DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
The following claim(s) is/are pending in this office action: 1-20
The following claim(s) is/are amended: 1, 5, 13
The following claim(s) is/are cancelled: -
The following claim(s) is/are new: -
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected. This rejection is FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 3/3/2026, 4/17/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the amendment filed 5/18/2026, have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. The reasons set forth below.
Applicant’s Invention as Claimed
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-10, 12-14, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colenbrander (US Pub. 2017/0216720) in view of Colenbrander (“Colenbrander2,” US Pub. 2023/0199062).
With respect to Claim 1, Colenbrander teaches a computing system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories having stored therein instructions that, upon execution by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform operations comprising: (paras. 41-42; processor and memory such as RAM or a hard disk)
receiving, by a video game streaming service, from a customer, one or more requests to link a plurality of different video games to a host computing instance group for hosting execution of the plurality of different video games, (paras. 7, 30, 36-37, 45; user requests to play a game of a cloud gaming system and selects a title from a plurality of titles owned by the user. Para. 72; user purchases a second, different game. Para. 93; User frequently plays Titles B and C. Fig. 4B, paras. 95-98; User may select Title B for play and then select Title C for play. Further, the system services multiple users, see paras. 30, 45. Therefore, other users requesting games would also result in one or more requests to execute a plurality of different games.)
initiating, by the video game streaming service, at a first time, loading of a first video game instance corresponding to a first video game of the plurality of different video games (para. 37-38; System identifies a data center with capacity and has a server of the data center load the game code and instantiate the game. Figs. 3B, 4B, paras. 85-86, 95-98; User selects Title B for play and system performs operation 346 (start game for title B) at step 410. User then selects Title C for play and system performs operation 346 for title C at step 414.)
onto a first host computing instance of the host computing instance group; (para. 37-38; System identifies a data center with capacity and has a server of the data center load the game code and instantiate the game.)
transmitting, by the video game streaming service, a first video stream captured from the first video game instance to a first user; (para. 44; System cloud game servers generate video and audio streams and transmit them to the client device.)
initiating, by the video game streaming service, at a second time, loading of a second video game instance corresponding to a second video game of the plurality of different video games (para. 37-38; System identifies a data center with capacity and has the data center load the game code and instantiate the game. Figs. 3B, 4B, paras. 85-86, 95-98; User selects Title B for play and system performs operation 346 (start game for title B) at step 410. User then selects Title C for play and system performs operation 346 for title C at step 414.)
onto a second host computing instance of the host computing instance group; (para. 37; system selects a data center that is close to the user unless it lacks capacity or is overused. Therefore, when a second player that is located in a different location than the first user requests a game, it will be placed onto a different, closer data center. Even if the same user requests a game, the data center may be overused and a different data center would be selected.)
and transmitting, by the video game streaming service, a second video stream captured from the second video game instance to a second user. (paras. 30, 45; system services multiple users. paras. 7, 30, 36-37, 45; user requests to play a game of a cloud gaming system and selects a title from a plurality of titles owned by the user. See also paras. 144-145; multiplayer and massively multiplayer games. para. 44; System cloud game servers generate video and audio streams and transmit them to the client device.)
But Colenbrander does not explicitly teach wherein the video game streaming service selects, for loading a video game instance, a host computing instance from among a plurality of host computing instances in the host computing instance group based on a determination, prior to load, of which host computing instances have sufficient available storage capacity for the video game instance.
Colenbrander2, however, does teach wherein the video game streaming service selects, for loading a video game instance, a host computing instance from among a plurality of host computing instances in the host computing instance group based on a determination, prior to load, of which host computing instances have sufficient available storage capacity for the video game instance; (Examiner asserts Colenbrander renders this obvious on its own, see para. 37-38; System identifies a data center with capacity and has a server of the data center load the game code and instantiate the game. Regardless, Examiner will cite Colenbrander2, Fig. 2A, paras. 37-42; network and distributed storage stores data for video games which are loaded onto compute nodes for execution. Para. 44, 51; storage and sessions of games may be based on a calculated load of game. Load of game includes size of storage. paras. 34-35; virtual machines that are collections of resources. Paras. 61-67, 75; system assigns sessions based on load balancing that is based on capacity of storage and compute resources. Therefore, the system can identify the resources available on a virtual machine and the load required to host a game and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to select a host that has sufficient available storage capacity in order to provide an instance of cloud gaming to the user.)
