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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 8/15/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 19-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse as noted above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 17 and 18 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.
Claims 17 and 18 recite the limitation "the at least four proximal openings" in lines one and two. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claims depend from claim 5, which does not recite “at least four proximal openings”. It appears that the applicant intended for claims 17 and 18 to depend from claim 16, which introduces the limitation, “the proximal end includes at least four proximal openings…”. In the interest of compact prosecution, the examiner will address claims 17 and 18 as if they were dependent on claim 16. However, appropriate correction is still required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, and 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaljura et al. (US 20200221762).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Kaljura et al. disclose a paper or plastic tube ([0010], figure 1a, element 2), the inner diameter of the distal opening (as shown) with a lumen that extends from the distal opening to the proximal opening with each opening having an outer diameter and an inner diameter. The tube of Kaljura et al. acts as a mouthpiece and can be between 3 to about 25 mm long (0.11811 to 0.98 [0049]). Please note that “about 0.98 inches (25 mm) is considered to be about 1 inch and anticipates the length of at least 1 inch).
PNG
media_image1.png
218
496
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kaljura et al. do not teach that the tube is used or configured to roll a smoking tube. In this case, configured to does not add any additional structural elements and is instead the intended use of the tube. The steps and parameters for the process for using the tube do not add patentable details to this invention, as no structural characteristics are association with the step in the specification. As such, this is a “product by process” claim.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), (MPEP 2113).
"The Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature" than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974). Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983) …
"[T]he lack of physical description in a product-by-process claim makes determination of the patentability of the claim more difficult, since in spite of the fact that the claim may recite only process limitations, it is the patentability of the product claimed and not of the recited process steps which must be established. We are therefore of the opinion that when the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable. As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith." In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972).
Regarding claim 4, Kaljura et al. do not teach that the tube is used or configured as a mandrel and roll a smoking tube during automated manufacturing of pre-rolled smoking tubes. In this case, configured as does not add any additional structural elements and is instead the intended use of the tube. The steps and parameters for the process for using the tube do not add patentable details to this invention, as no structural characteristics are association with the step in the specification. As such, this is a “product by process” claim.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), (MPEP 2113).
"The Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature" than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974). Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983) …
"[T]he lack of physical description in a product-by-process claim makes determination of the patentability of the claim more difficult, since in spite of the fact that the claim may recite only process limitations, it is the patentability of the product claimed and not of the recited process steps which must be established. We are therefore of the opinion that when the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable. As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith." In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972).
Regarding claim 10, the tube of Kaljura et al. includes and orifice and is capable of acting as a receptacle for a filter. In particular, the tube is shown receiving a filter (see figure 2).
Regarding claims 11-15, the outer diameter of the respective ends is disclosed as being equal (see figure 1a), smaller at one end (figure 1b), and larger at one end (figure 2). The inner diameter is also shown as being greater (1a) or the same (1b) at either end.
Claim(s) 1-6, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by David (US 3,389,705).
Regarding claim 1, 2, 16, 17, and 18, David discloses a tube (see figure 4, element 21) with a proximal and distal end spaced apart along a central axis and the proximal end has an end wall with a plurality of holes (5 identical holes all labeled (33) as shown in figure 6). A lumen extends from the distal opening to the proximal opening along the central axis such that the distal opening and the at least one proximal opening have an outer diameter and an inner diameter.
PNG
media_image2.png
432
341
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
445
776
media_image3.png
Greyscale
David et al. do not teach that the tube is used or configured to roll a smoking tube. In this case, configured to does not add any additional structural elements and is instead the intended use of the tube. The steps and parameters for the process for using the tube do not add patentable details to this invention, as no structural characteristics are association with the step in the specification. As such, this is a “product by process” claim.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), (MPEP 2113).
"The Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature" than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974). Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983) …
"[T]he lack of physical description in a product-by-process claim makes determination of the patentability of the claim more difficult, since in spite of the fact that the claim may recite only process limitations, it is the patentability of the product claimed and not of the recited process steps which must be established. We are therefore of the opinion that when the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable. As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith." In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972).
Regarding claim 3, David discloses that the tube and components are made of cigarette paper, metals, or plastics (col. 1, 29-40, col. 4, lines 6-10).
Regarding claim 4, David does not teach that the tube is used or configured as a mandrel and roll a smoking tube during automated manufacturing of pre-rolled smoking tubes.. In this case, configured as does not add any additional structural elements and is instead the intended use of the tube. The steps and parameters for the process for using the tube do not add patentable details to this invention, as no structural characteristics are association with the step in the specification. As such, this is a “product by process” claim.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), (MPEP 2113).
"The Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature" than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974). Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983) …
"[T]he lack of physical description in a product-by-process claim makes determination of the patentability of the claim more difficult, since in spite of the fact that the claim may recite only process limitations, it is the patentability of the product claimed and not of the recited process steps which must be established. We are therefore of the opinion that when the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable. As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith." In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, the filter of Daivd shows holes on the outer surface that connect to the inner lumen to adjust airflow patterns (see figure 4, element 34 and arrows representing airflow).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David (US 3,389,705) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7, David discloses holes to provide external air flow, or ventilation for the filter but does not disclose slits. However, it is notoriously well known to perforate, or for slits, in the paper wrapper of cigarette filters to provide ventilation. This is typically done by mechanical or laser perforation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to form the ventilation of David by using conventional laser or mechanical perforation to form slits instead of holes to allow outside air into the filter. Doing so would have produced predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J FELTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4805. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Thursday-Friday 7:00-4:30, Wednesday 7:00-1:00.
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.
/Michael J Felton/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights