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 .
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 joint between the main body and the handle, of claim 1;
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.
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 between the main body and the handle” is unclear. The specification fails to provide any insight on the structure that defines the “joint” and the Figures do not label the joint. Dictionary.com defines joint as: the place at which two things, or separate parts of one thing, are joined or united, either rigidly or in such a way as to permit motion; juncture. Since the specification fails to provide any structural insight about the joint, the definition listed is a reasonable interpretation. Figure 26 has been marked up in light of this definition as the dashed line is the place where the handle and the main body are joined or the dashed line represents the junction of the handle and the main body. 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. Next the specification only discloses item 253 as the first end. There is no disclosure that 253 represents anything but this actual end shown in Figure 27. The first end 253 is clearly laying completely within the main body 230 away from the joint between the main body and the handle. In the most recent response, Applicant circled an area of the member (page 9) that can be the first end (which would be considered new matter because the specification fails to disclose any details of the first end). However, comparing the circled area in Figure 27 to Figure 26, the circled first end still appears to be within the main body and would not be abutted against a joint between the main body and the handle. 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. The joint or structure that the first end abuts is the main body.
PNG
media_image1.png
420
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 1 and the specification, the disclosure that “the joint being a region at which the main body and the handle are connected” is not supported by the specification and is new matter. The original specification does not include any structure details about the joint between the main body and the handle and does not show the joint in the Figures. Dictionary.com defines joint as: the place at which two things, or separate parts of one thing, are joined or united, either rigidly or in such a way as to permit motion; juncture. Since the specification fails to provide any structural insight about the joint, the definition listed is a reasonable interpretation. The dashed line above represents where the handle and the main body are joined and it is unclear how any other area can be included in that junction. There is no support this joint can more than the provided definition in light of the specification’s lack of a definition. There is no support the joint can be a region which is assumed to include areas immediately adjacent the dashed line above.
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, the phrase “lower surface” is indefinite as it is dependent upon the indefinite unclaimed orientation of the tableware. The tableware is handheld and is capable of being utilized in an infinite number of orientations including ones where this surface will be considered an “upper” surface. If this “lower surface” is no longer considered “lower” and is considered “upper, the limitation still requires that recess to be “towards a lower surface” which could not be this surface as the tableware is oriented in a way that the surface is an upper surface. Terms that are true regardless of orientation must be used.
With regards to claim 1, it is unclear what structure defines the joint. See rejection above.
With regards to claim 1, the phrase “joint being a region at which the main body and the handle are connected” is unclear. Dictionary.com defines joint as: the place at which two things, or separate parts of one thing, are joined or united, either rigidly or in such a way as to permit motion; juncture. The dashed line in the Figure above is where the handle joins the main body. Since the specification fails to provide any structural details about the joint, the definition listed is a reasonable interpretation and is it unclear how the joint can be a region when the portions of the region are spaced from the actual place the handle joins the main body. The specification fails to disclose a region. It is unclear what structures define the region. Where does the region begin and end? Why does the region begin and end in those locations? What structure allows where 253 engages 230 to be in the region?
With regards to claim 1, the phrase “reinforcing the tableware against bending at the joint” is confusing in that it is unclear how the “region” plays a role in the reinforcement against bending. The claim just further limited the joint as a region but this limitation utilizes the “joint” and not the “region”.
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 detachable reinforcing member (106, paragraph [0062] discloses the ribs (106) provide addition strength and support and the ribs (106) are repositionable according to user needs. In order to be repositioned, the rib (106) needs to be detachable), a first end of the reinforcing member abuts against a joint between the main body and the handle where the joint is a region at which the main body and the handle are connected thereby reinforcing the tableware against bending at the joint (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 towards a lower surface of the main body 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 towards a lower surface of the main body 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
It is to be noted that claims 2-6 and 12 have not been rejected over prior art. It may or may not be readable over the prior art but allowability cannot be determined at this time in view of the issues under 35 USC § 112. Where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In reSteele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments directed at the rejections of the “joint” limitation filed 5-18-26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. There is no support in the specification defining the joint as a region. Since no definition is provided or any structural details of the joint disclosed, use of the dictionary.com definition is reasonable. Further, the region limitation claimed is not supported and is new matter. Also, there is no support that the end 253 is anything but the edge the reference line is pointing to in Figure 27. Further defining the end as the circled area in the response would be new matter. The structures shown in the elected embodiment Figures 26 and 27 appears to show “the reinforcing member in the recess of the handle in a way that the reinforcing member traverses a joint between the main body and the handle so that a first end of the reinforcing member abuts against the main body thereby reinforcing the joint against bending”.
With regards to the rejection of White in view of Lee, paragraph [0062] of White discloses the ribs (106) provide addition strength and support and the ribs (106) are repositionable according to user needs. In order to be repositioned, the rib (106) needs to be detachable. The Modified White has the repositionable/detachable rib in the recess taught by Lee.
Conclusion
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.
28 May 2026
/Jason Daniel Prone/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights