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 .
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/19/25 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-8, 10-12, and 14-20 are pending. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-8, 10-12, 14-15, 18, and 20 have been amended and no new claims have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/19/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s representative arguments to address the rejections under 35 USC 101 and 35 USC 103 (see Remarks, pg. 9-18). The specific arguments are addressed in the sections below.
Response to arguments under 35 USC 101
The Applicant’s representative submits arguments that the claims are patent eligible and the rejection under 35 USC 101 in view of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, herein the “2019 PEG”. Specifically, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims are patent eligible because i) the claims are not directed to a certain method of organizing human activity under Step 2A-prong 1 (see Remarks, pg. 9-10); ii) the claims integrate the claim into a practical application by “eliminat[ing] operation associated with generating, storing, rendering, and/or communication with the above-described supplemental game play content” that solve a technical problem in conventional distributed gaming systems under Step 2A-prong 2 (see Remarks, pg. 10-12; and iii) the claims recite additional limitations that provide an inventive concept similar to Bascom under Step 2B (see Remarks, pg. 13-15).
With respect to Step 2A-prong 1, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the claims are not directed to a certain method of organizing human activity but merely involve an exception (see Remarks, pg. 9-10). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite managing a wager which the 2019 PEG regards as similar to a certain method of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic principle or practice, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II). For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the analysis under Step 2A-prong 1 is maintained.
With respect to Step 2A-prong 2, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the additional limitations recite specific technical benefits and effects that are achieve by “eliminat[ing] operations associated with generating, storing, rendering, and/or communicating the above-described supplemental game play content (e.g., visual, audio, textual, etc) associated with execution of the electronic game. Specifically, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the claims recite a solution to a technical problem because by bifurcating the workload, the remote gaming device is burdened with executing the game and generating, storing, and transmitting all the rich supplement content which allows the remote gaming device to run more games. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional limitations recite “after providing the game play outcome to the entity, generating, by the computing system using the random number, a re-creation of the execution of the game play, wherein the re-creation of the execution of the game play comprises the supplemental gameplay content, wherein the supplemental game play content comprises at least one of visual, audio content, or textual content that is associated with the execution of the game play” (see amended Claim 1). However, this recites limitations that recite only the idea of a solution or outcome (e.g., generating by the computing system using the random number, a re-creation of the execution of the game play) but does not show details how a solution to a problem is accomplished. This does not integrate the claim into a practical application but amounts to mere words to “apply it”. For at least these reasons, the additional elements are not found to recite a particular solution or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome that may integrate judicial exception to a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2.
Moreover, the additional elements invoke the computing system and the remote gaming device merely as a tool to implement steps and/or instructions to manage the wager and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea. In this instance, the claim recites generating the “re-creation” by using the random number. As noted in the prior art of Vancura, outcomes of wagering games are known to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a random number to generate outcomes that conform with regulatory requirements (see Vancura, Fig. 1, 0008, 0037-0040). Furthermore, the Examiner notes that the courts have noted that “claiming the improved speed or efficient inherently with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate the claim into a practical application and/or provide an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Similarly, the Applicant’s argument that by “re-creating” the game on the remote gaming device it provides for more efficiencies in processing by “generating, storing, and transmitting” utilize the computer in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks that does not integrate the claim into a practical application and/or significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Furthermore, the claims are not similar to example 2 of the 2014 Interim Guidance and/or to example 23 of the July 2025 as explained above, the claims are not directed to a technical solution to a technical problem necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. The claim recites a system for executing steps to manage a wager utilizing a computer as a tool to implement the game, insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea which is not found to integrate the claim into a practical application. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the analysis has been maintained below.
With respect to Step 2B, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the added limitations cannot be considered well-known, routine, or known within the industry. Specifically, the Applicant’s representative asserts that similar to Bascom, the claims recite an inventive concept not found in the components themselves, but in their unconventional arrangement and the specific sequence of operations they perform. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not recite an unconventional and non-generic combination of known elements but merely the desired result to re-create the wagering game with the supplement game play content in a thick client relationship which allows for the processing of the executed application on the remote device. When viewed individually and/or as a collection of the elements, the claims recite a series of steps and/or instructions to manage a wagering game in a networked environment. The claims further recite additional elements to output display of the supplement game content/rich game content on the remote gaming device. However, as explained above, the claims recite an idea of a solution to be used in a technological environment but does not provide sufficient details as to any technical challenges or solutions which were overcome to generate a re-creation of the execution of the game play using the random number, the re-creation of the execution of the game play comprising the supplemental game play content. It follows that the claims recites steps to implement and manage a wagering game including the rules and/or instructions in a computing system using the random number which is directed to the abstract idea itself.
Moreover, as previously explained in the analysis under Step 2B, the additional elements of “a computing system”, “one or more processors”, “one or more memory devices”, and “a remote electronic gaming device” recite highly-generalized computer components to be invoked as a tool to implement the abstract idea, perform insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea which does not amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). Similarly, it follows that the claims of the instant application are not analogous to i) example 25 as they are directed to managing a wagering game not to an unconventional process of constantly re-measuring temperature to improve the technical process of curing rubber and ii) example 34 of the 2014 IEG in which the claimed arrangement of elements results in an improvement in the technology of filtering content because the claims when considered individually and/or as a whole are directed to steps to manage a wagering game on a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a technological environment.
With respect to independent Claims 12 and 18, the Examiner submits that claims 12 and 18 are patent ineligible for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
With respect to the dependent claims, the dependent claims are not found to possess features that are independently patentable. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection of claims 1-2, 4, 6-8, 10-12, and 14-20 have been maintained below.
Response to rejections under 35 USC 103
The Applicant’s representative asserts that the prior art combination of Powell and Cotton do not teach or suggest “generating a re-creation of the execution of the game play using the random number, the re-creation of the execution of the game play comprising the supplemental game play content wherein the supplemental game play content comprises at least one of visual content, audio content, and textual content that is associated with the execution of the game play” (see Remarks, pg. 16-17). Specifically, the Applicant’s representative characterizes the prior art of Powell as being directed to “duplicating an identical gameplay outcome based on a selected seed value” that is used to generate “the bonus game outcome” which is not “a re-creation of the execution of the gameplay” (see Remarks, pg. 16-18). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted during the interview, the Examiner maintains that Powell uses the received outcome (e.g., payout value and seed) that is used to present the game play outcome by displaying the outcome of the game on the remote gaming machine. As disclosed in Powell, the gaming machine is adapted for presenting and playing games of chance such as a slot machine game, a keno game, a video poker game, a video blackjack game, and/or any other video table game (see Powell, 0027). Stated differently, by using the payout value and the seed value from the outcome registers, the system of Powell recreates the display of the first and second game outcomes on the remote gaming machine which is analogous to the re-creation of the execution of game play comprising the supplemental game content, wherein the supplemental game play content comprises at least one of visual content, audio content, or textual content that is associated with the execution of the game play (see Powell, Fig. 6A-B, 0027, 0075-0076) . Additionally, Powell discloses receiving a game play outcome of a game play of the electronic game executed on the remote gaming device using a random number generated by a random number generator of the remote electronic gaming device (see Powell, 0040-0042, wherein the gaming machine would display a combination of slot reel positions corresponding to a win of $100 for the player from the central server; game outcomes uses seed values to initialize a deterministic random number generator to produce a specific outcome of the game; 0045, wherein alternatively, multiple seed values may be used to generate a base game outcome and a game outcome for each sub-game). It follows that the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because it is not commensurate with the broader interpretation of the claimed invention. In particular, the “supplemental game play content comprises at least one of visual content, audio content, and textual content that is associated with the execution of the game play” does not distinguish from the prior art of Powell because recreating and displaying the outcome of a wagering game on the display device from a payout value and a seed value comprises re-creating supplemental game play content of visual content associated with the execution of gameplay. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection has been maintained.
With respect to independent Claims 12 and 18, the Applicant’s representative submits that claims 12 and 18 are not obvious over the material cited in the Office Action. The Examiner respectfully disagrees for substantially the same reasons as claim 1 discussed above.
With respect to dependent claims, the Applicant’s representative submits that the dependent claims are not obvious over the materials cited in the Office Action and does not hinge on the patentability of independent claims 1, 12, and 18. The Examiner respectfully disagrees for substantially the same reasons as claims 1, 12, and 18 as discussed above. As noted in the Office Action, the dependent claims have been analyzed and were found to recite additional limitations directed to a grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)), invoke a computer merely as a tool to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the prior art combinations have been maintained below.
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 1-4, 6-8, 10-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1 recites claims directed to a grouping of abstract ideas such as: “receiving a request from an entity to input a wager corresponding to an electronic game” – certain method of organizing human activity; “inputting, with a smart contract and based at least in part on one or more predefined rules, the wager into a queue corresponding to the electronic game” – certain method of organizing human activity; “receiving a game play outcome of a game play of the electronic game” – certain method of organizing human activity; and “prior to receiving or generating supplemental game play content associated with execution of the electronic game, providing the game play outcome to the entity, wherein the game play outcome lacks the supplemental game play content associated with the execution of the electronic game” -certain method of organizing human activity. The claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, are found to recite a certain method of organizing human activity for managing a wagering game. For at least these reasons, the claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, under Step 2A-prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations which recite “one or more processors; and one or more memory devices that stores instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform operations, the operations comprising:” “corresponding to an electronic game to be executed on a remote electronic gaming device” “of the electronic game to be executed on the remote electronic gaming device using a random number generated by a random number generator of the remote electronic gaming device;” “associated with execution of the electronic game on the remote electronic gaming device,” and “after providing the game play outcome to the entity, generating a re-creation of the execution of the game play using the random number, the re-creation of the execution of the game play comprising the supplemental game play content, wherein the supplemental game play content comprises at least one of visual content, audio content, or textual content that is associated with the execution of the game play” which are directed to steps and/or instructions to invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution including pre and post solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea which does not integrate the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2 (see MPEP 21006.05(f)-(h)).
The claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements such as “one or more processors”, “one or more memory devices”, “a remote electronic gaming device”, and “a random number generator” recite highly-generalized and commercially available components which are invoked as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a technological environment. The claims are similar to the findings in Alice v. CLS, in which whether the additional elements are viewed individually and/or as whole the claims does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Moreover, Vancura (US 2010/0029381 A1) discloses a conventional casino game machine uses a random number generator (RNG) to generate random events for game outcomes either locally or non-locally or a combination thereof. For at least these reasons, the claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, recite an abstract idea without significantly more under Step 2B.
Regarding independent Claims 12 and 18, the claims recite substantially the same subject matter as independent Claim 1 but are directed to the computer-implemented method and electronic gaming device embodiments. Specifically, independent Claim 12 recites an embodiment in which the game play content generates supplemental game play content which is directed to a certain method of organizing human activity. Independent Claim 18 further recites steps and/or instructions for the game play content lacking the supplemental game play content causes a recreation with the supplemental game content which are steps for managing a game. For substantially the same reasons as discussed above, Claims 12 and 18 are found to recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding dependent Claims 2-4, 6-8, 10-11, 14-17, and 19-20, the additional limitations have been reviewed and analyzed to recite further steps and/or instructions directed to a grouping of abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(a)), invoking a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))-(h)). For at least these reasons, claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-12, and 14-20 are found to recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-8, 10-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powell et al. (US 2011/0223991 A1) and Cotton (US 2020/0027315 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Powell discloses a computing system (see Powell, Fig. 1A-B, 0028)), comprising:
one or more processors (see Powell, Figs. 1-2, 0028-0029); and
one or more memory devices that store instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform operations (see Powell, 0028-0029), the operations comprising:
receiving a request from an entity to input a wager corresponding to an electronic game to be executed on a remote electronic gaming device (see Powell, 0005-0007, 0026, 0030, 0040-0044);
inputting the wager into a queue corresponding to the electronic game to be executed on the remote electronic gaming device (see Powell, Fig. 5A-D, 0040-0044, 0050-wherein the bet information is corresponded to a pool file associated with a game outcome register, 0058-0061, wherein the outcome register is a queue corresponding to the at least one remote electronic gaming device or the electronic game);
receiving a game play outcome of a game play of the electronic game executed on the remote electronic gaming device using a random number generated by a random number generator of the remote electronic gaming device (see Powell, 0026, 0033-0034; 0042-0044); and
prior to receiving or generating supplemental game play content associated with execution of the electronic game, providing the game play outcome to the entity (see Powell, 0005-0006, 0060-0070), wherein the game play outcome lacks the supplemental game play content associated with the execution of the electronic game (see Powell, 0039-0043, 0053, 0074-0077, wherein the seed value is used to determine a second game output); and
after providing the game play outcome to the entity, generating a re-creation of the execution of the game play using the random number, the re-creation of the execution of the game play comprising the supplemental game play content, wherein the supplemental game play content comprises at least one of visual content, audio content, or textual content that is associated with the execution of the game play (see Powell, Fig. 6A-B, 0007, 0026, 0036, 0039-0044, 0053, 0074-0077, wherein the game outcome is communicated to the gaming machine and the gaming machine then uses the seed value to re-create a game output that is displayed on the display of the remote gaming device). Although Powell discloses inputting the wager based on at least one or more predefined rules into the queue (see Powell, Fig. 5A-D, 0005-0007, 0027, 0039-0044 – wherein the enrollment message includes bet information that specify the game, the denomination, lines played, credits per line, 0058-0061, wherein a slot game operates by predefined rules associated with the placed wager), it is silent as to inputting, with a smart contract.
Cotton teaches a computing system which uses a smart contract to input a wager based at least in part on one or more predefined rules to perform at least one of execution, control, or documentation of one or more events associated with the wager (see Cotton, Figs. 1-4, 8, 0034-0042). Moreover, Cotton teaches the system that receives request from an entity to submit a wager that records, by the computing system, on a blockchain, one or more events associated with the wager (see Cotton, Figs. 1-4, 0034-0042). One would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Cotton’s use of smart contracts and blockchain for receiving wagers to use known techniques to yield the predictable result to automate odds making, betting, and payout processes (see Cotton, 0002)). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the application to inputting, with a smart contract and based at least in part on one or more predefined rules, the wager into a queue corresponding to the electronic game to be executed on the remote electronic gaming device.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Powell and Cotton teaches the computing system of claim 1, wherein the entity is a first entity and the operations further comprise: receiving a second request from at least one of the first entity or a second entity to view the re-creation of the execution of the game play (see Powell, 0039-0044, wherein the input of the wager and the receives seed value is a request by the first entity to view the re-creation).
Regarding claim 4, Powell discloses the computing system of claim 3, wherein the operations further comprise: receiving gameplay input data, the gameplay input data comprising a random number generated by a random number generator (see Powell, 0029, 0034-0042, wherein the RNG processes the script for the sequence of display events for the particular game outcome via the random number drawn).
Regarding claim 6, Powell discloses the computing system of claim 1, wherein the entity is a first entity and the operations further comprise: providing the re-creation of the execution of the game play to at least one of the entity or a second entity (see Powell, Fig. 5A-6B, 0039-0044, 0058-0070, wherein the one or more supplemental game play content is a seeded value for generating triggered bonus games and/or other games).
Regarding claim 7, Powell discloses the computing system of claim 6, wherein providing the re-creation of the execution of the game play to at least one of the first entity or the second entity comprises: providing data associated with the re-creation of the execution of the game play to one or more computing devices associated with at least one of the first entity or the second entity (see Powell, Fig. 5A-6B, 0039-0044, 0053, 0058-0070, 0074-0077 wherein the re-creation of the execution of the game play is the display of the game outcome on the remote display device).
Regarding claim 8, Powell discloses the computing system of claim 7, wherein the one or more computing devices comprise at least one of a local electronic gaming device, a client computing device, a second remote electronic gaming device, or a remote computing device (see Powell, 0034-0037), and wherein the supplemental game play content further comprises at least one of graphical content, video content, media content, or image content (see Powell, Fig. 3A-B, 0036-0037, 0074-0077, wherein the secondary game content is a secondary game and supplemental game play content includes a triggered bonus round).
Regarding 10, Powell discloses the computing system of claim 1. However, Powell is silent wherein the operations further comprise: recording, on a blockchain, one or more events associated with the wager.
Cotton teaches a computing system which uses a smart contract that performs at least one of execution, control, or documentation of one or more events associated with the wager (see Cotton, Figs. 1-4, 8, 0034-0042). Moreover, Cotton teaches the system receives request from an entity to submit a wager that records, by the computing system, on a blockchain, one or more events associated with the wager (see Cotton, Figs. 1-4, 0034-0042). One would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Cotton’s use of smart contracts and blockchain for receiving wagers to use known techniques to yield the predictable result to automate odds making, betting, and payout processes (see Cotton, 0002)). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the application wherein the operations further comprise: recording, on a blockchain, one or more events associated with the wager.
Regarding 11, the combination of Powell and Cotton teach the computing system of claim 10. The combination further teach wherein the recording, on the blockchain, the one or more events associated with the wager comprises: recording, on the blockchain, the one or more events associated with the wager using a smart contract that performs at least one of execution, control, or documentation of the one or more events associated with the wager based at least in part on one or more predefined rules (see Cotton, Figs. 1-4, 8, 0021-0040, wherein the predefined rules and recording includes the execution and documentation of one or more events with placing, collecting, and exchanges associated with the wager), and wherein the one or more events comprise at least one of one or more life cycle events associated with the wager, one or more transactions associated with the wager, or one or more monetary transactions associated with application of the wager (see Cotton, Figs. 1-4, 8, 0021-0040).
Regarding claim 12, Powell discloses a computer-implemented method (see Powell, Fig. 1A-B, 0028)), comprising:
receiving, by a computing system comprising one or more processors, a request from an entity to submit a wager corresponding to an electronic game to be executed on a remote electronic gaming device (see Powell, Figs 1-2, 0005-0006, 0026-0029, 0041-0044);
inputting, based at least in part on one or more predefined rules, by the computing system, the wager into a queue corresponding to at least one of the remote electronic gaming device or the electronic game (see Powell, Fig. 5A-D, 0027, 0039-0044, wherein the bet information is at least in part one or more predefined rules; 0058-0061, wherein the outcome register is a queue corresponding to the at least one remote electronic gaming device or the electronic game);
receiving, by the computing system, a game play outcome of a game play of the electronic game executed on the remote electronic gaming device using a random number generated by a random number generator of the remote electronic gaming device (see Powell, 0026, 0033-0034, 0042);
providing, by the computing system, the game play outcome to the entity, wherein the game play outcome lacks supplemental game play content associated with execution of the electronic game by the remote electronic gaming device (see Powell, Figs. 5A-6B, 0005-0007, 0058-0061, 0064-0077);
after providing the game play outcome to the entity, generating, by the computing system using the random number, a re-creation of the execution of the game play, wherein the re-creation of the execution of the game play comprises the supplemental game play content, wherein the supplemental game play content comprises at least one of visual content, audio content, or textual content that is associated with the execution of the gameplay (see Powell, Fig. 6A-B, 0007, 0026, 0036, 0039-0044, 0053, 0074-0077, wherein the game outcome is communicated to the gaming machine and the gaming machine then uses the seed value to re-create a game output that is displayed on the display of the remote gaming device). However, Powell is silent as to i) inputting, with a smart contract, the wager; and ii) recording, by the computing system, on a blockchain, one or more events associated with the wager.
Cotton teaches a computing system that receives request from an entity to input, with a smart contract, the wager and to submit the wager to record, by the computing system, on a blockchain, one or more events associated with the wager (see Cotton, Figs. 1-4, 0034-0042). One would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Cotton’s use of smart contracts and blockchain for receiving wagers to use known techniques to yield the predictable result to automate odds making, betting, and payout processes (see Cotton, 0002)). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the application to i) inputting, with a smart contract and based at least in part on one or more predefined rules, by the computing system, the wager and recording, by the computing system, on a blockchain, one or more events associated with the wager.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Powell and Cotton teach the computer-implemented method of claim 12, further comprising: generating, by the computing system, the re-creation of the execution of the game play based at least in part on game play input data used by the electronic game to execute the game play, wherein the supplemental game play content comprises at least one of graphical content, video content, media content, or image content, (see Powell, Fig. 3B, 0008, 0034-0037, 0067).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Powell and Cotton teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 12, further comprising: providing, by the computing system, data associated with the re-creation of the game play of the execution of the game play to one or more computing devices associated with of the entity (see Powell, Fig. 3A-B, 0036-0037, wherein the secondary game content is a secondary game and supplemental game play content includes a triggered bonus round), wherein the one or more computing devices comprise at least one of a local electronic gaming device, a client computing device, a second remote electronic gaming device, or a remote computing device (see Powell, 0034-0037).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Powell and Cotton teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 12. The combination of Powell and Cotton further teach wherein inputting, by the computing system, the wager into the queue comprises: inputting, by the computing system, the wager into the queue using a smart contract that performs at least one of execution, control, or documentation of one or more events associated with the wager based at least in part on one or more predefined rules (see Cotton, Figs. 1, abstract, 0029-0039).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Powell and Cotton teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 12. The combination further teach wherein recording, by the computing system, on the blockchain, the one or more events associated with the wager comprises:
recording, by the computing system, on the blockchain, the one or more events associated with the wager using a smart contract that performs at least one of execution, control, or documentation of the one or more events associated with the wager based at least in part on one or more predefined rules (see Cotton, Figs. 1-4, 8, 0021-0040, wherein the predefined rules and recording includes the execution and documentation of one or more events with placing, collecting, and exchanges associated with the wager), wherein the one or more events comprise at least one of one or more life cycle events associated with the wager, one or more transactions associated with the wager, or one or more monetary transactions associated with application of the wager (see Cotton, Figs. 1-8, 0021-0040).
Regarding claim 18, Powell discloses an electronic gaming device comprising:
one or more processors (see Powell, Figs. 1-2, 0028-0029); and
one or more memory devices that store instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the electronic gaming device to perform operations (see Powell, Figs. 1-2, 0028-0029), the operations comprising:
obtaining game play input data to be used to execute a game play of an electronic game associated with the electronic gaming device wherein the game play input comprises a random number (see Powell, 4A-6B, 0005-0007, wherein receiving a seed value is game play input data used to execute a game play of an electronic game; 0027, 0042);
executing the game play based at least in part on the game play input data (see Powell, 0005-0007, 0027-0030);
generating a game play outcome of the game play based at least in part on execution of the game play (see Powell, Figs. 5A-6B, 0027-0030, 0043-0045, 0058-0070), the game play outcome lacking supplemental game play content associated with execution of the game play (see Powell, Fig. 5A-6B, 0058-0070, wherein the game play outcome lacking supplemental game play content associated with execution of at least one of the electronic game or the game play is a triggered bonus game and/or secondary game request);
providing the game play input data and the game play outcome lacking supplemental game play content; and
after providing the game play outcome to the one or more remote computing devices, generating, a re-creation of the execution of game play via the one or more remote computing devices a re-creation of the execution of the game play via the one or more remote computing devices based at least in part on the game play input data and the game play outcome lacking supplemental game play content, the re-creation of the execution of game play comprising the supplemental game play content, wherein the supplemental game play content comprises at least one of visual content, audio content, or textual content that is associated with the execution of game play (see Powell, Fig. 5A-6B, 0007, 0027, 0039-0044, 0053, 0058-0070, 0074-0077 wherein the multi-play game machine associated with the seed provides game play input data that includes a game outcome for a base game and a game outcome for a triggered bonus game/second entity via the outcome register and/or one or more supplemental game play content for other games).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Powell and Cotton teach the electronic gaming device of claim 18, wherein the operations further comprise:
receiving a request from an entity via the one or more remote computing devices to provide the game play input data, and wherein the game play input data comprises a random number generated by a random number generator associated with the electronic gaming device (see Powell, 0005-0006, 0042-0044, wherein the game play input data comprises the seed value which is processed to generate random numbers as needed for displaying the game outcomes) .
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Powell and Cotton teach the electronic gaming device of claim 18, wherein the supplemental game play content comprises at least one of graphical content, video content, media content, image content, audio content, or textual content (see Powell, Fig. 3A-B, 0036-0037, wherein the secondary game content is a secondary game and supplemental game play content includes a triggered bonus round), and wherein the one or more remote computing devices comprise at least one of a server computing device, a second electronic gaming device, a client computing device, or a remote computing device (see Powell, 0034-0037).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN HSU whose telephone number is (571)272-7148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00-6:00 PM.
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.
/RYAN HSU/ EXAMINER, Art Unit 3715