DETAILED ACTION
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/3/2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 22-41 are pending. Claims 22-23, 26, 28-29, 32-33, and 38 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/3/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections of claims 23 and 33 noted in the prior Office action, Applicant’s amendments to those claims do not correct the indefinite language, as discussed below.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection of claim 29 noted in the prior Office action, while Applicant’s amendments address one of the instances of indefinite language of claim 29 noted in the prior Office action, the amendments do not address the other instance of indefinite language. As such, the rejection is also presented in the present Office action.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 22, Applicant’s arguments are directed to Gransar in view of Johnson not disclosing the newly added limitations. This argument is not persuasive as the newly added limitations are directed to indefinite language, as discussed in the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection of claim 22 below.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 32, Applicant argues that Gransar in view of Johnson fails to disclose the newly added limitations. This argument is not persuasive as Gransar in view of Johnson does disclose the newly added limitations, as discussed in the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 32 below.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: “any desired concentration of volatile oils” should be “a desired concentration of volatile oils”. 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 22-31 and 33-3 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 22, the claim requires that the top opening be “hermetically” sealed and that the “top opening is the only opening defined in the container”. As the term is used in the art, a hermetically sealed opening is one that prevents the passage of air or any other substances. However, claim 22 also requires that liquid is removed from the container and vapor enters into the container. It is unclear to one having ordinary skill in the art how liquid can move out of the container and vapor can enter into the container if it is hermetically sealed. For the purpose of this Office action, “hermetically sealing the container at the top opening where the top opening is the only opening defined in the container” is interpreted as “sealing the top opening”.
Claims 23-31 are indefinite due to their dependence from claim 22.
Regarding claim 23, it is unclear whether the limitation “consuming the liquid together with the vapor from the container” refers to the same step or a different step than the limitation “consuming the vapor from the container” in claim 22, from which claim 23 depends. For the purpose of this Office Action, claim 23 is interpreted as allowing for either possibility.
Claim 24 is indefinite due to its dependence from claim 23.
Regarding claim 29, it is unclear whether the limitation “removing the volume of liquid from the container” refers to the same volume of liquid or a different volume of liquid than the limitation “removing the volume of liquid” in claim 22, from which claim 29 depends. For the purpose of this Office Action, claim 29 is interpreted as allowing for either possibility.
Regarding claim 33, it is unclear whether the limitation “consuming the liquid together with the vapor from the container” refers to the same step or a different step than the limitation “consuming the vapor from the container” in claim 32, from which claim 33 depends. For the purpose of this Office Action, claim 33 is interpreted as allowing for either possibility.
Claims 34-35 are indefinite due to their dependence from claim 33.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 22, 25-32, and 36-41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gransar (US 2014/0338679 A1) in view of Johnson et al. (US 2017/0354186 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Gransar discloses a method of consuming vapor (¶ 0007) comprising:
extracting volatile oils (“smoke”, ¶ 0022) from an organic material sample (“combustible material”, ¶ 0022) in the form of vapor (“smoke”, ¶ 0022) using an extraction device (“bowl 130”, Fig. 2, ¶ 0022);
filling an interior chamber of a container (“smoking vessel 110”, Fig. 2, ¶ 0022) with a volume of liquid (“water-filled smoking vessel 110”, ¶ 0022) wherein the container is free of holes or apertures in a bottom panel or portion thereof (the outer edge of the bottom panel of the container, “smoking vessel 110”, is free of holes or apertures, see Fig. 4; as the outer edge of the bottom panel is a portion of the bottom panel, a portion of the bottom panel is free of holes or apertures);
sealing the top opening (“a solid stopper 160 may also be used to close the smoking vessel's 110 openings, allowing the smoke to be trapped for later consumption”, ¶ 0022);
simultaneously removing the volume of liquid from the container through a liquid channel (“opening 114”, Fig. 4, ¶ 0017) and drawing the vapor from the extraction device through a vapor channel (“top opening 112”, Fig. 3, ¶ 0017) and into the interior chamber of the container (“Once the liquid has drained, the smoking vessel 110 is filled with smoke.”, ¶ 0022); and
consuming the vapor from the container (“the smoke may be inhaled from one of the smoking vessel's 110 openings”, ¶ 0022).
Gransar does not teach wherein extracting volatile oils comprises heating the organic material to a temperature less than the combustion point of cellulose.
Johnson, in the same field of endeavor, discloses an extraction device (“personal electronic vaporizer” described as “PEV 1”, Figs. 1-2, ¶ 0035) with a convection oven assembly (“oven assembly 301”, Fig. 20, ¶ 0081) for extracting volatile oils from a sample (“substance to be vaporized”, ¶ 0087) by heating a volume of air to a temperature below the combustion point of cellulose to extract vapor from the sample (¶ 0046, 0087). Johnson discloses benefits of such an extraction device in that it heats the sample to an ideal temperature that maximizes vapor generation without combusting the substance, avoiding combustion by-products and bitter, burnt taste (¶ 0002, 0004). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified method taught by Gransar to extract vapor from a sample with the extraction device taught by Johnson to achieve these benefits.
Regarding claim 25, Gransar, in view of Johnson, teaches the method of claim 22, as stated above. Johnson also discloses wherein heating the organic material further comprises circulating heated air through the sample to extract vapor from the sample (¶ 0087).
Regarding claim 26, Gransar, in view of Johnson, teaches the method of claim 22, as stated above. Johnson also discloses wherein circulating the heated air further comprises continuously circulating the heated air through the sample until the vapor extracted contains a desired concentration of volatile oils (see Johnson, ¶ 0087); and
wherein the volume of the liquid removed from the container is entirely replaced with an equal volume of vapor (see Gransar, ¶ 0022).
Regarding claim 27, Gransar, in view of Johnson, teaches the method of claim 22, as stated above. Gransar further discloses wherein consuming the vapor comprises transporting the container to a location remote from where the liquid is removed to draw the vapor into the container (“the entire assembly may be slowly raised from the container”, ¶ 0022).
Regarding claim 28, Gransar, in view of Johnson, teaches the method of claim 22, as stated above. Gransar further discloses wherein the container is drinkware (“bottle”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0017) and consuming the vapor from the container (“the top 112 or bottom 114 opening may be used to inhale the smoke”, Fig. 4, ¶ 0017; one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that consuming the vapor from top 112 opening involves consuming vapor from the container as if it were liquid).
Regarding claim 29, Gransar, in view of Johnson, teaches the method of claim 22, as stated above. Gransar discloses the method further comprising filling an interior chamber of at least one additional container with a volume of liquid; hermetically sealing the at least one additional container; and removing the volume of liquid from the container and the at least one additional container to draw the vapor from the extraction device and into the interior chambers of the container and the interior chamber of the at least one additional container simultaneously (see abstract, “The apparatus and method of use allows multiple smoking vessels to be filled with smoke for consumption by any person at a later time.”).
Regarding claim 30, Gransar, in view of Johnson, teaches the method of claim 22, as stated above. Gransar further discloses wherein the organic material comprises plant material (“cannabis”, ¶ 0004).
Regarding claim 31, Gransar, in view of Johnson, teaches the method of claim 30, as stated above. Gransar further discloses wherein plant material comprises cannabis (“cannabis”, ¶ 0004).
Regarding claim 32, Gransar discloses a method of storing and transporting vapor (¶ 0007) comprising:
extracting volatile oils (“smoke”, ¶ 0022) from an organic material sample (“combustible material”, ¶ 0022) in the form of vapor (“smoke”, ¶ 0022) using an extraction device (“bowl 130”, Fig. 2, ¶ 0022);
chilling a container (“smoking vessel 110”, Fig. 2, ¶ 0022) to a temperature below ambient temperature (“cool to a lower temperature” with “preferably ice”, ¶ 0022);
filling an interior chamber of the chilled container with a volume of liquid (“water-filled smoking vessel 110”, ¶ 0022);
creating a vacuum between a top of the chilled container and a vacuum tube of a fluid storage and transfer device (“container” used to “create a vacuum”, ¶ 0018);
drawing the volume of liquid form the chiller container via the vacuum tube (“the entire assembly may be slowly raised from the container [such that] the liquid drains”, ¶ 0022);
simultaneously transferring the vapor form a vapor channel (“downstem 142”, Fig. 5, ¶ 0022) into the interior chamber of the chilled container removing the volume of liquid from the container to draw the vapor from the extraction device and into the interior chamber of the container (“As the liquid drains from the smoking vessel 110 bottom opening 114 a vacuum is created, drawing air through the bowl 130. . . . Once the liquid has drained, the smoking vessel 110 is filled with smoke.”, ¶ 0022);
retaining the vapor within the container (the vapor is retained in the container because removing the vapor from the container requires actions such as sucking or forcing, ¶ 0022) without a lid (“solid stopper 160” is optional, ¶ 0022); and
consuming the vapor from the container (“the smoke may be inhaled from one of the smoking vessel's 110 openings”, ¶ 0022).
Gransar does not teach wherein extracting volatile oils comprises heating the organic material to a temperature less than the combustion point of cellulose.
Johnson, in the same field of endeavor, discloses an extraction device (“personal electronic vaporizer” described as “PEV 1”, Figs. 1-2, ¶ 0035) with a convection oven assembly (“oven assembly 301”, Fig. 20, ¶ 0081) for extracting volatile oils from a sample (“substance to be vaporized”, ¶ 0087) by heating a volume of air to a temperature below the combustion point of cellulose to extract vapor from the sample (¶ 0046, 0087). Johnson discloses benefits of such an extraction device in that it heats the sample to an ideal temperature that maximizes vapor generation without combusting the substance, avoiding combustion by-products and bitter, burnt taste (¶ 0002, 0004). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified method taught by Gransar to extract vapor from a sample with the extraction device taught by Johnson to achieve these benefits.
Regarding claim 36, Gransar, in view of Johnson, teaches the method of claim 32, as stated above. Johnson also discloses wherein heating the organic material further comprises circulating heated air through the sample to extract vapor from the sample (¶ 0087).
Regarding claim 37, Gransar, in view of Johnson, teaches the method of claim 16, as stated above. Johnson also discloses wherein circulating the heated air further comprises continuously circulating the heated air through the sample (see Johnson, ¶ 0087), and Gransar discloses extracting vapor until the vapor extracted reaches a sufficient volume to replace the volume of liquid in the container (see Gransar, ¶ 0022).
Regarding claim 38, Gransar, in view of Johnson, teaches the method of claim 32, as stated above. Gransar further discloses wherein the container is drinkware (“bottle”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0017) and consuming the vapor from the container (“the top 112 or bottom 114 opening may be used to inhale the smoke”, Fig. 4, ¶ 0017; one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that consuming the vapor from top 112 opening involves consuming vapor from the container as if it were liquid).
Regarding claim 39, Gransar, in view of Johnson, teaches the method of claim 22, as stated above. Gransar further discloses wherein consuming the vapor comprises transporting the container to a location remote from the location where the liquid is removed to draw the vapor into the container (“the entire assembly may be slowly raised from the container”, ¶ 0022).
Regarding claim 40, Gransar, in view of Johnson, teaches the method of claim 32, as stated above. Gransar further discloses wherein the organic material comprises plant material (“cannabis”, ¶ 0004).
Regarding claim 41, Gransar, in view of Johnson, teaches the method of claim 40, as stated above. Gransar further discloses wherein plant material comprises cannabis (“cannabis”, ¶ 0004).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gransar (US 2014/0338679 A1) in view of Johnson et al. (US 2017/0354186 A1) as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Mullen et al. (US 9,788,574 B2).
Regarding claim 23, Gransar, in view of Johnson, teaches the method of claim 22 as stated above. Gransar further discloses wherein the volume of liquid is a consumable liquid (“water”, ¶ 0018) and wherein removing the volume of liquid further comprises removing a portion of the volume of liquid and replacing the removed portion of the volume of liquid with an equal volume of vapor (¶ 0022). However, Gransar does not disclose that the volume of liquid is to be consumed with the vapor and wherein removing the volume of liquid further comprises consuming the liquid and vapor.
Mullen, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a method of consuming vapor (see abstract) comprising removing a volume of liquid (“liquid”, see abstract) from a container (“liquid container 800”, Fig. 1) to draw vapor (“smoke”, see abstract) from an extraction device (“combustion receptacle 200”, Fig. 1) and into an interior chamber of the container
wherein the volume of liquid is a consumable liquid (“consumption of the liquid”, see abstract) to be consumed with the vapor (“consumption of the liquid and of smoke”, see abstract) and wherein removing the volume of liquid further comprises:
removing a portion of the volume of liquid (“outflow of liquid from the container”, see abstract);
replacing the removed portion of the volume of liquid with an equal volume of vapor (“drawing in smoke from the combustion receptacle”, see abstract); and
consuming the liquid and vapor (“consumption of the liquid and of smoke”, see abstract).
Consuming both the liquid and the vapor from the same device provided the user the benefit of convenience by eliminating the need for two separate devices (Col. 1, Lines 22-43). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method taught by Gransar, in view of Johnson, to include the step of consuming the liquid and vapor from the container as taught by Mullen to achieve this benefit.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gransar (US 2014/0338679 A1) in view of Johnson et al. (US 2017/0354186 A1) and Mullen et al. (US 9,788,574 B2) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Brad N (Brad N, "What Happens When You Replace Bong Water With Other Liquids", Fat Buddha Glass (Feb. 02, 2020), https://fatbuddhaglass.com/blogs/fat-buddha-blog/what-happens-when-you-replace-bong-water-with-other-liquids).
Regarding claim 24, Gransar, in view of Johnson and Mullen, teaches the method of claim 23, as stated above. However, Mullen does not explicitly disclose wherein the consumable liquid is one of a spirit and wine. Brad N, in the same field of endeavor, teaches replacing bong water with wine for the benefit of enhanced flavor (see Section 4 “Wine” on page 5 of the attached document). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used wine, as taught by Brad N, as the consumable liquid of the method taught by Gransar, in view of Johnson and Mullen, to achieve this benefit.
Claims 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gransar (US 2014/0338679 A1) in view of Johnson et al. (US 2017/0354186 A1) as applied to claim 32 above, and further in view of Mullen et al. (US 9,788,574 B2).
Regarding claim 33, Gransar, in view of Johnson, teaches the method of claim 32, as stated above. Gransar further discloses wherein the volume of liquid is a consumable liquid (“water”, ¶ 0018) and wherein removing the volume of liquid further comprises removing a portion of the volume of liquid and replacing the removed portion of the volume of liquid with an equal volume of vapor (¶ 0022). However, Gransar does not disclose that the volume of liquid is to be consumed with the vapor and wherein removing the volume of liquid further comprises consuming the liquid and vapor.
Mullen, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a method of storing and transporting vapor (see abstract) comprising removing a volume of liquid (“liquid”, see abstract) from a container (“liquid container 800”, Fig. 1) to draw vapor (“smoke”, see abstract) from an extraction device (“combustion receptacle 200”, Fig. 1) and into an interior chamber of the container
wherein the volume of liquid is a consumable liquid (“consumption of the liquid”, see abstract) to be consumed with the vapor (“consumption of the liquid and of smoke”, see abstract) and wherein removing the volume of liquid further comprises:
removing a portion of the volume of liquid (“outflow of liquid from the container”, see abstract);
replacing the removed portion of the volume of liquid with an equal volume of vapor (“drawing in smoke from the combustion receptacle”, see abstract); and
consuming the liquid and vapor (“consumption of the liquid and of smoke”, see abstract).
Consuming both the liquid and the vapor from the same device provided the user the benefit of convenience by eliminating the need for two separate devices (Col. 1, Lines 22-43). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method taught by Gransar, in view of Johnson, to include the step of consuming the liquid and vapor from the container as taught by Mullen to achieve this benefit.
Regarding claim 34, Gransar, in view of Johnson and Mullen, teaches the method of claim 33, as stated above. Gransar further discloses wherein the consumable liquid is chilled below ambient temperature (“a liquid and preferably ice”, ¶ 0022).
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gransar (US 2014/0338679 A1) in view of Johnson et al. (US 2017/0354186 A1) and Mullen et al. (US 9,788,574 B2) as applied to claim 33 above, and further in view of Brad N (Brad N, "What Happens When You Replace Bong Water With Other Liquids", Fat Buddha Glass (Feb. 02, 2020), https://fatbuddhaglass.com/blogs/fat-buddha-blog/what-happens-when-you-replace-bong-water-with-other-liquids).
Regarding claim 35, Gransar, in view of Johnson and Mullen, teaches the method of claim 33, as stated above. However, Mullen does not explicitly disclose wherein the consumable liquid is one of a spirit and wine. Brad N, in the same field of endeavor, teaches replacing bong water with wine for the benefit of enhanced flavor (see Section 4 “Wine” on page 5 of the attached document). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used wine, as taught by Brad N, as the consumable liquid of the method taught by Gransar, in view of Johnson and Mullen, to achieve this benefit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY G CULBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-0874. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-4pm.
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, Michael H Wilson can be reached at (571)270-3882. 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.
/C.G.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747