DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action acknowledges the applicant’s amendment filed 12 February 2026. Claims 1-11, 14-19 and 21-23 are pending in the application. Claims 12, 13 and 20 have been cancelled.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Objections
As an initial matter, the claims filed 12 February 2026 would normally be treated as non-responsive or informal since the claim language of cancelled claims 12, 13 and 20 are still present in the claims set. MPEP 714(II)(C) under section “C: Claim text” states “A claim being canceled must be indicated as "canceled;" the text of the claim must not be presented”. Therefore, the text of canceled claims 12, 13 and 20 should not be present. These claims should simply say “12. (Cancelled).” Since this amendment is a bona fide attempt at a proper amendment, examiner requires correction of this issue be made in applicants’ next response.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the office action mailed 13 November 2025, the examiner stated the following:
“Regarding claim 11, the applicant states (line 2) “the edge”. It appears “the edge” should be “the upper edge” since “an upper edge” was previously introduced in claim 1, from which claim 11 depends”.
In the applicants’ response, the applicant amended claim 11 to change “the edge” to read “an upper edge”. As stated in the non-final rejection and copied above, since “an upper edge” was already introduced in claim 1 and claim 11 depends from claim 1, examiner stated the claim limitation should be changed to “the upper edge”. This claim is still objected to for the reasons provided here.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “clipping mechanism” in claim 16. The three-prong test for this claim limitations is as follows:
The limitation “mechanism” is a generic placeholder (nonce word) for “means”
The phrase “clipping mechanism” can be viewed as “mechanism for clipping” thus has the transition word “for”
The term “clipping” is not modified by sufficient structure.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Paragraph 22 defines the “clipping mechanism” as “In one preferred embodiment, the attachment rim 11 is a clip-on rim. In this embodiment, the attachment rim 11 removably attaches to the lip of a bowl 14 or plate via a clipping mechanism. For example, to clip-on the attachment rim 11 to a bowl 14, place the attachment rim along the rim of the bowl 14 and push down firmly until fully attached”. Thus the “clipping mechanism” will be treated to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-11, 14-19 and 21-23 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, the applicant states “wherein the attachment rim is further configured to attach to any sized bowl”. The originally filed disclosure does not state or show this feature. In fact, the specification explicitly states (paragraph 22):
“In one preferred embodiment, the attachment rim 11 is a clip-on rim. In this embodiment, the attachment rim 11 removably attaches to the lip of a bowl 14 or plate via a clipping mechanism. For example, to clip-on the attachment rim 11 to a bowl 14, place the attachment rim along the rim of the bowl 14 and push down firmly until fully attached. To these ends, the exact dimensions of the attachment rim 11 can be made to match a specific bowl or can be made so one-size fits most standard bowls”.
The specification makes no mention of the attachment rim configured to attach to any sized bowl, as the new claim limitation states.
Regarding claims 4 and 17, the applicant states “the attachment rim is configured to extend in a downward direction along an outside wall of the bowl so as to hug the outside wall of the bowl to provide a secure attachment”. The originally filed disclosure does not state or show this feature. In fact, the specification explicitly states (paragraph 23):
“As seen in FIGs. 7 and 11, the rear extension of the attachment rim 11 extends downward along the outside wall of the attached-to-bowl 14, thereby providing a secure attachment”.
The specification makes no mention of “the attachment rim configured to extend in a downward direction along an outside wall of the bowl so as to hug the outside wall of the bowl to provide a secure attachment”, as the new claim limitation states.
Regarding claim 22, the applicant states “wherein the attachment rim is configured to extend around 1 to 6 inches of the circumference of the bowl”. The originally filed disclosure does not state or show this feature. In fact, the specification explicitly states (paragraph 21):
“The bowl attachment apparatus has a preferred width of 1 to 6 inches”.
The specification makes no mention of “wherein the attachment rim is configured to extend around 1 to 6 inches of the circumference of the bowl”, as the new claim limitation states. The specification only defines the width of the bowl attachment apparatus. The width of the bowl attachment apparatus would be a one dimension extent shown in either figure 2 or figure 5. The width of the bowl attachment apparatus cannot equal the extent of which the attachment rim extends around a circumference of the bowl since the bowl attachment apparatus is curved.
Dependent claims not specifically mentioned are rejected as depending from rejected base claims since they inherently contain the same deficiencies therein.
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 21-23 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.
Regarding claim 21, the applicant states “wherein the attachment rim is configured to extend around less than 50% of the total circumference of the bowl”. Defining the size of the claimed invention by the object to be held, without positively reciting the object to be held, renders the claim indefinite since it relies upon a variable object. A claim may be rendered indefinite by reference to an object that is variable. Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989).
Regarding claim 22, the applicant states “wherein the attachment rim is configured to extend around 1 to 6 inches of the circumference of the bowl”. Defining the size of the claimed invention by the object to be held, without positively reciting the object to be held, renders the claim indefinite since it relies upon a variable object. A claim may be rendered indefinite by reference to an object that is variable. Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989).
Regarding claim 23, the applicant states “wherein the attachment rim is configured to extend around less than a third of the total circumference of the bowl”. Defining the size of the claimed invention by the object to be held, without positively reciting the object to be held, renders the claim indefinite since it relies upon a variable object. A claim may be rendered indefinite by reference to an object that is variable. Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-7, 9-11 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frangione et al. (US 20150173541), in view of Copeland (US 20060207993).
Regarding claim 1, Frangione teaches a bowl attachment apparatus (figures 1-7, reference 10) for aiding the use of feeding utensils (figure 7), comprising: an attachment rim (figures 1-3, reference 11a) with a downward facing mouth (figure 3, reference 21a, 21c and 21b) configured to clip onto an upper edge of a bowl (figure 7, reference 5); a lip (figures 1-7, reference 11) configured to attach to a top end of the attachment rim (figure 3: lip 11 is configured to be attached to attachment rim 21a-21c) and configured to extend over and in the direction of a center of the bowl (figure 7: lip 11 extends over and in the direction of center line ‘Y’ which is the center of the bowl) wherein the attachment rim is further configured to attach to any sized bowl (paragraph 21: Frangione states “In one embodiment, the main body can be constructed from a lightweight and generally rigid material such as plastic for example, that is safe for use with food, and that is preferably dishwasher safe and can be sized to fit about the periphery of m(an)y number of standard sized dishware such as 8'' bowls, 10'' plates, etc. Of course, any number of other sizes and materials are also contemplated”. The rim can be sized to fit any number of sizes. Furthermore, this limitation has been treated as an intended use recitation. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Since the limitation has not been positively claimed, the system of Frangione is capable of performing the recited function).
Frangione does not teach a handle capable of being configured to attach to an intersection of the lip and the attachment rim and configured to extend away from the center of the bowl. However, Copeland does teach a handle (figure 2 and 3, reference 28) configured to attach to an intersection of the lip (figure 3, reference 61) and the attachment rim (figure 3, reference 48) and configured to extend away from the center of the bowl (figure 3: handle 28 extends away from the center 50 of the bowl 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Frangione to include a handle capable of being configured to attach to an intersection of the lip and the attachment rim and configured to extend away from the center of the bowl, as disclosed by Copeland, because including the handle on the apparatus allows for a user to grab the handle in order to remove the apparatus from the bowl, as disclosed by Copeland (paragraph 29).
Regarding claim 2, Frangione, in view of Copeland, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Frangione teaches the attachment rim is configured to be removably attachable to the upper edge of the bowl (figure 5-7 and paragraph 26).
Regarding claim 3, Frangione, in view of Copeland, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Frangione teaches the mouth of the attachment rim is curved and configured to align with a circumference of the bowl (figure 3 and 7 and paragraph 22: since the attachment rim 21 is made of rubber and can contract and expand in order to allow the unit to engage the upper edge/lip of a piece of dishware, the rim would be curved).
Regarding claim 4, Frangione, in view of Copeland, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Frangione teaches the attachment rim is configured to extend in a downward direction along an outside wall of the bowl (figure 3 and 7, reference 21a) and capable of hugging the outside wall of the bowl to provide a secure attachment (paragraph 22: Frangione states “In the preferred embodiment, the engagement unit 21 can be constructed from a lightweight generally elastomeric material, such as rubber, for example, wherein the distance between the inside and outside facing portions can expand and contract with respect to each other, so as to allow the unit to engage the upper edge/lip of a piece of dishware such as a bowl, for example”. Furthermore, this limitation has been treated as an intended use recitation. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Since the limitation has not been positively claimed, the system of Frangione is capable of performing the recited function).
Regarding claim 5, Frangione, in view of Copeland, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Frangione teaches the lip has a wave-like shape (figure 7, reference 11).
Regarding claim 6, Frangione, in view of Copeland, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Frangione teaches the lip has a concave shape (figure 7, reference 11).
Regarding claim 7, Frangione, in view of Copeland, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Frangione teaches the lip is configured to extend over and in the direction of the center of the bowl at an angle (figure 3 and 7, reference 11).
Frangione, in view of Copeland, disclose the general conditions of the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of the lip extends over and in the direction of the center of the bowl at an angle ranging from 50 to 80 degrees. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the lip extending over and in the direction of the center of the bowl at an angle ranging from 50 to 80 degrees, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than a prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 9, Frangione, in view of Copeland, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Copeland teaches the handle is shaped to fit a forefinger on a bottom and a thumb on a top (figure 3, reference 28 and paragraph 29).
Regarding claim 10, Frangione, in view of Copeland, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above.
Frangione, in view of Copeland, disclose the general conditions of the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of the width of the attachment rim ranges from 1 to 6 inches. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the width of the attachment rim ranges from 1 to 6 inches, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than a prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 11, Frangione, in view of Copeland, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Frangione teaches the lip prevents the spillage of food over the upper edge of the bowl (figure 7).
Regarding claim 14, Frangione teaches a bowl attachment apparatus (figures 1-7, reference 10) for promoting self-feeding skills (figure 7), comprising: an attachment rim (figures 1-3, reference 11a) that is removably attachable to an edge of a bowl (figure 5-7 and paragraph 26); a lip (figures 1-7, reference 11) configured to extend over an opening of the bowl (figure 7, top of reference 5b) and configured to prevent food from spilling during scooping with a utensil (figure 7) wherein the attachment rim is further configured to attach to any sized bowl (paragraph 21: Frangione states “In one embodiment, the main body can be constructed from a lightweight and generally rigid material such as plastic for example, that is safe for use with food, and that is preferably dishwasher safe and can be sized to fit about the periphery of m(an)y number of standard sized dishware such as 8'' bowls, 10'' plates, etc. Of course, any number of other sizes and materials are also contemplated”. The rim can be sized to fit any number of sizes. Furthermore, this limitation has been treated as an intended use recitation. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Since the limitation has not been positively claimed, the system of Frangione is capable of performing the recited function).
Frangione does not teach a handle configured to extend away from the bowl and configured to be grasped by a human thumb and forefinger. However, Copeland does teach a handle (figure 2 and 3, reference 28) configured to extend away from the bowl (figure 3: handle 28 extends away from bowl 12) and configured to be grasped by a human thumb and forefinger (paragraph 29: Furthermore, This limitation has been treated as an intended use recitation. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Since the limitation has not been positively claimed, the system of Frangione, I view of Copeland, is capable of performing the recited function).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Frangione to include a handle configured to extend away from the bowl and configured to be grasped by a human thumb and forefinger, as disclosed by Copeland, because including the handle on the apparatus allows for a user to grab the handle in order to remove the apparatus from the bowl, as disclosed by Copeland (paragraph 29).
Regarding claim 15, Frangione, in view of Copeland, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 14, as shown above. Furthermore, Frangione teaches the attachment rim further comprises a mouth (figure 3 and 7, reference 21 which incorporates 21a, 21c and 21b).
Regarding claim 16, Frangione, in view of Copeland, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 14, as shown above. Furthermore, Frangione teaches the attachment rim is removably attachable to the edge of the bowl via a clipping mechanism (figure 3 and 7, reference 21 which incorporates 21a, 21c and 21b and paragraph 22).
Regarding claim 17, Frangione, in view of Copeland, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 14, as shown above. Furthermore, Frangione teaches the attachment rim further comprises a downward extension configured to extend along an outside wall of the bowl (figure 3 and 7, reference 21a) and capable of hugging the outside wall of the bowl to provide a secure attachment (paragraph 22: Frangione states “In the preferred embodiment, the engagement unit 21 can be constructed from a lightweight generally elastomeric material, such as rubber, for example, wherein the distance between the inside and outside facing portions can expand and contract with respect to each other, so as to allow the unit to engage the upper edge/lip of a piece of dishware such as a bowl, for example”. Furthermore, this limitation has been treated as an intended use recitation. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Since the limitation has not been positively claimed, the system of Frangione is capable of performing the recited function).
Regarding claim 18, Frangione, in view of Copeland, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 14, as shown above. Furthermore, Frangione teaches the lip has a semi-arched shape (figure 3, 5 and 7, reference 11).
Regarding claim 19, Frangione, in view of Copeland, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 14, as shown above. Furthermore, Copeland teaches the handle (figure 3, reference 28) is configured to attach to an opposite side of the mouth of the attachment rim (figure 3, reference 48).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frangione et al. (US 20150173541), in view of Copeland (US 20060207993), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (US 20220396389).
Regarding claim 8, Frangione, in view of Copeland, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Copeland teaches the handle is configured to extend away from the center of the bowl (figure 3, reference 28). Furthermore, to modify the handle with an arced and downward angle as claimed would entail a mere change in shape of handle and yield only predictable results. "[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person's skill." KSR Int 'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1396 (2007). A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Frangione, in view of Copeland, do not explicitly teach the handle extends away at an arced and downward angle. However, Lee does teach the handle extends away at an arced and downward angle (figure 4, reference 212).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Frangione, in view of Copeland, to include the handle extending away at an arced and downward angle, as disclosed by Lee, because including the shaped handle allows for a child to grip the handle comfortably for removing the item the handle is connected to, as explained by Lee (paragraph 36).
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frangione et al. (US 20150173541), in view of Copeland (US 20060207993), as applied to claim 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Harley (GB 2,379,597).
Regarding claim 21, Frangione, in view of Copeland, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Frangione teaches the attachment rim can be configured to extend around less than 100% of the total circumference of the bowl (paragraph 29: Frangione states “Although illustrated above as including a circular shape and particular construction materials, the inventive concepts disclosed herein are not so limiting. To this end, the device 10 can include any number of known shapes and construction materials which are desirable and suitable for use with food service items. Moreover, the device 10 can include any number of different dimensions suitable for engaging dishware of all shapes and sizes”. Furthermore, this limitation has been treated as an intended use recitation. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Since the limitation has not been positively claimed, the system of Frangione is capable of performing the recited function”.
Frangione, in view of Copeland, do not explicitly teach the attachment rim is configured to extend around less than 50% of the total circumference of the bowl. However, Harley does teach the attachment rim is configured to extend around less than 50% of the total circumference of the bowl (figure 3 and page 2, lines 23-24: Harley states “The plan form of the device 11 is governed by the size of plate with which it is used”. Furthermore, This limitation has been treated as an intended use recitation. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Since the limitation has not been positively claimed, the system of modified Frangione is capable of performing the recited function).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the bowl attachment apparatus of modified Frangione, to include the attachment rim is configured to extend around less than 50% of the total circumference of the bowl, as disclosed by Harley, because having the attachment rim configured to extend around less than 50% of the total circumference of the bowl would just be a dimensional difference of the bowl attachment apparatus. It has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than a prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 22, Frangione, in view of Copeland, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Frangione teaches the attachment rim can be configured to extend around less than 100% of the total circumference of the bowl (paragraph 29: Frangione states “Although illustrated above as including a circular shape and particular construction materials, the inventive concepts disclosed herein are not so limiting. To this end, the device 10 can include any number of known shapes and construction materials which are desirable and suitable for use with food service items. Moreover, the device 10 can include any number of different dimensions suitable for engaging dishware of all shapes and sizes”. Furthermore, this limitation has been treated as an intended use recitation. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Since the limitation has not been positively claimed, the system of Frangione is capable of performing the recited function”.
Frangione, in view of Copeland, do not explicitly teach the attachment rim is configured to extend around 1 to 6 inches of the circumference of the bowl. However, Harley does teach the attachment rim is configured to extend around 1 to 6 inches of the circumference of the bowl (figure 3 and page 2, lines 23-24: Harley states “The plan form of the device 11 is governed by the size of plate with which it is used”. Furthermore, This limitation has been treated as an intended use recitation. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Since the limitation has not been positively claimed, the system of modified Frangione is capable of performing the recited function).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the bowl attachment apparatus of modified Frangione, to include the attachment rim is configured to extend around 1 to 6 inches of the circumference of the bowl, as disclosed by Harley, because having the attachment rim configured to extend around 1 to 6 inches of the circumference of the bowl would just be a dimensional difference of the bowl attachment apparatus. It has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than a prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 23, Frangione, in view of Copeland, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 14, as shown above. Furthermore, Frangione teaches the attachment rim can be configured to extend around less than 100% of the total circumference of the bowl (paragraph 29: Frangione states “Although illustrated above as including a circular shape and particular construction materials, the inventive concepts disclosed herein are not so limiting. To this end, the device 10 can include any number of known shapes and construction materials which are desirable and suitable for use with food service items. Moreover, the device 10 can include any number of different dimensions suitable for engaging dishware of all shapes and sizes”. Furthermore, this limitation has been treated as an intended use recitation. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Since the limitation has not been positively claimed, the system of Frangione is capable of performing the recited function”.
Frangione, in view of Copeland, do not explicitly teach the attachment rim is configured to extend around less than a third of the total circumference of the bowl. However, Harley does teach the attachment rim is configured to extend around less than a third of the total circumference of the bowl (figure 3 and page 2, lines 23-24: Harley states “The plan form of the device 11 is governed by the size of plate with which it is used”. Furthermore, This limitation has been treated as an intended use recitation. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Since the limitation has not been positively claimed, the system of modified Frangione is capable of performing the recited function).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the bowl attachment apparatus of modified Frangione, to include the attachment rim is configured to extend around less than a third of the total circumference of the bowl, as disclosed by Harley, because having the attachment rim configured to extend around less than a third of the total circumference of the bowl would just be a dimensional difference of the bowl attachment apparatus. It has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than a prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the art rejections, in accordance with MPEP 2111.01, during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 70 USPQ2D 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
As an initial matter, applicant is reminded that amendments must be fully responsive. MPEP 714.02 states “The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06”. Applicant did not make clear where support for the claim amendments to claims 1, 4, 14, 17 and 21-23 is located. In the disclosure.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, the applicant states “Regarding independent claims 1 and 14, the Examiner cites to Frangione as teaching an attachment rim (main body 11). OA at pages 11 & 14. Applicant submits that there exist key distinctions between the main body 11 of Frangione and the amended attachment rim of claims 1 and 14. Critically, the main body 11 of Frangione has a circular shape so as to extend around the total periphery of a bowl. See Frangione at Abstract ("A lip device for dishware includes...a generally circular main body...") (emphasis added); see also Figs. 1, 2, 5, & 6. Frangione explicitly teaches that the main body "can be sized to fit about the periphery of [a] number of standard sized dishware such as 8" bowl, 10" plates, etc." Id. at [0021] (emphasis added). In comparison, claims 1 and 14 have been amended to recite "wherein the attachment rim is further configured to attach to any sized bowl." As shown, Frangione does not teach that the main body 11 is attachable to any sized bowl, but rather that the main body 11, because it fits around the entire bowl periphery, may be shaped to fit to only specific bowl sizes. To these ends, new claims 21-23 have been added to furth distinguish the claimed attachment rim with the main body 11 of Frangione. These new limitations are not disclosed or taught by Frangione or any other references made of record. Applicant submits that amended independent claims 1 and 14 are patentable and that all dependent claims are likewise patentable. Further, Applicant submits that new claims 21- 23, if rewritten in independent form, are further patentable for these reasons”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Frangione states (paragraph 21) “In one embodiment, the main body can be constructed from a lightweight and generally rigid material such as plastic for example, that is safe for use with food, and that is preferably dishwasher safe and can be sized to fit about the periphery of m(an)y number of standard sized dishware such as 8'' bowls, 10'' plates, etc. Of course, any number of other sizes and materials are also contemplated”. Furthermore, Frangione states (paragraph 29) “Although illustrated above as including a circular shape and particular construction materials, the inventive concepts disclosed herein are not so limiting. To this end, the device 10 can include any number of known shapes and construction materials which are desirable and suitable for use with food service items. Moreover, the device 10 can include any number of different dimensions suitable for engaging dishware of all shapes and sizes”. Frangione can be configured to engage all shapes and sizes of dishware. Furthermore, since bowls can have varying depths holding varying volumes, Frangione would also teach this limitation even if the bowl circumference were the same. Lastly, as stated above, The new claim limitation “wherein the attachment rim is further configured to attach to any sized bowl” has been treated as an intended use recitation. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Since the limitation has not been positively claimed, the system of Frangione is capable of performing the recited function. Since modified Frangione discloses all of the claim limitations of claims 1 and 14, the claims remain rejected.
Regarding claims 4 and 17, applicant states “the Examiner cites to Frangione as teaching an attachment rim configured to extend in a downward direction along an outside wall of the bowl (elongated outside facing portion 21a of engagement portion 21). OA at 12 and 15. Applicant submits that there exist key distinctions between elongated outside facing portion 21 a of Frangione and the amended attachment rim of claims 4 and 17. Critically, the elongated outside facing portion 21 a of Frangione forms a part of an "inverted V-shaped" engagement channel. Frangione at [0022]. This inverted V-shaped channel is best seen in Frangione at Figs. 3 & 7. Therein, the elongated outside facing portion 21a is depicted as extending away, i.e., not touching, the outside sidewall 5b of the bowl 5. Frangione at Fig. 7. In comparison, claims 4 and 17 have been amended to recite "wherein the attachment rim further comprises a downward extension configured to extend along [[the]] an outside wall of the bowl so as to hug the outside wall of the bowl to provide a secure attachment." As shown, Frangione does not teach that the elongated outside facing portion 21a hugs the outside wall of the bowl to provide a secure attachment because reference 21a explicitly extends away and does not touch the sidewall 5a of the bowl 5. These new limitations are not disclosed or taught by Frangione or any other references made of record. Applicant submits that amended dependent claims 4 and 17, if rewritten in independent form, are further patentable for these reasons”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in the rejection above, Frangione states (paragraph 22) “In the preferred embodiment, the engagement unit 21 can be constructed from a lightweight generally elastomeric material, such as rubber, for example, wherein the distance between the inside and outside facing portions can expand and contract with respect to each other, so as to allow the unit to engage the upper edge/lip of a piece of dishware such as a bowl, for example”. Frangione explicitly states that the attachment rim further comprises a downward extension configured to extend along an outside wall of the bowl so as to hug the outside wall of the bowl to provide a secure attachment, as shown in the rejection above. Furthermore, this limitation has been treated as an intended use recitation. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Since the limitation has not been positively claimed, the system of Frangione is capable of performing the recited function. Since modified Frangione teaches the claim limitations, the claims remain rejected.
Regarding new claims 21-23, modified Frangione, in view of Harley, teach these limitations as shown in the rejections of claims 21-23 above.
Since the prior art still discloses the claim limitations above, the claims remain rejected.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JAVIER A PAGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 6:30am-4:30pm.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272-4561. 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.
/JAVIER A PAGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735