a first host computing instance selected based on the determination that the first host computing instance has sufficient available storage capacity to host the first video game instance; a second host computing instance selected based on the determination that the second host computing instance has sufficient available storage capacity to host the first video game instance (Fig. 2A, paras. 37-42; network and distributed storage stores data for video games which are loaded onto compute nodes for execution. Para. 44, 51; storage and sessions of games may be based on a calculated load of game. Load of game includes size of storage. paras. 34-35; virtual machines that are collections of resources. Paras. 61-67, 75; system assigns sessions based on load balancing that is based on capacity of storage and compute resources. Therefore, the system can identify the resources available on a virtual machine and the load required to host a game and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to select a host that has sufficient available storage capacity in order to provide an instance of cloud gaming to the user.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the system of Colenbrander with the loading onto any host when there is availability in order to efficiently utilize the resources of the system and minimize load. (Colenbrander2, paras. 6, 23)
With respect to Claim 2, modified Colenbrander teaches the computing system of claim 1, and Colenbrander also teaches wherein the operations further comprise: initiating, at a third time, loading of a third video game instance of a third video game onto the first host computing instance. (Duplication of parts is not a patentable act. Para. 45; Titles A, B through M1 where M1 is an integer equal to or greater than 0. Figs. 3B, 4B, paras. 85-86, 95-98; User selects Title B for play and system performs operation 346 (start game for title B) at step 410. User then selects Title C for play and system performs operation 346 for title C at step 414.)
With respect to Claim 4, modified Colenbrander teaches the computing system of claim 1, and Colenbrander2 also teaches wherein the first video game and the second video game have different respective video game sizes. (para. 61-62; each game has its own load score. Paras. 23, 51; storage size of game. Load score is based on demand on network storage from the compute node. Therefore, games have both different storage sizes and different active memory access sizes.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
With respect to Claim 5, it is substantially similar to Claim 1 and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying.
With respect to Claim 6, it is substantially similar to Claim 2 and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying.
With respect to Claim 8, modified Colenbrander teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 5, and Colenbrander also teaches wherein the first application is a video game. (paras. 30, 110; video game.)
With respect to Claim 9, modified Colenbrander teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 5, and Colenbrander also teaches further comprising: transmitting, by the application streaming service, an audio stream captured from the first application instance to the first user. (para. 44; System cloud game servers generate video and audio streams and transmit them to the client device.)
With respect to Claim 10, modified Colenbrander teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 5, and Colenbrander also teaches wherein the first application and the second application are different application titles. (Para. 72; user purchases a second, different game. Para. 93; User frequently plays Titles B and C. Fig. 4B, paras. 95-98; User may select Title B for play and then select Title C for play.)
With respect to Claim 12, it is substantially similar to Claim 4 and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying.
With respect to Claim 13, it is substantially similar to Claim 1 and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying. Further, Colenbrander also teaches one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media having stored thereon computing instructions that, upon execution by one or more computing devices, cause the one or more computing devices to perform operations comprising: (paras. 41-42; memory such as RAM or a hard disk)
With respect to Claims 14, 16-18, 20, they are substantially similar to Claims 2, 8-10, 4, respectively, and are rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying.
Claims 3, 7, 11, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Colenbrander (US Pub. 2017/0216720) in view of Colenbrander (“Colenbrander2,” US Pub. 2023/0199062), and further in view of Pare (US Pub. 2021/0299574).
With respect to Claim 3, modified Colenbrander teaches the computing system of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the loading of the first video game instance onto the first host computing instance is initiated before an initiation of loading of any other video game instances corresponding to any of the plurality of different video games onto the first host computing instance, and wherein the loading of the second video game instance onto the second host computing instance is initiated before an initiation of loading of any other video game instances corresponding to any of the plurality of different video games onto the second host computing instance.
Pare, however, does teach wherein the loading of the first video game instance onto the first host computing instance is initiated before an initiation of loading of any other video game instances corresponding to any of the plurality of different video games onto the first host computing instance, and wherein the loading of the second video game instance onto the second host computing instance is initiated before an initiation of loading of any other video game instances corresponding to any of the plurality of different video games onto the second host computing instance. (para. 49, 61; game session requests are placed in a queue and resolved to place the session. Therefore, the loading due to the request occurs before loading due to another request. See also Para. 35, 46; system may auto-scale to spinup or spin down instances. Spinning up an instance would be the initial placement before any other placements.)
It would have been obvious to combine the method of modified Colenbrander with the loading before the loading of other instances in order to provide for an orderly determination of utilization in order to make assignments based upon load.
With respect to Claim 7, it is substantially similar to Claim 3 and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying.
With respect to Claim 11, modified Colenbrander teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 5, but does not explicitly teach wherein the first application instance is loaded onto the first host computing instance based at least in part on a determination that no application instance of the first application has been loaded onto any host computing instance in the host computing instance group.
Pare, however, does teach wherein the first application instance is loaded onto the first host computing instance based at least in part on a determination that no application instance of the first application has been loaded onto any host computing instance in the host computing instance group. (para. 41-42; processes can be executing in idle mode without an owner. Para. 35, 46; system may auto-scale to spinup or spin down instances.)
It would have been obvious to combine the method of modified Colenbrander with the loading based on there being no loaded instance in order to minimize the number of idle modes while still having available a sufficient number of processes for demand. (Pare, para. 46)
With respect to Claim 15, it is substantially similar to Claim 3 and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying.
With respect to Claim 19, it is substantially similar to Claim 11 and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying.
Remarks
Applicant amends the independent claims to strike “allows any of the plurality of different video games to be loaded onto any host computing instance in the host computing instance group at any time there is sufficient on-host availability” to “selects, for loading a video game instance, a host computing instance from among a plurality of host computing instances in the host computing instance group based on a determination, prior to load, of which host computing instances have sufficient available storage capacity for the video game instance.” The amended feature is obvious over the same citations from the previous feature, so Examiner cites the previous citations to the new features and maintains the obviousness rejection over the Colenbrander/Colenbrander2 references.
Applicant argues at Remarks, pgs. 8-9 that Colenbrander2 does not teach the amended feature. Colenbrander2 teaches a load balancing system where load scores of video game instances are used to allocate video game sessions. Amongst the citations made to Colenbrander2, Para. 51 states “Also, the cloud management controller 210, traffic monitoring engine 215, and/or load balancer 290 are configured to collect and analyze data (e.g., internal data associated with the game cloud system, and external data including network data, etc.) in order to determine load scores of video games, wherein the load scores can be used for allocating gaming sessions to compute nodes (i.e., executing video games to support the gaming sessions)…” Para. 66 states “As such, the load balancing of video games and/or gaming sessions of video games would consider or be a function of both available storage capacity and anticipated bandwidth (e.g., bandwidth required by anticipated or predicted loads of network storage on the game cloud system) to determine how the game content (e.g., video games and/or gaming sessions of the video games) are distributed across the rack assemblies and/or compute nodes of the rack assemblies of a data center.”
Therefore, Colenbrander2 evidences that the art can collect data to identify how much storage capacity will be used by a video game instance and how much storage capacity is available in order to perform load balancing. Given that the art knew how to determine if a host could support an instance of the video game, it was obvious to select hosts that had capacity for the instance in order to actually effectuate the instance and provide the cloud gaming. Applicant argues that Examiner makes an “impermissible logical leap” but Examiner disagrees. The art knew how to measure what resources would be required for running an instance, and if those resources were not available the instance could not be run. It was obvious to selects hosts that had the capacity in order to actually run the instance.
Applicant further argues that “the claim requires a system-level capability in which the permission to load a particular video game onto a specific host is determined at runtime by evaluating whether that host has sufficient available storage, rather than by selecting from hosts that are pre-associated with the application.” That argument is directed to unclaimed features. Further, Applicant provides no support for the notion that Colenbrander2 functions with “pre-associated” application hosts.
The remainder of the arguments appear to be that Colenbrander2 does not anticipate the entirety of the claim or other features that Applicant points to. As above, Examiner asserts that these features are unclaimed. With respect to Colenbrander2 not teaching the entirety of the, Applicant appears to recognize that Colenbrander2 is a secondary reference cited to teach the selection of hosts.
Applicant further argues at Remarks, pg. 10 that the motivation to combine is unsupported, but Examiner cited support for the motivation to combine. Applicant argues at Remarks, pg. 11 that the “claimed limitation is not directed to improving efficiency, and the specification does not characterize the invention in those terms.” But a rationale different from Applicant’s is permissible, see MPEP 2144(IV).
Examiner maintains the obviousness rejection to all claims. All claims remain rejected.
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 extension fee 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 NICHOLAS P CELANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1205. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on 571-272-7304. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/NICHOLAS P CELANI/Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights