Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/369,380

STORING INFORMATION FROM A VERIFICATION DEVICE AND ACCESSING THE INFORMATION FROM A GAMING DEVICE TO VERIFY THAT THE GAMING DEVICE IS COMMUNICATING WITH A SERVER

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Sep 18, 2023
Examiner
HOEL, MATTHEW D
Art Unit
3715
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Cfph LLC
OA Round
4 (Non-Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
4-5
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allow Rate
397 granted / 587 resolved
-2.4% vs TC avg
Strong +32% interview lift
Without
With
+32.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
612
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
24.7%
-15.3% vs TC avg
§103
43.4%
+3.4% vs TC avg
§102
21.7%
-18.3% vs TC avg
§112
5.0%
-35.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 587 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions (priority date of 11-15-2006 to parent case 11/560,077, all cases in this series are continuations with the same specification, with no continuations-in-part, see bibliographic data sheet). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States. Claim(s) 2 and 8 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Walker, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/1027277 A1, 10/682,062, published Jul. 1st. 2004). As to Claims 2 and 8: Walker teaches all of the limitations of these claims: a method executed by at least one processor, comprising (Fig. 3, processor 305, Paras. 238 to 240; Abst.; Claim 1): rendering, on a display of a device associated with a user, a graphical interface object that is selectable to request a verification service from a verification server (gaming employee reading the authentication code locally at the gaming device, Para. 705; after the authentication code has been transmitted from the gaming server such as the casino server of Paras. 702 and 703); establishing, via communication circuitry, communication with a gaming server that is operable to provide gaming activities to the device, the gaming server being in communication with the verification server (casino server 1702, authentication server 1704, Figs. 17A,B, the examiner is interpreting the authentication server as a verification server, Paras. 444 & 445); detecting a selection of the graphical interface object to request the verification service from the verification server (Para. 716, a casino employee locally at the gaming device requests using a password an authentication code to be output; the output of the authentication code may be secure over a gaming network, Paras. 717 and 718); receiving, by the device, a randomly generated indicator transmitted from the verification service directly to the device, the randomly generated indicator including an image, any alphanumeric text value, a plurality of alphanumeric text values, an audible signal, an audible tone, an audible text value, a plurality of audible text values, or any combination thereof (Para. 716, a casino employee locally at the gaming device requests using a password an authentication code to be output; the output of the authentication code may be secure over a gaming network, Paras. 717 and 718; the examiner is interpreting the authentication code 2000 of Fig. 20, Paras. 453 & 454 to be in a text format); transmitting the randomly generated indicator to a gaming device associated with the user from the verification server and through the gaming server (Fig. 17B, the authentication code is transmitted from authentication server 1704 through casino server 1702 to gaming devices 1300, Para. 445); and outputting the randomly generated indicator on the device (the authentication code may be randomly generated, Paras. 631 & 632), wherein a match between the randomly generated indicator outputted on the device and the randomly generated indicator outputted on the gaming device confirms that the gaming device is in communication with the gaming server (match made, Paras. 732 to 736). As to Claims 3 and 9: Walker teaches in which the device comprises at least one of: a cellular phone, an IP phone, a personal computer, a pocket personal computer, and a PDA (Para. 230, the device can be a cell phone, a PDA). As to Claims 4 and 10: Walker teaches in which the gaming activities provided by the gaming server comprise at least one of: a gambling activity, wagering on an event, a lottery activity, and a non-gambling activity (information on gambling activity is provided to the authentication server; usage data for gaming device 2102, Fig. 21; Para. 457, see also Figs. 22, limitation 2202, and 23, limitation 2302). As to Claims 5 and 11: Walker teaches further comprising transmitting, to the gaming server, at least one of a name of a gaming activity currently engaged in by the device, a name of a gaming activity previously engaged in by the device, a sequence of one or more names of gaming activities engaged in by the device (Fig. 21, Para. 457, limitation 2102 transmits usage data of at least one gaming device, the examiner is interpreting this as previous gaming activity since it occurs before it is transmitted). As to Claims 6 and 12: Walker teaches further comprising transmitting, to the gaming server, at least one of a location at which the device is currently engaged in a gaming activity, a location at which the device previously engaged in a gaming activity, a sequence of one or more locations at which the device engaged in gaming activities (Paras. 298 to 301, a feature can be authorized by the authentication code based on which jurisdiction the gaming device is located in to comply with gaming regulations, the examiner is interpreting this as current gaming activity since it is based on the current location of the gaming device which cannot be moved without authorization). As to Claims 7 and 13: Walker teaches further comprising transmitting, to the gaming server, at least one of a serial number assigned to the device, a phone number assigned to the device, a media access control (MAC) address assigned to the device, a mobile identification number (MIN) assigned to the device, and an electronic serial number (ESN) assigned to the device in order to associate the device with the gaming activities (‘277 teaches gaming device identifiers 1900, Fig. 19, and 2004, Fig. 20, Paras. 450 to 453, the examiner is interpreting these as electronic serial numbers since they uniquely identify each gaming device in the database 1808, Fig. 18, Para. 449). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 2 to 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The terminal disclaimers filed by the applicants have been approved. Upon further consideration, the examiner is applying new art to the claims. The examiner apologizes to the applicants for any inconvenience. This office action is non-final. The examiner has reviewed the specification and has no suggestion as to how to amend the claims for allowance at this time. The applicants are welcome to request an interview, so that hopefully the next action is an allowance. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant as to the claims’ condition for allowance. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D HOEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5961. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 A.M.-4:30 P.M.. 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, David Lewis can be reached on (571) 272-7673. 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. /M.D.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3715 /DAVID L LEWIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 18, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 15, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Sep 20, 2024
Response Filed
Dec 28, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Apr 04, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Oct 16, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 31, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597316
Gaming Device, System and Method for Radial-Orbital Payline Mechanism
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597190
SYSTEM FOR CUSTOMIZING IN-GAME CHARACTER ANIMATIONS BY PLAYERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589297
IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD AND APPARATUS, COMPUTER DEVICE, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589298
IMAGE PREDICTION METHOD, ELECTRONIC DEVICE, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12544658
FISHING SIMULATION APPARATUS AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 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

4-5
Expected OA Rounds
68%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+32.1%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 587 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