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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/17/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12-13, 15-17, and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 7-11, 14-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,548,231 (Patent ‘231, hereinafter). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the features of current claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12-13, 15-17, and 19 are already included in claims 1-4, 7-11, 14-18 of Patent ‘231. See tables below.
Table I:
Current Application 18/237724
U.S. Patent No. 12,548,231
1-3, 5, 7-10, 12-13, 15-17, 19
1-4, 7-11, 14-18, respectively
Table II:
Current Application 18/237724
U.S. Patent No. 12,548,231
1. A graphics rendering optimization system comprising:
at least one processor coupled to at least one memory containing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the system to implement a graphics rendering optimization client, wherein the graphics rendering optimization client is configured to perform processes comprising:
transmitting a client request for graphics rendering settings to a graphics rendering optimization server via an application program interface, the client request including model size data, graphics density data, client resources data, and client graphics rendering settings;
receiving, from the graphics rendering optimization server, via the application program interface, a message containing values for the client graphics rendering settings produced by the graphics rendering optimization server using a trained AI/ML model; and
rendering graphics by the client device based on the values.
1. A graphics rendering optimization system comprising:
at least one processor coupled to at least one memory containing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the system to implement a graphics rendering optimization service, wherein the graphics rendering optimization service is configured to perform processes comprising:
training an artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) model to predict graphics rendering settings in real time;
receiving a client request for graphics rendering settings from a client device via an application program interface, the client request including model size data, graphics density data, client resources data, and client graphics rendering settings;
retrieving network resources data;
generating values for the graphics rendering settings based on the model size data, the graphics density data, the client resources data, and the network resources data using the trained AI/ML model;
formatting the values into a message formatted for consumption by the client device; and transmitting the message to the client device via the application program interface.
From the tables above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claims 1-4, 7-11, 14-18 of Patent ‘231 to be as current claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12-13, 15-17, and 19 since all the features of current claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12-13, 15-17, and 19 are already includes in claims 1-4, 7-11, 14-18 of Patent ‘231.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5, 8-12, 15-19 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1-5, 8-12, 15-19 contain so many acronyms, most of which are not well known in the relevant art, that need to be spelled out to avoid ambiguity. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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, 3, 6-8, 10, 13-15, 17, 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra et al. (US. Patent App. Pub. No. 2024/0272917, “Mishra”, hereinafter).
As per claim 1, as shown in Fig. 1, Mishra teaches a graphics rendering optimization system (UX Optimization System 108) comprising:
at least one processor coupled to at least one memory containing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the system to implement a graphics rendering optimization client, wherein the graphics rendering optimization client is configured to perform processes comprising:
transmitting a client request for graphics rendering settings to a graphics rendering optimization server via an application program interface (¶ [28], “In some embodiments, the user may click a hyperlink, press a button, or otherwise navigate or interact in such a way as to cause the user device to generate a request for interface content and/or layout data. In some embodiments, such an interaction may trigger a rendering request to the UX Optimization System 108”. The application program interface is described at ¶ [30]), the client request including model size data, graphics density data, client resources data, and client graphics rendering settings (addressed below);
receiving, from the graphics rendering optimization server, via the application program interface, a message containing values for the client graphics rendering settings produced by the graphics rendering optimization server using a trained AI/ML model (¶ [92] referring to Fig. 4, generating and delivering (see ¶ [66] recited below) to users UX templates having trained parameters for better rendering); and
rendering graphics by the client device based on the values (¶ [66], “In some embodiments, the final UX configuration may be delivered to the user device via the Deployment Interface 122. In some embodiments, the UX configuration may be configured to cause the user device to render a rendering according to the UX configuration, including, e.g., a size, location, arrangement and contents of UI components, a behavior of the rendering (e.g., animations, transitions, interactive features, etc.), among other configuration templates or any combination thereof”).
Mishra does not expressly teach the client request including model size data, graphics density data, client resources data, and client graphics rendering settings. However, as described in ¶ [28], and elsewhere in the specification, Mishra does implicitly teach these features (unless the claim language specifies otherwise), i.e., the client request including model size data (it is not clear what this is referred to, thus broadly interpreted as the device type data), graphics density data (screen size data), client resources data (¶ [56], request for optimizing user engagement metric), and client graphics rendering settings (¶ [29], request for adjusting current rendering). For at least the above reasons, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above features into the claim language since the scope of these limitations is not clear, and therefore, given the broadest reasonable interpretation addressed above.
As per claim 3, Mishra further teaches wherein the client request is an HTTP request (¶ [111], utilizing HTTP communication protocols).
As per claim 6, Mishra does impliedly teach wherein the client request further comprises network resources data (see ¶ [31], “…the UX Optimization System 108 may be implemented in a hybrid scheme, with the components of the UX Optimization System 108 effectuated by a combination of local resources on the user device and/or remote resources accessed via the Network 106”).
As per claim 7, Mishra also teaches wherein the graphics rendering optimization client is configured to run in a thin client application (¶ [107]).
Claim 8, which is similar in scope to claim 1 as addressed above, is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 10, which is similar in scope to claim 3 as addressed above, is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 13, which is similar in scope to claim 6 as addressed above, is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 14, which is similar in scope to claim 7 as addressed above, is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 15, which is similar in scope to claim 1 as addressed above, is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 17, which is similar in scope to claim 3 as addressed above, is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 20, which is similar in scope to claim 6 as addressed above, is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 21, which is similar in scope to claim 7 as addressed above, is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 2, 4, 9, 11, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra et al. (US. Patent App. Pub. No. 2024/0272917) in view of Feng et al. (US. Patent App. Pub. No. 2023/0041844, “Feng”).
As per claim 2, Mishra does not expressly teach wherein the application program interface is a REST application program interface.
However, in a similar method of optimizing rendering (¶ [110]), Feng teaches the above feature, i.e., the application program interface is a REST application program interface (¶ [101], REST API). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the method as taught by Feng and apply to the method as taught by Mishra, the advantage of which is for handling network application (¶ [101]).
As per claim 4, although not explicitly taught by Mishra, Feng does teach wherein the message is a JSON message (Feng, ¶ [58]). Thus, claim 4 would have been obvious over the combined references for the reason above.
Claim 9, which is similar in scope to claim 2 as addressed above, is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 11, which is similar in scope to claim 4 as addressed above, is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 16, which is similar in scope to claim 2 as addressed above, is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 18, which is similar in scope to claim 4 as addressed above, is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra et al. (US. Patent App. Pub. No. 2024/0272917) in view of Longhurst et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,062,181, “Longhurst”).
As per claim 5, Mishra does not explicitly teach the values for the client graphics rendering settings include at least one of LOD schedule, HTTPThreadCount, GPU Max, or worker thread/pthread count.
However, Longhurst teaches a similar method for optimizing graphics rendering (col. 4,
lines 33-67), and further teaches the above features, i.e., the values for the graphics rendering
settings include at least one of LOD schedule (see col. 4, lines 33-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the method as taught by Longhurst to the
method as taught by Mishra addressed above, the advantage of which is to render,
encode and transmit graphics content under resource constraint based on content characteristics
(col. 2, lines 1-4).
Claim 12, which is similar in scope to claim 5 as addressed above, is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 19, which is similar in scope to claim 5 as addressed above, is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hau H. Nguyen whose telephone number is: 571-272-7787. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI from 8:30-5:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tammy Goddard, can be reached on (571) 272-7773.
The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/HAU H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611