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
Applicant’s 10-22-2025 Amendment was received. Claims 1-2, 11-13, 15, 17, 18, 21-24 were amended. Claims 1-26 are pending and examined in this action.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “each of said pair of chopsticks (112), of said pair of chopsticks is defined by a” should read “said pair of chopsticks is defined by.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “each of said pair of chopsticks (112), of said pair of chopsticks is defined by a” should read “said pair of chopsticks is defined by.” Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2, 6-12 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20140000962 U in view of US 2020/0128983 to YIU, and BR 202013020936U2.
In re Claim 1, KR 20140000962 U teaches a multi-utilitarian implement suitable for use on the dining table (see the assembly in Figs. 1-2, which can be placed on a dining table), said implement comprising:
a spoon defined by a shallow scoop (see spoon Figs. 1-2);
a handle detachably connected to a second distal end of said shallow scoop, said handle (see Figs. 1-2, , the assembly of #10/11/15/13/14 is considered a “handle” as one is capable of gripping this structure and moving this structure and the spoon is detachably connected to this structure) comprising;
a pair of chopsticks (see Figs. 1-2, showing a pair of chopsticks).
KR 20140000962 U teaches a spoon and not a spork having a plurality of tines (106) configured on a first distal end of said shallow scoop (104); and KR 20140000962 U does not teach:
a two-edged knife element having a pair of lateral edges, each lateral edge being configured as a type of a knife, and
detachably joined to an operative first end of said knife element,
said configured to act as said handle in an attached state with said knife element.
However, YIU teaches that it is known to provide a spork instead of a spoon, wherein the spork includes a plurality of tines configured on a first distal end of said shallow scoop (see YIU Figs. 1-2, showing a plurality of tines configured on a distal end of the shallow scoop, #13/14/13).
In the same field of invention, utensils, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add a spork to the assembly of KR 20140000962 U. This is because spork structure has better structural strength to pierce through food such as steaks, pork chops, vegetables, and fruits (see YIU, Abstract).
Additionally, BR 202013020936U2 teaches that it is known to provide a knife with a two-edged knife clement having a pair of lateral edges, each lateral edge being configured as a type of a knife (see BR 202013020936U2 , Figs. 1-2, and abstract teaches a bread cutting edge and a buttering edge).
In the same field of invention, utensils, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to add the knife of BR 202013020936U2 with an aperture to hang on the utensil assembly of KR 20140000962 U by replacing one of the forks. Doing so provides a two functioned utensil that cuts bread and butters the bread without having to have two different knifes.
Adding the knife of BR 202013020936U2 to the assembly of KR 20140000962 U, provides for an assembly with a knife and a pair of chopsticks, wherein the pair of chops sticks are joined to the first end of the knife element in that “joined” was interpreted as indirectly joined or directly joined – the assembly of all structures are joined together in Figs. 1-2 of KR 20140000962. In this case, the pair of chops sticks and the other utensils, including a knife of BR 202013020936US, are joined to the knife by way of structures #13-15 in KR 20140000962 U. Additionally, the chop sticks can be gripped and used as a handle and therefore the modified structure reads on said configured to act as said handle in an attached state with said knife element.
In re Claim 2, modified KR 20140000962 U, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein said shallow scoop (see YIU, Fig. 1, #11) has a concave configuration having a neck (see YIU, Fig. 1, neck between #21 and #11) configured at a second distal end of said shallow scoop, said neck extending to a wider portion configured to terminate into said plurality of tines at said first distal end of said shallow scoop (see YIU, Figs. 1-2),
In re Claim 6, modified KR 20140000962 U, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein said knife clement is defined by a body having a first lateral edge (I1OA) and a second lateral edge (see BR 202013020936 -3U2, showing two edges in Figs. 1-2).
In re Claim 7, modified KR 20140000962 U, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein said first lateral edge has a sharp edge configuration defining a dinner knife (see BR 202013020936 -3U2, Figs. 1-2, showing a dinner knife edge).
In re Claim 8, modified KR 20140000962 U, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein said first lateral edge has a serrated edge configuration defining a dinner knife (see BR 202013020936 -3U2, Figs. 1-2, showing a serrated edge).
In re Claim 9, modified KR 20140000962 U, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein said second lateral edge has a blunt edge configuration defining a butterknife (see BR 202013020936 -3U2, Figs. 1-2, and abstract, showing butterknife).
In re Claim 10, modified KR 20140000962 U, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein said second lateral edge has a non-serrated edge configuration defining a butter knife (see BR 202013020936 -3U2, Figs. 1-2, and abstract, showing butterknife).
In re Claim 11, modified KR 20140000962 U, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein each of said pair of chopsticks is defined by a narrow operative lower half configured with a blunt end or a sharp end, and a wider operative upper half attached to said operative lower half (see Figs. 1-2, of KR 20140000962 U, showing the chop sticks that are defined by a narrow operative lower half configured with a blunt end or a sharp end, and a wider operative upper half attached to said operative lower half).
In re Claim 12, modified KR 20140000962 U, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein each is defined by a body tapering from said wider operative upper half to said narrow operative lower half, said narrow operative lower half configured with a blunt end or a sharp end (see Figs. 1-2, of KR 20140000962 U, showing the chop sticks that are defined by a body tapering from said wider operative upper half to said narrow operative lower half, said narrow operative lower half configured with a blunt end or a sharp end).
In re Claim 25, modified KR 20140000962 U, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein said implement (100) is manufactured from a reusable material. KR 20140000962 U which teaches : holder is made of stainless steel to prevent corrosion due to moisture that inevitably come into contact with cutlery, plastic or other corrosion-resistant materials if the processing chopsticks holder).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over.
KR 20140000962 U in view of US 2020/0128983 to YIU, and BR 202013020936U2, and further in view of US 2016/0358512 to Gonshor.
In re Claim 26, modified KR 20140000962 U, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein said implement is manufactured by 3D printing process.
However, Gonshor teaches that it is known in utensil art, to make the utensils out of 3D printing (see Gonshor, Para. 0015). In the same field of invention, utensils, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to make the structures of modified KR 20140000962 U out of 3D printing. Doing so is the use of a known manufacturing method for making utensil.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 14-15, and 24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest prior art is:
KR 20140000962 U
US 2020/0128983 to YIU,
BR 202013020936U2, and
US 2016/0358512 to Gonshor.
In re Claim 3, none of the cited prior art teaches the structure or motivation to arrive at wherein one operative end of said two-edged knife element (110) is configured to be detachably attached to said spork (102) and the other operative end of said two-edged knife element (I10) is configured to be detachably attached to said pair of chopsticks (112),” in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim. Dependent Claims 4-5, 14-15, and 24 would be allowable by virtue of their dependence to Claim 3.
Claims 13, 21-22, and 23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest prior art is:
KR 20140000962 U
US 2020/0128983 to YIU,
BR 202013020936U2, and
US 2016/0358512 to Gonshor.
In re Claim 13, none of the cited prior art teaches the structure or motivation to arrive at wherein a pair of slots (120) is configured on an operative first end of said knife body to receive the operative lower halves (12A) of said chopsticks (112) therein. Dependent Claims 21-22 and 23 would be allowable by virtue of their dependence to Claim 13.
Claims 16-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest prior art is:
KR 20140000962 U
US 2020/0128983 to YIU,
BR 202013020936U2, and
US 2016/0358512 to Gonshor.
In re Claim 16, none of the cited prior art teaches the structure or motivation to arrive at wherein each chopstick (112) is provided with an arcuate concavity (122) configured on an operative inner side of each chopstick (112), in an attached state with said knife element (110) to form said handle (108). and provide integrity to the implement (100), in the attached state. Claim 17 was interpreted to depend from Claim 16 and would be allowable by virtue of their dependence to Claim 16.
Claims 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest prior art is:
KR 20140000962 U
US 2020/0128983 to YIU,
BR 202013020936U2, and
US 2016/0358512 to Gonshor.
In re Claim 18, none of the cited prior art teaches the structure or motivation to arrive at wherein said shallow scoop (104) has a hollow body configuration, wherein a passage is configured inside said shallow scoop (104) such that said passage opens into a hole (126) configured in said neck (114) of said shallow scoop (104), said passage further diverging into at least two slits (128) configured on an operative inner surface of said shallow scoop (104) to facilitate passage of a fluid from said inner surface of said shallow scoop (104) to said neck (114). Dependent Claims 19-20 would be allowable by virtue of their dependence to Claim 18.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s amendments have obviated the prior claim objections and 35 USC 112(b) rejections. However, as noted above, Claims 11-12 are objected to.
Applicant’s argument and amendment have obviated the drawing objections.
Applicant argues that “the claimed features of claim I of the present disclosure offers a modular compact configuration that integrates multiple dining utensils in a single unit, which can be used for a single culinary function, or used simultaneously for multiple culinary functions.” The Examiner notes that the claims are apparatus claims directed to the structure of the device and not method of use claims requiring method steps. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Here, KR '962 is modular in that it can be pick up and put on a different table. Additionally, KR '962 integrates multiple dining utensils in a single assembly or unit which can be used for a single function (only using one of the utensils of the assembly) or used simultaneously for multiple culinary functions (different users using different utensils at the same time).
Applicant argues that KR '962 discloses a passive storage rack and is not directed to “a multi-utilitarian implement suitable for use on the dining table, having plural functions integrated into one device, in the sense of an eating implement. Its principle of operation is storage, not food consumption. The Examiner disagrees. KR '962 is a multi-utilitarian implement in that it has multiple different food utensil implements. KR '962 is suitable for use on a dining table. KR '962 has plural functions (chop sticks, sporks/spoon/ forks) integrated into one device. It is unclear how KR '962 cannot be considered an “eating implement” because it has eating utensils. The Examiner disagrees that the principle of KR ‘962 is only storage and not food consumption. The point of the utensil of KR ‘962 is to consume food. Additionally, the function of Applicant’s disclosure is to consume food as well as “store” multiple utensils in one assembly. As such, the principle of Applicant’s disclosure is both storage and food consummation and the principle of KR ‘962 is both storage and food consumption.
Applicant argues that “KR '962 is not a relevant prior art as the purpose of the cutlery storage rack is totally different as compared to the invention as claimed in Claim 1, that is, to provide plurality of functions integrated into one implement.” The Examiner disagrees. Both Applicant’s disclosure and KR ‘962 store utensils in an assembly as well as integrate multiple utensils into one assembly. The Examiner suggests adding limitations directed to the structural differences between Applicant’s disclosure and the disclosure of modified KR '962.
Applicant argues that the “rack assembly (#10/11/15/13/14)” being a handle of the assembly is overly broad. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a structure that a user can grip is a handle. As such, the structure labeled #10/11/15/13/14) in Figs. 1-2 KR '962 is a handle. The Examiner suggests adding limitations directed to the structural differences between Applicant’s disclosure and the disclosure of modified KR '962.
Applicant argues that “A person skilled in the art would not equate a rack or stand with a dining implement, as the rack merely holds utensils rather than forming part of a utensil itself.” The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner notes that Claim 1 does not required a “dining implement” but instead the claim requires “a multi-utilitarian implement suitable for using on the dining table.” It cannot be said that the structure of KR '962 is not “an implement suitable for use on the dining table.” Additionally, it cannot be said that the structure of KR '962 is not “multi-utilitarian.” Accordingly, KR ‘962 is a multi-utilitarian implement suitable for using on the dining table. The Examiner suggests adding limitations directed to the structural differences between Applicant’s disclosure and the disclosure of modified KR '962.
Applicant argues that because a glass of water can be grasped or held, or a block of wood can be grasped or held does not mean that these are handles. That may be true. However, Applicant’s “handle” is #108 in Fig. 1. This structure is a generally tubular or circular cross section that extends in a direction such that the user can grasp the device. In the same vein, the structure of #11, #14, #15 of KR '962 is a circular structure that extends in a direction such that the user can grasp the device. The structure of KR '962 is not a glass or piece of wood. It is the same type of structure disclosed by Applicant. The Examiner suggests adding limitations directed to the structural differences between Applicant’s disclosure and the disclosure of modified KR '962.
Applicant argues that YIU does not teach “a plurality of simple tines in a detachable configuration. The Examiner notes however, that the claim does not requires the tines being detachable. The claim requires a spork having a plurality of tines which YIU teaches.
Applicant argues that YIU’s handle is integrally formed and is not detachable. The Examiner agrees that YIU teaches a utensil with tines and that KR '962 teaches detachable utensils. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that YIU does not teach chopsticks nor multiple detachable implements. The Examiner notes, however, that KR '962 teaches these limitations. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that YIU is directed to a disposable spork. The Examiner notes that dependent Claim 25 teaches that the implement is reusable, which by way of claim differentiation, means that Claim 1 allows for disposable utensils.
Applicant argues that changing the spoon to a spork in KR '962 would improperly conflate storage with use. The Examiner notes that KR '962 is both storage and use. The point of placing the device of KR '962 on the table is for storing the utensil on the table so that they can be used. The Examiner suggests adding limitations directed to the structural differences between Applicant’s disclosure and the disclosure of modified KR '962.
Applicant argues that “BR ‘936 fails to disclose or suggest a multi-utilitarian implement comprising a spork with tines, a detachable handle, dual-edge knife elements integrated within the handle, and chopsticks arranged in a modular configuration.” The Examiner agrees that BR ‘936 fails to teach all of the limitations of Claim 1. BR ‘936 teaches a utensil with two types of edges. Replacing one of the utensils in KR '962 with that of the BR ‘936 would have been obvious for providing a knife that cuts bread and has an edge for spreading butter – see discussion above.
Applicant argues that the combination of KR '962, YIU, and BR ‘936 would not teach: a handle detachably connected to a second distal end of the scoop, the handle having knife-like sharp lateral edges, and chopsticks detachably joined to the operative first end of the knife element (i.e., the handle), so that the chopsticks act as an extension of the handle in the attached state, forming a single, multi-utilitarian implement. The Examiner disagrees.
Applicant appears to argue that the preamble of Claim 1 requires a single “utensil.” But the preamble of the claim requires a “multi-utilitarian implement” and not a multi-utilitarian utensil.” The structures of #11/14-15 of KR are the same structure of Applicant’s disclosure (a circular cross-section extending in a direction). The spoon / sport utensil is detachable from this structure, and this structure is detachable from the spoon. When the knife of BR 936 is attached or joined to the assembly of KR’962 it is attached to an assembly that includes a handle and a two edged knife element. Additionally, modified KR ‘962 teaches chop sticks attached to the assembly (see Figs. 1-2).
The Examiner notes that CN ‘868 was not used in the rejections but was listed in the PTO 892 as pertinent art.
Applicant argues that KR ‘962 discloses a storage rack, not a dining implement with no integrated spork, knife-handle, or detachable chopsticks for use. In response, the Examiner notes that “dining implement” is not in the claim. The claim is an implement suitable for use on the dining table, which KR ‘962 is. Additionally, the term “integrated” is not found in Claim 1. Further, when the implement of Figs. 1-2 of KR 962 includes a spork utensil, taught by YIU, hanging from the structure as well as a knife utensil, taught by BR ‘936, with two edges hanging from the structure, the claim is broad enough to read on the assembly of Claim 1. The Examiner suggests adding limitations directed to the structural differences between Applicant’s disclosure and the disclosure of modified KR '962.
applicant argues that “YIU discloses a pressed plant-fiber spork with an integrally formed disposable structure with no detachability, knife element, or chopsticks.” The Examiner notes that In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). When the implement of Figs. 1-2 of KR 962 includes a spork utensil, taught by YIU, hanging from the structure as well as a knife utensil, taught by BR ‘936, with two edges hanging from the structure, the claim is broad enough to read on the assembly of Claim 1. The Examiner suggests adding limitations directed to the structural differences between Applicant’s disclosure and the disclosure of modified KR '962.
Applicant argues that “BR '936 discloses only a double-function knife. There is no spork, detachable components, or chopsticks; it is a standalone knife focused on dual edges for cutting/spreading.” Examiner notes that In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). When the implement of Figs. 1-2 of KR 962 includes a spork utensil, taught by YIU, hanging from the structure as well as a knife utensil, taught by BR ‘936, with two edges hanging from the structure, the claim is broad enough to read on the assembly of Claim 1. The Examiner suggests adding limitations directed to the structural differences between Applicant’s disclosure and the disclosure of modified KR '962.
Applicant argues that “Individually, none of these references teaches the claimed detachable handle comprising a two- edged knife element in combination with chopsticks detachably joined to act as the handle, together with the spork defined by a shallow scoop having tines. Collectively, the references are silent on the detachable integration of multiple distinct implements as presently claimed.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., t “dining implement” or “integrated”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The Examiner suggests adding limitations directed to the structural differences between Applicant’s disclosure and the disclosure of modified KR '962.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 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 Ashley 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.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724