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 .
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.
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.
Claim 1-3 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.
Claim 1 is rendered indefinite for the phrase ‘said body having a perimeter that is uniform with said body’ in line 2. The structure that is being claimed is unclear as the limitations of the body does not match the specifications. The specifications state that ‘the body is equipped with a perimeter (20) circumscribing the lateral axis of the apparatus at the top (30)’. This does not clarify what makes the perimeter ‘uniform’, leaving the scope of the limitation unclear. For examination purposes, claim 1 is interpreted as ‘a body, said body having a perimeter.’ Claim 2 and 3 are rejected for depending upon claim 1.
The term “predominantly” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “predominantly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of this office action, “predominantly planar” will be interpreted as “planar”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jacques (Publication No. WO2021022164A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Jacques discloses a body (Figure 1; below) that can extinguish ignited contents of a smoking pipe (abstract). This body that can be manufactured separately or as one unit ([0053]) and it comprises of:
a cone (arrow 2 of Figure 1 below), that is shaped into a solid conical body and is uniform in size and shape ([0044]).
a handle (arrow 1 of Figure 1 below), containing finger holes that are fused together, disposed on top of the cone for user manipulation and extends upward from the cone when in use ([0043] & [0045]).
the body is composed of heat-resistant and non-flammable material, including but not limited to silicone ([0050]) and the device can be made of a single material ([0052]).
PNG
media_image1.png
319
342
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Jacques further discloses a bottom section of the claimed device and having diameter of the bowl of the smoking pipe. Figure 3 and 10 displays an embodiment having a bottom that is flat and the bottom level with the top of the device ([0022]; see below).
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
264
491
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacques (Publication No. WO2021022164A1, see attachment) as applied to Claim 1 above, in view of Hinson (Publication No. US2406685A).
Regarding Claim 2, Jacques teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above except for the bottom tapering down to a rounded point.
Hinson teaches a cigarette extinguishing unit that is molded into a plastic box and has a top to close in on any remaining unextinguished cigarette (Col. 1, line 4 – 5). The extinguishing unit consists of a support which contains a slidable hollow sleeve (18), a mounted cone or plug (12), springs to support the return of the sleeve (13), and a receptacle underneath to support (Col. 3, line 28 – Col. 4, line 2). When the cigarette is pressed downwardly, it pushes down the sleeve, pinching the tip between the funnel- shaped face (17) and the cone (12) and is then extinguished (Col. 2, line 7 – 11). Once the tip of the cigarette is pressed against the cone, the cigarette will disintegrate while the cone is pushed down against the compression spring (Col. 1, line 54 – Col. 2, line 3). The cone is guided by a downwardly projecting handle (33) which passes through the opening of the spring (13) (Col. 3, line 3 – 6). Hinson teaches an invention that extinguishes cigarettes and also traps any smoldering cigarette inside of a plastic box.
PNG
media_image4.png
376
240
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Jacques’s flame extinguishing invention and incorporate the teachings of Hinson’s cigarette extinguishing unit to provide a flame suppressor for a smoking pipe.
By using silicone material from Jacques’s invention in an altered Hinson cigarette extinguisher unit, a downward facing tapered cone and a top mounted handle, the lit contents of a smoking pipe can be suppressed. This allows the user to extinguish the pipe while allowing the contents to be reused later.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Flynn (Publication No. US20190239560A1) – a smoking material extinguishing device that contains a body, handle, and heat-resistant material.
Pogue (Publication No. USD902477S1) – a smoking pipe snuffer that contains a planar bottom and a handle for use.
Rosso (Publication No. US20100101591A1) – a pipe bowl ash and tobacco compactor that has a base that can receive a lighter.
Murphy (Publication No. US20170049148A1) – a pipe snuffer with a removable head and when used the flame is extinguished and preserves the tobacco contents.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANNAH C NNABUGWU whose telephone number is (571)272-8791. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs. 8:00am-5:30pm.
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 5712703882. 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.
/H.C.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747