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 .
Procedural Summary
This is responsive to the claims filed 12/27/2023.
Claims 1-31 are pending.
Signed copies of the IDS’ are attached.
The Drawings filed 12/27/2023 are noted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-2, 13 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Perlman (U.S. Pub. No.: 2017/0266550 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 13: Perlman discloses a computer-implemented method & CRM, (Abstract, ¶¶ 77, 461), for dynamically adapting a streaming of content, (¶ 76), during a video gameplay session in a multi-player gaming network, (e.g., ¶¶ 76, 104, 210, Fig. 19), wherein the multi-player gaming network comprises at least one host computer and a plurality of client devices in data communication and located remote from each other, (¶¶ 76, 77), wherein each of the plurality of client devices is configured to execute the video gameplay session, (¶¶ 76, 77), and wherein a first game module is configured to execute in the at least one host computer and a second game module is configured to execute in each of the plurality of client devices, (¶¶ 76, 77), the method being executed by the first and second game modules, (¶¶ 76, 77).
Perlman discloses transmitting, by the second game module of one of the plurality of client devices to the first game module, a request to download the content during the gameplay session, (¶ 76), wherein a maximum streaming speed is associated with the content, (¶ 197, Fig. 9A and related description); streaming, by the first game module to the second game module in response to the request, the content at a streaming speed that is less than the maximum streaming speed, (¶ 197), wherein the content is streamed for a predefined threshold time duration, (¶ 197); determining, by the first game module at an end of the predefined threshold time duration, a first level of stability of a network connection between the first and second game modules, (¶ 197).
Perlman discloses wherein the first level of stability is determined based on at least a first connection parameter, a second connection parameter or a third connection parameter, (Figs. 9A, 9C and related descriptions); and increasing the streaming speed, by the first game module if the network connection is determined to be stable, in a plurality of incremental value steps until the maximum streaming speed is achieved, wherein each of the plurality of incremental value steps increases the streaming speed by a predefined amount, (e.g., ¶ 197, Figs. 9A, 9C and related descriptions.)
Regarding Claims 2, 14: See Perlman e.g., ¶ 197, Figs. 9A, 9C and related descriptions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23-31 are allowed.
Claims 3-12 & 15-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Section 101: The claimed invention is drawn to dynamically adapting streaming of video game content based on network connection stability. While this could broadly be considered managing interactions between people, (i.e., users of a game streaming service accessing content via networks), the claimed invention recites several limitations indicative of integration of any alleged underlying abstract idea into a practical application.
For instance, features drawn to a predefined cooling period in combination with determining multiple levels of instability and restarting streaming at a maximum speed are indicative of limitations that supply significantly more than an abstract idea. Moreover, the claimed invention does not seek to preempt all manners of adapting streaming based on network connection speed; further removing the invention from any underlying abstract idea.
Regarding the prior art: The closest prior art, Perlman (U.S. Pub. No.: 2017/0266550 A1) fails to disclose, suggest or render obvious, in combination with the other claimed limitations:
“stopping streaming of the content, by the first game module if the network connection is determined to have a second level of instability, for a predetermined cooling time period; determining, by the first game module at an end of the predefined cooling time period and over a predetermined evaluation time period, a second level of stability of the network connection based on at least one of the first connection parameter or second connection parameter; and restarting streaming of the content, by the first game module, if the network connection is determined to have the second level of stability at the end of the predetermined evaluation time period, wherein streaming of the content is restarted at the streaming speed and the maximum streaming speed.”
More specifically, Perlman at best describes a latency exceeding event where a client is redirected from one hosting service to another after a predetermined time. (Perlman, ¶ 240.) Notably, in this embodiment streaming ceases from a first hosting device and is handed off to another hosting service. In contrast, the claimed invention requires the “first game module”, that is, the same module to restart streaming content. Since Perlman dispenses with the initial hosting service in favor of a different hosting service, Perlman cannot disclose, suggest or render obvious the claimed features. Consequently, Examiner has indicated this as allowable.
Conclusion
Additional Relevant References: See 892
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMKAR A DEODHAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1647. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, generally 9am-5:30 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, David Lewis can be reached on 571-272-7673. The fax phone 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OMKAR A DEODHAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715