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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/13/26.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 5/13/26 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 2/23/24, 1/15/25, and 3/26/2026 were timely filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Due to the large number of references the examiner requests that Applicant point out any particularly relevant references to the claimed invention.
Although a concise explanation of the relevance of the information is not required for English language information, applicants are encouraged to provide a concise explanation of why the English-language information is being submitted and how it is understood to be relevant. Concise explanations (especially those which point out the relevant pages and lines) are helpful to the Office, particularly where documents are lengthy and complex and applicant is aware of a section that is highly relevant to patentability or where a large number of documents are submitted and applicant is aware that one or more are highly relevant to patentability. See MPEP 609.04(a) III
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) 1-7, 9 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kelly et al. (US 20160082344), hereinafter: “Kelly” and Grauzer et al. (US 20130161905), hereinafter: “Grauzer”. Grauzer is incorporated by reference in its entirety into Kelly, see P[0039] of Kelly.
In Regard to Claim 1
Kelly teaches:
A card handling device(100) comprising:
a temporary card collection area(see annotated fig below; P[0037]);
an elevator platform(210) positioned within the temporary card collection area(see annotated fig below; P[0037]);
a wall(see annotated fig below) defining a boundary of the temporary card collection area(see annotated fig below); and
a card gripper(232 – Kelly, 204 Grauzer) positioned and configured to secure one or more cards(402) in the temporary card collection area between the card gripper and the wall(visually apparent in the annotated fig below, the card gripper 232 secures one or more cards 402 in the temporary card collection area between the gripper and the wall).
PNG
media_image1.png
464
644
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In Regard to Claim 2
Kelly teaches:
The card handling device of claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the card gripper(204 – Grauzer) includes an arm(206, 208, 218, 220, 228,230 - Grauzer) coupled to a foot(210,212 - Grauzer) and a gripper motor(P[0069] of Grauzer) configured to rotate the arm(the gripper motor is configured to rotate at least portions 228 and 230 of the arm).
In Regard to Claim 3
Kelly teaches:
The card handling device of claim 2(see rejection of claim 2 above), further comprising a pivot coupled to the arm between the gripper motor and the foot(228 and 230 each comprise a pivot shaft on which 228 and 230 turns located geometically between the gripper motor and the foot as viewed in Fig 5 of Grauzer).
In Regard to Claim 4
Kelly teaches:
The card handling device of claim 2(see rejection of claim 2 above), wherein the foot comprises a contact region(214,216 – Grauzer) configured to contact the one or more cards in the temporary card collection area(P[0113], P[0114] of Grauzer).
In Regard to Claim 5
Kelly teaches:
The card handling device of claim 4(see rejection of claim 4 above), wherein the contact region comprises a contact material different from a material of the foot(P[0113]-P[0115] of Grauzer, the material of the foot and the contact material may be made from different materials).
In Regard to Claim 6
Kelly teaches:
The card handling device of claim 5(see rejection of claim 5 above), wherein the contact material comprises a coating(P[0013] of Grauzer – “gripping elements 210 and 212, which comprise semi-rigid gripping pads 214 and 216. These gripping pads 214 and 216 may be smooth, grooved, covered with high-friction material (e.g., rubber or neoprene)”.
In Regard to Claim 7
Kelly teaches:
The card handling device of claim 5(see rejection of claim 5 above), wherein the contact material is softer than the material of the foot(P[0013] of Grauzer – “semi-rigid gripping pads…covered with high-friction material (e.g. rubber or neoprene)” therein the rubber and/or neoprene material is softer than the “semi-rigid” material of the foot).
In Regard to Claim 9
Kelly teaches:
The card handling device of claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising a sensor(211; P[0039] of Kelly) positioned in the elevator platform configured to detect a presence of a card on the elevator platform(Fig 2, P[0039] of Kelly).
In Regard to Claim 11
Kelly teaches:
The card handling device of claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the card gripper is configured to secure the one or more cards in the temporary card collection area between the card gripper and the wall and the elevator platform is configured to move away from the card gripper when the one or more cards are secured between the card gripper and the wall(P[0037] of Kelly, “If the elevator platform 210 is in the desired position, a card gripper 232 (FIG. 2) is controlled to grip a desired number of cards after which the elevator platform 210 is lowered to create gap for a new card to be inserted between the gripped cards and the platform cards remaining on the elevator platform 210”).
In Regard to Claim 12
Kelly teaches:
The card handling device of claim 11(see rejection of claim 11 above), wherein the card gripper is configured to release the one or more cards and the elevator platform is configured to move the one or more cards in the temporary card collection area relative to the card gripper(P[0037], P[0046], P[0062] of Kelly).
In Regard to Claim 13
Kelly teaches:
The card handling device of claim 12(see rejection of claim 12 above), wherein the card gripper is configured to secure a second set of one or more cards between the card gripper and the wall after the card gripper releases the one or more cards and the elevator platform is configured to move away from to the second set of one or more cards and the card gripper(P[0037], P[0046], P[0062] of Kelly).
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) 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly in view of Official Notice.
In Regard to Claim 8
Kelly teaches:
The card handling device of claim 5(see rejection of claim 5 above),
Kelly fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the gripper motor is coupled to the arm through a gripper drive post extending from the gripper motor and a complementary slot defined in the arm
Official Notice is taken that a motor coupled to an arm through a drive post extending from the motor and a complementary slot defined in the arm is old and well established in the business of electric motors and is asserted to be a well-known expedient or common knowledge by those of skill in electric motor and power transmission art for their use in connecting the rotational output of the motor shaft to the rotational input of a driven component, so as to transfer torque to the driven component. Further, use of which is capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known so as to defy dispute as demonstrated by the art of record. MPEP 2144. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to couple the gripper motor to the arm through a gripper drive post extending from the gripper motor and a complementary slot defined in the arm for the purposes of transferring torque to the arm.
In Regard to Claim 10
Kelly teaches:
The card handling device of claim 5(see rejection of claim 5 above), the sensor is electrically coupled to a processor(350) in the card handling device(Fig 3 of Kelly)
Kelly fails to explicitly teach:
a cable chain coupled between the sensor and a processor in the card handling device.
Official Notice is taken that a cable chain coupled between the sensor and a processor is old and well established in the business of wire management and is asserted to be a well-known expedient or common knowledge by those of skill electronic art for their use in providing safe and secure wire management for electronic devices with movable mechanical components. Further, use of which is capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known so as to defy dispute as demonstrated by the art of record. MPEP 2144. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a cable chain coupled between the sensor and a processor in the card handling device,
for the purposes of providing safe and secure wire management between the sensor, which moves with the platform, and the processor.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 9504905 B2
Kelly; James V. et al.
US 8579289 B2
Rynda; Robert J. et al.
US 7036818 B2
Grauzer; Atilla et al.
US 8038521 B2
Grauzer; Attila et al.
US 20170072293 A1
BOURBOUR F et al.
The above references are cited for teaching card shuffling/handling devices with features similar to that of the instant invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN P WOLCOTT whose telephone number is (571)272-9837. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at 571-270-1775. 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.
/BRIAN P WOLCOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights