DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The citation to the prior art reference applied in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 has been corrected to reflect the proper publication number. The previously listed reference number was a typographical error. The supporting factual findings, mapping of claim limitations, and rationale for the rejection remain unchanged from the prior Office Action, except as necessary to address Applicant’s amendment to claim 1. Accordingly, this correction does not constitute a new ground of rejection.
Response to Applicant’s Amendment and Arguments of Claim 1:
Claim 1 has been amended to recite, in relevant part, “a diffuser configured to selectively and removably connect to either the adapter or the stem.” Applicant asserts that De Gaglia fails to disclose such an arrangement because the bowl 24 is allegedly part of a predefined assembly and is not selectively connectable to alternative components.
The amendment has been fully considered but does not overcome the rejection.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation is satisfied if the diffuser is configured to selectively and removably connect to one of the recited components. The claim recites the adapter and the stem in the alternative and does not require that the diffuser be capable of connecting to both components. Nor does the claim require interchangeable compatibility or direct connection to each listed component.
De Gaglia discloses a bowl 24 (the claimed diffuser) having a threaded aperture 38 that threadably mates with the threaded second end 22b of stem 22 (¶ [0018]). The threaded engagement permits the bowl 24 to be removably attached to and detached from the stem 22. Because the connection is threaded and releasable, the bowl is selectively and removably connectable to the stem.
Accordingly, De Gaglia discloses a diffuser configured to selectively and removably connect to the stem, which satisfies the amended limitation. Applicant’s argument improperly reads into the claim a requirement that the diffuser must also be directly connectable to the adapter, which is not recited.
Applicant’s characterization of De Gaglia as disclosing a “fixed configuration” is also unpersuasive. De Gaglia repeatedly describes a modular device in which components are threadably and releasably connected (¶¶ [0013]–[0018], [0023]). The bowl is specifically disclosed as removable and is not permanently integrated.
Therefore, the amendment to claim 1 does not overcome the anticipation rejection, and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is maintained.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments of Claim 4 (103 over De Gaglia in view of Reimann) and Claims 6 and 7 (De Gaglia in view of Delgado):
Applicant cites various case law but does not identify any specific factual or legal error in the rejection. The remarks do not address the Examiner’s findings regarding the teachings of De Gaglia or Reimann or Delgado, nor do they dispute the articulated rationale for combining the references.
Because Applicant has not presented arguments directed to the merits of the rejection, the remarks are not persuasive. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 4, 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is maintained.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 09/15/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-20 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 in the reply filed on 09/15/2025.
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, 5, 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by De GAGLIA (US 2015/0374032).
Regarding claim 1, De Gaglia teaches a modular smoking device 10 (Figs. 1–2; ¶¶ [0014]–[0018]) comprising:
an adapter including the base 20 and threaded tubular sections 12, 14, 16 joined by connecting rings 30, 32, which together form a modular body that can be assembled or adjusted in length;
a stem 22 threadably connected to the base 20 of the adapter (¶ [0018]); and
a diffuser or bowl 24 having perforations 50 (¶ [0018]) and threadably connected to the stem 22 (¶ [0018])
The threaded engagement between bowl 24 and stem 22 permits selective attachment and detachment of the bowl relative to the stem. Accordingly, bowl 24 is configured to selectively and removably connected to the stem 22.
Thus, De Gaglia discloses an adjustable device comprising an adapter, a stem configured to connect to the adapter, and a diffuser configured to connect to at least one of the adapter or the stem.
Regarding claim 2, De Gaglia teaches that each component—the adapter (base 20 and tubes 12–16), stem 22, and diffuser 24—includes threaded connection features that permit interchangeable threaded engagement (¶¶ [0015]–[0018]).
The bowl 24 (diffuser) connects to the stem 22 via threads 38 (¶ [0018]), and the stem 22 connects to the adapter’s base 20 by mating threads 22a/20a (¶ [0018]).
Accordingly, each of the adapter, the stem, and the diffuser comprises a common threaded connection feature, satisfying claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, De Gaglia teaches that the diffuser/bowl 24 includes male threads 38 configured to connect to female threads 22b of the stem 22 and that similar threaded interfaces exist between the stem and the adapter’s base 20 (¶ [0018]).
Thus, the diffuser has a connection feature configured to connect to complementary connection features of the stem or adapter.
Regarding claim 5, De Gaglia discloses that the adapter (base 20 + tubes 12–16) includes multiple removably connectable portions joined by threaded rings 30, 32 (¶¶ [0015]–[0017]).
Specifically, the base 20 (first portion) is removably connected to the lower tube 16 of the adapter, and the tube 16 is removably connected to the next tube 14 via ring 30, constituting the second portion.
Accordingly, De Gaglia teaches an adapter comprising first and second portions that are removably connectable, satisfying claim 5.
Regarding Claim 8, De Gaglia discloses a stem 22 including at least two functional portions:
a first portion (22a) extending upwardly from the base 20 and terminating at threaded aperture 22b that receives the bowl 24; and
a second portion (22b) extending downwardly through the base 20 into the water chamber (¶ [0018]; Figs. 1–2).
The two stem sections differ in length (portion 22a longer than 22b) and each end includes threaded or open termini for connection.
Thus, De Gaglia discloses a stem comprising first and second portions with different lengths and opposite ends, meeting all elements of claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, De Gaglia teaches that the stem 22 includes two threaded ends—one engaging the base 20 and the other engaging the bowl 24 (¶ [0018]).
These ends correspond to the claimed first and second connection features.
Both the upper and lower portions of stem 22 are tubular segments having similar threaded interfaces at their respective ends, satisfying claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, De Gaglia discloses that both stem ends (upper and lower) use the same thread type and configuration to connect with corresponding threaded openings of the bowl 24 and base 20 (¶ [0018]).
Therefore, the first and second connection features of each portion are identical threaded interfaces, satisfying claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, De Gaglia discloses that the bowl 24 (diffuser) includes perforations 50 positioned around its sidewall and along its bottom surface (¶ [0018]; Fig. 2).
These openings are oriented both laterally around and longitudinally along the diffuser body.
Thus, De Gaglia explicitly discloses the limitation of claim 11.
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(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De GAGLIA (US 2015/0374032) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reimann (US 2017/0099872).
Regarding claim 4, De Gaglia discloses a modular smoking device 10 comprising an adapter (base 20 and threaded tubular sections 12–16 joined by rings 30, 32), a stem 22, and a diffuser or bowl 24 connected to the stem (¶¶ [0014]–[0018]; Figs. 1–2).
Each component is removably connected by threaded engagement, thereby forming an adjustable and re-assemblable smoking apparatus.
De Gaglia therefore teaches the overall device structure recited in claim 4 but utilizes threaded couplings rather than the specific “lip-and-recess” engagement claimed.
Reimann discloses a water pipe—also a smoking device—in which a bowl 35 having a flange 38 and an elastic lip 32 is received within a groove 33 formed on a bowl-receiving portion 27 of a stem 25 (¶¶ [0029]–[0030]; Figs. 4–6).
The lip 32 compressively engages the groove 33, forming a sealed, detachable connection between the bowl (diffuser) and stem.
Reimann thus explicitly teaches a connection feature comprising a lip that mates with a complementary recess to provide a tight, re-usable seal between components of a smoking device.
De Gaglia and Reimann are in the same field of endeavor—both relate to smoking or water-pipe devices having detachable interfaces between bowls, stems, and body sections—and are therefore analogous art.
Each reference addresses how components of a smoking apparatus are removably coupled while maintaining an airtight seal.
Substituting one known coupling mechanism (threads) with another (lip/recess press-fit) constitutes a predictable design variation yielding the same result: a sealed, detachable joint between a diffuser, stem, and adapter (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007); MPEP § 2143).
Because both devices operate in the same environment, use similar materials (metal, glass, or heat-resistant silicone), and solve the same sealing-and-assembly problem, a person of ordinary skill would have found the combination straightforward and compatible.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify De Gaglia’s threaded diffuser connection to incorporate the lip-and-groove coupling of Reimann, in order to achieve a quicker, tool-free assembly and improved airtightness—advantages expressly described by Reimann (¶¶ [0029]–[0030]) and well known in the art.
Claim(s) 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De GAGLIA (US 2015/0374032) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Delgado et al. (US 2020/0367552).
Regarding claim 6, De Gaglia discloses a modular smoking device 10 comprising:
an adapter including base 20 and threaded tubular sections 12–16 joined by rings 30, 32;
a stem 22 threadably connected to base 20; and
a diffuser or bowl 24 attached to the stem (¶¶ [0014]–[0018]; Figs. 1–2).
Each adapter portion is tubular, and the sections are detachably joined, but De Gaglia does not expressly describe the adapter portions as frustoconical.
Delgado discloses a modular water-pipe device, also directed to a smoking apparatus with detachable sections, wherein a vessel 202 and ring 220 form a press-fit connection (¶¶ [0016]–[0021]; Figs. 1–2).
Delgado expressly teaches that the vessel 202 “may have a frustoconical shape” (¶ [0017]) and that ring 220 is dimensioned for a tapered or press-fit engagement with the vessel wall 208 (¶ [0020]), thereby defining large and small ends of each portion.
De Gaglia and Delgado are in the same field of endeavor—both relate to modular smoking or water-pipe assemblies comprising detachable adapter sections configured to form airtight, reusable connections.
Because each reference addresses the same design problem—how to connect pipe components securely while allowing disassembly for cleaning or interchangeability—they are analogous art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cylindrical adapter portions (12–16) of De Gaglia to have the frustoconical tubular geometry taught by Delgado.
Doing so would have improved alignment between mating parts, enhanced sealing without additional gaskets, and facilitated press-fit or frictional engagement—advantages specifically discussed by Delgado (¶¶ [0017]–[0021]).
Such substitution represents a predictable design variation between known equivalent connector geometries (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007); MPEP § 2143).
Regarding claim 7, De Gaglia discloses adapter portions (tubes 12–16 and base 20) connected end-to-end by rings 30, 32 but does not describe any difference in outer diameter between adjoining adapter sections (¶¶ [0015]–[0017]).
Delgado teaches that vessel 202 includes a frustoconical wall 208 and base 204 with an enlarged diameter for stability, and that ring 220 is sized to fit about the smaller-diameter neck portion (¶¶ [0017]–[0021]; Figs. 1–2).
These passages and figures show adjacent adapter portions with differing outer diameters, where the larger-diameter end of one portion mates with the smaller-diameter end of the next.
As noted above, both references are directed to modular smoking devices with detachable adapter assemblies.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify De Gaglia’s uniform-diameter adapter sections to have differing end diameters as taught by Delgado in order to facilitate tapered, friction-fit or press-fit engagement between sections and to improve sealing and assembly stability. Varying diameters between adjoining adapter portions is a routine design optimization for modular pipe systems, producing predictable results (KSR, supra).
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 JENNIFER KESSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-7739. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am - 5:00pm.
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.
/JENNIFER A KESSIE/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747