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 03/17/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-14 and 16-20 are pending in the application.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-10, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blaha (20120091656) in view of Stasson (20140027979).
Regarding claim 1, Blaha (Figures 1-5) teaches a card handling device configured to be positioned at a gaming structure having a playing surface, comprising: a card shuffling apparatus (Fig. 1, Part No. 24) (Para. 0037) for shuffling playing cards; and a card output portion (Fig. 1, Part No. 14) for receiving the playing cards from the card shuffling apparatus (24) (Para. 0049), wherein the playing cards are positioned by the card shuffling apparatus to be received into the card output portion in a horizontal stack where major faces of the playing cards are oriented in a plane substantially transverse to the playing surface (See fig. 1) (Para. 0049), and where the card output portion (14) is in a position where at least a portion of the card output portion is accessible from the playing surface (See fig. 1).
It is noted that applicant’s specification (Para. 0080) discloses: “the card outlet 204 may be configured to store the playing cards in a substantially horizontal stack, such that the cards are in a vertical orientation (e.g., lateral or longitudinal edges of the cards extend in a substantially vertical direction) with each card stacked horizontally (e.g., where a height of the stack of cards is slanted to extend along a major length of the card output portion 112 in a direction along the top surface 108) next to an adjacent card with the major faces of the cards lying in a plane substantially transverse to the top surface 108”. It is noted that Blaha discloses cards in “a horizontal stack” as claimed.
Blaha does not teach the card output portion is in a first position at least partially within the card handling device, the card output portion is further configured to transport the horizontal stack the playing cards to a second position where at least a portion of the card output portion is accessible from the playing surface.
Stasson (Figures 1-15) teaches the card output portion (Fig. 2-3, Part No. 224, 108) is in a first position at least partially within the card handling device (Para. 0044, 0060), the card output portion is further configured to transport the horizontal stack of playing cards to a second position where at least a portion of the card output portion is accessible from the playing surface (Para. 0044, 0060).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Blaha with the card output portion is further configured to transport the playing cards to a second position where at least a portion of the card output portion is accessible from the playing surface as taught by Stasson as a means of providing a card handling device with an output mechanism that moves shuffled cards from a position within the card handling device to a position above the card handling device (Stasson: Para. 0060).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Blaha (Figures 1-5) teaches the card handling device is configured to output the playing cards in a stack (See fig. 1) where a height of the stack of the playing cards is slanted (See fig. 1) to extend along a major length of the card output portion in a direction along the playing surface (See fig. 1) (Para. 0050).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Blaha (Figures 1-5) teaches the card output portion (14) enables an operator to slide a stack of the playing cards from the card output portion (Para. 0029, 0050) onto the playing surface.
It is noted that the prior art of Blaha is fully capable of performing the claim recitation of “enables an operator to slide a stack of the playing cards from the card output portion onto the playing surface” as the recited limitation is directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus and does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does (See: Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). 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 art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (See: Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)).
The modified Blaha does not teach the card output portion is in the second position.
Stasson (Figures 1-15) teaches the card output portion (Fig. 2-3, Part No. 224, 108) is in the second position (Para. 0044, 0060).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Blaha with the card output portion is in the second position as taught by Stasson as a means of providing a card handling device with an output mechanism that moves shuffled cards from a position within the card handling device to a position above the card handling device (Stasson: Para. 0060).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Blaha (Figures 1-5) teaches the card output portion (14) comprises: a storage area (88) (Para. 0050) configured to hold the playing cards in the horizontal stack extending in a plane substantially parallel to the playing surface (See fig. 1); and a movable guide (Fig. 1, Part No. 96) (Para. 0050) configured to alter a volume of the storage area.
Regarding claim 8, Blaha (Figures 1-5) teaches a method of shuffling cards comprising: inputting cards into a card handling device (Fig. 1A, Part No. 44A) (Para. 0036) in an orientation substantially parallel a horizontal plane (See fig. 1A); transporting the cards to a card shuffling apparatus (24) (Para. 0037); and outputting the cards into a card output area (14) in an orientation substantially perpendicular to the horizontal plane (See fig. 1); arranging the cards in a horizontal stack in the card output area, the horizontal stack extending in a direction substantially parallel to the horizontal plane (See fig. 1).
Blaha does not teach transporting the card output area including the horizontal stack of the cards from a region below a surface of a gaming structure to a region above the surface of the gaming structure.
Stasson (Figures 1-15) teaches transporting the card output area (Fig. 2-3, Part No. 224, 108) including the horizontal stack of the cards from a region below a surface of a gaming structure to a region above the surface of the gaming structure (Para. 0044, 0060).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Blaha with transporting the card output area from a region below a surface of a gaming structure to a region above the surface of the gaming structure as taught by Stasson as a means of providing a card handling device with an output mechanism that moves shuffled cards from a position within the card handling device to a position above the card handling device (Stasson: Para. 0060).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Blaha (Figures 1-5) teaches transporting the cards comprises moving the cards from a location above the surface of the gaming structure to another location below the surface of the gaming structure (Para. 0036), and outputting the cards comprises returning the cards to the surface of the gaming structure (Para. 0050) (See fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Blaha (Figures 1-5) teaches sliding cards out of the card output area (14) to the surface of the gaming structure at one time (Para. 0029, 0055).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Blaha (Figures 1-5) teaches a retractable card input portion (Fig. 1A, Part No. 44A) (Para. 0036) configured to receive playing cards in an orientation substantially parallel to the playing surface of the gaming structure; a transportation device (Fig. 1, Part No. 20) configured to transfer the playing cards from the retractable card input portion to the card shuffling apparatus (Para. 0037); and wherein the card output portion (Fig. 1, Part No. 14) is configured to receive the playing cards in an orientation substantially transverse to the playing surface of the gaming structure (See fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Blaha (Figures 1-5) teaches a retractable card input portion (Fig. 1A, Part No. 44A) (Para. 0036) configured to receive playing cards.
The modified Blaha does not teach the card outlet is configured to receive the playing cards from the card shuffling apparatus at a location below the playing surface of the gaming structure.
Stasson (Figures 1-15) teaches the card outlet (Fig. 2-3, Part No. 224, 108) is configured to receive the playing cards from the card shuffling apparatus at a location below the playing surface of the gaming structure (Para. 0044, 0060).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Blaha with the card outlet is configured to receive the playing cards from the card shuffling apparatus at a location below the playing surface of the gaming structure as taught by Stasson as a means of providing a card handling device with an output mechanism that moves shuffled cards from a position within the card handling device to a position above the card handling device (Stasson: Para. 0060).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Blaha (Figures 1-5) teaches the card outlet (14) is configured maintain the playing cards in the orientation substantially transverse to the playing surface of the gaming structure (See fig. 1).
The modified Blaha does not teach the card outlet is configured to elevate the playing cards above the playing surface of the gaming structure.
Stasson (Figures 1-15) teaches the card outlet (Fig. 2-3, Part No. 224, 108) is configured to elevate the playing cards above the playing surface (Fig. 1, Part No. 110) of the gaming structure (Para. 0060).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Blaha with the card outlet is configured to elevate the playing cards above the playing surface as taught by Stasson as a means of providing a card handling device with an output mechanism that moves shuffled cards from a position within the card handling device to a position above the card handling device (Stasson: Para. 0060).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Blaha (Figures 1-5) teaches the transportation device (Fig. 1, Part No. 20) (Para. 0037) is configured to transfer the playing cards from the retractable card input portion (Fig. 1A, Part No. 44A) (Para. 0036) to the card shuffling apparatus (24) with the playing cards remaining in the orientation substantially parallel to the playing surface of the gaming structure (See fig. 1).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blaha in view of Stasson, further in view of Just (20100289214).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Blaha (Figures 1-5) teaches a card input device (Fig. 1A, Part No. 44A) (Para. 0036), wherein the card input device is configured to: receive the playing cards in a plane substantially parallel to the playing surface (See Fig. 1A) (Para. 0036), and transport the playing cards as to the card shuffling apparatus (24) (Para. 0037).
Blaha does not teach a rotating card input device configured to rotate the playing cards within the plane substantially parallel to the playing surface.
