DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 5-6, and 9-15 are pending. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 14-15 are new.
Response to Amendments
The Examiner acknowledges Applicant's response filed on 10/8/2025 containing amendments and remarks to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/8/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the cited references fail to disclose or suggest the amended claim limitations of claim 1, which are also included in new claim 15. The amendment to claim 1 overcomes the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of record that mapped the external contracting force to the force used to push flameout knife 24 of Wang into the inserted smoking article to cut it, as this force is not applied along the longitudinal direction of the housing as required by the amendment. However, the amended claim does not require the external contracting force (or external extending force) to be the force actuating the cutting portion; instead, the amended claim requires the cutting portion to be configured to cut as the force is applied to the housing (“the cutting portion is configured to cut the inserted smoking article as an external extending force or an external contracting force is applied to the housing in which the housing is pulled or pushed in opposite directions along the longitudinal direction of the housing”). The device of Wang is configured such that it can experience an external contracting force (e.g., if the user were to push the housing along the longitudinal direction to stabilize the device against a table) while the cutting portion is cutting the inserted smoking article and, as such, satisfies the amended claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 9-10, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 110710711 A, a translation of which was previously provided for reference) in view of Jimenez (US 5,947,280).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Wang discloses a sidestream smoke removal device (cigarette smoke filter, Fig. 1, ¶ 0037) comprising:
a housing (shell 1 comprising air outlet filter chamber 6 and cigarette cavity 7, Fig. 1, ¶ 0037) in which a smoking space is formed (smoke is inhaled from cigarette cavity 7 and exhaled into air outlet filter chamber 6, Figs. 3-4, ¶ 0042) along a longitudinal direction of the housing (Figs. 1 and 3-4);
an article insertion portion (end cap 3 is removed from shell 1 to reveal an opening through which cigarette 19 is inserted into cigarette cavity 7, Figs. 1 and 3, ¶ 0037, 0039) disposed at one end of the housing and including an opening for insertion of a smoking article (cigarette 19, Fig. 3, ¶ 0039) into the smoking space along the longitudinal direction of the housing (Figs. 1 and 3);
an ignition portion (electronic cigarette lighter 12, Fig. 1, ¶ 0038) configured to ignite the smoking article inserted into the smoking space (¶ 0039);
a sidestream smoke processing portion (combination of smoke filter 30, Fig. 7, ¶ 0042 and smoke exhaust motor, ¶ 0043) configured to process sidestream smoke generated from the smoking article inserted into the smoking space (¶ 0042); and
a cutting portion (flameout knife 24, Fig. 5, ¶ 0040) disposed within the housing and mechanically linked to the housing (Fig. 5) configured to cut the smoking article inserted into the smoking space (¶ 0041),
wherein the cutting portion is configured to cut the inserted smoking article (flameout knife 24 cuts the inserted smoking article, ¶ 0040-0041) as an external extending force or an external contracting force is applied to the housing in which the housing is pulled or pushed in opposite directions along the longitudinal direction of the housing (flameout knife 24 is configured to cut, even as an external extending force or an external contracting force is applied to the housing in which the housing is pulled or pushed in opposite directions along the longitudinal direction of the housing, e.g. if the user were to push the housing along the longitudinal direction to stabilize the device against a table while also cutting with the flameout knife 24), and
wherein the longitudinal direction of the housing and a longitudinal direction of the smoking article are aligned (Figs. 1 and 3-4).
However, Wang does not disclose that the cutting portion is configured to be movable within the housing along a length direction of the smoking space.
Jimenez, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a need in the art for cutting smoking articles to different lengths (Col. 3, Lines 23-28). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the cutting portion taught by Wang to make it adjustable along the length of the smoking article, as it has been held that adjustability, where needed, is not a patentable advance, when there is an art-recognized need for adjustment (MPEP § 2144.04(V)(D), In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954)). In the device of the combination, the cutting portion would be configured to be movable within the housing along a length direction of the smoking space.
Regarding claim 9, Wang in view of Jimenez teaches the sidestream smoke removal device of claim 1, as stated above. Wang discloses wherein the sidestream smoke processing portion includes:
a filter structure (smoke filter 30, Fig. 7, ¶ 0042) configured to filter the sidestream smoke (¶ 0042); and
an exhaust fan (smoke exhaust motor, ¶ 0043) configured to exhaust the filtered sidestream smoke (¶ 0042-0043).
Regarding claim 10, Wang in view of Jimenez teaches the sidestream smoke removal device of claim 1, as stated above. Wang further discloses wherein a vent (air inlet opened by air inlet valve 31, Fig. 3, ¶ 0042) through which outside air enters is formed in the housing (Fig. 3, ¶ 0042).
Regarding claim 13, Wang in view of Jimenez teaches the sidestream smoke removal device of claim 1, as stated above. Wang further discloses that the cutting portion moves to a current combustion position of the smoking article (“After smoking is finished, the flameout push rod 23 can be pushed upwards, and the flameout knife 24 can be used to cut off the cigarette 19, so that the burning end of the cigarette 19 falls into the ash collection bin 20 below”, ¶ 0041, in other words, for a smoking article smoked to the filter, the cutting portion moves radially inward to a current combustion position of the smoking article). While Wang discloses that this movement is manual rather than automatic, it has been held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art (MPEP § 2144.04(III), In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have automated the movement of the cutting portion taught by Wang in order to obtain the benefit of no longer requiring manual operation.
Regarding claim 14, Wang in view of Jimenez teaches the sidestream smoke removal device of claim 1, as stated above. Wang also discloses wherein the cutting portion is configured to cut the inserted smoking article as a first external twisting force is applied to a first end of the housing in a first direction, and a second external twisting force is applied to a second end of the housing in a second direction opposite to the first direction (flameout knife 24 is configured to cut, even as a first external twisting force is applied to a first end of the housing in a first direction, and a second external twisting force is applied to a second end of the housing in a second direction opposite to the first direction, e.g. if the user were to grab and twist opposite ends of the housing in opposite directions while also cutting with the flameout knife 24).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 110710711 A) in view of Jimenez (US 5,947,280) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Butzer (US 5,974,668).
Regarding claim 5, Wang in view of Jimenez teaches the sidestream smoke removal device of claim 1, as stated above. However, Wang does not disclose wherein the cutting portion includes a plurality of cutting blades, has an opening formed therein, and is configured to cut the inserted smoking article as the plurality of cutting blades close in a state in which the smoking article is placed to pass through the opening.
Butzer, in the same field of cutting smoking articles, teaches a cutting device (“cigar cutter (1)”, Fig. 1, abstract) with a housing (housing comprising “housing (2)”, “mechanism” including “rings (11)”, and “squeeze bar (6)”, Fig. 1, abstract) and a cutting portion (“at least three blades (5)” with “opening (3)”, Fig. 1, abstract). Butzer teaches that the cutting portion includes a plurality of cutting blades (“at least three blades (5)”, Fig. 1, abstract), has an opening (“opening (3)”, Fig. 1, abstract) formed therein, and is configured to cut the inserted smoking article (“cigar cutter (1)” for “insertion of a cigar”, abstract) as the plurality of cutting blades close (Fig. 3) in a state in which the smoking article is placed to pass through the opening (“opening (3) adapted for insertion of a cigar”, abstract). Butzer also teaches a benefit of this cutting device in that it avoids deformation and tearing of the smoking article (Col. 1, Lines 12-42). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have integrated the cutting device taught by Butzer into the sidestream smoke removal device taught by Wang, substituting the cutting portion taught by Butzer in place of the cutting portion taught by Wang and combining the housing taught by Butzer with the housing taught by Wang, in order to achieve this benefit of improved cutting. The resulting device of the combination would have a cutting portion that includes a plurality of cutting blades, has an opening formed therein, and is configured to cut the inserted smoking article as the plurality of cutting blades close in a state in which the smoking article is placed to pass through the opening.
Regarding claim 6, Wang in view of Jimenez teaches the sidestream smoke removal device of claim 1, as stated above. However, Wang does not disclose wherein:
the cutting portion includes a plurality of cutting blades, has an opening formed therein, and is configured to cut the inserted smoking article as the plurality of cutting blades move in a state in which the smoking article is placed to pass through the opening; and
as the plurality of cutting blades move, an overlapping region between the plurality of cutting blades is increased and a size of the opening is reduced.
Butzer, in the same field of cutting smoking articles, teaches a cutting device (“cigar cutter (1)”, Fig. 1, abstract) with a housing (housing comprising “housing (2)”, “mechanism” including “rings (11)”, and “squeeze bar (6)”, Fig. 1, abstract) and a cutting portion (“at least three blades (5)” with “opening (3)”, Fig. 1, abstract). Butzer teaches that the cutting portion includes a plurality of cutting blades (“at least three blades (5)”, Fig. 1, abstract), has an opening (“opening (3)”, Fig. 1, abstract) formed therein, and is configured to cut the inserted smoking article (“cigar cutter (1)” for “insertion of a cigar”, abstract) as the plurality of cutting blades move (movement from Fig. 1 to Fig. 3) in a state in which the smoking article is placed to pass through the opening (“opening (3) adapted for insertion of a cigar”, abstract); and as the plurality of cutting blades move, an overlapping region between the plurality of cutting blades is increased and a size of the opening is reduced (“irising the blades across the opening (3) much as a camera shutter irises closed”, movement from Fig. 1 to Fig. 3, abstract). Butzer also teaches a benefit of this cutting device in that it avoids deformation and tearing of the smoking article (Col. 1, Lines 12-42). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have integrated the cutting device taught by Butzer into the sidestream smoke removal device taught by Wang, substituting the cutting portion taught by Butzer in place of the cutting portion taught by Wang and combining the housing taught by Butzer with the housing taught by Wang, in order to achieve this benefit of improved cutting. The resulting device of the combination would have a cutting portion that includes a plurality of cutting blades, has an opening formed therein, and is configured to cut the inserted smoking article as the plurality of cutting blades move in a state in which the smoking article is placed to pass through the opening; and as the plurality of cutting blades move, an overlapping region between the plurality of cutting blades is increased and a size of the opening is reduced.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 110710711 A) in view of Jimenez (US 5,947,280) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gidding (US 2009/0007926 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Wang in view of Jimenez teaches the sidestream smoke removal device of claim 1, as stated above. However, Wang does not disclose the device further comprising:
a temperature sensor disposed to measure a temperature near a downstream end of a smoking material portion of the inserted smoking article; and
a controller configured to detect an end of smoking based on the temperature measured by the temperature sensor.
Gidding, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a sidestream smoke removal device (“smoking unit”, Fig. 9, ¶ 0058, 0077) comprising:
a temperature sensor (“sensor 31”, Fig. 9, ¶ 0077) disposed to measure a temperature near a downstream end of a smoking material portion of an inserted smoking article (¶ 0077); and
a controller (“control circuit”, ¶ 0077) configured to detect an end of smoking based on the temperature measured by the temperature sensor (¶ 0077).
Gidding also teaches a benefit of including a temperature sensor and controller in that they alert the user to the end of smoking (¶ 0077). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the sidestream smoke removal device taught by Wang to include the temperature sensor and controller taught by Gidding in order to achieve this benefit.
Regarding claim 12, Wang in view of Jimenez teaches the sidestream smoke removal device of claim 1, as stated above. Wang further discloses wherein:
a vent (air inlet opened by air inlet valve 31, Fig. 3, ¶ 0042) through which outside air enters is formed in the housing (Fig. 3, ¶ 0042); and
the sidestream smoke processing portion includes an exhaust fan (smoke exhaust motor, ¶ 0043) configured to exhaust the sidestream smoke (¶ 0042-0043).
However, Wang does not disclose that the sidestream smoke removal device further comprises a controller configured to, in response to detecting an end of smoking, close the vent and stop operation of the exhaust fan.
Gidding, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a sidestream smoke removal device (“smoking unit”, Fig. 9, ¶ 0058, 0077) comprising a controller (“control circuit”, ¶ 0077) configured to detect an end of smoking based on a temperature measured by a temperature sensor (“sensor 31”, Fig. 9, ¶ 0077) and in response to detecting the end of smoking, stop operation of an exhaust fan (¶ 0077). Gidding also teaches a benefit of including a controller and temperature sensor in that they alert the user to the end of smoking (¶ 0077). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the sidestream smoke removal device taught by Wang to include the controller and temperature sensor taught by Gidding in order to achieve this benefit. In the resulting configuration, the controller will be configured to, in response to detecting an end of smoking, close the vent (air inlet valve 31 in Fig. 3 of Wang closes the vent in response to detecting an end of smoking, ¶ 0042) and stop operation of the exhaust fan.
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 COURTNEY G CULBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-0874. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-4pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael H Wilson can be reached at (571)270-3882. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.G.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747