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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement entered June 17th, 2024 has been considered. A copy of the cited statement(s) including the notation indicating its respective consideration is attached for the Applicant's records.
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 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 an apparatus or computer system (i.e., a machine) in claims 1-7, 15-20 and a method (i.e., a process) in claims 8-14.
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. An apparatus comprising:
circuitry configured to:
perform rendering operations on a plurality of video frames using a first set of parameters;
send a first video frame of the plurality of video frames to a display device; and
perform a rendering operation on a second video frame of the plurality of video frames using a second set of parameters different from the first set of parameters, responsive to an indication generated by a machine learning model specifying a first category of a plurality of categories.
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 video frame content, evaluating the content and judging the associated display parameters for the judged content as well as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity including managing personal behavior including interactions following rules or instructions because the claims set forth the interactions involving one or more parties in the context of determining parameters for the presentation of a game 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 circuitry and a display device 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 devices such as generic computers, smartphones, 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 circuitry and a display device 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 [0019], [0021], [0027]-[0028], [0045], [0062]). 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 [0019], [0021], [0027]-[0028], [0045], [0062]). 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 2-20 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 circuitry, processing circuitry and a display device as respectively presented that when considered both individually and as a whole in the respective combinations of the additional claims are not sufficient to support patent eligibility under prong 2 of step 2A or step 2B for the reasons set forth above with respect to the exemplary claim 1 and further present substantially similar abstract concepts as noted with reflection to exemplary claim 1 above and therefore 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 1-5, 8-12, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Colenbrander (US 2021/0146240)
Claim 1: Colenbrander teaches an apparatus comprising:
circuitry configured to:
perform rendering operations on a plurality of video frames using a first set of parameters (Colenbrander Figures 1-2, 6; Paragraph [0050]);
send a first video frame of the plurality of video frames to a display device (Colenbrander Figures 1-2, 6; Paragraph [0050]); and
perform a rendering operation on a second video frame of the plurality of video frames using a second set of parameters different from the first set of parameters, responsive to an indication generated by a machine learning model specifying a first category of a plurality of categories (Colenbrander Figures 1-2, 6; Paragraphs [0050], [0077]-[0078], [0099]).
Claim 2: Colenbrander teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 1, wherein the plurality of categories comprise one or more of a menu image, an application loading image, a scoreboard image, and an active gameplay image (-Understood as equivalent to identification of static and battle detection and corresponding focus on frame rate- Colenbrander Paragraph [0099]).
Claim 3: Colenbrander teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 2, wherein one or more of the first set of parameters and the second set of parameters comprises identifiers specifying one or more subdivisions of a third video frame of the plurality of video frames to process differently from other subdivisions of the third video frame (-Regions of interest- Colenbrander Figure 7; Paragraphs [0041], [0094]-[0095]).
Claim 4: Colenbrander teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 2, wherein the first set of parameters comprises a first level of motion-compensated frame interpolation set by a user and the second set of parameters comprises a second level of motion-compensated frame interpolation different from the first level of motion-compensated frame interpolation (Colenbrander Figures 3; Paragraph [0051]-[0052]).
Claim 5: Colenbrander teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 2, wherein based on the first category, the circuitry is further configured to generate an overlay to send to a display controller with the second video frame, wherein the overlay comprises suggestions to present to a user (-teaching the use of overlays to present information to a user and wherein “suggestions” are understood as including status information, player health and the like- Colenbrander Paragraph [0100]).
Claim 8: Colenbrander teaches a method, comprising:
performing, by a processing circuit (Colenbrander Paragraphs [0136]-[0138]), a rendering operation on a plurality of video frames using a first set of parameters (Colenbrander Figures 1-2, 6; Paragraph [0050]);
sending, by the processing circuit, a first video frame of the plurality of video frames to a display device (Colenbrander Figures 1-2, 6; Paragraph [0050]); and
performing, by the processing circuit, a rendering operation on a second video frame of the plurality of video frames using a second set of parameters different from the first set of parameters, responsive to an indication generated by a machine learning model specifying a first category of a plurality of categories (Colenbrander Figures 1-2, 6; Paragraphs [0050], [0077]-[0078], [0099]).
Claim 9: Colenbrander teaches the method as recited in claim 8, wherein the plurality of categories comprises one or more of a menu image, an application loading image, a scoreboard image, and an active gameplay image (-Understood as equivalent to identification of static and battle detection and corresponding focus on frame rate- Colenbrander Paragraph [0099]).
Claim 10: Colenbrander teaches the method as recited in claim 9, wherein one or more of the first set of parameters and the second set of parameters comprises identifiers specifying one or more subdivisions of a third video frame of the plurality of video frames to process differently from other subdivisions of the third video frame (-Regions of interest- Colenbrander Figure 7; Paragraphs [0041], [0094]-[0095]).
Claim 11: Colenbrander teaches the method as recited in claim 9, wherein the first set of parameters comprises a first level of motion-compensated frame interpolation set by a user and the second set of parameters comprises a second level of motion-compensated frame interpolation different from the first level of motion-compensated frame interpolation (Colenbrander Figures 3; Paragraph [0051]-[0052]).
Claim 12: Colenbrander teaches the method as recited in claim 9, wherein based on the first category, the method further comprises generating, by the processing circuit, an overlay to send to a display controller with the second video frame, wherein the overlay comprises suggestions to present to a user (-teaching the use of overlays to present information to a user and wherein “suggestions” are understood as including status information, player health and the like- Colenbrander Paragraph [0100]).
Claim 15: Colenbrander teaches a computing system comprising:
circuitry configured to execute a machine learning model (Colenbrander Paragraphs [0099], [0136]- [0138]); and
a processing circuit(Colenbrander Paragraphs [0136]- [0138]) configured to:
perform rendering operations on a plurality of video frames using a first set of parameters (Colenbrander Figures 1-2, 6; Paragraph [0050]);
send a first video frame of the plurality of video frames to a display device (Colenbrander Figures 1-2, 6; Paragraph [0050]); and
perform a rendering operation on a second video frame of the plurality of video frames using a second set of parameters different from the first set of parameters, responsive to an indication generated by the machine learning model specifying a first category of a plurality of categories (Colenbrander Figures 1-2, 6; Paragraphs [0050], [0077]-[0078], [0099]).
Claim 16: Colenbrander teaches the computing system as recited in claim 15, wherein the plurality of categories comprises one or more of a menu image, an application loading image, a scoreboard image, and an active gameplay image (-Understood as equivalent to identification of static and battle detection and corresponding focus on frame rate- Colenbrander Paragraph [0099]).
Claim 17: Colenbrander teaches the computing system as recited in claim 16, wherein one or more of the first set of parameters and the second set of parameters comprises identifiers specifying one or more subdivisions of a third video frame of the plurality of video frames to process differently from other subdivisions of the third video frame (-Regions of interest- Colenbrander Figure 7; Paragraphs [0041], [0094]-[0095]).
Claim 18: Colenbrander teaches the computing system as recited in claim 16, wherein the first set of parameters comprises a first level of motion-compensated frame interpolation set by a user and the second set of parameters comprises a second level of motion-compensated frame interpolation different from the first level of motion-compensated frame interpolation (Colenbrander Figures 3; Paragraph [0051]-[0052]).
Claim 19: Colenbrander teaches the computing system as recited in claim 16, wherein based on the first category, the circuitry is further configured to generate an overlay to send to a display controller with the second video frame, wherein the overlay comprises suggestions to present to a user (-teaching the use of overlays to present information to a user and wherein “suggestions” are understood as including status information, player health and the like- Colenbrander Paragraph [0100]).
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record and not though relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
SHOA HASSANI LASHDAN et al (US 2022/0321889) teaches selective motion-compensated frame interpolation;
Li (US 2023/0260084) teaches a video frame playing method and apparatus, device, storage medium, and program product; and
Pottorff et al (US 2024/0095097) teaches an application programming interface to cause performance of frame interpolation.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. 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
Prosecution Insights