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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 14 of remark. Applicant argued: “the rejection likewise does not identify where Zhang teaches that the purported step size is subsequently used to determine a performance adjustment action. Merely identifying parameters within a reinforcement learning framework does not establish the specific functional relationship required by the claim.” The examiner disagrees. Applicant might have a narrow claim interpretation. Under BRI, a step size can be a value determined based on a reward value. Delta T is determined based on Ts (reward values).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per claim 1, the claim recites a system, therefore is a machine.
“ . . . calculate a reward value … determine a step size based on the reward value . . . determine a performance adjustment action to take based on the step size “ These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
The limitation of “collect environment information including target frame speed, actual frame speed, and actual performance from an application environment . . . receive the reward value . . . ”, amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g); this limitation is also a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g). The claim also recites the additional element, "executes a performance adjustment operation . . . ". The element does not require any particular application of the recited “executes ...” and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
As discussed above, “collect environment information including target frame speed, actual frame speed, and actual performance from an application environment . . . receive the reward value . . . ”, amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g); this limitation is also a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g). ). The claim also recites the additional element, "executes a performance adjustment operation . . . ". The element does not require any particular application of the recited “executes ...” and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception “wherein the actual frame speed includes one or both of an actual frame rate and an actual frame time, and the target frame speed includes one or both of a target frame rate and a target frame time . . . ” is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See Tan. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 2, see rejection on claim 1. “determines . . . calculate . . . “ These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
As per claim 3, see rejection on claim 2. “determines . . . “ These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
As per claim 4, see rejection on claim 2. “ . . . uses a distance measure . . . “ is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See Fakoor. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 5, see rejection on claim 4. “ . . . absolute . . . “ is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See Fakoor. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 6, see rejection on claim 1. “adjusting . . . “ is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See Tan. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 7, see rejection on claim 6. “calculate . . . “ These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. “the performance adjustment action is associated with the target frame speed . . . “ is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See Tan. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 8, see rejection on claim 6. “calculate . . . multiplying . . . “ These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. “ the performance adjustment action . . . “ is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See Tan. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 9, “ . . . collects . . . “ amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g); this limitation is also a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g).
As per claim 10, “ . . . collects . . . “ amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g); this limitation is also a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g).
As per claims 11-20, see rejections on claims 1-10.
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.
Claims 1, 6-7, 11, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (Zhang, Ji, et al. "An end-to-end automatic cloud database tuning system using deep reinforcement learning." Proceedings of the 2019 international conference on management of data. 2019.) (hereinafter Zhang) in view of Tan et al (Tan, Evan, and Chun Tung Chou. "A frame rate optimization framework for improving continuity in video streaming." IEEE transactions on multimedia 14.3 (2011): 910-922) (hereinafter Tan).
As per claim 1, Zhang teaches:
A reinforcement learning-based system for adaptively controlling computing performance, comprising:
an environment module, configured to, calculate a reward value using a reward function based on performance (Zhang, 4.2 Reward Function), and output the reward value and state data (Zhang, 4.2 Reward Function—under BRI, reward value and state data can be Tt-T0 and Ts and Ls) and
an agent module, configured to receive the reward value and the state data output from the environment module, determine a step size based on the reward value (Zhang, 4.2 Reward Function—under BRI, a step size based on the reward value can be Delta T), and
determine a performance adjustment action to take based on the step size( Zhang, 2.2.3 Recommender);
wherein the application environment executes a performance adjustment operation in response to the performance adjustment action (Zhang, 2.2.3 Recommender) ;
Zhang does not expressly teach:
collect environment information including target frame speed, actual frame speed, and actual performance from an application environment;
wherein the performance is the target frame speed and the actual frame speed;
wherein that includes the actual frame speed and the actual performance;
wherein the actual frame speed includes one or both of an actual frame rate and an actual frame time, and the target frame speed includes one or both of a target frame rate and a target frame time.
However, Tan discloses:
collect environment information including target frame speed, actual frame speed, and actual performance from an application environment (Tan, III. FRAME RATE CONTROL FOR VIDEO CONTINUITY—under BRI, target frame speed, actual frame speed, and actual performance from an application environment can be 60fps, rate of frames per second (fps) at time, and video continuity);
wherein the performance is the target frame speed and the actual frame speed (Tan, III. FRAME RATE CONTROL FOR VIDEO CONTINUITY;
wherein that includes the actual frame speed and the actual performance (Tan, III. FRAME RATE CONTROL FOR VIDEO CONTINUITY);
wherein the actual frame speed includes one or both of an actual frame rate and an actual frame time (Tan, III. FRAME RATE CONTROL FOR VIDEO CONTINUITY), and the target frame speed includes one or both of a target frame rate and a target frame time (Tan, III. FRAME RATE CONTROL FOR VIDEO CONTINUITY).
Both Tan and Zhang pertain to the art of tuning applications.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Tan’s method to adopt frame rates because it is well-known in the art that tracking frame rate (FPS) provides significant benefits in gaming, video production, and computer vision by ensuring visual smoothness, reducing input lag, and optimizing system performance.
As per claim 6, Zhang/Tan teaches:
The system as claimed in claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1), wherein the performance adjustment operation includes adjusting computing performance through setting a new target frame speed (Tan, VIII. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION B. Discontinuity Penalty Lyapunov Optimization Results —under BRI, adjusting computing performance through setting a new target frame speed can be by increasing the encoder frame generation rate, the receiving frame at the decoder increases. This provides a higher buffer occupancy and reduces the need to slowdown the playout rate, thus reducing the playout distortion..
As per claim 7, Zhang/Tan teaches:
The system as claimed in claim 6 (see rejection on claim 6), wherein the performance adjustment action is associated with the target frame speed (Tan, VIII. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION B. Discontinuity Penalty Lyapunov Optimization Results); and
wherein the agent module is further configured to calculate the new target frame speed through incrementing the target frame speed by the step size (Tan, VIII. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION B. Discontinuity Penalty Lyapunov Optimization Results).
As per claim 11, see rejection on claim 1.
As per claim 16, see rejection on claim 6.
As per claim 17, see rejection on claim 7.
Claims 9-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang/Tan as applied above, and further in view of Smith et al ( US 11722542 ) (hereinafter Smith).
As per claim 9, Zhang/Tan teaches:
The system as claimed in claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1).
Zhang/Tan does not expressly teach:
wherein the environment module collects the actual frame speed through application programming interface provided by an operating system.
However, Smith discloses:
wherein the environment module collects the actual frame speed through application programming interface provided by an operating system (Smith, col 11, ll23-24).
Both Smith and Zhang/Tan pertain to the art of tuning applications.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Smith’s method to use API because it is well-known in the art that using APIs (Application Programming Interfaces) offers significant advantages for both businesses and developers by acting as a standardized bridge between different software systems
As per claim 10, Zhang/Tan teaches:
The system as claimed in claim 1(see rejection on claim 1 ) .
Zhang/Tan does not expressly teach:
wherein the environment module collects the actual performance through shell scripts or application programming interface provided by an operating system.
However, Smith discloses:
wherein the environment module collects the actual performance through shell scripts or application programming interface provided by an operating system (Smith, col 11, ll23-24).
Both Smith and Zhang/Tan pertain to the art of tuning applications.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Smith’s method to use API because it is well-known in the art that using APIs (Application Programming Interfaces) offers significant advantages for both businesses and developers by acting as a standardized bridge between different software systems
As per claim 19, see rejection on claim 9.
As per claim 20, see rejection on claim 10.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHARLIE SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-5100. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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, Pierre Vital can be reached at (571) 272-4215. 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.
/CHARLIE SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198
Prosecution Insights