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 .
Response to Amendment
It is noted that claims 16 and 17 incorporate incorrect status identifiers. Claims 16 and 17 were withdrawn in the previous Office action and should have (Withdrawn) status identifiers.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lee (2017/0340152) hereafter referred to as Lee2017 in view of White (2017/0095100) further in view of Lee (2005/0155229) hereafter referred to as Lee2005.
With regards to claims 1, 2, 4, and 5, Lee2017 discloses the invention including a tableware (Figs. 1-10) having a handle (14) and a main body (12), the main body is positioned at one end of the handle (Fig. 1), on a cross section transverse to longitudinal axis of the handle (Fig. 7), a periphery of the handle is provided with a first edge flap (16), the handle has an inner wall (22) and side wall portions located at both ends of the inner wall (left and right sides of 22 in Fig. 7), the first edge flap (16) is arranged at a free end of each side wall (Fig. 7), a thickness of the first edge flap (Fig. 7), corners of the first edge flap are rounded (16), the first flaps arranged at free ends of each of the side wall portions define a plane across the cross section transverse to the longitudinal axis (Fig. 7), a periphery of the main body is provided with a second edge flap (16 in Fig. 8), the second edge flap has a thickness (16 in Fig. 8), a wall thickness of a peripheral region of the main body at which the second edge flap is provided (Figs. 7 and 8), the tableware is a fork (Figs. 1-10), the main body is provided with at least two teeth (Fig. 1), and the periphery each of the teeth is provided with the second flap (Figs. 5 and 8).
However, with regards to claim 1, Lee2017 fails to disclose the tableware is environmentally-friendly and made of paper pulp or plant fiber.
White teaches it is known in the art of tableware to incorporate paper pulp or plant fiber making the tableware environmentally-friendly (paragraph [0004]). Paragraph [0004] of White also includes paper pulp or plant fiber as being alternatives to plastic. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have provided Lee2017 with the material, as taught by White, because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results and all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
However, with regards to claims 1 and 4, Lee2017 in view of White remain silent with regards to the thicknesses of each component and therefore fails to disclose the thickness of the first edge flap is equal a thickness of each side wall and the thickness of the second edge flap is equal to a thickness of a wall thickness of a peripheral region of the main body at which the second edge flap is provided.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have made all of the component thicknesses equal, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). It is noted that there are a limited number of choices with regards to thickness comparisons (thicker, thinner, or equal) and it would have been well within one’s technical skill to have utilized any of the options. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the device of Lee2017 in view of White to obtain the invention as specified in claims 1 and 4. The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
However, with regards to claims 1, 6, 8, and 15, Lee2017 in view of White fail to disclose a reinforcing rib where the main body defines a first portion of the rib and the handle defines a second portion of the rib, the reinforcing rib extending from the handle to the main body along the longitudinal axis, the rib has a concave portion and convex portions positioned at both ends of the concave portion on a cross section transverse to an extending direction of the rib, a concave reinforcing portion is provided in the middle of at least one of the teeth, the concave portion is provided with a first surface and a second surface which are adjacent, an included angle between the first and second surface, and the rib is wavy.
Lee2005 teach it is known in the art of fork/tableware to incorporate a reinforcing rib where the main body defines a first portion of the rib and the handle defines a second portion of the rib (5, Figs. 1 and 4), the reinforcing rib extending from the handle to the main body (5, Figs. 1 and 4), the rib has a concave portion (5) and convex portions positioned at both ends of the concave portion on a cross section transverse to an extending direction of the rib (convex portions between 5 and 9 in Fig. 4), a concave reinforcing portion is provided in the middle of at least one of the teeth (21, Fig. 5), the concave portion is provided with a first surface and a second surface which are adjacent (Fig. 4), an included angle between the first and second surface (Fig. 4), and the rib is wavy (Fig. 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have provided Lee2017 in view of White with the rib, as taught by Lee2005, because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results and all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
However, with regards to claim 8, Lee2017 in view of in view of White further in view of Lee2005 fail to disclose the specific angle.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the angle any reasonable value including within the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the device of Lee2017 in view of White further in view of Lee 2007 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8. The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection is not specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 JASON DANIEL PRONE whose telephone number is (571)272-4513. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:00 am-3:00 pm.
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, Boyer D Ashley can be reached on (571)272-4502. 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.
06 April 2026
/Jason Daniel Prone/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724