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 .
The Applicant’s amendment and argument received in an RCE on 05/11/2026 has been considered. It is noted that claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Washington et al (US 2020/0372760) in view of Saunders et al (US 2017/0256128).
Regarding claims 1, 8, 10, 13, and 15: Washington et al discloses a method for operating an electronic game, the method comprising: executing, by a gaming system, a skills-based electronic game, wherein the skills- based electronic game includes a game of chance element (see figures 1 and 4; abstract; paragraphs [0024]-[0027], showing an electronic game with a hybrid skill and wager game base); determining, by the gaming system, a geographic location at which the gaming system is currently located (see paragraph [0559], showing configuring functionality based on determined geographic location); identifying, by the gaming system, a host system of a plurality of host systems of a distributed random number generator infrastructure based on the determined geographic location (see paragraphs [0544], [1151], showing random number generator and location based criteria); conducting, by the gaming system, a session of the game of chance within the skills-based game (see figures 1 and 4; abstract; paragraphs [0024]-[0027], [0112], showing an electronic game with a hybrid skill and wager game base); receiving, by the gaming system, a random number from the identified host system of the plurality of host systems of the distributed random number generator infrastructure (see paragraphs [0034], [0258], showing generating random values using RNG); determining, by the gaming system, a result of the session of the game of chance based on the received random number (see paragraph [0258], showing random value generated by number generator outcome using RNG); and providing, by the gaming system, within the skills-based game, an indication of the determined result of the session of the game of chance (see figures 1 and 4; abstract; paragraphs [0024]-[0027], showing an electronic game with a hybrid skill and wager game base).
In an analogous invention, Saunders et al teaches identifying, by the gaming system, a selected host system of a plurality of host systems wherein the plurality of host systems comprise a distributed random number generator, and wherein the selected host system is identified from the plurality of host system (see paragraphs [0048], [0049], [0053], showing one or more host gaming devices 160, 161, 162 are licensed gaming devices. Although three host gaming devices are shown on FIG. 1, the gaming system 100 may employ any number of host gaming devices ranging from one to thousands. One of the plurality of host devices, host gaming device 160 is connected to a data network. Wherein the host gaming device 160 provides a legally regulated random number generator), geographic location at which the gaming system is currently located, conducting as game session while in communication with the identified host system based on the determined geographic location at which the gaming system is currently location (see paragraph [0061], showing to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements, a gaming system 100 may identify the geographic location of a remote player device 110. As discussed above, a network 120 may be a closed-loop network 120 whose devices are thereby identified in geographic location by the location of that network).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify Washington et al’s game as taught by Saunder et al’s geographical location identification for the purpose of ensuring compliance with regulatory requirement. This yields the expected result of increasing the gaming provider’s security and improving legal compliance associated with game play and thereby increasing user’s satisfaction.
Regarding claims 2, 9, 11, and 12: Washington et al discloses wherein receiving the random number from the identified host system of the plurality of host systems of the distributed random number generator infrastructure and determining the result of the session of the game of chance based on the received random number are performed in real time while conducting the session of the game of chance within the skills-based game (see paragraphs [0261]-[0264]).
Regarding claim 3: Washington et al disclose further comprising: providing, by the gaming system, to a gaming host, a set of credentials for a player of the skills-based game and the determined geographic location; and receiving, by the gaming system, from the gaming host, an indication of age verification for the player of the skills-based game (see paragraphs [0544]-[0557]).
Regarding claims 4 and 16: Washington et al discloses wherein conducting the session of the game of chance within the skills-based game comprises conducting a wagering session of the game of chance in response to the received indication of age verification for the player of the skills-based game indicates the player is verified for wagering based on the determined geographic location (see paragraphs [0544]-[0557], showing one or more different types of criteria, including player identity, profile criteria, and location based criteria, for defining set of events condition).
Regarding claim 5: Washington et al discloses wherein the result of the wagering session of the game of chance comprises a voucher to a gaming venue selected from a plurality of gaming venues based on the determined geographic location (see paragraphs [0807]-[0812]).
Regarding claims 6, 14, and 17-20: Washington et al discloses wherein conducting the session of the game of chance within the skills-based game comprises conducting a non-wagering session of the game of chance in response to the received indication of age verification for the player of the skills-based game indicates the player is not verified for wagering based on the determined geographic location (see paragraphs [0544]-[0557], showing one or more different types of criteria, including player identity, profile criteria, and location based criteria, for defining set of events condition).
Regarding claim 7: Washington et al discloses wherein the result of the non-wagering session of the game of chance affects the skills-based game (see figures 1 and 4; abstract; paragraphs [0024]-[0027], showing an electronic game with a hybrid skill and wager game base).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the prior arts do not individually or in combination teach the limitation of selecting a host system from a plurality of host systems, wherein the host systems comprise random number generator infrastructure. The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner points out that Saunders et al explicitly teaches or at least suggests this limitation as disclosed in the above office action and as shown in paragraphs [0048], [0049], and [0053]:
“[0048] An embodiment of a gaming system according to the present invention allows a licensed host gaming device to be used by one or more remote player devices geographically separated from the host gaming device, but still located within the jurisdiction of a gaming authority. FIG. 1 depicts a simplified block diagram of an embodiment of a gaming system 100 according to the invention. One or more host gaming devices 160, 161, 162 are licensed gaming devices. Although three host gaming devices are shown on FIG. 1, the gaming system 100 may employ any number of host gaming devices ranging from one to thousands. For convenience of discussion, set forth below is a description of certain aspects of the host gaming device 160. It is to be appreciated that the other gaming devices may contain the following or different aspects.
[0049] A host gaming device may be any device, comprised of electronic, mechanical, or a combination of electronic and mechanical components, which is used for gaming and which affects the result of a wager by determining win or loss. A host gaming device 160 is connected to a data network 150. In the embodiment depicted in FIG. 1, the data network of gaming system 100 is comprised of three logical segments. Gaming network 150 connects each host gaming device 160 and related elements such as the database 170 and central gaming controller 180. Remote network 120 connects remote player devices 110, 111, 112 to the system. Backbone network 140 provides interconnection between the gaming network 150 and the remote network 120.
[0053] Each host gaming device 160 may be located in any location approved by a gaming agency, such as a casino gaming floor. A host gaming device 160 provides a legally regulated random number generator. Once generation of random number has been performed, a game result is determined. Any further interaction through the game's user interface is for the benefit of a user. For example, in one embodiment of a gaming system, the host gaming device may be a slot machine. After payment is made, through a coin, token, credit device, etc., the player pulls a lever arm to execute play. In a mechanical game, for example, a slot machine, a game result may be determined by the interaction of spinning wheels. In a host gaming device 160 of an embodiment of the present invention, however, pulling the arm triggers generation of a random number which determines the game result. Thus any spinning wheels or its electronic equivalent is purely for entertainment of the user. A host gaming device 160 plays at least one game of chance, including, but not limited to, Slots, Blackjack, Poker, Keno, Bingo, or Lotteries. ”,
which the examiner provides to show a plurality of host devices 160, 161, and 162, wherein host device 160 was selected and used. Saunders et al also shows the host device having a regulated random number generator.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADETOKUNBO OLUSEGUN TORIMIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-1345. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (8am - 4pm).
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at (571)270-7625. 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.
/ADETOKUNBO O TORIMIRO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights