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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the indication" in lines 10 and last line of the claim, however, “an indication” is recited in lines 2, 3, and 8. It is unclear which indications correspond to each other, thus, deemed indefinite. Also, independent claims 8 and 15 has similar issues as stated above relative to “the indication” recitations.
All dependent claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite because of their respective dependence on claims 1, 8, and 15.
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 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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 11-13, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 20120209571 to Peterson et al (Peterson) in view of US Pub. 20210073028 to Li et al (Li) and US Pub. 20220347583 to He et al (He).
Claims 1, 8, and 15. Peterson discloses a computing system comprising:
memory;
a network interface; and
one or more processors operably coupled to the memory and the network interface and configured to:
receiving, by one or more processors of a computing system, an indication of gaming application and an indication of a computing device (¶¶14-17);
determining, by the one or more processors and using performance scores of a plurality of gaming applications executing at a plurality of computing devices, a predicted performance of the gaming application executing at the computing device (¶¶27 and 77); and
sending, by the one or more processors, an indication of the predicted performance of the gaming application executing at the computing device (¶¶17 and 76).
However, Peterson fails to explicitly disclose:
using collaborative filtering; and
wherein the indication causes the computing device to adjust one or more fidelity parameters of the gaming application based at least in part on the predicted performance of the gaming application, (as required by claim 1) wherein the one or more fidelity parameters include at least image fidelity, target frame rate, rendering quality, or model quality, and wherein the indication includes one or more optimal fidelity parameters.
Li teaches using collaborative filtering (¶¶17, 58, and 75). The gaming system of Peterson would have motivation to use the teachings of Li because collaborative filtering includes providing recommendations according to collected and comparing historical data, using this technique would provide stronger game predictions due to the additional steps of analyzing additional data involved in collaborative filtering.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gaming system of Peterson with the teachings of Li as a way to provide more accurate and relevant game predictions (via incorporating a collaborative filtering technique) which would give game users more confidence in the provided information.
He teaches wherein the indication causes the computing device to adjust one or more fidelity parameters of the gaming application based at least in part on the predicted performance of the gaming application, (as required by claim 1) wherein the one or more fidelity parameters include at least image fidelity, target frame rate, rendering quality, or model quality, and wherein the indication includes one or more optimal fidelity parameters (¶¶22, 32, 37-38 “performance prediction engine 104 may include a machine learning model that is trained using the filtered working data. The machine learning model may include a permutation feature importance (PFI) determination which may generate weights for each setting of the configuration settings according to an impact of the setting on the performance value. The recommend settings engine 106 may receive the predicted performance values and the generated weights as inputs”; “frame rate”, “computer program would recommend changing all the graphics settings to high, since the computer hardware is capable of high frame rate without compromising on gameplay performance”). The gaming system of Peterson would have motivation to use the teachings of He in order to strengthen the performance data results which would increase the trust and reliable of a computing system.
It would have been further obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gaming system of Peterson with the teachings of He as a way to automate and further improve gaming presentation quality during gameplay which would provide for a better gaming experience for users.
Claims 4, 11, and 18. Peterson in view of Li teaches wherein determining, using collaborative filtering of the performance scores of the plurality of gaming applications executing at the plurality of computing devices, the predicted performance of the gaming application at the computing device further comprises:
determining, by the one or more processors and using one or more neural networks trained to perform collaborative filtering of the performance scores of the plurality of gaming applications executing at the plurality of computing devices, the predicted performance of the gaming application at the computing device (see Li ¶58).
Claims 5, 12, and 19. Peterson in view of Li teaches wherein the one or more neural networks are trained based on minimizing a loss function associated lo a respective predicted performance score and a respective actual performance score for each of a plurality of combinations of the plurality of gaming applications and the plurality of computing devices (see Li ¶¶78-79).
Claims 6, 13, and 20. Peterson discloses wherein the predicted performance of the gaming application executing at the computing device comprises frame rate information for the gaming application executing at the computing device (¶17).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 8 and 15 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, and 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DAMON J PIERCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1997. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at 571-270-1344. 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.
/DAMON J PIERCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights