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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1- 20 are pending and subject to this Office Action. Claims 1, 3, and 5-8, are amended. Claims 13-20 have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-18, filed 08/01/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-12 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of previously applied art and newly found art.
Claim 1 has been amended to specify: openings communicating through a portion of said sleeve sidewall which forms sides of the sleeve from an exterior surface of said sleeve sidewall into said interior chamber
Claim 3 has been amended to change claim dependency.
Claims 5-8 have been amended to incorporate the limitations of
said ramp in said deployed position forming a support for a side of said sleeve opposite said openings during grating of smoking material into said grated particles
said ramp in said deployed position forming a slide for gapless communicating communication of said grated particles of said smoking material into said interior cavity from said interior chamber of said sleeve when positioned atop said ramp.
Applicant argues, pages 14-15, that the teachings of Barnea do not address how the funnel outlet is sized for positioning through the first end of a rolled cigarette. Applicant further argues that Barnea is silent as to the size of the outlet and thus fail to teach that the opening would be sized for positioning through an opening of the first end of the rolled cigarette paper.
The Examiner disagrees with this assessment. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of Barnea, where a piece of laminate are joined via a hinged connection and to form a funnel (see annotated figure 2 below) would work with a rolled paper for making a cigarette. The funnel of Barnea forms a point and as such the point would be placed in the opening of the rolled paper to allow tobacco material to transfer into the article. Additionally, the Examiner notes that there is no size limitation on the funnel outlet and as such any funnel outlet that is designed to work with rolled cigarettes would be considered to read on the claimed limitation.
Applicant argues, pages 14-15, that the teachings of Reynolds fail to teach that the ramp is movable between a stowed position within the internal cavity and a deployed position projecting from said internal cavity.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument. The prior art of Reynolds teaches that the lid is fit snuggly into the box. The claim does not limit the location of where the lid is stowed and as such the lid being fit snuggly into the box is considered to read on the limitation.
The following is a modified rejection based on amendments made to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin (US20200323257A1) and further in view of Ackerman, et al (US20180228210A1)
Regarding claim 1, Griffin teaches a valet for hand rolled cigarettes that is comprised of a base portion (sleeve) and an drawer (interior container). The base portion has side walls [0011] and is designed such that the drawer is slidably received in the interior of the base portion. [0013] Griffin discloses that the drawer has sidewalls and a bottom to form bins for holding requisite smoking materials. The wall of the base portion has a second aperture/ opening that is configured to receive a tobacco grinder. [0013]
Griffin does not explicitly teach that the tobacco material would pass through the tobacco grinder and into the bin.
Ackerman, directed to the design of a smoker’s utility device and system, teaches a sleeve that has a drawer located inside the sleeve and a grinder located on the sleeve. [0009] Ackerman teaches that when the tobacco material is rubbed along the screen the ground product falls through the screen and into the compartment below. [0026]
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the base portion of Griffin by adding the manual grinder as taught by Ackerman to the sleeve sidewall because both Griffin and Ackerman are directed to the design of smokers’ accessories, Ackerman teaches this allows for immediate usage or storage for later usage [0026], and this involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin (US20200323257A1) and Ackerman, et al (US20180228210A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Barnea (WO 2017090025A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 3:
additionally comprising: a folding funnel, removably positioned within said internal cavity of said interior container, said folding funnel having a first planar side engaged to a second planar side along a folding connection therebetween which extends between a first end and second end of said folding funnel; said folding funnel having a stowed configuration wherein both said first planar side and said second planar side are aligned; said folding funnel having a folded configuration wherein said first planar side and said second planar side both angle toward the folding connection; and said folding funnel in said folded configuration defining a ramp for sliding smoking material positioned thereon toward said first end of said folding funnel and into an axial cavity surrounded by a rolled cigarette paper.
additionally comprising: said folding funnel tapering from first width at said first end thereof to a second width at a second end thereof; and said second end of said folding funnel sized for positioning through an opening at a first end of said rolled cigarette paper and into said axial cavity.
Griffin teaches that the valet can hold the items necessary for rolled but does not expressly teach the inclusion of a funnel.
Barnea, directed to smoker’s accessories, teaches a Smoker’s pocket-tobacco case which includes a shaped laminate having a funnel position. Barnea teaches, “in “funnel-position” the laminate exposes the funnel outwardly so as to enable out-streaming tobacco substance from outlet 410.” (p 10) see annotated figure 2. The outlet is located at the point of the funnel.
Barnea teaches a smokers’ folding laminate that has a funnel functionality. The funnel of Barnea is made up of two flat surfaces that are attached by a folding hinged section creating a channel to move tobacco product. When not in use the two flat surfaces fold together to be stored between a back portion and a cover as seen in annotated figure 2 below. This is considered analogous to the folding funnel instant application.
PNG
media_image1.png
898
975
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Griffin and Ackerman by adding a folding funnel to a smokers’ kit as taught by Barnea because Griffin, Ackerman, and Barnea are directed to smoker’s accessories, Barnea teaches having a multilayer laminate with a folding funnel feature allows for easier cigarette and pipe packing as well as reduced storage requirements, and this involves combining prior art elements to improve the device.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin (US20200323257A1), Ackerman, et al (US20180228210A1), and Barnea (WO 2017090025A1) as applied to claim 3 above and further in view of Swanson, et al (US20170119043A1).
Regarding claim 4, Griffin teaches the drawer includes one or more bins to store materials required to roll cigarettes, such as, but not limited to, loose tobacco, rolling papers, filters, etc. Griffin further teaches that the valet can hold rolled smoking articles. [0013]
However, Griffin is silent with respect to the paper being a rolled cigarette paper that is conical in chape.
Swanson, directed to preformed cigarette wrappers, teaches a preformed cigarette wrapper having at least one hollow truncated conical wrapper holder having a top end and a bottom end and a conically shaped hollow interior tapering from the top end to the bottom end. [0011]
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Griffin, Ackerman, and Barnea by including pre-rolled cones as taught by Swanson because Griffin, Ackerman, Barnea, and Swanson are directed to smoker’s accessories, Swanson teaches using a preformed conical paper wrapper allows for easier loading and a more uniform density finished product. [0008], and this involves combining prior art elements to improve the device.
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin (US20200323257A1) and Ackerman, et al (US20180228210A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reynolds (US 833,897) and Conroy (US 20100006632A1) .
Regarding claim 5, Griffin and Ackerman do not teach:
a ramp, said ramp having a pivoting connection at a first side thereof to a portion of said sidewall projecting around said perimeter of said bottom surface;
said ramp movable between a stowed position located within said internal cavity to a deployed position projecting from said internal cavity;
and said ramp in said deployed position forming a support for said sleeve during openings communicating through said sleeve sidewall from an exterior surface of said sleeve sidewall into said interior chamber;
and said ramp in said deployed position forming a slide for communicating said grated particles of said smoking material into said interior cavity from said interior chamber of said sleeve when positioned atop said ramp.
Reynolds, directed to the design of smoker’s boxes, teaches a “compartment-box for smokers’ use, the two hinged members being shown open and the cover for one of said members being partially raised.” (cl 1 ln 26-29) “ A cover 8 is provides for the hinged member 1* and is designed to fit snugly.(cl 2 ln 63-65); “ The cover 8 is hinged along one edge, so that it may be turned up out of the member 1* to expose the interior of the latte and back against member 1” (cl 2 ln 68-71) Reynolds teaches that the internal lid is stored inside the cavity of the box but can be lifted, using a hinged connection, out of the box. Reynolds also teaches, a box with an interior lid that sits inside the walls and covers the bottom surface. “the underside of the cover (8) is a strip of abrasive material 9,” (cl 2 ln 72-73) Reynolds teaches the lid is has an abrasive material which would require it be able to support an object being pressed against the lifted lid. When the lid is fully opened it would create a sloping plane with respect to the interior cavity. This sloping plane would be able to support the pressure associated with a grating or grinding action and would cause anything on it to move into the interior cavity. This design is considered analogous to that of the instant application.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Griffin and Ackerman by adding an interior cover to the drawer as taught by Reynolds because Griffin, Ackerman, and Reynolds are directed to the design of smokers’ boxes, Reynolds teaches the addition of the interior cover allows for multiple compartments, and this involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
The prior art of record is silent with respect to the hinge connection being gapless.
Conroy, directed to the design of boxes, teaches that the hinges for lids or ramps can be made of integral panels. [0006] The use of integrated part would read on the limitation of a gapless connection.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Griffin, Ackerman, and Reynolds by using a folding method for hinge as taught by Conroy because Griffin, Ackerman, Reynolds, and Conroy are directed to the design of boxes, Conroy teaches the style of box can be assembled quickly [0006], and this involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 9 and 13, Griffin, Ackerman, and Reynolds do not teach: wherein said pivoting connection of said ramp, additionally comprises: a pivoting portion having a first side opposite a second side, said first side of said pivoting portion in a pivoting connection to said sidewall; said pivoting connection engaging a second side of said pivoting portion and said first side of said ramp; and said ramp in said stowed position positionable parallel to and in contact against said bottom surface of said interior container or that the pivoting portion would be in contact with a side wall.
Conroy, directed to the design of boxes, teaches “In embodiments of the invention, the inner flap portion further comprises a bottom panel hingedly connected to the inner flap portion rear panel. More specifically, the inner flap portion bottom panel is hingedly connected to a free edge of the inner flap portion rear panel, which free edge is opposite the edge of the inner flap portion rear panel hingedly connected to the base portion rear panel.” (p1 [0009]) and “the inner flap portion bottom panel is folded about the hinge line connecting same to the inner flap portion rear panel so as to lie against the base portion bottom panel.” (p1 [0010])
Conroy taches that the inner flap (B2) is connected to panel (B1) that allows the inner flap to rest on the bottom panel (A2) and that panel (B1) is attached to the rear/elongated side panel (A3). Conroy teaches the inner panel is attached using a folding method to create a hinge or pivot that allows the inner panel to sit flush with the bottom of the container and also be lifted completely out of the container when needed. This pivoting design for an inner panel is shown in annotated figure 3. The design of Conroy further teaches that the pivoting portion of the ramp, B1, would be in contact with a side wall when in the stowed position. The design of Conroy is considered analogous to the pivoting portion of the ramp in the instant application.
PNG
media_image2.png
832
603
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Griffin, Ackerman, and Reynolds by using a folding method for hinge as taught by Conroy because Griffin, Ackerman, Reynolds, and Conroy are directed to the design of boxes, Conroy teaches the folding method allows the internal flap to sit against the bottom of the internal cavity, and this involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claims 6, 7, 10, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin (US20200323257A1), Ackerman, et al (US20180228210A1), and Barnea (WO 017090025A1) as applied to claims 2 and 3 above, and further in view of Reynolds (US 833,897) and Conroy US 20100006632A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Griffin and Ackerman do not teach:
a ramp, said ramp having a pivoting connection at a first side thereof to a portion of said sidewall projecting around said perimeter of said bottom surface;
said ramp movable between a stowed position located within said internal cavity to a deployed position projecting from said internal cavity;
and said ramp in said deployed position forming a support for said sleeve during openings communicating through said sleeve sidewall from an exterior surface of said sleeve sidewall into said interior chamber;
and said ramp in said deployed position forming a slide for communicating said grated particles of said smoking material into said interior cavity from said interior chamber of said sleeve when positioned atop said ramp.
Reynolds, directed to the design of smoker’s boxes, teaches a “compartment-box for smokers’ use, the two hinged members being shown open and the cover for one of said members being partially raised.” (cl 1 ln 26-29) “ A cover 8 is provides for the hinged member 1* and is designed to fit snugly.(cl 2 ln 63-65); “ The cover 8 is hinged along one edge, so that it may be turned up out of the member 1* to expose the interior of the latte and back against member 1” (cl 2 ln 68-71) Reynolds teaches that the internal lid is stored inside the cavity of the box but can be lifted, using a hinged connection, out of the box. Reynolds also teaches, a box with an interior lid that sits inside the walls and covers the bottom surface. “the underside of the cover (8) is a strip of abrasive material 9,” (cl 2 ln 72-73) Reynolds teaches the lid is has an abrasive material which would require it be able to support an object being pressed against the lifted lid. When the lid is fully opened it would create a sloping plane with respect to the interior cavity. This sloping plane would be able to support the pressure associated with a grating or grinding action and would cause anything on it to move into the interior cavity. This design is considered analogous to that of the instant application.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Griffin and Ackerman by adding an interior cover to the drawer as taught by Reynolds because Griffin, Ackerman, and Reynolds are directed to the design of smokers’ boxes, Reynolds teaches the addition of the interior cover allows for multiple compartments, and this involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
The prior art of record is silent with respect to the hinge connection being gapless.
