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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 3 and 9 recite “pair of lateral score,” which appears to contain a typographical error (i.e. scores). 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 2, 5, and 9-20 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.
Claim 2 line 2 requires a scoop comprising a scoop. It is unclear what this means, as the cavity (C) is a limitation of a scoop, and the cavity (C) is then defined by a scoop. How many scoops are required by claim 2?
Claim 5 recites “closer in shape to a triangle than the second portion (P2),” which is vague and ambiguous. “Closer” is a relative term, and it is not clear how something could be closer or further from a triangle unless the object is, in fact, a triangle. What exactly does this mean?
Claim 9 lines 11-12 require the handle portion to be foldable in half around the axis. This does not make sense in light of the specification because there isn’t a score line at the axis (instant “A”). The score lines (instant 44) are to either side of the axis, and therefore the folding is not in half, but rather in three sections (instant 34/36/38, none of which is a half of the width of the sheet). What is meant by this limitation?
Claim 9 line 12 recites “the lateral score,” but there are two lateral scores set forth in line 5. To which lateral score does this limitation have reference?
Claim 10 also recites “the lateral score,” which is identically vague and ambiguous.
Claim 15 also recites “the lateral score,” which is identically vague and ambiguous.
Claim 17 line 4 recites “the lateral sheet score,” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 10-16 and 18-20 inherit the deficiencies of their parent claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the at least two longitudinal handle scores includes two longitudinal handle scores.” This does not further define anything because there are already two longitudinal handle scores required in claim 6, from which claim 7 depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2020/251441 A1 (hereinafter “Samuelson”).
Regarding claims 1 and 8 Samuelson discloses a scoop comprising:
a sheet (1) constructed of a foldable material, the sheet (1) extending longitudinally along an axis (A) between a front side (5) and a rear side (8) and laterally between a first lateral side (upper side in fig. 1) and a second lateral side (lower side in fig. 1) on either side of the axis (A), the sheet (1) including:
PNG
media_image1.png
563
713
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a lateral score (24) extending across the sheet (1) including a first lateral score segment (L1; see annotated fig. above) and a second lateral score segment (L2) extending away from the axis (A) and respectively toward the first lateral (upper) side and the second lateral (lower) side;
a handle portion (3) extending from the rear side (8) to the lateral score (24), the handle portion (3) including at least one longitudinal handle score (6/7) extending between the lateral score (24) and the rear side (8); and
a cup portion (4) extending from the front side (5) to the lateral score (24), the cup portion (4) including a lateral cup score (LCS) extending across the sheet (1) from the first lateral (upper) side to the second lateral (lower) side;
wherein the sheet (1) is reversibly configurable between:
a flat configuration (fig. 1) in which the cup portion (4) and the handle portion (3) lay flat; and
a formed configuration (fig. 4) in which the cup portion (4) defines a cavity (C, see annotated figure below) and the handle portion (3) defines a channel (CH) in register with the cavity (C), the cavity (C) defining a funnel (F) narrowing from the lateral cup score (LCS) to the lateral score (24).
PNG
media_image2.png
442
756
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2 Samuelson discloses the above scoop, and further discloses wherein when the sheet (1) is in the formed configuration (fig. 4), the cavity (C) defines (is) a scoop extending from the front side (5) to the lateral cup score (LCS), the scoop having a longitudinal dimension greater than that of the funnel (F).
Regarding claim 3 Samuelson discloses the above scoop, and further discloses wherein the cup portion (4) further includes a pair of longitudinal cup scores (LOS, see annotated figure below) extending between the front side (5) and the pair of lateral score (24), towards the axis (A), and lateral sheet edges (i.e. edges of 1) extending continuously along the first lateral (upper) side and the second lateral (lower) side, alongside both the handle portion (3) and the cup portion (4).
PNG
media_image3.png
563
713
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6 Samuelson discloses the above scoop, and further discloses wherein the handle portion (3) has at least two of said at least one longitudinal handle score (6/7), the at least two longitudinal handle scores (6/7) extending parallel from one another and defining a delivery channel bottom (see figs. 1 and 4) when in the formed configuration (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7 Samuelson discloses the above scoop, and further discloses wherein the at least two longitudinal handle scores (6/7) includes two longitudinal handle scores (6/7).
