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. Claim Objections Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 recites: “The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the indicia comprises engraved markings such that the indicia is detectable via touch.” A claim cannot properly depend on itself, and claim 7 introduced the limitation indicia, reasonably suggesting that the “8” is a typographical error and should be corrected to “7”. Claim 8 will be examined as though it depends on claim 7. Appropriate correction is required. 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) 1-4 , and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Brueck (US 1,1976,653 ) . Regarding claim 1 , Brueck discloses : A cigarette holder apparatus([ pg 1 lines 1-2]), comprising: a handle , being elongated between a first end and a second end of the handle, a front side , and a rear side , extending between the first end and the second end, a pair of lateral sides extending between the first end and the second end and between the front side and the rear side , ( (annotated Fig 1 depicting these structures, with the exception of the rear side which is opposite to the depicted front side ) ; and a pair of prongs being coupled to the second end of the handle, the pair of prongs extending parallel to a central longitudinal axis of the handle away from the second end, the pair of prongs being laterally spaced from each other with respect to the handle, each prong of the pair of prongs being resiliently bendable such that the pair of prongs are configured to clamp a cigarette between the pair of prongs , ([ pg 2 lines 14-26] all depicted by annotated Fig 1) . Regarding claim 2 , Brueck discloses the apparatus of claim 1 , wherein the handle has a lanyard hole extending through the handle adjacent to the first end, the lanyard hole extending transversely with respect to a central longitudinal axis of the handle, ([ pg 2 lines 146-150 ] a hole which may be utilized to receive a fastening device reasonably anticipating the use of the hole for a lanyard; annotated Fig 1) . Regarding claim 3 , Brueck discloses the apparatus of claim 1 , wherein each prong of the pair of prongs has a recess adjacent to a distal end of the prong with respect to the handle, the recesses of the pair of prongs defining a space between the pair of prongs, the pair of prongs being configured to clamp a cigarette in the space between the pair of prongs , ([ pg 2 lines 14-26] ; annotated Fig 1) ) . Regarding claim 4 , Brueck discloses the apparatus of claim 3, wherein the space has a cylindrical shape, a central longitudinal axis of the space extending forwardly and rearwardly with respect to the handle, ( annotated Fig 1) . Regarding claim 6 , Brueck discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the pair of prongs is integrally formed with the handle, (annotated Fig 1). Regarding claim 7 , Brueck discloses the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising an indicia being coupled to the front side of the handle, (annotated Fig 1). Brueck does not disclose the indicia indicating an orientation of the handle, but because indicia conveying a message or meaning to a human reader in the form of instruct ion for use of the product, the indicia are not considered to have a functional relationship with the product, and thus the further limitation requiring the indicia to indicate an orientation of the handle is not given further patentable weight, MPEP 2111.05 I. B. 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) 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Brueck (US 1,1976,653) . Regarding claim 5 , Brueck discloses the apparatus of claim 3, each prong of the pair of prongs comprises an extension portion and a holder portion, (annotated Fig 1 extension portion ref 5, holder portion ref 4), the extension portion extending from the handle to the holder portion, the holder portion defining the recess , a rear surface of the extension portion being oriented coplanar to the rear side of the handle, (annotated Fig 1). Brueck does not disclose a front surface of the extension portion being angled toward the rear surface from the handle to the holder portion, the holder portion protruding forwardly from the extension portion with respect to the handle. However, absent evidence of criticality, these limitations are merely a change in shape or aesthetic design change. The courts have held changes in shape and aesthetic design changes to be prima facie obvious, see In re Seid , 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ431 (CCPA 1947) and In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), MPEP 2144.04. The instant application does not disclose any criticality of these features and discloses that one of ordinary skill in the art would find variations in the size, shape, form would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art (Specification [ pg 7 lines 6-11]). Regarding claim 8 , Brueck discloses the apparatus of claim 7. Brueck does not disclose the process by which the indicia are provided. Engraving is considered a notoriously well known process by which a design is formed in a surface by cutting grooves into it. Engraving a surface will inherently leave markings that are detectable via touch. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided the indicia of Brueck by using the well known process of engraving. This is considered the obvious application of a known technique to a known device, ready for improvement to yield predictable results, MPEP 2143 I. (D). Here the base device Brueck is known, and includes indicia. Engraving is a well known process for providing indicia on an object, and provides a more permanent way to provide the indicia, rather than simple marking which may rub off more easily over time. One of ordinary skill would have recognized that using the technique of engraving would have predictably applied the indicia to the surface of the holder, and resulted in an improved system where the indicia were more durable and less likely to be worn off the holder. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 9-20 are allowed . The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Brueck (US 1,1976,653) is the closest prior art of record and discloses the claimed cigarette holder apparatus . Claims 9-20 claim a cigarette holding and extinguishing kit which includes the claimed cigarette holder. Although the prior art discloses that could be used as a stand with a base and support for smoking articles, there is no evidence absent impermissible hindsight that the base would comprise a cavity extending downwardly through a top surface of the base, a support coupled to and extending upwardly from the base, the support being spaced from the cavity, the support having a notch extending into a top side of the support, such that when the stand is in use the cigarette holder is positioned in the support position where the first end of the handle abuts a bounding surface of the cavity and the cigarette holder lies in the notch of the support, the stand propping the cigarette holder to space the cigarette above the base. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Evans US 5,423,335 disclosing a smoker’s utility apparatus with many components including a removable ashtray with a smoking article support and compartments for holding articles that are commonly used when smoking, arranged in a rectangular case. Gaunt US 1,565,728 disclosing an ashtray with built components including an extinguishing means and supports for smoking articles. O’Dell US 4,497,329 disclosing a snuffer that is designed to extinguish a cigarette. Rand US 2022/036,1559 disclosing a cigar storage and ash disposal container and method. Although the disclosure is preferably directed towards cigar usage, cigarette usage is included. An ashtray is disclosed and two notched supports are provided, as well as a number of embodiments that include a case to contain cigars, the supports, ash, and are configured to allow supporting a smoking article over the case and collecting the ash. Havey US 2,207,197 disclosing a cigarette holder. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DANIEL E VAKILI whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5171 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 4:30 pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Michael H. Wilson can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /D.E.V./ Examiner, Art Unit 1747 /MELVIN C. MAYES/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1759