DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 12/18/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-19 remain pending in the application.
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 1-10, 12-15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 2461425 Y) in view of Lee (US 20210101357 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches a unitary blank for forming a utensil, comprising:
a scoop portion (1) having a distal edge (at 23) and a proximal neck region (at 2); and
a handle portion (3) having opposing first and second lateral edges (top and bottom edge in Figure 10) extending from the proximal neck region of the scoop portion and a proximal tail edge extending between the first and second lateral edges (see Figure 10), the handle portion further having a first concave recess (concave point end at the top left end, see Figure 10) defined between the first lateral edge and the proximal tail edge and a second concave recess (concave point end at the bottom left end, see Figure 10) defined between the second lateral edge and the proximal tail edge, and defined therein;
the handle portion further having a center fold line (12) defining a first body segment and second body segment (31), the first body segment including a slot (32) and the second body segment including a tab (33), wherein the tab is configured to be engaged and locked into the slot when the first and second body segments are folded toward each other along the center fold line (see Figures 10-11).
Liu fails to teach the proximal tail edge has a center notch, each of the slot and tab is spaced from the first and second lateral edges of the handle portion.
Lee teaches a folding spoon (see Figure 68) with a folding center line (512) and a center notch (534) at the end.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Liu to add the center notch to the end, as taught by Lee, in order to prevent cutting during the use for spoon (paragraphs 0785 of Lee).
Lee further teaches a folding spoon with a slot and tab combo (74057/74052), wherein each of the slot and tab is spaced from the first and second lateral edges of the handle portion (see Figure 118).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Liu to move the slot/tab arrangement into a area spaced from the first and second lateral edges of the handle portion, as taught by Lee. Since the courts have held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. MPEP 2144.04 VI. C.
Regarding claim 2, modified Liu further teaches the distal edge of the scoop portion is round (see Figure 10 of Liu).
Modified Liu fails to teach the linear distal edge.
Lee further teaches a spoon with a linear distal edge (see Figure 25 of Lee).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of modified Liu to change the shape of the distal end into linear distal edge, as taught by Lee. Since, a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. MPEP 2144.04 IV. B.
Regarding claim 3, modified Liu further teaches each of the first and second lateral edges is linear (See Figure 10 of Liu).
Regarding claim 4, modified Liu further teaches the tab is defined by a score line in the second body segment (See Figure 10 of Liu).
Regarding claim 5, modified Liu further teaches the score line of the tab is at least partially linear (see Figure 10 of Liu).
Modified Liu fails to teach partially arcuate.
Lee further teaches a spoon with partially arcuate tab (74051, see Figure 118).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of modified Liu to change the shape tab into partially arcuate, as taught by Lee. Since, a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. MPEP 2144.04 IV. B.
Regarding claim 6, modified Liu further teaches the tab has a width dimension and outer edges that extend some value greater than a corresponding width dimension of the slot (see Figures 10-11).
Modified Liu fails to teach about 0.0156 to 0.0625 inch.
Furthermore, with respect to the specific size of the about 0.0156 to 0.0625 inch, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, 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). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify modified Liu to have the specific size set forth in the claim to get the desired shape handle as wanted by the end user.
Regarding claim 7-8, modified Liu teaches all elements of the current invention as set forth in claim 1 above.
Modified Liu fails to teach the slot is defined by a score line in the first body segment (as required by claim 7), the score line of the slot is at least partially arcuate (as required by claim 8).
Lee further teaches a spoon with the slot is defined by a score line in the first body segment, the score line of the slot is at least partially arcuate (488B, see Figure 68), partially arcuate tab (488A, see Figure 68).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of modified Liu to change the shape tab and slot into partially arcuate, as taught by Lee. Since, a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. MPEP 2144.04 IV. B.
Regarding claim 9, modified Liu further teaches the center notch is concave and substantially arcuate (as modified by Lee, at least with the sheet is not fold, the curve is concave, see Figure 68 of Lee).
Regarding claim 10, modified Liu further teaches the unitary blank has a thickness of an unknown value.
Modified Liu fails to teach about 0.018 inch.
Furthermore, with respect to the specific thickness of about 0.018 inch, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, 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). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify modified Liu to have the specific thickness set forth in the claim to get the desired size of handle as wanted by the end user.
