Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/471,779

CIGARETTE TOBACCO EXTRACTION AND PACKING APPARATUS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Sep 21, 2023
Examiner
VAKILI, DANIEL EDWARD
Art Unit
1747
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
79%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
51 granted / 74 resolved
+3.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+9.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
53 currently pending
Career history
127
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.2%
-37.8% vs TC avg
§103
44.5%
+4.5% vs TC avg
§102
22.1%
-17.9% vs TC avg
§112
18.5%
-21.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 74 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NetraManjunath, “How to Smoke Hash: Best Ways for Using Hashish”, Feb 15, 2023, in view of Yan et al. (US 2023/0225406 A1), in view of Ruppert (EP 1,374,705 A1), and in view of Makboul (US 2017/0238601 A1). Regarding claim 1, NetraManjunath discloses the best ways for using hashish, ([Title]), reasonable considered an alternate smoking material. NetraManjunath suggests as part of one of the best ways for smoking hash, that tobacco and hash can be mixed together and formed into a smoking article for smoking, because they burn more evenly, ([ pg 12-13 under section #2 Smoking Hash in a Joint/Spliff/Blunt]). Although NetraManjunath discloses the mixing of tobacco and an alternate smoking material, and reasonably discloses smoking them in a prefabricated cigarette paper tube (an obvious variant of a premade joint cone), NetraManjunath does not disclose an apparatus for packing or unpacking a cigarette, or a method of obtaining tobacco desired by a smoker for inclusion in the cigarette. Yan teaches a means for extracting smoking substances from a cigarette, ([0008]), and is thus within the Applicant’s field of endeavor. Yan teaches an extractor for removing packed smoking substances from a cigarette and leaving the wrapping paper behind intact, (the extractor reasonably meeting the limitations of the tobacco extraction member), ([0036] Fig 7). Ruppert teaches an apparatus for the self-production of cigarettes, ([0001]), and is thus within the Applicant’s field of endeavor. Ruppert teaches using a pre-fabricated cigarette paper tube and loose fine-cut tobacco, where an outer sleeve is provided to accommodate and support the cigarette paper tube, a funnel to assist loading the tobacco into the pre-fabricated cigarette paper tube, while the cigarette paper tube is held in the outer sleeve, ([0006]. Ruppert teaches that the funnel comprises a short tube that has a diameter configured to be inserted into the end of the cigarette paper tube and forms an inner sleeve for the cigarette paper tube, ([0009]). Ruppert further teaches a pusher means is provided for pushing tobacco down the funnel and into a cigarette paper tube located within the outer sleeve, ([0016] a pusher being an obvious variant of a plunger member). Makboul teaches an improved tamper for use in the hand packing of cigarettes, ([0006] the tamper reasonably meeting the limitations of a plunger member), and is thus within Applicant’s field of endeavor. Makboul teaches the tamper has a second tamping end, sized to fit within an ignition end of a rolled rolling paper, with a rod and a base, ([0035] Fig 2 ref 62 a rod depicted as connected to the base ref 58, which may be used as part of the system of the disclosure or alone, reasonably suggesting that the improved tamper may be used in a different system). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the disclosure of NetraManjunath according to the teachings of Ruppert, Makboul, and Yan. NetraManjunath discloses using tobacco and hash to make a joint using a pre-rolled wrapper, but not where to obtain the wrapper or the tobacco. Yan teaches a device that is capable of extracting tobacco from a commercially obtained cigarette, and leaving the pre-fabricated cigarette tube behind intact. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to obtain a commercially available cigarette, with a tobacco that was desirable to the smoker and a pre-fabricated cigarette tube that had other characteristics know to be desirable to the smoker (such as filter properties and burn rate of the paper), modifying the disclosure of NetraManjunath to include using the extractor of Yan to remove the tobacco from the pre-fabricated cigarette tube, and mix it with hash for reloading into the pre-fabricated cigarette tube, as disclosed by NetraManjunath. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the disclosure of NetraManjunath to further use the apparatus of Ruppert, to facilitate loading the mixture of tobacco and hash back into the pre-fabricated cigarette tube, using the outer sleeve (reasonably meeting the limitations of the retention tube member, (Fig 2 ref 2), the funnel comprising a short tube (reasonably meeting the limitations of the insertion tube member), (Fig 2 ref 9), and a tamper, reasonably meeting the limitation of a plunger, comprising a rod but not comprising a base member secured to the second end of the rod, (Fig 2 ref 12 rod). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of NetraManjunath to further improve upon the apparatus of Ruppert, by providing a substitute improved tamper as taught by Makboul, (the improved tamper reasonably meeting the limitations of a plunger member, (Fig 2 ref 62 rod, and ref 58 base). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the improved tamper of Makboul as an obvious alternative to the tamper of Ruppert, with enhanced functionality that could be useful in hand packing of other cigarettes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably believed that removing the tobacco from the original cigarette would be successful, because Yan teaches the extractor is capable of this use. One of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably believed that creating an alternate smoking material with tobacco and hash mixed together would be successful, because NetraManjunath discloses that some smokers enjoy this mixture. One of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably believed that the outer tube and inner tube with attached funnel, would have been effective at loading this mixture back into the intact pre-rolled cigarette tube, because this is a contemplated use for the apparatus of Ruppert. One of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably believed that providing the improved tamper of Makboul would have been an acceptable alternative tamper for Ruppert, because the improved tamper of Makboul is designed for this function, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, in order to provide the enhance functionality of the improved tamper of Makboul for the hand packing of other cigarettes. Regarding claim 2, modified NetraManjunath teaches the cigarette tobacco and packing apparatus of claim 1. Ruppert teaches a pair of apertures in the outer sleeve for holding the pre-fabricated cigarette paper tube, ([0026] Fig 2 Ref 10). Ruppert does not teach that these apertures are located proximate to the second end of the outer sleeve (retention tube member). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have rearranged the apertures from the first end of the outer sleeve to the second end of the outer sleeve, where the apertures would allow holding the filter of the pre-fabricated cigarette tube instead of holding the pre-fabricated cigarette tube against the inner sleeve of the funnel (insertion tube member). MPEP 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale, VI, C. Rearrangement of Parts. Courts have found that when the location of the parts is an obvious matter of design choice, and their relocation does not modify the operation of the device, such changes are considered obvious. Here, the apertures in both design options are configured to allow holding of the pre-fabricated cigarette tube in the outer sleeve, such that it may be filled with smoking material. In the original configuration of Ruppert, the cigarette tube is held against the inner sleeve inserted into the open end of the pre-fabricated cigarette tube, such that the paper could be securely held without collapsing the tube. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that placing the apertures at the second end would have allowed the pre-fabricated cigarette tube to be securely held by the filter, an equally viable design choice for the location of the apertures, and providing an equivalent function. Regarding claim 3, modified NetraManjunath teaches the cigarette tobacco and packing apparatus of claim 2. Rupert teaches the insertion member comprises a funnel, which meets the limitation of a lifting member. Regarding claim 4, modified NetraManjunath teaches the cigarette tobacco and packing apparatus of claim 3. Yan teaches that the lower portion of the tobacco extraction member is auger shaped, (Fig 7). Regarding claim 5, modified NetraManjunath teaches the cigarette tobacco and packing apparatus of claim 4. Makbou teaches that the base of the plunger member is annular in shape, (Fig 2 ref 58). Regarding claim 6-7, modified NetraManjunath teaches the cigarette tobacco and packing apparatus of claim 5. Ruppert teaches that the apertures are diametrically opposed on said outer wall of the outer sleeve and comprise an oval shape, (Fig 2 Ref 10). Regarding claim 8, modified NetraManjunath teaches the cigarette tobacco and packing apparatus of claim 7. Ruppert teaches that the inner sleeve is dimensioned to be inserted into the interior volume of the pre-fabricated cigarette tube, (Fig 2 ref 9). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL E VAKILI whose telephone number is (571)272-5171. The examiner can normally be reached 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, 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. /D.E.V./Examiner, Art Unit 1747 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 21, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 23, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12593872
A CARTRIDGE FOR USE WITH AN AEROSOL-GENERATING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588699
NOVEL AEROSOL-GENERATING SUBSTRATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12564221
AEROSOL DELIVERY DEVICE WITH DEFLECTABLE OR COLLAPSIBLE HOUSING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12564223
CAPSULES WITH INTEGRATED MOUTHPIECES, HEAT-NOT-BURN (HNB) AEROSOL-GENERATING DEVICES, AND METHODS OF GENERATING AN AEROSOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12527356
NON-COMBUSTIBLE AEROSOL PROVISION SYSTEMS WITH ATOMIZER-FREE CONSUMABLES
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
69%
Grant Probability
79%
With Interview (+9.8%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 74 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month