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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-19 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-19 of copending Application No. 18567808 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are an exact replica of each other, except for the use of “configured to” in the language of the instant application. The use of “configured to” presents no functional change to the claim limitations of ‘109. Taking claim 1 of each application, one can see that the claims are nearly identical with no functional changes between the two:
Instant Application 18/570109
Co-pending 18/567808
1. A caching apparatus comprising:
an interface for communicating with one or more cloud gaming instances;
processing circuitry configured to:
obtain requests for cached transcoded versions of textures to be used in the one or more cloud gaming instances, and
provide the cached transcoded versions of the textures to the one or more cloud gaming instances.
1. A caching apparatus comprising:
an interface for communicating with one or more cloud gaming instances;
processing circuitry to:
obtain requests for cached transcoded versions of textures to be used in the one or more cloud gaming instances, and
provide the cached transcoded versions of the textures to the one or more cloud gaming instances.
As demonstrated above, “Configured to” is used throughout the claims as a potential differentiator between to the claim sets, but again such language does not provide a functional difference between the two. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 11, 14, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wihlidal (U.S. PGPUB 2020/0051285) in Perrin (U.S. PGPUB 2016/0110903).
Re claim 1, 14, and 18: Wihlidal discloses a caching apparatus comprising:
an interface for communicating with one or more cloud gaming instances (see paragraph [0019]: a compression server operates as an interface to communicate with game servers, 130, and 150 );
processing circuitry (see paragraph [0019, 0063]: compression server) configured to:
obtain requests for cached transcoded versions of textures to be used in the one or more cloud gaming instances (see paragraph [0029-0032, 0071]: a local game is played on a computing device, however the device communicates with the game packaging server that stores additional content for performing the game); Here the texture maps of Wihlidal are considered transcoded texture maps. Transcoding signifies compressing data into one format, and using a decompresser to convert said data into a separate format. The system takes raw pixel data and compresses it into JPEG data, see para. [0025]. Then an image decompressor decompresses the JPEG data, and recompresses said data into a separate format, as discussed here in paragraph [0068]: “The pixels of the decompressed image are transferred to a texture compressor 640 along with the associated array of compression parameters 133. The texture compressor uses the one or more compression parameters for each corresponding pixel region to compress the corresponding pixel region to a texture compression format, such as a texture block compression format, where each region is compressed to a fixed number of bits” ), and
provide the cached transcoded versions of the textures to the one or more cloud gaming instances (see paragraphs [0028-0029] and the following citation from [0072-0073]: “The decompressed portion of the texture may be output by the decompression hardware 662 and stored in the texture cache 664. The decompressed texture 664 stored in the texture cache 663 is then used by the renderer of the GPU 665 to render a 3D scene and output it to, for example, a display connected to the gaming device 610”).
However, Wihlidal fails to teach a cloud gaming environment, wherein users using gaming devices play games over a cloud, wherein game play request including image game play request would be made to a remote server, for performing a game. Perrin teaches such (see paragraphs [0003, 0004]: “As one of the services of such providing form, a game screen rendered in a server is provided to a client device via a network, like so-called cloud gaming. In particular, a game content that generates fine graphics requires sufficient rendering performance of a client device. However, cloud gaming allows even a user who does not have a client device with sufficient rendering performance to play the same game as in a device having sufficient rendering performance. In such a cloud service that renders a screen of a content on the server side and provides it, an application program and the like are preferably optimized and configured for execution on the server.” In a combined system of Wihladi and Parrin, game machines would make a request to a cloud server for image gaming content from the cloud gaming server which would perform all of the gaming and image transcoding tasks to send to the player’s device. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the transcoding and server based system of Wihladi to a cloud based system where all of the image processing is done on a cloud based as taught by Parrin, for the purpose of saving space on the local device and allowing games to be played that tax the computing power of the local system.
Re claim 3: Wihlidal in view of Parrin, discloses with respect to the caching apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the cached transcoded versions of the textures are transcoded versions of textures being included in games being executed in the one or more cloud gaming instances ([0028-0032]: transcoded textures are versions of the textures used in the game, wherein Wihlidal performs the process on the local level. However, when combined with Parrin as discussed above, the transcoding tasks would take place at the cloud level, wherein the provided textures are textures for that specific game).
Re claim 4: Wihlidal in view of Parrin, discloses with respect to the caching apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the cached transcoded versions are transcoded into a format that is supported by a graphics processing unit of a computer system being used to host the one or more cloud gaming instances ([0028-0032: Wihlidal teaches that the transcoded textures are formats of the textures supported by the local device, however such is only performed on the local level. However, when combined with Parrin as discussed above, the transcoding tasks would take place at the cloud level, wherein the provided textures are textures for that specific game).
Re claim 5: Wihlidal in view of Parrin, discloses with respect to the caching apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the requests comprise identifiers for identifying the respective texture to be provided, and the cached transcoded versions are provided based on the identifiers included in the requests (see paragraph [0040]: it is inherent in Wihlidal for requests to be made with identifiers, as such guarantees that the correct file is being provided).
Re claim 7: Wihlidal in view of Parrin, discloses with respect to the caching apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to obtain information on one or more games being executed in the one or more cloud gaming instances, and to obtain the transcoded versions of the textures for caching based on the information on the one or more games being executed in the one or more cloud gaming instances ([0028-0032]: Wihlidal when combined with Parrin would provide transcoded texture maps to local game devices that will obtain said data).
Re claim 11: Wihlidal in view of Parrin, discloses with respect to the caching apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to obtain the transcoded versions of the textures by transcoding the textures being included in games being executed in the one or more cloud gaming instances ([0028-0032]: Wihlidal when combined with Parrin would provide transcoded texture maps to local game devices that will obtain said data).
Re claim 16: Wihlidal in view of Parrin discloses with respect to the driver apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the transcoded version of the texture is transcoded into a format that is supported by the graphics processing unit of the computer system (it is inherent that Wihlidal provides compressed textures in the format supported on user devices as the system would not function if Wihlidal provided compressed textures in formats not supported by the system. Again, Wihlidal when combined with Parrin would provide transcoded texture maps to local game devices).
Re claim 17: Wihlidal in view of Parrin discloses with respect to the driver apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the driver functionality is provided in user space (see paragraph [0040]: Graphics processing system, 300).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 8-10, 12-15, 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINALD A RENWICK whose telephone number is (571)270-1913. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7pm.
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.
REGINALD A. RENWICK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3714
/REGINALD A RENWICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights