DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Election/Restrictions
In light of the current status of claim 1, the restriction has been withdrawn and all claims have been examined.
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 utilizes the legal phraseology “comprising”.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0043] line 2, Figure 7 is disclosed as being a second embodiment. However, in the response, Applicant explains that Figure 1 is the same as Figures 1-6 but paragraph [0038] lines 1-2 disclose Figures 1-6 as being the first embodiment. It is unclear if Figure 7 is the same or a different embodiment as Figures 1-6.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 line 4, the phrase “one end” should be replaced with “one of the ends” for proper antecedent basis.
In claim 1 line 8, the phrase “each of one end of the multiple tines” should be replaced with “one of the respective ends of each of the multiple tines”.
In claim 1 line 8, the phrase “the other end” should be replaced with “another one of the ends”.
In claim 1 line 9, the phrase “the other end of multiple tines” should be replaced with “other ones of the respective ends of each of the multiple tines”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-10 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
With regards to claim 1 line 5-6, the phrases “first surface presents a convex surface” and “the second surface presents a concave surface” are unclear. It is unclear how on surface presents another surface. The first surface is or presents as convex and the second surface is or presents as concave in this situation. Lines 11-12 have the same issue.
With regards to claim 1 lines 9-10, the phrase “is mutually away from each other” is unclear. It is unclear why the lateral sides relationships are not disclosed as they are disclosed in the next paragraph. Also, one could argue that the free ends of each tine is mutually away from all other free ends as shown in Figure 6. This limitation should be amended to include that the lateral sides of the tines are spaced from one another so that the free ends are spaces from each other as well.
With regards to claim 1 lines 13-14, the phrase “mutually close to each other” is unclear. It is unclear what is and is not considered mutually close as the free ends of the tines are considered close to all other parts of the spork including the free end of the holding part 11. It is recommended that the free ends of the tines be disclosed as being closer to each other when the lateral sides engage in relation to when the lateral sides are spaced.
With regards to claim 1 line 14, the phrase “adhere to each other” does not appear to be proper. The sides do not appear to adhere or stick to each other they merely engage when in this position. Claim 6 has the same issue.
With regards to claim 5, claim 1 already discloses ends of the tines that connect to the flexible part. As written, claim 5 introduces additional tine ends that connect to the flexible part and does not further limit the ends disclosed in claim 1. As written, each tine has more than one end that connects to the flexible part which is not supported. The lateral connection parts and the inner connection parts define tine ends of claim 1 that connects to the flexible part and claim 5 needs to acknowledge this relationship.
With regards to claim 5, it is unclear how the tine end parts and the connection parts present bent structures. As with the paragraph above, it is unclear how these parts can “present” another structure? The respective connection between the parts allows for the tine to incorporate a bent shape.
With regards to claim 6, it is unclear if each tine forms its own recess or if the tines when engages together define the recess. It is also unclear what defines the “one side of the first surface”.
With regards to claims 7 and 8, claim 1 discloses the holding part and the flexible part has ends. As written, the pivot part is in addition to the claim 1 ends which is not supported. It is the ends disclosed in claim 1 that define the pivot part. Claims 7 and 8 need to further define and acknowledge the ends structures disclosed in claim 1.
With regards to claim 7, it is unclear what is meant by “relatively far”? As disclosed above all parts of the spork can be considered “mutually close” to each other. Further definition is needed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art incorporates a spork with a holding part, a flexible part, and tines where the flexible part has a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface where when the first surface is convex and the second surface is concave, lateral sides and free ends of the tines are spaced (fork position) and when pressed so that the first surface is concave and the second surface is convex, the lateral sides of the tines engage and the free ends of the tines are closer than when they are spaced (spoon position) in combination with the remaining limitations. The three cited Larson references (1,603,286, 1,351,046, and 1,351,045) are considered close prior art as each has a spork part with tines that have an engaged spoon position and a spaced apart fork position. Larson 1,351,045 further has a flexible part with a concave surface and a convex surface (8a) in the spoon position shown in Figure 2 but fails to disclose the claimed concave and convex surfaces in the fork position as 8a in Figure 3 is clearly flat. Larson 1,603,286 and 1,351,046 fail to disclose a flexible part with concave or convex surface is either the fork or spoon positions. There appears to be no justification to modify the above-mentioned references, in any combination to meet the requirements of the claimed invention as set forth in claim 1.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
31 October 2025
/Jason Daniel Prone/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights