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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 7, 12, 13, 21, 25, and 26 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 47: the phrase “were the proximal” should read “where the proximal”
In claim 1, lines 56-57: the phrase “by second pusher” should read “by the second pusher”
In claim 4, lines 6-7: the phrase “the primary later axis” should read “the primary lateral axis”
In claim 7, line 1: the phrase “according to any” should read “according to”
In claim 12, line 4: the phrase “extends in each case” should read “extend in each case”
In claim 13, line 2: the phrase “the transport rollers” should read “each transport roller”
In claim 13, lines 4-5: the phrase “along the pickup roller axis respectively transport roller axis” should read “along the respective transport roller axis”
In claim 21, line 13: the phrase “in its levelled configuration” should read “in its levelled card configuration”
In claim 21, line 17: the phrase “staring from” should read “starting from”
In claim 25, line 3: the phrase “respectively transport roller axis” should be deleted
In claim 26, lines 27-28: the phrase “in its levelled configuration and wherein and wherein” should read “in its levelled card configuration and wherein”
In claim 26, line 34: the phrase “staring from” should read “starting from”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 15 is 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 15 recites the limitation "the auxiliary receptacle" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted as “an auxiliary receptacle.”
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.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tzeng (US 20110175285 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Tzeng discloses a method (see paragraph 0017) for arranging a set of cards (P), the set of cards including a number of playing cards in a target card order using a card arranging device (100), the method including executing a card arranging procedure, the card arranging procedure including repeatedly executing a position change procedure, the position change procedure including: removing a change position card from the set of cards (see fig 4; note that any one of the cards dispensed can be considered the change position card), the change position card having an initial card position within the set of cards (compare figs 3 & 4), the removing of the change position card including moving the change position card along a primary lateral axis in a first lateral direction (i.e., rightward as viewed in fig 4) and inserting the change position card into the set of cards at a target card position within the set of cards (see fig 6), the inserting of the change position card including moving the change position card in a second lateral direction (i.e., leftward as viewed in fig 6), the second lateral direction being opposite to the first lateral direction, wherein the target card position within the set of cards is different from the initial card position within the set of cards.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 7-14, 16, 19-22, 25, and 26 are allowed.
Claim 15 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the card arranging device as claimed in claim 1 of the instant application or the integrity checking device as claimed in claim 26 of the instant application. The examiner can find no motivation to combine or modify the references of record without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Regarding claims 1 and 16, the prior art of record fails to teach each and every limitation of the claims. Specifically regarding claim 1, the prior art fails to teach a card arranging device having a set receptacle, a first and second pusher, and a receptacle-pusher moving unit being arranged to vary a relative position between the set receptacle and the first and second pusher along a normal axis and along a primary lateral axis as claimed as well as the card arranging device being configured to execute a card arranging procedure as claimed, in addition to the other claimed structure and functionality of the card arranging device. Specifically regarding claim 26, the prior art fails to teach an integrity checking device including a tilting member functioning as claimed, in addition to the other claimed structure and functionality of the integrity checking device. One of ordinary skill in the art would not find it obvious to modify the structure and functionality of the card arranging devices or the integrity checking devices of the prior art to be configured and to function as claimed in the instant application without the use of hindsight and/or destroying the references. Therefore, the prior art does not disclose card arranging device of claim 1 or the integrity checking device of claim 26.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The examiner notes that the prior art cited on PTO-892 but not relied upon for this rejection discloses card arranging devices relevant in scope and structure to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christine M Mills whose telephone number is (571) 272-8322. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday - Thursday, 7:30 - 5:30 EST.
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, Namrata Boveja, can be reached on (571) 272-8105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675