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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3-5, 7-9, 12-14, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wright (2,320,994).
Regarding claim 1, Wright teaches a blister pack tool for opening blister packaging to remove a dosage unit (the spoon in Wright is capable of being used for opening a blister packaging) comprising:
a handle 1; and
a head including a guiding section 8 and a bowl section 4;
wherein the handle is connected to the head;
wherein the handle includes a first end (right end) and a second end (left end), wherein the handle is designed to taper from the first end to the second end, wherein the second end is connected to the head;
wherein the guiding section 8 includes a distal end (leftmost end) and a proximal end, wherein the guiding section further includes a piercing tip positioned on the distal end;
wherein the bowl section includes a capture area (bottom section of the bowl 4) and a bowl wall;
wherein the piercing tip is connected to the bowl section via a guideway, wherein the piercing tip is configured to pierce a blister pack, wherein, once the blister pack is pierced, the guiding section is configured to capture and remove a dosage unit from the blister pack; and
wherein the bowl section is operable to receive the removed dosage unit via the guideway.
See Figs. 1 and 5.
PNG
media_image1.png
570
946
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, the guideway tapering from the bowl section to the piercing tip is best seen in Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 4, sidewalls of element 8 define guide walls. See Fig. 5.
Regarding claim 5, the guideway having a curved shape is best seen in Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 7, the guideway having a sloped surface is best seen in Fig. 5.
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.
Claims 2, 13, 14, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright (2,320,994).
Regarding claim 2, Wright teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the handle having triangular shape
At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art to make the handle in Wright having a triangular shape because the Applicant has not disclosed that such particular shape of the handle provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the handle in Wright because a user could comfortably hold both types of handle.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the handle in Wright such that it has a triangular shape to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, Wright teaches a blister pack tool for opening blister packaging to remove a dosage unit (the spoon in Wright is capable of being used for opening a blister packaging) substantially as claimed except for the limitations in the bolded texts comprising:
a triangular-shaped handle 1; and
a head including a guiding section 8 and a bowl section 4;
wherein the triangular-shaped handle is connected to an exterior surface of the bowl section of the head, wherein the exterior surface runs around a perimeter of the bowl section;
wherein the triangular-shaped handle includes a first end and a second end, wherein the triangular-shaped handle is designed to taper from the first end to the second end, wherein the second end is connected to the head;
wherein the guiding section 8 includes a proximal end (right end) and distal end (leftmost end), wherein the proximal end is connected to the bowl section, wherein the guiding section further includes a piercing tip positioned on the distal end;
wherein the piercing tip is connected to the bowl section via a guideway;
wherein the guideway includes a sloped surface;
wherein the bowl section is operable to receive the removed dosage unit via the guideway; and
wherein the bowl section includes a capture area (bottom section of the bowl 4) to receive the removed dosage unit.
See Figs. 1 and 5.
Wright teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the handle having triangular shape
At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art to make the handle in Wright having a triangular shape because the Applicant has not disclosed that such particular shape of the handle provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the handle in Wright because a user could comfortably hold both types of handle.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the handle in Wright such that it has a triangular shape to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, the guiding section being tapered from the proximal end to the distal end is best seen in Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 16, two guide walls of the guiding section are best seen in Fig. 5.
Regarding claim 19, the guideway having a curved shape is best seen in Fig. 1.
Claims 8, 9, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright (2,320,994) in view of Pisculli (1,984,081).
Regarding claim 8, Wright teaches a blister pack tool for opening a blister on a blister pack and removing a dosage contained within the blister pack, wherein the blister pack tool (the spoon in Wright is capable of being used for opening a blister packaging) substantially as claimed except for the limitations in the bolded texts comprises:
a handle 1; and
a head;
wherein the head comprises a bowl section 4 and a guiding section 8, wherein the bowl section is connected to the guiding section;
wherein the guiding section comprises a guideway and a piercing tip;
wherein the guideway has a distal end (leftmost end) and a proximal end (right end), wherein the proximal end is attached to the bowl section; and
wherein the piercing tip is positioned at the distal end of the guideway, wherein the piercing tip is operable to pierce the blister pack, wherein, once the blister pack is pierced, the guiding section is configured for capture and removal of a dosage unit from the blister pack; and
wherein the bowl section receives the removed dosage unit via the guideway, wherein the proximal end of the guideway defines an open section of the bowl section, wherein the bowl section further comprises a flat bottom surface and a guide wall, wherein the guide wall surrounds the flat bottom surface, wherein the guide wall is connected to the open section of the bowl section, wherein the bowl section is designed to hold the removed dosage unit from the blister pack, wherein, after receiving the removed dosage unit, the guide wall is designed to position the removed dosage unit on the flat bottom surface
See Figs. 1 and 5 and annotated Fig. 5 above.
Wright teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the bowl section having a flat surface.
Pisculli teaches a spoon including a bowl section having a flat surface 7. See Fig. 2.
The spoons including a bowl section having a concave surface as taught by Wright and a flat surface as taught by Pisculli are art equivalents known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make to bowl section of the spoon in Wright having a flat surface since it has been held that substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is obvious to one skilled in the art. See MPEP. 2144.06.
Furthermore, at the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art to make the bowl section in Wright having a flat because the Applicant has not disclosed that such particular shape of the handle provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the bowl having a concave surface in Wright because both types of bowl can equally hold food and liquid well.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the bowl in Wright such that it has a flat surface to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
The surfaces around the bowl section and element 8 define the guide wall.
Regarding claim 9, the guideway tapering from the bowl section to the piercing tip is best seen in Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 12, the guideway having a sloped surface is best seen in Fig. 5.
Regarding claim 15, Wright teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the bowl section having a flat surface.
Pisculli teaches a spoon including a bowl section having a flat surface 7. See Fig. 2.
The spoons including a bowl section having a concave surface as taught by Wright and a flat surface as taught by Pisculli are art equivalents known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make to bowl section of the spoon in Wright having a flat surface since it has been held that substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is obvious to one skilled in the art. See MPEP. 2144.06.
Furthermore, at the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art to make the bowl section in Wright having a flat because the Applicant has not disclosed that such particular shape of the handle provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the bowl having a concave surface in Wright because both types of bowl can equally hold food and liquid well.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the bowl in Wright such that it has a flat surface to obtain the invention as specified in claim 15.
The surfaces around the bowl section and element 8 define the guide wall.
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright (2,320,994) in view of Zohe (2,249,551).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Wright teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the bowl section having a spherical shape.
Zohe teaches a spoon including a bowl section 2 having a spherical shape. See Fig. 2.
The spoons including a bowl section having a concave surface as taught by Wright and a spherical surface as taught by Zohe are art equivalents known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make to bowl section of the spoon in Wright having a spherical surface since it has been held that substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is obvious to one skilled in the art. See MPEP. 2144.06.
Furthermore, at the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art to make the bowl section in Wright having a spherical because the Applicant has not disclosed that such particular shape of the bowl section provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the bowl having a concave surface in Wright because both types of bowl can equally hold food or liquid well.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the bowl in Wright such that it has a spherical surface to obtain the invention as specified in claims 6 and 17.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright (2,320,994) in view of Hakim (6,453,562).
Regarding claim 20, Wright teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the handle having a cushion.
Hakim teaches a spoon comprising a handle having a cushion (soft area) for comfortably contacting the mouth and gripping. See Abstract.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide the handle in Wright a cushion as taught by Hakim so that a user comfortably holds the handle.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright (2,320,994) in view of Kramer (2016/0249756).
Wright teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the handle positioned substantially perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the guiding section.
Kramer teaches a spoon comprising a handle 50 and head 30, wherein the handle is positioned substantially perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of a guiding section (at tip 32). See Fig. 1. Such arrangement of the handle helps children and elderly control the spoon better to prevent spillage. It is noted that the angle between lines (a, b) is 2 degrees which is considered “substantially perpendicular”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the handle in Wright substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the guide section as taught by Kramer for helping children and elderly control the spoon better to prevent spillage.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright (2,320,994) in view of Pisculli (1,984,081) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Kramer (2016/0249756).
The modified spoon in Wright teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the handle positioned substantially perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the guiding section.
Kramer teaches a spoon comprising a handle 50 and head 30, wherein the handle is positioned substantially perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of a guiding section (at tip 32). See Fig. 1. Such arrangement of the handle helps children and elderly control the spoon better to prevent spillage. It is noted that the angle between lines (a, b) is 2 degrees which is considered “substantially perpendicular”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the handle in Wright substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the guide section as taught by Kramer for helping children and elderly control the spoon better to prevent spillage.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright (2,320,994) in view of Pisculli (1,984,081) and Kramer (2016/0249756).
Wright teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the bowl section having a flat surface.
Pisculli teaches a spoon including a bowl section having a flat surface 7. See Fig. 2.
The spoons including a bowl section having a concave surface as taught by Wright and a flat surface as taught by Pisculli are art equivalents known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make to bowl section of the spoon in Wright having a flat surface since it has been held that substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is obvious to one skilled in the art. See MPEP. 2144.06.
Furthermore, at the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art to make the bowl section in Wright having a flat because the Applicant has not disclosed that such particular shape of the handle provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the bowl having a concave surface in Wright because both types of bowl can equally hold food and liquid well.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the bowl in Wright such that it has a flat surface to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
The surfaces around the bowl section and element 8 define the guide wall.
Wright teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the handle positioned substantially perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the guiding section.
Kramer teaches a spoon comprising a handle 50 and head 30, wherein the handle is positioned substantially perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of a guiding section (at tip 32). See Fig. 1. Such arrangement of the handle helps children and elderly control the spoon better to prevent spillage. It is noted that the angle between lines (a, b) is 2 degrees which is considered “substantially perpendicular”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the handle in Wright substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the guide section as taught by Kramer for helping children and elderly control the spoon better to prevent spillage.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument with respect to the term “piercing”, the term “piercing” refers to a pointed end of the spoon compare to other sections of the spoon and to the act of entering an object. The tip in Wright is the same as the tip of the claimed spoon which includes a rounded edge, a bottom, and two walls (see Fig. 1 of the invention). The spoon in Wright is used by pushing (in other word, piercing) the tip into a citrous fruit and scoop it up. The citrous fruit has juice that is guided by the tip and its walls to flow into the bowl section which is similar to liquid in a blister pack. Therefore, the spoon in Wright reads on the claimed language.
PNG
media_image2.png
1129
958
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Applicant’s argument with respect to a flat surface of the bowl, Pisculli teaches a bowl having a flat surface. A bowl having a flat bottom or a curved bottom would equally hold liquid. Therefore, a bowl having a flat bottom is considered a design choice.
Regarding Applicant’s argument with respect to a triangular shaped handle, it is considered a design choice.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the handle in Wright does not connect to the exterior of the bowl section, Wright teaches this limitation as shown below. The handle section connects to the bowl section at the transition location.
PNG
media_image3.png
570
958
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 PHONG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5.
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, Adam Eiseman can be reached at (571)270-3818. 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.
/PHONG H NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3724