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 1-2 and 4-15 are pending and are subject to this office action. Claim 1 and 12 have been amended.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/26/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s response filed on 09/26/2025 containing amendments and remarks to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 7-10, filed 09/26/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Kahler in view of Withycombe have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claim 1 has been amended to recite, “wherein the roughened surface is formed from metal ridges or abrasions in metal” which was not previously presented. Kahler does not disclose the smoking bowl comprises a roughened surface and is silent to the materials used to construct the smoking bowl. Withycombe discloses a roughened surface formed of annular ribs (i.e. ridges, Drawing pg. 3) applied to a smoking pipe (Lines 40-48). However, Kahler or Withycombe do not explicitly disclose the roughened surface is formed of metal ridges or abrasions in metal. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection are made in view of a combination of previously applied art and newly found prior art.
On pg. 7-8, Applicant argues that Withycombe is non-analogous art because Kahler is directed to a liquid filtered smoking device and Withycombe is directed to a conventional smoking pipe that does not require water. The Examiner disagrees. It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Kahler and Withycombe are in the same field of endeavor because they are both directed to smoking devices and therefore are considered analogous art.
On pg. 7-8, Applicant argues that combining Kahler and Withycombe would require changing the principle of operation of the smoking bowl disclosed by Kahler. The Examiner disagrees because applying the roughened surface of Withycombe to the liquid filtered smoking device of Kahler does not change the principle of operation, as smoking material could still be deposited in the smoking bowl and ignited to generate smoke.
On pg. 9, Applicant argues that Kahler does not disclose an exhaust chamber, as required by claim 1. The Examiner disagrees. Kahler discloses the small compartment (34, “exhaust chamber”) has an open bottom end, inside wall with a funnel shaped portion (40) and a cylindrical portion (44) along the bottom, and an outside wall (Fig. 7, col. 4, lines 10-16), as required by claim 1. The Examiner notes that the Applicant has not specifically pointed out how the small compartment (34) of Kahler fails to meet the limitation of an exhaust chamber.
On pg. 9-10, Applicant argues that Kahler does not disclose the limitation, “wherein the throat of the water pipe bowl device is configured to permit smoke from the combustion chamber to pass downward into the exhaust chamber while also restricting the passage of smoking material” because Kahler requires the use of a filter (54) to prevent ash from falling through the orifice (38). The Examiner disagrees because Kahler does not require a filter and instead discloses that a filter may be used (col 5 lines 3-19). Further, Kahler discloses an orifice (38) that allows the passage of smoke and also prevents smoking material from passing through (col. 4 lines 57-65). Smoking material is interpreted an any substance that can be smoked which includes loose tobacco leaves, as well as rolled or packaged products. Therefore, the narrow orifice (38) of Kahler is capable of restricting the passage of smoking material into the exhaust chamber (34).
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kahler (US 4041960 A, as cited on IDS dated 04/24/2023) in view of Camitta (US 20190230980 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kahler discloses a reversible smoking bowl (32) for a water pipe, comprising:
A first small tobacco compartment (34, “exhaust chamber”) and a second large tobacco compartment (36, “combustion chamber”) that are fluidly connected by a central orifice (38, “a throat”, Fig. 2, Fig. 7, col. 3, lines 57-67).
Smoking tobacco is deposited in the large compartment (36, “combustion chamber”), the large compartment (36) has an open top end, bottom end, inside wall having a generally funnel shaped member (46), and an outside wall (Fig. 7, col. 4 lines 16-22, 42-45)
The small compartment (34, “exhaust chamber”) has an open bottom end, inside wall with a funnel shaped portion (40) and a cylindrical portion (44) along the bottom, and an outside wall (Fig. 7, col. 4, lines 10-16).
The orifice (38, “throat”) is a hollow cylindrical channel having a first (top) end that terminates in the bottom end of the large compartment (36, “combustion chamber”) and a second (bottom) end that terminates within the top end of the small compartment (34, “exhaust chamber”, Fig. 7, col. 4 lines 5-22).
During operation, smoke is drawn from the large compartment (36, “combustion chamber”) through the orifice (38, “throat”) into the small compartment (34, “exhaust chamber”, Fig. 1, Fig. 7, col. 4 lines 49-56).
The orifice (38, “throat”) is sized such that it is large enough to permit smoke to pass through but small enough to retain most of the tobacco (“restrict the passage of smoking material”) in the smoking compartment (col. 4 lines 57-65).
Kahl does not disclose the inside wall of the smoking bowl (32) comprises a roughened surface. Further, the inside walls of the smoking bowl (32) in Fig. 2 and Fig. 7 are illustrated as non-roughened surfaces. Therefore, the inside walls of the smoking bowl (32), including the funnel shaped (40) and cylindrical shaped portions (44) of the exhaust chamber (34) are considered to be non-roughened surfaces.
Kahler does not explicitly disclose the inside wall of the funnel shaped member (46) of the large compartment (36, “combustion chamber”) comprises a roughened surface formed from metal ridges or abrasions in metal.
However, Camitta, directed to a water pipe (Fig. 1A, [0039]), discloses:
A water filter (100a) formed of a metal such as aluminum or steel (Fig. 1A, [0040]), and
The water filter (100a, 200) comprises a receptacle (206) for accommodating a smoking article (Fig. 2A, [0065, 0072])
The inner surface (207) of the receptable (208, i.e. a bowl) may include features to facilitate retaining the smoking article in the receptacle (208), such as providing grooves (“ridges”) or applying a bead blasted or textured finish the inner surface (207) to increase the friction between the receptacle (208) and an article (Fig. 2B, [0074]).
Bead blasting the inner surface (207) to increase friction of the surface reasonably suggests applying abrasions to the inner surface (207).
Camitta discloses the device is formed of metal and Camitta discloses providing grooves or abrasions on the inner surface of the receptacle which reasonably suggests metal ridges or abrasions in the metal formed on the inner surface of the receptable (i.e. bowl).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kahler by forming the smoking bowl of metal and providing grooves or applying abrasions to the inner surface of the bowl as taught by Camitta because both Kahler and Camitta are directed to water filtered smoking devices, Kahler is silent to the materials used to construct the smoking bowl, Camitta teaches known materials used for water pipes, and one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to similar water pipes when selecting materials of construction and this involves applying a known material to a similar water pipe to yield predictable results. In addition, Camitta teaches the grooves or abrasions facilitate retaining the smoking article in the receptacle, and this involves applying known surface features to a smoking bowl/receptable in a similar water pipe to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Camitta discloses the water pipe including the receptacle/smoking bowl is formed of a metal such as steel or aluminum ([0040]).
Regarding claim 5, Camitta discloses providing grooves (ridges) or applying a bead blasted or textured finish to the inner surface of the receptacle (208, [0074]).
In regards to the limitation directed to the textured surface being configured to retain residue to form a patina layer over time, the Examiner notes that claim 5 is directed to a water pipe bowl device and is limited to the positively recited structural elements of the device. The textured surface forming a patina layer over time is claimed as intended use.
However, as discussed above, modified Kahler is considered to comprise each of the structural elements required by the claimed water pipe bowl device and therefore modified Kahler is considered to be capable of forming a patina layer on the grooves or bead blasted surface on in the inside wall of the combustion chamber over time.
Regarding claim 10, Kahler discloses a first small tobacco compartment (34, “exhaust chamber”) and a second large tobacco compartment (36, “combustion chamber”) that are fluidly connected by a central orifice (38, “a throat”, Fig. 2, Fig. 7, col. 3, lines 57-67).
In regards to the claim limitation directed to the combustion chamber, throat, and exhaust chamber forming a venturi chamber, the Examiner notes that claim 10 is directed to a water pipe bowl device and is limited to the structural elements of the water pipe bowl device. The combustion chamber, throat, and exhaust chamber forming a venturi chamber is a function of the claimed water pipe device. However, as discussed above, Kahler is considered to comprise each of the structural elements required by the claimed water pipe bowl device and therefore Kahler is considered to be capable of forming a venturi chamber.
Regarding claim 11, Kahler does not explicitly disclose the funnel shaped member (40) of the small compartment (34) is 10 to 30% smaller than the funnel portion (46) of the large compartment (36). However, Kahler discloses a reversible smoking bowl (32) wherein the depth of the large compartment (36, D2) is greater than the depth of the smaller compartment (D1) such that the device can accommodate different amounts of smoking tobacco (Fig. 2, col. 4 lines 22-26, 42-46). Further, Kahler discloses a smoking bowl where the funnel shaped member (40) of the small compartment (34) appears to have a depth that is 10 to 30% smaller than the depth of the funnel portion (46) of the large compartment (36), as illustrated in Fig. 7. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the reversible smoking bowl (32) with different sized compartments to include an embodiment where the depth of the funnel shaped member (40) of the small compartment (34) relative to the depth of the funnel portion (46) of the large compartment (36) overlaps with the claimed range of 10 to 30% smaller in order to accommodate different amounts of smoking tobacco.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kahler (US 4041960 A, as cited on IDS dated 04/24/2023) in view of Camitta (US 20190230980 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Edelson (US 20180295877 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Kahler discloses a smoking bowl (32) formed of a single component. Camitta discloses a water pipe formed of a metal such as aluminum or steel ( [0040]).
Kahler or Camitta do not explicitly disclose a smoking bowl formed of a single piece of metal.
However, Edelson, directed to a stainless steel pipe (abstract), discloses:
A one-piece stainless steel smoking pipe (abstract, Fig. 4, [0002]).
The unitary construction of stainless steel is more durable compared to multi-piece pipes that are screwed or glued together and that the unitary construction will not break if dropped by a user ([0003, 0018]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kahler, in view of Camitta, by constructing the smoking bowl with one piece of metal as taught by Edelson because both Kahler and Edelson are directed to smoking devices, Edelson teaches that the unitary construction of stainless steel provides increased durability and this involves applying a known unitary construction to a similar smoking device to yield predictable results.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kahler (US 4041960 A, as cited on IDS dated 04/24/2023) in view of Camitta (US 20190230980 A1) and Edelson (US 20180295877 A1), as applied to claim 6 above, further in view of Ou (US 20220046984 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Kahler discloses the smoking bowl (32) is placed over the downstem (18) of a water pipe (10, Fig. 1, Fig. 7).
Kahler is silent to the dimensions of the smoking bowl (32).
However, Ou, directed to a multipurpose smoking device (1, Fig. 1A, [0005]), discloses:
A bowl (2) for a water pipe (Fig. 1A, [0019], Fig. 4, [0033])
The outer diameter of the bowl (2) ranges from 1cm to 8cm (D5, Fig. 2, [0029]). The claimed diameters of the exhaust chamber lie within the range taught by the prior art and are therefore considered prima facie obvious.
The outer wall of the exhaust chamber can be inserted into a downstem (42) of a glass water pipe (Fig. 4, [0033]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kahler, in view of Camitta and Edelson, by providing the outer diameter of the exhaust chamber of 1 to 8cm such that it is configured to be inserted into a glass downstem as taught by Ou because both Kahler and Ou are directed to smoking pipes, Kahler is silent to the dimensions of the smoking bowl and Ou discloses a range of outer diameters for a smoking bowl, one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to similar smoking bowls for workable ranges of outer diameter and this involves applying a known outer diameter of an exhaust chamber for insertion into a glass downstem to a similar smoking bowl to yield predictable results.
Claim 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kahler (US 4041960 A, as cited on IDS dated 04/24/2023) in view of Camitta (US 20190230980 A1), Edelson (US 20180295877 A1), and Ou (US 20220046984 A1), as applied to claim 7 above, further in view of Bochuliak (US 20180146706 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Kahler discloses a smoking bowl (32) comprising a small compartment (34, “exhaust chamber”) and Ou discloses the outer wall of the exhaust chamber can be inserted into a downstem (42) of a glass water pipe (Fig. 4, [0033]).
Kahler or Ou do not explicitly disclose a gasket around the exhaust chamber.
However, Bochuliak, directed to a collapsible smoking vessel (abstract), discloses:
A collapsible smoking vessel (300) comprising bowl (100, Fig. 3A, Fig. 3B, [0029]).
The bowl (100) comprises a cavity (102) for holding a smokable material and an insertable portion (106) for inserting the bowl (100) into the upper plate (200) of the collapsible smoking vessel (Fig. 1A, Fig 3A, Fig. 3B, [0022, 0024])
A rubber ring (“gasket”) disposed around the circumference of the insertable portion (106) for coupling the bowl (100) to the upper plate (200, [0024]).
The rubber ring improves the seal between the insertable portion (106) of the bowl (100) and the remainder of the collapsible smoking vessel ([0024]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kahler, in view of Camitta, Edelson, and Ou by positioning a rubber ring around the insertable portion of the bowl as taught by Bochuliak because both Kahler and Bochuliak are directed to water pipes, Bochuliak teaches the rubber ring improves the seal between the bowl and the vessel, and this involves applying a known rubber ring to a similar device to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 9, Bochuliak discloses a rubber ring around the insertion portion of the bowl to seal the bowl to the vessel. The specification discloses rubber ring as a resilient and elastomeric material that is capable of forming an air tight seal ([0027]). Therefore the rubber ring disclosed by Bochuliak is considered to meet the claim limitation of a resilient and elastomeric material that is capable of forming an air tight seal between the smoking bowl and a glass downstem.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kahler (US 4041960 A, as cited on IDS dated 04/24/2023) in view of Camitta (US 20190230980 A1), as applied to claim 11 above, further in view of Luan (US 20120048286 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Kahler discloses a first small tobacco compartment (34, “exhaust chamber”) and a second large tobacco compartment (36, “combustion chamber”) that are fluidly connected by a central orifice (38, “a throat”, Fig. 2, Fig. 7, col. 3, lines 57-67).
Kahler does not explicitly disclose the length of the hollow cylindrical orifice (38, “throat”).
However, Luan, directed to a smoking article (abstract), discloses:
A smoking article (10) comprising a flow restriction element (45) having a flow restriction passage (130) with a length of 0.5 to 20mm (Fig. 2, [0032, 0051]). The claimed range lies within the range taught by the prior art and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kahler, in view of Camitta, by providing an orifice with a length of 0.5 to 20mm as taught by Luan because both Kahler and Luan are directed to smoking devices with flow restriction structures, Kahler is silent to the length of the orifice and Luan teaches a known range of orifice lengths in a flow restriction element, one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to similar flow restriction elements for workable ranges of orifice length, and this involves applying a known orifice length in a flow restriction structure in a similar smoking device to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 13, Kahler does not explicitly disclose the inner diameter of the orifice (38). However, Kahler discloses the orifice size is a results effective variable wherein the orifice (38) needs to be large enough to permit smoke to pass through but small enough to retain most the tobacco in the smoking compartment (col. 4 lines 57-65). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to perform routine optimization of the inner diameter of the orifice (38) using routine skill in the art to arrive at a smoking bowl with a throat having an inner diameter of 0.1 to 0.3mm.
Regarding claim 14, Kahler discloses a first small tobacco compartment (34, “exhaust chamber”) and a second large tobacco compartment (36, “combustion chamber”) that are fluidly connected by a central orifice (38, “a throat”, Fig. 2, Fig. 7, col. 3, lines 57-67).
In regards to the claim limitation directed to the combustion chamber, throat, and exhaust chamber forming a venturi chamber, the Examiner notes that claim 14 is directed to a water pipe bowl device and is limited to the structural elements of the water pipe bowl device. The combustion chamber, throat, and exhaust chamber forming a venturi chamber is a function of the claimed water pipe device. However, as discussed above, Kahler is considered to comprise each of the structural elements and dimensions required by the claimed water pipe bowl device and therefore Kahler is considered to be capable of forming a venturi chamber.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kahler (US 4041960 A, as cited on IDS dated 04/24/2023) in view of Camitta (US 20190230980 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Hoch (US 20210051998 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Kahler is silent to an elongated pick to clean the smoking bowl.
However, Hoch, directed to a smoking apparatus (abstract), discloses:
A smoking apparatus (1300) comprising a tool (1353, “a pick”) with a pointed end and middle section (Fig. 22, [0124])
The tool (1353) may be used to clean the smoking apparatus (1300, Fig. 22, [0124]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kahler, in view of Camitta, by providing a cleaning tool with the smoking bowl as taught by Hoch because both Kahler and Hoch are directed to smoking devices, Hoch teaches the tool can be used to clean the smoking apparatus, and this involves applying a known cleaning tool to a similar smoking apparatus to yield predictable results.
In regards to the limitation directed to the middle section of the elongated pick being configured to engage and clean the smoking device, Hoch discloses a cleaning tool (1353) in the form of an elongated pick with a pointed end and middle section (Fig. 22) which comprises each of the structural elements of the claimed elongated pick. Therefore, the middle section of the cleaning tool (1353) disclosed by Hoch is considered to be capable of engaging and cleaning the throat of the device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORGAN FAITH DEZENDORF whose telephone number is (571)272-0155. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-430pm 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 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.
/M.F.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755