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 .
The action is in response to the amendment filed 10/07/2025. Claims 1-40 have been amended. This action is made final.
Claim Interpretation
Reference is made to MPEP 2103.I.C. Review the Claims. “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect: (A) statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble,(B) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses, (C) "wherein" or "whereby" clauses,(D) contingent limitations,(E) printed matter, or(F) terms with associated functional language.
Examiners are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. See MPEP § 2111. While it is appropriate to use the specification to determine what applicant intends a term to mean, a positive limitation from the specification cannot be read into a claim that does not itself impose that limitation. See MPEP § 2111.01, subsection II. As explained in MPEP § 2111, giving a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation during prosecution will reduce the possibility that the claim, when issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified.
Reference is also made to MPEP 2111.04. I. regarding the use of phrases, "ADAPTED TO," "ADAPTED FOR," "WHEREIN," and "WHEREBY,” in claims. Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. However, examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are: (A) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses; (B) "wherein" clauses; and (C) "whereby" clauses.
Further reference is made to Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016). for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. In Schulhauser, both method claims and system claims recited the same contingent step. When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed..."
Claim 1, as provided below, appears to have contingent limitation. Specifically, the second wherein clause, “wherein changing the game control comprises, within the first computational node, dynamically implementing one or more rules that modify the operation of the computer game or dynamically modifying the limitation on the operation of the
computer game” contains two steps, however, only one of the steps has to be executed.
Claim 1: A computing system for predictive load balancing for a networked multi- node computer gaming environment, the computing system comprising:
one or more hardware processors configured for:
monitoring a game condition and a system load condition on a first computational node of the networked multi-node computer gaming environment over time, the game condition comprising a condition within a computer game operating on the first computational node, wherein the networked multi-node computer gaming environment comprises multiple computational nodes and is configured to allow players to transition between the multiple computational nodes;
storing time series data on a non-volatile data storage device, the time series data comprising changes of the game condition and the system load condition at a series of time points;
performing a predictive analysis based on the time series data to generate a system load forecast for the first computational node; and
changing the system load on the first computational node based on the system load forecast by changing a game control, the game control comprising a limitation on the operation of the computer game operating on the first computational node, wherein changing the game control comprises, within the first computational node, dynamically implementing one or more rules that modify the operation of the computer game or dynamically modifying the limitation on the operation of the computer game.
Applicant is advised to amend the claims.
Response to Amendment
On page 10 of the 10/07/2025 amendment, applicant argues, “Lee discloses changing server scores and predicting resource consumption ( [0039]), but fails to teach changing a game control, by dynamically implementing one or more rules…” and “Lee's system merely redistributes load among servers by adjusting server selection scores.”
With respect to the Bruno reference, applicant states that Bruno “addresses allocating server resources to game instances ( [0108]), and does not remedy the deficiencies of Lee. Bruno's "boundary conditions" are mathematical constraints on prediction algorithms, not changes to a game control.”
Applicant’s characterization of the teachings of Bruno reference is irrelevant because Bruno was applied and/or combined as the secondary reference only to teach what was not explicitly taught by the primary reference, Lee: With respect to claim 1, Lee does not explicitly indicate storing time series data on a non-volatile data storage device (Fig. 2, 120, 130), the time series data comprising changes of the game condition and the system load condition at a series of time points; and performing a predictive analysis (Fig. 6, step 660) based on the time series data to generate a system load forecast for the computational node.
Bruno was applied to teach the step of storing time series data on a non-volatile data storage device, the time series data comprising changes of the game condition and the system load condition at a series of time points ([0094] the time series level and trend may be predicted using polynomial extrapolation.
On page 10 of the amendment/response, applicant further argues, “Lee discusses "detecting a current load amount... changing scores for each server according to the amount of load changed... predicting the resources consumption." This is entirely about server selection, not changing a game control.”
To summarize applicant’s arguments, Lee’s server selection is not a game control.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because on page 9 of his response, the applicant amended the claims by adding what “the rules” do for the purpose of “game control,” which the rules "changing the system load on the first computational node based on the system load forecast by changing a game control.” The applicant admits that, “(a)s described in the specification, "game control" refers to administrative or automated mechanisms that modify operation of the game, such as, for example, "change in environmental conditions, adding or removing questlines, or implementing incentives to influence the course of gameplay" or changing difficulty ( [0039]).” And yet, the applicant denies that redistributing loads on server is not a game control.
Applicant’s disclosure paragraph [0039] is clear as to what the rules do and what “game control” means: Game control 232 may be used by administrators of a game to seamlessly implement and propagate new rules or limitations within the game without interruption or downtime. Things that may be implemented include, but not limited by, change in environmental conditions, adding or removing questlines, or implementing incentives to influence the course of gameplay. Game control 232 may also implement rules without input from system administrators. For example, if system rules determine that a slight difficulty shift is needed, game control 232 may autonomously implement needed changes.
It appears that applicant is looking for the word, “rule,” in the Lee reference, however did not notice that the Lee reference is replete with the use of IF/Then conditions, which is essentially the implementation of rules. Plain meaning of a “rule,” in computer science is a predefined statement or guideline that dictates system behavior, data processing, or logical inference, typically in an "IF condition THEN action/result" format.
Please review the teachings of the (US 20150196841 A1) Lee reference in par. [40-43]
[0040] In another example, the resources consumption predictor 130 may be implemented to subtract 40 scores from a present score of each server if CPU load is greater than or equal to 80% and less than 90% which is changed in a case where the game, which has been requested to be executed by the client device 400, is newly allocated to each of the servers 300; or to subtract 100 scores from the present score of each server if the CPU load is greater than or equal to 90%, thereby changing the scores of each server.
[0041] In yet another example, the resources consumption predictor 130 may be implemented to subtract 20 scores from the present score of each server if GPU load is greater than or equal to 70% and less than 80% which is changed in a case where the game, which has been requested to be executed by the client device 400, is newly allocated to each of the servers 300; to subtract 40 scores from the present score of each server if greater than or equal to 80% and less than 90%; or to subtract 100 scores from the present score of each server if greater than or equal to 90%, thereby changing the scores of each server.
[0042] In yet another example, the resources consumption predictor 130 may be implemented to add 20 scores to the present score of each server if available memory capacity, i.e. the capacity of available memory, is greater than or equal to 1 GB, which is changed in a case where the game, which has been requested to be executed by the client device 400, is newly allocated to each of the servers 300; or to subtract 100 scores from the present score of each server if the available memory capacity is less than 100 MB, thereby changing the scores of each server.
[0043] In yet another example, the resources consumption predictor 130 may be implemented to add 20 scores to the present score of each server if available network capacity, i.e. the capacity of available network, is greater than or equal to 10 Mbps which is changed in a case where the game, which has been requested to be executed by the client device 400, is newly allocated to each of the servers 300; or to subtract 100 scores from the present score of each server if less than 5 Mbps, thereby changing scores of each server.
What has been highlighted above is nothing but rules except that the word, “rule” has not been used. Examiner also notes that par. [40]-[43] are directed to game control.
The following paragraphs from applicant’s disclosure are cited as being of particular interest.
Applicants’ Disclosure:
[0033]Results of the transformative analysis process may then be combined with further client directives, additional business rules and practices relevant to the analysis and situational information external to the data already available in automated planning service module 130, which also runs powerful information theory-based predictive statistics functions and machine learning algorithms 130a to allow future trends and outcomes to be rapidly forecast based upon the current system derived results and choosing each a plurality of possible business decisions. Then, using all or most available data, automated planning service module 130 may propose business decisions most likely to result in favorable business outcomes with a usably high level of certainty. Closely related to the automated planning service module 130 in the use of system-derived results in conjunction with possible externally supplied additional information in the assistance of end user business decision making, action outcome simulation module 125 with a discrete event simulator programming module 125a coupled with an end user-facing observation and state estimation service 140, which is highly scriptable 140b as circumstances require and has a game engine 140a to more realistically stage possible outcomes of business decisions under consideration, allows business decision makers to investigate the probable outcomes of choosing one pending course of action over another based upon analysis of the current available data.
[0039]Game control 232 may be used by administrators of a game to seamlessly implement and propagate new rules or limitations within the game without interruption or downtime. Things that may be implemented include, but not limited by, change in environmental conditions, adding or removing questlines, or implementing incentives to influence the course of gameplay. Game control 232 may also implement rules without input from system administrators. For example, if system rules determine that a slight difficulty shift is needed, game control 232 may autonomously implement needed changes.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Lee [US PG-PUB 20150196841, published 2015-07-16] in view of Bruno [US PG-PUB 20140342819 A1, 2013-05- 20].
With respect claim 1, Lee teaches, a computing system for predictive load balancing for a networked multi- node computer gaming environment, the computing system comprising:
one or more hardware processors(Fig. 1) configured for:
monitoring (Fig. 6, step 610) a game condition and a system load condition (Fig. 2, 120; [0038]) on a first computational node of the networked multi-node computer gaming environment over time, the game condition comprising a condition within a computer game operating on the first computational node, wherein the networked multi-node computer gaming environment comprises multiple computational nodes (Fig 1 of Lee shows multiple servers and clients, 300 and 400) and is configured to allow players to transition between the multiple computational nodes;
storing data on a non-volatile data storage device, (Fig. 2, 120, 130), the data comprising changes of the game condition and the system load condition at a series of time points;
performing a predictive analysis(Fig. 6, step 660) based on the time series data to generate a system load forecast for the first computational node; and
changing (Fig. 6, step 670; [0039] – “detect a current load amount of each of the servers 300 by using the load state information of each of the servers 300 stored in the information storage 120; change scores for each server according to the amount of load changed …. predict the resources consumption”) the system load on the first computational node based on the system load forecast by changing a game control, the game control comprising a limitation on the operation of the computer game operating on the first computational node, wherein changing the game control comprises, within the first computational node, dynamically implementing one or more rules that modify the operation of the computer game or dynamically modifying the limitation on the operation of the computer game. Lee even though does not use the word, “rule,” discloses the use of if/then condition which is equivalent to rules. See par. [0042] In yet another example, the resources consumption predictor 130 may be implemented to add 20 scores to the present score of each server if available memory capacity, i.e. the capacity of available memory, is greater than or equal to 1 GB, which is changed in a case where the game, which has been requested to be executed by the client device 400, is newly allocated to each of the servers 300; or to subtract 100 scores from the present score of each server if the available memory capacity is less than 100 MB, thereby changing the scores of each server. A person of ordinary skill in the art would know the plain meaning of rule which in computer science is a predefined statement or guideline that dictates system behavior, data processing, or logical inference, typically in an "IF condition THEN action/result" format.
With respect to claim 1, Lee does not explicitly indicate storing time series data on a non-volatile data storage device (Fig. 2, 120, 130), the time series data comprising changes of the game condition and the system load condition at a series of time points; and performing a predictive analysis (Fig. 6, step 660) based on the time series data to generate a system load forecast for the computational node.
With respect to claim 1, Bruno teaches storing time series data on a non-volatile data storage device, the time series data comprising changes of the game condition and the system load condition at a series of time points ([0094] the time series level and trend may be predicted using polynomial extrapolation. The shocks are registered and aggregated into a series of observations Z. The observation Z.sub.t is the integral of .lamda. over the time interval (t-1) to t divided by t-(t-1); in other words, the average number of shocks per time unit between time t-1 and t. The observed time series may be calculated Z.sub.t-n, ..., Z.sub.t-2, Z.sub.t-1, Z.sub.t for each game instance); performing a predictive analysis based on the time series data to generate a system load forecast for the computational node ([0095] a time series forecasting algorithm may be applied to this time series, which helps predict the future resource need E.sub.t+Wdeploy. In other words, the estimate of the incoming rate is used to generate an estimate of when the deployments started now will, on average, be completed); and
changing the system load on the computational node based on the system load forecast by changing a game control, the game control comprising a limitation on the operation of the computer game operating on the computational node ([0108] once the coefficients for the observations are determined, an estimate of .lamda. may be computed at any point in time. The estimate may be used to make a prediction W minutes into the future, where W is continuously measured. The prediction is checked against a set of boundary conditions, to avoid "hockey sticks" at very low load, and to make sure there is enough buffer for drastic inflection points under high load).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Lee with collecting the time series of gamer to generate a system load forecast of Bruno. Such a modification would provide information used by game manager 352 or other components to allocate server resources to a particular game pool (Bruno [O054)}, and thus improve the scalability of the system.
With respect to dependent claim 2, Lee as modified by Bruno further teaches wherein the load on the computational node is changed by adding or removing computational nodes (Lee, Fig 6, steps 660, 670).
is not accepted by the application 316, TCP terminates the connection but does not send a reset notification back to client 102. Again, a failure status is specified in the initiate inject complete call, and connection migrator 310 is responsible for cleaning up the migration and for sending a reset notification back to client 102 to abandon the connection).
With respect to dependent claim 3, Lee as modified by Bruno further teaches wherein the load on the computational node is changed by reallocating computing resources from other nodes to the computational node (Fig. 6, step 670).
With respect to dependent claim 4, Lee as modified by Bruno further teaches further comprising a connector subsystem, wherein a node may utilize the connector subsystem to communicate and exchange data with other nodes to facilitate load balancing (Lee, Fig 1, 100; Fig 2)
With respect io dependent clan 5, Lee as modified by Bruno further teaches wherein at least a portion of the load-related data used for predictive analysis is user contribution to system load (Lee, Fig 1-2; Bruno [0061] the game session runs the video game code responsible for creating the playing experience for the users).
With respect to dependent claim 6, Lee as modified by Bruno further teaches wherein the time-series data further comprise scheduled events (Bruno [0086] a temporary supplement may be established in conjunction with a known event that may cause unusual demand. For example, a launch date, a contest, or other promotion may cause demand to spike. This demand may be anticipated by adding an amount of supplemental resources needed fora particular time. The resource supplement may be a fixed amount established editorially. When forecast demand is zero, then the resource supplement acts as a floor).
With respect to dependent claim 7, Lee as modified by Bruno further teaches wherein the predictive analysis is performed using model-based forecasts or simulations based on the time series data (Bruno [0085] the forecasting model attempts to estimate how many resources will be needed at a point in the future...).
With respect io dependent claim 8, Lee as modified by Bruno further teaches wherein the game condition further comprises state information about a user agent, a game agent, or another entity (Bruno [0031] the online gaming environment 200 comprises various game clients connected through a network 220 to a game service 230).
With respect to dependent claim 9, Lee as modified by Bruno further teaches wherein the game condition further comprises player activity data, the player activity data comprising login information, actions, and location data (Bruno [0048] the connection manager 342 may also provide various authentication mechanisms to make sure that the user is authorized to access the qame service provided by the server 340. The connection manager may provide security, encryption, and authentication information to servers and virtual machines as they are added to a game session. The connection manager 342 may also analyze the bandwidth available within a connection and provide this information to components as needed. For example, the resolution of the video game image may be reduced to accommodate limited bandwidth).
With respect io dependent claim 10, Lee as modified by Bruno further teaches wherein the load on the computational node is changed by adjusting the relationship between the computational node and at least one other node (Lee, Fig, steps 630-680) adjusted while handling connections (e.g., adjusted "on the fly") depending on current resource consumption and/or deficits).
Regarding dependent claims 12-20, 22-30 and 32-40; the instant claims recite substantially same limitations as the above rejected claims 2-10 and are therefore rejected under the same prior-art teachings.
Claims 11-20 are essentially the same as claims 1-10 except that directed to a method implemented by the system of claim 1, and are therefore rejected for the same reasons and under the same rationale applied above.
Claims 21-30 are essentially the same as claims 1-10 except that directed to a system implementing the method of claim 1, and are therefore rejected for the same reasons and under the same rationale applied above.
Claims 31-40 are essentially the same as claims 1-10 except that directed to computer readable media and/or computer program product storing the instructions for implementing the method of claim 1, and are therefore rejected for the same reasons and under the same rationale applied above.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSAIN T ALAM whose telephone number is (571)272-3978. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu, 8:00 - 4:30.
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.
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.
/HOSAIN T ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2132