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 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samuelson in view of US 1,931,213 (hereinafter “Wheeler”).
Regarding claim 4 Samuelson discloses the above scoop, and further discloses wherein the cup portion (4) includes a central cup portion (inner portion of 4) laterally between the lateral sheet edges (i.e. edges of 1), the central cup portion (inner portion of 4) having a first portion (P1, see annotated fig. below) extending longitudinally between the lateral cup score (LCS) and the lateral score (24), and a second portion (P2) extending longitudinally between the lateral cup score (LCS) and the front side (5), both the first portion (P1) and the second portion (P2) [having a] shape.
PNG
media_image4.png
563
713
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Samuelson fails to teach the first and second portions being trapezoidal in shape. This is considered well within the skillset of one of ordinary skill in the art, as the shape of the scoop is determined by the shape of the portions between the scoring. For example, Wheeler teaches a similar scooping device made with a flat sheet that folds along lines in order to form a scoop. Wheeler further teaches the use of trapezoidal portions (see L, K, J, I, and H) which form walls of the scoop. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the first and second portions of Samuelson from any desired shape, including trapezoidal as taught by Wheeler, with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to form a scoop better adapted at raising an object.
Regarding claim 5 modified Samuelson teaches the above scoop, and further teaches wherein the first portion (P1) is closer in shape to a triangle than the second portion (P2).
Claims 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samuelson in view of US 1,521,768 (hereinafter “Herrmann”).
Regarding claim 9 Samuelson discloses a scoop comprising:
a sheet (1) constructed of a foldable material, the sheet (1) extending longitudinally along an axis (A) between a front side (5) and a rear side (8) and laterally between a first lateral (upper) side and a second lateral (lower) side on either side of the axis (A), the sheet (1) including:
PNG
media_image4.png
563
713
media_image4.png
Greyscale
a pair of lateral scores (L1, L2; see annotated fig. above) extending across the sheet (1) including a first lateral score segment (L1) and a second lateral score segment (L2) extending away from the axis (A) and respectively toward the first lateral (upper) side and the second lateral (lower) side, the first and second lateral scores (L1, L2) extending transversally to the [axis] (A);
a handle portion (3) extending from the rear side (8) to the pair of lateral scores (L1, L2), the handle portion (3) foldable in half around the axis (A); and
a cup portion (4) extending from the front side (5) to [the pair of lateral scores] (L1, L2), the cup portion (4) including a pair of longitudinal cup scores (LOS, see annotated fig. below) extending between the front side (5) and the pair of lateral scores (L1, L2), towards the axis (A);
PNG
media_image3.png
563
713
media_image3.png
Greyscale
lateral sheet edges (i.e. edges of 1) extending continuously along the first lateral (upper) side and the second lateral (lower) side, alongside both the handle portion (3) and the cup portion (4);
wherein the sheet (1) is reversibly configurable between:
a flat configuration (fig. 1) in which the cup portion (4) and the handle portion (3) lay flat in a common plane; and
a formed configuration (fig. 4) in which the cup portion (4) defines a cavity (C) and the handle portion (3) defines a channel (CH) in register with the cavity (C).
Samuelson fails to teach the first and second lateral scores extending obliquely relative the axis and towards the rear. This appears to be no more than obvious design choice because Samuelson already teaches making scores to fold the sheet into a scoop, and those of ordinary skill in the art would have known to make an oblique fold. For example, Herrmann teaches a flat sheet with a longitudinal fold (6), lateral cup folds (F1, see annotated fig. 1 below) and a lateral fold with two portions (F2, F3); the sheet being configurable between a flat position (fig. 1) and a folded position with a scoop (fig. 2). Herrmann further teaches the two portions of the lateral fold (F2, F3) are oblique to the longitudinal fold (6) and extend towards the rear.
PNG
media_image5.png
237
659
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make any convenient scoring lines in Samuelson, including in a rear oblique lateral direction, as taught by Herrmann, with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to manufacture a scoop better adapted at raising an object.
Regarding claim 10 modified Samuelson teaches the above scoop, and further teaches wherein the cup portion (4) includes a level indicator (LCS) extending from the front side (5) to the pair of lateral scores (L1, L2).
PNG
media_image4.png
563
713
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11 modified Samuelson teaches the above scoop, and further teaches wherein the level indicator (LCS) includes a marking (score line) extending longitudinally along the lateral sheet edges (i.e. edges of 1), within the cup portion (4).
Regarding claim 12 modified Samuelson teaches the above scoop (as per claim 9 from which claim 12 depends), and further teaches a pair of lateral cup scores (LCS) extending transversally from the axis (A) and obliquely towards the front (5), the pair of lateral cup scores (LCS) being longitudinally between the front (5) and the pair of lateral scores (L1, L2).
Regarding claim 13 modified Samuelson teaches the above scoop, and further teaches wherein the handle portion (3) has a pair of longitudinal handle scores (6/7) parallel to one another and to the axis (A) and delimiting a central panel (space between 6 and 7, see figs. 1 and 4) between two halves.
Regarding claim 14 modified Samuelson teaches the above scoop, and further teaches wherein the first lateral score segment (L1) and the second lateral score segment (L2) respectively extend away from the axis (A) at an acute angle (per modification above; see claim 9) toward the rear side (8).
Regarding claim 15 modified Samuelson teaches the above scoop, and further teaches wherein the [pair of lateral scores (L1, L2) abut] a third lateral score (L3, below) segment extending from the first lateral score segment (L1) to the second lateral score segment (L2).
PNG
media_image6.png
563
713
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16 modified Samuelson teaches the above scoop, and further teaches wherein the longitudinal handle scores (6/7) extend from the third lateral score segment (L3).
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samuelson in view of Herrmann and US 2007/0084064 A1 (hereinafter “Fite”).
Regarding claim 17 modified Samuelson teaches the above scoop, and further teaches wherein each one of the longitudinal cup scores (LOS) includes (is) a front longitudinal cup score segment extending from the front side (5) rearward.
PNG
media_image3.png
563
713
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Samuelson fails to teach the longitudinal cup scores include front and rear longitudinal segments crossing the lateral cup scores and going to the lateral cup scores as detailed in claim 17.
Fite teaches a flat sheet which is folded into a scoop. Fite further teaches longitudinal cup folds (see 48/38) including front longitudinal cup folds segments (48) extending from a front side (at 36) to a lateral cup fold (46/42), and rear longitudinal cup folds segments (38) extending from the lateral cup folds (46/42) to a pair of lateral folds segments (39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the scoop of Samuelson with the fold geometry taught by Fite with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to have a better shaped scoop.
Regarding claim 18 modified Samuelson teaches the above scoop, and further teaches wherein the front longitudinal cup score segment (Fite 48) and the rear longitudinal cup score segment (Fite 38) of each one of the longitudinal cup scores (Fite 38/48) extend at an angle relative to one another (see fig. 7).
Regarding claim 19 modified Samuelson teaches the above scoop, and further teaches wherein the rear longitudinal cup score segment (Fite 38) of each one of the longitudinal cup scores (Fite 38/48) extends to a corresponding one of the pair of longitudinal handle scores (Samuelson 6/7 as modified per Fite 22-1, 22-3).
Regarding claim 20 modified Samuelson teaches the above scoop, and further teaches wherein the lateral cup score (Fite 46/42) includes a first lateral cup score segment (Fite 46) extending from the first (top) side, a second lateral cup score segment (Fite 46) extending from the second (bottom) side, and a third lateral cup score segment (Fite 42) extending between the first lateral cup score (Fite 46) and the second lateral cup score (Fite 46).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Such references show various forms of apparatus which comprise at least one similar feature to the present application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nathaniel L Adams whose telephone number is (571)272-4830. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 Pacific Time.
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, Victoria P Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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.
/NATHANIEL L ADAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights