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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/13/2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-7 are pending. Claims 1 and 5 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8 of Remarks filed 11/13/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Applicant has amended claims 1 and 5 to include limitations that were not previously presented and are not obvious over Keen in view of Mandeville and Richardot. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of newly found prior art Kemanjian in combination with previously presented prior art Keen and Richardot.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keen (US 2017/0099876 A1) in view of Kemanjian (US 2004/0168693 A1) and Richardot ("How to connect two parts with 3D printed joints and snap fits" by Amandine Richardot, posted April 25, 2018, https://www.sculpteo.com/blog/2018/04/25/how-to-connect-two-parts-with-3d-printed-joints-and-snap-fits/, a copy of which was previously provided for reference).
Regarding claim 1, Keen discloses a cigar apparatus (“cigar holder 200”, Figs. 11-20, ¶ 0046) for holding a cigar, comprising:
a case body (“case body 201”, Figs. 11 and 17, ¶ 0046) having a case ring (“case ring 210”, Figs. 11 and 16, ¶ 0046) and a case ring opening (“case ring opening 230” in “case body 201”, Fig. 11, ¶ 0046),
a rear cover (“cover 300”, Figs. 11 and 16-17, ¶ 0046) attached to the case body,
wherein there is a cover attachment loop (“cover attachment loop 305”, Figs. 13 and 16, ¶ 0058) disposed within the rear cover, and
a support ring (“support ring 400”, Figs. 11 and 16-17, ¶ 0046) defining an upper plane and a lower plane (i.e., top surface and bottom surface of the support ring) attached to the case ring and the rear cover, and
a push button (“push button 500”, Figs. 11 and 16, ¶ 0046) attached to a surface of a holder bar (“holder bar 700”, Figs. 11 and 16, ¶ 0046), which includes a holder bar end surface (“support surface 710”, Figs. 16 and 19, ¶ 0050),
wherein the holder bar is positioned between the case body and the rear cover (Figs. 18-20), and
wherein a spring lock (“lock spring 600”, Figs. 16 and 19, ¶ 0054) abuts the holder bar to retain the holder bar in a selected position (¶ 0054),
wherein the holder bar is translated by pressing and moving the push button (¶ 0052),
wherein translating the holder bar adjusts the amount of holder bar which extends into the case ring opening (Figs. 18-20, ¶ 0048), and
wherein the holder bar is configured to vary the size of the aperture opening which is formed between the holder bar end surface and ring structure and thereby provides a variable aperture through which the cigar passes (¶ 0050, 0054).
However, Keen does not explicitly disclose wherein the cover attachment loop is configured to include a cigar punch forming a cigar punch opening, wherein the cigar punch opening is permanently uncovered and positioned for direct engagement with a cigar.
Kemanjian, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a cigar apparatus (“cigar tip plug cutter 10”, Figs. 1, 1A, and 2, ¶ 0040) with a cover attachment loop (“third central orifice 185”, Fig. 2, ¶ 0042) disposed within a rear cover (“platform cover 170”, Fig. 2, ¶ 0042) and a cigar punch (cigar punch comprising “cylindrical cutting blade 15”, “cigar tip receiving plate 65”, and “cigar plug ejector 95”, Fig. 2, ¶ 0040-0043) forming a cigar punch opening (opening of “cylindrical cutting blade 15”, Fig. 2) included in the cover attachment loop (see Figs. 1-2), wherein the cigar punch opening is permanently uncovered (Figs. 1 and 1A) and positioned for direct engagement with a cigar (“cigar 195”, Fig. 1A). Kemanjian also teaches a benefit of including such a cigar punch in that it offers a compact device that provides an easy draw for cigar smokers (¶ 0001). 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 cigar apparatus taught by Keen to include a cigar punch with cigar punch opening in the cover attachment loop, as taught by Kemanjian, in order to obtain this benefit. The device of the combination is a cigar punching apparatus.
In addition, Keen does not explicitly disclose that the shape of the support ring is a square shape with rounded corner profiles, as the example shape shown in the Figures is a ring (see Fig. 16). Instead, Keen teaches that “the instant invention can be made into a variety of shapes beyond the shapes provided in the Figures”. 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 support ring taught by Keen to form a square shape with rounded corner profiles, as it has been held that “the configuration . . . was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration . . . was significant” (MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B), citing In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
In addition, Keen does not explicitly disclose that the rear cover has a lock nub and the support ring has a lock seat extending inwardly from a perimeter edge of the square shape, the lock seat being complimentary to the lock nub and positioned adjacent to an aperture formed in the support ring, wherein the lock seat extends from the upper plane toward the lower plane, forming an internal surface within the support ring, and the lock nub extends beyond the perimeter edge of the square shape so as to be seated within the lock seat.
Richardot, in the field of mechanical attachments, teaches securely connecting components together by using a lock nub and a lock seat complimentary to the lock nub (see Figure from page 6 of Richardot below, annotated by the examiner). Richardot also teaches that the lock seat extends inwardly from a perimeter edge (see Figure from page 6 of Richardot below, annotated by the examiner), the lock seat extends from an upper plane toward a lower plane forming an internal surface (see Figure from page 6 of Richardot below, annotated by the examiner), and that the lock nub extends beyond the perimeter edge so as to be seated within the lock seat (see Figure from page 6 of Richardot below, annotated by the examiner). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the snap-fit of the lock nub and complimentary lock seat provide the benefit of strengthening the connection between components (see pages 1-2 of Richardot). 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 connected the rear cover and support ring taught by Keen with the lock nub and complimentary lock seat taught by Richardot in order to obtain the benefit of strengthening the connection between the rear cover and support ring.
PNG
media_image1.png
723
1425
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure, Annotated by Examiner
Although Richardot is in the field of mechanical attachments, it is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which Keen (and the current application) was concerned (i.e., mechanically attaching two components). One of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to prior art concerning mechanical attachments because Keen teaches using mechanical attachments (see MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I)).
With regard to the rear cover having the lock nub and the support ring having the lock seat, since one of the rear cover and the support ring must include the lock nub and the other must include the lock seat in order to connect the rear cover and support ring using the lock nub and lock seat, there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to solve this problem (i.e., either the rear cover has the lock nub and the support ring has the lock seat, or the rear cover has the lock seat and the support ring has the lock nub). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the rear cover having the lock nub and the support ring having the lock seat with a reasonable expectation of success. 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 rear cover to have the lock nub and the support ring to have the lock seat (see MPEP § 2143(I)(E)).
Therefore, in the apparatus of the combination, the rear cover has a lock nub and the support ring has a lock seat extending inwardly from a perimeter edge of the square shape, the lock seat being complimentary to the lock nub and positioned adjacent to an aperture formed in the support ring (i.e., the aperture formed by the support ring), wherein the lock seat extends from the upper plane toward the lower plane, forming an internal surface within the support ring, and the lock nub extends beyond the perimeter edge of the square shape so as to be seated within the lock seat.
Regarding claim 2, Keen in view of Kemanjian and Richardot teaches the cigar punching apparatus of claim 1, as stated above. Keen also teaches that the apparatus further comprises serrated spaced apart teeth (“serrated spaced apart teeth 720”, Figs. 16 and 19, ¶ 0053) on the holder bar to incrementally secure the holder bar in the selected position (¶ 0054).
Regarding claim 3, Keen in view of Kemanjian and Richardot teaches the cigar punching apparatus of claim 2, as stated above. Keen also teaches the apparatus further comprises a lock spring nub (“lock spring nub 605”, Fig. 16, ¶ 0054) which seats within the serrated spaced apart teeth on the holder bar to incrementally secure the holder bar in the selected position (¶ 0054).
Regarding claim 4, Keen in view of Kemanjian and Richardot teaches the cigar punching apparatus of claim 3, as stated above. Keen further teaches that there is a case attachment loop (“case attachment loop 205”, Figs. 13 and 16, ¶ 0046, 0059) disposed within the case body which aligns with the cover attachment loop (¶ 0060). As the cigar punch is aligned with the cover attachment loop in the device of the combination, the cigar punch is also aligned with the case attachment loop.
Regarding claim 5, Keen discloses a cigar holder apparatus (“cigar holder 200”, Figs. 11-20, ¶ 0046), comprising:
a case body (“case body 201”, Figs. 11 and 17, ¶ 0046) having a case ring (“case ring 210”, Figs. 11 and 16, ¶ 0046) and a case ring opening (“case ring opening 230” in “case body 201”, Fig. 11, ¶ 0046),
a rear cover (“cover 300”, Figs. 11 and 16-17, ¶ 0046) attached to the case body,
wherein there is a case attachment loop (“case attachment loop 205”, Figs. 13 and 16, ¶ 0046, 0059) disposed within the case body and a cover attachment loop (“cover attachment loop 305”, Figs. 13 and 16, ¶ 0058) disposed within the rear cover which are aligned (¶ 0060), positioned at a proximal end of the apparatus (Figs. 11, 13, and 16), and
a support ring (“support ring 400”, Figs. 11 and 16-17, ¶ 0046) positioned at a distal end of the apparatus (Fig. 11), defining an upper plane and a lower plane (i.e., top surface and bottom surface of the support ring), attached to the case ring and the rear cover (Fig. 11), and
a push button (“push button 500”, Figs. 11 and 16, ¶ 0046) attached to a surface of a holder bar (“holder bar 700”, Figs. 11 and 16, ¶ 0046), which includes a holder bar end surface (“support surface 710”, Figs. 16 and 19, ¶ 0050),
wherein the holder bar is positioned between the case body and the rear cover (Figs. 18-20), and
wherein a spring lock (“lock spring 600”, Figs. 16 and 19, ¶ 0054) abuts the holder bar to retain the holder bar in a selected position (¶ 0054),
wherein the holder bar is translated by pressing and moving the push button (¶ 0052),
wherein translating the holder bar adjusts the amount of holder bar which extends into the case ring opening (Figs. 18-20, ¶ 0048),
wherein the holder bar is configured to vary the size of the aperture opening which is formed between the holder bar end surface and ring structure and thereby provides a variable aperture through which the cigar passes (¶ 0050, 0054).
However, Keen does not explicitly disclose wherein there is a cigar punch forming a cigar punch opening disposed within the cover attachment loop, wherein the cigar punch opening is permanently uncovered and positioned for direct engagement with a cigar.
Kemanjian, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a cigar holder apparatus (“cigar tip plug cutter 10”, Figs. 1, 1A, and 2, ¶ 0040) with a cover attachment loop (“third central orifice 185”, Fig. 2, ¶ 0042) disposed within a rear cover (“platform cover 170”, Fig. 2, ¶ 0042) and a cigar punch (cigar punch comprising “cylindrical cutting blade 15”, “cigar tip receiving plate 65”, and “cigar plug ejector 95”, Fig. 2, ¶ 0040-0043) forming a cigar punch opening (opening of “cylindrical cutting blade 15”, Fig. 2) included in the cover attachment loop (see Figs. 1-2), wherein the cigar punch opening is permanently uncovered (Figs. 1 and 1A) and positioned for direct engagement with a cigar (“cigar 195”, Fig. 1A). Kemanjian also teaches a benefit of including such a cigar punch in that it offers a compact device that provides an easy draw for cigar smokers (¶ 0001). 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 cigar holder apparatus taught by Keen to include a cigar punch with cigar punch opening in the cover attachment loop, as taught by Kemanjian, in order to obtain this benefit. As the cigar punch is aligned with the cover attachment loop in the device of the combination, the cigar punch is also aligned with the case attachment loop.
In addition, Keen does not explicitly disclose that the shape of the support ring is a square shape with rounded corner profiles, as the example shape shown in the Figures is a ring (see Fig. 16). Instead, Keen teaches that “the instant invention can be made into a variety of shapes beyond the shapes provided in the Figures”. 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 support ring taught by Keen to form a square shape with rounded corner profiles, as it has been held that “the configuration . . . was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration . . . was significant” (MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B), citing In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
In addition, Keen does not explicitly disclose that the rear cover has a lock nub and the support ring has a lock seat extending inwardly from a perimeter edge of the square shape, the lock seat being complimentary to the lock nub positioned adjacent to an aperture formed in the support ring, wherein the lock seat extends from the upper plane toward the lower plane, forming an internal surface within the support ring, and the lock nub extends beyond the perimeter edge of the square shape so as to be seated within the lock seat.
Richardot, in the field of mechanical attachments, teaches securely connecting components together by using a lock nub and a lock seat complimentary to the lock nub (see Figure from page 6 of Richardot below, annotated by the examiner). Richardot also teaches that the lock seat extends inwardly from a perimeter edge (see Figure from page 6 of Richardot above, annotated by the examiner), the lock seat extends from an upper plane toward a lower plane forming an internal surface (see Figure from page 6 of Richardot below, annotated by the examiner), and that the lock nub extends beyond the perimeter edge so as to be seated within the lock seat (see Figure from page 6 of Richardot below, annotated by the examiner). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the snap-fit of the lock nub and complimentary lock seat provide the benefit of strengthening the connection between components (see pages 1-2 of Richardot). 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 connected the rear cover and support ring taught by Keen with the lock nub and complimentary lock seat taught by Richardot in order to obtain the benefit of strengthening the connection between the rear cover and support ring.
Although Richardot is in the field of mechanical attachments, it is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which Keen (and the current application) was concerned (i.e., mechanically attaching two components). One of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to prior art concerning mechanical attachments because Keen teaches using mechanical attachments (see MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I)).
With regard to the rear cover having the lock nub and the support ring having the lock seat, since one of the rear cover and the support ring must include the lock nub and the other must include the lock seat in order to connect the rear cover and support ring using the lock nub and lock seat, there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to solve this problem (i.e., either the rear cover has the lock nub and the support ring has the lock seat, or the rear cover has the lock seat and the support ring has the lock nub). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the rear cover having the lock nub and the support ring having the lock seat with a reasonable expectation of success. 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 rear cover to have the lock nub and the support ring to have the lock seat (see MPEP § 2143(I)(E)).
Therefore, in the apparatus of the combination, the rear cover has a lock nub and the support ring has a lock seat extending inwardly from a perimeter edge of the square shape, the lock seat being complimentary to the lock nub positioned adjacent to an aperture formed in the support ring (i.e., the aperture formed by the support ring), wherein the lock seat extends from the upper plane toward the lower plane, forming an internal surface within the support ring, and the lock nub extends beyond the perimeter edge of the square shape so as to be seated within the lock seat.
It is noted that the recitation of “for punching a cigar” is a recitation of intended use, where statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention which do not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art do not limit the claim (MPEP § 2111.02). The device of the combination discloses all of the structural limitations of claim 5 and would be used for punching a cigar; therefore, claim 5 is obvious over Keen in view of Kemanjian and Richardot.
Regarding claim 6, Keen in view of Kemanjian and Richardot teaches the cigar holder apparatus of claim 5, as stated above. Keen also teaches that the apparatus further comprises serrated spaced apart teeth (“serrated spaced apart teeth 720”, Figs. 16 and 19, ¶ 0053) on the holder bar to retain the spring lock in the selected position (¶ 0054).
Regarding claim 7, Keen in view of Kemanjian and Richardot teaches the cigar holder apparatus of claim 6, as stated above. Keen also teaches the apparatus further comprises a lock spring nub (“lock spring nub 605”, Fig. 16, ¶ 0054) which seats within the serrated spaced apart teeth on the holder bar to incrementally secure the holder bar in the selected position (¶ 0054).
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 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755