Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/433,276

GAME CONSOLE DEVELOPMENT HARDWARE HAVING AN ENDPOINT MANAGEMENT BRIDGE INTERFACE

Non-Final OA §101§112§DP
Filed
Feb 05, 2024
Examiner
WONG, JEFFREY KEITH
Art Unit
3715
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
65%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 9m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 65% — above average
65%
Career Allow Rate
351 granted / 540 resolved
-5.0% vs TC avg
Strong +29% interview lift
Without
With
+28.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 9m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
576
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
28.7%
-11.3% vs TC avg
§103
33.6%
-6.4% vs TC avg
§102
15.0%
-25.0% vs TC avg
§112
13.9%
-26.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 540 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §112 §DP
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 1-20 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. The term "substantially" in claims 1 and 11, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "substantially" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. 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. Claim 1-20 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/433281 (reference application) in view of Boyd et al., US 20070165596 (Boyd). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented. Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/433281 in view of Boyd et al., US 20070165596 (Boyd). The Examiner has provided a table below showing similarities between the claimed invention. Application 18/433276 Application 18/433281 1. A console compute card for installation in a host system, comprising: 1. A console compute card for installation in a host system, comprising: an accelerated processing unit (APU); an accelerated processing unit (APU); a Southbridge; a Southbridge having a PCle connection to the APU; wherein the Southbridge exposes one or more mirrored PCIe endpoints, including one or more local endpoints for enumeration by the APU through the PCIe fabric of the console compute card, and one or more host-facing endpoints for enumeration by the host system through a PCIe fabric of the host system; an endpoint management bridge (EMB) having a PCle connection to the Southbridge, the EMB exposing one or more mirrored PCle endpoints, including one or more local endpoints for enumeration by the APU, and one or more host-facing endpoints for enumeration by the host system; a PCIe edge connector for insertion into a PCIe slot of the host system to form a PCIe connection between the console compute card and the host system; a PCle edge connector for insertion into a PCle slot of the host system to form a PCle connection between the console compute card and the host system; wherein the console compute card includes compute resources substantially similar to compute resources of a retail game console. wherein the console compute card includes compute resources substantially similar to compute resources of a retail game console. Application 18/433276 fails to disclose: wherein a PCIe connection between the APU and the Southbridge is defined as part of a PCIe fabric of the console compute card. However, Boyd discloses that it is well known by those of skill in the art, that PCI Express (PCIe) is widely used in computer systems to interconnect host units to adapters or other components, by means of a PCI switched-fabric bus or the like (paragraph 4). Therefore, it would be obvious that since Application 18/433276 utilizing PCIe and APU and the use of PCIe, Application 18/433276 would therefore disclose wherein a PCIe connection between the APU and the Southbridge is defined as part of a PCIe fabric of the console compute card as it is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art as taught by Boyd. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Conclusion 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

Feb 05, 2024
Application Filed
Nov 25, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §112, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602968
FREE GAME MULTIPLIER FOR VIDEO KENO GAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12602969
GAMING SYSTEM PROVIDING GROUP-BASED AWARDS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594462
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR TRACKING SPORTS PLAYERS TO GENERATE AND APPLY RECEIVER TRACKING METRICS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592127
GAMING SYSTEM AND METHOD WITH A PERSISTENT ELEMENT FEATURE INCLUDING A SLIDING RANGE COMPONENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12592130
GAMING SYSTEMS AND METHODS USING MULTI-FEATURE AWARD ACCUMULATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
65%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+28.7%)
3y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 540 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