DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-12 are 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. The recitation of claim 1 requiring the reshuffling to occur “prior to output” from “the card shuffling system” is unclear, vague, and indefinite. A person ordinary skill in the art cannot properly ascertain the metes and bounds of this limitation. The specification does not provide context as to the scope of the “card shuffling system”, which is different from the “control system”. Applicant should amend using language that clearly delineates when the cards are within the shuffling system and when they are no longer in the shuffling system. For examining purposes, the shuffling system will be construed such that the shuffling system ends prior to being shipped, or used in game play, as this appears to comport with the intended scope in view of the specification. Claims 2-12 are rejected based on their dependency to 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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 of this title, 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.
3. Claims 1-4, 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albrecht (US Pat. No. 6,250,632) in view of Stevens et al. (US Pat. No. 5,000,453) and, in the alternative, further in view of Hoffman (US Pat. No. 4,770,421).
With respect to claim 1, Albrecht teaches a card shuffling system 20 comprising: a plurality of compartments 32 (“slots”); and a card feeder 34 (“card feed mechanism” – column 6, lines 41-67; column 7) that includes a surface 52 on which a stack of cards can be held (Fig.’s 1a; 3-4d – part of “deck holding area 24” with “bottom support surface 52” – column 6, lines 45-46); wherein the card shuffling system 20 is configured to: on a random basis (“random”, “random sequence” utilizing “random number generator 120” - column 8, lines 31-67; column 11, lines 20-67), cause the surface of the card feeder 34 to be positioned at positions corresponding to different ones of the plurality of compartments 32 (Fig. 8; column 12, lines 20-50); at each of the positions, feed a card 22 from the stack that is on the surface into the respective compartment 32 to which the respective surface position corresponds Id.; and combine all of the cards of the stack of cards that had been held on the surface of the card feeder and had been transferred to the plurality of compartments into a single shuffled stack 42(“sorted deck”- column 13).
Admittedly, Albrecht does not expressly teach a re-shuffling as claimed. However, Stevens et al., directed to the analogous art of card shuffling systems teaches the following to be known in the art: re-shuffling a single shuffled stack into a second single shuffled stack prior to output of any of the cards of the single shuffled stack from the card shuffling system (“two ... cycles are provided” – column 15, lines 14-67). Hence, at the time of invention, one ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to re-shuffle the cards before exiting the shuffling system for the expected purpose of ensuring a true randomness to the stack. The proposed modification is considered to have a reasonable expectation of success as examiner takes a broad view of “shuffling system” and one ordinary skill in the art can reasonably achieve the re-shuffling without making unworkable modifications to Albrecht or modifications that frustrate its intended purpose.
Lastly, Albrecht teaches wherein in the preferred embodiment, the compartments/tray 30 move vertically with respect to the stationary card feeder mechanism 34 instead of the card feeder surface moving with respect to stationary compartments. However, Albrecht expressly contemplates wherein “the opposite is true” - compartments 32 /tray 30 could “remain stationary”, and a mechanism is used to move the cards 22 and card feed mechanism (column 14, lines 53-60). Examiner submits such teaching constitutes an anticipatory teaching of the limitation that the surface of the card feeder is shifted and positioned at corresponding positions of the compartments since the cards 22 are positioned within card deck holding area 24 which comprises surface 52 and works in conjunction with card feed mechanism. Should applicant traverse, examiner, in the alternative, cites to Hoffman, directed to the analogous art of card shuffling systems, which teaches such features as moving a card feeder surface vertically respect to the compartments is known in the art (Fig. 1A; column 2, lines 35-67; column 3, lines 1-9; see loading station “floor”, “distribution elevator 20” and “pockets”). Per KSR, exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include: (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). Here, the simple substitution in movement of the card feeder surface for the compartment movement will have the predictable result of positioning the cards from the card feeder to the compartments to provide a randomized order of the cards. The proposed modification is considered to have a reasonable expectation of success as the primary purpose of Albrecht expressly contemplates such a modification (column 14, lines 53-60).
With respect to claim 2, Albrecht teaches a respective movable partition between each pair of immediately adjacent ones of the plurality of compartments (partitions defining the slots of tray 30 as shown in Fig.’s 1-2), wherein, to combine all of the cards into the single shuffled stack 42, the card shuffling system is configured to move the partitions so that they do not separate the cards in the respective pairs of compartments to which the respective partitions correspond (the partitions are rotated so that the cards fall together into the sorted deck – column 9, lines 29-67).
With respect to claim 3, Albrecht teaches a sensor 26 (“read heads”) configured to scan each of the cards fed from the card feeder 34 to the plurality of compartments 32 (column 11, lines 37-45); and a processor 112 configured to: obtain scan data generated by the sensor 26 Id; based on the scan data, determine whether the single shuffled stack 42 is defective; and responsive to a result of the determination being that the single shuffled stack is defective, produce a corresponding output (“error indicator 156a” – column 13, lines 1-24);
With respect to claim 4, Albrecht teaches wherein the processor is further configured to, in addition to production of the corresponding output, trigger discard of the single shuffled stack via - “error indicator 156b” - column 13, lines 1-24 . While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114, In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. Here, the error indicator 156b is capable of triggering the card shuffling system administer to discard the deck as it alerts of its defectiveness. It is noted that applicant’s specification does not teach an automated procedure wherein the deck is discarded without user assistance.
With respect to claims 9 and 11-12, Albrecht, as combined with the teachings of Stevens et al. teaches a random re-shuffling of the first deck to form a second single shuffled stack (the motivation to combine is the same as stated above) prior to output of the shuffling system, but does not expressly teach wherein the second shuffling (or the re-shuffle of the first shuffled stack) is conducted using a second plurality of compartments, or a second card shuffling deice. However, the Federal Courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). In the instant case, duplicating Albrecht’s shuffling device would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s effective filing date. In providing a second shuffling device, the re-shuffling of the first shuffled deck will expectantly be shuffled a second time. There are several obvious benefits to this duplication. First, if a first shuffling device has any mechanical or software defects that would frustrate the randomness of the shuffle, the second shuffling device would serve to ameliorate these issues. Moreover, it is known in the gaming art to utilize features such as using separate and independent random event generators to generate a combined random event as evidenced by Szrek (US Pat. No. 6,477,251), cited for extrinsic evidence, at column 1, lines 55-63; column 3, lines 28-34 and column 4, lines 55-57; Fig.’s 1-2). Szrek teaches that the use of two independent processors with independent random generators is preferable to single-source random number generation because a single random generator “provides a single point of access to alter the random process algorithm and presents a security risk,” noting that “[a] skilled programmer having gained access to a machine may defraud the institution operating the machine by providing ways to either predict the outcome of the machine or make a specific outcome arise at desirable times” (col. 1, lines 55-63). By contrast, when two separate and independent processors are used, “it is difficult to have sufficient access to compromise the security of the outcome” (col. 3, lines 31-34). This same rationale is applicable to the use of two separate and distinct shuffling devices.
By incorporating the second shuffling device, which is merely a duplication of the shuffling device provided by Albrecht et al., the re-shuffle of the single shuffled stack would be accomplished prior to leaving the second shuffling device as the second shuffled stack will be deposited on the bottom of the device before being brought up to “removal area 46” as shown in Figures 5d-5d.
With respect to claim 10, Albrecht teaches wherein the card shuffling system is configured to perform the shift of the surface of the card feeder to be positioned at the positions corresponding to the different respective ones of the plurality of compartments while the stack remains stationary (with respect to the surface). Like applicant’s specification teaches, the stacked deck 22 positioned on surface 52 is moving with the the card feeder mechanism when the shifting of the surface occurs, however, the stacked deck is stationary with respect to the surface during the shifting. It’s not until the open compartment “closest slot 32” is “moved across” from the opening of the card feeder is the bottom card moved (column 12, lines 20-50). Alternative reference Hoffman also teaches this feature: column 3, lines 1-28. The motivation to combine is the same as stated above.
4. Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albrecht (US Pat. No. 6,250,632) in view of Stevens et al. (US Pat. No. 5,000,453), or in the alternative, in further in view of Hoffman (US Pat. No. 4,770,421), and further in view of Shigeta (US Pub. No. 2004/0026636)
With respect to claims 5-8, Albrecht teaches wherein the sensor 26 is positioned to perform the capturing of the cards as the cards are fed from the card feeder to the plurality of compartments 32 (Fig. 1), but does not expressly teach wherein the sensor includes a camera, or a mirror as claimed. However, Shigeta, directed to playing inspection devices, teaches the following to be known in the art: wherein a card detection sensor includes a camera 40 and further comprising a mirror 38 positioned opposite the camera 40 (Fig. 24 – being positioned on opposite sides of card feed rollers15/16) so that respective first faces of the cards that face the camera are directly detectable by the camera 40 and respective second faces of the cards that face away from the camera are detectable by the camera via reflections by the mirror (paragraph [0201]); and wherein the sensor includes a first sensor 37 (camera) facing in a first direction, thereby being positioned to capture respective first faces of the cards; and a second sensor 20 (camera) facing in a second direction that is approximately opposite the first direction, thereby being positioned to capture respective second faces of the cards, wherein each of the first and second directions is approximately perpendicular to a surface of card feeder 14/15/16, the first and second sensors 37, 20 being positioned to perform their respective capturing as the cards are fed from the card feeder to a collective card compartments (Fig. 23). Hence, at the time of applicant’s effective filing, one ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate the sensing structure disclosed by Shigeta into Albrecht. Per KSR, exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include: (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Here, the simple substitution of the sensor 26 of Albrecht with either the camera facing camera or camera facing mirror inspection arrangement of Shigeta will expectantly inspect both the front and back of the card using known industry means, thereby providing a complete inspection of the card for the the sensor/scanning system. The proposed modification is considered to have a reasonable expectation of success as camera sensors, at the time of applicant’s effective filing, are known to come in reduced sizes so as to be more easily incorporated into the shuffling system.
Lastly, should applicant traverse that the camera 40 and mirror 38 of Shigeta are not “opposite” each other, as the Drawings show them to be merely substantially facing each other as opposed to exact facing, examiner considers the difference is arrangement to be obvious in the art. Per MPEP 2144.04, In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) when the only difference between the prior art and claimed invention is a particular arrangement that would not modify the operation of the device, such differences were held unpatentable. Here, the operation of Shigeta and applicant’s invention perform the same function of capturing both sides of the card using a camera and mirror positioned on opposite sides of feeder rollers.
Double Patenting
5. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
6. Claims 1-4, 9-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,865,435 in view of Albrecht (US Pat. No. 6,250,632).
With respect to claims 1, 9 and 11-12, the patented claims disclose a shuffling system that randomly shuffles cards into a first single shuffled stack, and re-shuffling the first single shuffled stack into a second shuffled stack using respective first and second shuffling devices, prior to output of the cards from the card shuffling system.
Admittedly, the patented claims do not disclose the claimed components of the shuffler, However, analogous art reference Albrecht cures the deficiencies not taught by the patented invention -See Albrecht teachings of: a card shuffling system 20 comprising: a plurality of compartments 32 (“slots”); and a card feeder 34 (“card feed mechanism” – column 6, lines 41-67; column 7) that includes a surface 52 on which a stack of cards can be held (Fig.’s 1a; 3-4d – part of “deck holding area 24” with “bottom support surface 52” – column 6, lines 45-46); wherein the card shuffling system 20 is configured to: on a random basis (“random”, “random sequence” utilizing “random number generator 120” - column 8, lines 31-67; column 11, lines 20-67), cause the surface of the card feeder 34 to be positioned at positions corresponding to different ones of the plurality of compartments 32 (Fig. 8; column 12, lines 20-50); at each of the positions, feed a card 22 from the stack that is on the surface into the respective compartment 32 to which the respective surface position corresponds Id.; and combine all of the cards of the stack of cards that had been held on the surface of the card feeder and had been transferred to the plurality of compartments into a single shuffled stack 42(“sorted deck”- column 13). Albrecht teaches wherein in the preferred embodiment, the compartments/tray 30 move vertically with respect to the stationary card feeder mechanism 34 instead of the card feeder surface moving with respect to stationary compartments. However, Albrecht expressly contemplates wherein “the opposite is true” - compartments 32 /tray 30 could “remain stationary”, and a mechanism is used to move the cards 22 and card feed mechanism (column 14, lines 53-60). Examiner submits such teaching constitutes an anticipatory teaching of the limitation that the surface of the card feeder is shifted and positioned at corresponding positions of the compartments since the cards 22 are positioned within card deck holding area 24 which comprises surface 52 and works in conjunction with card feed mechanism. At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize a shuffling machine as taught by Albrecht for the first and second shuffle machines of the shuffling system of the patented invention. The motivation to combine references is to utilize a known means to procure shuffled playing cards. The combination has a reasonable expectation of success as the RNG of the patented invention can be easily incorporated with the shuffling components of Albrecht to facilitate the shuffling.
With respect to claim 2, Albrecht teaches a respective movable partition between each pair of immediately adjacent ones of the plurality of compartments (partitions defining the slots of tray 30 as shown in Fig.’s 1-2), wherein, to combine all of the cards into the single shuffled stack 42, the card shuffling system is configured to move the partitions so that they do not separate the cards in the respective pairs of compartments to which the respective partitions correspond (the partitions are rotated so that the cards fall together into the sorted deck – column 9, lines 29-67). The motivation to combine is the same as stated above.
With respect to claim 3, Albrecht teaches a sensor 26 (“read heads”) configured to scan each of the cards fed from the card feeder 34 to the plurality of compartments 32 (column 11, lines 37-45); and a processor 112 configured to: obtain scan data generated by the sensor 26 Id; based on the scan data, determine whether the single shuffled stack 42 is defective; and responsive to a result of the determination being that the single shuffled stack is defective, produce a corresponding output (“error indicator 156a” – column 13, lines 1-24). The motivation to combine is the same as stated above. Additionally, these shuffle components will improve the integrity of the final deck as it provides desirable security and quality control measures.
With respect to claim 4, Albrecht teaches wherein the processor is further configured to, in addition to production of the corresponding output, trigger discard of the single shuffled stack via - “error indicator 156b” - column 13, lines 1-24 . While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114, In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. Here, the error indicator 156b is capable of triggering the card shuffling system administer to discard the deck as it alerts of its defectiveness. It is noted that applicant’s specification does not teach an automated procedure wherein the deck is discarded without user assistance. The motivation to combine is the same as stated above.
With respect to claim 10, Albrecht teaches wherein the card shuffling system is configured to perform the shift of the surface of the card feeder to be positioned at the positions corresponding to the different respective ones of the plurality of compartments while the stack remains stationary (with respect to the surface). Like applicant’s specification teaches, the stacked deck 22 positioned on surface 52 is moving with the the card feeder mechanism when the shifting of the surface occurs, however, the stacked deck is stationary with respect to the surface during the shifting. It’s not until the open compartment “closest slot 32” is “moved across” from the opening of the card feeder is the bottom card moved (column 12, lines 20-50). The motivation to combine is the same as stated above.
7. Claims 5-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,865,435 in view of Albrecht (US Pat. No. 6,250,632) and further in view of Shigeta (US Pub. No. 2004/0026636).
With respect to claims 5-8, the patented claims as modified by Albrecht teaches wherein the sensor 26 is positioned to perform the capturing of the cards as the cards are fed from the card feeder to the plurality of compartments 32 (Albrecht - Fig. 1), but does not expressly teach wherein the sensor includes a camera, or a mirror as claimed. However, Shigeta, directed to playing inspection devices, teaches the following to be known in the art: wherein a card detection sensor includes a camera 40 and further comprising a mirror 38 positioned opposite the camera 40 (Fig. 24 – being positioned on opposite sides of card feed rollers15/16) so that respective first faces of the cards that face the camera are directly detectable by the camera 40 and respective second faces of the cards that face away from the camera are detectable by the camera via reflections by the mirror (paragraph [0201]); and wherein the sensor includes a first sensor 37 (camera) facing in a first direction, thereby being positioned to capture respective first faces of the cards; and a second sensor 20 (camera) facing in a second direction that is approximately opposite the first direction, thereby being positioned to capture respective second faces of the cards, wherein each of the first and second directions is approximately perpendicular to a surface of card feeder 14/15/16, the first and second sensors 37, 20 being positioned to perform their respective capturing as the cards are fed from the card feeder to a collective card compartments (Fig. 23). Hence, at the time of applicant’s effective filing, one ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate the sensing structure disclosed by Shigeta into the patented invention as modified by Albrecht. Per KSR, exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include: (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Here, the simple substitution of the sensor 26 of Albrecht with either the camera facing camera or camera facing mirror inspection arrangement of Shigeta will expectantly inspect both the front and back of the card using known industry means, thereby providing a complete inspection of the card for the sensor/scanning system. The proposed modification is considered to have a reasonable expectation of success as camera sensors, at the time of applicant’s effective filing, are known to come in reduced sizes so as to be more easily incorporated into the shuffling system.
8. Claims 1-4, 9-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 17, 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,186,651 in view of Albrecht (US Pat. No. 6,250,632).
With respect to claims 1, 9 and 11-12, the patented claims disclose a shuffling system that randomly shuffles cards into a first single shuffled stack, and re-shuffling the first single shuffled stack into a second shuffled stack using respective first and second shuffling devices, prior to output of the cards from the card shuffling system.
Admittedly, the patented claims do not disclose the claimed components of the shuffler, However, analogous art reference Albrecht cures the deficiencies not taught by the patented invention -See Albrecht teachings of: a card shuffling system 20 comprising: a plurality of compartments 32 (“slots”); and a card feeder 34 (“card feed mechanism” – column 6, lines 41-67; column 7) that includes a surface 52 on which a stack of cards can be held (Fig.’s 1a; 3-4d – part of “deck holding area 24” with “bottom support surface 52” – column 6, lines 45-46); wherein the card shuffling system 20 is configured to: on a random basis (“random”, “random sequence” utilizing “random number generator 120” - column 8, lines 31-67; column 11, lines 20-67), cause the surface of the card feeder 34 to be positioned at positions corresponding to different ones of the plurality of compartments 32 (Fig. 8; column 12, lines 20-50); at each of the positions, feed a card 22 from the stack that is on the surface into the respective compartment 32 to which the respective surface position corresponds Id.; and combine all of the cards of the stack of cards that had been held on the surface of the card feeder and had been transferred to the plurality of compartments into a single shuffled stack 42(“sorted deck”- column 13). Albrecht teaches wherein in the preferred embodiment, the compartments/tray 30 move vertically with respect to the stationary card feeder mechanism 34 instead of the card feeder surface moving with respect to stationary compartments. However, Albrecht expressly contemplates wherein “the opposite is true” - compartments 32 /tray 30 could “remain stationary”, and a mechanism is used to move the cards 22 and card feed mechanism (column 14, lines 53-60). Examiner submits such teaching constitutes an anticipatory teaching of the limitation that the surface of the card feeder is shifted and positioned at corresponding positions of the compartments since the cards 22 are positioned within card deck holding area 24 which comprises surface 52 and works in conjunction with card feed mechanism. At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize a shuffling machine as taught by Albrecht for the first and second shuffle machines of the shuffling system of the patented invention. The motivation to combine references is to utilize a known means to procure shuffled playing cards. The combination has a reasonable expectation of success as the RNG of the patented invention can be easily incorporated with the shuffling components of Albrecht to facilitate the shuffling.
With respect to claim 2, Albrecht teaches a respective movable partition between each pair of immediately adjacent ones of the plurality of compartments (partitions defining the slots of tray 30 as shown in Fig.’s 1-2), wherein, to combine all of the cards into the single shuffled stack 42, the card shuffling system is configured to move the partitions so that they do not separate the cards in the respective pairs of compartments to which the respective partitions correspond (the partitions are rotated so that the cards fall together into the sorted deck – column 9, lines 29-67). The motivation to combine is the same as stated above.
With respect to claim 3, Albrecht teaches a sensor 26 (“read heads”) configured to scan each of the cards fed from the card feeder 34 to the plurality of compartments 32 (column 11, lines 37-45); and a processor 112 configured to: obtain scan data generated by the sensor 26 Id; based on the scan data, determine whether the single shuffled stack 42 is defective; and responsive to a result of the determination being that the single shuffled stack is defective, produce a corresponding output (“error indicator 156a” – column 13, lines 1-24). The motivation to combine is the same as stated above. Additionally, these shuffle components will improve the integrity of the final deck as it provides desirable security and quality control measures.
With respect to claim 4, Albrecht teaches wherein the processor is further configured to, in addition to production of the corresponding output, trigger discard of the single shuffled stack via - “error indicator 156b” - column 13, lines 1-24 . While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114, In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. Here, the error indicator 156b is capable of triggering the card shuffling system administer to discard the deck as it alerts of its defectiveness. It is noted that applicant’s specification does not teach an automated procedure wherein the deck is discarded without user assistance. The motivation to combine is the same as stated above.
With respect to claim 10, Albrecht teaches wherein the card shuffling system is configured to perform the shift of the surface of the card feeder to be positioned at the positions corresponding to the different respective ones of the plurality of compartments while the stack remains stationary (with respect to the surface). Like applicant’s specification teaches, the stacked deck 22 positioned on surface 52 is moving with the the card feeder mechanism when the shifting of the surface occurs, however, the stacked deck is stationary with respect to the surface during the shifting. It’s not until the open compartment “closest slot 32” is “moved across” from the opening of the card feeder is the bottom card moved (column 12, lines 20-50). The motivation to combine is the same as stated above.
8. Claims 5-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 17, 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,186,651 in view of Albrecht (US Pat. No. 6,250,632) and further in view of Shigeta (US Pub. No. 2004/0026636).
With respect to claims 5-8, the patented claims as modified by Albrecht teaches wherein the sensor 26 is positioned to perform the capturing of the cards as the cards are fed from the card feeder to the plurality of compartments 32 (Albrecht - Fig. 1), but does not expressly teach wherein the sensor includes a camera, or a mirror as claimed. However, Shigeta, directed to playing inspection devices, teaches the following to be known in the art: wherein a card detection sensor includes a camera 40 and further comprising a mirror 38 positioned opposite the camera 40 (Fig. 24 – being positioned on opposite sides of card feed rollers15/16) so that respective first faces of the cards that face the camera are directly detectable by the camera 40 and respective second faces of the cards that face away from the camera are detectable by the camera via reflections by the mirror (paragraph [0201]); and wherein the sensor includes a first sensor 37 (camera) facing in a first direction, thereby being positioned to capture respective first faces of the cards; and a second sensor 20 (camera) facing in a second direction that is approximately opposite the first direction, thereby being positioned to capture respective second faces of the cards, wherein each of the first and second directions is approximately perpendicular to a surface of card feeder 14/15/16, the first and second sensors 37, 20 being positioned to perform their respective capturing as the cards are fed from the card feeder to a collective card compartments (Fig. 23). Hence, at the time of applicant’s effective filing, one ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate the sensing structure disclosed by Shigeta into the patented invention as modified by Albrecht. Per KSR, exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include: (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Here, the simple substitution of the sensor 26 of Albrecht with either the camera facing camera or camera facing mirror inspection arrangement of Shigeta will expectantly inspect both the front and back of the card using known industry means, thereby providing a complete inspection of the card for the sensor/scanning system. The proposed modification is considered to have a reasonable expectation of success as camera sensors, at the time of applicant’s effective filing, are known to come in reduced sizes so as to be more easily incorporated into the shuffling system.
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL DAVID DENNIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3538. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/MICHAEL D DENNIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