Regarding claim 12, Liu teaches a utensil formed from a unitary blank (See Figures 10-11), comprising:
a scoop portion (1) having a distal edge (at 23) and a proximal neck region (at 2); and
a handle portion (3) having opposing first and second lateral edges (top and bottom edge in Figure 10) extending from the proximal neck region of the scoop portion and a proximal tail edge extending between the first and second lateral edges (see Figure 10), the handle portion further having a first concave recess (concave point end at the top left end, see Figure 10) defined between the first lateral edge and the proximal tail edge and a second concave recess (concave point end at the bottom left end, see Figure 10) defined between the second lateral edge and the proximal tail edge, and defined therein;
the handle portion further having a center fold line (12) defining a first body segment and second body segment (31), the first body segment including a slot (32) and the second body segment including a tab (33), wherein the tab is configured to be engaged and locked into the slot when the first and second body segments are folded toward each other along the center fold line (see Figures 10-11).
Liu fails to teach the proximal tail edge has a center notch, each of the slot and tab is spaced from the first and second lateral edges of the handle portion.
Lee teaches a folding spoon (see Figure 68) with a folding center line (512) and a center notch (534) at the end.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Liu to add the center notch to the end, as taught by Lee, in order to prevent cutting during the use for spoon (paragraphs 0785 of Lee).
Lee further teaches a folding spoon with a slot and tab combo (74057/74052), wherein each of the slot and tab is spaced from the first and second lateral edges of the handle portion (see Figure 118).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Liu to move the slot/tab arrangement into an area spaced from the first and second lateral edges of the handle portion, as taught by Lee. Since the courts have held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. MPEP 2144.04 VI. C.
Regarding claim 13, modified Liu further teaches the center fold line consists of a single fold line extending along a length of the handle portion (see Figure 10 of Liu).
Regarding claim 14, modified Liu further teaches a portion of the first body segment defined by the slot is configured to overlap with the tab when the tab is locked into the slot (as modified, see Figure 118 of Lee).
Regarding claim 15, modified Liu further teaches the tab and the portion of the first body segment defined by the slot are configured to extend outwardly from the second body segment when the tab is locked into the slot (as modified, see Figure 118 of Lee).
Regarding claim 18, modified Liu further teaches the center fold line consists of a single fold line extending along a length of the handle portion (see Figure 1 of Liu)
Regarding claim 19, modified Liu further teaches a portion of the first body segment defined by the slot overlaps with the tab and extends outwardly from the second body segment with the tab locked into the slot (as modified, see Figure 118 of Lee).
Claims 11 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 2461425 Y) in view of Lee (US 20210101357 A1), Zimmerman (US 6068114) and Struble (Us 4267955).
Regarding claim 11, Liu teaches a unitary blank for forming a utensil, comprising:
a scoop portion (1) having a distal edge (at 23) and a proximal neck region (at 2); and
a handle portion (3) having opposing first and second lateral edges (top and bottom edge in Figure 10) extending from the proximal neck region of the scoop portion and a proximal tail edge extending between the first and second lateral edges (see Figure 10), the handle portion further having a first concave recess (concave point end at the top left end, see Figure 10) defined between the first lateral edge and the proximal tail edge and a second concave recess (concave point end at the bottom left end, see Figure 10) defined between the second lateral edge and the proximal tail edge, and defined therein;
the handle portion further having a center fold line defining a first body segment and a second body segment (see Figure 10), the first body segment including a slot and the second body segment including a tab, and further wherein the first and second body segments are configured to be folded toward each other along the center fold line and the tab is configured to be engaged and locked into the slot when each utensil is assembled; and
the handle portion further having a center fold line (12) defining a first body segment and second body segment (31), the first body segment including a slot (32) and the second body segment including a tab (33), wherein the tab is configured to be engaged and locked into the slot when the first and second body segments are folded toward each other along the center fold line (see Figures 10-11).
Liu fails to teach wherein each of the slot and the tab is spaced from the first and second lateral edges of the handle portion, the proximal tail edge has a center notch, a web pattern for a plurality of blanks for forming utensils, comprising: a first blank, a second blank and a third blank; wherein the distal edge of the first blank is mated with the center notch of the proximal tail edge of the second blank; and wherein the third blank is in an inverted orientation relative the second blank with the first lateral edge of the handle portion of the second blank aligned with the first lateral edge of the handle portion of the third blank, and further wherein the neck region of the second blank is mated with the first concave recess of the third blank and the neck region of the third blank is mated with the first concave recess of the second blank.
Lee teaches a folding spoon (see Figure 68) with a folding center line (512) and a center notch (534) at the end.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Liu to add the center notch to the end, as taught by Lee, in order to prevent cutting during the use for spoon (paragraphs 0785 of Lee).
Lee further teaches a folding spoon with a slot and tab combo (74057/74052), wherein each of the slot and tab is spaced from the first and second lateral edges of the handle portion (see Figure 118).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Liu to move the slot/tab arrangement into an area spaced from the first and second lateral edges of the handle portion, as taught by Lee. Since the courts have held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. MPEP 2144.04 VI. C.
Zimmerman teaches a web pattern for a plurality of blanks for forming utensils, comprising: a first blank, a second blank and a third blank (see Figure 14).
Struble teaches a web pattern for a plurality of blanks for forming utensils, comprising: a first blank, a second blank and a third blank (see Figure 6); wherein the recess and protrusion of each identical blade is optimized to fit together to save wasted space on the web (see Figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of modified Liu to fit multiple blanks on the same web, as taught by Zimmerman and Struble, in order to better nest each blanks on the web (abstract of Zimmerman and Struble). The resulting device of modified Liu teaches a web pattern for a plurality of blanks for forming utensils, comprising: a first blank, a second blank and a third blank (as modified by Zimmerman and Struble, see Figure 14 and Zimmerman and see Figure 6 of Struble); wherein the distal edge of the first blank is mated with the center notch of the proximal tail edge of the second blank (as modified by Zimmerman and Struble, to optimally fit the blanks, see Figure 14 and Zimmerman and see Figure 6 of Struble); and wherein the third blank is in an inverted orientation relative the second blank with the first lateral edge of the handle portion of the second blank aligned with the first lateral edge of the handle portion of the third blank (as modified by Zimmerman and Struble, to optimally fit the blanks, see Figure 14 and Zimmerman and see Figure 6 of Struble), and further wherein the neck region of the second blank is mated with the first concave recess of the third blank and the neck region of the third blank is mated with the first concave recess of the second blank (as modified by Zimmerman and Struble, to optimally fit the blanks, see Figure 14 and Zimmerman and see Figure 6 of Struble).
Regarding claim 17, modified Liu further teaches the center fold line consists of a single fold line extending along a length of the handle portion (see Figure 10 of Liu).
Regarding claim 16, modified Liu teaches all elements of the current invention as set forth in claim 1 stated above.
Modified Liu fails to teach each of the first and second concave recesses of the handle portion has a shape configured to mate with the proximal neck region of the scoop and wherein the distal edge of the scoop portion has a shape configured to mate with the center notch of the proximal tail edge.
Zimmerman teaches a web pattern for a plurality of blanks for forming utensils, comprising: a first blank, a second blank and a third blank (see Figure 14).
Struble teaches a web pattern for a plurality of blanks for forming utensils, comprising: a first blank, a second blank and a third blank (see Figure 6); wherein the recess and protrusion of each identical blade is optimized to fit together to save wasted space on the web (see Figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of modified Liu to fit multiple blanks on the same web, as taught by Zimmerman and Struble, in order to better nest each blanks on the web (abstract of Zimmerman and Struble). The resulting device of modified Liu teaches a web pattern for a plurality of blanks for forming utensils, comprising: a first blank, a second blank and a third blank (as modified by Zimmerman and Struble, see Figure 14 and Zimmerman and see Figure 6 of Struble); wherein the distal edge of the first blank is mated with the center notch of the proximal tail edge of the second blank (as modified by Zimmerman and Struble, to optimally fit the blanks, see Figure 14 and Zimmerman and see Figure 6 of Struble); and wherein the third blank is in an inverted orientation relative the second blank with the first lateral edge of the handle portion of the second blank aligned with the first lateral edge of the handle portion of the third blank (as modified by Zimmerman and Struble, to optimally fit the blanks, see Figure 14 and Zimmerman and see Figure 6 of Struble), and further wherein the neck region of the second blank is mated with the first concave recess of the third blank and the neck region of the third blank is mated with the first concave recess of the second blank (as modified by Zimmerman and Struble, to optimally fit the blanks, see Figure 14 and Zimmerman and see Figure 6 of Struble).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-19 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.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case making duplicated pattern on a sheet is a known issues problem for all sheet making arts, thus the combination of Liu, Zimmerman and Struble are known aspect of the sheet making art, and combining known techniques in the art together is not hindsight.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of modified Liu to fit multiple blanks on the same web, as taught by Zimmerman and Struble, in order to better nest each blanks on the web (abstract of Zimmerman and Struble) and the recess and protrusion of each identical blade is optimized to fit together to save wasted space on the web (see Figure 6 of Struble).
In response to applicant's argument that Struble is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Struble is solving the same pertinent problem of making multiple patterns on a sheet, thus Struble is analogous art.
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 LIANG DONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0479. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8 AM-6 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, Ashley Boyer can be reached at 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.
/LIANG DONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 9/16/2025