Just (Figures 1-3) teaches a rotating card input device (Fig. 1, Part No. 14) (Para. 0023) configured to rotate the playing cards within the plane substantially parallel to the playing surface (Para. 0023-0024).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Blaha with a rotating card input device as taught by Just as a means of providing a card input device that rotates to change a direction of the cards before the cards are released (Just: Para. 0023-0024).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blaha in view of Stasson, further in view of Dickinson (20090134575).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Blaha (Figures 1-5) teaches the card output portion (14) comprises: a storage area (88) (Para. 0050)
The modified Blaha does not teach the card output portion comprises a door on an end of the storage area configured to release a selected number of cards.
Dickinson (Figures 1-5) teaches the card output portion comprises a door (150) (Para. 0015) on an end of the storage area configured to release a selected number of cards.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Blaha with the card output portion comprises a door on an end of the storage area configured to release a selected number of cards as taught by Dickinson as a means of providing a card output portion with a movable door that allows access to playing cards (Dickinson: Para. 0015).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Blaha (Figures 1-5) teaches the card output portion (14) comprises: a storage area (88) (Para. 0050)
The modified Blaha does not teach the door comprises a magnetic securing device, and wherein the door is configured to displace to a position clear of a pathway upon which a stack of playing cards travels to exit the storage area of the card output portion.
Dickinson (Figures 1-5) teaches the door (150) (Para. 0015) comprises a magnetic securing device (160), and wherein the door is configured to displace to a position clear of a pathway upon which a stack of playing cards travels to exit the storage area of the card output portion (Para. 0015).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Blaha with the door comprises a magnetic securing device as taught by Dickinson as a means of securing a door of a card output device using magnets (Dickinson: Para. 0015).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blaha in view of Stasson, further in view of Just (20100289214).
Regarding claim 11, Blaha (Figures 1-5) teaches transporting the cards to a card shuffling apparatus (24) (Para. 0037).
The modified Blaha does not teach transporting the cards comprises rotating at least some of the cards about a minor axis of the cards to alter an orientation of lateral edges of the at least some of the cards, the minor axis of the cards extending through a thickness of the cards in a direction transverse to a longitudinal axis and a lateral axis of the cards.
Just (Figures 1-3) teaches transporting the cards comprises rotating at least some of the cards about a minor axis of the cards to alter an orientation of lateral edges of the at least some of the cards, the minor axis of the cards extending through a thickness of the cards in a direction transverse to a longitudinal axis and a lateral axis of the cards (Para. 0023-0024).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Blaha with rotating at least some of the cards about a minor axis of the cards to alter an orientation of lateral edges of the at least some of the cards as taught by Just as a means of rotating cards in a card handling device to change a direction of the cards before the cards are released (Just: Para. 0023-0024).
Claims 12-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blaha (20120091656).
Regarding claim 12, Blaha (Figures 1-5) teaches a card handling device comprising: a card shuffling apparatus comprising: a carousel (24) (Para. 0033); a rotatable center member (27; Para. 0039) (Also See: Para. 0033); and more than 43 compartments (Para. 0039) each configured to hold between one and ten cards arranged radially about the carousel; and multiple compartment modules removably coupled to the rotatable center member (27; Para. 0039), each compartment module of the multiple compartment modules comprising two or more compartments of the at least one-hundred compartments (See fig. 2-3).
It is noted that the claim recitation of “removable coupled” is being interpreted under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) to mean the compartment module is removable. Under BRI, any part is removable as the parts of the apparatus of Blaha are fully capable of being removed.
Blaha does not teach at least one-hundred compartments.
It is noted that the prior art of Blaha (Para. 0039) discloses: “it is noted that in other embodiments, the multi-compartment carousel 24 may include fewer than forty-three (43) compartments 25 or more than forty-three (43) compartments 25”. Blaha teaches providing “more than 43 compartments” so that providing Blaha with at least one-hundred compartments would have been obvious as a means of mere duplication of parts (See: In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Blaha (Figures 1-5) teaches the compartments comprise an aperture (See fig. 2-3) and a securing element (Fig. 2, Part No. 29) (Para. 0039).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Blaha (Figures 1-5) teaches the compartments comprise more than 43 compartments (Para. 0039)..
The modified Blaha does not teach the at least one-hundred compartments comprise between one-hundred-twenty and one-hundred-forty compartments.
It is noted that the prior art of Blaha (Para. 0039) discloses: “it is noted that in other embodiments, the multi-compartment carousel 24 may include fewer than forty-three (43) compartments 25 or more than forty-three (43) compartments 25”. Blaha teaches providing “more than 43 compartments” so that providing Blaha with between one-hundred-twenty and one-hundred-forty compartments would have been obvious as a means of mere duplication of parts (See: In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blaha in view of Johnson (20020017481).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Blaha (Figures 1-5) teaches the securing element comprises: an arm defining a top retention and a bottom retention (See fig. 2-3); and a leaf spring (Fig. 2-3, Part No. 29) (Para. 0039) comprising a resilient material spanning between the bottom retention and the top retention; and a connection of the leaf spring (29) to at least one of the top retention or the bottom retention is a floating connection (See fig. 2-3 where an end of the leaf spring is capable of moving relative to arm 28).
It is noted that claims are interpreted using a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). Under BRI, the claim recitations of “top retention” and “bottom retention” are being interpreted to mean a part/feature that is capable of “holding secure or intact”. As an alternative, the prior art of Johnson is also being used to teach the claim top and bottom retentions.
The modified Blaha does not teach the leaf spring has a length greater than a distance between the top retention and the bottom retention; the leaf spring forms an arc with an apex in a direction away from the arm;
Johnson (Figures 1-5) teaches an arm defining a top retention and a bottom retention (See fig. 4 where the leaf spring (182) is retained on arm 300) (Para. 0050), the leaf spring has a length greater than a distance between the top retention and the bottom retention (See fig. 4); the leaf spring forms an arc with an apex in a direction away from the arm (See fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Blaha with the leaf spring forms an arc with an apex in a direction away from the arm as taught by Johnson as a means of providing a card compartment with a curved leaf spring configured to secure cards within the card compartment (Johnson: Para. 0050, 0040).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art of record does not teach the recitation in claim 1 of “the card output portion is in a first position at least partially within the card handling device”, this is not found persuasive because Stasson teaches the card output portion (Fig. 2-3, Part No. 224, 108) is in a first position at least partially within the card handling device (Para. 0044, 0060). Stasson (Para. 0060) discloses: “in the loading position, the card support 224 is located at a position within the card shuffler 100 at which all cards in the rack 171 may be moved out from the rack 171 and onto the support surface 225 of the card support 224. In the unloading position, the card support 224 is located proximate the upper surface 110 of the card shuffler 100 in the card output area 108 to allow a user to remove a stack of shuffled cards from the support surface 225 of the card support 224, as shown in FIG. 2. The card support surface 224 may be located above, below or at the top surface 110”.
Applicant argues that the combination of Blaha and Stasson does not teach the limitations of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 because there is not teaching or suggestion un the references to motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the prior art references, this is not found persuasive because obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the prior art of Blaha and Stasson both discloses means for moving cards from within a card shuffling apparatus to a location outside the card shuffling apparatus and therefore would suggest one of ordinary skill in the art designs and configurations for moving the cards to a location outside the card shuffling apparatus. Applicant argues there is not indication the prior art of Blaha and Stasson can be combined. This is not found persuasive because the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, the prior art of Blaha and Stasson both discloses means for moving cards from within a card shuffling apparatus to a location outside the card shuffling apparatus and therefore would suggest one of ordinary skill in the art designs and configurations for moving the cards to a location outside the card shuffling apparatus.
Applicant argues (to claim 12) that the prior art of Blaha does not teach “multiple compartment modules removably coupled to the rotatable center member”, this is not found persuasive because Blaha teaches multiple compartment modules removably coupled to the rotatable center member (27; Para. 0039). Blaha (Para. 0039) discloses: “FIG. 2 is a partial cross-sectional view of the shuffling device 12. As shown in FIG. 2, the multi-compartment carousel 24 may include a plurality of compartments 25 (e.g., forty-three (43) compartments) formed by fingers 26, 28 extending from a rotatable center member 27”. It is noted that the claim recitation of “removable coupled” is being interpreted under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) to mean the compartment module is removable. Under BRI, any part is removable as the parts of the apparatus of Blaha are fully capable of being removed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 8-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 CHRISTOPHER GLENN whose telephone number is (571)272-1277. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.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, 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.
/C.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3711
/JOSEPH B BALDORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711 i
Prosecution Insights