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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 12-22 are pending and have been considered. Claims 1-11 are canceled.
Continuity
This application is a national-stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371 of PCT/EP2024/068595, filed July 2, 2024.
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of the certified copy of European Patent Application No. 23185219.5, filed July 13, 2023, as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed November 11, 2024 has been considered. The references cited therein have been considered to the extent compliant with 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98.
Response to Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed November 11, 2024 has been entered. Claims 1-11 were canceled, claims 12-22 were added, and the abstract was replaced. The claims are examined below as amended.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 21 and 22 recite "a card delivery means for providing the cards provided to each of the card receiving points of each of the M rows of card receiving points to one of the M card storage means." The limitation uses the term "means, " recites the function of transferring cards from each row of receiving points to the corresponding storage means, and does not recite sufficient structure for performing the entire function. Accordingly, the limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The corresponding structure is the M pushing means 620, described as bars, rods, or fingers mounted on common bar or rail 622 and operated to move cards along the receiving points to a drop-off point, disengage from the card path, return, and repeat ([0095]-[0098], [0118], and [0128]). The limitation covers that structure and equivalents thereof.
The remaining claim terms are interpreted broadly in light of the specification. A card supply unit includes a conveyor lane, suction belt, feeder, hopper, cassette, magazine, or other card source. A matrix-like arrangement includes a logically or mechanically indexed N-by-M arrangement and may have one row or one column when N or M may equal one. Row and column identify coordinate groupings and do not require a particular vertical or horizontal orientation. Identifying a card includes assigning a machine identifier, sequence identifier, source identifier, or rank-and-suit identity. Random includes pseudorandom processor-controlled selection. A number of cards includes one or more cards. Another compartment means a compartment different from the compartment selected at that selection event, but does not prohibit later reselection. References to card delivery units in claim 12 are construed as references to the card supply units defined earlier in the claim. The specification expressly defines Q as an integer greater than one ([0017]); therefore, Q=1 is not within the broadest reasonable interpretation. No unclaimed feature of a preferred embodiment is otherwise imported into the claims.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they do not show every feature specified in the claims. In particular, the drawings do not show the card-identification system identified in paragraph [0116] as not shown in Figure 1, or a control-unit or flow representation for identifying cards, assigning cards to storage means, generating the random compartment target values, selecting compartments, and determining completion of the target values. These claimed features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract is objected to under 37 CFR 1.72(b) because the sentence beginning "Each of the M card storage means" is grammatically incomplete and because the abstract inconsistently refers to card delivery units instead of the card supply units used in the claims. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of typographical, grammatical, and terminology informalities. Appropriate correction is required. Representative examples include:
Paragraph [0006]: "their remains" should read "there remains."
Paragraphs [0005] and [0009]: references to "cars" should read "cards. "
Paragraph [0008]: "competed set" should read "completed set."
Paragraphs [0035] and [0068]: "4 to10" should read "4 to 10."
Paragraphs [0110] and [0111]: "cart storage means" should read "card storage means."
Paragraph [0118]: "one or more cards of are provided" should be corrected.
Paragraph [0119]: "ecard," "hance," "o f," and "witch" should read "card," "hence," "of," and "which," respectively.
The expressions card supply unit and card delivery unit, and the expressions compartment, component.
Claim Objections
Claims 12, 16, and 20-22 are objected to because of informalities. Appropriate correction is required as follows:
Claim 12: revise "providing of" to "providing"; revise "1<+m <= M" to "1 <= m <= M"; close the parenthesis defining the receiving-point coordinates; use "card supply units" consistently; revise "identify," "assign," and "provide" to grammatically parallel method steps; revise "one of M the card storage means"; and revise "competed set" to "completed set."
Claim 16: revise "rang" to "rank" and revise "assigning and identified card to a one" to "assigning an identified card to one."
Claim 20: revise "each of the Amp" to "each Amp" or equivalent consistent notation.
Claims 21 and 22: revise "1<+m <= M" to "1 <= m <= M" and revise "wherein said device for providing sets of cards, the device comprising" to "wherein the device comprises."
Claim 22: revise "moveable in view of" to grammatically clear language, such as "movable relative to," without adding new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 12-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to abstract ideas, namely mental processes and mathematical concepts, without significantly more. The analysis below applies the claims as a whole under the Alice/Mayo framework. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208, 217-218, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981-1982 (2014); Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 77-80, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1967-1969 (2012); MPEP §§ 2106.04-2106.07.
Claim 12 is a method claim performed using the recited card-handling device. The structural limitations are given weight as the physical environment and mechanisms used to perform the method, but the claim is not construed as an apparatus claim. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the N-by-M receiving arrangement is an indexed source-and-destination arrangement. Because claim 12 expressly permits M=1, the arrangement may have one row. The symbols I n and Im identify, respectively, the source card supply unit and the assigned destination card storage means for a card; the claim does not require those coordinates to be electronically stored as separate data fields. This interpretation is applied consistently below.
Step 1-Statutory Category
Claims 12-22 each recite a method comprising a series of acts and therefore fall within the statutory process category. The analysis proceeds to Step 2A.
Step 2A, Prong One-Judicial Exception
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites mental processes in the limitations requiring identification of a card, assignment of the identified card to a destination, selection of a compartment, determination of whether the number of cards in a compartment is less than its target, selection of another eligible compartment, and determination of when all compartment targets have been met. Considered apart from the physical card movements, these are observations, evaluations, judgments, and selection decisions that can be practically performed by a person using mental reasoning or pen and paper. The claim also recites mathematical concepts in defining source-and-destination coordinates (n,m) and (In, Im), defining a total Tm, assigning target values Amp subject to the relationship that their sum equals Tm, and comparing actual counts with the corresponding Amp values. Mental processes and mathematical relationships or calculations are enumerated abstract-idea groupings. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1371-1373, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694-1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011); MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). The recited operation sequence is not additionally characterized as a certain method of organizing human activity merely because it prescribes steps or instructions. The claimed card-handling procedure does not manage personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and does not fit another enumerated organizing-human-activity subgroup. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
The abstract idea is therefore the card-allocation and target-control logic itself: identify cards, assign source/destination indices, establish a complete set and compartment targets, select eligible destinations according to the target counts, and repeat the selection/counting rules until the target distribution is complete. This characterization does not treat the physical supplying, receiving, stacking, moving, storing, or removing of cards as abstract.
Step 2A, Prong Two-Practical Application
The additional elements beyond the identified abstract ideas include the physical cards, N card supply units, M card storage means having P compartments, the N-by-M card receiving points, and the physical acts of providing cards to receiving points, stacking and moving the cards, providing the cards to selected compartments, and removing a completed set. These elements are considered individually and in combination.
The additional elements do not integrate the abstract allocation and target-control logic into a practical application. The supply units, receiving points, storage compartments, and card-moving structures perform their ordinary card-handling functions while the abstract logic determines which destination is selected and when a target has been satisfied. The claim does not recite a technological change to the operation of a card feeder, receiver, mover, storage mechanism, sensor, or controller. Instead, the physical equipment provides the technological environment in which the allocation, counting, and selection rules are carried out. The physical movement and collection of cards are the implementation and output of those rules rather than an improvement in the functioning of the card-handling equipment itself. A concrete or tangible implementation does not, by itself, establish eligibility. See TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016); MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(b), and 2106.05(h).
The specification was also reviewed for the asserted advance. It states that the order of the compiled sets remains unpredictable "[d]ue to the multiple randomly selected parameters" and explains that use of the multi-compartment compiling procedure reduces predictable placement of relatively scarce cards (Spec. [0048]-[0049]) . The claims reflect that stated result through the random target, random selection, and count-control rules. However, the identified improvement is produced by the abstract allocation logic itself, not by an additional element that improves the operation of the card-handling technology. The judicial exception alone cannot provide the technological improvement required for integration. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1).
Step 2B-Significantly More
The same additional elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas. The generic card-handling activities of supplying, receiving, moving, storing, shuffling, and collecting physical cards do not provide an inventive concept when used to carry out the abstract distribution rules. The specification describes a pre-existing system having "a plurality of playing cards collecting means," "a plurality of card stockers," and "a card sorting device," with identified cards routed between stockers ([0005]). The Federal Circuit has likewise recognized shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards as well-understood, routine, conventional activity. In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 819, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016); MPEP § 2106.05(d). This well-understood, routine, conventional finding is limited to the generic card-handling functions identified above and is supported by the express statement in the specification and the cited court decision. It does not rely on the mere presence of individual elements in the prior-art rejection, because novelty and obviousness are separate from the well-understood, routine, conventional inquiry. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(d) and 2106.07(a)(III).
As an ordered combination, claim 12 still uses those card-handling functions to execute the same abstract source/destination, target, selection, and count-control rules. The combination therefore does not add a technological improvement, a particular transformation of the cards into a different state or thing, or another meaningful limitation that supplies an inventive concept. Accordingly, claim 12 is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claims 13, 14, 17, 18, and 19 further limit the number of storage means, supply units, or compartments. These numerical limits restrict the scale of the physical implementation but do not change the abstract allocation and target-control logic, improve the operation of the physical card-handling equipment, or otherwise integrate the exception into a practical application. Considered at Step 2B, these limitations likewise do not provide significantly more than the exception.
Claim 15 further requires a playing-card set comprising Q decks that constitute Tm. This limitation further defines the size and content of the card population being allocated and therefore adds a numerical/set constraint to the same abstract process. It does not improve the operation of the card-handling equipment or provide an inventive concept beyond implementing the allocation rules on a multi-deck population.
Claim 16 further requires identifying rank and suit, maintaining a count for each rank-and-suit type in each storage means, and assigning a card only while the count is less than Q. These additional limitations themselves recite observation, counting, comparison, and conditional assignment, which are mental processes and mathematical concepts. The physical equipment remains used in its ordinary manner to execute those additional rules, so claim 16 does not integrate the exception into a practical application or add significantly more.
Claim 20 further requires each Amp to be in the range 0.5(Tm/P) to 1.5(Tm/P). This is an express mathematical relationship involving multiplication and division of the previously defined variables. Applying that calculation to determine the permitted target counts does not improve the card-handling technology and adds another mathematical constraint to the abstract target-control process. Claim 20 therefore remains directed to the exception without significantly more.
Claim 21 further specifies N>1 supply units, an N-by-M receiving-point arrangement, M card storage means, a card delivery means, M card drop-off points, and P compartments that are mutually positionable with the corresponding drop-off point. The card delivery means is construed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to cover the disclosed pushing structures and equivalents. These physical elements are fully considered, but they supply the mechanism for moving cards to the destinations selected by the abstract allocation rules and do not recite an improvement in the functioning of the feeder, receiving matrix, pusher, storage means, or control technology. Even a more particular machine is not dispositive when the claim merely uses that machine to implement an otherwise abstract process. See Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 604, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1007 (2010); MPEP § 2106.05(b). The ordered combination therefore does not integrate the exception or supply an inventive concept.
Claim 22 further requires a card supply point for each supply unit and a source-correlated column of receiving points movable relative to the supply point so cards can be provided to the points of the column. This positioning limitation further defines the physical environment for executing the source/destination routing rule. It does not alter the abstract assignment, target, selection, or count-control logic, and the claim does not identify a technological improvement in how the source, receiving column, or delivery mechanism operates. Considered individually and in combination with the remaining limitations, the added movement does not integrate the exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, claims 12-22 are directed to judicial exceptions without an inventive concept and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 217-226, 110 USPQ2d at 1981-1986; MPEP §§ 2106.04-2106.07.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 103
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 12, 14, 17, 18, 20, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Somer (EP 0010566 A1) in view of Grauzer et al. (US 20120242039 A1, "Grauzer I"), and further in view of Grauzer et al. (US 20130032998 A1, "Grauzer II").
Regarding claim 12, the claim is construed as a method performed using the recited card-handling device. The structural recitations define the physical relationships in which the method acts occur and are given full weight. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, "matrix like positioned in N columns of M rows" requires an indexed N-by-M source-and-destination arrangement, but does not require a particular vertical or horizontal orientation. Because M is expressly permitted to equal one, a one-row arrangement is within the claim. In denotes the source card supply unit from which the identified card originates, and Im denotes the card storage means to which the card is assigned. The claim does not require In or Im to be separately stored as electronic coordinate data.
De Somer teaches the physical source and receiving operation. It states that "the feed conveyor 1 comprises twelve suction belts 2" ([0015]) and that "facing the discharge end of each suction belt 2" are collecting members 9 ([0016]). During operation, "one collecting member facing each suction belt 2 lies every time in a position" for collecting cards ([0020]). Selecting N=12 and M=1, the twelve belts are twelve card supply units and the twelve simultaneously active, source-correlated collecting locations are twelve receiving points in one m=1 row. Each point is therefore indexed by the source belt n and the common destination row m=1, i.e., (n,1).
De Somer further teaches the claimed physical stacking and movement acts. A following card fed by a belt "will be slipped automatically below" the preceding card ([0022]), and the cards at each belt are thereby collated into "a small package of playing cards" ([0024]). De Somer then teaches twelve rows of downstream boxes corresponding to the twelve suction belts and states that a card package is collected in each box of the active box column ([0028]). After each box receives a package, "a new column now comes to lie in the location of the preceding column" and the packages are "brought together step by step" ([0029]). Fingers 27 on bearing plate 28 push a card package from one box row to the adjacent row ([0030]-[0031]), and the repeated operation assembles the packages "into one large package" ([0033]). Thus, in normal operation De Somer receives cards at source-correlated points, stacks the cards, and physically transfers the resulting stacks along the active row toward the downstream collection location.
De Somer does not teach identifying each card before distribution, assigning each identified card to a selected storage destination, randomly assigning the P compartment target quantities Amp, randomly selecting eligible compartments according to those targets, or repeating the compartment-selection routine until each target is met.
Grauzer I teaches the missing card identification, assignment, and destination-control acts. It states that the controller "randomly selects or identifies which slot or card-receiving compartment will receive each card" before card-handling operations begin ([0018]). It further teaches that the microprocessor "assigns each card in the initial group to a compartment" by randomly selecting compartments separately for each card ([0029]). For each cycle, the software "assigns a card number to each card and then randomly selects or correlates a compartment to each card number," after which the elevator or carousel aligns the selected compartment with the feed mechanism ([0031]). Claim 5 likewise expressly requires "randomly assigning each card in the card infeed area to a compartment prior to feeding a first card."
In the proposed combination, Grauzer I performs the identification and destination assignment before the corresponding card is physically transferred through De Somer. The source belt on which the card is supplied fixes In=n. The selected embodiment uses one downstream Grauzer storage means, so the assigned storage coordinate is Im=1. A card originating from belt n is therefore physically received at the source-correlated De Somer point (n,1) before the row-wise transfer to the m=1 storage means. This mapping applies the claimed source-and-destination indices to the actual method operation and does not require an unclaimed electronic tracking system.
Grauzer I also teaches the P-compartment storage routine. The ten-compartment embodiment states that the rack consists of "ten equally sized compartments, " that cards are delivered randomly, and that if the randomly selected compartment is full, another is randomly selected ([0122]). Because Grauzer I assigns every card to a compartment before the first card is fed, the number of cards preassigned to compartment p defines that compartment target Amp before physical filling begins. Assigning the complete Tm-card input population once among the P compartments necessarily partitions that population, so the P target counts sum to Tm. After distribution, "each stack of cards is randomly removed and stacked in platform 36, forming a randomly arranged deck" ([0123]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to apply Grauzer I's known card-identification, random destination-assignment, and indexable compartment-rack technique to De Somer's known parallel card-collation method. The prior art establishes each element: De Somer provides the parallel supply, source-correlated receiving, stacking, and transfer operations, while Grauzer I provides identification, destination assignment, indexed positioning, and compartment storage. A person of ordinary skill in electromechanical card handling could have combined these known operations using the sensors, drives, and programmable controls already used by the references. The belts, collectors, movers, processor, and rack would retain their established functions, and the predictable result would be De Somer's parallel physical card collection controlled by Grauzer I's card-specific destination assignments. Because both systems perform automated playing-card collection and routing, the application of the known Grauzer I control technique to De Somer would have been within ordinary skill and would have provided a reasonable expectation of success. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 416-418, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-1396 (2007); MPEP § 2143(I)(A) and (C).
It would further have been obvious to apply Grauzer II's known random group-count technique to the P compartments of the De Somer/Grauzer I method. The combined method already processes a finite card population, identifies individual cards, assigns addressable destinations, positions compartments, and counts whether a compartment is complete. Grauzer II teaches the comparable improvement of randomly determining the group quantity while constraining the quantity according to the cards remaining. A person of ordinary skill could have used that known count-control routine to establish the Amp targets and to exclude a compartment after its target is reached without changing the mechanical card-handling functions. The predictable result would be a complete Tm-card set divided among P randomly sized compartment groups, with a reasonable expectation of success because the same processor-controlled counting and compartment-selection functions were already used in the combined method. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(C) and (D).
Regarding claim 14, De Somer expressly states that "the feed conveyor 1 comprises twelve suction belts 2" ([0015]). The twelve belts are twelve card supply units; therefore, N=12 and N>1.
Regarding claim 17, Grauzer I states that "the original rack has been replaced with rack 3 consisting of
ten equally sized compartments" ([0122]). Thus, P=10, which is within the claimed range of 4 to 10.
It would have been obvious to use Grauzer I's ten-compartment rack in the combined card-handling system because Grauzer I identifies ten compartments as "a preferred number of compartments for shuffling a fifty-two-card deck" ([0123]). The combined system already includes an indexable compartment rack, and selecting the expressly preferred ten-compartment capacity would not change the function of the rack, feeder, or controller. A person of ordinary skill could have made that selection using conventional rack construction and control addressing, with the predictable result of ten addressable card groups and a reasonable expectation of success. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(C) and (D).
Regarding claim 18, De Somer expressly states that "the feed conveyor 1 comprises twelve suction belts
2" ([0015]). The twelve belts provide N=12, which is within the claimed range of 4 to 12.
Regarding claim 20, Grauzer II states that "the original rack has been replaced with rack 3 consisting of ten equally sized compartments" ([0128]). Claims 11 and 12 further recite that "the specified range is from three to seven" and that "the card set is a 52 card set." For Tm=52 and P=10, the claimed bounds are 0.5(52/10)=2.6 and 1.5(52/10)=7.8. Because Amp is an integer number of cards, the claimed values are 3 through 7. Grauzer II's 3-through-7 range is therefore wholly within the claimed effective integer range.
Grauzer II also teaches determining the number of cards in a hand from a predetermined range and limiting the quantity according to the cards remaining ([0068]; claim 9). It would have been obvious to apply that known bounded-count technique to each of Grauzer I's ten compartment targets because the base system already has a processor that generates random counts, counts the fixed card population, indexes compartments, and excludes completed compartments. A person of ordinary skill could have constrained each successive selection so the remaining cards remain distributable among the remaining compartments, without changing the function of the processor, rack, or feeder. The predictable result would have been ten targets within 3 through 7 that total 52, with a reasonable expectation of success. The present facts align with In re Peterson because the prior-art range lies within the claimed range for the same card-count parameter. See In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-1383 (Fed. Cir. 2003); MPEP § 2144.05; KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(C) and (D).
Regarding claim 21, De Somer expressly teaches N>1 card supply units because "the feed conveyor 1 comprises twelve suction belts 2" ([0015]) and teaches a receiving location corresponding to each source because collecting members 9 are "facing the discharge end of each suction belt 2" ([0016]). Under the same M=1 source-and-destination interpretation used for claim 12, those twelve source-correlated receiving locations form twelve one-point columns and one row.
Grauzer I supplies the claimed storage and drop-off relationship. Its software selects the destination compartment and "the elevator or carousel aligns the selected compartment with the card feed mechanism in order to receive the next card" ([0031]). The single feed location is the m=1 card drop-off point, the rack is the m=1 card storage means, and movement of the rack positions each of its P compartments relative to the common drop-off point. Thus, the combined method physically delivers the row-associated cards to a storage means whose compartments are selectively positioned to receive the cards.
The "card delivery means" is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as covering the disclosed pushing means, such as bars, rods, or fingers on a common bar or rail, that push cards along a row to the corresponding drop-off point, disengage, return, and repeat (Spec. [0095]-[0098], [0118], and [0128]), and equivalents thereof. De Somer teaches the corresponding transfer structure. It states that the packages are brought together "by means of fingers 27 which are secured to a bearing plate 28" ([0030]) and that during forward movement "a finger 27 can push a card package" from one row toward the adjacent row ([0031]). The prior-art structure performs the identical function of transferring row-associated card stacks to a downstream collection location, in substantially the same way by coordinated card-engaging fingers carried by a common reciprocating support, with substantially the same result of delivering the stacks along the storage path. The differences in finger shape or support geometry are insubstantial. See In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 1364, 54 USPQ2d 1308, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2000); MPEP § 2183.
It would have been obvious to use the Grauzer I indexable rack and drop-off relationship at the output of De Somer's coordinated row-transfer mechanism for the same reason stated for the claim 12 combination: De Somer supplies and transfers the physical stacks, while Grauzer I positions the selected compartment to receive them. A person of ordinary skill could have coupled the known transfer output to the known indexable rack without changing the established function of either mechanism, and the predictable result would be row-wise delivery into the selected storage compartment with a reasonable expectation of success. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(A) and (C).
Regarding claim 22, De Somer expressly teaches the source and movement relationship. It states that collecting members 9 are "facing the discharge end of each suction belt 2" and are mounted on common shaft 10 ([0016]). Each belt discharge is therefore a card supply point and the collecting member then positioned at that discharge is the source-correlated receiving point. De Somer further states that, during collating, one collecting member facing each belt is positioned to collect cards ([0020]) and that shaft 10 swings so "a following collecting member 9 takes the position of the preceding member" ([0026]).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, M may equal one, so each source-correlated column may contain one receiving point. The claim does not require a planar column, a vertical column, independent column actuation, or more than one receiving point when M=1. Rotation of the common shaft moves the source-correlated receiving point relative to the corresponding belt discharge and places a receiving point in the card-receiving position. The movement therefore permits cards from each supply unit to be provided to each receiving point of its M=1 column. The source belt continues to define In and the single destination row/storage means continues to define Im=1.
For the card delivery means, De Somer states that the packages are brought together by fingers 27 secured to bearing plate 28 ([0030]) and that a finger pushes a card package from one row toward the adjacent row during the forward movement ([0031]). For the same function-way-result reasons stated above for claim 21, that coordinated finger-and-support structure is equivalent to the corresponding pushing structure disclosed for the card delivery means under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
The added supply-point and relative-movement limitations are expressly present in De Somer, while Grauzer I and Grauzer II continue to provide the identification, assignment, target, and compartment-control acts required by claim 12. Combining those teachings as described for claim 12 would not change the purpose or principle of De Somer's movable collecting members or card-transfer fingers. Each component would retain its established function, and the predictable result would be a source-indexed movable receiving arrangement that supplies the identified cards into the same random destination-control method. A person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the references use compatible electromechanical card-feeding, positioning, and programmable control operations. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(A) and (C).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Somer (EP 0010566 A1) in view of Grauzer et al. (US 20120242039 A1, "Grauzer I"), and further in view of Grauzer et al. (US 20130032998 A1, "Grauzer II"), and further in view of Shigeta (WO 2012042823 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Shigeta describes a device for "automatically creating a card deck that has the prescribed number of 16 of cards used in a card game, without excess or deficiency" (Abstract). In the eight-deck embodiment, each completed stocker is labeled "52 x 8" and contains 416 cards corresponding to eight decks (Fig. 4; Embodiment 2). Thus, one completed set comprises Q=8 decks, and those eight decks constitute Tm.
It would have been obvious to apply Shigeta's known eight-deck compilation technique to the combined random-set method because the base method already identifies, routes, counts, stores, and removes playing cards, and Shigeta applies the same complete-set technique to a comparable automated card-sorting and storage system. A person of ordinary skill could have configured Tm and the completion criterion for eight decks using the known card identities, counters, routing controls, and storage capacity without changing their respective functions. The predictable result would have been a complete randomly ordered eight-deck set, with a reasonable expectation of success. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(C) and (D).
Regarding claim 16, Shigeta expressly teaches "a card reading device (23) for determining the suit and rank of playing cards" and "a plurality of card stockers" (Abstract). Shigeta further teaches that cards of the same suit and rank are stocked in a selected stocker until a predetermined number is reached and that later cards of the same suit and rank are directed to a different stocker having fewer than the predetermined number (claim 1). These teachings satisfy identifying each card by rank and suit, counting each rank-and-suit type in each storage means, and assigning a card to a storage means only while that count is less than Q.
It would have been obvious to apply Shigeta's rank-and-suit quota control to each storage means of the combined system because the base system already identifies cards, assigns destinations, counts cards, and forms complete multi-deck sets, while Shigeta uses the same control technique to prevent excess or deficiency in an automated playing-card set. A person of ordinary skill could have implemented the known counters and routing condition in the existing processor without changing the mechanical card-handling functions, with the predictable result that each Q-deck set contains Q cards of every rank-and-suit type and with a reasonable expectation of success. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(C) and (D).
Claims 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Somer in view of Grauzer I, and further in view of Grauzer II, as applied to claim 12 and 13 above, and further in view of Johnson et al. (US 6267248 B1, "Johnson ").
Regarding claim 13, Johnson expressly teaches that "there are two banks of four magazines 20 arranged in side-by-side relationship at opposite sides of the feeding means 14," thereby providing M=8 storage means (Col. 3, lines 45-49; Fig. 1). Johnson further claims "at least eight adjacent magazines that move vertically with respect to the delivery mechanism" and teaches that each magazine has multiple storage spaces selectively indexable with a delivery carriage (Col. 3, lines 50-65; Col. 4, lines 1-11; claims 3 and 19-25).
De Somer already provides twelve source-correlated box paths and successive indexed box positions. In the modified system, eight indexed destination positions are associated with Johnson's eight magazines, so the N source groupings and M destination positions form the claimed N-by-M coordinate arrangement. It would have been obvious to replace the single downstream rack with Johnson's known eight-magazine arrangement to accumulate multiple complete sets and unload one set while other sets continue to be formed. Each magazine would retain its known storage and indexing function, and De Somer's supply and staging components would retain their functions. The result would predictably increase simultaneous storage capacity and reduce interruption for unloading. The present facts also align with In re Harza because multiple known storage magazines duplicate the established storage function to increase capacity without producing a new or unexpected function. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B); KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(A) and (C).
Regarding claim 19, Johnson expressly teaches that "there are two banks of four magazines 20," for a total of eight magazines (Col. 3, lines 45-49; Fig. 1), and claim 3 recites "at least eight adjacent magazines." Thus, M=8, which is within the claimed range of 4 to 10.
It would have been obvious to select Johnson's expressly disclosed eight-magazine arrangement for the combined system to provide multiple destination storage means and permit several complete card sets to be accumulated or retained concurrently. De Somer's supply and staging components and Johnson's magazines, storage spaces, and indexing mechanism would each retain their established functions, and a person of ordinary skill could have connected the destination positions to the eight magazines using the known delivery carriage and programmable routing controls. The predictable result would have been M=8 storage capacity with a reasonable expectation of success. The facts also align with In re Harza because the added magazines duplicate the known storage function to increase capacity without a new or unexpected function. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B); KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(A) and (C).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW JAMES ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (571)272-5496. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30 -5:00.
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.
ANDREW JAMES ELLIOTT
Examiner
Art Unit 3711
/ANDREW JAMES ELLIOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 3711 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights