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 .
Applicant’s Submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of a response on 4/23/2026 has been received and considered. In the response, Applicant made not amendments. Therefore, claims 1 – 20 are pending.
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.
Claims 1 – 3, 7 – 12 and 16, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hitomi et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0126282 A1).
As per claim 1, Hitomi discloses a data processing system comprising: a network interface (see Fig. 1); and one or more processors coupled with the network interface (See Fig.1 and [0058]), the one or more processors configured to: enable execution of at least a portion of graphics processing operations of a gaming application associated with a cloud gaming system on a client device of the cloud gaming system (see [0080]) in response to a determination that one or more capabilities of the client device exceed a threshold (see [0366]); initiate transfer of at least the portion of the gaming application to the client device via the network interface (a Partial is delivered by downloading pages of an application until an executable threshold is reached, at which point the Partial may optionally be launched automatically, [0080]; initiate execution of the gaming application on a server device of the cloud gaming system during the transfer (while target device begins execution of the Partial, “the Body or entirety of an application can be delivered… while the application is already running, see [0083]); and configure the server device to stream output of the execution of the gaming application to the client device until after completion of the transfer of at least the portion of the gaming application (see [0096] and [0363]).
As per claim 2, Hitomi discloses the one or more processors are configured to initiate a transition of execution of the gaming application from the server device to the client device after completion of the transfer of at least the portion of the gaming application to the client device (Once a minimal portion of the application program is delivered on the target device, the user can launch the application program as if a complete version of the application were present in the target device's local memory. From the point of view of the target device's operating system and from the point of view of the application itself, that application appears to be located wholly locally on the target device, see [0101]).
As per claim 3, Hitomi discloses the transition of execution of the gaming application includes preservation of game state generated during execution of the gaming application on the server device (the persistent cache of the target device retains delivered pages and corresponding execution state across the transition, see [0372]).
As per claim 7, Hitomi discloses the server device is configured to receive network feedback from the client device during execution of the gaming application, the network feedback including metrics associated with a network connection between the server device and the client device (see [0178]).
As per claim 8, Hitomi discloses the metrics include round trip latency and packet loss (see [0178] and [0278]).
As per claim 9, Hitomi discloses the server device is configured to adjust a frequency of a graphics processor based on the metrics (server matches the characteristics of the target device, see [0366]).
As per claim 10, Hitomi discloses the server device is configured to adjust an encoding process for a frame of the gaming application based on the metrics (See [0366]).
As per claims 11 – 12, the instant claims are a method in which corresponds to the system of claims 1 – 3 and 7 – 10. Therefore, it is rejected for the reasons set forth above.
As per claims 16, 17 and 20, the instant claims are an apparatus in which corresponds to the system of claims 1 – 3 and 7 – 10. Therefore, it is rejected for the reasons set forth above.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 4 – 6, 13 – 15, 18 and 19 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.
Hitomi does not expressly disclose the gaming application is an encapsulated application that includes core logic and encapsulations associated with an encapsulation layer, the encapsulation layer configured to selectively relay API commands made by the core logic; the encapsulation layer is configurable to enable selectable execution of the gaming application by the server device and the client device and the encapsulations associated with the encapsulation layer include a file system encapsulation, an input device encapsulation, a graphics programming interface encapsulation, an audio device encapsulation, and a system interface encapsulation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 4/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on p. 7 – 8 that Hitomi fails to disclose “initiate execution of the gaming application on a server device of the cloud gaming system during the transfer” and “configure the server device to stream output of the execution of the gaming application to the client device until after completion of the transfer of at least the portion of the gaming application”, further contending that the cited portions of Hitomi describe streaming portions of an application to accelerate client-side executions rather than server-side execution with streaming of execution output. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Firstly, Applicant’s argument is premised on a construction of the claim language that is narrower than the claim supports. Claim 1 does not recite that the “output of the execution” comprises rendered video frames, encoded images or audiovisual output, nor does claim 1 recite that the server device performs graphics rendering of the gaming application. During examination, the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and the limitations appearing only in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP 2111. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “output of the execution of the gaming application” encompasses the data produced and delivered to the client device as a result of the execution of the streaming application and that is, the page segments and additional components served by the server during the transfer.
Further, Hitomi expressly characterizes its delivery mechanism in terms of execution rather than passive file download. Hitomi defines “streaming” as the delivery of portions, such as pages, of an application “during execution of the streaming application”. Therefore, Hitomi discloses a server coordinated streaming of an executing application’s required portions, performed by the cloud server, that proceeds while the application runs. Additionally, “configure the server device to stream output of the execution… until after completion of the transfer”, Hitomi discloses that the cloud server continues to stream page segments and additional, components to the target device on demand during execution and that this delivery continues until the required portions have been delivered.
Applicant further states “anticipation requires that every claim limitation be disclosed in a single reference, arranged in the claim” and cites Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc., 545 F. 3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008) and MPEP 2131. The rejection does not rely on a combination of disperse embodiments. The cited paragraphs describe a single, continuous cloud paging process in which the cloud server initiates and services the executing application, streams its required portions to the client during the transfer and continues that streaming until after the transfer of the portion is completed. The claimed elements are therefore disclosed with a single reference, arranges as in the claim. Therefore, the claimed rejection is maintained.
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 ANKIT B DOSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-7863. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri. ~8:30 - ~5:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. 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.
/ANKIT B DOSHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights