Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/212,126

MOBILE POINT OF SALE APPLICATION FOR REDEMPTION OF GAME WINNINGS

Final Rejection §DP
Filed
Jun 20, 2023
Examiner
PANDYA, SUNIT
Art Unit
3715
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Blackhawk Network, INC.
OA Round
5 (Final)
66%
Grant Probability
Favorable
6-7
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 66% — above average
66%
Career Allow Rate
616 granted / 941 resolved
-4.5% vs TC avg
Strong +29% interview lift
Without
With
+28.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
969
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
17.3%
-22.7% vs TC avg
§103
24.4%
-15.6% vs TC avg
§102
30.3%
-9.7% vs TC avg
§112
16.5%
-23.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 941 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 action is in response to the amendments filed on 12/3/25 wherein the examiner acknowledges that claims 1 & 15 have been amended, no additional claims have been added and claim 11 remains canceled. Consequently, claims 1-10 & 12-20 are currently pending. 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 1-10 & 12-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,721,176. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current application substantially claims similar limitations with one exception. The current application additionally fails to claim “the customer-usable value in convertible into a gift card, an open-loop stored-value card, a closed-loop stored value card or combination thereof”. However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention to modify the current application to allow the user to convert virtual voucher to a more useful gift card thus providing player with multiple options to redeem their rewards. 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 SUNIT PANDYA whose telephone number is (571)272-2823. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:30PM. 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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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. /SUNIT PANDYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 20, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 14, 2024
Final Rejection — §DP
Aug 21, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 20, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Sep 24, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 30, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Dec 31, 2024
Response Filed
Feb 28, 2025
Final Rejection — §DP
May 05, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 05, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jun 10, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 28, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Dec 03, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 28, 2026
Final Rejection — §DP
Mar 30, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603015
ENHANCED CLASSROOM APPLICATIONS, METHODS, AND SYSTEMS USING SENSOR RELAYS INCLUDING SOLAR AND VIRTUAL EMBODIMENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597312
ELECTRONIC GAMING MACHINE DISPLAY UNIT WITH AN INTEGRATED SPEAKER TRANSDUCER FOR FORMING A DIRECTIONAL SPEAKER CONE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597068
Systems and Methods for Geolocation Portfolio Exchanges
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597063
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR UTILIZING TRANSPORTATION CAPACITY UNITS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12587831
Learning Gamification and Safety Control Application for Mobile Devices
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
66%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+28.8%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 941 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

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

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month