Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/195,779

DYNAMIC WAGERING FEATURES BASED ON NUMBER OF ACTIVE PLAYERS

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
May 10, 2023
Examiner
MYHR, JUSTIN L
Art Unit
3715
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Igt
OA Round
6 (Non-Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
6-7
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allow Rate
532 granted / 835 resolved
-6.3% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+30.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
872
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
20.1%
-19.9% vs TC avg
§103
37.9%
-2.1% vs TC avg
§102
16.9%
-23.1% vs TC avg
§112
11.5%
-28.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 835 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . Response to Amendment This office action is in response to amendments filed on 11/21/2025. Double Patenting 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. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11670130. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claims are drawn to method and system claim versions of the parent 11670130 except without the inclusion of the feature of the bonus game options based on number of parents. Therefore the current claims are a broader version of the parent claims regarding this feature. As per audio language examiner finds the claims in 11670130, see claim 14, include a first and second audio with the audios being different and therefore reads on the currently amended language. Claims include a machine learning model to process sensor data which is not present in parent 11670130 claims. However examiner recognizes the claimed learning model is broadly reads on a means to process the data without specific features that would go beyond processing the data and recognizing information and therefore the language would still read on the parent claims. Applicant should include additional limitations with citation for support in order to distinguish. This renders them not patentably distinct. As per amended language regarding sensors examiner recognizes that 11670130 recites in the claims pressure and optical sensors at least and therefore this feature is not patentably distinct. Response to Arguments Applicant arguments regarding a practical application in light of amended language is persuasive. Specifically in light of paragraph [0031]. As per the double patenting rejection applicant has not addressed this and therefore the rejection is maintained. See above. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN L MYHR whose telephone number is (571)270-7847. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6PM. 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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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. /JUSTIN L MYHR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715 2/5/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 10, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 23, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Apr 25, 2024
Response Filed
Jun 26, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Oct 01, 2024
Response Filed
Nov 13, 2024
Final Rejection — §DP
Jan 21, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 18, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 19, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 24, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
May 07, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
May 07, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jun 25, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 22, 2025
Final Rejection — §DP
Nov 21, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 04, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597318
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ELECTRONIC GAMING WITH CHANGING DISPLAY STATES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592122
METHOD FOR SHARING GAME PLAY ON AN ELECTRONIC GAMING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582894
METHOD OF COMPETITION SCORING, NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE RECORDING MEDIUM, AND COMPETITION SCORING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582895
GOLF PLAYER AID WITH STROKE RESULT FORECASTING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12579866
SLOT MACHINE IMPLEMENTING A MIRROR OPERATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

6-7
Expected OA Rounds
64%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+30.3%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 835 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow 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