Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 25, 2026
Application No. 19/077,492

WAGERER DIRECTED CONTRIBUTION DEFINED BY BOOKMAKER CONTRIBUTOR INCENTING WAGERING

Non-Final OA §101§DOUBLEPATENT
Filed
Mar 12, 2025
Priority
Oct 18, 2021 — provisional 63/256,976 +3 more
Examiner
GALKA, LAWRENCE STEFAN
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Edatanetworks Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 2m
Est. Remaining
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allowance Rate
678 granted / 882 resolved
+16.9% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
914
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
11.6%
-28.4% vs TC avg
§103
37.2%
-2.8% vs TC avg
§102
23.5%
-16.5% vs TC avg
§112
19.6%
-20.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 882 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §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, 2, 4, 9, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10-20 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12,277,836. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the respective claim of the ‘836 patent anticipate the instant claims. 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. Examiner believes the claims recite an abstract idea, the rules for resolving a wager. However, this abstract idea has been incorporated in to a practical application by the recitation of a virtual reality headset. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Grujicic (pat. no. 10,825,293) discloses a gaming rebate based on wagering proceeds that can be directed to a user specified charitable organization. Nelson (pub. no. 20200334959) and Deardorff (pub. no. 20150011305), disclose a wagering systems with donations to user directed charities. However, none of these references disclose: - the rebate or donation is based on a particular wager and the probability of the outcome occurring when the outcome occurs or that probability of the possible outcome does not exceed a predetermined odds threshold - the rebate or donation is based on a particular wager that is lost when at the time when the possible outcome did not actually occur, an odds difference in: the probability of the possible outcome actually occurring; and the probability of the possible outcome of the competition not actually occurring in the competition is less than a predetermined losing odds threshold - the rebate or donation is based on a particular wager on a losing team that is won because a point spread is not covered - the rebate or donation is only paid if the charitable organization is located within a predetermined distance from the winning competitor that is subject to a wager. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE STEFAN GALKA whose telephone number is (571)270-1386. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-9 & 12-5. 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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. 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. /LAWRENCE S GALKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 12, 2025
Application Filed
Oct 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §101, §DOUBLEPATENT (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12766418
STORAGE MEDIUM, GAME CONTROL METHOD AND GAME SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12752200
REPLAY OF GAME PLAY BETWEEN A VIDEO FRAME WHERE A SNAPSHOT WAS CAPTURED AND A SELECTED VIDEO FRAME TO BEGIN A NEW GAME PLAY OF A VIDEO GAME
2y 4m to grant Granted Oct 06, 2026
Patent 12746468
COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR GENERATING VISUAL ADJUSTMENT IN A COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT ENVIRONMENT
2y 11m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12746469
Predicting the Appearance of Deformable Objects in Video Games
2y 7m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12728359
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DETECTING NEGATIVE GAMEPLAY BEHAVIOR AND TOXIC GAMEPLAY CONTROL
3y 0m 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
77%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+18.3%)
2y 9m (~1y 2m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 882 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