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
Claims 3, 6 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, “second tong arm” should read --the second tong arm--.
Claim 6, “Claim 5 wherein” should read --Claim 5, wherein--.
Claim 8, “Claim 1 wherein” should read --Claim 1, wherein--.Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Jorgensen (US 4223936 A).
Regarding claim 1, Jorgensen teaches a food handling device (dual-purpose, convertible household utensil assembly) comprising (reproduced and annotated Figs. below): a first tong arm having a first proximal end and a first distal end; a second tong arm having a second proximal end and a second distal end; a first food handling tool (fork F) positioned on the first distal end of the first tong arm, wherein the first food handling tool includes at least one prong (two prongs) angled towards the second tong arm; a second food handling tool (spatula S) positioned on the second distal end of the second tong arm, wherein the second food handling tool includes a spatula angled away from the first tong arm (at least part of spatula S is angled away from the first tong arm); and a connecting joint (U-shaped yoke 14) joining the first and second proximal ends of the first and second tong arms, said connecting joint resiliently urging the first tong arm and the second tong arm towards a resting configuration (opened configuration) wherein the first and second tong arms are in a spaced relationship.
PNG
media_image1.png
872
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Jorgensen teaches the connecting joint includes a U-shaped joint made of a resilient material.
PNG
media_image2.png
52
896
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Jorgensen teaches the first food handling tool (fork F) includes at least two prongs (two prongs).
Regarding claim 5, Jorgensen teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the spatula has a spatula proximal end joined to the second distal end of the second tong arm and a spatula distal end extending from the spatula proximal end, wherein the spatula proximal end has a same width as the second tong arm and the spatula distal end is wider than a width of the second tong arm.
Claims 1-2, 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Wisoff (US 1538536 A).
Regarding claim 1, Wisoff teaches (reproduced and annotated Fig. below) a food handling device (gripping implement) comprising: a first tong arm (4) having a first proximal end and a first distal end; a second tong arm having a second proximal end and a second distal end; a first food handling tool (jaw 3) positioned on the first distal end of the first tong arm, wherein the first food handling tool includes at least one prong (four prongs) angled towards the second tong arm; a second food handling tool positioned on the second distal end of the second tong arm, wherein the second food handling tool includes a spatula (scoop 1) angled away from the first tong arm; and a connecting joint joining the first and second proximal ends of the first and second tong arms, said connecting joint resiliently urging the first tong arm and the second tong arm towards a resting configuration (configuration shown below) wherein the first and second tong arms are in a spaced relationship.
PNG
media_image3.png
550
509
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Wisoff teaches (reproduced and annotated Fig. above) the connecting joint includes a U-shaped joint made of a resilient material.
Regarding claim 4, Wisoff teaches (reproduced and annotated Fig. above) the first food handling tool includes at least two prongs (four prongs).
Regarding claim 8, Wisoff teaches (reproduced and annotated Fig. above) the spatula includes a spatula distal end with an edge that is tapered (spatula 1 is tapered from proximal end to the distal end edge).
Claims 1-2, 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Law (US 0629082 A).
Claim 1 recites a device that is used for food handling. More limiting the features and relationship between the food handling and the device mount to mere components associated with the intended use of the recited device. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (anticipation rejection affirmed based on Board’s factual finding that the reference dispenser (a spout disclosed as useful for purposes such as dispensing oil from an oil can) would be capable of dispensing popcorn in the manner set forth in appellant’s claim 1 (a dispensing top for dispensing popcorn in a specified manner)) and cases cited therein. See also MPEP § 2112 - MPEP § 2112.02. Thus, the prior art only needs to teach the recited components of the device.
Law teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. below) a device comprising a first tong arm having a first proximal end and a first distal end; a second tong arm having a second proximal end and a second distal end; a first food handling tool (A2) positioned on the first distal end of the first tong arm, wherein the first food handling tool includes at least one prong (3 prongs) angled towards the second tong arm; a second food handling tool (B2) positioned on the second distal end of the second tong arm, wherein the second food handling tool includes a spatula angled away from the first tong arm; and a connecting joint (C) joining the first and second proximal ends of the first and second tong arms, said connecting joint resiliently urging the first tong arm and the second tong arm towards a resting configuration wherein the first and second tong arms are in a spaced relationship. Device of Law is capable of handling food by holding the food between A2 and B2).
PNG
media_image4.png
577
659
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Law teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the connecting joint includes a U-shaped joint made of a resilient material (lines 33-35: “C is a spring of hard brass wire”).
Regarding claim 4, Law teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the first food handling tool includes at least two prongs (three prongs D).
Regarding claim 7, Law teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the first tong arm is shorter than the second tong arm.
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Riggles (US D262346 S).
Regarding claim 1, Riggles teaches a food handling device (spatula) comprising (reproduced and annotated Figs. below): a first tong arm having a first proximal end and a first distal end; a second tong arm having a second proximal end and a second distal end; a first food handling tool positioned on the first distal end of the first tong arm, wherein the first food handling tool includes at least one prong angled towards the second tong arm; a second food handling tool positioned on the second distal end of the second tong arm, wherein the second food handling tool includes a spatula angled away from the first tong arm; and a connecting joint joining the first and second proximal ends of the first and second tong arms, said connecting joint resiliently urging the first tong arm and the second tong arm towards a resting configuration wherein the first and second tong arms are in a spaced relationship.
PNG
media_image5.png
773
572
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Riggles teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the connecting joint includes a U-shaped joint made of a resilient material.
Regarding claim 3, Riggles teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the first tong arm, the second tong arm, and the U-shaped joint are made of a continuous piece of plastic or other resilient material.
Regarding claim 5, Riggles teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the spatula has a spatula proximal end joined to the second distal end of the second tong arm and a spatula distal end extending from the spatula proximal end, wherein the spatula proximal end has a same width as the second tong arm and the spatula distal end is wider than a width of the second tong arm (compare W1 and W2).
Regarding claim 6, Riggles teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. below) the spatula distal end includes an edge that is tapered.
PNG
media_image6.png
732
582
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Riggles teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the first tong arm is shorter than the second tong arm.
Regarding claim 8, Riggles teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the spatula includes a spatula distal end with an edge that is tapered.
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riggles in view of Henry (US D723880 S).
Regarding claim 9, Riggles teaches the claimed food handling device/tong; but does not teach the claimed tongs holder.
Henry teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. below) a tongs and a tongs holder configured to receive the food handling device, wherein the holder includes a base with two opposing walls extending from the base so that a recess is defined therebetween, wherein the recess is configured to receive the first and second tong arms when deflected from the resting configuration with a first one of the opposing walls engaging the first tong arm and a second one of the opposing walls engaging the second tong arm so that the food handling device is secured within the recess.
PNG
media_image7.png
669
881
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a tongs holder for storage purposes.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riggles in view of Henry and further in view of Smith (US 8381413 B2).
Regarding claim 10, Henry does not explicitly teaching magnets for the holder.
Smith teaches magnetic kitchen suspending devices with magnets (e.g. 145B in Fig. 7) for hanging the device on a metallic surfaces like “refrigerator doors and sides”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to use magnets on the holder for installing on metallic surfaces like refrigerator doors or sides.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHDI H NEJAD whose telephone number is (571)270-0464. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-4pm 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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
MAHDI H. NEJAD
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/MAHDI H NEJAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723