Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/638,294

METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR CONDUCTING A SECONDARY GAME BASED ON AN UNDERLYING, HISTORICAL-EVENT BASED PRIMARY GAME

Non-Final OA §101§102§112
Filed
Apr 17, 2024
Examiner
MCCLELLAN, JAMES S
Art Unit
3715
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Castle Island Ip Holding LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
656 granted / 829 resolved
+9.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+12.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
860
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
15.2%
-24.8% vs TC avg
§103
42.2%
+2.2% vs TC avg
§102
30.7%
-9.3% vs TC avg
§112
9.2%
-30.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 829 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §102 §112
DETAILED ACTION 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 2 and 12 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. Claim 2 recites the limitation "the one or more selected events" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 mentions “one or more historic events.” Claim 1 does not recite that the historic events are selected. Claim 2 does not indicate that the events are the same as the historical events of claim 1. Clarification is required. Claim 12 recites the limitation "the one or more selected events" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12 depends from claim 11, which does not mention “events”. 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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. 2019 PEG Analysis Step 1: Are the claims directed to a statutory category (e.g., a process, machine, etc.) Claims 1-10 are directed to an apparatus. Claims 11-20 are directed to a process. Claim 21 is not directed to a non-statutory category because it recites one or more “computer-readable mediums” (CRM), which could be transient signals. The Examiner recommends amending claim 21 to recite that the CRM is non-transitory. Step 2A (Prong 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes, the claims recite an abstract idea. The following specific limitations in the claims under examination recite an abstract idea: Providing a primary/secondary game to a user (e.g., claims 1, 11, 7, and 17) Determining a game result of a wager (e.g., claims 1, 8, 10, 11, 18, and 20) Selecting odds for wagering game (e.g., claims 4-6 and 14-16) The above listed identified limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG: Mental Processes: concepts preformed in the human mind (including on observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity: managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions or relationships of interaction between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. The claims are primarily directed to rules for playing a game, wherein the game rules align with a method of organizing human activity. Step 2A (Prong 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? Overall, the following additional claim limitations appear to merely implement the abstract idea, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, or generally link the judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use, as outlined below: Displaying or outputting game information (e.g., claims 1 and 11, insignificant extra-solution activity); Accepting/receiving user inputs (e.g., claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9-13, 15, 16, 19, and 20, insignificant extra-solution activity); Specific categories of data, including historical horse race data, table game type (e.g., claims 2 and 12, a particular technological environment or field of use) Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? With regard to claims 1-21 the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The above listed additional claim limitations display and process game data in a well-understood, routine, and conventional way. Further, the computer hardware of claim 1 (e.g., a processor, display, and input device) are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. In order to satisfy the Berkheimer factual determination of conventional elements in the art, U.S. Patent No. 7,819,742 to Chamberlain is cited for disclosing the conventional features of slot machines including processors (e.g., see at least column 11, lines 14-16) and displays (e.g., see column 7, lines 12-25). Therefore, claims 1-21 are not patent eligible under 101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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 – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0383700 to Higgins. With regard to claim 1, Higgins discloses a gaming machine (e.g., see at least Figs. 7A-7C for disclosure of gaming machines; see also paragraph 72 for additional discussion of gaming machines) comprising: a display device configured to display an output to a user (e.g., see Fig. 6, display devices 1035; see also paragraph 95 for discussion of display devices); an input device (e.g., see at least Fig. 6, input device 1030; see also paragraph for discussion of input device) configured to accept a wager from the user for a primary game (e.g., see at least paragraph 105 for discussion of an “input device 1030 includes at least one wagering or betting device”), the primary game being based on one or more historic events (e.g., see at least paragraph 3 for introductory discussion of placing an wager on the outcome of a historical horse race); a processor (e.g., see Fig. 6, processor 1010; see also paragraph 86 for discussion of a processor) coupled to a memory (e.g., see Fig. 6, memory 1016; see also paragraph 86 for discussion of memory device), the input device (input device 1030) and the display device (display device 1035); the gaming machine configured to: provide a secondary game to the user (e.g., see at least paragraph 25 for introductory discussion of the play of a secondary game); receive an input from the user for the secondary game and convert the user input to the wager for the primary game; determine a result of the wager for the primary game (e.g., see at least paragraphs 30 and 38-40 for discussion a slot game associated with a wager on a historical horse race, HHR); and provide an output of the secondary game to the user corresponding to the result of the wager (e.g., see at least paragraphs 38-41 for discussion slot game output); [claim 2] wherein the one or more selected events are historical horse races (e.g., see at least paragraph 3 for introductory discussion of placing an wager on the outcome of a historical horse race); and/or wherein the secondary game is a table game, the table game comprising one or more of poker (e.g., see at least paragraph 25 for discussion of a “video poker machine”), baccarat, blackjack (e.g., see at least paragraph 129, “video blackjack”), craps, roulette, a big six wheel or wheel of fortune, pool, pachinko, chemin de fer, pai gow, a lottery, keno e.g., see at least paragraph 129, “video keno games” that include winning numbers), or any other table game, or bingo; and/or the input from the user for the secondary game comprises one or more of a “hit”, “stay”, “roll” (e.g., see at least paragraph 129, “video blackjack”, wherein hit and stay are common inputs for blackjack), a predicted winning number (e.g., see at least paragraph 129, “video keno games” that include winning numbers), and a predicted winning entity (e.g., see at least paragraph 3 that discussion horse races) ; [claim 3] wherein the primary game comprises selecting a predicted final outcome and/or predicted final ranking of one or more participants in one or more selected events (e.g., see at least Fig. 5 that shows a player that is permitted to “Select bet parameters and commit bet”; see also paragraph 19 that discussion manually or automatically selecting horses)); [claim 4] wherein the gaming machine is configured to select the one or more selected events based on odds of available wagers for said one or more selected events (e.g., see at least paragraphs 3-5 and 19-22 that discuss selecting event outcomes) ; [claim 5] wherein the input from the user for the secondary game corresponds to betting odds for the secondary game (e.g., see at least paragraphs 25 and 48-55 for discussion of the wagering process including betting odds); [claim 6] wherein converting the user input to the wager for the primary game comprises automatically selecting a predicted final outcome and/or predicted final ranking of one or more participants for one or more selected events having wager odds corresponding to the betting odds for the secondary game (e.g., see at least paragraphs 20-22 for discussion of predicted rankings); [claim 7] wherein the gaming machine is further configured to provide a plurality of secondary games to the user, the outputs of the secondary games cumulatively corresponding to the result of the wager (e.g., see at least paragraph 25 for discussion of “one or more secondary games”); [claim 8] wherein the gaming machine is configured to select the one or more selected events based on the input from the user for the secondary game (e.g., see at least paragraphs 25 and 30 for discussion selecting events); [claim 9] wherein the input from the user for the secondary game corresponds to betting options for the secondary game (e.g., see at least paragraph 129 for discussion of secondary games); and [claim 10] wherein converting the user input to the wager for the primary game comprises automatically selecting a scorecard for the primary game based on the betting options selected for the secondary game (e.g., see at least paragraphs 19 and 29 that discuss that wagers by manual or automatic, wherein the wager for HRR is s scorecard). Claims 11-21 are anticipated by Higgins based on the analysis set forth above for claims 1-10, which are similar in claim scope. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0041453 to Grimm discusses playing a casino-style game of chance with pari-mutuel race outcomes (e.g., see at least the Abstract and paragraph 28). U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0251789 to Waters discusses an electronic gaming system using historical event data (e.g., see at least Figs. 3 and 4). U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0327213 to Casey discusses a wagering game using historical data (e.g., see at least Fig. 8). U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0325707 to Aronson discusses a system for wagering on a plurality of events, including horse races (e.g., see at least Figs. 4 and 5). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES S MCCLELLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7167. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8:30AM-5:00PM). 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. /James S. McClellan/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 17, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599834
Game Box Element Forming the Lid of a Game Box or Game Board, Associated Game Box
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594499
AUXILIARY VIRTUAL OBJECT CONTROL IN VIRTUAL SCENE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597366
BRONCHOSCOPY SIMULATOR AND CONTROL METHOD FOR SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592165
MANUFACTURING METHOD OF BRONCHOSCOPY SIMULATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589283
INFORMATION PROVIDING SYSTEM, INFORMATION PROVIDING METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIUM STORING PROGRAM
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
79%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+12.6%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 829 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