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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 7/13/2026 has been entered.
The objections over the Drawings as presented in the Office Action mailed 7/9/2026 pertaining to the limitations of Claims 3, 4, 12, and 13 have been withdrawn based on the amendment filed 7/13/2026. The objections over the Drawings pertaining to the limitations of Claim 1, 2, 5, 6, 11, 14, and 15 as presented in the Office Action mailed 7/9/2026 have not been withdrawn based on the amendment filed 7/13/2026. Further discussion is provided below. The examiner notes that new objections to the Drawings based on the amendment filed 7/13/2026 are presented below.
The objection over Claim 1 as presented in the Office Action mailed 7/9/2026 has been withdrawn based on the amendment filed 7/13/2026. The objection over Claim 3 as presented in the Office Action mailed 7/9/2026 has not been withdrawn based on the amendment filed 7/13/2026. Further discussion is provided below. The examiner notes that further objections to the Claims are presented below.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as presented in the Office Action mailed 7/9/2026 pertaining to the limitations of Claim 1, Claim 3, Claim 4, Claim 7, Claim 8, Claim 9 line 10, Claim 9 line 13, Claim 12, Claim 13, Claim 14, Claim 15, Claim 16, and Claim 17 have been withdrawn based on the amendment filed 7/13/2026. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) pertaining to the limitations of Claim 9 lines 11-12, Claim 9 line 14, and Claim 11 have not been withdrawn based on the amendment filed 7/13/2026. Further discussion is provided below. The examiner notes that new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on the amendment filed 7/13/2026 are presented below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the instruction sheets each assigned to one of the cells and such that opening the cell’s opening provides access to an instruction sheet of Claim 1 line 5-9, the identifier of Claim 1 line 8-9, the indicator of Claim 2 lines 1-2 and Claim 11 lines 1-3, the opening comprising a latch and a dial of Claim 3 lines 1-3 and of Claim 12 lines 1-3, the cell being a pouch containing a card bearing the identifier of Claim 4 lines 1-2 and of Claim 13 lines 1-2, the instruction sheets being paper with written instructions of Claim 5 line 1 and of Claim 14 line 1, the instruction sheet being an electronic display of written instructions of Claim 6 lines 1-2 and of Claim 15 lines 1-2, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 8, 12, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 line 1 “comprises and latch” should be --comprises a latch--
Claim 8 line 1 “hexadron” should be --hexahedron--
Claim 12 line 1 “comprises and latch” should be --comprises a latch--
Claim 17 line 1 “hexadron” should be --hexahedron--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “indicator”, understood to be an indicator for indicating whether the opening has been opened and the cell accessed, in Claim 2 and Claim 11. The indicator is understood to be a dial operable to retract a latch and provide access to the cell or a light which turns on or off, a color change, or a shape change (see Specification paragraph 20).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
With regards to Claim 1 and claims depending therefrom, Claim 1 lines 3-4 recite the limitation “an enclosure defining a plurality Y of cells each having an opening…wherein the opening has an open state and a closed state”. It is unclear as to how the enclosure is “enclosed” relative the plurality of cells each having an opening with open state and closed state, particularly whether the claim requires the enclosure to be enclosed with the plurality of cells and openings of the cells accessible upon opening the enclosure (thereby the structure of the enclosure provides an enclosed access to the cells defined therein), or whether the enclosure “encloses” an instruction sheet or identifier disposed within respective openings of each cell when the cell openings are closed (thereby the structure of the “enclosure” provides a plurality of enclosed cells, each enclosure cell corresponding to an opening having the open state and closed state) or whether another arrangement is intended. For the purpose of examination, the examiner understands this limitation such that the dispenser has a plurality of cells, each cell having an opening having an open state and a closed state, thereby forming individual enclosures each enclosing an instruction sheet or identifier placed within each respective cell enclosure. The applicant is encouraged to clarify in the claim language the structure providing the enclosing aspect of the enclosure, fully supported by the original disclosure.
With regards to Claim 3, line 1 recites the phrasing “The apparatus of claim 0”. Since there is not a Claim 0, the dependency of Claim 3 is unclear, and therefore the scope of Claim 3 is indefinite since it is unclear as to what subject matter is encompassed by the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear as to whether the dependency of Claim 3, altered in the amendment filed 7/13/2026 though not shown with appropriate markings, is intended to be undisturbed from the dependency of Claim 3 as originally filed 7/26/2024 such that Claim 3 depends from Claim 2, or whether the applicant intends Claim 3 to depend from another claim (and if so, which claim). For the purpose of examination, the examiner understands the dependency of Claim 3 to be consistent with the dependency from the claims as originally filed, and that Claim 3 depends from Claim 2. The applicant is encouraged to clarify the dependency of Claim 3.
With regards to Claim 8, line 1 recites the phrasing “The apparatus of claim 0”. Since there is not a Claim 0, the dependency of Claim 8 is unclear, and therefore the scope of Claim 8 is indefinite since it is unclear as to what subject matter is encompassed by the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear as to whether the dependency of Claim 8, altered in the amendment filed 7/13/2026 though not shown with appropriate markings, is intended to be undisturbed from the dependency of Claim 8 as originally filed 7/26/2024 such that Claim 8 depends from Claim 7, or whether the applicant intends Claim 8 to depend from another claim (and if so, which claim). For the purpose of examination, the examiner understands the dependency of Claim 8 to be consistent with the dependency from the claims as originally filed, and that Claim 8 depends from Claim 7. The applicant is encouraged to clarify the dependency of Claim 8.
With regards to Claim 9 and claims depending therefrom, Claim 9 lines 11-12 recite the limitation “retrieving from the selected cell one of either an instruction sheet or an identifier corresponding to the instruction sheet”. It is unclear as to whether both the instruction sheet and identifier are intended to be located within the selected cell, thereby the step of retrieving also includes a selection between the instruction sheet and identifier, or whether only one of an instruction sheet and an identifier are intended to be located within the selected cell such that the step of retrieving merely requires retrieving whichever of the instruction sheet or identifier is located within the selected cell. For the purpose of examination, the examiner understands this limitation such that the step of retrieving includes a selection between the instruction sheet and identifier such that each performer selects either the instruction sheet or the identifier provided within the selected cell. The applicant is encouraged to clarify in the claim language whether the step of retrieving requires a selecting component between the instruction sheet and identifier, or whether the step of retrieving only requires retrieving the single item (instruction sheet or identifier) placed within the selected cell, fully supported by the original disclosure.
With further regards to Claim 9 and claims depending therefrom, Claim 9 line 14 recites the limitation “providing the retrieved instruction sheet or identifier to the performer”. It is unclear as to how the step of “providing” is accomplished, e.g., does a non-performer user complete the steps of selecting one of the cells at random, opening the opening, retrieving the instruction sheet or identifier, and closing the opening, then providing the retrieved instruction sheet or identifier to the performer? Is the process of selecting a cell, opening the cell opening, retrieving the instruction sheet or identifier, and closing the opening performed automatically by the dispenser, the dispenser then also performing the step of providing the retrieved instructions or identifier to the performer? Or does each performer complete the steps of selecting one of the cells at random, opening the opening, retrieving the instruction sheet or identifier, and closing the opening, such that the step of providing the retrieved instruction sheet or identifier is effectively performed by the dispenser during the course of the performer’s completion of the steps? For the purpose of examination, the examiner understands this limitation such that the process steps of selecting one of the cells, opening the opening to the selected cell, retrieving from the selected cell the instruction sheet or identifier, and closing the opening are performed by a user which is not one of the performers, and the user also performs the step of providing the retrieved instruction sheet or identifier to the performer. The applicant is encouraged to clarify in the claim language how the process steps are completed relative the performers, fully supported by the original disclosure.
With regards to Claim 10, line 1 recites the phrasing “The apparatus of claim 0”. Since there is not a Claim 0, the dependency of Claim 10 is unclear, and therefore the scope of Claim 10 is indefinite since it is unclear as to what subject matter is encompassed by the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear as to whether the dependency of Claim 10, altered in the amendment filed 7/13/2026 though not shown with appropriate markings, is intended to be undisturbed from the dependency of Claim 10 as originally filed 7/26/2024 such that Claim 10 depends from Claim 9, or whether the applicant intends Claim 10 to depend from another claim (and if so, which claim). For the purpose of examination, the examiner understands the dependency of Claim 10 to be consistent with the dependency from the claims as originally filed, and that Claim 10 depends from Claim 9. The applicant is encouraged to clarify the dependency of Claim 10.
With regards to Claims 11 and 12, Claim 11 lines 2-3 recite the limitation “wherein the indicator indicates whether the opening has been opened and the cell accessed”. It is unclear as to whether this limitation intends to further limit the structure of the dispenser but not affect the process of using the dispenser, or whether the limitation of Claim 11 intends to further limit the process through a step of indicating, by each indicator, whether the associated opening has been opened and the respective cell accessed. For the purpose of examination, the examiner understands the limitation of Claim 11 to further limit the process through a step of indicating, by each indicator, whether the associated opening has been opened and the respective cell accessed. The applicant is encouraged to clarify in the claim language the intended scope of the claim, particularly including any process steps intended to be performed relative the indicators, fully supported by the original disclosure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The below is the examiner’s statement for reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter, based on the examiner’s best understanding of the scope of the claims.
With regards to Claim 1 and claims depending therefrom, the prior art of record fails to disclose or fairly suggest a number of instruction sheets, wherein each instruction sheet has instructions for one part of the performance, wherein each instruction sheet is assigned to one of the cells, wherein, for each of the cells, opening the cell’s opening provides access to one of either the instruction sheet or an identifier corresponding to the instruction sheet, as required by the claim.
With regards to Claim 9 and claims depending therefrom, the prior art of record fails to disclose or fairly suggest a process for using a dispenser of performance instructions for an impromptu performance by a number X of performers, a number Z of instruction sheets, each instruction sheet has instructions for one part of the performance, and each instruction sheet is assigned to one of the cells; the process comprising, for each performer: selecting one of the cells of the dispenser at random; opening the opening to the selected cell of the dispenser; retrieving from the selected cell one of either an instruction sheet or an identifier corresponding to the instruction sheet; closing the opening; providing the retrieved instruction sheet or identifier to the performer, as required by the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner responds below.
With regards to the applicant’s argument that the applicant shall furnish a drawing where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter to be patented, and the examiner has not and cannot reasonably argue that any of the claimed features absent from the drawings are necessary for understanding the claimed subject matter, and that the examiner recognize that a claim can recite features which are routine matters of technical choice and therefore there is no need to show them in the drawings, the examiner directs the applicant to 37 C.F.R. 1.83(a), which states “The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims”. While 37 C.F.R. 1.83(a) continues to state that “conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box)”. It is clear from 37 C.F.R. 1.83(a) that features of the invention specified in the claim must be shown in the Drawings, though conventional features may be illustrated in the form of a graphical drawing symbol rather than shown by detailed illustration. While these conventional features may be shown in the form of a graphical drawing symbol rather than shown by detailed illustration, these conventional features, if specified in the claims, must still be shown in the Drawings. Therefore, the recited features of the invention must be shown in the Drawings, and the applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Please see also the above objections to the Drawings.
With regards to the applicant’s argument that Claim 1 does not recite that the enclosure is enclosed, the examiner directs the applicant to the language of Claim 1. Claim 1 recites on lines 2-3 “the dispenser comprising: an enclosure defining a plurality Y of cells each having an opening, wherein Y is equal to or greater than X, and wherein the opening has an open state and a closed state”. An enclosure, as defined by Merriam-Webster (please see attached reference “Enclosure - Definition & Meaning”) is (1) the act or action of enclosing: the quality or state of being enclosed; (2) something that encloses; (3) something enclosed. Therefore, as discussed above in the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), it is unclear as to how the enclosing is enacted, whether by being enclosed (e.g., the structure of the dispenser enclosing the plurality of cells), or by enclosing something else (e.g., by the cells enclosing the openings associated therewith), or whether another arrangement is intended.
With regards to the applicant’s argument that the examiner’s interpretation of several claims is in keeping with how one of ordinary skill in the art would do so and no clarification is needed, the examiner notes that the interpretations provided in the Office Action mailed 7/9/2026 are for purposes of examination rather than purpose of rewriting claim scope. These interpretations are provided in the absence of clarity regarding the claim language, and the interpretation identified by the examiner does not preclude alternative interpretations of the claim scope. As stated in MPEP §2173, “It is of utmost importance that patents issue with definite claims that clearly and precisely inform persons skilled in the art of the boundaries of protected subject matter.” Therefore, the clarity should be provided in the claim.
Prior Art Referral
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In addition to the prior art discussed in this action, the applicant is directed to form 892, and particularly the references Krawczyk (US 2012/0267990), which discloses at least an apparatus comprising a dispenser comprising an enclosure having a plurality of cells including an opening and each having an open state and a closed state, each opening being closeable by means of a door with a hinge, and an indicator indicating a door which is unlocked for accessing, and indicating cells which have been opened.
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 ERIN KRYUKOVA whose telephone number is (571)272-3761. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a.m. - 4p.m.
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, Jong-Suk (James) Lee can be reached at 5712727044. 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.
/ERIN KRYUKOVA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights