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 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 1-20 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.
For all claims, the preamble is unclear because is applicant attempting to claim a plurality of tongs or one tong? The body of the claims appear to describe a tong comprising first and second arms and not “tongs”. It would not make sense to use “tongs” because a tong comprises two arms so how can “tongs” comprising only two arms?
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: means for pivotally connecting in claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claims 1-5,7-12,14,15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yang (US 20120011727 A1).
For claim 1, Yang discloses tongs that comprise:
(a) a first arm (21) having a first elongated member that has a first handle (210) with an inner surface (any inside surface of the arm) and a first grasping head (213), wherein the first handle inner surface defines a first handle inner surface plane (imaginary plane drawn at any inner surface area of the handle) and the first grasping head has an inner surface (inner surface of 213) that defines a first grasping head inner surface plane (imaginary plane drawn at any inner surface area of the head, which the head and the handle areas are not in the same plane) that is not co-planar with the first handle inner surface plane and wherein the first elongated member has an arcuate slot (212);
(b) a second arm (20) having a second elongated member that has a second handle (200) with an inner surface (any inside surface of the arm) and a second grasping head (203), wherein the second handle inner surface defines a second handle inner surface plane (imaginary plane drawn at any inner surface area of the handle) and the second grasping has an inner surface (inner surface of 203) that defines a second grasping inner surface plane (imaginary plane drawn at any inner surface area of the head, which the head and the handle areas are not in the same plane) that is not co-planar with the second handle inner surface plane and wherein the second elongated member has a projection (202) that is configured to slidably engage the arcuate slot to allow rotation of the first arm relative to the second arm; and
(c) a magnet (201,211) that is mounted on at least one of the first handle or the second handle so that the first handle and second handle are magnetically engaged when the first and second arms are in an open position.
For claim 2, Yang discloses the tongs of claim 1 wherein the arcuate slot defines a recess (212 is a recess as shown in fig. 5) in the first elongated member and is formed in a direction that is transverse to that of the first elongated member and wherein the projection has a curved contour (fig. 4 ref. 202 has a curved contour) that fits into the recess.
For claim 3, Yang discloses the tongs of claim 1 wherein the projection is pivotally mounted on the arcuate slot and the projection serves as a fulcrum for the first arm (para. 0027).
For claim 4, Yang discloses the tongs of claim 1 wherein the first arm and the second arm define a Y-shaped configuration when the first arm is magnetically engaged to the second arm and the tongs are in an open position (fig. 6).
For claim 5, Yang discloses the tongs of claim 1 wherein the first handle has a first magnet (211) incorporated therein and the second handle has a second magnet (201) incorporated therein.
For claim 7, Yang discloses the tongs of claim 1 such that when first and second arms are in an open position an inner surface of the first handle inner surface is flush with an inner surface of the second handle (fig. 6, the surfaces between where refs. 200,210 and refs. 201,211 are pointing at).
For claim 8, Yang discloses the tongs of claim 1 wherein the first grasping head comprises an implement for handling food and second grasping head comprises an implement for handling food (the curves of refs. 203,213 are implements for handling food).
For claim 9, Yang discloses tongs that comprise:
(a) a first arm (21) having a first distal grasping end (end at ref. 213) and a first proximal handle end (end at ref. 210);
(b) a second arm (20) having a second distal grasping end (end at ref. 203) and a second proximal handle end (end at ref. 200), wherein at least one the first proximal handle end or the second proximal end includes a magnet (211 or 201); and
(c) means (212,202) for pivotally connecting the first arm to the second arm so that the first arm and second arm are rotatable between an open position and a closed position, wherein the first proximal handle end is engaged to the second proximal handle end when in the open position.
For claim 10, Yang discloses the tongs of claim 9 wherein the first distal grasping end and the second distal grasping end define a Y-shaped configuration when in the open position (fig. 6).
For claim 11, Yang discloses the tongs of claim 9 wherein the first proximal handle end includes a first magnet (211) and the second proximal handle end includes a second magnet (201).
For claim 12, Yang discloses the tongs of claim 9 wherein first distal grasping end has a first cleaning implement (the curve part of ref. 213) and the second distal grasping end has a second cleaning implement (the curve part of ref. 203).
For claim 14, Yang discloses the tongs of claim 9 wherein first distal grasping end has a first utensil implement (the curve part of ref. 213) and the second distal grasping end has a second utensil implement (the curve part of ref. 213).
For claim 15, Yang discloses the tongs of claim 9 wherein the first arm and the second arm are detachable (figs. 2-3).
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.
Claims 6,13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (as above) in view of Choi et al. (US 20220111492 A1) and McDonnell (US 7743456 B2 as cited on form PTO 1449).
For claim 6, Yang teaches the tongs of claim 1 but is silent about wherein the first grasping head comprises first microfibers secured thereon and the second grasping comprises second microfibers secured thereon such that the first and second microfibers faced each other.
Choi et al. teach a tong having a first grasping head (24) comprises first gripping surface (28) made of a special material such as rubber, foam, pad, textured, etc. secured thereon and a second grasping (24) comprises second gripping surface (28) made of a special material such as rubber, foam, pad, textured, etc. secured thereon such that the first and second microfibers faced each other. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include gripping surfaces made of a special material such as rubber, foam, pad, textured, etc. as taught by Choi et al. on the first and second grasping heads of the tong of Yang in order to provide gripping surfaces that will not damage the items that are to be picked up due to the soft material.
Yang as modified by Choi et al. is silent about the special material being microfibers. McDonnell teaches a tool for cleaning or picking up implement having a gripping surface made of microfibers. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select microfibers as taught by McDonnell for the special material placed on the tong of Yang as modified by Choi et al., 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 choice (the microfibers material is soft, thus, may prevent damage to the items being picked up better than other materials, depending on what the user intends to pick up). In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
For claim 13, Yang teaches the tongs of claim 12 but is silent about wherein the first and second cleaning implements comprise microfibers.
Choi et al. teach a tong having first and second cleaning implements (24,28) made of a special material such as rubber, foam, pad, textured, etc. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first and second cleaning implements of Yang be comprised of a special material such as rubber, foam, pad, textured, etc. as taught by Choi et al. in order to provide gripping surfaces that will not damage the items that are to be picked up due to the soft material.
Yang as modified by Choi et al. is silent about the special material being microfibers. McDonnell teaches a tool for cleaning or picking up implement having a gripping surface made of microfibers. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select microfibers as taught by McDonnell for the special material placed on the tong of Yang as modified by Choi et al., 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 choice (the microfibers material is soft, thus, may prevent damage to the items being picked up better than other materials, depending on what the user intends to pick up). In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 16-18,20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (as above) in view of Kwan (US 6092847 A).
For claim 16, Yang teaches the tongs of claim 9 but is silent about wherein the first arm and the second arm are made of material that is selected from the group consisting of wood, plastic, metal or combinations thereof.
Kwan teaches a tong comprising a first arm (10) and a second arm (20) are made of material that is selected from the group consisting of wood, plastic, metal or combinations thereof (col. 2, lines 55-60). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first arm and the second arm of Yang be made of material that is selected from the group consisting of wood, plastic, metal or combinations thereof as taught by Kwan, 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 choice (depending on what the user wishes to pick up so as to select the right material for the items to be picked up, for example, for hot items, the user may wish to use wood or metal, for these materials will not melt like plastic). In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
For claim 17, the limitations have been explained with Yang above, thus, please see above. Not explained are the first and second elongated members being made of wood. As stated in the above, Kwan teaches a tong comprising a first elongated member (10) and a second elongated member (20) are made of material that is selected from the group consisting of wood, plastic, metal or combinations thereof (col. 2, lines 55-60). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first elongated member and the second elongated member of Yang be made of material that is selected from the group consisting of wood, plastic, metal or combinations thereof as taught by Kwan, 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 choice (depending on what the user wishes to pick up so as to select the right material for the items to be picked up, for example, for hot items, the user may wish to use wood or metal, for these materials will not melt like plastic). In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
For claims 18 & 20, the limitations have been explained with Yang above, thus, please see above.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang as modified by Kwan as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (as above) and McDonnell (as above).
For claim 19, the limitation has been explained in the above, thus, please see above, especially claims 6 & 13.
Information Disclosure Statement
Cite no. 7 on form PTO 1449 to US 10687626 B2, Yan is not considered by the examiner because it has no relevancy to the current invention. Yan teaches Elastic seesaw-type tilting mechanism and swivel chair having the same, which has no relationship or in the same field of endeavor of a tong as in the current invention. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure of a tong:
US 20150366387 A1 teaches interchangeable kitchen utensil
US 20090167040 A1 teaches Chopsticks with a magnetic open device
US 20240316730 A1 teaches modular grasping tongs
US 20100019521 A1 teaches Tongs with magnet
KR 200372971 Y1 teaches chopsticks
JP 3157179 U teaches Chopstick structure
JP 2016039899 A teaches gripper with magnet
KR 20220011337 A teaches Tongs device to increase adsorption power by attaching magnet
JP 2021053391 A teaches Holding tool
WO 2008034201 A1 teaches magnetic tongs
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SON T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6889. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 to 4:00.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/Son T Nguyen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643