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
Claims 1-13 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/29/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 14-19 in the reply filed on 06/29/2026 is acknowledged.
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 14-19 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 14 recites “applying a force to any protruding tips of prerolls in the pod.” However, the claim previously recites only “an end of the preroll protrudes from a base of the fill chamber” and does not provide antecedent basis for “tips.” It is therefore unclear whether “tips” refers to the previously recited “end” or to a different portion of the prerolls.
For purposes of examination, “tips” is interpreted as referring to the previously recited protruding “end” of each preroll.
Claims 15–19 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency from claim 14.
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.
Claims 14–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Crowe et al. (US 2022/0295869 A1) in view of Sheldon et al. (US 2019/0015941 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Crowe teaches a system for filling prerolls (smoking-product-making system 100) ¶ [0042], comprising:
a pod (receptacle 110/210) ¶ [0043];
a support flange that encloses a foot space around a base of the pod (the outwardly projecting peripheral portion of first portion 112 surrounding reduced second portion 114 and enclosing the lower space around second portion 114) (Figs. 3, 5, and 16);
a plurality of fill chambers aligned with the insertion axis of the pod (through-holes 116/216) ¶ [0048];
each fill chamber comprising an elongated space within the pod that is configured to accept a preroll for filling (each through-hole 116/216 receiving a preroll cone 120) ¶ [0048];
such that, when the preroll is fully seated within the fill chamber, an end of the preroll protrudes from a base of the fill chamber into the foot space of the pod (bottom end 126 projecting through bottom opening 118/218 into the lower space beneath receptacle 110/210) ¶ [0049];
a tamper accessory (closure device 130) ¶ [0051];
a tamper base (base plate 132) ¶ [0051];
a plurality of tamping rods, coupled to the tamper base and perpendicular to the tamper base (raised projections 134 extending perpendicular to base plate 132) ¶ [0051];
configured to slide into the plurality of fill chambers in the pod (raised projections 134 entering respective holes 116) ¶ [0053];
thereby seating prerolls in the bottoms of their respective fill chambers when the tamper accessory is applied to the pod (raised projections 134 entering respective prerolls held in holes 116 and applying axial force to the smoking material therein) ¶ [0054];
an ejector accessory (ejector device 140) ¶ [0072];
an ejector base (ejector plate 142) ¶ [0072];
an ejector pedestal, coupled to the ejector base, that is configured to fill the foot space enclosed by the support flange (the raised receiving structure formed by ejector plate 142, projections 144, and peripheral sidewalls 146, which receives reduced second portion 114) (Figs. 16–17); and
thereby applying a force to any protruding tips of prerolls in the pod when the pod is pressed into the ejector accessory (projections 144 contacting protruding bottom ends 126 and pushing prerolls 120 upward through holes 216) ¶ [0077].
The recited functional language does not require structure beyond the mapped structures, which are capable of performing the recited functions.
Crowe does not expressly teach:
a keying groove that traverses a side of the pod parallel to the insertion axis of the pod, the keying groove being configured to align with keying segments of pod accessories;
a tamper keying segment, coupled to the tamper base and perpendicular to the tamper base, configured to align with and slide into the keying groove of the pod; or
an ejector keying segment, coupled to the ejector base and perpendicular to the ejector base, configured to align with and slide into the keying groove of the pod
Crowe teaches two different removable tools that must each be registered with a receptacle having a fixed array of openings: closure device 130 must be positioned so projections 134 enter corresponding holes 116 ¶ [0053], and ejector device 140 must be positioned so projections 144 enter corresponding holes 216 ¶ [0075]. Thus, Crowe presents the specific problem of accurately and repeatably locating removable, multi-element tools relative to a common type of holder so that the respective operating members remain registered with a fixed array of openings.
Sheldon is reasonably pertinent to that problem because Sheldon addresses the mechanical registration of removable tool components relative to a common holder. Sheldon teaches a keyed groove on a common holder (linear keyed slot 29 of cross member 24) ¶ [0070] and a mating keying segment on a removable tool component (key system 42 and tapered tenon 44 of template 30 received in slot 29) ¶ [0082]. Sheldon further teaches alternative removable templates having corresponding key systems for engagement with the holder (templates 80, 81, and 83 having respective key systems) ¶ [0094].
In applying Sheldon’s keyed registration arrangement to Crowe, one of ordinary skill in the art would have oriented the keyed groove in the direction of relative movement between the pod and each accessory so that the corresponding keying segment could enter and slide within the groove as the accessory is applied. Crowe’s projections 134 and 144 extend from respective planar bases toward the pod in that engagement direction. Accordingly, mounting each corresponding keying segment to extend from its respective planar accessory base in the same direction as projections 134 or 144 would orient the keying segment perpendicular to the accessory base and permit simultaneous engagement of the keying segment with the groove and the projections with the corresponding fill chambers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Crowe’s receptacle with Sheldon’s linear keyed slot 29 and to provide Crowe’s closure device 130 and ejector device 140 with respective corresponding keying segments. The modification would apply Sheldon’s known tool-registration arrangement at Crowe’s existing receptacle-accessory interfaces to provide positive and repeatable positioning of each removable device relative to its receptacle, thereby reducing lateral or rotational misalignment between projections 134/144 and corresponding holes 116/216, without changing Crowe’s filling, closing, or ejecting operations.
Regarding claim 15, Crowe in view of Sheldon, hereinafter modified Crowe, teaches the system of claim 14 as set forth above.
Modified Crowe further teaches:
each fill chamber in the plurality of fill chambers (each through-hole 116 containing a preroll cone 120) Crowe ¶ [0049];
being configured to accept a preroll for filling such that, when the preroll is fully seated within the fill chamber (preroll cone 120 received within through-hole 116 with top end 124 positioned below top opening 117) Crowe Fig. 3;
a topmost edge of the preroll (top end 124 of preroll cone 120) Crowe ¶ [0049];
a wall of the fill chamber (the inner wall of through-hole 116 surrounding preroll cone 120) Crowe Fig. 3;
and a mouth of the fill chamber (top opening 117 of through-hole 116) Crowe ¶ [0049];
define a headspace volume of the fill chamber (the space between top end 124 and top opening 117, bounded by the wall of through-hole 116) Crowe Fig. 3; and
that defines a fill volume for the preroll (the space above top end 124 that receives smoking material) Crowe ¶ [0054].
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Crowe et al. (US 2022/0295869 A1) in view of Sheldon et al. (US 2019/0015941 A1) and further in view of Heidtmann (US 2016/0120212 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Crowe in view of Sheldon, hereinafter modified Crowe, teaches the system of claim 15 as set forth above.
Modified Crowe does not teach a fill restrictor comprising a fill restriction pedestal configured to occupy a portion of the foot space such that, when prerolls are tamped into the fill chambers, the tips of the prerolls come into contact with the fill restriction pedestal prior to the prerolls being fully seated within the fill chambers, resulting in a reduction in the headspace volume of the fill chambers.
Heidtmann teaches a tube-filling apparatus for simultaneously filling a plurality of paper, cellulose, or hemp smoking tubes positioned in respective open-ended tube-receiving recesses (tubes received in recesses 26.1) Heidtmann ¶ [0061]. Heidtmann further teaches:
a fill restrictor (vibration plate 32 positioned beneath filling assembly 20) Heidtmann ¶ [0067];
the fill restrictor comprising a fill restriction pedestal (vibration plate 32) Heidtmann ¶ [0067];
configured to occupy a portion of the foot space (vibration plate 32 positioned beneath lower filling assembly 20.1) (Heidtmann Figs. 4 and 9); and
such that, when prerolls are tamped into the fill chambers, the tips of the prerolls come into contact with the fill restriction pedestal (the smaller ends of the tubes resting on vibration plate 32 while positioned within recesses 26.1) Heidtmann ¶ [0083].
Heidtmann further teaches adjusting the spacing between filling assembly 20 and vibration plate 32 to accommodate tubes of different lengths (adjusting the length of pillars 30) Heidtmann ¶ [0064].
Heidtmann is reasonably pertinent to the problem presented by modified Crowe because both references are directed to simultaneously filling a plurality of smoking tubes supported within open-ended chambers. Modified Crowe permits the lower tips of the prerolls to protrude into the foot space but does not provide a structure for supporting the prerolls at a selected axial position during filling. Heidtmann teaches supporting the lower ends of the tubes on vibration plate 32 during filling and adjusting the spacing between the filling assembly and vibration plate according to the tube length.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide modified Crowe with Heidtmann’s vibration plate 32 positioned within the foot space beneath the pod so that the protruding preroll tips rest upon the plate during filling. It would have further been obvious to select the spacing between the pod and vibration plate, as taught by Heidtmann, to establish the desired axial position of the prerolls within the fill chambers. Doing so would predictably cause the preroll tips to contact the vibration plate before reaching Crowe’s otherwise fully seated position, thereby maintaining the prerolls at a higher position within the fill chambers and reducing the headspace volume between the topmost edges of the prerolls and the mouths of the fill chambers.
Claims 17–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Crowe et al. (US 2022/0295869 A1) in view of Sheldon et al. (US 2019/0015941 A1) and further in view of Zumeta (US 5,031,488).
Regarding claims 17–19, Crowe in view of Sheldon, hereinafter modified Crowe, teaches the system of claim 14 as set forth above, including the pod (receptacle 110/210) Crowe ¶ [0043], the tamper accessory (closure device 130) Crowe ¶ [0051], and the ejector accessory (ejector device 140) Crowe ¶ [0072].
Modified Crowe does not teach:
the pod comprises a colored material, wherein a color of the colored material corresponds to a configuration of the pod;
the tamper accessory comprises the colored material and the color of the colored material corresponds to a configuration of the tamper accessory; or
the ejector accessory comprises the colored material and the color of the colored material corresponds to a configuration of the ejector accessory.
Zumeta teaches a color-coding system for a collection of implements having different operative sizes or configurations, wherein visible colors are applied to the implements so that a user can readily distinguish among the differently configured implements and select the proper implement for a particular use (Zumeta col. 1, ll. 10–34). Zumeta further teaches an implement comprising a colored material (a visibly colored portion provided on the implement) (Zumeta Figs. 1–5; col. 2, ll. 24–59) and the color of the colored material corresponding to a configuration of the implement (respective colors assigned according to the operative size of the implement) (Zumeta Figs. 7–8; col. 2, ll. 60–68; col. 3, ll. 1–32). Zumeta explains that the color coding permits a user to quickly identify the properly sized implement and reduces the time required to locate and select the appropriate implement (Zumeta col. 1, ll. 10–34).
Zumeta is reasonably pertinent to the problem presented by modified Crowe because modified Crowe includes a pod and separate accessories whose configurations must correspond for proper alignment and operation, while Zumeta addresses the problem of visually distinguishing among differently configured components so that the user can identify and select the appropriate component.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide modified Crowe’s receptacle 110/210, closure device 130, and ejector device 140 with colored material having respective colors corresponding to their configurations, as taught by Zumeta, to permit a user to quickly identify and select mutually compatible pod and accessory configurations and reduce the likelihood of mismatching differently configured components.
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
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights