Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 18/937,217

Gaming Machines Having Retrofittable Insertable Memory Expansion Board with Onboard Random Number Generator

Non-Final OA §DOUBLEPATENT
Filed
Nov 05, 2024
Priority
Jun 26, 2019 — AU 2019902239 +4 more
Examiner
KIM, KEVIN Y
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Aristocrat Technologies Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
7m
Est. Remaining
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allowance Rate
751 granted / 960 resolved
+18.2% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+15.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
980
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
12.5%
-27.5% vs TC avg
§103
43.8%
+3.8% vs TC avg
§102
14.6%
-25.4% vs TC avg
§112
15.1%
-24.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 960 resolved cases

Office Action

§DOUBLEPATENT
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 . 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. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,165,468. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the patent and application are directed to a system with an expansion board generating a random number, a main board generating a different random number, and when the expansion board is connected to the main board, accessing a plurality of registers for the random number for the first generated random number and generating a second random number with the first random number as a source of entropy for the random number generator. The only differences between the patent and application are slight differences in diction and limitation ordering (e.g. claim 1 of the patent begins with the main board whereas the application begins with the expansion board), but nonetheless, the patent would wholly anticipate the claimed invention were it considered prior art, therefore a nonstatutory double patenting rejection is proper. Claims 2-20 are similar and fail to impart any differences regarding patentability. Minor differences in claim language (see claims 5, 14, and 20 of the patent compared to claims 5 and 10 of the application) are seen as directed to the same invention as while claims 5 and 10 of the application do not explicitly disclose seeding a plurality of keys, the claims are broader in scope as they only necessitate a second processor operable to seed the hardware random number generator to produce the first random number, which claims 5, 14, and 20 of the patent teach. 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

Nov 05, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DOUBLEPATENT (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12746465
PROGRAM, METHOD, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE FOR GAME
2y 7m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12743926
WAGERING ON EVENTS IN A STREAMING ENVIRONMENT
3y 9m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12738128
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR ELECTRONIC INSTANT RAFFLES
2y 3m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12728353
GAME ADJUSTMENTS BASED ON BIOMETRIC SIGNALS
3y 3m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Patent 12728354
COMPUTER SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR AUTOMATICALLY ADAPTING DIFFICULTY LEVELS OF A VIDEO GAME
2y 7m to grant Granted Sep 08, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+15.9%)
2y 6m (~7m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 960 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