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 § 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 25, 31, 37, 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Apostolopoulos (US 2002/0116715 A1) in view of Etwaru (US 2022/0060778 A1) . Regarding Claim 25 , Apostolopoulos discloses a computing system (e.g. Fig. 1, and Fig. 3, Fig. 5 include more details of Fig. 1) comprising: a host processor (e.g. Fig. 3 and Paragraph [0096]) ; a first adaptor (e.g. Fig. 3 Encoder 31 4 ) ; a second adaptor (e.g. Fig. 3 Encoder 31 6 ) ; and memory (e.g. Paragraph [0051], video storage facility) comprising instructions which, when executed by the host processor, cause the computing system to: encode, via the first encoder , an I-frame of a live video signal (e.g. Paragraph [0041] for real-time video) and a first subset of P-frames of the live video signal (e.g. Paragraph [0059], encoder 314 generates I followed by P odd frames) ; encode, via the second graphics adapter, a second subset of P-frames of the live video signal (e.g. Paragraph [0059], encoder 316 generates P even frames) ; and combine the encoded video frames from the first adapter and the encoded video frames from the second adapter into an output video bitstream (e.g. Paragraph [0061]) . Although Apostolopoulos discloses two adaptors for processing video; it fails to explicitly disclose such adaptors are graphic adaptors. However, Etwara teaches graphic adaptors (Paragraph [0153 , 0155 ]) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of the invention to incorporate such graphic adaptors as taught as Etwara into the system of Apostolopoulos in order to have functionality and features of graphic display with computer storage medium. Regarding Claim 31 , Apostolopoulos discloses to encode, via the first encoder , an I-frame of a live video signal (e.g. Paragraph [0041] for real-time video) and a first subset of P-frames of the live video signal (e.g. Paragraph [0059], encoder 314 generates I followed by P odd frames) ; encode, via the second graphics adapter, a second subset of P-frames of the live video signal (e.g. Paragraph [0059], encoder 316 generates P even frames) ; and combine the encoded video frames from the first adapter and the encoded video frames from the second adapter into an output video bitstream (e.g. Paragraph [0061]) . Although Apostolopoulos discloses two adaptors for processing video; it fails to explicitly disclose a semiconductor apparatus comprising: one or more substrates; and logic coupled to the one or more substrates, wherein the logic is implemented at least partly in one or more of configurable logic or fixed-functionality hardware logic; and such adaptors are graphic adaptors. However, Etwara teaches a semiconductor apparatus (e.g. Paragraph [0124]) comprising: one or more substrates (e.g. Paragraph [0120]) ; and logic coupled to the one or more substrates, wherein the logic is implemented at least partly in one or more of configurable logic or fixed-functionality hardware logic (e.g. Paragraph [0121, 0123]) ; and graphic adaptors (Paragraph [0153, 0155]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of the invention to incorporate the semiconductor structure and graphic adaptors as taught as Etwara into the system of Apostolopoulos in order to have functionality and features of data processing and graphic display with computer storage medium. Regarding Claim 37 , Apostolopoulos discloses a t least one computer readable storage medium (e.g. Paragraph [0003]) comprising a set of instructions which, when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to: encode, via the first encoder , an I-frame of a live video signal (e.g. Paragraph [0041] for real-time video) and a first subset of P-frames of the live video signal (e.g. Paragraph [0059], encoder 314 generates I followed by P odd frames) ; encode, via the second graphics adapter, a second subset of P-frames of the live video signal (e.g. Paragraph [0059], encoder 316 generates P even frames) ; and combine the encoded video frames from the first adapter and the encoded video frames from the second adapter into an output video bitstream (e.g. Paragraph [0061]) . Although Apostolopoulos discloses two adaptors for processing video; it fails to explicitly disclose such adaptors are graphic adaptors. However, Etwara teaches graphic adaptors (Paragraph [0153, 0155]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of the invention to incorporate such graphic adaptors as taught as Etwara into the system of Apostolopoulos in order to have functionality and features of graphic display with computer storage medium. Regarding Claim 43 , Apostolopoulos discloses a method (e.g. Paragraph [0001]) comprising: encod ing , via the first encoder , an I-frame of a live video signal (e.g. Paragraph [0041] for real-time video) and a first subset of P-frames of the live video signal (e.g. Paragraph [0059], encoder 314 generates I followed by P odd frames) ; encode, via the second graphics adapter, a second subset of P-frames of the live video signal (e.g. Paragraph [0059], encoder 316 generates P even frames) ; and combine the encoded video frames from the first adapter and the encoded video frames from the second adapter into an output video bitstream (e.g. Paragraph [0061]) . Although Apostolopoulos discloses two adaptors for processing video; it fails to explicitly disclose such adaptors are graphic adaptors. However, Etwara teaches graphic adaptors (Paragraph [0153, 0155]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of the invention to incorporate such graphic adaptors as taught as Etwara into the system of Apostolopoulos in order to have functionality and features of graphic display with computer storage medium. Claim s 26-2 7 , 32-3 3 , 38- 39 , 44-4 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Apostolopoulos (US 2002/0116715 A1) in view of Etwaru (US 2022/0060778 A1) and Grigorian (US 2008/0063362 A1) . Regarding Claims 26, 32, 38, 44 , Apostolopoulos discloses divide frames of the live video signal (e.g. Paragraph [0055]) into the first subset of P-frames and the second subset of P-frames on an alternating frame basis (e.g. paragraph [0059, 0060]) ; wherein to encode the first subset of P-frames and to encode the second subset of P-frames (e.g. paragraph [0059, 0060]); wherein to encode the first subset of P-frames and to encode the second subset of P-frames is to occur essentially in parallel (e.g. Fig. 3 and Paragraph [0049]). Although Apostolopoulos discloses to encode with the same I-frame (e.g. Paragraph [0059]); It fails to explicitly disclose to copy the I-frame prior to encoding the second subset of P-frames. However, Grigorian teaches to copy the I-frame (e.g. Paragraph [0015]) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of the invention to incorporate such frame copying as taught as Grigorian prior encoding the second subset of P-frames of the system of Apostolopoulos in view of Etwara in order to efficiently search video data and provide fast playback without burdening the system. Regarding Claims 27, 33, 39, 45 , Apostolopoulos discloses the first subset of P-frames has frame dependencies only on frames in the first adapter (e.g. Paragraph [0057]) , and wherein the second subset of P-frames has frame dependencies only on frames in the second adapter (e.g. Paragraph [0058]). Claim s 28, 34, 40, 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Apostolopoulos (US 2002/0116715 A1) in view of Etwaru (US 2022/0060778 A1) , and further in view of Grigorian (US 2008/0063362 A1) and Pichumani (US 2015/0373383 A1) . Regarding Claims 28, 34, 40, 46 , although Apostolopoulos further discloses divide the live video signal with different frame rate on an alternating frame basis (e.g. paragraph [0059, 0060]) ; It fails to explicitly disclose dividing into a plurality of layers, copy the I-frame from the first graphics adapter to the second graphics adapter prior to encoding, via the second graphics adapter, the second subset of P-frames; and copy at least one encoded reference P-frame per cluster between the first graphics adapter and the second graphics adapter. However, Grigorian teaches to copy the I-frame (e.g. Paragraph [0015]); and Pichumani teaches dividing into a plurality of layers ( e.g. Fig. 2 and Paragraph [ 0013, 0022]) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of the invention to incorporate such frame copying as taught as Grigorian prior encoding the second subset of P-frames of the system of Apostolopoulos in view of Etwara in order to efficiently search video data and provide fast playback without burdening the system; and to incorporate multiple layers of stream content as taught as Pichumani with the system of Apostolopoulos in view of Etwara in order for scalable coding . Claim s 29, 30, 35, 36, 41, 42, 47, 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Apostolopoulos (US 2002/0116715 A1) in view of Etwaru (US 2022/0060778 A1) and Pichumani (US 2015/0373383 A1) . Regarding Claims 29, 35, 41, 47 , although Apostolopoulos in view of Etwaru discloses to encode the first subset of P-frames, via the first graphics adapter; and wherein to encode the second subset of P-frames, via the second graphics adapter ; It fails to explicitly discloses to perform content adaptive bitrate encoding on each P-frame of the subset. However, Pichumani teaches to perform content adaptive bitrate encoding on each P-frame of the subset (e.g. abstract, Paragraph [0016]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of the invention to incorporate content adaptive bitrate coding as taught as Pichumani with the system of Apostolopoulos in view of Etwara in order for scalable coding. Regarding Claims 30, 36, 42, 48 , Pichumani further teaches to perform content adaptive bitrate encoding includes use of one or more hardware-generated quality metrics (e.g. Paragraph [0005]) . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hassier (US 2020/0304849 A1), discloses content delivery; Poola (US 2010/0302985 A1), discloses transmission based on interframe. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT YULIN SUN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1043 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 10AM - 6PM . If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jay Patel can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-2988 . 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. /YULIN SUN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485