DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 19 February 2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, the embodiment of claim 11, must be shown. As recited in claim 1, the utensil is attached to the first portion, that utensil is shown in all drawings as being attached via perforations. There are no embodiments shown where the utensil is attached to the first portion and the first portion is attached to the second portion via perforations, unless the utensil IS the first portion but then it wouldn’t be attached to the first portion. In all embodiments the utensil is the only thing that is shown as being detachable via perforations.
Therefore, the embodiment of claim 17 must be shown. There are no embodiments disclosed that combine a shortening score (cl. 17) in combination with attachment to a cover (cl. 1). With this in mind, claim 17 is drawn to an embodiment not disclosed and not present in the drawings.
The embodiment of claims 11 and 17 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings were received on 22 September 2025. These drawings are acceptable but the figure number is incorrect, the drawing submitted 22 September 2025 will be entered when the figure number is corrected. The drawings were received on 7 October 2024, 28 May 2025 are not acceptable because they contain new matter and are not entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 objected to because of the following informalities: “ot” is a typo. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 recites new matter. As recited in claim 1, the utensil is attached to the first portion, that utensil is shown in all drawings as being attached via perforations. There are no embodiments shown or disclosed where the utensil is attached to the first portion and the first portion is attached to the second portion via perforations, unless the utensil IS the first portion but then it wouldn’t be attached to the first portion. In all embodiments the utensil is the only thing that is shown as being detachable via perforations.
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) 1-6, 8, 10, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pitt (GB 334367) in view of Gourdikian (FR 2942461).
Regarding claim 1, Pitt discloses an article of manufacture comprising, fig. 1:
a food container, not numbered, fig. 1;
a covering element, flaps at 5 and 7, covering at least part of the food container, the covering element having a first portion, flaps at 5, comprising a utensil element 10 and a second portion, flap at 7, not comprising the utensil element;
wherein the utensil element is fabricated of an elongated foldable material (cardboard, col. 2: 65-70),
the utensil element is in contact with a surface of the food container at least along the perimeter of the utensil and in contact with the inner surface of flap 7 when the container is closed;
the covering element provides physical and hygienic protection to the utensil element during transportation of the food container (flap 7 covers the utensils when the container is closed);
as seen in fig. 2, the utensil element has a long dimension and a short dimension perpendicular to the long dimension; and
the utensil element is attached to the first portion of the covering element along the long dimension of the utensil element, see fig. 1, the perimeter of the utensil, including at long sides, is attached to the first portion, one of the flaps 5.
Pitt further discloses a single score, 10a, fig. 2, and a bowl and handle shape.
Pitt does not disclose a plurality of scores indicating where the utensil element is to be folded in order to become a usable utensil.
Gourdikian is analogous art in regard to a packaging with a cover 8 having a removable folding utensil 2. The folding utensil taught by Gourdikian includes a plurality of scores, whereby folding the utensil element about the scores produces a handle and a bowl, fig. 1-3. Gourdikian teaches that folding the spoon provides stiffness at the handle fold 3, see page 2 of the translation, top 5 lines.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the detachable spoon shape of Pitt with the plural folding scores in order to provide a utensil with a stiffer handle as per the teaching of Gourdikian.
Regarding claim 2, Pitt discloses that the container is a food box, fig. 1.
Regarding claim 3, Pitt discloses that partially removing the covering element (lifting flap 7) from the food container exposes the portion of the covering element comprising the utensil element.
Regarding claims 4 and 8, Pitt discloses that the covering element and the food container are fabricated of the same material, fig. 1 and 2 and are manufactured simultaneously, col. 3: 47-60.
Regarding claim 5, Pitt discloses that the food container has the shape of a regular or irregular parallelepiped having rectangular faces, and the surface is a lid of the food container, fig. 2.
Regarding claim 6, Pitt discloses that the food container has the shape of a regular or irregular parallelepiped having rectangular faces, fig. 2, and the surface that the utensil element is in contact with (attached to at the perimeter of the utensil) is a flap 5 of the food container other than a lid, the lid flap is flap 7.
Regarding claims 10 and 24, Pitt discloses that the utensil element and the food container are manufactured contiguously, col. 3: 47-60, and the first portion of the covering element, flap 5, comprising the utensil element is detachable from the second portion of the covering element, flap 7, which covers the first portion comprising the utensil element when the container is closed, when flap 7 is lifted to open the container, flap 7 (second portion) is detached, or no longer touching/in contact with flap 5 (first portion).
Claim(s) 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pitt and Gourdikian as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cai (US 5358175).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, The references applied above teach all of claim 1, as applied above. The food container of Pitt has a rectangular bottom shape.
Cai is analogous art in regard to disposable containers formed from folded blanks, fig. 1, and teaches a food container has a generally circular shape on a bottom surface and a generally rectilinear shape on a top surface in order to provide a food container with the strength attributes of a cup shaped container, col. 1: 35-40 while still allowing the container to be conveniently closed with flaps, col. 1: 55-61.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bottom of the container of Pitt to have a cup shape in order to provide a stronger container while allowing convenient closing as per the teaching of Cai.
Pitt as modified above results in a food container with a bottom surface and a top surface, and the top surface has a greater area than the bottom surface, reference fig. 1 and 2 of Cai.
Claim(s) 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pitt and Gourdikian as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Starr (US 3301462).
Regarding claim 25, the references applied above teach all of claim 24, as applied above. the references applied above do not teach tacky adhesive for attaching the cover.
Starr teaches a cover at that is sealed with adhesive at 36 fig. 3 that allows the cover to be opened and resealed, col. 3: 25-40.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the tab in slot closure of the cover of Pitt to be closed with tacky adhesive as taught by Starr or to add tacky adhesive to ensure the tab stays within the slot when the cover is closed.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 24, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gourdikian in view of Suttle (US 1657325).
Regarding claims 1 and 24, Gourdikian discloses a food packaging with cover 8 having a removable folding utensil 2. The folding utensil taught by Gourdikian includes a plurality of scores, whereby folding the utensil element about the scores produces a handle and a bowl, fig. 1-3. The utensil is removable from the remainder of the cover via perforations (the spoon/tongue 2 is cut without detaching, see translation, page 1, last 4 lines, partial cuts without total detachment is perforations). Gourdikian teaches that folding the spoon provides stiffness at the handle fold 3, see page 2 of the translation, top 5 lines.
The utensil, fig. 1, has a long and short dimension, the long dimension is attached to the remainder of the covering element along the long dimension.
The utensil is in contact with a surface, rim, of the food container, fig. 4.
Gourdikian does not disclose any hygienic means for the utensil.
Suttle is analogous art in regard to a utensil 3 connected to a by cut lines at 6, a cover 7 is placed over the surface of the utensil to form a sanitary spoon, col. 2: 65-70.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cover of Gourdikian to have a second portion that forms a sanitary cover as per the teaching of Suttle.
Regarding claim 2, the food container of Gourdikian is a cup, fig. 4.
Regarding claim 3, removing a portion of the covering element (sanitary cover taught by Suttle) from the food container of Gourdikian as modified above to have a sanitary cover, exposes the portion of the covering element comprising the utensil.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gourdikian and Suttle as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Son (KR 20060071655 A).
Regarding claim 17, the references applied above teach all of claim 1, as applied above. the references applied above do not teach a shortening score.
Son is analogous art in regard to foldable utensils connected to a food container. Son further teaches a utensil element 30, fig. 1 and 2, with a shortening score 31 positioned generally perpendicular to a longitudinal midline of the utensil element and traversing the width of the planar utensil element. The utensil element is folded generally 180 degrees about the shortening score prior to transportation of the food container, thereby temporarily shortening the length of the utensil element, fig. 6.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the utensil of Gourdikian to increase the handle length while still retaining the utensil within the perimeter of the cover by providing by a shortening score as taught by Son in order to allow the utensil to reach further into a taller container.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gourdikian and Sutter as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KR-200386861-Y1, hereinafter KR ‘861.
Regarding claim 20, the references applied above teach all of claim 1, as applied above.
Gourdikian further discloses a first and second portion, on left and right sides, on opposite sides of the longitudinal score.
The references applied above do not teach a pair of interconnecting elements. However, KR ‘861 is analogous art in regard to a planar utensil with folding scores, fig. 2 and 3, and further teaches and a pair of interconnecting elements comprising an elongated tab 115 element formed on the first portion and configured to fit in its entirety into a receiving slit 117 on the second portion; wherein said tab element and said first and second portions all lie flat against each other subsequent to folding the planar utensil element about the scores.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify handle of the utensil of Gourdikian to include the interconnecting elements taught by KR ‘861 in order to allow the handle portion to remain folded along the score while not being held.
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gourdikian and Settle as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kobayashi (JP H1038660 A).
Regarding claim 21, the references applied above teach all of claim 1, as applied above.
Gourdikian further discloses a plurality of scores at 5 and 3, the scores comprise first and second scores, said scores being generally symmetrical about a longitudinal midline (along 3) of the utensil element, fig. 1.
The references applied above do not teach the claimed curved score shape.
Kobayashi is analogous art in regard to planar elements that are foldable into a utensil, see annotated fig. 3 and 6. As seen in fig. 6 of Kobayashi, a planar utensil is formed with a score curving outwardly away from a longitudinal midline (A) in a concave manner with respect to the longitudinal midline, then inwardly towards the longitudinal midline in a convex manner with respect to the longitudinal midline as the utensil element is traversed from a handle end to a bowl end;
and ends of the first and second scores are spaced from one another at the bowl end.
PNG
media_image1.png
402
1366
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As seen in fig. 3 of Kobayashi, the curved shape of the scores allow the utensil to be folded into a deeper bowl shape since the curve allows the bowl to slope downwardly then back up.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bowl scores of Gourdikian to have the concave to convex score shape taught by Kobayashi in order to allow the bowl to have more depth to better hold foods.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference or combination thereof applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOLLIE L IMPINK whose telephone number is (571)270-1705. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7:30-3:30).
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272-4561. 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.
MOLLIE LLEWELLYN IMPINK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3799
/MOLLIE IMPINK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights