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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 6/12/2025.
Claims 1-9 are cancelled.
Claims 10-21 are newly added.
Claims 10-21 are pending.
The Examiner withdraws the objection to the specification for being replete with errors due to Applicant’s amendment filed 6/12/2025.
The Examiner withdraws the objection to the drawings for failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) due to Applicant’s amendment filed 6/12/2025.
The Examiner withdraws the objection to claims 1-9 for various informalities due to Applicant’s amendment filed 6/12/2025.
The Applicant has overcome the rejection of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite by amending the claims in the reply filed 6/12/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see pages 7-9, filed 6/12/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2 and 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kustal in view of Jenkins are moot because the claims have been cancelled. Moreover, Applicant has added new claim 10, which recites “wherein the fill tube is configured to receive the powder or ground biomass from the hopper and to supply the powder or ground biomass to the weigh cup through the rotating valve, wherein an amount of the powder or ground biomass supplied to the weigh cup is controlled by rotating the rotating valve in response to weighing by the load c ell of the powder or ground biomass in the weigh cup” and “a lower cone vibrating assembly,” which have not previously been considered. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly cited prior art.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/12/2025 with respect to the combination of Kustal and Tu have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Tu fails to disclose or suggest an apparatus that includes a lower cone vibrating assembly for vibrating the paper cone into which biomass is fed by the vibration funnel, to compact the biomass within the paper cone (p. 9). Specifically, the Applicant notes that while Tu includes a piston 32 for vibrating cone 16, there is no suggestion that the cone is vibrated during filling by a vibration funnel, as opposed to simply tapping the bottom of the cone after it has been filled through the inlet of the cone (p. 9, see also p. 10).
The Examiner finds Applicant’s argument unpersuasive.
First, there is nothing in the claim that requires the lower cone vibrating assembly to vibrate the cone during filling by the vibration funnel as Applicant argues. Specifically, claim 10 merely requires “wherein the tapered smokable cone is also caused to vibrate, in a linear up and down motion, by a lower cone-vibrating assembly to ensure that powder or ground biomass delivered by the vibration funnel settles into the tapered smokable cone form the bottom up.” Here, claim 10 does not require any vibration during filling, and the fact that the claim recites “delivered by the vibration funnel” (i.e., past tense) means that vibration of the cone can occur after the powder or ground biomass has already been located in the cone.
Second, even if the claim required that the cone is vibrated during filling, the Examiner contends that Tu teaches this aspect. Specifically, Tu teaches that “when charging, the lower end of the charging tube is connected with an electric vibrating part, and the electric vibrating part is used for charging tube 16. The feed tube is charged and tapped” (p. 7, para. 2). Thus, Tu indeed teaches the aspect of vibrating (i.e., tapping) during filling (i.e., charging).
Applicant argues that there is no suggestion in Tu of the claimed rotating valve or any sort of weigh station (p. 9). Applicant also argues that the cone filling device of Tu performs cone loading and twisting in a single compact structure that can only process one cone at a time without weighing the contents of the cone, and without the additional claimed feeders, funnels, and vibration mechanism, which makes Tu not suitable for mass production of smokable products (p. 9).
The Examiner finds Applicant’s argument unpersuasive because Tu is not relied on to teach the rotating valve or the weigh station. “One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.” MPEP 2145(IV). Rather, Kustal is relied on for the weighing station, and the newly cited prior art is relied on for teaching the rotating valve. When the cone vibration mechanism of Tu is incorporated into Kustal, which has the other parts, such an arrangement would be suitable for mass production of smokable products.
Priority
This application makes reference to or appears to claim subject matter disclosed in Application No. 63/361413, filed 12/21/2021. If applicant desires to claim the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c) or 386(c), the instant application must contain, or be amended to contain, a specific reference to the prior-filed application in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78. If the application was filed before September 16, 2012, the specific reference must be included in the first sentence(s) of the specification following the title or in an application data sheet (ADS) in compliance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76; if the application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the specific reference must be included in an ADS in compliance with 37 CFR 1.76. For benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), the reference must include the relationship (i.e., continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part) of the applications.
If the instant application is a utility or plant application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), the specific reference must be submitted during the pendency of the application and within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the application or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior application. If the application is a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371, the specific reference must be submitted during the pendency of the application and within the later of four months from the date on which the national stage commenced under 35 U.S.C. 371(b) or (f), four months from the date of the initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 to enter the national stage, or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior application. See 37 CFR 1.78(a)(4) for benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78(d)(3) for benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c). This time period is not extendable and a failure to submit the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and/or 120, where applicable, within this time period is considered a waiver of any benefit of such prior application(s) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), and 386(c). A benefit claim filed after the required time period may be accepted if it is accompanied by a grantable petition to accept an unintentionally delayed benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) (see 37 CFR 1.78(c)) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) (see 37 CFR 1.78(e)). The petition must be accompanied by (1) the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 or 119(e) and by 37 CFR 1.78 to the prior application (unless previously submitted), (2) the petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m), and (3) a statement that the entire delay between the date the benefit claim was due under 37 CFR 1.78 and the date the claim was filed was unintentional. The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional. The petition should be addressed to: Mail Stop Petition, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450.
If the reference to the prior application was previously submitted within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.78 but was not included in the location in the application required by the rule (e.g., if the reference was submitted in an oath or declaration or the application transmittal letter), and the information concerning the benefit claim was recognized by the Office as shown by its inclusion on the first filing receipt, the petition under 37 CFR 1.78 and the petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m) are not required. Applicant is still required to submit the reference in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78 by filing an ADS in compliance with 37 CFR 1.76 with the reference (or, if the application was filed before September 16, 2012, by filing either an amendment to the first sentence(s) of the specification or an ADS in compliance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76). See MPEP § 211.02.
The Examiner notes that Parent Applications 62/922056, 62/995884, and 16/856271 do not provide written support for all of the limitations of the claim, such as “wherein the fill tube is configured to receive the powder or ground biomass from the hopper and to supply the powder or ground biomass to the weigh cup through the rotating valve” as required by claim 10. Thus, the instant application’s claims 10-21 will be examined with an effective filing date of 1/22/2022.
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 hopper, the lower cone vibrating assembly, feeder, chute, and storage bowl must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Note, the instant specification appears to describe these claimed features as different elements.
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 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 11, the claim limitation “and/or fill tube” should be changed to “and/or the fill tube.”
Regarding claim 14, the claim limitation “include” should be changed to “including” to correct a grammatical error.
Regarding claim 15, the claim limitation “the piston move” should be changed to “the piston moves” to correct a grammatical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10, the claim limitation “wherein an amount of the powder or ground biomass supplied to the weigh cup is controlled by rotating the rotating valve in response to weighing by the load cell of the powder or ground biomass it the weigh cup” lack adequate description in the instant specification. Specifically, there is no description that rotation of the rotating value acts in response to weighing by the load cell.
Regarding claim 20, the claim limitation “enable a vibrating frequency to be selected that matches a resonant frequency of the powder or ground biomass to achieve maximum packing density” lacks adequate description in the instant specification. The instant specification merely compacts the powder to a desired compactness density at a desired frequency (see p. 8 para. 1 of the substitute specification filed 6/12/2025). However, this does not mean that the resonant frequency achieves a maximum packing density as claimed.
Regarding claim 21, the claim limitation “wherein the lower cone vibrating assembly is configured to simultaneously operate a plurality of linear vibration piston rods” lacks adequate description in the instant specification. Specifically, there is only description of one vibrating piston (see Fig. 10-11, p. 5 of the substitute specification filed 6/12/2025). However, there is no description of a plurality of piston rods, let alone a plurality of piston rods operating simultaneously as claimed.
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 10-21 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.
Regarding claim 10, the claim limitation “a lower cone-vibrating assembly” is indefinite because it is unclear if the limitation refers back to the claimed “lower cone vibrating assembly” or is a different vibrating assembly. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as “the lower cone vibrating assembly.” Therefore, claims 11-21 are rejected for their dependencies.
Regarding claim 15, the claim limitation “the piston” lacks antecedent basis. For examination purposes, claim 15 will be interpreted as being dependent on claim 13, which recites “a piston.”
Regarding claim 17, the claim limitation “on the cut” lacks antecedent basis. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as “on the cup” (referring to the claimed “weigh cup”).
Regarding claim 19, the claim limitations “the feeder,” “the storage bowl,” and “the chute” lack antecedent basis. For examination purposes, claim 19 will be interpreted as being dependent on claim 18, which recites “a feeder,” “a storage bowl,” and “a chute.”
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.
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.
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 10-11, 13, 15-16, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kustal et al. (US 2021/0392944; of record) in view of Godwin et al. (US 2021/0030054), Keates et al. (US 2023/0048159) and Tu et al. (WO 2022/171194; see machine translation; of record).
Regarding claim 10, Kustal discloses a system (abstract; “cone filling and weighing apparatus”) for filling each cone (“tapered smokable cone”) with a filler material (“powder or ground biomass”) from a filling assembly having a hopper (245) having a first open end ([0054]; Fig. 5A; the top cylindrical portion including the first open end is considered the hopper) comprising:
the hopper including a bottom conical portion including a second open end (see Fig. 5A; [0054]) “fill tube”);
a weigh basket (251; “weigh cup”);
load cells (253A, 253; Fig. 5C-D); and
a funnel (248) coupled to a vibration device (250) such that the vibration device applies vibration to the funnel ([0051]; “vibration funnel”);
wherein the hopper is filled with the filler material through a first open end, and flow into the second open end ([0054]; “fill tube is configured to receive the powder or ground biomass”), which travels long a vibrating trench (246) to the weigh basket ([0054]);
wherein the weigh basket pivots to pour filler material into the funnel ([0021], [0088]; “tiltable”) from an initial position ([0021]; see Fig. 5D; “first position”) to a pivot position (see [0021] and [0088]; “second position”), and
wherein the vibration device applies vibration to the funnel such that filler material can travel through the funnel through assistance of vibrations from the vibration device and into the cone (202; [0054]; “facilitate movement of the powder or ground biomass into the tapered smokable cone”).
However, Kustal is silent as to a rotating valve, wherein the fill tube is configured to supply the powder or ground biomass to the weigh cup through the rotating valve, wherein an amount of the powder or ground biomass supplied to the weigh cup is controlled by rotating the rotating valve in response to weighing by the load cell of the powder or ground biomass in the weigh cup.
Godwin teaches a cone filling machine (abstract) comprising a hopper (110; Fig. 1-3), sloped sides (112) that terminate at a lower slot or opening (114) (collectively “fill tube”), and an auger (130) indicated by knurled end-knob (116) (collectively “rotating valve”) covering the lower opening ([0020]), wherein finely milled or ground up parts of marijuana plants are dispensed into the hopper (110), and down the sloped sides ([0020]), wherein a free end (118) of the auger allows marijuana powder to drop into the funnel ([0021]) by turning and driving the auger via a servo motor ([0020], [0023]; “fill tube is configured…to supply the powder or ground biomass…through the rotating valve), wherein
Keates teaches a pre-formed cone filling apparatus (abstract; 100) comprising a filling station (500; Fig. 6) comprising two hoppers (510) and an auger (not shown) in each hopper rotated a set number of turns to provide a measured quantity of product into a feed channel ([0048]), and a check-weighing station (700) provides dynamic, continuous feedback to the filler station (auger) for continuously checking and if necessary adjustment of the metered quantity of product ([0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated an auger as in Godwin and Keates below the second open end of Kustal in order to obtain the predictable result of dispensing powder from the hopper (Godwin, [0023]) in a measured quantity to a downstream position (Keates, [0048]), and modifying the load cells of Kustal to send a feedback signal to the filling station as in Keates in order to control and adjust the metered quantity of product (Keates, [0048]) and solve the problem of poor accuracy of dose (Keates, [0003]).
Furthermore, Kustal discloses wherein the cones (202) are disposed within a pod assembly (210).
However, Kustal is silent as to a lower cone vibrating assembly, wherein the tapered smokable cone is also caused to vibrate, in a linear up and down motion, by the lower cone vibrating assembly to ensure that the powder or ground biomass delivered by the vibration funnel settles into the tapered smokable cone form the bottom up.
Tu teaches a charging tube screwing structure for herb processing appliances (abstract) comprising a mounting sleeve (19), holding a tube (16), and a vibration part (32; “lower cone vibrating assembly”) comprising an electromagnetic drive part (33; “motor”) used for reciprocating vibration output on a lower end (16.2; “strikes the bottom of the tapered smokable cone”) in the axial direction (p. 10, para. 3; “linear up and down motion”) of the tube to create a more compact structure (p. 10, para. 3-4).
It would have been obvious to said skilled artisan to have added Tu’s vibration part and electromagnetic drive part to Kustal’s pod assembly in order to obtain the predictable result of vibrating a lower end of the cones with the benefit of creating a more compact cone (Tu; p. 10, para. 3-4).
Regarding the claim limitation “ensure that the powder or ground biomass delivered by the vibration funnel settles into the tapered smokable cone from the bottom up,” this limitation has been considered, and construed as the manner of operating an apparatus that adds no additional structure to the apparatus as claimed. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114. However, because the vibration part of modified Kustal is identical to the claimed invention, it is capable of being operated with similar if not identical claimed characteristics.
Regarding claim 11, modified Kustal discloses a second vibration device (not shown) coupled to the hopper such that the second vibration device moves material toward the weigh basket ([0051]; “upper vibrating assembly”).
Regarding claim 13, modified Kustal discloses the pod assembly (210; “split cone holder”) that allows an axial vibration of the cone (Tu, p. 10, para. 3; “allows up and down vibration of the tapered smokable cone”) and the vibration part (32; “linear piston”) for reciprocating vibration output on a lower end of the cone (Tu, p. 10, para. 3-4; “strikes a bottom of the cone”).
Regarding the claim limitation “strikes a bottom of a cone filter at a predetermined frequency to compact the powder or ground biomass and cause the powder or ground biomass to settle on the cone filter at a bottom of the tapered smokable cone,” this limitation has been considered, and construed as the manner of operating an apparatus that adds no additional structure to the apparatus as claimed. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114. However, because the device of modified Kustal is identical to the claimed invention, it is capable of being operated with similar if not identical claimed characteristics.
Regarding claim 15, modified Kustal further discloses a rotary indexer (“rotation of a motor” configured to align each cone with the funnel sequentially ([0021]).
Regarding the claim limitation “the piston moves linearly up and down at a predetermined frequency in response to rotation of a motor,” this limitation has been considered, and construed as the manner of operating an apparatus that adds no additional structure to the apparatus as claimed. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114. However, because the device of modified Kustal is identical to the claimed invention, it is capable of being operated with similar if not identical claimed characteristics.
Regarding claim 16, modified Kustal discloses the auger (Goodwin, 130, Fig. 4; “rotary valve”).
Merriam-Webster defines “disc” as a “thin circular object.” As such, Goodwin’s auger includes disc with at least one opening that would allow powder to be passed through (see annotated Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
430
664
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, the claim limitation “the lower cone vibrating assembly is configured to enable a vibrating frequency to be selected that matches a resonant frequency of the powder or ground biomass to achieve maximum packing density,” this limitation has been considered, and construed as the manner of operating an apparatus that adds no additional structure to the apparatus as claimed. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114. However, because the device of modified Kustal is identical to the claimed invention, it is capable of being operated with similar if not identical claimed characteristics.
Regarding claim 21, modified Kustal discloses one vibration part (Tu, 32; “linear vibration piston rod”), wherein the pod assemblies (210) include multiple through holes ([0033]; see Fig. 3A) and the vibration part works on one of the cones in the through hole.
However, Kustal is silent as to the lower cone vibrating assembly is configured to simultaneously operate a plurality of linear vibration piston rods.
It would have been obvious to said skilled artisan to have duplicated the vibration part of Tu to correspond to the multiple through holes in the pod assembly of Kustal because it has been held that duplication of parts is obvious. “[M]ere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.” MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding the claim limitation “simultaneously operate,” this limitation has been considered, and construed as the manner of operating an apparatus that adds no additional structure to the apparatus as claimed. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114. However, because the device of modified Kustal is identical to the claimed invention, it is capable of being operated with similar if not identical claimed characteristics.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kustal et al. in view of Godwin et al., Keates et al. and Tu et al. as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Jenkins et al. (US 3645272; of record).
Regarding claim 12, modified Kustal discloses the cone filling and weighing apparatus as discussed above with respect to claim 10, including the funnel (248) coupled to a vibration device (250) such that the vibration device applies vibration to the funnel ([0051]).
However, modified Kustal is silent as to an eccentric vibration assembly comprising linear slide bearings, an eccentric bushing and a yoke to cause two dimensional vibration of the vibration funnel and thereby cause the vibration funnel to deliver powder to the tapered smokable cone at a predetermined fill rate.
Jenkins teaches an automatic cigarette-making machine (abstract) comprising a receptacle (46; Figs. 4-5; “biomass storage”) which receives loose tobacco from which a cigarette is to be made (col. 2, ll. 39-40) and a yoke assembly (92; “yoke”), eccentric pin (92; “linear slide bearing”), and a slot (102; “eccentric bushing”), the yoke assembly is coupled to a motor (88) which converts rotary motion into a reciprocating motion (col. 3, ll. 21-32) and imparts a reciprocated motion to a feeder member (68) such that loose tobacco within the receptacle is delivered from the receptacle through a feeder pipe and into a hollow cigarette tube (col. 3, ll. 33-56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added Jenkins’ yoke assembly, motor, and feeder member to Kustal’s funnel in order to obtain the predictable result of imparting a reciprocating motion to the feeder member such that loose tobacco within the funnel to move continuously into the cone with the benefit of operating the machine to control the firmness of the cigarette by controlling the rate of movement and therefore the density of the tobacco (Kustal; col. 1, ll. 63-68).
Regarding the claim limitation “cause two-dimensional vibrations of the vibration funnel thereby cause the vibration funnel to delivered powder to the tapered smokable cone at a predetermined fill rate” this limitation has been considered, and construed as the manner of operating an apparatus that adds no additional structure to the apparatus as claimed. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114. However, because the modified Kustal is identical to the claimed invention, it is capable of being operated with similar if not identical claimed characteristics.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kustal et al. in view of Godwin et al., Keates et al. and Tu et al. as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Williamson et al. (US 2021/0138508; of record).
Regarding claim 14, modified Kustal discloses the apparatus as discussed above with respect to claim 13, comprising vibration part (Tu, 32; “linear piston”) having the electromagnetic drive part (Tu, 33; “electromagnetic vibrator”).
However, modified Kustal is silent as to the piston is driven by a frictionless actuator including at least one electromagnetic coil and a permanent magnet that oscillates within the coil at a predetermined frequency determined by digital or analog pulse synchronization under programmable computer control.
Williamson teaches a haptic device (abstract) comprising a motor ([0042]) comprising a magnet (112; “permanent magnet”) and a voice coil (116; [0029]; “electromagnetic coil”) wherein the magnet is configured to be floating at least relative to the coil ([0042]; “frictionless” and “levitation”), wherein a controller controls the coil by sending electrical signals to the coil ([0030]; ‘programmable computer control”) at frequencies (“digital or analog electromagnetic pulses”) to oscillate the magnetic assembly ([0031]) and impart vibrations ([0030]).
It would had been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kustal’s electromagnetic drive part to include the magnet and voice coil of Williamson in order to obtain the predictable result of oscillating the magnetic assembly for imparting vibrations (Williamson; [0030]-[0031]) with the benefit of allowing for a more durable and reliable arrangement (Williamson; [0043]).
Therefore, modified Kustal discloses the permanent magnet (Williamson; 112) bounces a cone (202) to achieve different compactness of the filler material (Tu; p. 10, para. 3-4) which can vibrate the pod assembly (210; “funnel conveyor system”) to move the cone (202) without mechanically touching the modified Kustal’s yoke assembly (Jenkins; 92) having the feeder member (Jenkins; 68; “shaft”) and slot (Jenkins; 102; “bearing”) connected to the motor (Jenkins; 88; “electric motor”).
Claims 10 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Archambault et al. (US 2023/0115581) in view of Kustal et al. (US 2021/0392944; of record), Godwin et al. (US 2021/0030054), and Keates et al. (US 2023/0048159).
Regarding claim 10, Archambault discloses a cannabis joints filling system (abstract; “cone filling and weighing apparatus”) for receiving and holding a paper cone (14; “tapered smokable cone”) that receives cannabis from a cannabis feeding system (18) ([0065]), the cannabis feeding system comprising a cone extension (42; “hopper”) comprising:
a container (122; Fig. 1-3; “fill tube”);
a gate (45) that includes a linear actuator that is operatively coupled to a bottom (128) to allow a predetermined amount of cannabis onto the weighing scale ([0099]);
a cup (26; “weigh cup”)
a weighing scale (20; “load cell”);
a funnel (188); and
a pusher mechanism (192; “lower cone vibrating assembly”);
wherein the cone extension receives cannabis in bulk ([0077]), which moves towards a feeding cone (32), a chute (44), the container portion, through the bottom coupled to the gate, to the cup at the weighing scale ([0093], [0099]),
wherein the cup is tiltable from a first position in which the cup rests on the weighing scale (see the right cup in Fig. 6A) to a second position in which the drops the content into chute and subsequent funnel (see left cup in Fig. 6A) ([0117]), and
wherein the pusher mechanism includes a needle (196) that moves vertically up and down (arrow 250, 252; see Fig. 8O-P) and cause a pusher rod (224) to reciprocate (i.e., also move up and down) rapidly, including vibrations onto the paper conde holder and the paper cone ([0154]).
Regarding the claim limitation “a powder or ground biomass of flower from cannabis, hemp, tobacco, and other biomasses,” such a limitation is a material worked upon by the cone filling and weighing apparatus. “Inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” MPEP 2115.
Regarding the claim limitation “ensure that the powder or ground biomass delivered by the vibration funnel settles into the tapered smokable cone from the bottom up,” this limitation has been considered, and construed as the manner of operating an apparatus that adds no additional structure to the apparatus as claimed. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114. However, because the pusher mechanism of Archambault is identical to the claimed invention, it is capable of being operated with similar if not identical claimed characteristics.
However, Archambault is silent as to a rotating valve, wherein the fill tube is configured to supply the powder or ground biomass to the weigh cup through the rotating valve, wherein an amount of the powder or ground biomass supplied to the weigh cup is controlled by rotating the rotating valve in response to weighing by the load cell of the powder or ground biomass in the weigh cup.
