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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 use the word “means,” such that they are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a holding means in claims 12-13.
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 § 102
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Madding et al. (US 2014/0091523 A1; hereinafter Madding).
Regarding claim 1, Madding discloses a security electronic shoe [10] for a casino configured to house a plurality of playing cards to be drawn one by one for a game, comprising: a housing portion [12] configured to house a stacked plurality of playing cards; an opening portion [15] configured to expose a leading playing card among the plurality of playing cards housed in the housing portion [12]; a draw guide portion [20, 36, 38] configured to guide draw of the leading playing card from the opening portion [15]; and a weight [18] configured to push a last playing card of the plurality of playing cards toward the opening portion [15], wherein: a bottom portion [14] of the housing portion [12] slopes so as to descend toward the opening portion [15], the weight [18] is configured to be movable on the bottom portion [14] of the housing portion [12] toward the opening portion [15] in a state pushing the last playing card toward the opening portion [15], according to that the last playing card moves toward the opening portion [15], accompanying that the leading playing card is drawn in sequence, and the housing portion [12] has a structure in which an upper surface [A] (see annotated Figure 2 below for all reference letters) and at least one side surface [B] are opened (see Figure 2; wherein the card shoe [10] is open on top and at the upper sides of the body portion [12] when the shoe cover [24] is removed to accommodate installment of the shoe cover [24]), and the plurality of playing cards can be loaded into the housing portion [12] through the opened portion (paragraphs 0033-0038, Figures 1-11, and annotated Figure 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
342
367
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Madding discloses the security electronic shoe [10] for the casino according to claim 1, wherein the housing portion [12] includes a stopper (see side walls of body portion [12] labeled [C] in annotated Figure 2 above) at a position of the plurality of playing cards corresponding to a lower portion of the opened side surface [B], the stopper [C] configured to restrict a lateral movement of the plurality of playing cards (paragraph 0033 and annotated Figure 2 above).
Regarding claim 3, Madding discloses the security electronic shoe [10] for the casino according to claim 2, wherein: the plurality of playing cards is to be housed in the housing portion [12] such that back surfaces thereof face the opening portion [15], and the weight [18] is configured to contact with a front surface of the last playing card such that the front surface of the last playing card cannot be seen (paragraph 0033 and Figure 9).
Regarding claim 4, Madding discloses the security electronic shoe [10] for the casino according to claim 1, further comprising a side cover [24side] (see annotated Figure 2 above) configured to be movable between a cover position (Figure 1) where the side cover [24side] covers the opened side surface [B] of the housing portion [12] and an open position (Figure 2) where the side cover [24side] opens the opened side surface [B] of the housing portion [12] (paragraphs 0033, 0037-0038, Figures 1, 9, and annotated Figure 2 above).
Regarding claim 5, Madding discloses the security electronic shoe [10] for the casino according to claim 4, wherein the side cover [24side] can perform a rotating movement between the cover position (Figure 1) and the open position (Figure 2) (paragraphs 0033, 0037-0038, Figure 1, and annotated Figure 2 above; wherein a user removes the shoe cover [24] and is capable of performing a rotating movement). Additionally, it should be appreciated that the applicant’s functional language in the claims (the side cover can perform a rotating movement) does not serve to impart patentability. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claims. See MPEP 2114. Furthermore, Madding is capable of performing this function as outlined above.
Regarding claim 6, Madding discloses the security electronic shoe [10] for casino according to claim 4, wherein the side cover [24side] can perform a parallel movement between the cover position (Figure 1) and the open position (Figure 2) (paragraphs 0033, 0037-0038, Figure 1, and annotated Figure 2 above; wherein a user removes the shoe cover [24] and is capable of performing a parallel movement). Additionally, it should be appreciated that the applicant’s functional language in the claims (the side cover can perform a parallel movement) does not serve to impart patentability. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claims. See MPEP 2114. Furthermore, Madding is capable of performing this function as outlined above.
Regarding claim 7, Madding discloses the security electronic shoe [10] for the casino according to claim 2, further comprising: a side cover [24side] configured to be movable between a cover position (Figure 1) where the side cover [24side] covers the opened side surface [B] of the housing portion [12] and an open position (Figure 2) where the side cover [24side] opens the opened side surface [B] of the housing portion [12], wherein a surface [D] of the side cover [24side] opposed to the side surface [B] is positioned more outside than a surface (interior surface of side walls of body portion [12] labeled [C] in annotated Figure 2 above) of the stopper [C] opposed to the side surface [B] when the side cover [24side] is in the cover position (Figure 1) (paragraphs 0033, 0037-0038, Figure 1, and annotated Figure 2 above).
Regarding claim 8, Madding discloses the security electronic shoe [10] for the casino according to claim 1, wherein the side surface [B] is a side surface [B] on a right side facing in a direction of the draw (annotated Figure 2 above).
Regarding claim 9, Madding discloses the security electronic shoe [10] for the casino according to claim 1, wherein the draw guide portion [20, 36, 38] is configured to be removable (paragraphs 0034-0038 and Figures 4-5 and 7-11; wherein the card shield [36] and the cut card [38] are removable).
Regarding claim 10, Madding discloses the security electronic shoe [10] for the casino according to claim 1, wherein the draw guide portion [20, 36, 38] includes a metal part [36] (paragraph 0035: “[t]he card shield 36 can be made of a thin magnetic material) configured to restrain the playing card to be drawn to prevent two playing cards from being drawn at a same time (paragraphs 0035, 0037-0038, and Figures 4, 7, and 9-11; wherein the card shield [36] prevents all playing cards from being drawn). Additionally, it should be appreciated that the applicant’s functional language in the claims (configured to restrain the playing card to be drawn to prevent two playing cards from being drawn at a same time) does not serve to impart patentability. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claims. See MPEP 2114. Furthermore, Madding is capable of performing this function as outlined above.
Regarding claim 11, Madding discloses the security electronic shoe [10] for the casino according to claim 1, wherein the housing portion [12] includes an upper surface cover [24top] (see annotated Figure 2 above) configured to be movable between a cover position (Figure 1) where the upper surface cover [24top] covers upper surfaces of the plurality of playing cards and an open position (Figure 2) where the upper surface cover [24top] opens the upper surfaces of the plurality of playing cards (paragraphs 0033, 0037-0038, Figures 1, 9, and annotated Figure 2 above).
Regarding claim 12, Madding discloses the security electronic shoe [10] for the casino according to claim 1, wherein the housing portion [12] includes a holding means [12, 14, C] configured to hold the weight [18] in a rear position of the housing portion [12] in order to load the plurality of playing cards into the housing portion [12] (paragraph 0033, Figure 9, and annotated Figure 2 above; wherein the body portion [12] and card cradle [14] support the weight [18]). Additionally, it should be appreciated that the applicant’s functional language in the claims (configured to hold the weight in a rear position of the housing portion in order to load the plurality of playing cards into the housing portion) does not serve to impart patentability. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claims. See MPEP 2114. Furthermore, Madding is capable of performing this function as outlined above.
Regarding claim 13, Madding discloses the security electronic shoe [10] for the casino according to claim 12, further comprising: an upper surface cover [24top] configured to be fixable in a cover position (Figure 1) where the upper surface cover [24top] covers the upper surface [A] of the housing portion [12], wherein the holding means [12, 14, C] is configured to release holding of the weight [18] (under gravity due to angled card cradle [14]) according to that the upper surface cover [24top] comes to the cover position (Figure 1) (paragraph 0033, Figure 9, and annotated Figure 2 above).
Regarding claim 14, Madding discloses the security electronic shoe [10] for the casino according to claim 13, further comprising: a side surface cover [24side] configured to be movable between a cover position (Figure 1) where the side surface cover [24side] covers the opened side surface [B] of the housing portion [12] and an open position (Figure 2) where the side surface cover [24side] opens the opened side surface [B] of the housing portion [12], wherein the upper surface cover [24top] is configured to be fixable in the cover position (Figure 1) of the upper surface cover [24top] by positioning the side cover [24side] in the cover position (Figure 1) of the side cover [24side] (paragraphs 0033, 0037-0038, and annotated Figure 2 above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Petrovs et al. (US 2023/0218980 A1), Fleckenstein (US 2007/0216092 A1), Shigeta (US 2017/0095727), Warren et al. (US 6,402,142 B1), and Lee (KR 20170046264 A) which all disclose similar card shoes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREY B. WALTER whose telephone number is (571)270-5286. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30 am - 4:30 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, Eugene Kim can be reached at 571-272-4463. 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.
/AUDREY B. WALTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711