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 because:
In Figure 5, the is a vertical line next to label “30” than should be removed.
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.
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 4, item “31”
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.
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 is in the form of a claim and is a single run-on sentence.
In this case, the abstract uses the legal phraseology “comprises”, “characterized”, and “means”.
The final phrase “Figure for abstract: Fig. 5” should be deleted.
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification needs to be amended to clearly define each structure, how each of the structures interact, and each of the functions of each structure.
Paragraphs [0010], [0011], and [0022], utilize numbers that are not in brackets while the remaining paragraphs use numbers in brackets to reference the Figures. It is unclear what these numbers that are not in brackets are for. The numbers that are not in brackets in paragraphs [0010], [0011], and [0022] should be deleted.
The assembly of the cutlery is unclear. Lines 1-2 of paragraph [0021] discloses the shoulder of the head connects to the handle. However, the Figures appear to show that the head (1) remains spaced from handle (2) and it is housing/case 30 that connects to the head and to the handle to keep the head spaced from the handle. Further explanation is needed so the assembly is understood.
The specification uses the term “so-called” on multiple occasions. It is unclear what allows for an item to be “so-called”. All occurrences should be deleted.
All structures need to have a single name utilized throughout the specification. Item 20 is disclosed as a super capacitor, super capacities, case, and rechargeable super capacity. Item 1 is disclosed as a cutlery head and utensil part. Item 2 is disclosed as a cutlery handle and utensil part. Item 30 is disclosed as a protective housing, case, housing protection, and protective box. Item 51 is disclosed as a box contact and a housing head contact. 52 is disclosed as a box contact and a housing handle contact. Paragraph [0024] uses the term “waterproof shell” while claim 1 uses the term “tamper-proof closure” and it is not clear if these items represent the same structure or not.
Appropriate correction is required.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Intelligent Cutlery.
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 and 2 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 the claims and the specification, it is not clear what functions the electronic card allows the fork to perform. The specification needs to be amended to explain the function or functions in detail in a way that does not include new matter so the invention can be understood.
With regards to the claim 1 disclosure “to guide the user in their feeding speed” and the specification disclosure “is to inform the user by means of a vibrating or luminous warning signal whether he is eating too quickly or not” are not understood. The specification fails to provide any insight on structure that allows for speed detection. It is assumed the electric card plays a role in figuring out the speed but the specification fails to disclosure what structures the card incorporates that allow for it to know the speed and then set of the warning signal. Does the card incorporate a structure that acts as speed sensor to determine the speed and a structure that acts as processor to compare the speed with a threshold all in communication with the warning outputs? It is noted that disclosure of a speed sensor and processor do not appear to be supported and could be new matter if disclosed.
With regards to claims 1 and 2 and the specification, it is unclear if the “to guide the user in their feeding speed” and the “detects the mouthing of the utensil head” are related or are two different functions. Paragraph [0022] discloses that the outputs 15 signal is the user is eating to quickly which does not have a “mouthing” function associated therewith. Paragraph [0027] discloses the outputs 15 are associated with the detection circuit detecting “mouthing” but there is nothing associated with speed.
With regards to claims 1 and 2 and the specification, the “mouthing of the utensil head” function needs more explanation. Is this function just the user putting the fork in their mouth during eating which then triggers the warnings 15 each time or is there a way that does not trigger the warnings 15?
With regards to claim 1 and the specification, it is unclear what structure represents the tamper-proof closure. Paragraph [0024] discloses a waterproof shell and the using insulating resin. Are one of these structures supposed to the tamper-proof closure?
With regards to claim 1 and the specification, the disclosure that “case (50) which includes external power supply (53)” is unclear. Using Figure 6, it is unclear how 53 is an external power supply when it is clearly in case 50. Further explanation is needed.
With regards to claim 1 and the specification, the timing circuit disclosure is unclear. It is unclear what structure the timing circuit incorporates? In Figure 5, the line for 58 appears to be pointing at a rectangle. It is unclear what structure allows for the timing circuit to perform a recharging function. Using Figure 5, 51 and 52 connect to the head 1 and handle 2 respectively. How does the timing circuit work with 51 and 52? What structure does the head and handle incorporate that allows for cooperation with the timing circuit and/or 51 and 52? How does the timing circuit contact the head and the handle? Are 51, 52, and 53 part of the timing circuit? Why is 58 called a “timing” circuit? Does time paly a role?
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 and 2 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
With regards to claim 1, the phrase “to guide the user in their feeding speed” is unclear. What structure allows for a guiding function to take place? What speed is being measured? How does the cutlery measure the speed? How does the cutlery perform this guiding function if the user ignores the warnings?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the user" on line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the assembly" on line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear how the head and the handle can be an “assembly” without the case 30.
With regards to claim 1, the phrase “the assembly of a cutlery head of a cutlery handle mechanically assembled with a protective box” is unclear. It is unclear how the head is “of” the handle. It is unclear what is meant by “mechanically assembled with a protective box”.
With regards to claim 1, the phrase “a protective box of an electronic card” is unclear. It is unclear how the box is “of” the card when the card is in the box and appears to be part of the box.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the Minus power terminal" on line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the circuit" on line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the core circuit" on line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With regards to claim 1 line 6, the phrase “to the terminal” is unclear. While there is a bracketed label “(B+)” this label does not distinguish between the two terminals. Each of the terminals need to have a unique name so it is clear which terminal is being referenced.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the protective housing" on line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 uses the phrase “protective box” with item 30 earlier on line 3.
With regards to claim 1, both a protective box and a protective housing is disclosed which is not supported.
With regards to claim 1, it is unclear what structure represents the tamper-proof closure.
With regards to claim 1, the phrase “super capacity” is unclear. Was the term “super capacitor” supposed to be used?
With regards to claim 1 lines 11-14, the “recharged in a case” disclosure is unclear. The claim is directed at the cutlery only which is shown in Figure 5. The case 50 is not and cannot be considered to be comprised by the cutlery as supported by the specification. It is unclear what Applicant’s intentions are with the “case” disclosure as the case can only be an intended use of the cutlery. If Applicant’s intentions were to positively claim the case and cutler combination, a different preamble is needed so that both can be positively claimed.
With regards to claim 1, the timing circuit disclosure is unclear.
With regards to claim 1, the external power supply disclosure is unclear. What structure allows for the power supply to be considered external?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the Plus terminal" on lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the Minus terminal" on lines 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With regards to claim 2, in the preamble the phrases “Intelligent utensil” and “his” unclear. Claim 1 uses the phrases “Intelligent cutlery” and “their”.
With regards to claim 2, the phrase “mouthing of the cutlery head” is unclear.
Claim 2’s structural limitations are very confusing. As written, many of the limitations do not appear to be comprised by existing claimed structures. Claim 2 is replete with antecedent basis issues. Appears to utilize different named structures with the same numbers (87). What is meant by “cleverly”?
Claims
It is to be noted that claims 1 and 2 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.
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: 7:30 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 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.
10 September 2025
/Jason Daniel Prone/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724