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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/3/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 6/3/2026 have been considered. Claims 1-21 are pending in the application. Examiner has acknowledged the cancellation of claim 7 and the newly added claim 21.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Please see 35 U.S.C Section 103 rejection below:
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.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zipnick (US 8098256 B2), Apte (US 20140286440 A1), and Takagaki (US 20040136533 A1), hereinafter Zipnick, Apte, and Takagaki respectively.
Regarding claim 19, Zipnick teaches a processor comprising: one or more graphics processing units to: generate content data associated with an application;
“The GPU 140 can perform some functions of the video digitizer 105. In particular, video and graphics processing functions of the video digitizer 105 can be offloaded to the GPU 140.” – Col 6, Lines 59-62
NOTE: Zipnick discloses a GPU with the capability of performing the functions of a video-digitizer which generates processed video data: “The video-digitizing pipeline 105 generates processed video data that can be used by a client process 150.” – Col 27, Lines 28-29. This corresponds to a GPU generating content data associated with an application
and provide the first processed content data to one or more central processing units and the one or more central processing units to: obtain the first processed content data from the one or more graphics processing units;
“After processing by the graphics processor, the processed data is forwarded back to the CPU or stored in memory for use by one or more client processes running on the CPU and/or on different devices (220).” – Col 8, Lines 10-13 and “wherein the central processing unit receives the processed data from the graphics processor for use by a client application.” – Claim 31
NOTE: Zipnick expressly discloses providing the CPU with the processed content data from the GPU.
Zipnick does not teach a processor comprising: one or more graphics processing units to: process the content data using one or more first data transport processes to generate first processed content data, wherein the one or more first data transport processes are determined based at least on telemetry data associated with the application and include at least forward error correction; process the second first processed content data using one or more second data transport processes to generate second processed content data, wherein the one or more second data transport processes are determined based at least on the telemetry data associated with the application and include at least encryption; and cause the second processed content data to be streamed to one or more client devices. However, Apte teaches a processor comprising: one or more graphics processing units to: process the content data using one or more first data transport processes to generate first processed content data,
“When FEC encoding is enabled, generally to mitigate degraded network conditions, FEC encoder 418 adds a layer of encoding applied across all packets of a single frame of video. FEC allows for more reliable reconstruction of the single frame of video on the client.” – Par 41, Lines 14-19
NOTE: Apte discloses using a GPU to perform FEC encoding: “Alternatively, FEC encoder 320 can be implemented in the GPU, as is the case in the embodiment of FIG. 4.” – Par 30, Lines 16-18. The FEC encoding is applied to video content data. This functionally corresponds to a GPU performing a first data transport process (forward error correction) to produce first processed content data.
wherein the one or more first data transport processes are determined based at least on telemetry data associated with the application and include at least forward error correction;
“These QoS statistics may include packet loss counts, one-way-delay times and frame numbers. Based on these QoS statistics, a redundancy level for FEC encoding is determined in a step 630” – Par 45, Lines 5-7
NOTE: Apte discloses that the GPU may include the QoS Manager which tracks the QoS statistics: “Virtual GPU 206 includes a renderer 410, a framer capturer 412, a video encoder 414, a QoS manager 416 and an FEC encoder 418”, see Par 41, Lines 2-4. Based on the QoS statistics, a redundancy level for FEC encoding is determined. The QoS statistics functionally corresponds to telemetry data that then determines a first data transport process which at least includes forward error correction (FEC).
and cause the
“transmitting an encoded video stream over the network toward a client for receipt, decoding and display.” – Par 8, Lines 5-7
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Zipnick by incorporating the teachings of Apte to have the GPU process content data by using the first data transport to generate first processed content data by using telemetry data to determine the first data transport process wherein the first data transport process includes forward error correction and cause content data to be streamed to one or more client devices. One would be motivated to make this combination to monitor inefficiencies such as packet loss during video transmission which would then allow for the GPU to perform forward error correction to protect the video against packet loss. The statistics will provide an indication when the FEC is needed which benefits the stability of the video transmission (content data associated with an application). This would then allow the content data to be transmitted in acceptable quality to the client device.
Zipnick in view of Apte still does not teach processing the first processed content data using one or more second data transport processes to generate second processed content data, wherein the one or more second data transport processes are determined based at least on the telemetry data associated with the application and include at least encryption; and cause the second processed content data to be streamed to one or more client devices. However, Takagaki teaches processing the first processed content data using one or more second data transport processes to generate second processed content data,
“CPURecord represents the CPU resource consumed by the video recording application 28, and CPUCamera represents the CPU resource required by the network camera application 34 when performing an encrypted communication using an encryption algorithm x.” – Par 97, Lines 1-5
NOTE: Takagaki discloses using CPU resources to perform the encryption algorithm. After the combination, a CPU performing encryption can modify Zipnick’s teaching of offloading the processed content from the GPU to the CPU for further processing. This would allow Zipnick’s system to have the GPU perform forward error correction as taught by Apte to obtain first processed content data which would then be provided to the CPU to perform encryption which would result in second processed content data.
wherein the one or more second data transport processes are determined based at least on the telemetry data associated with the application and include at least encryption;
“The encryption algorithm selection section 42 has a CPU utilization statistics memory 44 for storing CPU utilization rate information which was previously obtained from the resource monitoring section 30 or obtained at the time of the negotiation” – Par 78, Lines 22-26
NOTE: Takagaki discloses that CPU utilization, which can be understood as telemetry data, is monitored to determine using encryption which can be understood as the second data transport process. After the combination, determining based on the CPU utilization rate to perform encryption using the CPU as taught by Takagaki can modify Zipnick’s teaching of offloading/handing off the processed content from the GPU to the CPU. This combination would then allow for the processed video content data after the GPU performs forward-error correction as taught by Apte can then be offloaded to the CPU which then performs the encryption.
and cause the second processed content data to be streamed to one or more client devices.
“transmitting an encoded video stream over the network toward a client for receipt, decoding and display.” – Apte, Par 8, Lines 5-7
NOTE: After the combination, the second processed content data as taught by taught by Apte can be transmitted to a client which functionally corresponds to streaming the second content data to a client device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Zipnick by incorporating the teachings of Takagaki to process the first processed content data received by the CPU from the GPU and using second data transport process to generate second processed content data wherein the second data transport processes are based on telemetry data associated with the application and include at least encryption and cause the second processed content data to be streamed to one or more client devices. One would be motivated to make this combination since after the CPU applies encryption to generate second processed content data, the newly processed content data can then safely be sent to the client device for viewing
Regarding claim 20, Zipnick, in view of Apte and Takagaki teach the processor of claim 19. Zipnick as combined teaches wherein the processor is comprised in at least one of: a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a system for performing simulation operations; a system for performing digital twin operations; a system for performing light transport simulation; a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets; a system for performing deep learning operations; a system implemented using an edge device; a system implemented using a robot; a system for performing conversational AI operations; a system implementing one or more large language models (LLMs);a system for generating synthetic data; a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs);a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources.
“FIG. 1 is a block diagram of a cloud gaming system 100. Cloud gaming system 100 includes a network 110 through which a server 120 and a client 140 communicate.” – Apte Par 28, Lines 1-3
NOTE: Apte discloses that its invention is related to cloud gaming which naturally would require a system that uses cloud computing resources. After the combination the GPU performing forward error correction based on telemetry data as taught by Apte and the CPU that performs encryption as taught by Takagaki can modify Zipnick’s offloading architecture of a GPU handing processed content to the CPU. This would allow the processing of first content data from the GPU to be received by the CPU for further processing to generate and send the second processed content data to a client in the context of a system implemented using cloud computing resources (such as cloud gaming as taught by Apte.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 and 8-18 are allowed. Independent claim 1 recite allowable subject matter after the amendments made to the claim and thus overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C Section 103. Claims 2-6, 8-9, and 11-18 are dependent on claim 1 and 10 respectively and thus also overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C Section 103.
The following are the Examiner’s reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, the closest prior art of record Min et al (US 20170061566 A1) and Huang et al (US 10497168 B2), hereinafter Min and Huang respectively, individually or in combination, fails to teach, or render obvious, when considered in combination with all of the other limitations of each independent claim as a whole, the following limitation(s) recited in the amended independent claims: “a first number of errors that occurred when processing first content data of the application using one or more first processors to execute one or more first data transport processes and one or more second processors to execute one or more second data transport processes that are different than the one or more first data transport processes; and a second number of errors that occurred when processing second content data of the application using the one or more second processors to execute the one or more first data transport processes and the one or more second data transport processes; generating, based at least on the first number of errors being equal to or less to a threshold number of errors and the second number of errors being greater than the threshold number of errors, telemetry data indicating to execute the one or more first data transport processes using the one or more first processors and to execute the one or more second data transport processes using the one or more second processors”. The combination of Min, in view of Huang, does not teach performance statistics that monitor errors that occur specifically when doing the data transport processes. The claim’s limitations specifically require that the first number of errors are based on the execution of the first data transport process using the one or more first processors and the execution of the second data transport processes using the one or more second processors where the second data transport process tasks are different than the first data transport task. The claim’s limitations also require that the second number of errors are based on the execution of the first and second data transport processes using one or more second processors. Although the combination teaches examples of telemetry data such as utilization or latency, the errors are not based on the data transport tasks being performed. The combination also does not teach obtaining a first and second number of errors that are based on specific executions of data transport tasks using the first and second processors as required by the claim. Therefore, the combination would not be able to check if the first number of errors and second number of errors meet the conditions of their respective threshold number of errors in order to generate telemetry data to indicate the execution of a one or more first data transport tasks using a first processor and one or more second data transport tasks using a second processor. None of the prior art searched, alone or in combination, renders obvious to the limitations of claim 1. Dependent claims 2-6 and 8-9 which depend on claim 1 are thus also allowable.
Regarding claim 10, the closest prior art of record Min et al (US 20170061566 A1) and Huang et al (US 10497168 B2), hereinafter Min and Huang respectively, individually or in combination, fails to teach, or render obvious, when considered in combination with all of the other limitations of each independent claim as a whole, the following limitation(s) recited in the amended independent claims: “one or more first performance statistics associated with processing “…first video data of an application by executing one or more first data transport processes using one or more central processing units and executing one or more second data transport processes using one or more parallel processing units; and one or more second performance statistics associated with processing second video data of the application by executing the one or more first data transport processes and the one or more second data transport processes using the one or more central processing units; determine, based at least on the one or more first performance statistics meeting a threshold performance and the one or more second performance statistics being below the threshold performance, telemetry data indicating the one or more first data transport processes associated with the one or more central processing units and the one or more second data transport processes associated with the one or more parallel processing units;…”. The combination of Min in view of Huang of does not teach that the first and second performance statistics associated with the processing of the first and second video data respectively are based on the execution of the second data transport process tasks. The first performance statistics require monitoring of the CPU executing the first data transport tasks and the GPU executing the second performance task. The second performance statistics require monitoring the CPU performing both the first and second data processing tasks. Although Min as modified teaches obtaining performance statistics based on the CPU and GPU performance, the combination does not indicate that what is monitored is the execution of the data transport process. The combination also does not specifically measure the performance of the execution of the data transport tasks with the CPU+GPU and the CPU alone but instead generically monitors latency. The combination also fails to determine telemetry data based on when the first performance statistic meets a threshold performance and the second threshold performance is below the threshold performance to indicate the execution of the first and second data transport process tasks with the CPU and GPU respectively. Although Min describes offloading the tasks from the CPU to the GPU based on performance history based on the latency requirement which shows that the CPU is checked to determine if it meets a performance threshold, the combination does not expressly check the threshold performance of the data transport tasks executing both on the CPU+GPU and the CPU alone. None of the prior art searched, alone or in combination, renders obvious to the limitations of claim 10. Dependent claims 11-18, which depend on claim 10, are thus also allowable.
Claim 21 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
Regarding claim 21, Zipnick, in view of Apte and Takagaki teach the processor of claim 19. Zipnick as modified does not teach wherein: the telemetry data represents at least: a first performance when the one or more central processing units execute a plurality of data transport processes that include at least the one or more first data transport processes and the one or more second data transport processes; and a second performance when the one or more central processing units execute the one or more first data transport processes while refraining from executing the one or more second data transport processes; and the one or more central processing units process the content data using the one or more first data transport processes based at least on the first performance and the second performance. The present combination of Zipnick in view of Apte and Takagaki shows that the telemetry data monitors CPU and GPU performance. However, the claim’s limitation requires that the telemetry data record the performance of a CPU executing both a set of first and second data transport process tasks where in one of the first data transport tasks needs to be forward error correction and the one of the second transport data tasks needs to be encryption. The telemetry data must also be able to record a second performance where the CPU performs on only the first data transport tasks and refrains from performing the second data transfer tasks. This telemetry data is not present in the current combination and thus fails to teach it. None of the prior art searched, alone or in combination, renders obvious to the limitations of claim 21.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID V. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6111. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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, King Y Poon can be reached at 571-270-0728. 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.
/DAVID VAN NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2617 /KING Y POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2617
