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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 11 and 13 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 11 and 13 are independent.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 is numbered as 2 – it should be 1. Appropriate action is needed.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 – 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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.
Specifically, in claims 1, 11 and 13, both the server system and the shared image cache hold the down-scaled version of the image asset. However, the source (i.e., server system or cache) of the down-scaled version of the image asset that is transmitted to the first client device for display, is unclear. Appropriate action is required.
Further, regarding claim 6, it is unclear how an instruction to the first client device to down-scale the image asset is sent without transmitting the image asset to the first client device. Inventor(s) (or (pre-AlA) Applicant(s)) is therefore required to provide the rationale behind how an instruction is sent to a device to perform a specific task (i.e., down-scale an image asset) without transmitting the needed component for which the instruction was sent. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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.
Specifically, claim 2 recites the limitation "…receiving a second request for the down-scaled version of the image asset…" However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim – there is no claimed first request. Appropriate action is required.
Specifically, claim 4 recites the limitation "…in accordance with the amount of downscaling satisfying a threshold amount of scaling." However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate action is required.
Specifically, claim 5 recites the limitation "…determining that the client is to perform the downscaling…" However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate action is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
Claim(s) 1 – 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brockmann, Ronald A. (US-20200409647-A1, hereinafter simply referred to as Ronald).
Regarding independent claim(s) 1, 11 and 13, Ronald teaches:
A server system (e.g., an application server 700 (FIG. 7) of Ronald) executing a third-party application (e.g., a graphics API such as OpenGL of Ronald), comprising: one or more processors (e.g., processors of Ronald); and memory (e.g., memory of Ronald) storing instructions executable by the one or more processors for: for a first session of a plurality of sessions (e.g., client sessions of Ronald) of the third-party application (e.g., a graphics API such as OpenGL of Ronald) (See at least Ronald, ¶ [0042, 0059, 0105]; FIGS. 1, 6, 7), the first session corresponding to a first client device (See at least Ronald, ¶ [0042, 0059, 0105]; FIGS. 1, 6, 7): accessing an image asset (e.g., image frame (e.g., image assets 121) of Ronald); providing a modified version of the image asset to the third-party application to be processed by the third-party application (See at least Ronald, ¶ [0042, 0059, 0105, 0106]; FIGS. 1, 6, 7); receiving, from the third-party application, an indication that the modified version of the image asset has been down-scaled by the third-party application during processing (See at least Ronald, ¶ [0039, 0049]; FIGS. 1, 6, 7); in response to receiving the indication that the modified version of the image asset has been down-scaled by the third-party application, determining that the image asset is to be down-scaled at the server system (See at least Ronald, ¶ [0039, 0049, 0051, 0071]; FIGS. 1, 6, 7); and in accordance with a determination that the image asset is to be down-scaled at the server system: down-scaling, at the server system (e.g., remote server (e.g., third party application 101-3) of Ronald) (See at least Ronald, ¶ [0057, 0062]; FIGS. 1, 6, 7), the image asset, thereby producing a down-scaled version (e.g., manipulated, resized, re-arranged, transformed image of Ronald) of the image asset (See at least Ronald, ¶ [0062]; FIGS. 1, 6, 7); transmitting the down-scaled version of the image asset to be stored in a shared image cache (See at least Ronald, ¶ [0040, 0056, 0062]; FIGS. 1, 6, 7), wherein the plurality of sessions of the third-party application have access to the shared image cache (See at least Ronald, ¶ [0040, 0056, 0062]; FIGS. 1, 6, 7); and transmitting the down-scaled version of the image asset to the first client device for display (See at least Ronald, ¶ [0040, 0056, 0062]; FIGS. 1, 6, 7).
Regarding dependent claim 2, Ronald teaches:
at the server system, for a second session of the plurality of sessions (e.g., on behalf of a plurality of client devices of Ronald) of the third-party application corresponding to a second client device (See at least Ronald, ¶ [0059, 0062, 0091]; FIGS. 1, 6, 7): after storing the down-scaled version of the image asset in the shared image cache for the first session (See at least Ronald, ¶ [0040, 0056, 0062]; FIGS. 1, 6, 7), receiving a second request for the down-scaled version of the image asset (See at least Ronald, ¶ [0059, 0062, 0091]; FIGS. 1, 6, 7); and in response to the second request and in accordance with a determination that the server system is to perform the down-scaling: retrieving the down-scaled version of the image asset from the shared image cache (See at least Ronald, ¶ [0040, 0056, 0062]; FIGS. 1, 6, 7); and sending the down-scaled version of the image asset to the second client device corresponding to the second session (See at least Ronald, ¶ [0059, 0062, 0091]; FIGS. 1, 6, 7).
Regarding dependent claim 3, Ronald teaches:
wherein the image asset is stored in the shared image cache for an initial session of the plurality of sessions (See at least Ronald, ¶ [0040, 0056, 0062]; FIGS. 1, 6, 7).
Regarding dependent claim 4, Ronald teaches:
determining that the server system is to perform the downscaling and send the downscaled image asset in accordance with the amount of downscaling satisfying a threshold amount of scaling (See at least Ronald, ¶ [0057, 0062]; FIGS. 1, 6, 7).
Regarding dependent claim 5, Ronald teaches:
determining that the client is to perform the downscaling in accordance with the amount of downscaling failing to satisfy a threshold amount of scaling (See at least Ronald, ¶ [0057, 0062]; FIGS. 1, 6, 7).
Regarding dependent claim 6, Ronald teaches:
in accordance with a determination that the first client device is to perform the down-scaling, sending an instruction to the first client device to down-scale the image asset without transmitting the image asset to the first client device (See at least Ronald, ¶ [0057, 0062, 0125]; FIGS. 1, 6, 7).
Regarding dependent claim 7, Ronald teaches:
wherein the modified version of the image asset comprises a QR code overlaid across the entire image asset (See at least Ronald, ¶ [0121, 0125]; FIGS. 1, 6, 7).
Regarding dependent claim 8, Ronald teaches:
wherein the modified version of the image asset comprises a plurality of modules placed in fixed locations, relative to the scale of the image asset, each module including data (See at least Ronald, ¶ [0040]; FIGS. 1, 6, 7).
Regarding dependent claim 9, Ronald teaches:
wherein a first subset, less than all, of the plurality of modules are assigned to data to encode orientation (See at least Ronald, ¶ [0051, 0071-0073]; FIGS. 1, 6, 7).
Regarding dependent claim 10, Ronald teaches:
wherein a second subset, less than all, of the plurality of modules are assigned to encode color planes and for detection of color transformations (See at least Ronald, ¶ [0050 – 0052]; FIGS. 1, 6, 7).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: See the Notice of References Cited (PTO–892)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IDOWU O OSIFADE whose telephone number is (571)272-0864. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm 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, JOHN VILLECCO can be reached on (571) 272 – 7319. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273 – 8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov.
Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217 – 9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786 – 9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272 – 1000.
/IDOWU O OSIFADE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675
Prosecution Insights