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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In the last two lines of the claim, the words “to form” should be replaced with the word --forming--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9-12, 14 & 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (https://a.co/d/hWs1dSY, Voga Spoon, date first available 12/03/16, website accessed on 08/26/25, Restaurantware, hereinafter Restaurantware) in view of Butterfield et al. (US Design Patent No. D957,206).
Regarding Claim 1, Restaurantware discloses a carrier comprising a body, and the body comprising: two ends; a top surface; a containing portion formed at one of the two ends of the body and having a chamber; a conveying portion formed at the other one of the two ends of the body, being tapered, connected to the containing portion, and having a delivery channel communicating with the chamber of the containing portion, the delivery channel having a length; an opening formed through the entire top surface of the body and directly communicating with the chamber of the containing portion and the delivery channel of the conveying portion; and a curved portion formed between the containing portion and the conveying portion forming a curved angle between the conveying portion and the containing portion (See examiner annotated Figs. below).
PNG
media_image1.png
816
1701
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
776
1746
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Restaurantware does not positively disclose the conveying portion/delivery channel length being longer than a half of a length of the body. It appears from the side view in the examiner annotated Fig. below that the length of the conveying portion/delivery channel is similar to the length of the containing portion but no measurements are disclosed. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the length of the conveying portion/delivery channel to be longer than a half of a length of the body because the Applicant has not disclosed that the length of the delivery channel being longer than a half of a length of the body provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected Restaurantware’s spoon and applicant's invention to perform equally well with the conveying portion/delivery channel taught by Restaurantware or the claimed "conveying portion/delivery channel having a length longer than a half of a length of the body” because both would perform the same function of enabling a user to manually grasp the utensil. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Restaurantware to obtain the invention as recited in claim 1 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Restaurantware.
PNG
media_image3.png
668
1687
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Restaurantware further fails to disclose an annular flange formed on and protruding outwardly from the top surface of the body, and extending along an entire outer periphery of the opening to surround the containing portion and the conveying portion of the body, for abutting two fingers when holding the carrier.
Butterfield et al. discloses a spoon (Figs. 1-7) comprising a body (distal spoon portion, not including proximal handle) comprising a containing portion with a chamber (proximal half of spoon portion) and a conveying portion with a delivery channel (distal half of spoon portion), an opening (upper opening forming spoon portion) formed through an entire top surface of the body (uppermost rim of spoon portion) and directly communicating with the chamber and the delivery channel (Fig. 1), and an annular flange formed on and protruding outwardly from the top surface of the body (Figs. 1-3), and extending along an entire outer periphery of the opening to surround the containing portion and the conveying portion of the body (Figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the body of Restaurantware to add an annular flange extending along and protruding outwardly from the top surface of the body as taught by Butterfield et al. in order to provide the body with a means for more easily holding the spoon by hand during use.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Restaurantware and Butterfield et al. discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1, and Restaurantware further discloses wherein the conveying portion extends obliquely upward from a bottom surface of the containing portion, and the top surface of the body is horizontal (See examiner annotated Fig. directly above).
Regarding Claims 4 & 14, the combination of Restaurantware and Butterfield et al. discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 1 & 3, and Restaurantware further discloses wherein an included angle is formed between a bottom surface of the conveying portion and a bottom surface of the containing portion (See examiner annotated Fig. directly above).
Regarding Claims 5 & 16, the combination of Restaurantware and Butterfield et al. discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 4 & 14, and Restaurantware further discloses wherein the included angle is larger than 0 degree and smaller than 90 degrees (See examiner annotated Fig. directly above).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Restaurantware and Butterfield et al. discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1, and Restaurantware further discloses wherein the containing portion is arc-shaped (See examiner annotated Figs. directly underneath Claim 1 above).
Regarding Claims 7 & 9-12, the combination of Restaurantware and Butterfield et al. discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 1 & 3-6, and Restaurantware further discloses wherein the body is a container in a drop shape (See examiner annotated Figs. directly underneath Claim 1 above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, filed 05/27/25, specifically the cancellation of Claims 13 & 15, have overcome the double patenting/substantial duplicate objections for claims 4 & 5.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments, filed 05/27/25, with respect to the Wright 102(a)(1) rejection of claims 1, 4-7, 9-13 & 15 and the Wright in view of Clark, JR. 103 rejection of claims 3, 14 & 16-17: The Applicants arguments have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection based on the newly amended claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA WEISS whose telephone number is (571) 270-5597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:00 am to 4:00 pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, KEVIN T. TRUONG, at 571-272-4705. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESSICA WEISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775