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 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: there is a “;” after “utensil” that should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-18 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 claim 1, the limitation of “its” is unclear as to what element is “its” referring to. In addition, in line 11, the limitation of “the bead scoop utensil” lacks prior antecedent basis.
For claims 2-18, the preamble of “The bead scoop utensil” lacks prior antecedent basis.
For claim 3, the limitation of “the straight upper edge” lacks prior antecedent basis.
For claim 4, the limitation of “the bead scoop” lacks prior antecedent basis.
For claim 13, the limitation of “the outer longitudinal edge” lacks prior antecedent basis.
For claim 14, the limitation of “the outer longitudinal edge” lacks prior antecedent basis.
All other claims depending on one or more of the above rejected claims are also rejected the same.
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 1,2,4-10,12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dobson (US 20140130288 A1).
For claim 1, Dobson discloses a scoop utensil comprising a scoop trough (12) and a handle (14,16,18) attached thereto, characterized in that: the trough has a sidewall (figs. 1,7, in the area of ref. 20) and a bottom (figs. 1,8, where ref. 26 is pointing at), the sidewall extending upwardly and outwardly from the bottom and having a front sidewall portion (20) with an upper length, FL, (fig. 1, FL is from ref. 25A to ref. 25B or ref. 20F to ref. 20S) with a gathering edge (fig. 1, edge where ref. 20 is pointing at) along its upper length for scooping small objects, a rear sidewall portion (fig. 1, where ref. 30,36 are pointing at; also, fig. 7 portion to the left of ref. 42) opposing the front sidewall portion with a length, RL, (fig. 1, the rear length from ref. 34 to ref. 30; also, fig. 2, the length from left to right where ref. 30 is pointing at) at its upper portion which is shorter than FL and a pair of end sidewall portions (fig. 1 can be the portions where ref. 28 are pointing at alone, or can be in the area of ref. 32 alone, or can be both areas of refs. 28,32) having upper lengths, EL, shorter than RL, where the front sidewall portion and the end sidewall portions together define a pair of lateral inclined spouts (fig. 1, at refs. 20F,25A, 20S,25B) for pouring contents out of the trough to a container; the handle being continuous with the rear sidewall portion of the bead scoop utensil (fig. 1 shows the handle being continuous with the rear sidewall portion in the area where refs. 18,36 are pointing at) and flaring downwardly from an apex (figs. 6,7, where ref. 18 is pointing at) of the rear sidewall.
For claim 2, Dobson discloses the bead scoop utensil according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the end sidewall portions are bowed inwardly toward the interior of the trough (fig. 2, the back portions of the end sidewall bowed inwardly near where ref. 12 is pointing at on both side).
For claim 4, Dobson discloses the bead scoop utensil according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the bead scoop utensil has an S-shaped end profile (fig. 7, area to the left of ref. 42 to ref. 18 to ref. 42 constitute an S-shaped end profile).
For claim 5, Dobson discloses the bead scoop utensil according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the handle flares downwardly by a sufficient distance to support the bead scoop utensil in an erect position on a flat surface with the trough opening directed upwardly (as shown in figs. 6-8).
For claim 6, Dobson discloses the bead scoop utensil according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the handle has an inner length equal to RL, the length of the rear sidewall portion and the handle has an outer longitudinal edge of length, OL, parallel to RL and shorter than RL. See the examiner’s illustration below.
PNG
media_image1.png
710
644
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For claim 7, Dobson discloses the bead scoop utensil according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the handle has curved transition portions between its inner and outer lengths (see figs. 6-8, curved portions near where refs. 16,42,14 are pointing at).
For claim 8, Dobson discloses the bead scoop utensil according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the handle has a thickened border (16) around a periphery thereof.
For claim 9, Dobson discloses the bead scoop utensil according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the handle has a plurality of gripping ridges (not numbered but can be seen in fig. 1 near where ref. 14 is pointing at).
For claim 10, Dobson discloses the bead scoop utensil according to claim 9, and further discloses wherein an upper surface of the handle has a plurality of gripping ridges (not numbered but can be seen in fig. 1 near where ref. 14 is pointing at and any surfaces covered by the ridges are considered to be an upper surface of the handle).
For claim 12, Dobson discloses the bead scoop utensil according to claim 9, and further discloses wherein a lower surface of the handle has a plurality of gripping ridges (fig. 7, gripping ridges are in the areas where refs. 42,16,22 are located or pointing at).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobson (as above) in view of Jeklin (US 0593299 A).
For claim 3, Dobson teaches the bead scoop utensil according to claim 1, but is silent about wherein the end sidewall portions define acute angles with the straight upper edge of the front sidewall portion.
Jeklin teaches a scoop utensil comprising end sidewall portions define acute angles with a straight upper edge of a front sidewall portion (see the examiner’s illustration below). 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 end sidewall portions of Dobson defining acute angles with the straight upper edge of the front sidewall portion as taught by Jeklin in order to provide a better flared out front area scoop so as to obtain the object easier.
PNG
media_image2.png
681
692
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 11,13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobson (as above).
For claim 11, Dobson teaches the bead scoop utensil according to claim 10, but is silent about wherein the plurality of gripping ridges on the upper surface of the handle extend to the apex of the rear sidewall portion of the trough. 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 plurality of gripping ridges on the upper surface of the handle of Dobson extend to the apex of the rear sidewall portion of the trough, depending on how much surface area the user wishes to have for gripping area.
For claim 13, Dobson teaches the bead scoop utensil according to claim 9, but is silent about wherein the gripping ridges are orthogonal to the outer longitudinal edge of the handle. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the parallel gripping ridges in Dobson with orthogonal gripping ridges, depending on the user’s preference because both directions would result in the same function to allow the user to grip the handle better, since a simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobson (as above) in view of Perelli et al. (US 20030167588 A1).
For claim 14, Dobson teaches the bead scoop utensil according to claim 1, but is silent about wherein there are provided a plurality of ridges on an underside of the trough orthogonal to the outer longitudinal edge of the handle.
Perelli et al. teach a scoop utensil comprising a plurality of ridges (82) on an underside of a trough (12) orthogonal (figs. 3,5, the ridges 82 appear to be running into the interior of the pan, thus, this would be orthogonal to the handle’s axis when the handle is at 90 degrees; also, depending on how one view and define the axis of the handle relative to the ridges) to an outer longitudinal edge of a handle (14). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a plurality of ridges on an underside of the trough as taught by Perelli et al. orthogonal to the outer longitudinal edge of the handle of Dobson in order to provide traction or stabilization if the user wishes to place the utensil onto a surface.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobson (as above) in view of Rockwell et al. (US 20130026773 A1).
For claim 15, Dobson teaches the bead scoop utensil according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein the bead scoop utensil has a unitary structure formed by molding (para. 0026,0043) but not injection molding.
Rockwell et al. teach a scoop utensil having a unitary structure formed by injection molding (para. 0089). 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 scoop utensil of Dobson by injection molding as taught by Rockwell et al., since injection molding is a widely known and used manufacturing process for plastic material to be molded in to a mold and create the shape of the device.
For claims 16 & 17, Dobson as modified by Rockwell et al. teaches the bead scoop utensil according to claim 15, but is silent about wherein the bead scoop utensil is made of a thermoplastic material such as polystyrene. In addition to the above, Rockwell et al. teach the scoop utensil being made out of polystyrene (para. 0053). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manufacture the scoop utensil of Dobson as modified by Rockwell et al. out of polystyrene as taught by Rockwell 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 (polystyrene is known for lightweight, rigidity, chemical resistance, etc. and widely used in making plastic products). In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobson (as above) in view of Yang (KR 20210123641 A).
For claim 18, Dobson teaches the bead scoop utensil according to claim 1, but is silent about wherein the gathering edge of the bead scoop utensil has a tapered profile with a thinner profile edge at its terminus than a profile of the front sidewall portion distal to its terminus.
Yang teaches a scoop utensil comprising wherein the gathering edge (fig. 2, at ref. 10a) of the bead scoop utensil has a tapered profile with a thinner profile edge at its terminus than a profile of the front sidewall portion (not numbered but just to the right of ref. 10a, there is a front sidewall portion that is thicker than the tapered profile at ref. 10a) distal to its terminus. 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 gathering edge of the bead scoop utensil of Dobson with a tapered profile with a thinner profile edge at its terminus than a profile of the front sidewall portion distal to its terminus as taught by Yang in order to provide a sharper or blade-like edge for scooping up the object better.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure of a scoop utensil:
US 0996341 A teaches combined dust-pan and broom-support
US 0105315 A teaches a dust pan
US D024262 S teaches a dust pan
US 0849239 A teaches dust-pan
US 2651924 A teaches Dustpan
US 0114351 A teaches improvement in dust-pans
US 0561917 A teaches dust pan
US 0041771 A teaches dust pan
US 0360453 A teaches dust pan
US 0146172 A teaches dust pan
US 20030164176 A1 teaches Combined dustpan and residual dust collection device
US 20110266817 A1 teaches Sifting Scoop
US 20090140536 A1 teaches One-Handed Ice Scoop
US 20020149215 A1 teaches Litter scoop
US 20190226740 A1 teaches ice scoop with focused dispensing region
US 20030230905 A1 teaches Scoop utensil
US 20050160809 A1 teaches Adjustable measuring scoop
US 20090167038 A1 teaches Two-Handed Ice Scoop
US 20100306951 A1 teaches Vertically oriented particulate matter collector
US 5918922 A teaches Scoop
US 5711564 A teaches Litter scoop
US D024262 S teaches dust pan
KR 20080108958 A teaches gourd with a flexible mouth
RU 2543464 C2 teaches measuring spoon with clamp.
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