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
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.
Claims 1-11, 13, 15-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kesselman (US 20200170293 A1) in view of Collier (US 20180055087 A1).
Claims 1 and 8-9: Kesselman teaches a packing device (fig. 5 and [17-21], #10) for smoking cones comprising: a body (14) configured to hold multiple smoking cones therein (channels 30 can hold conical wrappers 12); a plate (16) slidably coupled to the body (16 rotatably slides on 14); and a removable poker (18) stored within the body (14).
Kesselman does not explicitly teach that the plate is a scooper,
wherein the scooper comprises: a front wall; a rear wall; and two side walls; wherein the front wall, rear wall, and two side walls of the scooper together define an open top end, an open bottom end, and an open center configured to receive the body of the packing device therethrough,
and two elongated grooves, each of the elongated grooves formed on one of two side outer surfaces of the body of the packing device; and two elongated projections, each of the elongated projections formed on an interior surface of one of the two side walls of the scooper; wherein the two elongated grooves and the two elongated projections together form a tongue and groove connection between the body of the packing device and the scooper.
Collier teaches a packing device (fig. 7 and [21-22]) comprising a scooper (3 forms scoops in its cavities) slidably coupled to a body (1 and 3 couple together by sliding and snapping) and comprising:
a front wall (closest-to-viewer wall of 3); a rear wall (farthest-from-viewer wall of 3); and two side walls (leftmost and rightmost walls of 2), wherein the front wall, rear wall, and two side walls of the scooper (3) define an open top end (topmost end of 3 has openings), an open bottom end (bottommost end of 3 has an opening), and an open center (interior volume of 3) configured to receive a body (1) of a packing device therethrough,
and two elongated grooves (fig. 5-6 and [20], #6), each of the elongated grooves (6) formed on one of two side outer surfaces (leftmost and rightmost outer surfaces of 1) of the body (1) of the packing device; and two elongated projections (7), each of the elongated projections (7) formed on an interior surface of one of the two side walls (leftmost and rightmost inner surfaces of 3) of the scooper (3); wherein the two elongated grooves (6) and the two elongated projections (7) together form a tongue and groove connection (tongue 7 and groove 6 couple together) between the body (1) of the packing device and the scooper (3), such that the scooper can funnel product into cones [18].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add Collier’s scooper comprising a front wall, a rear wall, and two side walls that together define an open top end, an open bottom end, and an open center configured to receive the body of the packing device therethrough to Kesselman’s device, slidably connected to Kesselman’s body by two elongated grooves, each of the elongated grooves formed on one of two side outer surfaces of the body of the packing device; and two elongated projections, each of the elongated projections formed on an interior surface of one of the two side walls of the scooper; wherein the two elongated grooves and the two elongated projections together form a tongue and groove connection between the body of the packing device and the scooper, because doing so would enable the scooper to funnel product into cones insertable into Kesselman’s channels.
Claim 2: modified Kesselman teaches the packing device of claim 1 wherein the body (fig. 2, #14) comprises:
an open top end (22); an open bottom end (26) positioned opposite from the open top end (22); an enclosed center (body of 14) positioned between the open top end (22) and the open bottom end (26);
at least two tapered channels ([21], unlabeled #30s) passing through the enclosed center (body of 14); and a center channel (fig. 5 and [22], #32) that passes through a portion of the enclosed center (body of 14) and that is positioned between the at least two tapered channels (30s).
PNG
media_image1.png
39
360
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 3: modified Kesselman teaches the packing device of claim 2 wherein each of the at least two tapered channels (fig. 2 and [21], unlabeled #30s) comprises: a circular open top end (topmost end of unlabeled 30) that is contiguous with the open top end (22) of the body (14); and an open circular bottom end (bottommost end of unlabeled 30) that is contiguous with the open bottom end (26) of the body (14).
PNG
media_image1.png
39
360
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 4: modified Kesselman teaches the packing device of claim 2 wherein the center channel (fig. 5 and [22], #32) comprises: a circular open top end (topmost end of 32) that is contiguous with the open top end (22) of the body (14); and a circular closed bottom end (32 is cylindrical or conic and extends through a portion of 14 which teaches that 32 terminates within 14) that terminates within the enclosed center of the body (14).
Modified Kesselman does not explicitly teach that the circular open top end is instead a circular open bottom end, and the circular closed bottom end is instead a circular closed top end, i.e., the center channel opens in a downward direction.
Rearranging Kesselman’s center channel (fig. 5 and [22], #32) from opening in an upward direction to opening in a downward direction would maintain access to the poker (18) and maintain functionality of the device. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C): In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950): the courts have held that shifting the position of the starting switch was unpatentable because it would not have modified the operation of the device.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to rearrange Kesselman’s center channel such that the circular open top end is instead a circular open bottom end, and the circular closed bottom end is instead a circular closed top end, because doing so would maintain access to the poker and would be a patentably indistinct rearrangement of parts.
Claim 5: modified Kesselman teaches the packing device of claim 2 wherein the center channel (fig. 5 and [22], #32) has a constant diameter along its length (32 is cylindrical).
Claim 6: modified Kesselman teaches the packing device of claim 2 wherein the center channel (fig. 5 and [22], #32) is tapered (32 is conic).
Claim 7: modified Kesselman teaches the packing device of claim 6.
Modified Kesselman does not explicitly teach that the center channel is positioned in an opposing orientation with respect to the at least two tapered channels.
Rearranging Kesselman’s center channel (fig. 5 and [22], #32) from opening in an upward direction to opening in a downward direction would maintain access to the poker (18) and maintain functionality of the device. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C): In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950): the courts have held that shifting the position of the starting switch was unpatentable because it would not have modified the operation of the device.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to rearrange Kesselman’s center channel such that the circular open top end is instead a circular open bottom end, and the circular closed bottom end is instead a circular closed top end, because doing so would maintain access to the poker and would be a patentably indistinct rearrangement of parts.
Claims 10-11: the packing device of claim 2 further comprising:
a cap (fig. 5 and [19-20], #20) removably couplable to the open top end (22) of the body (14) and removably couplable to the open bottom end (26) of the body (14);
and a gasket ([34], #20B) coupled about a neck of the cap (20), the gasket (20B) being configured to create a friction fit ([33], #20 can seal #22 which teaches a friction fit) between the cap (20) and either the open top end (22) of the body (14) of the packing device or the open bottom end (26) of the body (14) of the packing device.
Modified Kesselman does not explicitly teach that the cap is two caps,
and the gasket is two gaskets.
Duplicating Kesselman’s cap and gasket into two caps and two gaskets would yield the expected result of two caps insertable into the body of the packing device. Kesselman’s single cap (fig. 5 and [19-20], #20) and gasket (20B) is already insertable into either the open top end (22) or the open bottom end (26), so duplicating the single cap and gasket would merely yield two caps and two gaskets to cover the body. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B): In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960): the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to duplicate Kesselman’s cap and gasket into two caps and two gaskets, because doing so would be a patentably indistinct duplication of parts.
Claim 13: modified Kesselman teaches the packing device of claim 2 wherein the poker (fig. 5 and [31-32], #18) comprises: a proximal end (18A which was repositioned to protrude into 26) configured to protrude from the open bottom end (26) of the body (14) of the packing device; an elongated body (18B); and a distal end (tip end of 18B); wherein the elongated body (18B) of the poker (18) and the distal end (tip end of 18B) of the poker (18) are configured to be housed within the center channel (32).
Claim 15: modified Kesselman teaches the packing device of claim 13 wherein the poker (fig. 5 and [32], #18) further comprises threading (18C) formed on its elongated body (18B) near its proximal end (18A), the threading (18C) of the poker (18) being configured to mate with corresponding threading (34) formed on an interior surface of a circular open bottom end (40 which was repositioned to abut 26) of the center channel (32).
Claim 16: Kesselman teaches a packing device (fig. 5 and [17-21], #10) for smoking cones comprising:
a body (14) comprising: an open top end (22); an open bottom end (26) positioned opposite from the open top end (22); an enclosed center (body of 14) positioned between the open top end (22) and the open bottom end (26);
two tapered channels ([21], unlabeled #30s) passing through the enclosed center (body of 14), each of the two tapered channels (unlabeled 30s) being configured to hold a smoking cone (12) therein;
and a tapered center channel ([22], #32 is conic) that passes through a portion of the enclosed center (body of 14); and a removable poker (18) stored within the tapered center channel (32).
PNG
media_image1.png
39
360
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kesselman does not explicitly teach that the tapered center channel is positioned in an opposing orientation between the two tapered channels; and a scooper slidably coupled to the body.
Rearranging Kesselman’s tapered center channel (fig. 5 and [22], #32) from opening in an upward direction to opening in a downward direction would maintain access to the poker (18) and maintain functionality of the device. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C): In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950): the courts have held that shifting the position of the starting switch was unpatentable because it would not have modified the operation of the device.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to rearrange Kesselman’s center channel such that the circular open top end is instead a circular open bottom end, and the circular closed bottom end is instead a circular closed top end, because doing so would maintain access to the poker and would be a patentably indistinct rearrangement of parts.
Collier teaches a packing device (fig. 7 and [21-22]) comprising a scooper (3 forms scoops in its cavities) slidably coupled to a body (1 and 3 couple together by sliding and snapping), such that the scooper can funnel product into cones [18].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add Collier’s scooper slidably connected to Kesselman’s body, because doing so would enable the scooper to funnel product into cones insertable into Kesselman’s channels.
Claim 17: modified Kesselman teaches the packing device of claim 16 further comprising: a cap (fig. 5 and [19-20], #20) removably couplable to the open top end (22) of the body (14) and removably couplable to the open bottom end (26) of the body (14); and a gasket (20B) coupled about a neck of the cap (20), the gasket being configured to create a friction fit ([33], #20 can seal #22 which teaches a friction fit) between the cap (20) and the open top end (22) of the body (14) of the packing device.
Modified Kesselman does not explicitly teach that the cap is two caps, and the gasket is two gaskets.
Duplicating Kesselman’s cap and gasket into two caps and two gaskets would yield the expected result of two caps insertable into the body of the packing device. Kesselman’s single cap (fig. 5 and [19-20], #20) and gasket (20B) is already insertable into either the open top end (22) or the open bottom end (26), so duplicating the single cap and gasket would merely yield two caps and two gaskets to cover the body. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B): In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960): the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to duplicate Kesselman’s cap and gasket into two caps and two gaskets, because doing so would be a patentably indistinct duplication of parts.
Claim 19: modified Kesselman teaches the packing device of claim 16 wherein the poker (fig. 5 and [31-32], #18) comprises: a proximal end (18A which was repositioned to protrude into 26) configured to protrude from the open bottom end (26) of the body (14) of the packing device; an elongated body (18B); and a distal end (tip end of 18B); wherein the elongated body (18B) of the poker (18) and the distal end (tip end of 18B) of the poker (18) are configured to be housed within the center channel (32).
Claims 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kesselman (US 20200170293 A1) in view of Collier (US 20180055087 A1) as applied to claims 3 and 16 in further view of Gause (US 20210282451 A1).
Claims 12 and 18: modified Kesselman teaches the packing device of claims 3 and 16.
Modified Kesselman does not explicitly teach two cylindrical plugs, each cylindrical plug comprising: a cylindrical body configured to be inserted into the circular open top end of one of the at least two tapered channels; and a tab extending upwardly from the cylindrical body, the tab being configured for gripping of the cylindrical plug.
Gause teaches a packing device (fig. 2 and [40]) comprising two cylindrical plugs (110) each comprising a cylindrical body (body of 110) configured to be inserted into a circular open top end (open ends of 108) of one of two channels (108); and a tab (loop of 110) extending upwardly from the cylindrical body (body of 110), the tab (loop of 110) being configured for gripping of the cylindrical plug (body of 110), such that the cylindrical plugs can close the channels to prevent filling [34].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add Gause’s two cylindrical plugs to Kesselman’s channels, each cylindrical plug comprising: a cylindrical body configured to be inserted into the circular open top end of one of the at least two tapered channels; and a tab extending upwardly from the cylindrical body, the tab being configured for gripping of the cylindrical plug, because doing so would enable the plugs to close the channels to prevent filling.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kesselman (US 20200170293 A1) in view of Collier (US 20180055087 A1) as applied to claim 10 in further view of Swanson (US 20170119043 A1).
Claim 14: modified Kesselman teaches the packing device of claim 10.
Modified Kesselman does not explicitly teach that a proximal end of the poker is coupled to an interior surface of a bottom portion of the bottom cap.
Swanson teaches a packing device (fig. 3 and [26]) comprising a poker (38) having a proximal end (topmost end of 38) coupled to an interior surface of a bottom portion of a cap (14), such that a user can move the poker by holding the cap [28].
Integrating Kesselman’s poker and cap together would maintain Kesselman’s functionality of enabling a user to pack product into cones and would, absent evidence to the contrary, be an obvious engineering choice. See MPEP 2144.04(V)(B): In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965); Schenck v. Nortron Corp., 713 F.2d 782, 218 USPQ 698 (Fed. Cir. 1983): the courts have held that "the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice" absent insight contrary to the understandings and expectations of the art.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to integrate Kesselman’s poker and cap together by coupling a proximal end of the poker to an interior surface of a bottom portion of the bottom cap, because doing so would enable a user to move the poker by holding the cap and would otherwise be a patentably indistinct integration of parts.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kesselman (US 20200170293 A1) in view of Collier (US 20180055087 A1) and Gause (US 20210282451 A1).
Claim 20: Kesselman teaches a packing device (fig. 5 and [17-21], #10) for smoking cones comprising:
a body (14) comprising: an open top end (22); an open bottom end (26) positioned opposite from the open top end (22); an enclosed center (body of 14) positioned between the open top end (22) and the open bottom end (26);
two tapered channels ([21], unlabeled #30s) passing through the enclosed center (body of 14), each of the two tapered channels (unlabeled 30s) being configured to hold a smoking cone (12) therein;
and a tapered center channel ([22], #32 is conic) that passes through a portion of the enclosed center (body of 14);
a cap ([19-20], #20) removably couplable to the open top end (22) of the body (14) and removably couplable to the open bottom end (26) of the body (14); a gasket (20B) coupled about a neck of the cap (20), the gasket (20B) being configured to create a friction fit ([33], #20 can seal #22 which teaches a friction fit) between the cap (20) and the open top end (22) of the body (14) of the packing device;
and a removable poker (18) stored within the tapered center channel (32).
PNG
media_image1.png
39
360
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kesselman does not explicitly teach that the tapered center channel is positioned in an opposing orientation between the two tapered channels; the cap is two caps; the gasket is two gaskets; two cylindrical plugs, each cylindrical plug being configured to be inserted into a circular open top end of one of the two tapered channels; and a scooper slidably coupled to the body.
Rearranging Kesselman’s center channel (fig. 5 and [22], #32) from opening in an upward direction to opening in a downward direction would maintain access to the poker (18) and maintain functionality of the device. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C): In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950): the courts have held that shifting the position of the starting switch was unpatentable because it would not have modified the operation of the device.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to rearrange Kesselman’s center channel such that the circular open top end is instead a circular open bottom end, and the circular closed bottom end is instead a circular closed top end, because doing so would maintain access to the poker and would be a patentably indistinct rearrangement of parts.
Duplicating Kesselman’s cap and gasket into two caps and two gaskets would yield the expected result of two caps insertable into the body of the packing device. Kesselman’s single cap (fig. 5 and [19-20], #20) and gasket (20B) is already insertable into either the open top end (22) or the open bottom end (26), so duplicating the single cap and gasket would merely yield two caps and two gaskets to cover the body. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B): In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960): the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to duplicate Kesselman’s cap and gasket into two caps and two gaskets, because doing so would be a patentably indistinct duplication of parts.
Gause teaches a packing device (fig. 2 and [40]) comprising two cylindrical plugs (110) each comprising a cylindrical body (body of 110) configured to be inserted into a circular open top end (open ends of 108) of one of two channels (108); and a tab (loop of 110) extending upwardly from the cylindrical body (body of 110), the tab (loop of 110) being configured for gripping of the cylindrical plug (body of 110), such that the cylindrical plugs can close the channels to prevent filling [34].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add Gause’s two cylindrical plugs to Kesselman’s channels, each cylindrical plug comprising: a cylindrical body configured to be inserted into the circular open top end of one of the at least two tapered channels; and a tab extending upwardly from the cylindrical body, the tab being configured for gripping of the cylindrical plug, because doing so would enable the plugs to close the channels to prevent filling.
Collier teaches a packing device (fig. 7 and [21-22]) comprising a scooper (3 forms scoops in its cavities) slidably coupled to a body (1 and 3 couple together by sliding and snapping), such that the scooper can funnel product into cones [18].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add Collier’s scooper slidably connected to Kesselman’s body, because doing so would enable the scooper to funnel product into cones insertable into Kesselman’s channels.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tobey C. Le whose telephone number is (703)756-5516. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:30-18:30 ET.
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.
/TOBEY C LE/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights