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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending and are subject to this Office Action. This is the first Office Action on the merits of the claims.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bavar et al. (US 10034491 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Bavar teaches a hookah subassembly (water pipe or hookah pipe 100, 200, 300, 1300; col. 8, line 16), comprising:
a liquid retaining member (inner chamber or vessel 364, 721, 1312; Figs. 3, 7, 13; col. 8, lines 19-24; col. 9, line 56; col. 18, line 4; col. 23, lines 65-67) for retaining a liquid to filter a material that is to be smoked prior to being inhaled by a user; and,
a flow path (downstem 360, 1324; col. 9, lines 9-55) for directing smoke from a smoked substance retaining member (bowl 350; col. 9, lines 9-55) including a substance to be smoked to a point of entry (aerator cap 362, 1322; col. 9, lines 9-55; col. 24, lines 5-12) in the liquid retaining member that is below an upper surface of the liquid retaining member (Fig. 3C).
Regarding claim 4, Bavar teaches an inhalation port (hose receiver 386; col. 9, lines 57-65) that an inhalation tube, conduit or hose (hose 140; col. 8, lines 29-33) is to be connected to during smoking to inhale smoke is disposed below a mid-section of said liquid retaining member (Fig. 3B).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bavar et al. (US 10034491 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Parker (US 20180103683 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Bavar does not teach that said flow path extends around at least a portion of an outer peripheral surface of said liquid retaining member.
Parker, directed to a hookah subassembly (hookah 1; Figs. 1, 3; [0016]) comprising a liquid retaining member (smoking chamber 18; [0018]) and a flow path (air flow tubes 56; [0022]) for directing a substance to be smoked to a point of entry in the liquid retaining member that is below an upper surface of the liquid retaining member, teaches that the flow path extends around the peripheral surface to improve air flow distribution and improve flavor ([0023]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Bavar by placing the flow path around at least a portion of an outer peripheral surface of the liquid retaining member as taught by Parker because both Bavar and Parker are directed to hookah subassemblies comprising flow paths, Parker teaches that extending the flow path around a periphery improves flow distribution and flavor, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar device to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, Bavar teaches that the flow path supplies smoke to said liquid retaining member below a mid-section of said liquid retaining member (Figs. 3J, 13).
Bavar does not teach that said flow path extends around at least a portion of an outer peripheral surface of said liquid retaining member.
Parker, directed to a hookah subassembly (hookah 1; Figs. 1, 3; [0016]) comprising a liquid retaining member (smoking chamber 18; [0018]) and a flow path (air flow tubes 56; [0022]) for directing a substance to be smoked to a point of entry in the liquid retaining member that is below an upper surface of the liquid retaining member, teaches that the flow path extends around the peripheral surface to improve air flow distribution and improve flavor ([0023]). Parker further teaches that the flow path supplies smoke to said liquid retaining member below a mid-section of said liquid retaining member (Fig. 3).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Bavar by placing the flow path around at least a portion of an outer peripheral surface of the liquid retaining member as taught by Parker because both Bavar and Parker are directed to hookah subassemblies comprising flow paths, Parker teaches that extending the flow path around a periphery improves flow distribution and flavor, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar device to yield predictable results.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bavar et al. (US 10034491 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Parker (US 20180103683 A1) and Groff (US 20100126517 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Bavar does not teach (I) that said flow path extends around at least a portion of an outer circumferential surface of said liquid retaining member or (II) that smoke is delivered to the retaining member at a point of entry formed in a bottom of said liquid retaining member.
Regarding (I), Parker, directed to a hookah subassembly (hookah 1; Figs. 1, 3; [0016]) comprising a liquid retaining member (smoking chamber 18; [0018]) and a flow path (air flow tubes 56; [0022]) for directing a substance to be smoked to a point of entry in the liquid retaining member that is below an upper surface of the liquid retaining member, teaches that the flow path extends around the circumferential surface to improve air flow distribution and improve flavor ([0023]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Bavar by placing the flow path around at least a portion of an outer circumferential surface of the liquid retaining member as taught by Parker because both Bavar and Parker are directed to hookah subassemblies comprising flow paths, Parker teaches that extending the flow path around a periphery improves flow distribution and flavor, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar device to yield predictable results.
Regarding (II), Groff, directed to a hookah subassembly (smoking appliance 100; Fig. 1; [035]) comprising a liquid retaining member (cylindrical body tube 110; [0035], [0041]) and a flow path (connector 214; [0049]), teaches that the flow path supplies smoke to said liquid retaining member at a point of entry formed in a bottom of said liquid retaining member (diffusion cones 210 formed in a bottom of a liquid retaining member (Fig. 7) disperse vapor through the water ([0042])).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Bavar by supplying smoke from the flow path from a bottom of the liquid retaining member as taught by Groff because both Bavar and Groff are directed to hookah subassemblies comprising flow paths, Groff teaches that introducing the smoke through the bottom may improve distribution in the liquid, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar device to yield predictable results.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bavar et al. (US 10034491 B1).
Regarding claim 6, Bavar teaches a hookah subassembly (water pipe or hookah pipe 100, 200, 300, 1300; col. 8, line 16), comprising:
a liquid retaining member (inner chamber or vessel 364, 721, 1312; Figs. 3, 7, 13; col. 8, lines 19-24; col. 9, line 56; col. 18, line 4; col. 23, lines 65-67) for retaining a liquid to filter a material that is to be smoked prior to being inhaled by a user; and,
a purge smoke control member (purge valve 1326; Fig. 13; col. 24, lines 6-7).
Bavar teaches that the purges may may be located on different aspects of the hookah subassembly (Figs. 13B, 13E).
Bavar does not teach that the purge smoke control member is configured to direct smoke in a generally cross shaped smoke pattern during a purge operation.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Bavar by rearranging the location of the purge smoke control member such that it is configured to direct smoke from the bottom of the device as this involves mere arrangement of parts to achieve a different aesthetic effect.
Arrangement of the purge member would result in a cross-shaped smoke pattern, as smoke would be separated into four portions by the feet on tray 1304 of the device (see Fig. 13A-B) and thus emerge from beneath the device on all four sides of the tray.
Regarding claim 7, modified Bavar teaches that the purge smoke control member is configured to direct smoke in the generally cross shaped smoke pattern during the purge operation below the liquid retaining member (arrangement of the purge member would result in a cross-shaped smoke pattern, as smoke would be separated into four portions by the feet on tray 1304 of the device (see Fig. 13A-B) and thus emerge from beneath the device).
Claims 8-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bavar et al. (US 10034491 B1) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Parker (US 20180103683 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Bavar teaches that the purge smoke control member is configured to direct smoke during the purge operation below the liquid retaining member to provide the generally cross shaped purge smoke pattern (arrangement of the purge member would result in a cross-shaped smoke pattern, as smoke would be separated into four portions by the feet on tray 1304 of the device (see Fig. 13A-B) and thus emerge from beneath the device).
Bavar does not explicitly teach that the smoke blows below each of four sides of the liquid retaining member.
Parker, directed to a hookah subassembly (hookah 1; Figs. 1, 3; [0016]) comprising a liquid retaining member (smoking chamber 18; [0018]) and a flow path (air flow tubes 56; [0022]) for directing a substance to be smoked to a point of entry in the liquid retaining member that is below an upper surface of the liquid retaining member, teaches that the liquid retaining member may have four sides (Fig. 1).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Bavar by configuring the liquid retaining member with four sides as taught by Parker because both Bavar and Parker are directed to hookah subassemblies comprising liquid retaining members, Parker teaches an alternate shape of the liquid retaining member, and this involves substituting one alternative shape for another to yield predictable results. Furthermore, changes in shape, such as from a dome to a cube, are prima facie obvious absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. See MPEP § 2144.04 (IV)(B).
Regarding claim 9, Bavar teaches a first set of two opposing foot portions (see protrusions on the bottom of supporting tray 1304; Fig. 13A).
Bavar does not teach a second set of two opposing foot portions extending between the first set of two opposing foot portions.
Parker teaches a first set of two opposing foot portions (legs 84, 85; Fig. 3; [0029]) and a second set of two opposing foot portions (ribs 82,83; [0029]) extending between the first set of two opposing foot portions, each of the two opposing foot portions of said first set of two opposing foot portions are taller than each of the two opposing foot portions of the second set of two opposing foot portions to allow purge smoke to pass under each foot portion of the second set of two opposing foot portions between the two foot portions of the first set of two opposing foot portions during the purge operation (Fig. 3).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Bavar by using a second set of two opposing foot portions as taught by Parker because both Bavar and Parker are directed to hookah subassemblies comprising first sets of foot portions, Bavar is silent as to the precise connection between the first foot portions and one with ordinary skill would be motivated to look to prior art for a known and suitable structural foot connection, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 10, Bavar teaches that first set of two opposing foot portions form a lowermost portion of the hookah subassembly (Fig. 13A).
Regarding claim 11, Bavar teaches hookah subassembly (water pipe or hookah pipe 100, 200, 300, 1300; col. 8, line 16), comprising:
an internal member (inner chamber or vessel 364, 721, 1312; Figs. 3, 7, 13; col. 8, lines col. 9, line 56; col. 18, line 4; col. 23, lines 65-67) and an outer housing (outer vessel 356, 1314; col. 10, lines 19-22) for housing said internal member, said internal member and said outer housing being configured to form a liquid retaining chamber, section or portion;
said outer housing including a connection portion (central axis hole 359; Fig. 3D; col. 10, lines 17-19) to which a smoked substance bowl (bowl 350; col. 9, lines 9-55) containing a substance to be smoked is operably connected to when the hookah subassembly is used to smoke; and
a smoke flow path (downstem 360, 1324; col. 9, lines 9-55) for delivering smoke to a point of entry (aerator cap 362, 1322; col. 9, lines 9-55; col. 24, lines 5-12) in the liquid retaining chamber, section or portion that is below an upper surface of the liquid retaining chamber, section or portion (Fig. 3C).
Bavar does not teach that a smoke flow path is formed between said outer housing and said internal member.
Parker, directed to a hookah subassembly (hookah 1; Figs. 1, 3; [0016]) comprising a liquid retaining member (smoking chamber 18; [0018]) and a flow path (air flow tubes 56; [0022]) for directing a substance to be smoked to a point of entry in the liquid retaining member that is below an upper surface of the liquid retaining member, teaches that the flow path extends around the peripheral surface to improve air flow distribution and improve flavor ([0023]). Parker further teaches that the flow path supplies smoke to said liquid retaining member below a mid-section of said liquid retaining member (Fig. 3).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Bavar by placing the flow path around at least a portion of an outer peripheral surface of the liquid retaining member as taught by Parker because both Bavar and Parker are directed to hookah subassemblies comprising flow paths, Parker teaches that extending the flow path around a periphery improves flow distribution and flavor, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar device to yield predictable results.
The Examiner notes that while Bavar and Parker not explicitly depict that the smoke flow path is formed between the outer housing and the internal member, upon modification with Parker, it would be within reasonable purview of one having reasonable skill in the art to simply rearrange the smoke flow path to the outer wall of the internal member rather than the inner wall. This would not change the operation of the device and would merely be a design choice.
Regarding claim 13, Bavar teaches that said outer housing includes at least a first cover member and a second cover member (manifold 368; Figs. 3D-3J; col. 9, lines 52-55), said first cover member and said second cover member are configured to surround and house said internal member.
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bavar and Parker as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Chaoui (US 20100326453 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Bavar teaches that additional components may be added to the flow path (col. 16, lines 16-19).
Bavar does not explicitly teach a removable draw flow control member.
Chaoui, directed to a hookah subassembly (hookah or water pipe 100; Fig. 1; [0038]) comprising an outer housing (container 60; [0039]) configured to form a liquid retaining chamber ([0045]), said outer housing including a connection portion (body 80; [0038]) to which a smoked substance bowl (bowl 10; [0036]) containing a substance to be smoked is operably connected, teaches a removable draw flow control member (flow control device 300; Fig. 9; [0053]), wherein when the removable draw flow control member is removed from the hookah subassembly, the hookah subassembly will operate in a wide open smoke draw mode, when the removable draw flow control member is in a first position in the hookah subassembly, the hookah subassembly will operate in a medium draw mode and when the removable draw flow control member is in a second position, the hookah subassembly will operate in a restrictive draw mode ([0053] teaches that the draw flow control member allows the amount of smoke to be adjusted. It would be expected that when the control member is removed, the channel is unobstructed. It would also be expected that the control member would be capable of both medium and restricted draw positions depending on the positioning of the draw control member).
The Examiner notes that making a component removable, such as making separable the draw control member to make an unobstructed flow, is prima facie obvious. See MPEP § 2144.04 (V)(C).
Regarding claim 20, Chaoui teaches that the removable draw flow control member may be any suitable control member ([0053]).
Chaoui does not explicitly teach that the removable draw flow control member is a reversible plate having a first opening and a second opening such that when the first opening is in an operating position the hookah subassembly will operate in the medium draw mode and when the second opening is in an operating position the hookah subassembly will operate in the restrictive draw mode.
However, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would be an obvious engineering design choice to select a reversible plate having a first opening and a second opening such that the two openings have different draw capacities, as this is functionally what any suitable draw control member would perform. Making the draw control member a plate, such as a baffle or an orifice plate would be apparent to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bavar and Parker as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Groff (US 20100126517 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Bavar teaches a smoke flow path (downstem 360, 1324; col. 9, lines 9-55), which defines a hot air chamber, for delivering smoke to a point of entry (aerator cap 362, 1322; col. 9, lines 9-55; col. 24, lines 5-12) in the liquid retaining chamber, section or portion.
Parker teaches that the flow path extends around the peripheral surface to improve air flow distribution and improve flavor ([0023]). The Examiner notes that while Bavar and Parker not explicitly depict that the smoke flow path is formed between the outer housing and the internal member, upon modification with Parker, it would be within reasonable purview of one having reasonable skill in the art to simply rearrange the smoke flow path to the outer wall of the internal member rather than the inner wall. This would not change the operation of the device and would merely be a design choice.
Parker and Bavar do not explicitly teach that the smoke point entry of the liquid retaining chamber, section or portion is disposed in a bottom of the liquid retaining chamber, section or portion.
Groff, directed to a hookah subassembly (smoking appliance 100; Fig. 1; [035]) comprising a liquid retaining member (cylindrical body tube 110; [0035], [0041]) and a flow path (connector 214; [0049]), teaches that the flow path supplies smoke to said liquid retaining member at a point of entry formed in a bottom of said liquid retaining member (diffusion cones 210 formed in a bottom of a liquid retaining member (Fig. 7) disperse vapor through the water ([0042])).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Bavar by supplying smoke from the flow path from a bottom of the liquid retaining member as taught by Groff because both Bavar and Groff are directed to hookah subassemblies comprising flow paths, Groff teaches that introducing the smoke through the bottom may improve distribution in the liquid, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar device to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 15, Bavar teaches that said internal member and said outer housing defining a cold chamber (smoke chamber 1320; Fig. 13; col. 23, line 67- col. 24, line 2) extending around an outer periphery of the liquid retaining chamber, section or portion, said cold chamber is configured to direct smoke that has passed through water in the liquid retaining chamber, section or portion (col. 24, lines 15-32) to a tube connection portion (hose receiver 386; col. 9, lines 57-65; as depicted in hose attachment 1308 in Fig. 13B; col. 23, line 65) configured to receive a tube that a user uses during a smoking mode and a purge mode, wherein the tube connection portion is disposed in a lower portion of the hookah subassembly (Fig. 3B) so that smoke passing through the water in the liquid retaining chamber, section or portion travels downwardly prior to entering the tube connection portion so that water or moisture will not enter the tube connection portion.
Regarding claim 16, Bavar teaches that said internal member and said outer housing defining a purge chamber (purge flow is depicted to flow through purge chamber in Figs. 13C, 13D, 13E, 21B) extending around an outer periphery of the liquid retaining chamber (all are depicted to extend around at least some portion of the outer periphery), section or portion, said purge chamber is configured to purge smoke from the liquid retaining chamber, section or portion during a purge mode (col. 24, lines 36-48; col. 24, line 61- col. 25, line 6; col. 34, lines 22-47).
Regarding claim 17, Bavar teaches that said purge chamber includes a first portion disposed above the liquid retaining chamber (see Annotated Figs. 1 and 2, below), section or portion and a second portion disposed below the liquid retaining chamber section or portion, wherein during a purge mode smoke from the liquid retaining chamber, section or portion to be purged enters the purge chamber and smoke purged from hookah subassembly exists the purge chamber from the second portion (col. 24, lines 36-48).
PNG
media_image1.png
229
381
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1. (Annotated from Bavar Fig. 13C)
PNG
media_image2.png
322
465
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2. (Annotated from Bavar Fig. 21B)
Regarding claim 18, Bavar teaches that the purge chamber is disposed between the hot chamber 1324 and the cold chamber 1320 (see Fig. 13C).
Regarding claim 19, Bavar does not explicitly teach that the tube connection portion is disposed between the first portion of the purge chamber and the second portion of the purge chamber.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Bavar by moving the tube connection to any reasonable position along the hookah device, including to between the first and second portions of the purge chamber (for example, the tube may be located on the upper end of the outer vessel 1314, which would be laterally between the first and second purge chambers), as one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this may improve hose access for a user, and this involves rearrangement of parts, which is prima facie obvious.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,470,876. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are directed to a hookah subassembly comprising a liquid retaining member for retaining a liquid to filter a material that is to be smoked prior to being inhaled by a user and a flow path (or stem) for directing smoke from a smoked substance retaining member (or bowl) including a substance to be smoked to a point of entry in the liquid retaining member that is below an upper surface of the liquid retaining member.
The claims differ in that conflicting claim 1 includes further limitations to the hookah subassembly structure. However, all structural elements of the rejected claim are appropriately taught.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charlotte Davison whose telephone number is (703)756-5484. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-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, Philip Louie can be reached at 571-270-1241. 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.
/C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights