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 .
Compact Prosecution
On 14 October 2025, the examiner placed a telephone call to the Attorney of Record, Mitchell Georgia Hoard. The call was not answered. In the subsequent voicemail, the examiner indicated the allowable subject matter, infra, and proposed amending the claims to incorporate those allowable claims and the claims from which they depend. As of 10 November 2025, the voicemail has not been returned.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the second of the first rod” should recite --the second end of the first rod--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 16 is 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 16, as written, depends from claim 12. This appears to be a drafting error–the claim should depend from claim 14 which provided proper antecedent basis for “the tip insert”. Accordingly, the claim is indefinite due to the lack of antecedent basis for the term “tip insert”.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Holand (6,105,640).
In re claim 1, Holand discloses a cone filling apparatus (20, “cone” is the article worked upon by the apparatus in its intended use and is not germane to the patentability of the apparatus, MPEP 2115) comprising:
a base (22);
a support (24/40a); and
a funnel (26/32) comprising an outlet hole (30/36);
wherein: the support is interposed between the base and the funnel such that the support is offset from the outlet hole of the funnel (fig.1);
the support is removably coupled to the base (col.2 ln.47-53); and
the funnel is removably coupled to the support (col.3 ln.57-59).
In re claim 17, Holand discloses a cone filling apparatus (20, “cone” is the article worked upon by the apparatus in its intended use and is not germane to the patentability of the apparatus, MPEP 2115) comprising:
a base (22);
a support (24); and
a funnel (26/32) comprising an outlet hole (30/36); and
a packing tool (shovel shown in fig.8);
wherein: the support is interposed between the base and the funnel such that the support is offset from the outlet hole of the funnel (fig.1);
the support is removably coupled to the base (col.2 ln.47-53);
the packing tool disposes ground substance into the funnel (fig.8, col.5 ln.42-59); and
the funnel is removably coupled to the support (col.3 ln.57-59).
In re claim 18, Holand discloses the cone filling apparatus as claimed in claim 17, wherein the support is composed of a plurality of rods (24, 40a) wherein the plurality of rods comprise:
a first rod (24); and
a second rod (40a);
wherein: the first rod slidably engages the second rod such that the distance between the base and the funnel is adjustably variable (fig.3).
In re claim 19, Holand discloses the cone filling apparatus as claimed in claim 18, wherein a cone is interposed between the funnel and the base, such that the cone is held between the tip insert of the base and the outlet hole of the funnel (the cone is the article worked upon by the claimed apparatus, for the cone to have patentable weight the claim would have to be amended to recite a system. See MPEP 2115).
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.
Claim(s) 2-4, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holand in view of Benson (10,028,618).
In re claim 2, Holand discloses the base has a support receiver (22a), however the support receiver is a male component that is inserted into the hollow support rod. Accordingly, Holland fails to explicitly disclose the support is removably inserted into the support receiver of the base.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to swap the male and female components, since it has been held by the courts that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.
Additionally, Holland also fails to explicitly disclose the tip insert as claimed.
However, Benson teaches another cone filling apparatus (100), wherein the base (240) is a disk (fig.3) comprising:
a tip insert (250);
the tip insert is axially aligned with the outlet hole (140) of the funnel (figs.1-2 show axial alignment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the teachings of Benson in Holland for the purpose of creating a hands-free filling device, thereby simplifying use and eliminating the need for a second user to hold the cone as it is filled.
In re claim 3, Holand discloses the cone filling apparatus as claimed in claim 2 wherein the support is composed of a plurality of rods (24, 40a) wherein said rods move telescopically (fig.3).
In re claim 4, Holand discloses the cone filling apparatus as claimed in claim 3, wherein the plurality of rods comprise:
a first rod (24); and
a second rod (40a);
wherein: the first rod slidably engages the second rod such that the distance between the base and the funnel is adjustably variable (fig.3).
In re claim 9, Holand discloses the cone filling apparatus as claimed in claim 2, wherein a cone is interposed between the funnel and the base, such that the cone is held between the tip insert of the base and the outlet hole of the funnel (the cone is the article worked upon by the claimed apparatus, for the cone to have patentable weight the claim would have to be amended to recite a system. See MPEP 2115).
Alternatively, Benson discloses the claimed cone (see dashed line “pre-rolled non-filled cone joint” in figs.1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the teachings of Benson in Holand as an obvious design choice for the purpose of providing a desired device to be filled, thereby filling the desired device. Selection of a specific device to fill is an obvious engineering design choice that requires no skill at all.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holand in view of Benson and Drunen (2,696,336).
In re claim 5, Holand discloses the first rod is a hollow elongated member (24, fig.4).
However, Holand and Benson fail to explicitly show, but Drunen teaches another cone filling apparatus as claimed in claim 4 wherein:
the first rod (7) comprising: a first end (end inserted into socket, 6, of the base); and a second end (top end connected to the second rod);
the second rod comprises: a first end (end connected to the first rod); and a second end (end inserted into socket, 12, of the funnel);
wherein: the first end of the first rod is removably inserted into the support receiver of the base (fig.2, col.1 ln.41-47);
the second of the first rod receives the first end of the second rod such that the first end of the second rod slidably traverses within the first rod (figs.1-2); and
the second end of the second rod removably couples to the funnel (fig.2, col.1 ln.41-47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the teachings of Drunen in Holand for the purpose of providing an apparatus of simple construction that can be readily disassembled for packaging, sale, storage, and/or cleaning. Additionally, making a once integral structure into two parts requires no skill and is a routine engineering design choice. See MPEP 2144.04(V)(C).
In re claim 6, Drunen further teaches the cone filling apparatus as claimed in claim 5, wherein the funnel comprises a support receiver (12, 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the teachings of Drunen in Holand for the purpose of providing an apparatus of simple construction that can be readily disassembled for packaging, sale, storage, and/or cleaning. Additionally, making a once integral structure into two parts requires no skill and is a routine engineering design choice. See MPEP 2144.04(V)(C).
In re claim 7, Drunen further teaches the cone filling apparatus as claimed in claim 6, wherein the second end of the second rod is removably inserted into the support receiver of the funnel (fig.2, col.1 ln.41-47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the teachings of Drunen in Holand for the purpose of providing an apparatus of simple construction that can be readily disassembled for packaging, sale, storage, and/or cleaning. Additionally, making a once integral structure into two parts requires no skill and is a routine engineering design choice. See MPEP 2144.04(V)(C).
Claim(s) 10-13, 15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holand in view of Drunen.
In re claim 10, Holand discloses a cone filling apparatus (20, “cone” is the article worked upon by the apparatus in its intended use and is not germane to the patentability of the apparatus, MPEP 2115) comprising:
a base (22);
a support (24, 40a); and
a funnel (26/32);
wherein: the support comprises a first rod (24) and a second rod (40a);
the support is interposed between the funnel and the base (figs.1 & 3);
the first rod of the support is removably coupled to the base (figs.3 & 7); and
the first rod and the second rod telescopically engage such that the distance between the base and the funnel is adjustably variable (fig.3).
However, Holand fails to explicitly show the second rod of the support is removably coupled to the funnel.
Drunen teaches another cone filling apparatus wherein the second rod of the support is removably coupled to the funnel (at socket, 12, see fig.2 and col.1 ln.41-47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the teachings of Drunen in Holand for the purpose of providing an apparatus of simple construction that can be readily disassembled for packaging, sale, storage, and/or cleaning. Additionally, making a once integral structure into two parts requires no skill and is a routine engineering design choice. See MPEP 2144.04(V)(C).
In re claim 11, Holand discloses the base has a support receiver (22a), however the support receiver is a male component that is inserted into the hollow support rod. Accordingly, Holland fails to explicitly disclose the support is removably inserted into the support receiver of the base.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to swap the male and female components, since it has been held by the courts that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04. This is additionally supported by the teachings of Drunen which shows the female support in the base with the male component of the rod inserted into the base.
In re claim 12, Drunen further teaches the cone filling apparatus as claimed in claim 11, wherein the funnel comprises a support receiver (12, 13) such that the second rod removably inserts into the support receiver of the funnel (fig.2, col.1 ln.41-47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the teachings of Drunen in Holand for the purpose of providing an apparatus of simple construction that can be readily disassembled for packaging, sale, storage, and/or cleaning. Additionally, making a once integral structure into two parts requires no skill and is a routine engineering design choice. See MPEP 2144.04(V)(C).
In re claim 13, Holand discloses the cone filling apparatus as claimed in claim 12 wherein the funnel further comprises an outlet hole such the support receiver of the funnel is offset from the outlet hole (fig.1).
In re claim 15, Holand discloses the first rod is a hollow elongated member (24, fig.4).
However, Holand fails to explicitly show, but Drunen teaches another cone filling apparatus wherein:
the first rod (7) comprising: a first end (end inserted into socket, 6, of the base); and a second end (top end connected to the second rod);
the second rod comprises: a first end (end connected to the first rod); and a second end (end inserted into socket, 12, of the funnel);
wherein: the first end of the first rod is removably inserted into the support receiver of the base (fig.2, col.1 ln.41-47);
the second of the first rod receives the first end of the second rod such that the first end of the second rod slidably traverses within the first rod (figs.1-2); and
the second end of the second rod removably couples to the funnel (fig.2, col.1 ln.41-47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the teachings of Drunen in Holand for the purpose of providing an apparatus of simple construction that can be readily disassembled for packaging, sale, storage, and/or cleaning. Additionally, making a once integral structure into two parts requires no skill and is a routine engineering design choice. See MPEP 2144.04(V)(C).
In re claim 20, Holand discloses the cone filling apparatus as claimed in claim 19 wherein the packing tool comprises:
a scoop (scoop of the shovel shown in fig.8); and
a handle (handle of shovel shown in fig.8);
wherein: the scoop is positioned at a distal end of the handle (fig.8).
However, Holand is silent as to the limitation: the handle is traversable through the outlet hole of the funnel.
Holand in figure 8 shows a shovel handle of a size that would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to come to the reasonable conclusion that the handle possesses the function claimed. The applicant is advised that it has been held by the courts that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holand in view of Drunen and Benson.
In re claim 14, Holand fails to explicitly disclose the cone filling apparatus as claimed in claim 13 wherein the base comprises a tip insert such that said tip insert is aligned with the outlet hole of the funnel.
However, Benson teaches another cone filling apparatus (100), wherein the base (240) comprises a tip insert (250) such that the tip insert is aligned with the outlet hole (140) of the funnel (figs.1-2 show alignment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the teachings of Benson in Holland for the purpose of creating a hands-free filling device, thereby simplifying use and eliminating the need for a second user to hold the cone as it is filled.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art of record, alone or in combination discloses or fairly suggests: wherein the tip insert comprises a first cutout and a second cutout; the first cutout is a circular recess; the second cutout is a circular recess; and the first cutout and the second cutout are concentrically arranged such that the second cutout is recessed into the first cutout” in the combinations as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Timothy P. Kelly whose telephone number is (571)270-7615. The examiner can normally be reached from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (ET) on Monday, Thursday, and Friday.
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, Craig M Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607. 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.
/Timothy P. Kelly/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753