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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 10-16 in the reply filed on 09/12/2025 is acknowledged.
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) 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witz (US 3,593,722), and further in view of Lebert (US 3,645,274).
PNG
media_image1.png
424
1016
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Witz teaches a smoking accessory comprising:
a porous body (depicted in annotated fig. 2) formed of low-fire ceramic material (col. 2 lines 15-28) having a surrounding sidewall (depicted in annotated fig. 2),
a hollow interior (depicted in annotated fig. 2) defining a top opening (depicted in annotated fig. 2) and a closed bottom (depicted in annotated fig. 2) (col. 2, lines. 25-47; col. 4,lines. 8-20).
Witz further teaches that the hollow interior includes two regions of differing diameters separated by a shoulder (depicted in annotated fig. 2) integral with the sidewall, which corresponds to an annular ledge separating a first interior region of larger diameter (depicted in annotated fig. 2) from a second interior region of smaller diameter (depicted in annotated fig. 2).
The porous ceramic body of Witz is heatable by an external heat source and, due to its porosity and thermal mass, gradually distributes heat to the smoking material to produce vapor for inhalation (col. 2, lines. 15-50; col. 2, lines 64-75).
Witz does not explicitly teach at least two channels formed within the sidewall that extend from the closed bottom toward the top opening and are circumferentially spaced around the body.
However Lebert, also directed to smoking devices concerned with heat management and airflow, teaches a smoking pipe including a bowl (7) having an interior (13) provided with a plurality of continuous air-entrance channels (21) formed in the inner wall of the bowl, each channel extending axially from the rim (23) toward the bottom (16) and circumferentially spaced around the bowl (col. 2, ll. 3-15; col. 3, ll. 30-46; Figs. 1–6). These channels promote airflow and progressive heat transfer to the smoking material (col. 2, ll. 40-65).
Since both references are directed to smoking devices concerned with heat management and airflow, and it has been held that the combination represents the predictable use of known features to achieve expected results (KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007); MPEP § 2143).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the porous ceramic body of Witz to include the circumferentially spaced channels of Lebert in order to improve airflow and uniform heat distribution, thereby achieving a smoother draw and more uniform vaporization.
Regarding claim 12, Witz teaches a smoking accessory having a porous ceramic body that is cylindrical or cup-shaped (annotated fig. 2) and formed of a low-fire porcelain or ceramic composition (col. 1, ll. 50–68; col. 2, ll. 25–47). As such ceramics are fired below full vitrification, they inherently contain interconnected pores that permit gradual heat distribution, providing a microporous-to-macroporous network as an unavoidable result of the disclosed material and processing conditions. Thus, Witz inherently teaches a porous ceramic having pore structures within the claimed range.
However, Witz does not expressly teach that the porous body is classified by pore sizefor example, as microporous, macroporous, cryptoporous, ultramicroporous, or mesoporous, nor does it specify any deliberate control or measurement of the pore-size distribution.
The relationship between firing conditions and resulting porosity in low-fire ceramics is well known and routinely optimized. Such adjustment represents no more than routine experimentation or optimization of a result-effective variable, consistent with KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), and MPEP § 2144.05(II).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select or adjust the firing parameters or ceramic composition of Witz to obtain a desired pore-size classification within this known range in order to tailor heat retention, airflow, and absorption properties.
Regarding claim 13, Witz teaches a porous ceramic body formed of a low-fire porcelain composition containing clay and talc (col. 1, ll. 50–68; col. 2, ll. 25–32). As “clay” is expressly recited among the alternatives in claim 13, Witz therefore reads this limitation.
Regarding claim 14, Witz teaches a porous ceramic pipe bowl having a surrounding sidewall, a hollow interior defining a top opening, and a closed base (Figs. 1–4; col. 2, ll. 25–47).
Witz does not disclose the specific dimensional ranges recited in the claim.
However, it is well established that changes in size or proportion of a known device are ordinarily recognized as matters of design choice, absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results (MPEP § 2144.04(II)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select or adjust the dimensions of Witz’s ceramic bowl to fall within the claimed ranges of 15 mm to 50 mm in height and 20 mm to 60 mm in diameter to achieve a standard, functional size appropriate for the intended use, yielding predictable results.
One would be motivated to modify Witz because the recognition that the size of the pipe bowl would have been a result-effective variable directly affecting the capacity of the smoking material, the overall weight, and the ergonomic handling of the device which are all routine design considerations for such accessories.
Regarding claim 15, Witz teaches an alternate hollow interior formed within the closed bottom which specifically, the air insulation layer 24 located between the inner bowl 22 and outer bowl 20 (col. 2, lines 15–30). This region constitutes an alternate hollow interior positioned opposite the first hollow interior 22. The air layer 24 is bounded by the outer bowl 20 (sidewall) and the closed bottom portion 26, which together form an alternate sidewall integral with an alternate closed base (depicted in annotated fig. 2).
Accordingly, Witz teaches the claimed “alternate hollow interior formed within said closed bottom and including an alternate sidewall integral with an alternate closed base, said alternate hollow interior formed opposite said hollow interior.” including an alternate hollow interior formed within said closed bottom and including an alternate sidewall integral with an alternate closed base, said alternate hollow interior formed opposite said hollow interior (depicted in annotated fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 16, Witz teaches a smoking pipe having a porous body, a hollow interior, and a closed bottom, as previously described in the rejection of claim 11.
Witz does not disclose that the porous body includes a plurality of channels extending from the closed bottom and terminating adjacent the top opening, each spaced circumferentially around the body.
However, Lebert discloses a smoking pipe comprising a bowl having a plurality of air-entrance channels 21 formed along the interior wall of the bowl, each channel having a width and depth and being circumferentially spaced apart around the bowl (see Figs. 1–6; col. 2, lines 15–35; col. 3, lines 5–20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the porous body of Witz to include the plurality of circumferentially spaced channels as taught by Lebert, for the predictable benefit of improving airflow and heat distribution through the porous smoking accessory (see MPEP § 2143).
Conclusion
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