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 .
Applicant’s amendments and comments, received May 22, 2026, have been fully considered by the examiner. The following is a complete response to the May 22, 2026 communication.
It is noted that applicant has filed three separate claim listings. One marked up copy accompanying the Amendment/Request for Reconsideration, one separate marked up copy, and one clean copy. All three copies do not match, and the manner of making amendments is not according to current US practice. Regarding the matching, the marked up copy accompanying the Amendment/Request for Reconsideration still recites “the flexible conveying line slat” at line 10 of that copy, which is different from the clean copy and the separate marked up copy. For the purpose of examination, and in the interest of compact prosecution, the following Office action will pertain to the separate set of marked up claims, which is most consistent with the acceptable manner of making amendments. Applicant is encouraged to respond with an acceptable amendment under 37 CFR 1.121 in any further response(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-7 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.
Initially, it is noted that the preamble of claim 1 has been amended to recite “A surgical smoking knife comprising”. It is suggested claims 2-7 be amended such that the preamble in each recites “The surgical smoking knife of claim X, further comprising”, where “X” would be the appropriately numbered claim from which the claim depends. This would maintain clarity and consistency of the claims.
Regarding claim 1, line 13 recites “at an inner end of the housing of the smoking pipe”. There is no proper antecedent basis for “the housing of the smoking pipe”. Rather, the housing and the smoking pipe are recited as distinct elements in the beginning of the claim. Line 15 of claim 1 lacks proper antecedent basis for “near the inner end”. Lines 16-17 of claim 1 recites “to form an arcuate of cross-section. It appears the term “of” is superfluous. Line 18 of claim 1 recites “two surfaces that facing”, which should apparently read “two surfaces that face”. Lines 26-27 of claim 1 recites “on both side part of the second surface”. It is not clear from the claim that the second surface has two sides (or only two sides), and grammatically the language should read “on both side parts”. Clarification of the second surface and its sides is required.
Claim 2 lacks proper antecedent basis for “the ends of the middle shaping arm” and “the ends of the two side shaping arms”.
Claim 4 lacks proper antecedent basis for “the outer port outside the housing”.
Claim 6 recites “is bent and extended from” which apparently should read “is bent and extends from”.
Applicant is encouraged to thoroughly review subsequent amendments to provide proper antecedent basis for all elements and proper grammatical structure for the language.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL PEFFLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4770. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 am-5 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, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached at (571) 272-1213. 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.
/MICHAEL F PEFFLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/M.F.P/July 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights