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 01/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
“Liu does not disclose "sending the rendering instruction to a computing serving end connected to the cloud phone server, so that the computing serving end parses the rendering instruction, performs image rendering based on a parsing result to generate a video stream, and returns the video stream to the terminal device, to cause the terminal device to perform display based on the video stream," as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added). Instead, Liu discloses "cloud server ... transmitting the video information to cloud server terminal.", Remarks, pages 5 and 6. To this matter, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Liu teaches, in one embodiment, a cloud rendering system having a cloud server, a rendering server cluster and a terminal client device (main control device). Fig. 7 shows that a trigger on the client device (starting the game/rendering instruction), creates resource pipeline configuration information. Cloud server receives the trigger event and receives the pipeline configuration information and sends information to the rendering server cluster 7-3. The rendering server clusters uses the pipeline configuration information to synchronize all the rendering servers and configure real rendering pipeline. Fig. 9 shows the structural schematic of rendering server, in which, the different elements process received pipeline configuration information, parses it for calling real pipeline configuration result and finally, sending the game image/video to the client device 7-1 (page 26 last paragraph to page 28, third to last paragraph).
“The Examiner also alleged that Liu discloses "wherein a rendering capability of the cloud phone server is lower than a rendering capability of the computing serving end," citing page 24, last two paragraphs to page 25, first paragraph; page 29, paragraphs 1-4 (Office Action, p. 3). However, neither the portions of Liu cited by the Examiner, nor any other portion of Liu, can constitute a teaching of this element of claim”, Remarks, page 5. To this matter, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Rendering server (cluster) have GPU processors (page 28 last paragraph to page 29 first paragraph), while other servers include conventional processors (page 14, second paragraph to page 15 second paragraph).
Therefore, the examiner respectfully believes that the art of record covers applicant’s invention as claimed and maintains the rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-14 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (hereinafter ‘Liu’, CN 115439586, using PE2E Search machine translation).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 17-20, Liu teaches a cloud phone server (with corresponding method and non-transitory computer readable medium) (cloud server in 7-1, Fig. 7), wherein the cloud phone server corresponds to a terminal device and is configured to provide a rendering service for the terminal device (page 27, second paragraph), the cloud phone server comprising:
a processor; and a memory storing instructions executable by the processor (being a server, these elements are inherent), wherein the processor is configured to:
receive interaction data sent by the terminal device (page 16, paragraphs 1 and 2), and
generate a rendering instruction based on the interaction data (page 16, paragraphs 1 and 2; page 18, second paragraph; page 27, second paragraph, where instructions are generated to send to rendering server 7-3) ; and
send the rendering instruction to a computing serving end connected to the cloud phone server (403, Fig. 4; page 17, last paragraph; page 27, second paragraph), so that the computing serving end parses the rendering instruction, performs image rendering based on a parsing result to generate a video stream (page 16, paragraphs 1 and 2; page 18, second paragraph; page 27, second paragraph), and returns the video stream to the terminal device, to cause the terminal device to perform display based on the video stream (page 16, paragraphs 1 and 2; page 18, second paragraph; page 27, second paragraph, where the generated by the rendering server cluster 7-3 is sent to the cloud server and the played at the terminal), wherein a rendering capability of the cloud phone server is lower than a rendering capability of the computing serving end (page 24, last two paragraphs to page 25, first paragraph; page 29, pages 1-4).
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Liu teaches wherein the computing serving end comprises at least one computing server, the cloud phone server comprises a server that provides computing power based on a CPU (page 24, last two paragraphs to page 25, first paragraph), and the computing server comprises a server that provides computing power based on a GPU (page 28, last paragraph to first paragraph, page 9).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Liu teaches wherein the rendering instruction comprises a rendering instruction based on an EGL/OpenGL interface standard (page 10, last paragraph to page 11, first paragraph; page 27, first paragraph).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Liu teaches wherein the interaction data comprises at least one interaction operation that is received by the terminal device and input by a user on an application interface provided by the terminal device (page 16, paragraphs 1 and 2).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Liu teaches wherein the parsing result comprises an instruction that is supported by the computing server to perform image rendering, and performing image rendering by the computing server comprises off-screen rendering (page 24 last paragraph; page 28, third paragraph) .
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Liu teaches further comprising:
sending a connection request to a streaming server, to establish a data transmission channel between the cloud phone server and the streaming server (. First and second paragraph; page 27 first and second paragraphs); and
receiving the interaction data sent by the terminal device (page 15, third paragraph) comprises:
receiving, based on the established data transmission channel between the cloud phone server and the streaming server, the interaction data sent by the terminal device through the streaming server (page 27 first and second paragraphs).
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.
Claim(s) 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (hereinafter ‘Liu’, CN 115439586, using PE2E Search machine translation) in view of Poupon et al. (hereinafter ‘Poupon’, GB2558879).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Liu teaches all the limitations of the claims they depend on. On the other hand, Liu does not explicitly teach wherein the cloud phone server comprises a server based on an Android operating system, and the computing server comprises a server based on a Linux operating system.
However, in an analogous art, Poupon teaches a server that performs graphics processing such as cloud rendering, for thin clients (Abstract). Poupon teaches that the server can use any of the different, available OS (operating systems), including Linux and/or Android to serve the different clients ([21]; [72]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Liu’s invention with Poupon’s feature of using any of the available operating systems (Linux and/or Android) for the benefit of serving the different types of clients.
Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (hereinafter ‘Liu’, CN 115439586, using PE2E Search machine translation) in view of Poupon et al. (hereinafter ‘Poupon’, GB2558879).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Liu teaches all the limitations of the claims they depend on. On the other hand, Liu does not explicitly teach wherein the cloud phone server comprises a server based on an ARM architecture, and the computing server comprises a server based on an X86 architecture.
However, in an analogous art, Yang teaches a system that allows cloud processing. Yang teaches that the processor can be any conventional processor that may be an X86 or an ARM architecture ([0144]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Liu’s invention with Yang’s feature of using X86 and/or ARM processors for the benefit of obtaining power efficiency and/or high performance.
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 OMAR S PARRA whose telephone number is (571)270-1449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: Mostly 10-6PM.
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, Nathan Flynn can be reached at 571-2721915. 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.
/OMAR S PARRA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights