DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-11, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being disclosed by Keitel.
Keitel discloses the invention including:
Claim 1; a handle (see Fig. 3) extending along a utensil axis (see Fig. 3, extends horizontally through the cutlery part) from a proximal end of the utensil, the handle comprising: a grip portion (see Fig. 1, see the right end of the cutlery part near the hand of the user and holder 1) extending in a first axial direction along the utensil axis from the proximal end (see Fig. 1-3, see how the grip portion extends along the axis of the cutlery part from holder 1 towards holder 2); a neck portion (the area where the element 5 is located) extending in the first axial direction from the grip; a finger receptacle 2 disposed on a back side of the utensil, the finger receptacle at least partially defining a passage (see Fig. 2) extending between an entry opening oriented toward the proximal end of the utensil and an exit opening oriented toward a distal end of the utensil opposite the proximal end, wherein the passage is configured to receive and circumscribe a tip of a finger (see Fig. 1) of a hand holding the handle; and a finger stop 5 on the back side of the utensil, the finger stop disposed on an opposite axial side of the finger receptacle from the grip; and a head portion 3 extending in the first axial direction from the neck portion such that the finger stop is disposed axially between the finger receptacle and the head portion, the head portion configured to engage food (see para. 0007).
Claim 2; wherein the finger stop is disposed immediately adjacent to the exit opening of the finger receptacle (see Fig. 1-3).
Claim 3; wherein the head portion is disposed immediately adjacent to the finger stop (see Fig. 1-3).
Claim 4; wherein the finger stop projects radially outward to at least partially radially overlap the exit opening (see Fig. 3).
Claim 8; the utensil is a knife (see Fig. 5); and wherein the head portion comprises a blade having a cutting edge oriented toward the front side of the utensil and a blunt edge oriented toward the back side of the utensil.
Claim 9; wherein the utensil is a fork (see Fig. 5); and wherein the head portion comprises a plurality of tines, each tine from the plurality of tines extending in the first axial direction from a root to a point.
Claim 10; wherein each of the plurality of tines curves concavely toward the front side of the fork (see Fig. 5).
Claim 11; wherein the root connects each of the plurality of tines; and wherein the root is disposed immediately adject to a distal side of the finger stop (see Fig. 5).
Claim 19; wherein the entry opening defined by the finger receptacle is perpendicular to the utensil axis (see Fig. 2).
Claim 20; wherein the grip portion tapers (see Fig. 5) in both width and height in the first axial direction to the neck portion from a location of maximum width and a location of maximum height of the grip portion.
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(s) 5 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keitel.
Keitel discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for the finger stop projects radially outward to radially overlap at least half of the exit opening. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the device of Keitel by providing the finger stop projects radially outward to radially overlap at least half of the exit opening for the purpose of providing an more contact area to improve the support of the finger, since such modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 6-7 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keitel.
Keitel discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for the finger receptacle is frustoconical in shape; and wherein an area of the entry opening is greater than an area of the exit opening; the finger receptacle is slanted in the first axial direction toward the distal end of the utensil. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the device of Keitel by providing the finger receptacle is frustoconical in shape; and wherein an area of the entry opening is greater than an area of the exit opening; the finger receptacle is slanted in the first axial direction toward the distal end of the utensil for the purpose of improving the grip by better conforming the shape of a finger, since such modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being one of numerous configurations a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148USPQ 459.
Claim(s) 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keitel in view of Prokop (2005/0241111).
Keitel discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for a recessed portion comprises a depression formed in the back side of the handle, the depression defined by a first shoulder and a second shoulder; wherein the second shoulder is formed in the handle in a distal direction from the first shoulder; wherein an axial length from the first shoulder to the second shoulder is configured to accommodate a width of a finger of the user; wherein the first shoulder is formed in the grip portion of the handle; and wherein the second shoulder is formed in the neck portion of the handle, such that the recessed portion straddles an interface of the grip portion and the neck portion of the handle. However, Prokop teaches the use of a recessed portion 40 comprises a depression formed in the back side of the handle (see Fig. 2-3), the depression defined by a first shoulder and a second shoulder (see Fig. 2-3); wherein the second shoulder is formed in the handle in a distal direction from the first shoulder (see Fig. 2-3); wherein an axial length from the first shoulder to the second shoulder is configured to accommodate a width of a finger of the user (see Fig. 9); wherein the first shoulder is formed in the grip portion of the handle (see Fig. 2-3); and wherein the second shoulder is formed in the neck portion 20 of the handle, such that the recessed portion straddles an interface of the grip portion and the neck portion of the handle for the purpose of improving the grip. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the device of Keitel by providing the above limitations as taught by Prokop in order to obtain a device that improves the grip.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR FLORES SANCHEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4507. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday8:00-4:00 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, Adam Eiseman can be reached at 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.
/OMAR FLORES SANCHEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724