DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
On page 5 line 7, item “33”
On page 5 line 9, item “34”
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. 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 are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
In Figure 1, item 8
In Figure 2, items 35 and 351
In Figure 3, items 35 and 351
In Figure 4, item 35
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore:
The convex surface, of claim 7
The edges of the upper surface of the junction, of claim 7
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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
In this case, the abstract utilizes the legal phraseology “comprising” on more than one occasion.
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 7 and 8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
With regards to claims 7 and 8, the terms “lower” and “upper” are unclear as they are dependent upon an unclaimed indefinite orientation of the tableware. The tableware is handheld and is capable of being utilized in an infinite number of orientations including ones where these terms do not apply (i.e. Figure 2 shows these surfaces as left and right). In Figure 3, 31 is not bent upwards. Terms that are true regardless of orientation must be used (i.e. first and second).
With regards to claim 7, the phrase “are respectively formed on opposite two side edges of the main body” is unclear. It is unclear how an “edge” be on another “edge”? The edges may respectively define separate ends of the body.
With regards to claim 7, the phrase “convex surface” is unclear. As written, the tableware has a spoon body and separately has a convex surface which is not supported. What structure defines the convex surface? Using Figure 1, handle 2 has an end with a convex surface.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the side" on line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With regards to claim 7, the phrase “edges of the upper surface of the junction” is unclear. It is unclear if the upper surface of the junction has edges or ends as Figure 3 shows the junction as being rounded off. Since the upper surface is rounded off, it is unclear where the upper surface begins/ends or where the edges are. Further definition is needed.
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 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lechner (1,108,767) in view of Oi (2016/0016092).
With regards to claim 7, Lechner discloses the invention including a tableware (10) having a spoon body (11) and a spoon handle (12) integrally connected with the spoon body (Fig. 2), a reinforcing buckle (18, 19, 20) located at a junction of the body and handle (Figs. 1 and 2), the buckle has a main body (18), a first reinforcing edge (left 19 in Fig. 5), a second reinforcing edge (right 19 in Fig. 5), the edges are respectively formed on opposite two side edges of the main body (Fig. 5), the main body covers a lower surface of the junction (Figs. 1 and 5), the lower surface is on the side of the spoon body with a convex surface (Fig. 1), and the reinforcing edges respectively cover edges of an upper surface of the junction (Fig. 5).
However, with regards to claim 7, Lechner fails to disclose the main body has an arc.
Oi teaches it is known in the art of spoon handle attachments (Fig. 2) to incorporate the main body (506) with an arc (512). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have provided Lechner with the arc shape, as taught by Oi, 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.
With regards to claim 8, Lechner in view of Oi does disclose an additional means of attaching the buckle to the handle (20 in Lechner) but fails to disclose the rib and snap buckles attachment means.
It would have been well within one’s technical skill to have utilized any known and reasonable means for attaching the buckle to the junction including the rib and snap buckles attachment means. Such a modification would allow for a specific location to be utilized each time. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the device of Lechner in view of Oi 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 does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Also, it is noted that the original Drawing and Abstract issues have not been addressed.
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 on Monday-Friday: 7:30 am-3:30 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, Adam J Eiseman can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
12 September 2025
/Jason Daniel Prone/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724