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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the application filed on 10 May 2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending. The rejections are as stated below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted in this application on 10 May 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner. The initialed copies of the1449 are enclosed herewith.
Priority
The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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. In particular, claims are directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
The instant claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 in view of The Decision in Alice Corporation Ply. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that the patent claims in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. ("Alice Corp. ") are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 1 (exemplary) recites a series of steps for managing data processing using hashing and global hash table.
The claim is directed to a process, which is a statutory category of invention.
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Independent method claim 1, recites the limitations of determining a hash value of the to- be-rendered resource data; searching, based on the hash value of the to-be-rendered resource data, a global hash table, to obtain a hash search result; obtaining, based on the hash search result indicating that a global hash value identical to the hash value of the to-be-rendered resource data is found in the global hash table, a global resource address identifier to which the global hash value is mapped; obtaining a global shared resource based on the global resource address identifier; and mapping the global shared resource to a rendering process to obtain a rendered image, wherein the global shared resource is a rendered resource if the loads to-be-rendered resource data for a first time.
These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations via activities/interactions (such as a fundamental economic concept or managing interactions between people), but for the recitation of generic computer components, nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from practically being performed by a method of organizing human activity which includes commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). These limitations are directed to an abstract idea because they are data processing techniques using hashing and global hash table. If a claim limitation covers fundamental concept or managing interactions between people, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Activity" grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
Accordingly, independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional limitation of a cloud server, a cloud application client of a plurality of cloud application clients (claim 1) and a cloud server; one or more processors; and memory storing instructions (claims 15 and 18) to perform the steps. The processor in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic computer performing a generic computer function of processing data (see Applicant’s specification ¶¶ 0008-0009 and 00242-00246). This generic computer limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. Also, these limitations are an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed above, the recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a server (using the computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the server at each step of the process performs purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at or provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to the statutory category of invention of claims 1, 15 and 18. Furthermore, dependent claims 2-14, 16, 17, 19 and 20 do not add limitations that meaningfully limit the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-14, 16, 17, 19 and 20, recites the additional limitations of transmit the to-be-rendered resource data and determine a hash value of the to-be-rendered resource data, wherein the hash value of the to-be-rendered resource data is obtained by invoking the graphics; perform hash calculation on the to-be-rendered resource data, search the global hash table for an identical global hash value; determining that the hash search result is a search success result based on finding the identical global hash value in the global hash table or a search failure based on not finding an identical global hash value in the global hash table; determining, based on the hash search result indicating a search success result, that the rendered resource corresponding to the to-be-rendered resource data has been loaded, and obtaining the global resource address identifier to which the global hash value is mapped; determining that there is a global resource address identifier associated with the to-be-rendered resource data; obtaining the global resource address identifier to which the global hash value is mapped in a global resource address identifier list, returning the global resource address identifier and obtain the global shared resource based on the global resource address identifier; determining, based on the hash search result indicating a search failure result, that the rendered resource corresponding to the to-be-rendered resource data has not been loaded, determining that there is not a global resource address identifier associated with the to-be-rendered resource data; configuring a resource address identifier to which the hash value of the to-be-rendered resource data is mapped to a null value; returning the resource address identifier corresponding to the null value and notifying the client to load the to-be-rendered resource data; during loading of the to-be-rendered resource data based on determining that a data format of the to-be-rendered resource data is a first data format, converting the data format of the to-be-rendered resource data from the first data format to a second data format; determining the to-be-rendered resource data in the second data format is a converted resource data. These limitations further define the abstract idea and are rejected under the same rational of claim 1.
Lastly, the dependent claims 2-14, 16, 17, 19 and 20, recite the additional elements of a graphics processing driver component; a driver program at a user layer and a driver program at a kernel layer, a driver interface; a target cloud application client; a transmission control component; a video memory space; a target video memory space; a first kernel mode driver program and a second kernel mode driver program; and an allocation driver interface to perform the steps and are rejected under the same rational of claim 1 above. The claims merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic processor, and is considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic computer to merely carry out the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims do not impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the independent claims. Therefore, none of the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add limitations that qualify as integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are simply steps performed by a generic computer.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Farber et al. US 20070233884 A1 disclose a “method of processing requests for resources in a system in which a plurality of content providers provide multiple resources. Content providers offload the serving of some of their resources to a shared content delivery network (CDN) formed by a plurality of servers. The CDN is shared among the content providers. Some of a content provider's content may be served from an origin server associated with that content provider, while requests for other content from that content provider are served from the shared CDN”.
CHIANG et al. US 20170206218 A1 discloses a “method involves generating (S710) a first client-side hash value associated with a data object in the client device. A potential state of duplication and generating is indicated by the deduplication component a second client-side hash value associated with the data object. The second client-side hash value associated with the data object is generated from a different heuristic than that of the first client-side hash value. A non-duplication state and forwarding the data object is indicated from the client device to a cloud storage node".
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hani Kazimi whose telephone number is (571) 272-6745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:00 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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on (571) 270-1836. 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.
Respectfully Submitted
/HANI M KAZIMI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights