DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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 1-3 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.
Claim 1 lines 4-6 recite a management device configured to detect an abnormality by comparing information on “the used cards that have been used in a game” with information on “the used cards stored in the housing,” which is exceedingly confusing. Only one set of cards was previously claimed in line 2, “used cards that have been pulled out of a card shoe and used in a game.” This claimed set of cards appears to be the only set and is stored in the housing. The references in lines 4-6 appear to both be to the same set of cards, making it unclear what is being “compared.” The set of cards claimed cannot be compared to itself. It is also unclear what these “two” pieces of information are since they appear to be the same set of cards. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 lines 8 and 9 also recites “the used cards” which lacks proper antecedent basis this term is not consistent with previous terms. It is unclear what used cards are being referenced here. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shigeta (US Patent No. 8,371,583 B2) in view of Purton (US Patent No. 6,726,205 B1).
In Reference to Claims 1 and 3
Shigeta teaches (Claim 1) A system comprising: a housing (item 11, fig. 1) configured to store used cards that have been pulled out of a card shoe and used in a game (configured to store cards 12, fig. 1; note this is an intended use / function of the housing, where the cards came from is not a structural limitation, the housing is fully capable of performing this recited function); and [], wherein the housing is provided with a seal configured to restrict unauthorized removal of the used cards from the housing during movement (item 13, fig’s 1), the housing storing the used cards has an ID code (item 13a, fig’s 1), only authorized staff are allowed to remove the used cards from the housing (there is no structure recited here, this is merely an intended use).
(Claim 3) wherein the housing is configured to also store unused cards that have not been pulled from the card shoe and have not been used in the game (again, this is an intended use / function of the housing, since the housing is fully capable of storing cards, it meets this limitation).
Shigeta fails to teach the management device of claim 1.
Purton teaches a management device configured to detect an abnormality by comparing information on the used cards that have been used in a game with information on the used cards stored in the housing, and inspecting whether the two pieces of information match (claim 1, scanning and cataloguing all cards and comparing to known card information about the deck to identify if there are any missing or extra cards).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the card management system of Shigeta with the feature of the management device of Purton for the purpose of inspecting the decks of cards either before use or after use in order to ensure fair play and prevent cheating, and ensure the number and value of the deck of cards is correct as taught by Purton (background and column 9 lines 11-16), making the system more reliable and more attractive to the users.
In Reference to Claim 2
Shigeta teaches all of claim 1 as discussed above.
Shigeta further teaches (Claim 2) wherein the housing has an open state in which the used card can be entered and exited (fig. 1b), and a closed state in which the stored used card cannot be removed (fig. 1a), and the seal is provided [] to maintain the housing in the closed state (fig. 1 and column 6 lines 21-24).
Shigeta fails to teach the seal being provided in the housing.
However, Shigeta teaches providing a seal with the housing (fig. 1, and column 6 lines 21-24).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the seal in the housing simply as a matter of engineering design choice, since, it has been held that rearrangement of parts is an obvious matter of engineering design choice where the operation of the device is not modified. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Since Shigeta teaches providing a seal together with a housing for the purpose of sealing cards within the housing, simply providing these items together, or providing them with the seal in the box for this same purpose would not modify the operation of the device and is, therefore, not a patentable advance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additionally cited references disclose inventions similar to applicant’s claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH B BALDORI whose telephone number is (571)270-7424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am to 5pm 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, 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.
/JOSEPH B BALDORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights