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 .
Priority
The instant application is a National Stage entry of PCT/CN2022/125063, International Filing Date: 10/13/2022, claims foreign priority to Chinese Patent Application No.: 202111364474.0, filed 11/17/2021.
Preliminary Amendments
The preliminary amendments to the application received on 5/17/2024 have been considered and entered.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 9 and 26 is/are objected to because of the following informalities.
As to claims 9 and 26, the listed cloud game operation parameters should be separated by commas not semicolons because they are part of a single limitation. Semicolons are used to distinguish between claim’s limitations not limitation’s elements.
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 1-9 and 19-29 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.
As to claims 1, 19 and 20, the claims recite the limitation “the network evaluation result”, in lines 7-8. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claims.
As to claim 2, additionally,
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the following limitation, specifically the underlined: “the step for determining the network assessment result of the wireless network environment according to the network detection data and the cloud game operation parameters”.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the cloud game operation state”, in line 8.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the cloud game operation status”, in the last line.
As to claims 21 and 27, additionally, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the cloud game operation state”, in line 8.
As to the claim(s) that are dependent on claim(s) 1, 19 or 20, the dependent claim(s) are also rejected under 112(b) for the same reason of their base claim(s).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8, 23-25 and 29 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, and
The 112(b) rejections are resolved.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 19, 20 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Colenbrander (Pub. No.: US 20210146240 A1).
As to claim 1, Colenbrander teaches a method for optimizing a wireless network for a cloud game, the method comprising: obtaining network detection data of a wireless network environment of the cloud game and a cloud game operation parameter of the cloud game (paragraph [0046], “…the game stream quality or connection quality or network condition is monitored…”);
determining a network assessment result of the wireless network environment according to the network detection data or the cloud game operation parameter (paragraph [0047], “…it is determined whether the game stream quality is acceptable or not…”); and
determining a corresponding network optimization strategy according to the network evaluation result, and optimizing the wireless network environment according to the network optimization strategy (paragraph [0047], “…if the game stream quality falls below a given threshold, then at method operation 208, the video game is instructed to reduce a game quality setting…”).
As to claim 9, Colenbrander teaches wherein the cloud game operation parameter comprises at least one of a cloud game network latency (paragraph [0032], “…the quality is adjusted based on fluctuations in the Internet connection in terms of bandwidth, latency and packet loss …”); a proportion of cloud game lag; a cloud game screen bit rate; an average cloud game rate.
As to claim 19, Colenbrander teaches a cloud game wireless network optimization apparatus, comprising: one or more processors (paragraph [0136]);
a memory (paragraph [0139]); and
one or more applications, stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the processor to perform operations comprising: obtaining network detection data of a wireless network environment of the cloud game or a cloud game operation parameter of the cloud game (paragraph [0046], “…the game stream quality or connection quality or network condition is monitored…”);
determining a network assessment result of the wireless network environment according to the network detection data or the cloud game operation parameter (paragraph [0047], “…it is determined whether the game stream quality is acceptable or not…”); and
determining a corresponding network optimization strategy according to the network evaluation result, and optimizing the wireless network environment according to the network optimization strategy (paragraph [0047], “…if the game stream quality falls below a given threshold, then at method operation 208, the video game is instructed to reduce a game quality setting…”).
As to claim 20, the limitations of the claim are substantially similar or broader in scope to claim 19. Please refer to claim 19 above.
As to claim 26, Colenbrander teaches wherein the cloud game operation parameter comprises at least one of: a cloud game network latency (paragraph [0032], “…the quality is adjusted based on fluctuations in the Internet connection in terms of bandwidth, latency and packet loss …”); a proportion of cloud game lag; a cloud game screen bit rate; and an average cloud game rate.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 21 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colenbrander (Pub. No.: US 20210146240 A1) in view of Lyons et al. (Pub. No.: US 20190109834 A1).
As to claim 2, Colenbrander teaches wherein the step for determining the network assessment result of the wireless network environment according to the network detection data and the cloud game operation parameters comprises: determining the cloud game operation state according to the cloud game operation parameter (paragraph [0047], “determined whether the game stream quality is acceptable or not”); determining the corresponding network assessment result based on the cloud game operation status (paragraph [0047], “By way of example without limitation, the game stream quality falling below a given threshold can be defined by various measures, such as packet loss exceeding a predefined threshold, bandwidth falling below a predefined threshold, latency exceeding a predefined threshold, etc”).
Colenbrander does not explicitly teach determining network assessments based a calculated network environment score.
However, in an analogues art (computer networks) Lyons teaches calculating a network detection score corresponding to each of the network detection data (paragraph [0050], “…For instance, a combination of quality metrics may be used, weighted, and scored…”);
calculating a network environment score of the wireless network environment according to the network detection score (paragraph [0050], “…generate an overall network quality score…”), and
determining the corresponding network assessment result based on the network environment score (paragraph [0050], “…an overall network quality score, which may be compared to an overall network quality threshold…”).
Based on Colenbrander in view of Lyons, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate determining network assessments based a calculated network environment score (taught by Lyons) with determining game operating state (taught by Colenbrander) in order to take into consideration relevant network metrics which will result in more accurate assessment of the network condition.
As to claim 21, Colenbrander teaches wherein the operation for determining the network assessment result of the wireless network environment according to the network detection data or the cloud game operation parameters comprises: determining the cloud game operation state according to the cloud game operation parameter (paragraph [0047], “determined whether the game stream quality is acceptable or not”); determining the corresponding network assessment result based on the network environment score/or the cloud game operation status (paragraph [0047], “By way of example without limitation, the game stream quality falling below a given threshold can be defined by various measures, such as packet loss exceeding a predefined threshold, bandwidth falling below a predefined threshold, latency exceeding a predefined threshold, etc”).
Colenbrander does not explicitly teach determining network assessments based a calculated network environment score.
However, in an analogues art (computer networks) Lyons teaches calculating a network detection score corresponding to each of the network detection data (paragraph [0050], “…For instance, a combination of quality metrics may be used, weighted, and scored…”);
calculating a network environment score of the wireless network environment according to the network detection score (paragraph [0050], “…generate an overall network quality score…”), and
determining the corresponding network assessment result based on the network environment score/or the cloud game operation status (paragraph [0050], “…an overall network quality score, which may be compared to an overall network quality threshold…”).
Based on Colenbrander in view of Lyons, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate determining network assessments based a calculated network environment score (taught by Lyons) with determining game operating state (taught by Colenbrander) in order to take into consideration relevant network metrics which will result in more accurate assessment of the network condition.
As to claim 27, Colenbrander teaches wherein the operation for determining the network assessment result of the wireless network environment according to the network detection data or the cloud game operation parameters comprises: determining the cloud game operation state according to the cloud game operation parameter (paragraph [0047], “determined whether the game stream quality is acceptable or not”); determining the corresponding network assessment result based on the cloud game operation status (paragraph [0047], “By way of example without limitation, the game stream quality falling below a given threshold can be defined by various measures, such as packet loss exceeding a predefined threshold, bandwidth falling below a predefined threshold, latency exceeding a predefined threshold, etc”).
Colenbrander does not explicitly teach determining network assessments based a calculated network environment score.
However, in an analogues art (computer networks) Lyons teaches calculating a network detection score corresponding to each of the network detection data (paragraph [0050], “…For instance, a combination of quality metrics may be used, weighted, and scored…”);
calculating a network environment score of the wireless network environment according to the network detection score (paragraph [0050], “…generate an overall network quality score…”), and
determining the corresponding network assessment result based on the network environment score (paragraph [0050], “…an overall network quality score, which may be compared to an overall network quality threshold…”).
Based on Colenbrander in view of Lyons, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate determining network assessments based a calculated network environment score (taught by Lyons) with determining game operating state (taught by Colenbrander) in order to take into consideration relevant network metrics which will result in more accurate assessment of the network condition.
Claim(s) 3, 22 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colenbrander (Pub. No.: US 20210146240 A1) in view of Lyons et al. (Pub. No.: US 20190109834 A1) and further in view of Panattu et al. (Pub. No.: US 20170054784 A1).
As to claim 3, Colenbrander does not explicitly teach parameter weight database and performing weighted calculation.
However, in an analogues art (computer networks) Lyons further teaches wherein the step for calculating network detection score corresponding to each of the network detection data comprises: obtain a network score weight corresponding to the network detection data (paragraph [0050], “a combination of quality metrics may be used, weighted, and scored to generate an overall network quality score”); and
according to the network scoring weight, performing a weighted calculation on the network detection data to obtain the network detection score (paragraph [0050], “a combination of quality metrics may be used, weighted, and scored to generate an overall network quality score”).
Based on Colenbrander in view of Lyons, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate determining network assessments based a weighted calculated network environment score (taught by Lyons) with determining game operating state (taught by Colenbrander) in order to take into consideration relevant network metrics which will result in more accurate assessment of the network condition.
Colenbrander in view of Lyons does not explicitly teach parameter weight database.
However, in the same field of endeavor (computer networks) Panattu teaches querying a preset network parameter weight database to obtain a network score weight corresponding to the network detection data (fig. 3A, 301).
Based on Colenbrander in view of Lyons and further in view of Panattu, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate parameter weight database (taught by Panattu) with determining network assessments based a weighted calculated network environment score (taught by Lyons) with determining game operating state (taught by Colenbrander) in order to take into consideration relevant network metrics which will result in more accurate assessment of the network condition and in order to keep track of the applied weights.
As to claim 22, the limitations of the claim are substantially similar to claim 3. Please refer to claim 3 above.
As to claim 28, the limitations of the claim are substantially similar to claim 3. Please refer to claim 3 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Arndt et al. (Pub. No.: US 20160301582 A1), teaches adaptive application streaming based on network conditions. Please see fig. 4.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDULKADER M ALRIYASHI whose telephone number is (313)446-6551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8AM - 5PM Alt, Friday, EST.
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, JOON HWANG can be reached at (571)272-4036. 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.
/Abdulkader M Alriyashi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447 5/2/2026
Prosecution Insights