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 § 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.
the claimed invention od claims 1-20 is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because Claim 1 is directed to a computing system that receives user requests, determines placement of a video game instance based on priorities, and streams video output to a user. Although the claim recites physical components such as processors and memory, the core of the claim focuses on decision-making logic for allocating software instances and streaming output, which is a form of resource management and scheduling.
At Step 1 of the Alice framework, the claim is directed to an abstract idea, namely organizing and prioritizing access to computing resources and delivering content to users. This type of activity falls within the judicial exception for organizing human activity and managing information, as well as fundamental economic or business practices implemented on a computer, such as prioritizing use of shared resources. The prioritization rules merely describe a logical ordering of choices for placing a user onto a computing instance.
At Step 2A, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in a manner that improves the functioning of the computer itself. The claim does not recite a new hardware architecture, a new streaming protocol, a specific memory structure, or a technical improvement to processors, networking, or video encoding. Instead, it uses generic computing components to carry out conventional streaming and allocation functions. The “priorities” are business or operational rules, not a technological mechanism.
At Step 2B, the claim does not add an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. The use of generic processors, memory, cloud instances, and video streaming is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. The claim merely instructs the computer to apply a prioritization scheme, which amounts to applying an abstract idea using conventional computing technology.
Similarly claim 5 and 13 are also rejected under the same rationale and
Accordingly, Claims 1-20 directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Specific to the independent claims, The phrase such as “set of priorities” is not objectively defined and does not specify whether the priorities are fixed, configurable, weighted, or dynamic. The term “sufficient available space” is subjective and does not identify a measurable threshold or criterion. The condition that a priority is “satisfiable” is unclear because the claim does not specify what factual conditions make a priority satisfiable or unsatisfiable.
Because these terms depend on subjective or implementation-specific judgments, a person of ordinary skill in the art may not be able to determine the scope of the claim with reasonable certainty. Thus make the claimed limitation ambiguous and unclear to the examiner.
A clarification is respectfully requested in order for these claims to be treated on their merit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MASUD AHMED whose telephone number is (571)270-1315. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-8:30 PM PST with IFP.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at 571 270 3976. 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.
MASUD . AHMED
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657A
/MASUD AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657