DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: there is no language regarding the tab lying flat against the plane of one handle element.
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.
The earliest application showing a slit and a tab is in application 14/695,039, fig. 32, filing date 23 April 2015; figure 5 of the same application matches figure 21 of the instant application. However, in 14/695,039 the disclosed tab and slot are not on the claimed type of spaced handle parts, and the application. Furthermore, while the embodiment of figure 21 of the instant application is supported in provisional application 61/712,610, none of the parent applications disclose the two separated handle parts in combination with the tab and slit until the instantly filed application.
Nevertheless, as evidenced by the prior art, all of which precedes the earliest claimed filing date, it is well known to connect two handles via a tab and slot.
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 flat tab that fits entirely into a slit 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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 1, “entirely” should be “entirety” or “the tab fits entirely”, “comprising two joined planar handle elements” should be “comprising the two joined planar handle elements.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 3 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.
Regarding claim 3, is “a slit” a second slit or does the slit of claim 3 refer back to claim 1? For the purposes of examination, the latter is assumed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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) 1-6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Polubutkin et al. (US 9750362).
Regarding claim 1, the phrase, “substantially identical” is interpreted broadly to mean similar in shape and size, applicant gives no particular meaning to substantially identical and does not use the word “identical” to describe the handles.
With this in mind, Polubutkin discloses a planar utensil element fabricated of a foldable paperboard- like material, comprising:
first and second planar, substantially identical (similar in shape and size, fig. 3), elongated handle elements at 2 and 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 at 1, said bowl element having a rounded shape 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, fig. 3;
the handle elements are spaced apart from each other at their first ends, fig. 2 and 2; and
joining the handle elements together forms a utensil having a handle comprising two joined planar handle elements and a non-planar bowl, fig. 7-9,
wherein one of the handle elements comprises a tab 7 and the other handle element comprises a slit 6, whereby the entirely of the tab fits into the slit when the handle elements are joined to form the handle, thus keeping the handle together and said tab, although shown as projecting upwardly in fig. 9, fully capable of being folded flat against the plane of one of the handle elements subsequent to the joining.
Regarding claim 2, as seen in fig. 3, Polubutkin discloses 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, Polubutkin discloses, fig. 1 that the slit is cut through the paperboard-like material in a region between the second ends of the two handle elements.
Regarding claim 4, Polubutkin discloses, fig. 8 and 9, the bowl has a substantially conical shape.
Regarding claim 5, Polubutkin discloses the length of each of the two handle elements is greater than the diameter of the bowl element, fig. 3.
Regarding claim 6, Polubutkin discloses, fig. 6-9, each handle element comprises a longitudinal score at 4, fig. 1, and each handle element is bent around its longitudinal score as the handle elements are joined together to form the handle.
Regarding claim 11, Polubutkin discloses that the first ends of the handle elements at each corner of the first ends, are curved, fig. 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-6, 11, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnaudies in view of Polubutkin et al. (US 9750362), having an effectively filed date before any disclosure made by applicant of a tab in a slit on any embodiment or Taguchi et al. JP 2550618 Y2 published 15 October 1997.
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, planar, substantially identical, 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, fig. 3;
the handle elements are spaced apart from each other at their first ends, fig. 3; and
joining the handle elements together forms a utensil, fig. 2, having a handle comprising two joined planar handle elements and a non-planar bowl, fig. 2.
Arnaudies does not teach wherein one of the handle elements comprises a tab and the other handle element comprises a slit.
Polubutkin is analogous art in regard to utensils folded from flat cardboard, fig. 2 and 5-6 where the utensil has two handle parts at 2 and 3 converging into a rounded bowl and the handles have a tab 7 that fits into a slit 6 to maintain the utensil in a folded configuration, col. 2: 49-end, fig. 7 and 9, that is shown as not lying flat along the handle but is fully capable of being folded flat against the handle.
Similarly, Taguchi teaches a utensil, fig. 1 and 2, folded from a flat cardboard where two handles 8 are folded along a midline axis and held together by a tab 9, whereby the entirely of the tab fits into a slit 10 when the handle elements are joined to form the handle. As seen in the steps in fig. 4, the tab is inserted between the handles thus keeping the handle together, and tab lying flat against the inside plane, fig. 1 and 3, of one of the handle elements subsequent to the joining.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the handles of Arnaudies to have a tab inserted into a slot as taught by either Polubutkin or Taguchi in order to maintain the utensil in the folded configuration as per the teaching of Polubutkin or Taguchi.
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 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_image1.png
446
910
media_image1.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 planar substantially identical 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, fig. 4;
the handle elements are spaced apart from each other at their first ends, fig. 4; and
joining the handle elements together forms a utensil, fig. 5 having a handle comprising two joined planar handle elements and a non-planar bowl, fig. 5.
Arnaudies does not teach wherein one of the handle elements comprises a tab and the other handle element comprises a slit.
Polubutkin is analogous art in regard to utensils folded from flat cardboard, fig. 2 and 5-6 where the utensil has two handle parts at 2 and 3 converging into a rounded bowl and the handles have a tab 7 that fits into a slit 6 to maintain the utensil in a folded configuration, col. 2: 49-end, fig. 7 and 9, that is shown as not lying flat along the handle but is fully capable of being folded flat against the handle.
Similarly, Taguchi teaches a utensil, fig. 1 and 2, folded from a flat cardboard where two handles 8 are folded along a midline axis and held together by a tab 9, whereby the entirely of the tab fits into a slit 10 when the handle elements are joined to form the handle. As seen in the steps in fig. 4, the tab is inserted between the handles thus keeping the handle together, and tab lying flat against the inside plane, fig. 1 and 3, of one of the handle elements subsequent to the joining.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the handles of Arnaudies to have a tab inserted into a slot as taught by either Polubutkin or Taguchi in order to maintain the utensil in the folded configuration as per the teaching of Polubutkin or Taguchi.
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) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polubutkin or Arnaudies and Polubutkin or Arnaudies and Taguchi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Doellinger (US 1128114).
Regarding claim 9, the references applied above teach all of claim 1, as applied above. The references applied above do not teach that an edge of each handle element distal from the midline is curved in a region where the second end of the handle element couples into the first end of the bowl element. Applicant discloses no particular reason for the claimed curve 2311 [00133].
Doellinger is analogous art in regard to utensils folded from a flat cardboard and having two handles at 1 and 2 and a bowl at 3, the handles are connected via a slot at 4 and 5 to hold the handles together, the handles have a curved section on the outer side edges where the handles meet the bowl, providing a smooth transition, fig. 4 and 4d.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the edges of the handles of Polubutkin or Arnaudies to have a curved transition as taught by Doellinger in order to provide more contour between the bowl and handle to have a classic spoon shape as shown by Doellinger, fig. 4 or in the case of modifying Arnaudies, fig. 4, order to avoid a corner where the folded utensil is more likely to tear.
Claim(s) 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polubutkin or Arnaudies and Polubutkin or Arnaudies and Taguchi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moritani et al. (JP 5471845 B2). Inventor name “Moritani” captured from Google Translate Images.
Regarding claim 29, the references applied above teach all of claim 1, as applied above. Polubutkin and Arnaudies each teach a bowl with a substantially conical shape.
The references applied above do not teach concentric rings or other indicators are marked on an inner surface of the bowl.
Moritani teaches a spoon utensil at 6, fig. 3C, with measuring lines at 5, fig. 4, the utensil is folded from a flat sheet, fig. 5, to form a conical bowl and a handle at 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bowl of Polubutkin or Arnaudies to have measurement markings as taught by Moritani in order to allow the utensil to have the ability to both scoop and measure volumes.
Claim(s) 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polubutkin or Arnaudies and Polubutkin or Arnaudies and Taguchi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rutter et al (GB 2379158 A)
Regarding claim 30, the references applied above teach all of claim 1, as applied above. The references applied above do not teach an arcuate score is made in each handle element in a region where the handle element merges into the bowl. Applicant provides no indication of a benefit or particular purpose for providing arcuate scores 2510, [00135].
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. Rutter further teaches an arcuate score 18 where handle meets bowl, as seen in fig. 2A and 2B of Rutter, the arcuate score gives a curved shape and provides depth to the bowl portion 30 of the utensil and provides a delineation between the handle and bowl, fig. 2A and 2B.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the scores of Arnaudies at the location where the handle meets the bowl in order to provide more depth and curvature to the bowl as seen in fig. 2A and 2B of Rutter, or to modify the utensil of Polubutkin to have a curved score between the handle and bowl portions as taught by Rutter in order to delineate between the handle portion and the bowl portion as seen in fig 2A and 2B of Rutter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 13 July 2026 with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference or combination thereof applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to applicant's argument regarding the priority date, although some figures are supported by the priority applications, the utensil as currently claimed is not supported until the date of the instant application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited Korean reference KR 20386861 Y1 is cited to show an additional reference teaching a tab inserted into a slot to secure two handle halves together.
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 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