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 amendments filed May 8, 2026 have been entered. Claims 19, 21-37 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed February 12, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 19, 21-23, 25, 27, 28, 32, 36 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwan in view of Huizingh.
Regarding claim 19, Kwan discloses a playing cards manipulation device for holding, storing and/or manipulating a set of playing cards (Fig. 1, 10),
wherein the playing cards storing manipulation device comprises an open box (Fig. 2, 16) comprising at least two mutually opposite lateral walls (Fig. 2, 26a and 26b), a bottom wall (Fig. 2, 28) between the lateral walls and a backwall (Fig. 2, 20) between the lateral walls, a top side being the side opposite the bottom wall, and a face side being opposite the backwall, and
wherein, in longitudinal direction and a sense from the backwall towards the inner side of the box, the side of the lateral walls opposite to the bottom wall extends to an outmost remote point from the backwall (Point A, annotated below) beyond the outmost remote point from the backwall of the side of the lateral walls contacting the bottom wall (Point B), thereby providing inclined edges to said lateral walls (Wall connected between A and B is inclined at a slope),
PNG
media_image1.png
578
430
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the face side of the open box being the side opposite the backwall, is completely open (Fig. 1 shows fully open state) such that, in use, when said inclined edges are brought in contact with an opened top surface of a cartridge, the playing cards in the playing cards manipulation device can be transferred to the inner void of the cartridge.
Kwan does not disclose the bottom wall and the backwall being connected along a coupling rib. However, Huizingh, in the same field of endeavor of storage containers, discloses reinforcement ribs (Fig. 1, 12) for the purpose of reinforcing walls and diving areas into segments (Para. 0044). Thus, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a rib along where the backwall and bottom wall meet (divided segments), to increase the mechanical strength of the box and prevent damage from handling/drops. Additionally, the specific placement of the rib would not modify the operation of the device and is seen as a simple rearrangement of parts. See MPEP 2144 - In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 25, modified Kwan further discloses the playing cards manipulation device has a designated holes configured to receive (Kwan: Fig. 1, 34; Para. 0019; rivet/pivot goes through a hole in the box to secure the plate) the cover plate of a cartridge.
Regarding claim 36, though modified Kwan does not specifically disclose the playing cards manipulation device is configured to store playing cards in a casino, at a casino table, this limitation is intended use of an apparatus. If a prior art structure is inherently capable of performing the intended use as recited, then it shifts the burden to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. In the instant case, the card holder of Kwan is fully capable of holding playing cards and could be positioned on a casino table. See MPEP 2114 - In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
Regarding claim 37, modified Kwan further discloses the box has a volume of a cuboid (Kwan: Figs. 1 and 2). The box as disclosed by Kwan is 3-dimensional, having 6 faces (2 of which are generally parallel; other 4 are rectangular), thus making the box volume cuboid.
Claims 21-23, 27, 28, and 32 are rejected as set forth in paragraphs 5-7 and 9-11 of the previous office action (2/12/2026).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwan in view of Huizingh and in further view of Sik as set forth in paragraph 14 of the previous office action.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwan in view of Huizingh and in further view of Sagucio as set forth in paragraph 16 of the previous office action.
Claims 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwan in view of Huizingh and in further view of Malmloff as set forth in paragraphs 18-20 of the previous office action.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwan in view of Huizingh and in further view of Brenner as set forth in paragraph 22 of the previous office action.
Claims 34 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwan in view of Huizingh and in further view of Morse as set forth in paragraphs 24 and 25 of the previous office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Kwan does not teach an open top/sleeve that interfaces with a cartridge, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The cartridge itself is never positively recited in Applicant’s claims, and thus could be of any sort of configuration. The structure of Kwan’s box has sloped/inclined edges (as pointed out in the annotated figure supra) which would be fully capable of interfacing with a complimentary cartridge. Further, as pointed out in the prior art rejection, Kwan shows in Fig. 1 a completely open face side.
In response to applicant's argument that Huizingh is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Huizingh also relates to a container for storage, similar to Applicant’s box for card storage. Huizingh also discloses ribs for reinforcement of container in paragraph 0044, which is a basic concept of mechanical support structures and would be obvious to a POSITA. Further, Applicant’s coupling rib does not appear to have any criticality, nor is a point of novelty based off of the specification (only mentions that the coupling rib connects the bottom and backwall in para. 69).
In response to applicant’s argument with respect to Huizingh not disclosing a completely open face side or inclined edges, the examiner notes that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Huizingh is being used to teach the concept of having ribs for additional reinforcement means. The primary reference Kwan was used to teach the open face and inclined edges as discussed above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SAMANTHA M BERRY whose telephone number is (571)272-0925. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5.
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.
/S.M.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3711 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights