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 with traverse of Group II, claim 20 in the reply filed on 12/09/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Groups I–III allegedly share a single general inventive concept because each recites a set mouthpiece element and a chillum formed from a material more elastic than glass, and because claims of Groups II and III depend from claim 1 of Group I. This is not found persuasive because the alleged common feature does not constitute a special technical feature within the meaning of PCT Rule 13.2 in view of the prior art, as US 5,400,807 to Newman discloses elastic, shock-absorbing members positioned around openings of a water pipe to protect against breakage, thereby rendering the claimed elastic mouthpiece and chillum elements known in the art; consequently, no technical feature remains that makes a contribution over the prior art common to all groups, and mere claim dependency does not establish unity of invention.
Accordingly, the restriction required is maintained as proper.
However, in the interest of compact prosecution and without conceding the propriety of the original restriction requirement or the correctness of the above unity analysis, the restriction requirement as to Group I (claims 1-19) will be examined in the present application.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Group III (Claims 21) remains withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/09/2025.
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.
Claims 2, 4-5 and 7-9 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.
Specifically, these claims recite dimensional or material limitations using the term “preferably”, which renders the scope of the claims unclear.
For example, claim 2 recites that the elastic material is formed from one or more plastics, preferably at least one elastomer, leaving it unclear whether the presence of an elastomer is required or merely optional.
Claims 4, 5, and 7–9 similarly recite numerical ranges followed by “preferably” narrower ranges, creating multiple possible interpretations as to which range defines the claimed invention. The use of such conditional language within the body of the claims introduces ambiguity as to the required scope of the claims, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine with reasonable certainty the metes and bounds of the claims. See MPEP § 2173.02 and MPEP § 2173.05(e). For purposes of continuing examination, the claims are interpreted as encompassing the broadest numerical ranges recited.
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) 1-9, 11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman (US 5400807), and further in view of Couch (US 20020069886).
Regarding claim 1, Newman teaches a set of detachable impact collar members configured to be mounted on portions of a water pipe smoking apparatus to absorb shock and reduce breakage when the apparatus is tipped over or impacted (see Newman, Abstract; col. 1, lines 10–25; FIGS. 1–5).
Newman further teaches that the impact collars are formed of an elastic, shock-absorbing material, preferably a closed-cell polymer material, and that the collars each include an opening sized to receive and frictionally engage a pipe component, thereby allowing the collars to be releasably attached to the pipe body or base member (see Newman, col. 3, lines 5–20; col. 4, lines 1–10).
Thus, Newman teaches a set of elastic elements, each comprising an opening and configured for releasable attachment to portions of a water pipe to prevent breakage upon impact.
Newman does not explicitly teach that the set includes both a mouthpiece element having an opening configured to receive a mouthpiece and a chillum element having an opening configured to receive a chillum, as recited in claim 1.
In particular, Newman teaches impact collars positioned on a vessel body and/or base member, but does not identify one elastic element as being specifically associated with a chillum that is introduced into the opening of a chillum element, as claimed.
However, Couch discloses a modular smoking pipe having multiple elastomeric sleeves that each include openings and are configured to releasably interconnect pipe components, including a mouthpiece and a stem/chillum component, by insertion of those components into corresponding openings of the elastomeric sleeves (see Couch, Abstract; ¶¶ [0008]–[0019]; FIGS. 1–3).
Couch expressly discloses that the elastomeric sleeves are formed of elastic materials and function as sealing and shock-absorbing connectors between pipe components (see Couch, Abstract; ¶¶ [0008]–[0019]; FIGS. 1–3).
Accordingly, Couch discloses the use of separate elastic elements, each having an opening configured to receive and retain different pipe components, including a mouthpiece and a chillum-type stem.
Newman and Couch are in the same field of endeavor, namely smoking pipe apparatuses employing elastic elements to protect pipe components, absorb shock, and facilitate modular assembly and disassembly (see MPEP § 2141.01(a)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to modify the elastic impact collar set of Newman to include distinct elastic elements configured for attachment to both a mouthpiece and a chillum, as disclosed by Couch, in order to extend impact protection and releasable attachment to additional pipe components beyond those expressly shown in Newman.
The combination merely applies the known use of elastomeric sleeves for releasably receiving different pipe components, as taught by Couch, to the impact-absorbing collar system of Newman, yielding predictable results in protecting additional pipe components such as a chillum (see MPEP § 2143; KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)).
Therefore, claim 1 would have been obvious over Newman in view of Couch, as the combination teaches or renders obvious a set comprising a mouthpiece element and a chillum element, each formed of elastic material, each having an opening, and each being releasably attachable to corresponding pipe components, as recited in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, Newman teaches that the impact collars are formed from polymeric, shock-absorbing material, such as closed-cell polymer, which constitutes plastic material that is more elastic than glass (Newman, col. 4, lines 1–15).
Couch further discloses elastomeric sleeve elements formed of elastic plastic materials used to interconnect pipe components (Couch, ¶¶ [0017]–[0019]).
It would have been obvious to form the elastic elements of the set from one or more plastics, including elastomeric plastics, as taught by Newman and Couch, because elastomeric plastics are a known subset of plastic materials commonly used where resilient attachment and shock absorption are desired. The selection of a particular plastic or elastomeric plastic represents the use of a known material for its known properties and yields predictable results (MPEP §§ 2141, 2143; KSR).
Regarding claim 3, Newman teaches elastic impact collars having annular openings configured to receive generally cylindrical portions of a water pipe, as shown in FIGS. 2–4. Annular openings that receive cylindrical pipe portions necessarily have a round cross section. Couch likewise discloses elastomeric elements having openings configured to receive cylindrical pipe components (see Couch, FIGS. 1–3). Accordingly, the prior art teaches or reasonably suggests openings having a round cross section, as recited in claim 3. The claimed round cross section represents a predictable geometry for receiving cylindrical pipe components and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. (See MPEP § 2143).
Regarding claim 4, Newman teaches elastic impact collars having a finite axial height, as shown in FIGS. 1–4 and described at col. 3, lines 5–20, where the collars extend along the length of the pipe body. Couch discloses elastomeric elements likewise having a defined axial height as part of their structure, as shown in FIGS. 1–3.
The axial height of an elastic element is a result-effective variable, as it determines the amount of material present in the axial direction.
Where the prior art recognizes a variable and the result of modifying that variable, optimizing the variable through routine dimensional scaling is prima facie obvious. Selecting an axial height within the recited numerical ranges would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization and scaling, depending on the size of the pipe portion, and would have yielded predictable results. See MPEP § 2144.05; In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Accordingly, claim 4 is unpatentable over Newman in view of Couch.
Regarding claim 5 and 8, Newman teaches elastic impact collars having a finite radial width surrounding a portion of a water pipe, as shown in FIGS. 1–4. Couch discloses elastomeric elements likewise having a defined radial width as part of their structure, as shown in FIGS. 1–3. Thus, the prior art teaches elastic elements having a width dimension.
The width of such elastic elements is a result-effective variable, as it determines the amount of material extending radially from the opening of the element. Where the prior art recognizes a variable and the result of modifying that variable, optimizing the variable through routine dimensional scaling is prima facie obvious.
Selecting a particular width within the recited numerical ranges for either the chillum element (claim 5) or the mouthpiece element (claim 8) would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization, depending on the overall size of the pipe portions, and would have yielded predictable results. (See MPEP § 2144.05; In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
Regarding claim 6, Newman teaches elastic impact collars that may be positioned at different locations along a water pipe to protect regions subject to impact (see Newman, FIGS. 1–3).
Couch discloses elastomeric elements used to interconnect pipe components having non-uniform geometries, including angled or offset pipe portions (see Couch, FIGS. 1–3). Given that chillum portions are commonly angled or offset relative to the main body of a water pipe, configuring the opening of the chillum element to be eccentric (i.e., offset from a central axis) would have been an obvious geometric modification to accommodate such known pipe geometries.
Modifying the position of an opening relative to the body of an elastic element represents a predictable variation in shape and geometry that would have yielded predictable results. (See MPEP § 2143) and MPEP § 2144.04 (changes in shape).
Regarding claim 7 and 9, Newman teaches elastic elements having openings through which portions of a water pipe extend, as shown in FIGS. 2–4. Couch discloses elastomeric elements likewise having openings defined by a diameter, as shown in FIGS. 1–3. Thus, the prior art teaches elastic elements having openings with a diameter dimension.
The diameter of such openings is a result-effective variable, as it determines the size of the opening relative to the associated pipe portion. Where the prior art recognizes a variable and the result of modifying that variable, optimizing the variable through routine dimensional scaling is prima facie obvious.
Selecting a particular opening diameter within the recited numerical ranges for either the chillum element (claim 7) or the mouthpiece element (claim 9) would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization, depending on the size of the pipe portions, and would have yielded predictable results. (See MPEP § 2144.05; In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
Regarding claim 11, Newman teaches a set comprising elastic elements configured to be releasably attached to components of a water pipe, wherein the elastic elements include openings that receive corresponding pipe components (e.g., a mouthpiece and/or chillum), the elastic material allowing deformation to achieve attachment and retention (see Newman, e.g., elastic sleeve/collar structures receiving pipe components, ¶¶ [0025]–[0029], Figs. [2–4]).
Couch discloses elastic sleeves/collars formed of elastomeric material, each sleeve defining an opening configured to receive a pipe component, wherein the sleeve elastically deforms when the component is inserted and returns toward its original shape to engage and retain the component (see Couch, e.g., ¶¶ [0032]–[0036], [0040]–[0043], Figs. 1–4).
Claim 11 further recites that “a clear circular cross section of the opening of the mouthpiece element and/or of the chillum element is modifiable.” As taught by Newman and further disclosed by Couch, the openings are formed in elastic material and are configured to receive rigid pipe components. When a rigid component is inserted into an elastic opening, the opening necessarily deforms during use. Such deformation inherently modifies the effective clear circular cross section of the opening as the component is inserted, seated, and removed.
Accordingly, the recited “modifiable” clear circular cross section is an inherent and predictable result of the elastic structure taught by Newman and Couch, even if not expressly described in those terms. A property or function that necessarily flows from the disclosed structure is inherent in the prior art (see MPEP § 2112). Further, using elastic openings that deform to accommodate components represents no more than the predictable use of known materials for their intended purpose (see MPEP §§ 2143, 2144.04).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to employ the elastic openings of Newman as further disclosed by Couch, with the openings deforming during normal use, thereby rendering the clear circular cross section modifiable as claimed, because such deformation is inherent to elastic engagement and retention of pipe components.
Therefore, claim 11 is unpatentable over Newman in view of Couch.
Regarding claim 13-17, Newman discloses a water pipe having elastomeric impact collars disposed around pipe openings including the mouthpiece opening and base opening (Newman, Fig. 1; Fig. 2; impact collars 202, 301). The collars are made of elastomeric material and are designed to deform to fit around pipe components (Newman, col. 4, lines 55–67).
Newman teaches that the inner diameter of the collar is larger than the pipe diameter (D2 > D1), so the collar elastically deforms inward, thereby modifying the clear cross-section of the opening (Newman, Fig. 2; col. 4, lines 60–67).
Thus, Newman teaches an opening that is at least partially bounded by an elastomeric member that deforms to change the effective opening size.
Newman does not teach that the elastomeric structure is formed as multiple discrete elastic projections, nor does Newman teach specific projection geometries such as tapered, spiral, or star-shaped arrangements.
However, Couch teaches a modular smoking pipe having elastomeric collars and sleeves used to scalably interconnect pipe components (Couch ¶¶ [0017]–[0019], Fig. 2, Fig. 3). Couch discloses elastomeric collars having circumferential grooves, deformable wall portions, and elastomeric segments that engage pipe components and elastically deform inward and outward to grip and seal around openings (Couch ¶ [0018]; Fig. 3).
These elastomeric regions function as multiple elastic segments that together define and modify the effective opening when components are inserted.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Newman’s elastomeric impact collars to include multiple discrete elastomeric projection regions as taught by Couch, in order to improve scalable fit, sealing, and engagement of pipe components, because both references are directed to smoking pipes and to elastomeric structures for fitting around pipe openings.
Such modification is a simple substitution of one known elastomeric configuration for another to obtain predictable improvements in fitting and adaptability, which is expressly permitted under MPEP §2143 and MPEP §2144(I)
With respect to Claim 13, the limitation requires that the opening be partially bounded by one or more elastic projections such that the opening can be modified by deformation.
Newman provides an elastomeric collar defining and deforming the opening (Newman Fig. 2; col. 4, lines 60–67), but does not teach discrete projections. Couch teaches elastomeric collars with segmented deformable regions that elastically engage openings (Couch ¶ [0018], Fig. 3). Modifying Newman’s collar to include multiple elastic projections as taught by Couch would have been obvious to provide controlled deformation and improved gripping of the opening (MPEP §2144(I)).
With respect to Claim 14, the limitation requires that each elastic projection be integrated with the mouthpiece or chillum and comprise a base and a tip.
Newman teaches elastomeric collars integrated with pipe openings (Fig. 2; collars 202, 301). Couch teaches elastomeric collar portions that extend inward from the collar body to engage pipe components (¶ [0018]). When Newman’s collar is modified to include discrete projections as taught by Couch, each projection inherently has a base attached to the collar and a tip extending toward the opening, which is a structural consequence of elastomeric projections (MPEP §2144.04 — inherent result of a known structure).
With respect to Claim 15, the limitation requires that the projection narrows from base to tip.
Neither Newman nor Couch explicitly teaches tapering. However, tapering of elastomeric fingers is a result-effective variable for controlling flexibility, insertion force, and sealing, which are the same functions taught by Newman and Couch. Optimizing elastomeric geometry for these known functions is an obvious matter of routine design choice under MPEP §2144.05 (result-effective variables).
With respect to Claim 16, the limitation requires that the elastic projections be spiral-shaped in top view.
Once it is obvious to use multiple elastomeric projections, selecting their angular layout (e.g., spiral) is a predictable geometrical design choice to distribute compression and improve sealing, which is within the ordinary skill of designers of elastomeric couplings (MPEP §2144.04).
With respect to Claim 17, the limitation requires that the opening be star-shaped.
A star-shaped opening is the natural geometric result of arranging multiple radially-spaced elastic projections. Since Newman + Couch render it obvious to provide multiple projections, the resulting star-shaped opening is an inherent and predictable outcome of that structure (MPEP §2144.04; MPEP §2112).
In Conclusion, Newman teaches the elastomeric deformable opening, and Couch teaches segmented elastomeric collar structures that provide multiple deformable regions. The claimed projection shapes, tapering, and star/spiral arrangements are predictable design optimizations and inherent results of implementing known elastomeric structures.
Regarding claim 18 and 19, Newman teaches a water pipe having a mouthpiece and a chillum, together with elastic, shock-absorbing components positioned around openings of the water pipe to protect against breakage in the event of overturning or impact (see, e.g., Newman, col. 2, ll. 12–15; Figs. 1–3). Newman teaches that protective elements surrounding pipe openings may differ in size and configuration depending on the function and location of the opening, thereby inherently teaching different dimensional relationships between pipe components.
Couch further discloses a modular smoking pipe in which the mouthpiece portion and the smoking material receiving portion (chillum/bowl assembly) have different cross-sectional sizes and footprints, as shown in Couch’s Figures 1–3 and described in paragraphs [0015]-[0017]. In particular, Couch teaches a mouthpiece opening having a larger cross-sectional size than the opening of the chillum element, with the chillum/bowl assembly being narrower and more compact relative to the mouthpiece.
With respect to Claim 18, which recites that the opening of the mouthpiece element has a larger cross section than the opening of the chillum element, this is rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Newman and Couch. Newman provides the water pipe structure with protective elements surrounding the openings, while Couch teaches the specific relative sizing of the mouthpiece and chillum openings.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Couch’s known dimensional relationship between mouthpiece and chillum openings to the water pipe of Newman in order to achieve predictable airflow characteristics and ergonomic use, which are well-recognized design considerations in smoking devices.
With respect to Claim 19, which recites that the chillum element has a smaller footprint than the mouthpiece element, as taught by Couch, a smaller opening or cross-section of the chillum necessarily corresponds to a smaller overall footprint relative to the mouthpiece. The claimed footprint relationship therefore represents an inherent and predictable result of the dimensional differences taught by Couch when applied to the pipe structure of Newman. Such optimization of relative component size constitutes a matter of routine design choice that does not confer patentability (see MPEP § 2144.05, regarding optimization of result-effective variables).
Accordingly, claims 18 and 19 are unpatentable over Newman in view of Couch.
Regarding Claim 20, the limitation recites a water pipe having a mouthpiece and a chillum, and a set for protecting the water pipe against breakage and/or damage in the event of overturning, wherein a mouthpiece element is releasably connected to the mouthpiece in a force fit and a chillum element is releasably connected to the chillum in a force fit.
Newman teaches a water pipe protected by impact collars that absorb shock and prevent fracture of the pipe when the device is toppled or impacted.
Specifically, Newman teaches “at least one impact collar to absorb shock to the pipe structure to prevent fracture of the vessel body” (col. 2, ll. 12–15). Newman’s apparatus includes a mouthpiece region, a stem/chillum region, and elastomeric impact collars (e.g., 301, 400) mounted around the pipe components.
These collars are placed on the pipe by elastic deformation and are therefore releasably connected by a force fit, as the elastomeric material grips the pipe through interference and can be removed and replaced.
Newman does not explicitly teach separate elastomeric elements positioned on both the mouthpiece and the chillum as distinct modular components.
However, Couch discloses a modular water pipe having a mouthpiece (30) and a chillum or stem (34, 36) together with elastomeric sleeves (44, 46, 54, 56) that slide over and surround pipe components and are held in place by elastic deformation and frictional engagement (Couch, ¶¶ [017]–[020], Figs. 1–3). These sleeves are removable, releasably connected, and function to protect the pipe from impact and handling damage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use Couch’s modular elastomeric force-fit sleeves as the impact-absorbing collars of Newman in order to provide the same shock-absorbing and breakage-prevention function in a removable and modular form, because both references are in the same field of endeavor (water pipes) and both address damage from impact and handling. Substituting Couch’s known sleeve structure for Newman’s collars represents a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions to achieve the same protective result (see MPEP § 2143; KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.).
Claim(s) 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman (US 5400807), and Couch (US 20020069886) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mansfield (US 2012/0012723 A1) .
Regarding claim 10, Newman, as discussed above with respect to claim 1, teaches a set comprising elastic elements configured to engage and retain components of a water pipe. Newman teaches elastic collar structures adapted to be removably secured to pipe components for functional use therewith.
Couch further teaches elastic collar structures configured to engage pipe-related components, reinforcing the teaching of elastic engagement and retention of accessories used with water pipes.
Newman and Couch do not explicitly teach that the mouthpiece element comprises a receptacle for inserting a lighter, as recited in claim 10.
However, Mansfield discloses a lighter-holder apparatus for use with a water pipe, wherein a gripping feature is configured to receive and retain a lighter.
Mansfield discloses a structure comprising gripping elements that form a defined space into which a lighter is inserted and retained (see, e.g., ¶¶ [0008], [0043]–[0046]; Figs. 1–5). Such a structure constitutes a receptacle for inserting a lighter under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the elastic set of Newman, as further supported by Couch, to include a lighter receptacle as taught by Mansfield, in order to conveniently store and retain a lighter on the same accessory used with a water pipe. Providing a lighter-holding receptacle in combination with a water-pipe accessory constitutes the predictable use of a known element for its known purpose and would have yielded no more than predictable results. (See MPEP §§ 2143, 2144.01).
Accordingly, claim 10 is unpatentable over Newman in view of Couch and Mansfield.
Regarding claim 12, Newman, as discussed with respect to the rejection of claim 1, teaches a set comprising elastic mouthpiece and/or chillum elements having openings that receive corresponding portions of a water pipe, wherein the elements are formed of elastic material and are releasably attached to the water pipe. Couch further discloses elastic collars and sleeves configured to engage pipe components and accommodate different pipe sizes through elastic deformation.
Newman and Couch do not explicitly teach that the mouthpiece element and or chillum element comprises at least one predetermined breaking site adjacent to the opening or enclose the opening can be manually enlarged as needed, as recited in claim 12.
However, Mansfield disclose that a flexible collar includes at least one frangible portion intentionally provided to facilitate custom fit (universal sizing) of the apparatus around different water pipes, wherein material of the collar may be broken or removed by the user to adapt the opening or interface to a given pipe size (see, e.g., Mansfield ¶[0052]). Such a frangible portion is expressly provided to allow manual modification of the collar structure to accommodate different pipe dimensions (see, e.g., Mansfield ¶[0052]).
In light of the applicant’s specification, which defines a “predetermined breaking site” as a material weakening, perforation, or frangible region adjacent to or enclosing an opening such that the opening can be manually enlarged as needed, Mansfield’s frangible portion corresponds to the claimed predetermined breaking site.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide such a predetermined breaking site in the elastic mouthpiece element and/or chillum element of Newman, as modified by Couch, in order to allow the opening to be manually enlarged and adapted for different water pipe sizes, yielding the predictable result of improved fit and versatility (see MPEP §§ 2143, 2144).
Accordingly, claim 12 is unpatentable over Newman in view of Couch and Mansfield.
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