Godwin teaches a cone filling machine (abstract) comprising a hopper (110; Fig. 1-3), sloped sides (112) that terminate at a lower slot or opening (114) (collectively “fill tube”), and an auger (130) indicated by knurled end-knob (116) (collectively “rotating valve”) covering the lower opening ([0020]), wherein finely milled or ground up parts of marijuana plants are dispensed into the hopper (110), and down the sloped sides ([0020]), wherein a free end (118) of the auger allows marijuana powder to drop into the funnel ([0021]) by turning and driving the auger via a servo motor ([0020], [0023]; “fill tube is configured…to supply the powder or ground biomass…through the rotating valve), wherein
Keates teaches a pre-formed cone filling apparatus (abstract; 100) comprising a filling station (500; Fig. 6) comprising two hoppers (510) and an auger (not shown) in each hopper rotated a set number of turns to provide a measured quantity of product into a feed channel ([0048]), and a check-weighing station (700) provides dynamic, continuous feedback to the filler station (auger) for continuously checking and if necessary adjustment of the metered quantity of product ([0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Archambault’s known bottom coupled to a gate for the known auger as in Godwin and Keates below the second open end of Kustal in order to obtain the predictable result of dispensing powder from the hopper (Godwin, [0023]) in a measured quantity to a downstream position (Keates, [0048]), weighing scale of Archambault to send a feedback signal to the filling station as in Keates in order to control and adjust the metered quantity of product (Keates, [0048]) and solve the problem of poor accuracy of dose (Keates, [0003]).
Moreover, Archambault is silent as to the funnel being a vibration funnel caused to vibrate to facilitate movement of the powder or ground biomass into the tapered smokable cone.
Kustal teaches a system (abstract) for filling each cone with a filler material comprising: a funnel (248) coupled to a vibration device (250) such that the vibration device applies vibration to the funnel ([0051]) wherein the vibration device applies vibration to the funnel such that filler material can travel through the funnel through assistance of vibrations from the vibration device and into the cone (202; [0054]; “facilitate movement of the powder or ground biomass into the tapered smokable cone”).
It would have been obvious to said skilled artisan to have added a vibration device as in Kustal to Archambault’s funnel in order to obtain the predictable result of applying vibrations to the funnel (Kustal, [0051]) with the benefit assisting the travel of filler material through the funnel (Kustal; [0054]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Archambault discloses the auger (Goodwin, 130, Fig. 4; “rotary valve”).
Merriam-Webster defines “disc” as a “thin circular object.” As such, Goodwin’s auger includes disc with at least one opening that would allow powder to be passed through (see annotated Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 17, modified Archambault discloses the cups are mounted to a rotary actuator (162; “cup tilting mechanism”) comprising fins (176; “split mounting bracket”) that engages two C-shaped plates (166, 166’; “upper and lower flanges”) when moving from the first to the second position and vice versa (see Fig. 6A-B), wherein the fins are moved from its first rested position towards its second raised position (see arrow 186; Fig. 7B; [0118]; “said split mounting bracket disengaging from the flanges when the cup is resting on the load cell for filling and weighing”).
Regarding claim 18, modified Archambault further discloses an actuating mechanism (40; “feeder”) that moves cannabis from the cone extension (42; “hopper) to an inlet (34) to an outlet (36) of the feeding cone (32; “bowl”), and the chute (44) configured promote flow of cannabis between the feeding cone and weighing scale ([0089]), which requires passing the container portion (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 19, modified Archambault discloses wherein the feeding cone rotates to allow more cannabis towards the weighing scale via the chute and through the gauge ([0095]).
However, Archambault is silent as to wherein the feeder oscillates in a horizontal direction to cause powder or ground biomass to move from below the hopper to the storage bowl.
Kustal further teaches a second vibration device can be coupled to the hopper to sufficiently move the material towards the weigh basket ([0051]).
It would have been obvious to said skilled artisan to have added a second vibration device as to Kustal to Archambault’s cone extension in order to obtain the predictable result of vibrating the hopper with and beneficial result of further facilitating the movement material towards the weigh basket (Kustal; [0051]).
Conclusion
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 SONNY V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8294. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM EST.
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, Philip Y Louie can be reached at (571) 270-1241. 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.
/SONNY V NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755