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 .
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See the specification of the subject application at [0004]. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
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 1-2 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.
Claim 1 is indefinite because the phrase “the two storage parts” in lines 10 and 11 therein lack antecedent basis. What “two storage parts” is the claim referring to on lines 10-11 thereof?
Claim 1 is also indefinite because it contains a claim limitation that is a narrower range within a broader range. Therefore, it is not apparent weather what is encompassed in the claim is the broader range or the narrower one. Note the claim limitation “the operational opening space is formed over a range from a center of the coin stored in the storage part through a rear of the coin opposite to the aperture, and the operational opening space is formed such that the center of the coin adjacent to the aperture opposed thereto” on lines 15-17 of the claim.
Claim 1 is also indefinite because the phrase “the operational opening space is formed such that the center of the coin adjacent to the aperture opposed thereto” appears to be missing text and therefore cannot be completely understood.
Claim 1 is also indefinite because it is drafted in such a way that it is unclear whether what is claimed is the sub-combination of the coin holder only or the combination of the coin holder and coins. For example, see line 3 of the claim that suggests that what is claimed is the noted sub-combination. Contrast this with at least the claim limitations in lines 10-12 and 18-19 of the claim, and with the limitations “the operational opening space is formed over a range from a center of the coin stored in the storage part through a rear of the coin opposite to the aperture, and the operational opening space is formed such that the center of the coin adjacent to the aperture opposed thereto” as noted above, all of which appear to structurally limit the coin holder by reference to the coins, and therefore, suggest that what is claimed is the noted combination.
In comparing the claims with the prior art as below, the claims are interpreted as being drawn to the noted combination in order to give effect to the structural limitations on the coin holder that depend on the coins. On the other hand, amendments to the claims are required to clarify their scope.
Claims 1-2 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. As indicated above, the claims are interpreted as if the coins recited therein are a part of the claimed combination.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB K ACKUN whose telephone number is (571)272-4418. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 11am-7pm.
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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at (571) 270-5531. 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.
/JACOB K ACKUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736