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 .
Applicant’s Submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of a response on 6/24/2026 has been received and considered. In the response, Applicant amended claims 1 – 5, 7 – 12 and 14 – 19. Therefore, claims 1 – 20 are pending.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 7 – 9 and 14 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US Pub. No. 2014/0187331).
As per claim 1, Kim et al. discloses a method, comprising: generating a video frame at a server (a cloud gaming server that generates rendered video frame slices constituting a complete video frame, providing a set of rendered video frame slices required to complete a video frame at the cloud gaming server, see [0006], [0017]); encoding, at or before a first occurrence of a VSYNC signal, the video frame to generate a plurality of encoded slices (a slice encoder, encodes each of the set of separately generated video frame slices into corresponding separately encoded video frame slices, see [0023], server operates on discrete video frames in a frame-paced pipeline, such that the encoding of a given video frame is performed within a single frame period bounded by the periodic vertical-synchronization (VSYNC) timing of the frame-based video pipeline, and therefore occurs at or before a first occurrence of the VSYNC signal, see [0015], [0017], [0023]) and begin streaming at least one of the plurality of encoded slices before encoding of the video frame has fully completed and before a second occurrence of the VSYNC signal (a slice packetizer packages each separately encoded video frame slice into slice transmission packets for immediate transmission (specifically, transmission of each slice as it is encoded, without waiting for the entire video frame to finish encoding) such that streaming of at least one encoded slice begins before encoding of the video frame is fully complete and, being performed within the same frame period, before a second (i.e., next) occurrence of the VSYNC signal, see [0015], [0017]).
As per claim 2, Kim et al. discloses storing each of the plurality of encoded slices in a buffer and streaming the plurality of encoded slices from the buffer to a client device (see Fig. 6 and [0030], [0035]).
As per claim 7, Kim et al. discloses generating a plurality of video frames while executing a video game at the server, the executing of the video game responsive to a plurality of input commands received from a client device; encoding the plurality of video frames into a plurality of encoded video frames; and sending the plurality of encoded video frames to the client device over a network, wherein the client device is configured to receive and decode the plurality of encoded video frames for rendering to a display (a cloud gaming server that executes game logic and generates video frames responsive to a cloud gaming client (client device) that sends input commands, the server encodes a plurality of video frames, and the encoded frames are transmitted over a cloud network to the cloud gaming client for display, see Abstract, [0005], [0006], [0015], [0017], [0030]).
As per claims 8, 9 and 14, the instant claims are a computer system in which corresponds to the method of claims 1, 2 and 7. Therefore, it is rejected for the reasons set forth above.
As per claims 15 and 16, the instant claims are a non-transitory computer-readable medium in which corresponds to the method of claims 1 and 2. Therefore, it is rejected for the reasons set forth above.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 3 – 6, 10 – 13, 17 – 20 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 double patenting rejection is overcome. Kim et al. does not expressly disclose the streaming of the at least one of the plurality of encoded slices begins before a first occurrence of a server VSYNC signal; begin scanning-in the video frame to an encoder at a previous occurrence of the server VSYNC signal, wherein the previous occurrence of the server VSYNC signal occurs immediately before the first occurrence of the server VSYNC signal; begin scanning-in the video frame to an encoder before a previous occurrence of the server VSYNC signal, wherein the previous occurrence of the server VSYNC signal occurs immediately before the first occurrence of the server VSYNC signal and the scanning-in of the video frame occurs at a flip-time during generation of the video frame by the server.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 6/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, the Terminal Disclaimer filed on 6/24/2026 has been approved, therefore has overcome the double patenting rejection.
The Applicant argues that independent claim 1 (and similarly independent claims 8 and 15) has been amended to recite elements from claims 3, 10 and 17, which was identified as allowable, and that Kim does not teach the amended limitations. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The amendment does not incorporate the subject matter that was indicated as allowable. In the Office action mailed March 31, 2026, claims 3, 10 and 17 were objected to as allowable if rewritten in independent form based specifically on the limitation that “the streaming of the at least one of the plurality of encoded slices begins before a first occurrence of a … VSYNC signal.” The amended independent claims do not recite this limitation. Instead, amended independent claims recites (i) “encoding, at or before a first occurrence of a VSYNC signal, the video frame,” and (ii) “begin streaming … before … a second occurrence of the VSYNC signal.” The limitation that was indicated as allowable (streaming that begins before the first occurrence of the VSYNC signal) has been retained only in dependent claims 3, 10 and 17 , which remains objected to as allowable if rewritten in independent form.
Further, the limitations that were in fact added to the independent clams are disclosed by Kim. Kim discloses encoding each video frame into a plurality of slices and transmitting each slice immediately as it is encoded, before the entire video frame has finished encoding. The server operates on discrete video frames in a frame-paced pipeline, the encoding of a given video frame occurs within a single frame period (that is, at or before a first occurrence of the VSYNC signal) and the immediate, pre-completion transmission of the encoded slices necessarily begins within that same frame period, before the next (second) occurrence of the VSYNC signal. The amended independent claims do not require that streaming begin before the first occurrence of the VSYNC signal, as it requires only that streaming begin before a second occurrence.
Therefore, the 102 rejection above is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANKIT B DOSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-7863. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri. ~8:30 - ~5:30.
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.
/ANKIT B DOSHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights