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 1/12/2026 has been received and considered. In the response, Applicant elected invention group I (claims 1 – 11) for further prosecution without traverse and cancelled claims 12 – 20. Therefore, claims 1 - 11 are pending.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 2 are all within at least one of the four categories of invention, and have been analyzed to determine whether they are directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of claims 1 and 2 recites at least one step or instruction for coordinating timing between a client and a server using feedback based on frame arrival timing, which is grouped as a mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. The claimed limitations involve concepts performed in the human mind, namely observation, evaluation and judgement, which are mental processes and managing personal behavior and following rules or instructions, which are methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, each of Claims 1 and 2 recites an abstract idea.
Independent Claim 1 recites:
A method of operating a client device in communication with a server, comprising:
synchronizing frame generation frequency with the server ("synchronizing timing" (similar to a human or conventional system establishing a schedule), it may be deemed an abstract idea, specifically a "method of organizing human activity" or a " mathematical relationship and calculations"");
receiving a frame from the server (extra solution activity); and
synchronizing frame generation timing with the server based on receiving the frame ("synchronizing timing" (similar to a human or conventional system establishing a schedule), it may be deemed an abstract idea, specifically a "method of organizing human activity" or a "mathematical relationship and calculations").
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract
idea. Further, dependent Claim 2 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claim 1 (and their respective dependent Claim 2) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claim 1), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of client device and server as recited in independent Claim 1 and its dependent claims are generically recited computer elements which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Furthermore, server and the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer/computing device. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 1 (and their respective dependent Claim 2) are not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application
under 2019 PEG because the claimed system merely implements the above-identified abstract
idea (e.g., mental process) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g.
client device and server as recited in independent claim 1). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer/computing device.
Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 1 (and their respective dependent Claim 2) are not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of the Claims 1 and 2 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons. These claims require the additional elements of: client device and server as recited in the independent claims.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components
which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic
functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as
well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner
(e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev.
Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Like SAP America vs InvestPic, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1 and 2 amounts to
mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or
other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or
transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the
fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does
not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing
technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837
F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft
Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a
technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification
for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or
upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide
sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention
as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of
how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the
prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution
that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d
1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide
sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any
technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, Claims 1 and 2 are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain method of organizing human activity) on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). In other words, none of Claims 1 and 2 provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements
do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified
additional elements in independent Claim 1 (and their dependent claims) do not add
significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular
technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other
additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional
elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these
above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed
functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of
generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept
sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, the
above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful
limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea
such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1 and 2 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a
technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the claims 1 and 2 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea
itself.
Accordingly, claims 1 and 2 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as
being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme
Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and 2019 PEG.
Under the Alice/Mayo framework, the claims are considered an abstract idea are it is deemed to simply "computerize" the general concept of timing synchronization. The claims are directed to "organizing information" or "synchronizing timing" (similar to a human or conventional system establishing a schedule), which is deemed an abstract idea, specifically a "method of organizing human activity" or a "mathematical relationship and calculation".
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 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Colenbrander et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0024723 A1).
As per claim 1, Colenbrander et al. discloses a method of operating a client device in communication with a server (see Fig. 2D) comprising: synchronizing frame generation frequency with the server (one-way latency by performing one or more of synchronization and offset of VSYNC signals for alignment between a server and a client, by providing dynamic buffering on the client, by overlapping encode and transmit of video frames at the server, by overlapping receive and decode of video frames at the client, and by overlapping decoding and displaying of video frames at the client, see [0067] – [0069]); receiving a frame from the server (receiving encoded video frames at the client from the server, see Fig. 4:404 and [0072]) and synchronizing frame generation timing with the server based on receiving the frame (aligning the VSYNC signals (e.g. synchronize the frequency and adjust the offset) between the server and the client, to reduce one-way latency between the server and the client, and to reduce variability in the one-way latency between the server and the client, see [0074] – [0078]).
As per claim 2, Colenbrander discloses determining whether the frame was received or presented by the client device during a timing window (determining at the client a target display time for the modified video frame, see Fig. 8A:840 and [0124] – [0125]).
As per claim 3, Colenbrander discloses synchronizing frame generation timing comprises sending a pacing message to the server based on determining whether the frame was received or presented by the client device during a timing window (server receives a signal, see [0076] – [0078]).
As per claim 4, Colenbrander discloses the pacing message comprises a timing offset (see Fig. 8A -B, [0076] – [0078] and [0127]).
As per claim 5, Colenbrander discloses the pacing message comprises an instruction setting an earlier start time for rendering a next frame by the server (the server notes and sends out the scan-out/scan-in time for a corresponding video frame to the client, see [0130]).
As per claim 6, Colenbrander discloses the pacing message is configured to cause the server to shift a timing of future frame rendering (VSYNC shifts the timing of the frame by forcing the GPU to wait for the monitor to finish its refresh cycle before sending the next frame, see [0129] – [0131] and [0139]).
As per claim 7, Colenbrander discloses the timing window is based on a presentation deadline of the frame (see Fig. 4 and [0069] – [0077]).
As per claim 8, Colenbrander discloses the timing window is based on a next vertical blanking interval (rely on VSYNC periods, inherently including VBI (vertical blanking interval), see [0045] and [0065]).
As per claim 9, Colenbrander discloses processing the frame by the client device and displaying the frame at the client device (see Fig. 3 and 4, [0044], [0072], [0085]).
As per claim 10, Colenbrander discloses synchronizing frame generation frequency comprises: determining a display frame rate; and sending the display frame rate to the server (see [0130] – [0131]).
As per claim 11, Colenbrander discloses rendering the frame by the client device; and presenting the frame for display (see Fig.4 and 8B and [0130] – [0133]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is listed on the Notice of References Cited.
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.
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, 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