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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/10/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (2) as being anticipated by Cheung et al (US 2006/0088220).
Re claim 1, Cheung discloses a method comprising: receiving display data for a cloud game (fig. 1, client 614 receives video stream from proxy server 610) transmitted from a cloud device of a cloud gaming system (servers 108 and 610 are considered cloud devices as they provide functionality to the client device over a network), the display data comprising a to-be-displayed game picture frame and a first position of a target object in the game picture frame (par. [0018], graphics are rendered at the proxy server and streamed to the client, with fig. 2 illustrating game picture frames and positions of multiple objects); displaying the game picture frame and drawing the target object on the displayed game picture frame based on the first position (again fig. 2), using locally stored data associated with the target object ([0023] and [0032]-[0034], the graphics are rendered on the client device based on client input, therefore locally stored and executed commands from the client affect the rendering of graphics, such as by causing a jumping action).
Re claim 2, Cheung discloses displaying a target control of the target object at a second position associated with the first position on the displayed game picture frame, drawing the target object on the displayed game picture frame in response to a trigger operation for the target control ([0023] and fig. 2, 715, the “jump” command causes client icons 740 to be rendered in a series of frames as jumping).
Re claim 12, Cheung discloses the game picture frame in which the target object is located forms part of a scene switch in the cloud game (see fig. 3, the actions of the user and objects in the scene change the scene of the game).
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) 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheung.
Re claim 3, see the rejection to claim 2. As Cheung has disclosed the jumping animation comprising multiple frames, therefore one of ordinary skill would find it obvious to determine and draw a third position (and additional, if needed) as it would be obvious to try, leading to the predictable results of rendering an animation with multiple frames, smoothing out the animation and increasing visual clarity.
Re claim 11, while Cheung does not explicitly disclose the target instruction being one of a zoom-in and zoom-out instruction, as Cheung has disclosed other instructions (e.g. “jump,” see [0023]), it would be obvious to implement any other desired target instruction as it would be obvious to try, leading to predictable results of rendering a desired image, command, animation, or otherwise.
Claim(s) 4-10, 13-14, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheung in view of Miyamoto et al (US 2009/0113326).
Re claim 4, while Cheung discloses local storage of various assets (e.g. the icons), Cheung does not disclose storing 3D models locally as this functionality is offset to the server.
Miyamoto teaches a rendering system similar to Cheung where a server provides much of the functionality to the client. Additionally, the client computer is able to store partial 3D model data in addition to the data provided by the server (see [0036]). By allowing certain assets to be stored locally on the client device, such as 3D model data, a wider range of devices can be supported by the server system, with the server providing rendering capabilities for devices unable to store or process complex 3D model data (as discussed by Cheung), and shared functionality as taught by Miyamoto.
It would have been obvious to implement the shared processing and storage system as taught by Miyamoto with the cloud rendering of Cheung in order to increase compatibility and evenly distribute processing load, reducing the overall load on the servers while still providing the bulk of cloud processing for client devices.
Re claim 5, Cheung discloses obtaining indication information configured for drawing the 3D model and drawing the 3D model of the target object on the displayed game picture frame based on the indication information ([0035], the proxy server receives background images and game updates, allowing the proxy server to construct the base image from the background layer with the active polygon layer).
Re claim 6, Cheung discloses obtaining model data of the target object based on the indication information and drawing the 3D model of the target object on the displayed game picture frame based on the model data of the target object and the indication information ([0039], 3D models are rendered on the 2D plane).
Re claim 7, Cheung discloses the model data of the target object comprises model key points and a texture image of the target object, and the drawing the 3D model of the target object on the displayed game picture frame based on the model data of the target object and the indication information comprises constructing a model triangular facet of the target object based on the model key points of the target object and the indication information ([0035], [0036], [0037], [0039], and [0043], models are rendered based on 3D representations of objects, textures, shape, and wherein polygons are triangular facets of 3D objects).
Re claim 8, Cheung discloses pulling initial indication information configured for drawing the 3D model to the cloud device and performing format conversion on the initial indication information to obtain indication information adapted to the cloud game, and storing the converted indication information ([0041]); and the obtaining indication information configured for drawing the 3D model comprises obtaining the converted indication information ([0041], the converted and compressed information is sent to clients).
Re claim 9, while Cheung discusses model data and object identifiers used to draw 3D models (see the above rejections), Cheung does not explicitly disclose locally storing the data. Miyamoto teaches a rendering system similar to Cheung where a server provides much of the functionality to the client. Additionally, the client computer is able to store partial 3D model data in addition to the data provided by the server (see [0036]). By allowing certain assets to be stored locally on the client device, such as 3D model data, a wider range of devices can be supported by the server system, with the server providing rendering capabilities for devices unable to store or process complex 3D model data (as discussed by Cheung), and shared functionality as taught by Miyamoto.
It would have been obvious to implement the shared processing and storage system as taught by Miyamoto with the cloud rendering of Cheung in order to increase compatibility and evenly distribute processing load, reducing the overall load on the servers while still providing the bulk of cloud processing for client devices.
Re claim 10, Cheung discloses the display data comprises an object identifier of the target object ([0023], the client icons are identified in the scene), and obtaining model data associated with the object identifier of the target in response to the trigger operation for the target control and drawing the 3D model of the target object on the displayed game picture frame based on the obtained model data ([0023], when the client performs a jump command, the client icons are rendered in a jumping animation).
Re claims 13-14 and 21-26, see the above rejections, mutatis mutandis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Y Kim whose telephone number is (571)270-3215. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/KEVIN Y KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights