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 .
1. Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-14 and 16-21 are pending. Claims 3, 11 and 15 is cancelled.
Response to Arguments
2. In light of the amendment to the title, the objection to the specification is maintained. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The Examiner suggests included terms such as game, protection instruction, and/or redundant instruction in the amended title.
3. Applicant's arguments filed 06/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, on pages 10-11, the applicant argues that Lin does not disclose redundant transmission. In response to applicant's argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant's response.
Amended claim 1 (now reciting limitations for canceled claim 3) recites “transmitting a least one operation instruction to a server end…obtaining first N operation instructions corresponding to the original operation instructions as a redundant instruction; and combining the original operation instruction and the redundant instruction to obtain the corresponding at least one operation instruction”
The scope of claim 1 teaches the original operation instruction is combined with a redundant instruction to obtain one operation instruction.” The claim recites “at least one” which using the broadest reasonable interpretation includes one/a single operation instruction.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., redundant transmission and/or processing network packet loss) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In addition, “combining” teaches that the two separate instructions (the original operation instruction and the redundant instruction) become one combined instruction. The claim does not recite how the “combining” is performed such as what/how exactly the information is retained, discarded, compressed or modified nor does the limitation indicate the size of the combined information. For these reasons, Lin does not teach away from the scope of the claimed invention since the combining limitation, in its current form, is so broad as to include the teachings of Lin.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., retaining all information and combining them into a larger data packet and/or full recovery by using the first N instructions carried in the current packet) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding claim 1, on page 11, the applicant argues that Agarwal cannot guarantee the reliable arrival of frequently executed commands even with a high packet loss rate. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., guarantee the reliable arrival of frequently executed commands even with a high packet loss rate) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding claim 1, on pages 12-13, in response to applicant's arguments against the references (Gourlay and Abildgren) individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
4. Claim(s) 1, 4, 12-13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia et al, WO 2021/143182 A1 hereafter Xia in view of Lin, US 9,433,859 hereafter Lin.
As for claim 1, Xia discloses:
A data transmission method applied at a client end, comprising:
determining, in response to a trigger operation on a cloud game (page , the preset game can be any cloud game in the host App.), an instruction type of an original operation instruction corresponding to the trigger operation (Page 10 the last 3 paragraphs - page 11 paragraph 1, Step S201: When the terminal receives an action instruction for the current screen of the preset game, it acquires the action event in the action instruction, and determines the type of the action event. It can capture the user's manipulation, that is, the action instruction triggered by the user, and the action instruction includes the corresponding action event. For example, when the user clicks the virtual arrow key, an action instruction that the action event is a movement is initiated)
configuring the original operation instruction with a corresponding protection instruction according to the instruction type to obtain a at least one operation instruction; and transmitting the at least one operation instruction to a server end (page 13 paragraph 4, When the action event includes UI type and non-UI type, the UI type action event is executed through the application client in the terminal to obtain the corresponding UI screen, and the non-UI type action event is sent to the cloud server so that the cloud server executes For non UI type action events. The Examiner interprets the action event including UI type and non-UI type to correspond to the “the original operation instruction with a corresponding protection instruction”. The Examiner interprets the non-UI type action event to correspond to the “at least one operation instruction”)
Xia does not explicitly disclose wherein in case that the instruction type is a frequent operation instruction, configuring the original operation instruction with a protection instruction according to the instruction type to obtain a at least one operation instruction comprises: obtaining first N operation instructions corresponding to the original operation instructions as a redundant instruction; and combining the original operation instruction and the redundant instruction to obtain the corresponding at least one operation instruction.
However, Lin discloses herein in case that the instruction type is a frequent operation instruction, configuring the original operation instruction with a protection instruction according to the instruction type to obtain a at least one operation instruction comprises: obtaining first N operation instructions corresponding to the original operation instructions as a redundant instruction; and combining the original operation instruction and the redundant instruction to obtain the corresponding at least one operation instruction (Fig, 2, 204, 206, column 9 lines 48-67, Requests generated as a result of user interaction with the online game are received as generated. Combining duplicative requests, such as when a user repeatedly attempts to perform the same operation, into a single request. Additionally, organization may include grouping requests by type and combining them when they are to achieve the same result at the same endpoint).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Xia with wherein in case that the instruction type is a frequent operation instruction, configuring the original operation instruction with a protection instruction according to the instruction type to obtain a at least one operation instruction comprises: obtaining first N operation instructions corresponding to the original operation instructions as a redundant instruction; and combining the original operation instruction and the redundant instruction to obtain the corresponding at least one operation instruction as taught by Lin to organize for efficiency and to minimize server overload. (Lin, column 9 lines 59-60)
As for claims 4 and 16, Xia does not explicitly disclose wherein in case that the instruction type is an infrequent operation instruction, configuring the original operation instruction with a corresponding protection instruction according to the instruction type to obtain a at least one operation instruction comprises: obtaining a repeat instruction corresponding to the original operation instruction as the protection instruction; and taking the protection instruction as the at least one operation instruction.
However, Lin discloses wherein in case that the instruction type is an infrequent operation instruction, configuring the original operation instruction with a corresponding protection instruction according to the instruction type to obtain a at least one operation instruction comprises: obtaining a repeat instruction corresponding to the original operation instruction as the protection instruction; and taking the protection instruction as the at least one operation instruction. (Fig, 2, 204, 206, column 9 lines 48-67, Requests generated as a result of user interaction with the online game are received as generated. Combining duplicative requests, such as when a user repeatedly attempts to perform the same operation, into a single request. Additionally, organization may include grouping requests by type and combining them when they are to achieve the same result at the same endpoint).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Xia with wherein in case that the instruction type is an infrequent operation instruction, configuring the original operation instruction with a corresponding protection instruction according to the instruction type to obtain a at least one operation instruction comprises: obtaining a repeat instruction corresponding to the original operation instruction as the protection instruction; and taking the protection instruction as the at least one operation instruction as taught by Lin to provide to organized for efficiency and to minimize server overload. (Lin, column 9 lines 59-60)
As for claim 12, Xia discloses:
An electronic device, comprising: one or more processors; and a memory configured to store one or more programs; wherein the one or more programs, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: determining, in response to a trigger operation on a cloud game (page , the preset game can be any cloud game in the host App.), an instruction type of an original operation instruction corresponding to the trigger operation (Page 10 the last 3 paragraphs - page 11 paragraph 1, Step S201: When the terminal receives an action instruction for the current screen of the preset game, it acquires the action event in the action instruction, and determines the type of the action event. It can capture the user's manipulation, that is, the action instruction triggered by the user, and the action instruction includes the corresponding action event. For example, when the user clicks the virtual arrow key, an action instruction that the action event is a movement is initiated)
configuring the original operation instruction with a corresponding protection instruction according to the instruction type to obtain a at least one operation instruction; and transmitting the at least one operation instruction to a server end (page 13 paragraph 4, When the action event includes UI type and non-UI type, the UI type action event is executed through the application client in the terminal to obtain the corresponding UI screen, and the non-UI type action event is sent to the cloud server so that the cloud server executes For non UI type action events. The Examiner interprets the action event including UI type and non-UI type to correspond to the “the original operation instruction with a corresponding protection instruction”. The Examiner interprets the non-UI type action event to correspond to the “at least one operation instruction”)
Xia does not explicitly disclose wherein in case that the instruction type is a frequent operation instruction, configuring the original operation instruction with a protection instruction according to the instruction type to obtain a at least one operation instruction comprises: obtaining first N operation instructions corresponding to the original operation instructions as a redundant instruction; and combining the original operation instruction and the redundant instruction to obtain the corresponding at least one operation instruction.
However, Lin discloses herein in case that the instruction type is a frequent operation instruction, configuring the original operation instruction with a protection instruction according to the instruction type to obtain a at least one operation instruction comprises: obtaining first N operation instructions corresponding to the original operation instructions as a redundant instruction; and combining the original operation instruction and the redundant instruction to obtain the corresponding at least one operation instruction (Fig, 2, 204, 206, column 9 lines 48-67, Requests generated as a result of user interaction with the online game are received as generated. Combining duplicative requests, such as when a user repeatedly attempts to perform the same operation, into a single request. Additionally, organization may include grouping requests by type and combining them when they are to achieve the same result at the same endpoint).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Xia with wherein in case that the instruction type is a frequent operation instruction, configuring the original operation instruction with a protection instruction according to the instruction type to obtain a at least one operation instruction comprises: obtaining first N operation instructions corresponding to the original operation instructions as a redundant instruction; and combining the original operation instruction and the redundant instruction to obtain the corresponding at least one operation instruction as taught by Lin to organize for efficiency and to minimize server overload. (Lin, column 9 lines 59-60)
As for claim 13, Xia discloses:
A computer storage medium, storing a computer program, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to: determining, in response to a trigger operation on a cloud game (page , the preset game can be any cloud game in the host App.), an instruction type of an original operation instruction corresponding to the trigger operation (Page 10 the last 3 paragraphs - page 11 paragraph 1, Step S201: When the terminal receives an action instruction for the current screen of the preset game, it acquires the action event in the action instruction, and determines the type of the action event. It can capture the user's manipulation, that is, the action instruction triggered by the user, and the action instruction includes the corresponding action event. For example, when the user clicks the virtual arrow key, an action instruction that the action event is a movement is initiated)
configuring the original operation instruction with a corresponding protection instruction according to the instruction type to obtain a at least one operation instruction; and transmitting the at least one operation instruction to a server end (page 13 paragraph 4, When the action event includes UI type and non-UI type, the UI type action event is executed through the application client in the terminal to obtain the corresponding UI screen, and the non-UI type action event is sent to the cloud server so that the cloud server executes For non UI type action events. The Examiner interprets the action event including UI type and non-UI type to correspond to the “the original operation instruction with a corresponding protection instruction”. The Examiner interprets the non-UI type action event to correspond to the “at least one operation instruction”)
5. Claim(s) 2 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia in view of Lin as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Agarwal et al, US 2012/0311173 hereafter Agarwal.
As for claims 2 and 14, Xia does not explicitly disclose wherein determining an instruction type of an original operation instruction corresponding to the trigger operation comprises: determining an operation interval between two adjacent same trigger operations; and determining the instruction type of the original operation instruction according to the operation interval and a preset interval threshold.
However, Agarwal discloses wherein determining an instruction type of an original operation instruction corresponding to the trigger operation comprises: determining an operation interval between two adjacent same trigger operations; and determining the instruction type of the original operation instruction according to the operation interval and a preset interval threshold. (Agarwal, Fig. 7, [0076], If the threshold value is not exceeded, the method continues in step 704 and the total packet loss during the relevant timer period is compared to a predetermined threshold. If packet loss does not exceed the threshold, existing statistics are refreshed (step 712) and the method repeats at the end of the next timer period.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of the teachings of Xia and Lin with determining an instruction type of an original operation instruction corresponding to the trigger operation comprises: determining an operation interval between two adjacent same trigger operations; and determining the instruction type of the original operation instruction according to the operation interval and a preset interval threshold as taught by Agarwal to provide improved video error robustness/concealment. (Agarwal, [0013])
6. Claim(s) 7 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia in view of Lin as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Gourlay, US 7,680,038 hereafter Gourlay.
As for claims 7 and 19, Xia does not explicitly disclose transmitting non-acknowledgement (NACK) information to the server end regularly, wherein the NACK information carries serial numbers of all instruction packets that are not received.
However, Gourlay discloses transmitting non-acknowledgement (NACK) information to the server end regularly, wherein the NACK information carries serial numbers of all instruction packets that are not received (Gourlay, column 13 lines 22-43, Transmitting NACKS regularly to the server. The NACK value is a serial number that indicates lost packet events).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of the teachings of Xia and Lin with transmitting non-acknowledgement (NACK) information to the server end regularly, wherein the NACK information carries serial numbers of all instruction packets that are not received as taught by Gourlay to detect packet loss and reduce messaging overhead. (Gourlay, column 13 lines 40-53)
7. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia in view of Lin, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Abildgren et al, US 2023/0005492 hereafter Abildgren.
As for claim 10, Xia does not explicitly disclose supplementing a coordinate value of a corresponding lost instruction to the original operation instruction through a preset attribute setting interface of an application layer and an instruction association relation.
However, Abildgren discloses supplementing a coordinate value of a corresponding lost instruction to the original operation instruction through a preset attribute setting interface of an application layer and an instruction association relation. (Abildgren, [0053], The error correcting code within supplemental packet 140C can re-create missing or lost data packet 138C using the data from first data packet 138A, second data packet 138B, and supplemental packet 140C. at least one of these data packets and one of the supplemental packets be successfully received, the missing data packet can be recovered)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of the teachings of Xia and Lin with supplementing a coordinate value of a corresponding lost instruction to the original operation instruction through a preset attribute setting interface of an application layer and an instruction association relation as taught by Abildgren to provide improved user experience. (Abildgren, [0003])
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 5-6, 8-9, 17-18 and 20-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2017/0072323 [0103] redundant rendering instructions 704 may be transmitted for generating each of the player game screen of the one of the game players 104 and the spectator game screen of the game spectators.
10. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENEE HOLLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-7196. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 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, IAN MOORE can be reached at (571)272-3085. 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.
JENEE HOLLAND
Examiner
Art Unit 2469
/JENEE HOLLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights