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.
Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As summarized in MPEP § 2106, subject matter eligibility is determined based on a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions. In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The instant application includes claims concerning a system (i.e., a machine) in claims 1-25.
In Prong 1 of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or a Natural Phenomenon.
In particular exemplary presented claim 1 includes the following underlined claim elements:
1. A system for three-dimensional model-based game streaming, the system comprising:
a client computer system having one or more processors configured to run a universal game client capable of running various types of three-dimensional games,
wherein the universal game client is configured to receive game state data published by a game server,
wherein the universal game client is configured to render a virtual scene for an online game based on the game state data.
The claim elements underlined above, concern the court enumerated abstract ideas of Mental Processes including observation, evaluation, and judgement because the claims are directed to series of steps for observing evaluating and rendering a representation of information as well as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity including managing personal behavior including interactions between people including social activities and following rules or instructions because the claims set forth the interactions involving one or more parties in the context of a game client interface.
As the exemplary claim recites an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or a Natural Phenomenon it is further considered under Prong 2 of Step 2A to determine if the claim recites additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Wherein the practical applications are set forth by MPEP §2106.05(a-c,e) are broadly directed to: the improvement in technology, use of a particular machine and applying or using the judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a technology environment. Limitations that explicitly do not support the integration of the judicial exception in to a practical application are defined by MPEP 2106.05(f-h) and include merely using a computer to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology environment or field of use.
With respect to the above the claimed invention is not integrated into a practical application because it does not meet the criteria of MPEP §2106.05(a-c,e) and although it is performed on a client computer system, processor(s), a game server it is not directed to a particular machine because the hardware elements are not linked to a specific device/machine and would reasonably include other network connected devices such as generic computers, smart phones, game consoles, and the like. Accordingly, the claims limitations are not indicative of the integration of the identified judicial exception into a practical application, and the consideration of patent eligibility continues to step 2B.
Step 2B requires that if the claim encompasses a judicially recognized exception, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea(s) per se including a client computer system, processor(s), a game server amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structures that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry per the applicant’s description (Applicant’s specification Paragraphs [0003]-[0004], [0017], [0051], [0054]-[0055], [0057]-[0059], [0061]). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, as presented the claimed invention when considered as a whole amounts to the mere instructions to implement an abstract idea [i.e. software or equivalent process steps] on a generic computer [i.e. controller or processor] without causing the improvement of the generic computer or another technology field.
The applicant’s specification is further noted as supporting the above rejection wherein neither the abstract idea nor the associated generic computer structure as claimed are disclosed as improving another technological field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, or meaningfully linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (Applicant’s specification Paragraphs [0003]-[0004], [0017], [0051], [0054]-[0055], [0057]-[0059], [0061]). In particular the applicant’s specification only contains computing elements which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and accordingly their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art per the requirements of 37 CFR 1.71. Were these elements of the applicant’s invention to be presented in the future as non-conventional and non-generic involvement of a computing structure, such would stand at odds with the disclosure of the applicant's invention as found in their specification as originally filed.
“[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implemen[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on . . .a computer,’ . . . that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132S. Ct. at 1301). In this case, the claims recite a generic computer implementation of the covered abstract idea.
The remaining presented claims 2-25 incorporate substantially similar abstract concepts as noted with respect to the exemplary claim 1, while the additional elements recited by the additional claims including one or more of a client computer system, processor(s), a game server and a ticket as respectively presented in certain claims that when considered both individually and as a whole in the respective combinations of each of the additional claims are not sufficient to support patent eligibility under prong 2 of step 2A or step 2B because they each present substantially similar abstract concepts as noted with reflection to exemplary claim 1 above and accordingly for the same reasons set forth above with respect to the exemplary claim 1 are similarly directed to or otherwise include abstract ideas.
Therefore, the listed claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-8, 16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Posin (US 2022/0226725).
Claim 1: Posin teaches a system for three-dimensional model-based game streaming, the system comprising:
a client computer system having one or more processors configured to run a universal game client capable of running various types of three-dimensional games (Posin Paragraphs [0046], [0102], [0108]; Figure 8),
wherein the universal game client is configured to receive game state data published by a game server (Posin Paragraphs [0014], [0128], [0130]),
wherein the universal game client is configured to render a virtual scene for an online game based on the game state data (Posin Paragraphs [0012], [0052], [0054], [0070]).
Claim 2: Posin teaches the system of claim 1, the system further comprising the game server, wherein the game server is configured to simulate the online game and publish the game state data, wherein the game state data is based on the simulation of the online game at the game server (Posin Paragraphs [0014], [0027], [0074], [0130]).
Claim 3: Posin teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the universal game client and one or more game assets associated with a game are provided for download over the Internet, wherein the one or more processors are configured to download at least the universal game client (Posin Paragraphs [0054], [0076] [0105]).
Claim 4: Posin teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the universal game client is configured to render the virtual scene for the online game based further on client-side game assets (Posin Paragraphs [0054], [0076] [0105]).
Claim 5: Posin teaches the system of claim 4, wherein the client-side game assets are downloaded as a part of an initial game download for the online game (Posin Paragraphs [0054], [0076] [0105]).
Claim 6: Posin teaches the system of claim 4, wherein the client-side game assets include one or more client-side descriptors that each provide information related to the online game (Posin Paragraphs [0054]-[0055]).
Claim 7: Posin teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the game state data includes coordinate data and velocity data for at least one object at a first time, wherein the at least one object is rendered within the virtual scene by the universal game client based on the game state data (Posin Paragraphs [0130]-[0131]).
Claim 8: Posin teaches the system of claim 7, wherein the universal game client is configured to receive updated game state data published by the game server, and wherein the universal game client is configured to update a rendering of the at least one object based on the updated game state data (Posin Paragraphs [0052], [0130]-[0131]).
Claim 16: Posin teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the universal game client includes a third-party three-dimensional rendering engine configured to render the virtual scene for the online game(-wherein the invention employs elements provided by “different entity”- Posin Paragraphs [0128], [0131]).
Claim 19: Posin teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the universal game client is embedded as a part of a web browser (Posin Paragraphs [0047]-[0049], [0052], [0075]).
Claim 20: Posin teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the universal game client includes at least one server proxy, wherein the server proxy is configured to receive a first subscription comprising the game state data published by the game server, and generate a second subscription used by the universal game client to render the virtual scene(-understood as describing the use of a separate streaming server and the generation of a second video stream from a first received video stream- Posin Figure 3, Paragraph [0073]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 9-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Posin (US 2022/0226725) as applied to claims 1-8, 16, and 19-20 above, and further in view of Stelly (US 2005/0248570).
Claim 9: The combination of Posin & Stelly teaches the system of claim 7, wherein the universal game client is configured to calculate coordinates and a velocity for the object after the first time based at least on the coordinate data for the object at the first time and the velocity data for the object at the first time, wherein the universal game client is configured to render the at least one object based on the calculated coordinates and velocity for the object after the first time (Stelly Abstract; Figure 6; Paragraphs [0004], [0028], [0040], [0046]).
Posin teaches the invention as cited above and including updating the state of the video game based on game rules, object properties, and game commands (Posin Paragraph [0130]). While Posin is silent regarding the rendering of game objects based on physical properties, time, coordinates, and velocity, in an analogous invention, Stelly teaches that it was known to perform this rendering by the client device in order to predict the location and speed of collusions of game objects in a video game such that the behavior of the object before and after the collision may be determined (Stelly Abstract; Figure 6; Paragraphs [0004], [0028], [0040], [0046]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the client rendering of game objects based on physical properties, time and velocity as taught by Stelly, in the invention of Posin in order to provide the predictable and expected result of enabling the determination of behavior of the object before and after the collision and provide more realistic animations as taught by Stelly (Stelly Paragraphs [0004], [0040]).
Claim 10: The combination of Posin & Stelly teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the universal game client is configured to render the at least one object based on the calculated coordinates and velocity for the object after the first time without receiving updated game state data related to the at least one object after the game state data including the coordinate data and the velocity data for the at least one object at the first time (-While Stelly may use updated messages, the calculation of object position and velocity is not disclosed as being dependent on the same- (Stelly Abstract; Figure 6; Paragraphs [0004], [0028], [0035], [0040]).
Claim 11: The combination of Posin & Stelly teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the universal game client is configured to calculate the coordinates and velocity for the object after the first time based further on one or more velocity profiles associated with the object (-understood to describe the use of defined objects and associated physical properties- Posin Paragraphs [0054], [0076] [0105] & Stelly Paragraphs [0003], [0046]).
Claim 12: The combination of Posin & Stelly teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the one or more velocity profiles are embedded within universal game client (-understood to describe the use of defined objects and associated physical properties- Posin Paragraphs [0054], [0076] [0105] & Stelly Paragraphs [0003], [0046]).
Claim 13: The combination of Posin & Stelly teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the universal game client is configured to run a physics simulation related to an object and render the object within the virtual scene based on an outcome of the physics simulation run on the universal game client (Stelly Paragraphs [0028], [0044]-[0046]).
Claim 14: The combination of Posin & Stelly teaches the system of claim 13, wherein the physics simulation is used only for visual effects and the outcome of the physics simulation is not passed back to the game server (“more realistic animations”- Stelly Paragraphs [0004], [0040]).
Claim 15: The combination of Posin & Stelly teaches the system of claim 13, wherein the object is rendered within the virtual scene based further on partial simulation results obtained by the universal game client from the game server (Posin Paragraph [0074] & Stelly Abstract; Figure 6; Paragraphs [0028]-[0029], [0035]).
Claim 17: The combination of Posin & Stelly teaches the system of claim 16, wherein the universal game client is configured to implement gameplay logic to perform calculations and run simulations separate from the third-party three-dimensional rendering engine (Stelly Abstract; Figure 6; Paragraphs [0004], [0028], [0040], [0046]).
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and though not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Omi (US 8,512,140) teaches a gaming system for updating a presentation of a virtual game environment
Karlsson (US 10,918,938) teaches a dynamic streaming video game client; and
Levine et al (US 2003/0177187) teaches a computing grid for massively multi-player online games and other multi-user immersive persistent-state and session-based applications
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E MOSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-4451. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:45-3:45.
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 at 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 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.
ROBERT E. MOSSER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/ROBERT E MOSSER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715