Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 18/581,318

NETWORK ARCHITECTURE FOR GAMING INDUSTRY ACCOUNTING

Non-Final OA §101
Filed
Feb 19, 2024
Priority
Sep 13, 2018 — continuation of 10/891,823 +3 more
Examiner
PIERCE, DAMON JOSEPH
Art Unit
3715
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Jcm American Corporation
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
2-3
OA Rounds
7m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allowance Rate
652 granted / 867 resolved
+5.2% vs TC avg
Strong +29% interview lift
Without
With
+28.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
899
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.6%
-37.4% vs TC avg
§103
78.2%
+38.2% vs TC avg
§102
6.4%
-33.6% vs TC avg
§112
5.1%
-34.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 867 resolved cases

Office Action

§101
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 § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims are directed to transferring funds (mental processes and organizing methods of human activity) involving: receive and verify identifying information (mental process); receive financial account information (fundamental economic practice); credit the electronic gaming machine with funds from a financial account associated with the financial account information (fundamental economic practice such as use money from user’s bank account to play a game). Claims 1, 7, and 11 do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. The claim does not improve the functioning of the computer itself or another technology; rather, it uses the computer components as tools to implement the abstract idea of transferring funds. No particular machine beyond generic components. Claims 1, 7, 11 recite “electronic gaming machine”, “mobile interface device”, “personal electronic device”, “dedicated processing unit”; “gaming machine processor”. See MPEP 2106.05(b), (f). The additional elements (securing a communication channel, facilitating communications) are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements (claims 1, 7, 11 “one or more peripherals”; claims 4, 6, 10, 11 “cryptographically unique signature”) are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and do not impose a meaningful limit on the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under MPEP § 2106.04(d). Considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claims do not recite an inventive concept (“significantly more”) beyond the abstract ideas. Generic computer components and environments (electronic gaming machine, mobile interface device, personal electronic device, dedicated processing unit, gaming machine processor) performing fund crediting are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities in the field of computer gaming. Under Berkheimer v. HP, 881 F.3d 1360, absent evidence in the record that any claimed element or arrangement is not WURC, it is proper to treat generic machine, devices, processors, and fund transferring as conventional. The claims do not recite non-conventional computer functionality or architecture. No specific algorithm, data structure, or hardware improvement is claimed that would transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Therefore, claims 1-14 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims are directed to judicial exceptions—mental process and organizing methods of human activity —and do not integrate those exceptions into a practical application. The additional elements, viewed individually and in combination, amount to no more than the abstract idea of transferring funds, implemented on a generic computer, and therefore do not add “significantly more.” Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAMON J PIERCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1997. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-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. /DAMON J PIERCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 19, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §101
Feb 23, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 08, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §101 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12629592
WIN CELEBRATION RECORDING AND RANKING
3y 1m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12611604
COMPETITION EVALUATION SYSTEM AND EVALUATION METHOD
2y 6m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Patent 12605637
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DETECTING SOCIALIZATION PREFERENCES AND CONTROLLING MULTIPLAYER SELECTION
2y 9m to grant Granted Apr 21, 2026
Patent 12594490
CONTROL DEVICE, SYSTEM AND METHOD
3y 2m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12582916
PROGRAM, INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE, METHOD, AND SYSTEM
2y 8m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+28.9%)
2y 10m (~7m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 867 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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