DETAILED ACTION
This final action is in response to the amendment filed on 05 June 2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5, 7-16, 19-23, 25, and 26 are pending.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 12, 13, 15, 21, 23, 25, and 26 were amended.
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 were previously objected to because of informalities. Applicant has successfully addressed most of these issues in the amendment filed on 05 June 2026. Accordingly, the objections to the claims have been withdrawn, unless noted otherwise.
As amended, claims 13 and 26 remain objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 13, line 4: the phrase “respectively transport roller axis” should read “respective transport roller axis”
In claim 26, lines 27-28: the phrase “in its levelled configuration” should read “in its levelled card configuration”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 15 was previously rejected under 35 USC § 112. Applicant has successfully addressed the issue in the amendment filed on 05 June 2026. Accordingly, the rejections to the claims under 35 USC § 112 have been withdrawn.
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 single change position card, by itself, from the set of cards (see fig 4; note that any one of the cards dispensed can be considered the change position card and each card is removed individually; see also paragraph 0014 [“to roll and convey each of the poker cards P outward from the card cartridge…in turn”]), 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, 7-16, 19-22, 25, and 26 are allowed.
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 26, 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.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that “Tzeng does not disclose a method of removing and reinserting a single change-position card into a set of cards at a distinct target position as required by claim 23,” the examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 23 is directed to a method which includes the claimed steps but is not limited to those steps. In other words, the claimed method comprises the steps but does not consist of only the recited steps. The examiner maintains that Tzeng teaches a method which includes removing a single card at a time and inserting that card back into the set of cards. While additional steps are disclosed by Tzeng, the presence of these steps does not preclude Tzeng from anticipating the method as claimed.
Conclusion
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 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
Prosecution Insights