DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s correspondence filed on 6/16/26.
The Examiner notes that citations to United States Patent Application Publication paragraphs are formatted as [####], #### representing the paragraph number.
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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 10-20 are currently pending.
Claims 10-20 are elected without traverse.
Claims 10-20 are rejected as set forth below.
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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 10-20 in the reply filed on 6/16/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/16/26.
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.
Claims 10-14, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 20140179421 to Quinn in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 20210241411 to Cerny.
As per claim(s) 10, 19, Quinn teaches:
A graphics processor comprising: a network interface; and a processor cluster coupled with the network interface, the processor cluster including: ([0042], “The gaming environment 300 includes a game client 310 communicatively coupled to a game server 340 through a network 330.”; [0023], “With continued reference to FIG. 1, computing device 100 includes a bus 110 that directly or indirectly couples the following devices: memory 112, one or more processors 114, one or more presentation components 116, input/output (I/O) ports 118, I/O components 120, and an illustrative power supply 122. Bus 110 represents what may be one or more busses (such as an address bus, data bus, or combination thereof).”)
first circuitry to decode a frame received from a cloud gaming server via the network interface into first frame data; second circuitry to execute a command stream received in conjunction with the frame to generate second frame data; third circuitry to combine the first frame data with the second frame data into a combined frame; ([0036], “When certain features are latency sensitive, then those features may be rendered on the client and combined with rendered images received from the server.”; Fig 3, [0053], “In one embodiment, the game service 340 communicates game code needed to execute only the latency sensitive features. The game execution environment 322 may execute part of a game to generate game images that are combined by the video composite component 321 with rendered images received from the game server 340.”; Figs 4-5, [0062]-[0063], “Turning now to FIG. 5, three rendered images are illustrated, in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention. The rendered images include server rendered image 510, client rendered avatar 520, and client rendered picture-in-picture 530. These three rendered images are composited together to form the image shown previously in FIG. 4.”)
fourth circuitry to present the combined frame for display. ([0054], “The video composite component 321 merges rendered video game images received from the game server 340 with rendered video game images rendered by the client 310 to form a single image that is output to display 316.”)
Quinn does not explicitly teach, but Cerny teaches:
a graphics processor cluster coupled with the network interface; ([0049], “For example, multi-GPU rendering of geometry for an application by performing region testing while rendering may be implemented between one or more cloud gaming servers of a cloud gaming system, or may be implemented within a stand-alone system, such as a personal computer or gaming console that includes a high-end graphics card having multiple GPUs, etc.”; [0147], “The components of device 1100, including CPU 1102, graphics subsystem including GPU 1116, memory 1104, data storage 1106, user input devices 1108, network interface 1109, and audio processor 1112 are connected via one or more data buses 1122.”)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Cerny to the known invention of Quinn would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved invention. It would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such GPU features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the processor cluster to be a graphics processor cluster coupled with the network interface results in an improved invention because applying said technique allows the invention to process intensive graphical tasks at a high speed and throughput, thus improving the overall efficiency of the invention.
As per claim(s) 11, 20, Quinn teaches:
wherein to decode the frame received from the cloud gaming server includes to decode a supplemental enhancement information (SEI) payload for the frame, the SEI payload to include the command stream. ([0080], “The server may also monitor network conditions and send an explicit instruction to the game client to begin rendering a particular feature.”)
As per claim(s) 12, Quinn teaches:
the second circuitry, based on the command stream, is to render text or graphical interface elements as the second frame data. ([0063], “The rendered images include server rendered image 510, client rendered avatar 520, and client rendered picture-in-picture 530.”)
As per claim(s) 13, Quinn teaches:
the SEI payload to include a resource stream, the resource stream to facilitate execution of the command stream via the second circuitry. ([0080])
As per claim(s) 14, Quinn teaches:
the second circuitry, based on the command stream, is to apply a post processing operation to the first frame data to generate updated first frame data, the third circuitry to combine the updated first frame data with the second frame data to generate the combined frame. ([0080]; [0053])
Claims 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 20140179421 to Quinn in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 20210241411 to Cerny, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 20180309999 to Kopietz.
As per claim 15, Quinn as modified does not explicitly teach, but Kopietz teaches:
the post processing operation to perform an anti-aliasing operation on the first frame data to generate the updated frame data or apply a screen-space ray tracing operation to the first frame data to generate the updated frame data. ([0019], “Post-processing pipelines can perform many complex processes including anti-aliasing, motion blur, depth of field, color grading, bloom, filmic grain, chromatic aberration, vignetting, and tone mapping.”; [0022], “Post-processes that do not change the image entropy may be selected as deferral candidates to achieve secondary goals such as subjective video quality improvement or server load reduction. For example, color grading may not impact encoding time or bandwidth usage but may result in a measurable reduction in server-side computational load when deferred to the client. Similarly, anti-aliasing may improve subjective video quality and dramatically reduce server-side load when deferred.”)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Kopietz to the known invention of Quinn as modified would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved invention. It would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such anti-aliasing features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the post processing operation to perform an anti-aliasing operation on the first frame data to generate the updated frame data results in an improved invention because applying said technique improves video quality, thus improving the overall usability of the invention.
Claims 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 20140179421 to Quinn in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 20210241411 to Cerny, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 20200306631 to Karlsson.
As per claim 16, Quinn as modified does not explicitly teach, but Karlsson teaches:
the post processing operation to upscale the first frame data at a first resolution to generate updated first frame data at a second resolution. ([0112], “This can be a change that is opaque to the user such that the dynamic client 112 transitions during runtime of the game session without requiring any interaction from the user. The transition to the client instance 140 to the user computing system 102 may increase gameplay quality, frame quality and/or resolution of the presentation of the game application 110.”)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Karlsson to the known invention of Quinn as modified would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved invention. It would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such resolution upscaling features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the post processing operation to upscale the first frame data at a first resolution to generate updated first frame data at a second resolution results in an improved invention because applying said technique improves video quality, thus improving the overall usability of the invention.
As per claim 17, Karlsson teaches:
the second circuitry to generate the second frame data at the second resolution. ([0112])
As per claim 18, Karlsson teaches:
the third circuitry to combine the updated first frame data with the second frame data to generate the combined frame at the second resolution. ([0112])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
United States Patent Application Publication No. 20150352446 discloses a solution to enhance user experience in video communication and online game playing is presented in a digital data sharing environment for mobile communications devices. A first communication terminal receives video data and game data from a second communication terminal. The video data is from the video communication between the two terminals and the game data is from a game played on the two terminals while the video communication is in session. The first terminal combines the video data associated with the first terminal with the received video data to generate combined video data and combines game data associated with the first terminal with the received game data to generate combined game data. The first terminal determines a presentation strategy to display the combined video data and the combined game data on a display of the first communication terminal and display the combined video and game data accordingly.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY HUANG whose telephone number is (408)918-9799. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00a - 5:30p PT.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
/JAY HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights