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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species E in the reply filed on 25 March 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-28 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 25 March 2026.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application Nos. 18/158,114, 17/714,050, 15/498,473, 15/092,895, 14/852,616, 14/695,039, 14/449,151, 14/445,038, 14/271,415, 14/214,988, 14/214,993, 14/214,992, 14/032,194, 13/797,446, 13/357,557, 61/794,880, 61/786,434, 61/699,787, 61/435,975, fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The priority documents do not disclose two symmetrical elongated handle elements that merge into one another at one end (second end) and are free and spaced apart at an opposite end (first end).
Accordingly, claims 1-12 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior applications.
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.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the embodiment of claim 10 where one handle element is longer than the other handle element must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim 9 is 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 9 recites the limitation "the outer edge" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8- 9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arnaudies (FR 897092 A).
Regarding claim 1, Arnaudies discloses a planar utensil element fabricated of a foldable paperboard-like material, see translation, page, 1, [0001], “The present invention relates to a spoon made of cardboard or similar material, obtained from a blank,” comprising, best seen in figs. 2 and 3:
first and second elongated handle elements at 3 disposed generally symmetrically about a midline of the planar utensil element, each handle element comprising an open first end and an opposing second end; and
coupled to the second end of each of the two handle elements, a first end of a bowl at 1, element, said bowl element having a rounded shape at 11 at an end opposite the first end of the bowl element;
wherein the handle elements are connected to and merge into each other at their second ends;
the handle elements are spaced apart from each other at their first ends; and
joining the handle elements together forms a non-planar utensil, fig. 2, having a handle and a bowl, corresponding to the joined handle elements and to the bowl element, respectively.
PNG
media_image1.png
696
490
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Arnaudies discloses, see fig. 3 at 2, wherein a V-shaped notch is formed in the planar utensil element in a region between the second ends of the two handle elements.
Regarding claim 3, Arnaudies discloses a slit at 2, fig. 3, is cut through the paperboard-like material in a region between the second ends of the two handle elements.
Regarding claim 4, as seen in fig. 2, Arnaudies discloses the bowl has a substantially conical shape when the utensil is folded.
Regarding claim 5, Arnaudies discloses the length of each of the two handle elements is greater than the diameter of the bowl element, fig. 2 and 3.
Regarding claim 6, Arnaudies discloses that each handle element comprises a longitudinal score (shown as dashed lines between handle parts 3 and 4, see fig. 3), and each handle element is bent around its longitudinal score as the handle elements are joined together to form the handle, see curved arrows, fig. 3, at ends of each handle indicating fold direction.
Regarding claim 8, Arnaudies discloses the handle elements are joined together by a tacky adhesive or glue, thus keeping the handle together, reference translation, page 3, [0002], “To form a spoon with the flan shown in figure 1, simply bring the legs 3 over each other; the shaded portion 5 of the circle then comes to be placed below the unshaded part 11 located on the other side of the slit 2. Simply coat the coated part with glue to obtain the spoon. The legs 4 will be fixed, preferably also by gluing, after having folded them over the lower tab 3.”
Regarding claim 9, Arnaudies discloses the outer edge of each handle element is curved in a region where the second end of the handle element couples into the bowl element. Fig 3.
PNG
media_image1.png
696
490
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Arnaudies discloses one of the handle elements is folded upon itself before being joined with the other handle element to form the handle, see curved arrows, fig. 3, at ends of each handle indicating fold direction.
Using a different embodiment of Arnaudies, fig. 4 and 5:
PNG
media_image2.png
446
910
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Arnaudies discloses a planar utensil element fabricated of a foldable paperboard-like material, see translation, page, 1, [0001], “The present invention relates to a spoon made of cardboard or similar material, obtained from a blank,” comprising, best seen in figs. 4 and 5:
first and second elongated handle elements 3 disposed generally symmetrically about a midline of the planar utensil element, each handle element comprising an open first end and an opposing second end; and
coupled to the second end of each of the two handle elements, a first end of a bowl element 1, said bowl element having a rounded shape at 11 at an end opposite the first end of the bowl element;
wherein the handle elements are connected to and merge into each other at their second ends;
the handle elements are spaced apart from each other at their first ends; and
joining the handle elements together forms a non-planar utensil, fig. 5 having a handle and a bowl, corresponding to the joined handle elements and to the bowl element, respectively.
Regarding claim 2, Arnaudies discloses, see fig. 4 at 2, wherein a V-shaped notch is formed in the planar utensil element in a region between the second ends of the two handle elements.
Regarding claim 3, Arnaudies discloses a slit at 2, fig. 4, is cut through the paperboard-like material in a region between the second ends of the two handle elements.
Regarding claim 4, as seen in fig. 5, Arnaudies discloses the bowl has a substantially conical shape when the utensil is folded.
Regarding claim 5, Arnaudies discloses the length of each of the two handle elements is greater than the diameter of the bowl element, fig. 4 and 5.
Regarding claim 11, as seen in fig. 4 of Arnaudies, the first ends (open ends) of the handle elements are curved.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 9, 10, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Doellinger (US 1128114).
Regarding claim 1, Doellinger discloses a planar, fig. 1-a, utensil element fabricated of a foldable paperboard-like material, comprising:
first and second elongated handle elements at 1 and 2, fig. 1, disposed generally symmetrically about a midline of the planar utensil element, each handle element comprising an open first end and an opposing second end; and
coupled to the second end of each of the two handle elements, a first end of a bowl element 3, said bowl element having a rounded shape at an end opposite the first end of the bowl element, fig. 1;
wherein the handle elements are connected to and merge into each other at their second ends, fig. 1;
the handle elements are spaced apart from each other at their first ends, fig. 1; and
joining the handle elements together forms a non-planar utensil having a handle and a bowl, corresponding to the joined handle elements and to the bowl element, respectively, fig. 2-4.
Regarding claim 3, Doellinger discloses a slit (not numbered, see arrow in annotated fig. 1, arrow points to slit) is cut through the paperboard-like material in a region between the second ends of the two handle elements.
PNG
media_image3.png
264
230
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, fig. 4 and 4-d, of Doellinger discloses that the bowl has a substantially conical shape.
Regarding claim 5, as best seen in fig. 4, Doellinger discloses the length of each of the two handle elements is greater than the diameter of the bowl element.
Regarding claim 9, as seen in fig. 1, Doellinger discloses the outer edge of each handle element is curved in a region where the second end of the handle element couples into the bowl element.
Regarding claim 10, as best seen in fig. 4, one handle extends above and behind the other, Doellinger discloses that one handle element (the left handle element in fig. 1) is longer than the other handle element.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnaudies or Doellinger as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rutter (GB 2379158 A).
Regarding claim 7, the references applied above teach all of claim 1, as applied above. The references applied above do not teach that the handle elements comprises a tab and a slit.
Rutter is analogous art in regard to utensils made by folding a planar element.
Rutter teaches a spoon made from a planar element with a bowl portion at 30, fig. 1A and a handle portion 20, formed from two spaced elongated parts at 11 and 12, when the parts of the handle are brought together, they are retained in position, page 9, 17-20, via an elongated tab element 21 formed on the first part configured to fit into an elongated receiving slit 19 on the second part, fig. 2A, and 2B to lock the parts of the handle together, page 8: 21-22, “the protrusion 21 of limb 11 is inserted into the slot 19 of limb 12.” The two handle parts lock together when a shoulder (at 17, fig. 1A) of the protrusion is secured behind a portion of the slot, fig. 2A.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the handle retaining means of either of the above references, Arnaudies or Doellinger, to be retained into an assembled utensil configuration via an elongated tab and slit as per the teaching of Rutter in order to avoid the need of adhesive as taught by Arnaudies and allow the utensil to be assembled and disassembled, or in the case of Doellinger (who uses two engaged slits, fig. 3 and 4), in order to provide a more robust and secure assembly (for example if a more flimsy or flexible blank of material is used to form the utensil) with the same reasonable expectation of securing the handle parts together in order to use the device as a spoon (utensil).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOLLIE L IMPINK whose telephone number is (571)270-1705. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7:30-3:30).
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.
/MOLLIE IMPINK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
MOLLIE LLEWELLYN IMPINK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights