Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/148,843

GAMING DEVICE WITH AWARD WHEELS

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Dec 30, 2022
Priority
Aug 05, 2022 — AU 2022211903
Examiner
WONG, JEFFREY KEITH
Art Unit
3715
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Aristocrat Technologies Inc.
OA Round
4 (Final)
66%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 66% — above average
66%
Career Allowance Rate
367 granted / 559 resolved
-4.3% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+27.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
22 currently pending
Career history
588
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
22.7%
-17.3% vs TC avg
§103
57.8%
+17.8% vs TC avg
§102
11.2%
-28.8% vs TC avg
§112
5.0%
-35.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 559 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 the Application This Office-Action acknowledges the Amendment filed on 4/10/2026 and is a response to said Amendment. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1, 8-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Independent Claims 1, 8, and 15 disclose “generate, using a random number generator, an underlying game outcome by mapping one or more random numbers to one or more underlying reel strip indexes to determine stopping positions for underlying reel strips”. However, there appears to be no support within the specification disclosing such limitations. 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 9-14, 16-20 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. Claims 8-9, and 16-17 recite the limitation "the threshold". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 11 and 18 recite the limitation "the plurality of different sets of wheel award". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 11 and 18 recite the limitation "the modified award wheel ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Above are just example issues regarding USC §112(b). There are more issues that have not been pointed out as it appears the application is replete with such issue. From what the Examiner can tell, it appears the applicant had completed amended the independent claims anew but had failed to amend the dependent claims reflecting the new amendments. For example, “threshold” was disclosed in prior claim language (filed 10/20/2025) but had been removed in the most recent claim language (filed (4/10/2026) which means there is lack of antecedent basis since its removal had not been addressed/propagated for the dependent claims. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see page 10-15, filed 4/10/2026, with respect to Claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Claims 1-20 has been withdrawn. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5pm. 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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571) 270-1344. 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. /JEFFREY K WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 2 earlier events
Jun 18, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jul 10, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 18, 2025
Final Rejection mailed — §112
Oct 20, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 28, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Apr 10, 2026
Response Filed
May 28, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12682722
LIMITED PAYOUT SYSTEMS AND METHODS
2y 8m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12676053
GAME AWARD ENHANCEMENT FOR ADJACENT GAME SYMBOLS
3y 6m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12676054
GAMING MACHINE AND METHOD USING LINKED VALUE-BEARING SYMBOLS
2y 2m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12670767
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR BULK INCREMENTING A BONUS PRIZE AND REPEATEDLY PROVIDING THE BONUS PRIZE IN ASSOCIATION WITH A PLURALITY OF FREE SPINS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12664855
GAMING MACHINE, CONTROL METHOD FOR MACHINE, AND PROGRAM FOR GAMING MACHINE
3y 5m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
66%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+27.2%)
3y 6m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 559 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month