DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I (claims 1-9) in the reply filed on 4/7/2026 is acknowledged. Accordingly, claims 10-20 are withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the drawings fail to show a clear difference between the inward curve (16) and the concave curve (18). Figures 1, 2, 3 and 5 all appear to be pointing that the same feature for the inward and concave curve. There is no clear difference or distinguishment between these features (what is limited to the concave curve). In fact, the feature identified as 16 in figure 3 appears to be the same feature identified as 18 in figure 5. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “the inward curve being located within the bottom section and curving inward toward the object; the concave curve being located within the inward curve” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The inward curve is labeled as item 16 and the concave curve is labeled as item 18. The claim describes the inward curve as "curving inward toward the object" and the concave curve being located within the inward curve. However does the concave curve (18) actually curves away from the object? If so, how can the concave curve be part of the inward curve, if it appears to contradict the definition of the inward curve (by curving in the opposite direction)? Claims 2-9 directly or indirectly depend from claim 1 and are also rejected.
The term “the bottom section is one with the top section” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. One as defined by Merriam-Webster is "being a single unit or thing". The top and bottom sections could be considered as separate things/units. In fact, the claims distinguish them as separate features. It is understood that it is not a single thing because they are separate sections. They are interconnected and integral. For the purposes of examination, it shall be interpreted that the top and bottom section are integrally connected to one another.
The term “the top section is one with the bottom section” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. One as defined by Merriam-Webster is "being a single unit or thing". The top and bottom sections could be considered as separate things/units. In fact, the claims distinguish them as separate features. It is understood that it is not a single thing because they are separate .
Claim 7 recites the limitation "top section" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “top section is distinct from the bottom section” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. As written, the top section is distinct from the bottom section. These features are different aspects of the handle and uniquely shaped. The term "distinct" is broad. There can be many meanings of the word that apply in this scenario. It is unclear if this is what the applicant intends. Distinct as defined by Merriam-Webster means “real and different from each other”. From drawings it appears that these two features are always connected to one another. So, what are the bounds and metes of distinct?
The term “the top section and the bottom section are one” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. One as defined by Merriam-Webster is "being a single unit or thing". The top and bottom sections could be considered as separate things/units. In fact, the claims distinguish .
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) 1-2 and 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Leonhard (CA 2322264 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Leonhard discloses an ergonomic handle comprising: a top section (top of 20); a bottom section (bottom of 20); an inward curve (figure 2 below); and a concave curve (figure 2 below); the handle being connected to an object (10), the object intended to be carried by a user; the inward curve being located within the bottom section and curving inward toward the object (figure 2); the concave curve being located within the inward curve and configured to receive one or more of a middle finger, a ring finger, and/or a little finger of a carrying hand of a user, the one or more fingers pushing against the concave curve. (inherent capability of Leonhard)
Examiner Note: For the purposes of examination, fingers are not being positively recited as part of the invention, but rather used to describe intended function. So, “the one or more fingers pushing against the concave curve” shall be interpreted as further limitations upon the intended function because no positive recitation of fingers were previously recited. Also no reference point is given for the term concave so it can be broadly interpreted.
PNG
media_image1.png
552
649
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Leonhard discloses the ergonomic handle of claim 1, further comprising the top section (top region of 20) being configured to be grasped by one or more of an index finger, the middle finger, and/or the ring finger of the carrying hand of the user. (inherent capability of Leonhard)
With respect to claim 5, Leonhard discloses the handle of claim 1, wherein the top section is connected to the object and the bottom section is one with the top section. (top and bottom of 20 as seen in figure 2)
With respect to claim 6, Leonhard discloses the ergonomic handle of claim 1, wherein the bottom section is connected to the object and the top section is one with the bottom section. (top and bottom of 20 as seen in figure 2)
With respect to claim 7, Leonhard discloses the ergonomic handle of claim 1, wherein the top section is connected to the object, the bottom section is connected to the object, and top section is distinct from the bottom section. (top and bottom of 20 as seen in figure 2)
Examiner Note: See 112b above, Leonhards handle can consider the top and bottom distinct, for example, the shape are different from one another and there is no overlap in the sections.
With respect to claim 8, Leonhard discloses the ergonomic handle of claim 1, wherein the top section is connected to the object, the bottom section is connected to the object, and the top section and the bottom section are one. (top and bottom of 20 as seen in figure 2)
With respect to claim 9, Leonhard discloses the handle of claim 1, wherein the object is a mug (10).
Claim(s) 1 and 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by DeMars (US 4602723 A).
With respect to claim 1, DeMars discloses an ergonomic handle comprising: a top section (top of 10); a bottom section (bottom of 10); an inward curve (figure 1 below); and a concave curve (figure 1 below); the handle being connected to an object (12), the object intended to be carried by a user; the inward curve being located within the bottom section and curving inward toward the object (figure 1); the concave curve being located within the inward curve and configured to receive one or more of a middle finger, a ring finger, and/or a little finger of a carrying hand of a user, the one or more fingers pushing against the concave curve. (inherent capability of DeMars)
PNG
media_image2.png
756
542
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 3, DeMars discloses the ergonomic handle of claim 1 further comprising a widened section (figure 1), the widened section being a part of the bottom section and being wider than the rest of the handle.
With respect to claim 4, DeMars discloses the ergonomic handle of claim 3, wherein the inward curve and the concave curve being a part of the widened section. (parts labeled in figure 1)
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-4602723-A OR US-5683007-A OR US-5505330-A OR US-5678925-A OR US-3688936-A OR US-D343129-S OR US-2665936-A OR US-0294564-A OR US-9993917-B1 OR US-20210153630-A1 OR US-20110062171-A1 OR US-20050046210-A1
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYMREN K SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-5305. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri.
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 on (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.
/SYMREN K SANGHERA/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights