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 .
Procedural Summary
This is responsive to the claims filed 3/25/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Signed copies of the IDS’ are attached.
The Drawings 3/25/2024 are noted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
The claims are drawn to process, apparatus and CRM categories.
Thus, initially, under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter
Step 2A:
Prong 1: Does the Claim recite an Abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Representative Claim 1 is analyzed below, with italicized limitations indicating recitations of an abstract idea, noting that independent Claims 14 & 20 recite substantially similar limitations but being drawn to different statutory classes.
Claim 1: “A computer-implemented method comprising: accessing one or more media frame generation input events produced as part of a multimedia application on a media server; selecting at least one media frame that is to be rendered according to the one or more media frame generation input events; determining one or more graphics processing capabilities of a client device on which the selected media frame is to be rendered; generating a render command for the selected media frame based on the determined graphics processing capabilities of the client device, wherein the render command includes contextual graphics information and graphics processing unit (GPU) pipeline information for use in rendering the selected media frame on the client device; and transmitting the generated render command to the client device to initiate rendering of the selected media frame using the contextual graphics information and the GPU pipeline information.”
The italicized limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG1, “certain methods of organizing human activity”, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
The claims are drawn to managing how media is rendered on a user device. The claims require, inter alia, steps of accessing and selecting media, determining user device capabilities and transmitting media to the user device. These steps represent how interactions between people are managed to render content on a device.
These steps also represent how data is organized and distributed. They also represent a social activity, i.e., how media is transmitted for user consumption and enjoyment on a device. Additionally, the claimed steps for generating rendered content represent following rules, i.e., instructions on how data is processed and transmitted.
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
Although the claims recite additional limitations, these limitations do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. For example, the claims require additional limitations drawn to a computing system with a processor and memory, (a GUI).
These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they amount to conventional computer implementation.
For example, as pointed out above, the claimed invention recites additional elements facilitating implementation of the abstract process. However, these elements viewed individually and as a whole, are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, the prior art relied on in the prior art rejections, infra, shows the conventionality of GUIs used to stream media content on a user device. These elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Additionally, Applicant’s Specifications acknowledge that generic devices including laptop computers are used to implement the claimed invention.2
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions provide conventional computer implementation of an abstract process.
Moreover, the claims do not recite improvements to another technology or technical field. Nor, do the claims improve the functioning of the underlying computer itself -- they only recite generic computing elements. Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing: the underlying computing elements remain the same.
Concerning preemption, the Federal Circuit precedent controls3:
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of cffDNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
For these reasons, it appears that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perlman et al. (U.S. Pub. No.: 2019/0364302 A1) in view of Panwar et al. (U.S. Pub. No.: 2023/0016473 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 14 & 20: Perlman discloses a computer-implemented method, system with processor and CRM with instructions, (Abstract, ¶ 466), comprising: accessing one or more media frame generation input events produced as part of a multimedia application on a media server, (¶¶ 109, 110, Figs. 2a-4a and related descriptions); selecting at least one media frame that is to be rendered according to the one or more media frame generation input events, (¶¶ 127, 128, 152, Fig. 4b); determining one or more graphics processing capabilities of a client device on which the selected media frame is to be rendered, (e.g., Fig. 4e, 464, ¶¶ 256, 261, 265, 287); generating a render command for the selected media frame based on the determined graphics processing capabilities of the client device, (Fig. 4b and related description), wherein the render command includes contextual graphics information and graphics processing unit (GPU) information for use in rendering the selected media frame on the client device, (Fig. 4b and related description); and transmitting the generated render command to the client device to initiate rendering of the selected media frame using the contextual graphics information and the GPU information, (Figs. 4f, 14, 16, 17 and related descriptions.)
Perlman discloses the invention substantially but does not make explicit, that the GPU is associated with pipeline information. However, in a related invention, Panwar teaches a GPU with a rendering pipeline, (Panwar, e.g., ¶¶ 15, 100). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to have implemented Panwar’s GPU pipeline in Perlman’s system for the purpose of maintaining GPU performance, (Panwar, ¶ 129.) Panwar acknowledges that using a rendering pipeline helps ensure that the GPU’s processing capabilities including clock speed are not overloaded, (e.g., Panwar, ¶ 129.) Therefore, a person of ordinary skill would rely on Panwar’s pipeline-based GPU approach with a high degree of predictability and expected results.
Regarding Claims 2-5: See Perlman, e.g., Fig. 2a, 205, 222 ¶¶ 70, 109, 123.
Regarding Claims 6, 7: Perlman in view of Panwar teaches, wherein the contextual graphics information comprises at least one of: vector data for meshes, vector data specifying positions, vertex buffers, bitmap 2D/3D information, or non-vector 2D/3D information, wherein the GPU pipeline information includes at least one of: texture sampler configuration information, viewport size, or stencil information, (Panwar, e.g., ¶¶ 100, 117, 118.)
Regarding Claim 8: Perlman in view of Panwar’s GPU pipeline information teaches compressing the contextual graphics information, (Perlman ¶ 110) prior to transmission to the client device.
Regarding Claim 9: Perlman discloses wherein client devices that have increased processing capabilities receive at least one additional portion of contextual graphics information, (Perlman, e.g., ¶¶ 110, 128, 146), or GPU pipeline information for use in rendering the selected media frame.
Regarding Claims 10, 11: Perlman discloses wherein the contextual graphics information includes 3D depth information, providing support for client devices having 3D display capabilities, wherein the contextual graphics information includes different graphics information for each eye of a user. (Perlman, ¶ 127.)
Regarding Claims 12, 13: Perlman discloses wherein client devices that have increased processing capabilities receive at least one additional wherein the render commands are generated on a distribution server that is within a specified physical distance from the client device, wherein the media server controls the multimedia application's runtime. (Perlman, e.g., ¶ 156.)
Regarding Claim 15: Perlman discloses wherein the media frame is part of a video game, and wherein the transmitted render commands allow the client device to start the video game without an installation phase and substantially without delay. (Perlman, e.g., ¶¶ 175, 188, 258, 312.)
Regarding Claims 16-19: Perlman discloses further comprising adapting the contextual graphics information based on the graphics processing capabilities of the client device, translating shader information to a format that will be understood by the client device, reducing a feature set, wherein the multimedia application comprises a video game, and wherein the generated render command is sent to a video game engine running on the client device. (Perlman, e.g., ¶¶ 432, 437, 438.)
Conclusion
Additional Relevant References: See 892
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMKAR A DEODHAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1647. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, generally 9am-5:30 pm.
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, David Lewis can be reached on 571-272-7673. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OMKAR A DEODHAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
1 See MPEP 2106
2 Specifications: [0073] Gaming client 620 generally represents any type or form of device or system capable of playing audio, video, or other gaming content that has been provided over distribution infrastructure 610. Examples of gaming client 620 include, without limitation, mobile phones, tablets, laptop computers, desktop computers, televisions, set-top boxes, digital media players, virtual reality headsets, augmented reality glasses, and/or any other type or form of device capable of rendering digital content. As with distribution infrastructure 610, gaming client 620 includes a physical processor 622, memory 624, and one or more modules 626. Some or all of the adaptive streaming processes described herein is performed or enabled by modules 626, and in some examples, modules 616 of distribution infrastructure 610 coordinate with modules 626 of gaming client 620 to provide adaptive streaming of multimedia content. (Emphasis Added.)
3: Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015)