Conroy, directed to the design of boxes, teaches that the hinges for lids or ramps can be made of integral panels. [0006] The use of integrated part would read on the limitation of a gapless connection.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Griffin, Ackerman, and Reynolds by using a folding method for hinge as taught by Conroy because Griffin, Ackerman, Reynolds, and Conroy are directed to the design of boxes, Conroy teaches the style of box can be assembled quickly [0006], and this involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 10, 11, and 14, Griffin, Ackerman, and Reynolds do not teach: wherein said pivoting connection of said ramp, additionally comprises: a pivoting portion having a first side opposite a second side, said first side of said pivoting portion in a pivoting connection to said sidewall; said pivoting connection engaging a second side of said pivoting portion and said first side of said ramp; and said ramp in said stowed position positionable parallel to and in contact against said bottom surface of said interior container.
Conroy, directed to the design of boxes, teaches “In embodiments of the invention, the inner flap portion further comprises a bottom panel hingedly connected to the inner flap portion rear panel. More specifically, the inner flap portion bottom panel is hingedly connected to a free edge of the inner flap portion rear panel, which free edge is opposite the edge of the inner flap portion rear panel hingedly connected to the base portion rear panel.” (p1 [0009]) and “the inner flap portion bottom panel is folded about the hinge line connecting same to the inner flap portion rear panel so as to lie against the base portion bottom panel.” (p1 [0010])
Conroy taches that the inner flap (B2) is connected to panel (B1) that allows the inner flap to rest on the bottom panel (A2) and that panel (B1) is attached to the rear/elongated side panel (A3). Conroy teaches the inner panel is attached using a folding method to create a hinge or pivot that allows the inner panel to sit flush with the bottom of the container and also be lifted completely out of the container when needed. This pivoting design for an inner panel is shown in annotated figure 3. The design of Conroy further teaches that the pivoting portion of the ramp, B1, would be in contact with a side wall when in the stowed position. The design of Conroy is considered analogous to the pivoting portion of the ramp in the instant application.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Griffin, Ackerman, and Reynolds by using a folding method for hinge as taught by Conroy because Griffin, Ackerman, Reynolds, and Conroy are directed to the design of boxes, Conroy teaches the folding method allows the internal flap to sit against the bottom of the internal cavity, and this involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claims 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin (US20200323257A1), Ackerman, et al (US20180228210A1), Barnea (WO 017090025A1), and Swanson, et al (US20170119043A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Reynolds (US 833,897) and Conroy (US 20100006632A1).
Regarding claim 8, Griffin and Ackerman do not teach:
a ramp, said ramp having a pivoting connection at a first side thereof to a portion of said sidewall projecting around said perimeter of said bottom surface;
said ramp movable between a stowed position located within said internal cavity to a deployed position projecting from said internal cavity;
and said ramp in said deployed position forming a support for said sleeve during openings communicating through said sleeve sidewall from an exterior surface of said sleeve sidewall into said interior chamber;
and said ramp in said deployed position forming a slide for communicating said grated particles of said smoking material into said interior cavity from said interior chamber of said sleeve when positioned atop said ramp.
Reynolds, directed to the design of smoker’s boxes, teaches a “compartment-box for smokers’ use, the two hinged members being shown open and the cover for one of said members being partially raised.” (cl 1 ln 26-29) “ A cover 8 is provides for the hinged member 1* and is designed to fit snugly.(cl 2 ln 63-65); “ The cover 8 is hinged along one edge, so that it may be turned up out of the member 1* to expose the interior of the latte and back against member 1” (cl 2 ln 68-71) Reynolds teaches that the internal lid is stored inside the cavity of the box but can be lifted, using a hinged connection, out of the box. Reynolds also teaches, a box with an interior lid that sits inside the walls and covers the bottom surface. “the underside of the cover (8) is a strip of abrasive material 9,” (cl 2 ln 72-73) Reynolds teaches the lid is has an abrasive material which would require it be able to support an object being pressed against the lifted lid. When the lid is fully opened it would create a sloping plane with respect to the interior cavity. This sloping plane would be able to support the pressure associated with a grating or grinding action and would cause anything on it to move into the interior cavity. This design is considered analogous to that of the instant application.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Griffin and Ackerman by adding an interior cover as taught by Reynolds because Griffin , Ackerman and Reynolds are directed to the design of smokers’ boxes, Reynolds teaches the addition of the interior cover allows for multiple compartments, and this involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
The prior art of record is silent with respect to the hinge connection being gapless.
Conroy, directed to the design of boxes, teaches that the hinges for lids or ramps can be made of integral panels. [0006] The use of integrated part would read on the limitation of a gapless connection.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Griffin, Ackerman, and Reynolds by using a folding method for hinge as taught by Conroy because Griffin, Ackerman, Reynolds, and Conroy are directed to the design of boxes, Conroy teaches the style of box can be assembled quickly [0006], and this involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 12, Griffin, Ackerman, and Reynolds do not teach: wherein said pivoting connection of said ramp, additionally comprises: a pivoting portion having a first side opposite a second side, said first side of said pivoting portion in a pivoting connection to said sidewall; said pivoting connection engaging a second side of said pivoting portion and said first side of said ramp; and said ramp in said stowed position positionable parallel to and in contact against said bottom surface of said interior container.
Conroy, directed to the design of containers, teaches “In embodiments of the invention, the inner flap portion further comprises a bottom panel hingedly connected to the inner flap portion rear panel. More specifically, the inner flap portion bottom panel is hingedly connected to a free edge of the inner flap portion rear panel, which free edge is opposite the edge of the inner flap portion rear panel hingedly connected to the base portion rear panel.” (p1 [0009]) and “the inner flap portion bottom panel is folded about the hinge line connecting same to the inner flap portion rear panel so as to lie against the base portion bottom panel.” (p1 [0010])
Conroy taches that the inner flap (B2) is connected to panel (B1) that allows the inner flap to rest on the bottom panel (A2) and that panel (B1) is attached to the rear/elongated side panel (A3). Conroy teaches the inner panel is attached using a folding method to create a hinge or pivot that allows the inner panel to sit flush with the bottom of the container and also be lifted completely out of the container when needed. This pivoting design for an inner panel is shown in annotated figure 3 above. The design of Conroy is considered analogous to the pivoting portion of the ramp in the instant application.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Griffin, Ackerman, and Reynolds by using a folding method for hinged covering as taught by Conroy because Griffin, Ackerman, Swanson, and Reynolds and Conroy are directed to the design of boxes, Conroy teaches the folding method allows the internal flap to sit against the bottom of the internal cavity, and this involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin (US20200323257A1) and further in view of Ackerman, et al (US20180228210A1), Reynolds (US 833,897) and Conroy (US 20100006632A1).
Regarding claim 15, Griffin teaches a valet for hand rolled cigarettes that is comprised of a base portion (sleeve) and an drawer (interior container). The base portion has side walls [0011] and is designed such that the drawer is slidably received in the interior of the base portion. [0013] Griffin discloses that the drawer has sidewalls and a bottom to form bins for holding requisite smoking materials. The wall of the base portion has a second aperture/ opening that is configured to receive a tobacco grinder. [0013]
Griffin does not explicitly teach that the tobacco material would pass through the tobacco grinder and into the bin.
Ackerman, directed to the design of a smoker’s utility device and system, teaches a sleeve that has a drawer located inside the sleeve and a grinder located on the sleeve. [0009] Ackerman teaches that when the tobacco material is rubbed along the screen the ground product falls through the screen and into the compartment below. [0026]
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the base portion of Griffin by adding the manual grinder as taught by Ackerman to the sleeve sidewall because both Griffin and Ackerman are directed to the design of smokers’ accessories, Ackerman teaches this allows for immediate usage or storage for later usage [0026], and this involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Neither Griffin nor Ackerman teaches that the drawer portion could comprise a ramp.
Reynolds, directed to the design of smoker’s boxes, teaches a “compartment-box for smokers’ use, the two hinged members being shown open and the cover for one of said members being partially raised.” (cl 1 ln 26-29) “ A cover 8 is provides for the hinged member 1* and is designed to fit snugly.(cl 2 ln 63-65); “ The cover 8 is hinged along one edge, so that it may be turned up out of the member 1* to expose the interior of the latte and back against member 1” (cl 2 ln 68-71) Reynolds teaches that the internal lid is stored inside the cavity of the box but can be lifted, using a hinged connection, out of the box. Reynolds also teaches, a box with an interior lid that sits inside the walls and covers the bottom surface. “the underside of the cover (8) is a strip of abrasive material 9,” (cl 2 ln 72-73) Reynolds teaches the lid is has an abrasive material which would require it be able to support an object being pressed against the lifted lid. When the lid is fully opened it would create a sloping plane with respect to the interior cavity. This sloping plane would be able to support the pressure associated with a grating or grinding action and would cause anything on it to move into the interior cavity. This design is considered analogous to that of the instant application.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Griffin and Ackerman by adding an interior cover to the drawer as taught by Reynolds because Griffin, Ackerman, and Reynolds are directed to the design of smokers’ boxes, Reynolds teaches the addition of the interior cover allows for multiple compartments, and this involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
The prior art of record is silent with respect to the stowed portion be in contact with the bottom surface of the interior container.
Conroy, directed to the design of containers, teaches “In embodiments of the invention, the inner flap portion further comprises a bottom panel hingedly connected to the inner flap portion rear panel. More specifically, the inner flap portion bottom panel is hingedly connected to a free edge of the inner flap portion rear panel, which free edge is opposite the edge of the inner flap portion rear panel hingedly connected to the base portion rear panel.” (p1 [0009]) and “the inner flap portion bottom panel is folded about the hinge line connecting same to the inner flap portion rear panel so as to lie against the base portion bottom panel.” (p1 [0010])
Conroy taches that the inner flap (B2) is connected to panel (B1) that allows the inner flap to rest on the bottom panel (A2) and that panel (B1) is attached to the rear/elongated side panel (A3). Conroy teaches the inner panel is attached using a folding method to create a hinge or pivot that allows the inner panel to sit flush with the bottom of the container and also be lifted completely out of the container when needed. This pivoting design for an inner panel is shown in annotated figure 3 above. The design of Conroy is considered analogous to the pivoting portion of the ramp in the instant application.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Griffin, Ackerman, and Reynolds by using a folding method for hinged covering as taught by Conroy because Griffin, Ackerman, Swanson, and Reynolds and Conroy are directed to the design of boxes, Conroy teaches the folding method allows the internal flap to sit against the bottom of the internal cavity, and this involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin (US20200323257A1) and Ackerman, et al (US20180228210A1) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Barnea (WO 2017090025A1).
Regarding claims 16 and 17:
additionally comprising: a folding funnel, removably positioned within said internal cavity of said interior container, said folding funnel having a first planar side engaged to a second planar side along a folding connection therebetween which extends between a first end and second end of said folding funnel; said folding funnel having a stowed configuration wherein both said first planar side and said second planar side are aligned; said folding funnel having a folded configuration wherein said first planar side and said second planar side both angle toward the folding connection; and said folding funnel in said folded configuration defining a ramp for sliding smoking material positioned thereon toward said first end of said folding funnel and into an axial cavity surrounded by a rolled cigarette paper.
additionally comprising: said folding funnel tapering from first width at said first end thereof to a second width at a second end thereof; and said second end of said folding funnel sized for positioning through an opening at a first end of said rolled cigarette paper and into said axial cavity.
Griffin teaches that the valet can hold the items necessary for rolled but does not expressly teach the inclusion of a funnel.
Barnea, directed to smoker’s accessories, teaches a Smoker’s pocket-tobacco case which includes a shaped laminate having a funnel position. Barnea teaches, “in “funnel-position” the laminate exposes the funnel outwardly so as to enable out-streaming tobacco substance from outlet 410.” (p 10) see annotated figure 2. The outlet is located at the point of the funnel.
Barnea teaches a smokers’ folding laminate that has a funnel functionality. The funnel of Barnea is made up of two flat surfaces that are attached by a folding hinged section creating a channel to move tobacco product. When not in use the two flat surfaces fold together to be stored between a back portion and a cover as seen in annotated figure 2 below. This is considered analogous to the folding funnel instant application.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Griffin and Ackerman by adding a folding funnel to a smokers’ kit as taught by Barnea because Griffin, Ackerman, and Barnea are directed to smoker’s accessories, Barnea teaches having a multilayer laminate with a folding funnel feature allows for easier cigarette and pipe packing as well as reduced storage requirements, and this involves combining prior art elements to improve the device.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin (US20200323257A1), Ackerman, et al (US20180228210A1), and Barnea (WO 2017090025A1) as applied to claim 17 above and further in view of Swanson, et al (US20170119043A1).
Regarding claim 18, Griffin teaches the drawer includes one or more bins to store materials required to roll cigarettes, such as, but not limited to, loose tobacco, rolling papers, filters, etc. Griffin further teaches that the valet can hold rolled smoking articles. [0013]
However, Griffin is silent with respect to the paper being a rolled cigarette paper that is conical in chape.
Swanson, directed to preformed cigarette wrappers, teaches a preformed cigarette wrapper having at least one hollow truncated conical wrapper holder having a top end and a bottom end and a conically shaped hollow interior tapering from the top end to the bottom end. [0011]
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Griffin, Ackerman, and Barnea by including pre-rolled cones as taught by Swanson because Griffin, Ackerman, Barnea, and Swanson are directed to smoker’s accessories, Swanson teaches using a preformed conical paper wrapper allows for easier loading and a more uniform density finished product. [0008], and this involves combining prior art elements to improve the device.
Claim 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin (US20200323257A1) and Ackerman, et al (US20180228210A1) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Reynolds (US 833,897) and Conroy (US 20100006632A1) .
Regarding claim 19, Griffin and Ackerman do not teach:
a ramp, said ramp having a pivoting connection at a first side thereof to a portion of said sidewall projecting around said perimeter of said bottom surface;
said ramp movable between a stowed position located within said internal cavity to a deployed position projecting from said internal cavity;
and said ramp in said deployed position forming a support for said sleeve during openings communicating through said sleeve sidewall from an exterior surface of said sleeve sidewall into said interior chamber;
and said ramp in said deployed position forming a slide for communicating said grated particles of said smoking material into said interior cavity from said interior chamber of said sleeve when positioned atop said ramp.
Reynolds, directed to the design of smoker’s boxes, teaches a “compartment-box for smokers’ use, the two hinged members being shown open and the cover for one of said members being partially raised.” (cl 1 ln 26-29) “ A cover 8 is provides for the hinged member 1* and is designed to fit snugly.(cl 2 ln 63-65); “ The cover 8 is hinged along one edge, so that it may be turned up out of the member 1* to expose the interior of the latte and back against member 1” (cl 2 ln 68-71) Reynolds teaches that the internal lid is stored inside the cavity of the box but can be lifted, using a hinged connection, out of the box. Reynolds also teaches, a box with an interior lid that sits inside the walls and covers the bottom surface. “the underside of the cover (8) is a strip of abrasive material 9,” (cl 2 ln 72-73) Reynolds teaches the lid is has an abrasive material which would require it be able to support an object being pressed against the lifted lid. When the lid is fully opened it would create a sloping plane with respect to the interior cavity. This sloping plane would be able to support the pressure associated with a grating or grinding action and would cause anything on it to move into the interior cavity. This design is considered analogous to that of the instant application.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Griffin and Ackerman by adding an interior cover to the drawer as taught by Reynolds because Griffin, Ackerman, and Reynolds are directed to the design of smokers’ boxes, Reynolds teaches the addition of the interior cover allows for multiple compartments, and this involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
The prior art of record is silent with respect to the hinge connection being gapless.
Conroy, directed to the design of boxes, teaches that the hinges for lids or ramps can be made of integral panels. [0006] The use of integrated part would read on the limitation of a gapless connection.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Griffin, Ackerman, and Reynolds by using a folding method for hinge as taught by Conroy because Griffin, Ackerman, Reynolds, and Conroy are directed to the design of boxes, Conroy teaches the style of box can be assembled quickly [0006], and this involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 20, Griffin teaches the use of a lip at the outer perimeter that is used to maintain loose tobacco. [0012]
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.
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 VIRGINIA R BIEGER whose telephone number is (703)756-1014. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7:30-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Phillip 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.
/V.R.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 1755
/PHILIP Y LOUIE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755