Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 18/476,428

ELECTRONIC VIDEO GAMING SYSTEMS AND METHODS

Final Rejection §103§112
Filed
Sep 28, 2023
Examiner
KIM, KEVIN Y
Art Unit
3715
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Truist Bank
OA Round
2 (Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
728 granted / 934 resolved
+7.9% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+16.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
969
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
12.7%
-27.3% vs TC avg
§103
40.6%
+0.6% vs TC avg
§102
16.3%
-23.7% vs TC avg
§112
15.0%
-25.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 934 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . 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. Claim 8 is 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. Claim 8 recites the limitation “a unique pseudorandom noise codes.” It is unclear whether the signal comprises multiple unique pseudorandom noise codes, or whether the plural “codes” is a typographical error. The Examiner will assume that a single unique pseudorandom noise code is being claimed until clarification and correction is provided by Applicant. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim(s) 1-5, 9-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fine et al (US 8,777,735) in view of Halbritter et al (US 7,022,017). Re claim 1, Fine discloses a system comprising: at least one processor, communication interface, and memory device (fig. 1, 112, 114, and col. 41:1-11) causing the processor to: determine a total quantity of resources obtainable through gameplay that are required for an entry to an event, wherein the event is associated with a total resource distribution to at least one winning entry (fig. 4, 406, fig. 8, 801, and col. 19:49 to 20:3, the total quantity of resources obtainable through gameplay are the amount of money a player can win through winning wagers, money being considered a resource as it is used to make wagers); receive, via a network, a data transmission comprising structured data indicating that a user of an electronic video game allocated partial resources of the total quantity of resources required for the entry to the event, the partial resources being less than the quantity of resources required for the entry to the event, wherein the partial resources are obtainable upon completion of one or more tasks performable via the electronic video game (19:49 to 20:3, players are able to make wagers of varying amounts, wherein partial wagers result in partial winnings, and wherein playing the game is considered a performable task, and money being considered a resource); perform data processing on the structured data to generate a partial event entry to the event, the partial event entry corresponding to the allocated partial resources, the partial event entry having a same proportional percentage of the entry as a percentage of the partial resources relative the quantity of resources, wherein the generated partial event entry is associated with a partial resource output that is potentially available, the partial resource output being less than the total resource distribution (19:40 to 20:3, the partial entry rewards a proportional reward based on the result and the amount of the wager in proportion to the full amount); identify, based on a random number, that the at least one winning entry eligible for the total resource distribution comprises the partial event entry, and based thereon distribute the partial resource output to a location associated with the user (49:29-41, random results are generated using a random number generator, and 50:10-19, based on the result, players receive a payout); and transmit, to the user device, an electronic notification indicating that the partial event entry resulted in distribution of the partial resource output (19:26-60 and 20:1-2, if the player wins, the game reveals winnings to the player). However, while Fine has disclosed a random number generator, Fine is silent on transmitting a control signal to a third party server to request a random number and receive the random number associated with the total resource distribution. Halbritter teaches a gaming system which receives random numbers from an external game server and base a win/lose result on that random number and the player’s selection (11:41-60). It would have been obvious to implement an external server for generating random numbers as taught by Halbritter in order to provide a secure and third party source of random numbers, decreasing the possibility of fraud and tampering while providing the same randomness of game results as a traditional random number generator. Re claim 2, Fine discloses the partial resources were obtained based on the user performing less than a total number of tasks required to obtain the total quantity of resources (19:26-60 and 20:1-2, in order for players to receive the full potential winnings, a full wager must be made, therefore by utilizing a partial wager, the player has not completed the task of wagering the full amount of money to qualify for the full award). Re claim 3, Fine discloses a plurality of tasks of the total number of tasks are performed based on the user providing one or more inputs via a user interface that displays the electronic video game (the player places wagers via the UI as evidenced in figs. 7-10). Re claim 4, Fine and Halbritter have disclosed a random number generator (see the rejection to claim 1). Re claim 5, Fine discloses the event comprises a promotion associated with real-world resources (money and currency are considered real-world resources). Re claim 9, Fine discloses access to the game is based on authenticating the user device including verifying personally identifiable information (30:53-54 and 7:7-22, the verification information includes various personally identifiable information). Re claim 10, Fine discloses the location comprises a resource storage location comprising a unique identification number, and wherein the distributing of the partial resource output to the location is capable of being performed based on the user syncing a user profile associated with the location to a gaming profile of the user that the user uses to play the electronic video game (11:1-44, wherein the player’s tracking account is considered a unique identification number). Re claim 11, Fine discloses the resource storage location comprises an account configured to receive real-world resource deposits (11:1-44, the tracking accounts store money which is a real-world resource). Re claims 12-14 and 17-20, see the rejections to claims 1-4. Claim(s) 6-8 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fine in view of Halbritter as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Feurstein et al (US 2006/0240845). Re claim 6, Fine does not disclose a geographic position of the user device is determined to ensure the user is eligible to participate in the event based on the event being restricted by a geographic region. Feurstein teaches a system that utilizes GPS satellite signals in order to determine attributes of the user’s geographic region, such as legal laws governing said region (par. [0088]). It would have been obvious to utilize the GPS satellites of Feurstein in conjunction with the gaming system of Fine in order to ensure that the player playing the game is located in a geographic region with laws allowing for wagering gaming. Re claim 7, Feurstein teaches the geographic position is determined using GPS system coordinates identified based on signals obtained from multiple satellites used to calculate the geographic position ([0240], the system utilizes one or more GPS satellite signals). Re claim 8, Feurstein teaches each of satellite of the multiple satellites transmits a respective signal comprising a unique pseudorandom noise code and satellite positioning data ([0241] and [0242], wherein PRN, i.e. pseudorandom noise codes are considered a noise code). Re claims 15-16, see the rejections to claims 6-7. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Y Kim whose telephone number is (571)270-3215. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday. 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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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. /KEVIN Y KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 28, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Mar 26, 2026
Interview Requested
Mar 30, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 31, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 31, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Apr 16, 2026
Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599840
VIRTUAL CHARACTER CONTROL METHOD AND APPARATUS, STORAGE MEDIUM, AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594492
HANDHELD CONTROLLER WITH HAND DETECTION SENSORS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589277
Smart Sports Result Implications
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582903
NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12569759
INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, GAME VIDEO EDITING METHOD, AND METADATA SERVER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+16.2%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 934 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