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to subject the metal substrate and the coating layer of Lim under a compressive pressure of less than 150 to 180 MPs, as taught by Huang, as a matter of use of known technique to improve similar methods in the same way (see MPEP 2143, KSR, Rationale “C”). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was files would reasonably expect that the use of a hot stamping device with higher clamping pressure would advantageously provide improved and maximum flexibility as taught by Huang in forming metal substrates with larger thickness and higher tensile strengths.
Claim(s) 25-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 20180344082 A1, hereinafter “Lim”) in view of Wenzhen et al. (CN 107127238 A, hereinafter “Wenzhen”).
As applied to claims 25-28, Lim teaches the invention cited including assembling the metal substrate and the film by hot stamping press using upper and lower tools but does not explicitly teach the claimed duration of maintaining the substrate and film under pressure in step v) to be less than or equal to 1 minute (as in claim 25), less than or equal to 15 seconds (as in claim 26), between 1 second and 1 minute (as in claim 27) and between 2 seconds and 15 seconds (as in claim 28).
However, Wenzhen teaches that it is well-known in the art of hot stamping to place the metal blank having a coating (paragraph [0049]) into a die and subject the metal blank with coating to a temperature between 400-650°C and a pressure of 300 to 1000 tons and the hot stamping holding time of about 3 to 15 seconds (overlapping all the ranges in claims 25-28) allowing the coating to be completely solidified (paragraph [0053]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to subject the metal substrate and the coating layer of Lim under pressure for a duration of time within the claimed ranges (1 second to 15 seconds), as taught by Wenzhen, as an effective means of preventing cracks (paragraph [0054] of Wenzhen) and minimizing the spring back of the substrate and coating layer following the hot stamping step.
Claim(s) 29-30, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 20180344082 A1, hereinafter “Lim”) in view of Young (US 20130205864 A1).
As applied to claims 29-30, Lim teaches the invention cited including assembling the metal substrate and the film by hot stamping press but does not explicitly teach the claim ranges of 0.01° and 0.5° (as in claim 29) and 0.15° and 0.25° (as in claim 30) for the angle of the plane of the surface of the upper tool relative to the plane of the surface of the lower tool.
However, Young teaches that it is well-known in the art of stamping sheet metal substrates to use upper and lower die plates (102, 103, Figs. 2-3) having surfaces with an angle between a plane of a surface of the upper die plate (surfaces around passages 108a’-108d’) and a plane of a surface of the lower die plate (surfaces around passages 108e’-108f’) within the claimed ranges of 0.01° and 0.5° and 0.15° and 0.25° allowing the air trapped within the stamping region to escape during the stamping operation (paragraphs [0028] to [0032], having the transition area not being sharp and not at right angle means that any angle, slope and curvature including the claimed ranges can be formed). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to employ in the method of Lim upper and lower die surfaces with planes of the surfaces being within the claimed angle ranges, as taught by Young, as an effective means of exhausting the air trapped within the stamping region resulting in the enhanced stamping operation with minimal adverse effect to the workpiece.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 20180344082 A1, hereinafter “Lim”) in view of Tanahashi et al. (US 9,617,624, hereinafter “Tanahashi”).
As applied to claim 31, Lim teaches the invention cited including assembling the metal substrate and the film by hot stamping press but does not explicitly teach the lower tool is heated to a temperature comprised between 25° C and the temperature of the metal substrate at the time of assembly.
However, Tanahashi teaches that it is well-known in the art of hot forming and stamping sheet metal substrates to bring the temperature of the tool to room temperature (widely known to be between 20-25° C depending on the room condition, col. 1, lines 39-51). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to employ in the method of Lim a tool having a temperature around 25° C and lower than the temperature of the metal substrate, as taught by Tanahashi, as an effective means of strengthening the assembled product by using the difference between the temperature between the metal substrate and the tool (col. 1, lines 48-51).
Claim(s) 34 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 20180344082 A1, hereinafter “Lim”) in view of Lim et al. (EP 3266353 A2, hereinafter “Lim A2”).
As applied to claims 34 and 36, Lim teaches the invention cited including the film being made of PTFE polymer but does not explicitly teach the PTFE polymer is the only polymer in the layer.
However, Lim A2 teaches fabricating cooking utensil having a single or multi-layer polymer coating wherein the PTFE is the only polymer in the coating layer used as a cooking face (paragraphs [0026] and [0027]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have formed the PTFE layer of Lim to include only the PTFE polymer as a cooking face, as taught by Lim A2 , considering the PTFE’s well-known characteristics including heat resistance, non-stick and durability as used in cooking utensils.
Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 20180344082 A1, hereinafter “Lim”) in view of Sahara Masao et al. (AU 1560892 A, hereinafter “Masao”).
As applied to claim 40, Lim teaches the invention cited including assembling the metal substrate and the film by hot stamping press including wherein the surface of the face of the metal substrate has undergone a surface treatment but does not explicitly teach the face of the layer of the film facing the face of the metal substrate has undergone a mechanical or chemical surface treatment.
Masao teaches a method of bonding a fluororesin film to a metal substrate wherein both contact surfaces of the metal (paragraph bridging pages 20-21) and film are subjected to pretreatment prior to bonding including removal of oil and foreign substance from the surface of the film, formation of an oxide film by corona discharge or chemical treatment and/or application of various surface treatments such as aminosilane, vinylsilane and mercaptosilane (page 22, paragraph 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to subject the contact surfaces of not only the metal but also the film of Lim element to pretreatment steps, as taught by Masao, as an effective means of enhancing the bonding surfaces which results in a firmer bond while eliminating and reducing the chance of any delamination during the use of the element.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nolan et al. (US 9,909,039) teaches a method of press forming a polymer layer onto a metal substrate wherein a clamping pressure of 200 MPa is applied to bond the two substrates together (col. 30, lines 34-43, col. 42, lines 32-42).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARANG AFZALI whose telephone number is (571)272-8412. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am - 4 pm EST.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/SARANG AFZALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 12/18/2025