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 .
Applicant’s Submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of a response on 11/25/2025 has been received and considered. In the response, Applicant amended claim 1. Therefore, claims 1 – 3 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 6 recites “at least portion of first data”, the Examiner suggests “at least a portion of a first data” for grammatical clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with the specification (In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004)), the claim terms are construed as follows:
"First electronic device" — a server or computing node that stores and distributes game-related data and/or access credentials to client devices (e.g., an app server, game distribution server, or game store backend) (Fig. 2:101).
"Second electronic device" — a client device (smartphone, tablet, gaming console, or PC) that has received first data and evaluates its own ability to execute the game locally (Fig. 2:105)
"Third electronic device" — a remote cloud execution node that runs the game and streams game content (e.g., encoded video frames) to the second electronic device (Fig. 2:104)
"Local mode" — game execution on the second electronic device using locally stored or installed game data.
"Cloud mode" — game execution on the third electronic device, with streamed output delivered to the second electronic device.
"Signal for indicating that a local mode is not available" — any communication from the second to the first electronic device indicating an inability or failure to execute the game locally (due to insufficient hardware, storage, failed compatibility check, or incomplete download).
"Second data for providing a cloud mode" — any data, credentials, configuration, or access information transmitted by the first device enabling the second device to receive cloud-streamed game content from a third device.
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 – 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ahiska et al. (US Patent No. 9,517,410).
As per claim 1, Ahiska et al. discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising instructions which, when executed by at least one processor of a first electronic device (cloud server, Fig. 2:200 and Col. 7, lines 51 – 64) with a communication circuit, cause the first electronic device to: receive, via the communication circuit from a second electronic device that has received at least portion of first data for an execution of a game, a signal for indicating that a local mode is not available in the second electronic device, wherein the local mode plays the game by executing the game in an electronic device storing the first data (the client device receives a signal/trigger that local mode is not available on the client device; an application distribution network (ADN) comprises a top-level global server (first electronic device), intermediary local boxes and end-user client devices (second electronic device) that includes a failover mechanism. Application provision and license allocation can also failover to the top-level constellation under some circumstances (e.g., if all application provision and/or license allocation units in the intermediary constellation are offline), Fig. 1 and Col. 3, lines 16 – 29, Col.11, lines 20 – 49); based on receiving the signal, transmit, via the communication circuit to the second electronic device, second data for providing a cloud mode of the game to the second electronic device, wherein, the cloud mode plays the game by receiving, by the second electronic device, at least one content of the game executed in a third electronic device ("Cloudpaging", once the local device signals it cannot execute locally, the Application Jukebox server on the cloud (third electronic device) executes the game software and streams required page segments to the target device (second electronic device), see Fig. 16 and Col. 7, lines 30 – 45, Col. 28, line 39 – Col. 28).
As per claim 2, Ahiska et al. discloses the first data includes an application programming interface (API) for identifying whether the local mode is available in the second electronic device or not (the Partial, the initial portion of the game data delivered to the client device as first data includes not only the game's executable and DLLs, but also an embedded delivery agent ("pusher agent" in FIG. 19's architecture). This pusher agent is a software module included within the delivered data package that runs on the target device, checks local device state and available memory, and communicates with the remote game pusher server. Specifically, "a Partial may comprise an initial execution environment of an application," and describes that "Partial creation is performed by utilizing the same tools used to package the target application, such as Application Jukebox." The Application Jukebox delivery package thus constitutes the "first data," and the embedded delivery/pusher agent within it constitutes the API for checking whether local execution is available, Col. 5, line 53 – Col. 6, line 21, Col. 30, line 55 – Col. 31, line 8); wherein the signal is obtained based on the API and is transmitted from the second electronic device to the first electronic device (a local device does not respond to the server's query (i.e., the device executes the capability check and returns a failure/timeout result), the device is "marked as inactive." This marking triggered by the API-based status query constitutes the claimed signal obtained based on the API and transmitted from the second device back to the first device (server). The flowchart in FIG. 11 specifically shows the client device responding (or not) to the server's availability query, with the response (or its absence) used to route provisioning to the ADN cloud).
As per claim 3, Ahiska et al. discloses the first data further includes information for installing the game in the second electronic device to play the game through the local mode in the second electronic device (the Partial (first data) delivered to the target device (second electronic device) includes "a minimum set of files, directory information, registry entries, environmental variable changes, or some combination thereof required for launching the application," and that "a Partial may include an application's executable and DLLs that are necessary for execution”, Col. 5, lines 59 – 64).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1- 3 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANKIT B DOSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-7863. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri. ~8:30 - ~5:30.
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.
/ANKIT B DOSHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3715