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 .
Response to Amendment
In the 2-11-26 response, Applicant discloses a replacement abstract has been submitted. However, this abstract does not appear to be in the amendment. The objection will remain below.
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.
The abstract uses the implied phrase “High-strength environment-friendly tableware is provided”.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 12 are 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.
With regards to claim 1 and the specification page 22 line 19, the phrase “first end…abuts against a joint” is unclear. The specification fails to provide any insight on the structure that defines the “joint”. Using marked up Figure 26, the tableware has a main body with tapered edges (left of the dashed line) and a handle portion with parallel edges (right of the dashed line) with the dashed line appearing to be where the main body joins the handle portion. The first end 253 is clearly laying completely within the main body 230 away from the dashed line. There does not appear to be any structure where 253 engages 230 that defines a joint between the main body and the handle as 253 is clearly within the boundaries of main body. It is unclear how the joint abuts the first end when the joint appears to be spaced from the first end.
PNG
media_image1.png
420
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 1-6 and 12 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regards to claim 1 line 9, it is unclear what structure defines the joint. See rejection above.
With regards to claim 1, the phrase “to improve” is unclear. How can the table wear improve itself? The tableware comprises the reinforcing member and would have the same bending strength at all times. It is unclear what can be improved when the structure is constant?
With regards to claim 2, the phrase “extending direction of the handle” is indefinite. The handle is 3-dimensional and extends in all directions making all directions an “extending” direction of the handle. Claims 4 and 12 have the same issue.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the same side wall" on line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which side wall is the “same side wall”. Further definition is needed.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the longitudinal axis" on line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1 is rejected, as best understood, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over White (2017/0095100) in view of Lee (10,081,095).
With regards to claim 1, White discloses the invention including an environment-friendly tableware (100, Fig. 1) made of pulp or plant fibers (paragraph [0004]) having a handle (Fig. 1) and a main body (Fig. 1) both of which are made of pulp or plant fibers (paragraph [0004]), the main body is located at one end of the handle (Fig. 1), a reinforcing member (106), a first end of the reinforcing member abuts against a joint between the main body and the handle to improve bending strength of the tableware (Fig. 1 and paragraph [0062] discloses the ribs provide addition strength and support and the ribs are repositionable according to user needs).
However, with regards to claim 1, White fails to disclose the handle has a recess that forms a hollow portion that extends along a longitudinal axis of the handle and the reinforcing member is mounted in the hollow portion.
Lee teaches it is known in the art of tableware handles to incorporate a recess that forms a hollow portion (Fig. 4) that extends along a longitudinal axis of the handle (Fig. 3) and the reinforcing member is mounted in the hollow portion (2 in Figs. 3 and 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have provided both White with recess/hollow portion, as taught by Lee, 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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected, as best understood, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 20080001528 in view of White (2017/0095100). Please see Figure below for Examiner added reference labels for KR 20080001528.
With regards to claim 1, KR 20080001528 discloses the invention including a tableware (100, Fig. 3) having a handle (10) and a main body (1), the main body is located at one end of the handle (1, 10, Fig. 3), the handle has a recess that forms a hollow portion that extends along a longitudinal axis of the handle (hp), a reinforcing member is mounted in the hollow portion (20, 30), and a first end of the reinforcing member abuts against a joint between the main body and the handle (11, 20, Fig. 3).
With regards to claims 2-6, KR 20080001528 discloses on a cross section along the longitudinal axis of the handle (Fig. 3), the handle has an inner wall (11) and side walls (sw1, sw2) located at two ends of the inner wall (in Fig. 1, each side wall (sw1, sw2) is at an end of the inner wall that all together define the recess), at least one of the two side walls is provided with a limiting member (12), the limiting member extends on the side wall towards a middle of the handle (12, Fig. 1), an edge portion of the reinforcing member (21) abuts against a side of the limiting member and that faces the inner wall (Figs. 1 and 3), the other side wall is provided with a limiting member (12), the edge portion is disposed on both sides of the reinforcing member (21, 20, Fig. 1), the edge portion on the two sides abut against inner surfaces of the side walls of the handle (21, sw1, sw2), and a second end of the reinforcing member abuts against an inner surface of an end of the handle (30).
However, with regards to claim 1, KR 20080001528 fails to disclose the tableware handle and main body are both made of pulp or plant fibers.
White teaches it is known in the art of tableware to be made of pulp or plant fibers (paragraph [0004]). White also teaches the use of a rib that can be made of a different material than the rest of the tableware that provides additional strength and support for the until. Modified KR 20080001528 has the tableware handle (10) and the main body (1) made of pulp or plant fibers (as taught by White) while the reinforcing member is made of another material and which would support the bending strength to some extent. Such a modification allows for the tableware to be disposable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have provided KR 20080001528 with the materials, as taught by White, 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 4, KR 20080001528 in view of White fail to disclose the side walls are provided with more than two limiting members and on one side wall arranged sequentially along the longitudinal axis of the handle.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have made each side wall with as few or as many limiting members to secure the reinforcing member into place. It would have been reasonable to have added more limiting members sequentially spaced on each side wall to further stabilize the reinforcing member in relation to the handle. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the device of KR 20080001528 in view of White to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4. 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.
PNG
media_image2.png
622
380
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20080001528 in view of White (2017/0095100) as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of KR 200405024.
With regards to claim 12, KR 20080001528 in view of White disclose the invention including a cross section in in a longitudinal axis of the reinforcing member, there is a portion in a middle of the reinforcing member (middle of 20 in KR 20080001528).
However, with regards to claim 12, KR 20080001528 in view of White fail to disclose the portion is an arch that protrudes in a direction away from the inner wall.
KR 200405024 teach it is known in the art of tableware handles to incorporate an arch shaped portion in the middle along the longitudinal axis of the reinforcing member (26 in Figure 1). Modified KR 20080001528 in view of White now has a reinforcing member with an arch shaped middle portion that protrudes away from the inner wall. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have provided both KR 20080001528 in view of White with arch shape, as taught by KR 200405024, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments directed at the rejections of the “joint” limitation filed 2-11-26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. There is no support in the specification designating box C as the joint. There does not appear to be any structure of the tableware that would define this box as the joint between the handle and the main body. Box C appears to be completely within main body as dictated in the rejection above. The handle has parallel sides while the main body has tapered sides and where the parallel sides meet the tapered sides (dashed line above) appears to be where the handle joins the main body and end 253 is clearly within the main body away from the dashed line.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the art rejection of the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection is not specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Monday-Friday: 7:00 am-3:00 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, Boyer D Ashley can be reached on (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.
27 February 2026
/Jason Daniel Prone/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724