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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4-9, 11-17, 19-20 and 81 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 17 “recite identify a first processing capacity associated with a first available node and a first latency for transmitting data between the first available node and the client device via a network, wherein the first available node is in a different geographic location than the server and
identify a second processing capacity associated with a second available node and a second latency for transmitting data between the second available node and the client device via the network, wherein the second available node is in a second different geographic location than the server”. Applicant doesn’t have support for the underlined portions. According to [0134] latency is for rendering. So the latency is for a specific device, but is not for data transfer between two devices. See “[0134]….. The control circuitry may determine the minimum requirement(s) to perform such at least one processing task. For example, the control circuitry may determine that a high-performance node (e.g., having processing capacity exceeding a first processing threshold, and/or a latency measurement that is below a first latency threshold) is required to perform the rendering of object set B of FIG. 2, and/or that a mid-performance node (e.g., having processing capacity exceeding a second threshold, lower than the first threshold, and/or a latency measurement that is below a second latency threshold, higher than the first latency threshold) is sufficient”.
Claims 4-9,11-16, 19-20 and 81 are also rejected by virtue of dependency.
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.
Claim 19 is 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.
Claim 19 recites “select the first available node based on determining that the graphics processing capability of the client device exceeds a threshold processing capability”. This limitation doesn’t make sense because according to claim 17 client and first available node are two different entities. So it is not clear why first available node will be selected when client device exceeds a threshold processing capability.
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) 1, 4-5, 8, 15, 17, 19-20 and 81 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kavallierou (US Pat. Pub. No. 20200346109 “Kavallierou”) in view of JUSTICE et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 20170274284 “Justice”) and MOUTADE et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 20240356990 “Mouyade”).
Regarding claim 17 Kavallierou teaches A system comprising: control circuitry (Fig. 1) configured to:
receive, at a server from a client device, a request to access a media asset (“[0065] The cloud gaming system 600 also comprises a games unit operable to receive, via a communications network, player inputs and game state information from the client devices 602 participating in a video game session. In FIG. 6, the games unit corresponds to a game server 604”),
wherein the server is configured to perform a first processing task related to causing the media asset to be displayed at the client device (“[0030]……. The game server receives and processes each player's input and generates an authoritative source of events occurring within the video game”);
identify at least one processing task related to the media asset (“Abstract : Methods and apparatus for controlling the rendering of a video game instance”);
identify a processing capacity requirement and a latency requirement associated with the at least one processing task (“[0041]….. In this way, step S502 comprises predicting, based on the obtained game state information, whether at least one of the CPU usage, GPU usage and network traffic associated with one or more players is likely to negatively impact their experience of the video game session. The threshold quality may correspond to e.g. a predetermined frame rate, visual fidelity, etc. [0067]….. This information enables the monitoring unit 606 to predict whether the game requirements for a given player are likely to exceed the e.g. GPU and CPU capabilities of that player's client device”);
identify a first processing capacity associated with a first available node and a first latency for transmitting data between the first available node and the client device via a network, wherein the first available node is in a different geographic location than the server (“[0049]….. The cloud game client may comprise a pool of an instance of hardware available on the network (forming part of ‘the cloud’) having more powerful CPU and GPU capabilities than the client device. Hence, allocating the cloud game client may involve identifying one or more cloud devices (forming the cloud gaming service) having greater CPU and or GPU resources available for rendering the video game instance than the client device(s) identified at step S503. [0050] The cloud game client may be configured to create a gameplay session for those game clients that are about to experience a low frame rate (or visual fidelity) experience”. As CGC has pool of one or more cloud devices, so one of them is a first available node and CGC is connected through network so it is in a different geographic location);
identify a second processing capacity associated with a second available node and a second latency for transmitting data between the second available node and the client device via the network, wherein the second available node is in a second different geographic location than the server (“[0049]….. The cloud game client may comprise a pool of an instance of hardware available on the network (forming part of ‘the cloud’) having more powerful CPU and GPU capabilities than the client device. [0050] The cloud game client may be configured to create a gameplay session for those game clients that are about to experience a low frame rate (or visual fidelity) experience”. As CGC has pool of one or more cloud devices, so one of them is a second available node and CGC is connected through network so it is in a different geographic location);
determine that: the identified first processing capacity satisfies the processing capacity requirement and that the identified first latency satisfies the latency requirement ((“[0049]……. Hence, allocating the cloud game client may involve identifying one or more cloud devices (forming the cloud gaming service) having greater CPU and or GPU resources available for rendering the video game instance than the client device(s) identified at step S503. [0050] The cloud game client may be configured to create a gameplay session for those game clients that are about to experience a low frame rate (or visual fidelity) experience”.);
Kavallierou is silent about at least one of the second processing capacity does not satisfy the processing capacity requirement or that the second latency does not satisfy the latency requirement;
Mouyade teaches determining that: at least one of second processing capacity does not satisfy processing capacity requirement or that second latency does not satisfy latency requirement (“[0105] At a block 404, the controller 202 and/or the server 102 determines whether one of the client devices 104 has higher processing capability than another of the client devices 104. [0112] However, when the first client device 104-1 has processing capabilities at, or above, the first threshold processing capability, the determining of whether the second client 104-2 has higher processing capabilities than the first client device 104-1 may not occur, which may lead to a “NO” decision at the block 404, and the like”);
Mouyade and Kavallierou are analogous art as both of them are related to image processing.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Kavallierou by determining that: at least one of second processing capacity does not satisfy processing capacity requirement or that second latency does not satisfy latency requirement as taught by Mouyade.
The motivation for the above is to enhance Kavallierou by having a pool of nodes with variety of capacities for selecting an appropriate node.
Kavallierou modified by Mouyade teaches select, based on determining, the first one available node instead of the second available node, to perform at least one processing task related to the media asset, to assist the server in causing the media asset to be displayed at the client device (Mouyade “[0120] At a block 406, the controller 202 and/or the server 102, responsive to determining, that the second client device 104-2 has higher processing capability than the first client device 104-1 (e.g., a “YES” decision at the block 404), the controller 202 and/or the server 102 selects the second client device 104-2 as a rendering peer for the first client device 104-1”.
Kavallierou “[0049]……. Hence, allocating the cloud game client may involve identifying one or more cloud devices (forming the cloud gaming service) having greater CPU and or GPU resources available for rendering the video game instance than the client device(s) identified at step S503”);
assign the at least one processing task to the selected at first available node, wherein the first processing task creates a first processing result and the at least one processing task creates at least one processing result (Kavallierou “[0051] At step S506, the method comprises rendering, based on the obtained game state information and player inputs provided to the cloud game client, the video game instance for the identified client device. This rendering may involve generating a video stream for outputting at a display associated with the identified client device”.
[0030]…… The game server receives and processes each player's input and generates an authoritative source of events occurring within the video game”);
However Kavallierou modified by Mouyade is silent about wherein the at least one processing task comprises rendering an interactive three-dimensional (3D) object;
Justice teaches at least one processing task comprises rendering an interactive three-dimensional (3D) object (“[0004]….. An embodiment of the present invention processes and renders some or all of a character's interactions with game objects on the client device associated with the character. A character is associated with a client device when control input associated with the character is received from a user of the client device. [0081]….. A depth camera 410 generates three-dimensional image data that is able to capture the player's 430 movement”);
Justice and Kavallierou modified by Mouyade are analogous art as both of them are related to image processing.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Kavallierou modified by Mouyade by having at least one processing task that comprises rendering an interactive three-dimensional (3D) object as taught by Justice.
The motivation for the above is to generate an enjoyable game by having active avatar or a character in a game.
Kavallierou modified by Mouyade and Justice teaches cause the first processing result and the at least one processing result to be merged, at the client device, into a merged processing result corresponding to the media asset; and cause the merged processing result corresponding to the media asset to be displayed on the client device (Justice “[0004] Embodiments of the present invention split game processing and rendering between a client and a game server. A rendered video game image is received from a game server and combined with a rendered image generated by the game client to form a single video game image that is presented to a user”).
Claim 1 is directed to a method and its steps are similar in scope and functions of the elements of the device claim 17 and therefore claim1 is rejected with same rationales as specified in the rejection of claim 17.
Regarding claims 4 and 20 Kavallierou modified by Mouyade and Justice teaches, wherein the server is a first server, and the at least one available node comprises a second server at the different geographic location than the first server (Kavallierou “[0049]……. Hence, allocating the cloud game client may involve identifying one or more cloud devices (forming the cloud gaming service) having greater CPU and or GPU resources available for rendering the video game instance than the client device(s) identified at step S503”. Here CGC is claimed server).
Regarding claim 5 Kavallierou modified by Mouyade and Justice teaches, wherein the media asset is a video game, the method further comprising: determining that a current portion of the video game being provided by the server to the client device is associated with a level of interactivity that is below a threshold; and based on the determining, performing the assigning of the at least one processing task to the at least one available node during a time period associated with the current portion of the video game associated with the level of interactivity (Justice determines some portion of the game with low interactivity being provided by the server and at the same time assigns high interactive portion to the client device for processing “[0083]……. The server-rendered image 510 includes both foreground and background images that are not part of player interactions with game objects in the illustrated game. The server-rendered image 510 includes the background area 528, virtual game objects 524, and remote player avatar 526. Virtual game objects 524 are manipulated based on actions taken by the player locally and the second player remotely”).
Regarding claim 8 Kavallierou modified by Mouyade and Justice teaches, wherein the media asset is a video game comprising a background and an avatar of a user associated with the client device, wherein assigning the selected at least one processing task comprises: causing the client device to render the avatar of the video game; rendering, by the server, the background of the video game (Justice “[0083]…..The server-rendered image 510 includes both foreground and background images that are not part of player interactions with game objects in the illustrated game. [0084] The avatar 522 is rendered by the client along with ball 525”).
Regarding claim 15 Kavallierou modified by Mouyade and Justice teaches, further comprising causing one or more of the first processing result or the at least one processing result to be transferred directly between nodes in the selection of nodes (Kavallierou Fig. 6 shows game video stream is transferred directly between client and CGC).
Regarding claim 19 Kavallierou modified by Mouyade and Justice teaches, wherein the identified processing capacity comprises a graphics processing capability of the first available node, and the control circuitry to select the first available node is based on determining that the graphics processing capability of the client device exceeds a threshold processing capability (Mouyade “[0120] At a block 406, the controller 202 and/or the server 102, responsive to determining, that the second client device 104-2 has higher processing capability than the first client device 104-1 (e.g., a “YES” decision at the block 404), the controller 202 and/or the server 102 selects the second client device 104-2 as a rendering peer for the first client device 104-1”.
Kavallierou “[0055] Determining that an identified client device is no longer likely to render its video game instance at a quality that is below the threshold quality may be determined by one or more of the game server, monitoring server, or the identified client device. In the latter case, it may be that the identified client device is able to determine this based on game state information obtained from the game server. [0056] In response to such a determination, the corresponding video game instances may no longer be rendered at the cloud game client. This may involve, for example, transmitting an instruction to the identified client devices, instructing them to revert to rendering their own respective video game instances”).
Regarding claim 81 Kavallierou modified by Mouyade and Justice teaches,
wherein determining that the identified first latency satisfies the latency requirement comprises determining that the identified latency is less than or equal to a threshold latency (Mouyade “[0083] Regardless, the indications 122 are understood to comprise numbers, and the like, and/or any other suitable indicators, which may be compared to each other, to determine whether client devices 104 have different processing capabilities and/or to determine whether one client device 104 has higher processing capability than another client device 104. In some examples, the indications 122 may comprise any suitable combination of one or more of respective processor speeds of the client devices 104, respective frame rates (e.g., maximum frame rates) at given resolutions that the client devices 104 are capable of generating, and the like”).
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kavallierou modified by Mouyade and Justice as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mann et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 9313242 “Mann”).
Regarding claim 11 Kavallierou modified by Mouyade and Justice doesn’t expressly teach causing the client device to generate a value indicative of a reference time at the client device; receiving, at the server, the value, wherein the value is transmitted to the server, and to the first available node, based on a user input received at the client device; embedding, at the server, the value in a first portion of the media asset generated by a processing task performed by the server; causing the first available node to embed the value in a second portion of the media asset generated by the at least one processing task assigned to the first available node, wherein the client device synchronizes display of the first portion and the second portion based on the value embedded in the first portion and the second portion.
Mann teaches causing a device to generate a value indicative of a reference time at the device; receiving, at the server, the value, wherein the value is transmitted to the server, based on a user input received at the device; embedding, at the server, the value in a first portion of the media asset generated by a processing task performed by the server; causing the at least one available node to embed the value in a second portion of the media asset generated by the at least one processing task assigned to the at least one available node, wherein client device synchronizes display of the first portion and the second portion based on the value embedded in the first and second portions (“Col 2 lines 50-col 3 lines 2 The video server can deliver multiple time-synchronized video streams corresponding to video data for a requested ROI and a surrounding area. The video server can receive a request for video data for a ROI, and can deliver that ROI along with video data of adjacent regions. The video data can have georeferenced coordinates and time synchronization information embedded therein. This can allow the video server to retrieve multiple spatially-adjacent video streams and deliver those video streams such that the frames are synchronized in time. As an example of time synchronization, the video server can deliver two video streams to a computing device that are spatially-adjacent or that contain imagery of regions that are near one another, adjacent to one another, or overlapping. The first and second video streams can each contain a plurality of video frames, wherein each video frame or a subset of the plurality of video frames have time synchronization information embedded therein. The time synchronization information can be used by a display system receiving the video streams to display the video frames from the two video streams at appropriate times relative to one another”);
Mann and Kavallierou modified by Mouyade and Justice are analogous art as both of them are related to image processing.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Kavallierou modified by Mouyade and Justice by causing the client device to generate a value indicative of a reference time at the client device; receiving, at the server, the value, wherein the value is transmitted to the server, and to the first available node, based on a user input received at the client device; embedding, at the server, the value in a first portion of the media asset generated by a processing task performed by the server; causing the first available node to embed the value in a second portion of the media asset generated by the at least one processing task assigned to the first available node, wherein the client device synchronizes display of the first portion and the second portion based on the value embedded in the first portion and the second portion similar to causing a device to generate a value indicative of a reference time at the device; receiving, at the server, the value, wherein the value is transmitted to the server, based on a user input received at the device; embedding, at the server, the value in a first portion of the media asset generated by a processing task performed by the server; causing the at least one available node to embed the value in a second portion of the media asset generated by the at least one processing task assigned to the at least one available node, wherein client device synchronizes display of the first portion and the second portion based on the value embedded in the first and second portions as taught by Mann.
The motivation for the above is that client device control the timing of video from different rendering devices.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kavallierou modified by Justice and Mann as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Agrawal et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 20180145969 “Agrawal”).
Regarding claim 12 Kavallierou modified by Justice and Mann is silent about in selecting one or more nodes, authenticating each node, wherein authenticating each node in the selection of nodes comprises assigning a trust level to each node and wherein assigning the at least one processing task is further based on the assigned trust levels.
Agrawal teaches in selecting one or more nodes, authenticating each node, wherein authenticating each node in the selection of nodes comprises assigning a trust level to each node and wherein assigning the at least one processing task is further based on the assigned trust levels (“[0006]…… Additionally in such embodiments, assigning the backup task to the backup server may include (i) determining that the security level of the initial signed certificate is not appropriate for the sensitivity level of the backup task assigned to the backup server, (ii) identifying an additional security characteristic of the backup server that indicates the backup server meets an additional trust level that is appropriate for the sensitivity level of the backup task (where the additional trust level is higher than the initial trust level) and then (iii) deploying an additional signed certificate on the backup server that has a security level corresponding to the additional trust level.
[0007] In some examples, deploying the signed certificate on the backup server may include storing, within the signed certificate, the security characteristic of the backup server. In these examples, the backup client may facilitate performing the secure backup operations by authenticating the backup server based on the security characteristic within the signed certificate”);
Agrawal and Kavallierou modified by Justice and Mann are analogous art as both of them are related to data processing.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Kavallierou modified by Justice and Mann by having in selecting one or more nodes, authenticating each node, wherein authenticating each node in the selection of nodes comprises assigning a trust level to each node and wherein assigning the at least one processing task is further based on the assigned trust levels as taught by Agrawal.
The motivation for the above is to assign rendering of sensitive data in a secure environment.
Claim(s) 3 and 82 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kavallierou (US Pat. Pub. No. 20200346109 “Kavallierou”) in view of JUSTICE et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 20170274284 “Justice”).
Regarding claim 82 Kavallierou teaches A method comprising:
receiving, at a server from a client device, a request to access a media asset (“[0065] The cloud gaming system 600 also comprises a games unit operable to receive, via a communications network, player inputs and game state information from the client devices 602 participating in a video game session. In FIG. 6, the games unit corresponds to a game server 604”),
wherein the server is configured to perform a first processing task related to causing the media asset to be displayed at the client device (“[0030]……. The game server receives and processes each player's input and generates an authoritative source of events occurring within the video game”);
identifying a processing capacity and a latency associated with the client device, wherein the client device is in a different geographic location than the server (“[0041]… In this way, step S502 comprises predicting, based on the obtained game state information, whether at least one of the CPU usage, GPU usage and network traffic associated with one or more players is likely to negatively impact their experience of the video game session. The threshold quality may correspond to e.g. a predetermined frame rate, visual fidelity, etc.[0054]….. it may be determined, based on the updated game state information, that the quality of video game instances rendered at those client devices will no longer be below the threshold quality”. As client is connected through network so it is in a different geographic location);
selecting, based on the identified processing capacities and latencies, the client device to perform at least one processing task related to the media asset, to assist the server in causing the media asset to be displayed at the client device (“[0056] In response to such a determination, the corresponding video game instances may no longer be rendered at the cloud game client. This may involve, for example, transmitting an instruction to the identified client devices, instructing them to revert to rendering their own respective video game instances”);
assigning the selected at least one processing task to the client device, wherein the first processing task creates a first processing result and the at least one processing task creates at least one processing result (“[0056] In response to such a determination, the corresponding video game instances may no longer be rendered at the cloud game client. This may involve, for example, transmitting an instruction to the identified client devices, instructing them to revert to rendering their own respective video game instances.
[0030]…… The game server receives and processes each player's input and generates an authoritative source of events occurring within the video game”);
However Kavallierou is silent about wherein the at least one processing task comprises rendering an interactive three-dimensional (3D) object;
Justice teaches at least one processing task comprises rendering an interactive three-dimensional (3D) object (“[0004]….. An embodiment of the present invention processes and renders some or all of a character's interactions with game objects on the client device associated with the character. A character is associated with a client device when control input associated with the character is received from a user of the client device. [0081]….. A depth camera 410 generates three-dimensional image data that is able to capture the player's 430 movement”);
Justice and Kavallierou are analogous art as both of them are related to image processing.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Kavallierou by having at least one processing task that comprises rendering an interactive three-dimensional (3D) object as taught by Justice.
The motivation for the above is to generate an enjoyable game by having active avatar or a character in a game.
Kavallierou modified by Justice teaches causing the first processing result and the at least one processing result to be merged, at the client device, into a merged processing result corresponding to the media asset; and causing the merged processing result corresponding to the media asset to be displayed on the client device (Justice “[0004] Embodiments of the present invention split game processing and rendering between a client and a game server. A rendered video game image is received from a game server and combined with a rendered image generated by the game client to form a single video game image that is presented to a user”).
Regarding claim 3 Kavallierou modified by Justice teaches, wherein the processing capacity comprises a graphics processing capability of the at least one available node, and selecting the client device is based on determining that the graphics processing capability of the client device exceeds a threshold processing capability (Kavallierou “[0055] Determining that an identified client device is no longer likely to render its video game instance at a quality that is below the threshold quality may be determined by one or more of the game server, monitoring server, or the identified client device. In the latter case, it may be that the identified client device is able to determine this based on game state information obtained from the game server. [0056] In response to such a determination, the corresponding video game instances may no longer be rendered at the cloud game client. This may involve, for example, transmitting an instruction to the identified client devices, instructing them to revert to rendering their own respective video game instances”).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kavallierou modified by Mouyade and Justice as applied to claim 82 above, and further in view of Ray (US Pat. Pub. No. 20080039058 “Ray”).
Regarding claim 10 Even though Kavallierou modified by Mouyade and Justice teaches the method further comprising: causing the client device to download a 3D model associated with the media asset (Justice “[0060] The game data store 324 stores downloaded games and partially downloaded games. Games may be downloaded in playable blocks”) but is silent about causing the client device to transmit the 3D model to a second client device accessing the media asset, wherein the processing capacity of the client device is greater than a processing capacity of the second client device.
Ray teaches client device downloading media asset; causing the client device to transmit the media asset to a second client device accessing the media asset, wherein the processing capacity of the client device is greater than a processing capacity of the second client device device (“[0047] According to one aspect, requested media files are delivered/downloaded to the temporary storage wireless communication device, as opposed to the device that requested the files. In many instances, the temporary storage wireless device may be a higher-end device characterized by greater processing power and larger memory capacity. [0096] At Event 420, the first wireless communication device directs the media content service to deliver the media content file to a temporary storage wireless communication device based on the insufficiency of the delivery attribute. [0097] At Event 430, the first wireless communication device retrieves the media content from the temporary storage device when the delivery attribute is sufficient to allow delivery”)
Ray and Kavallierou modified by Mouyade and Justice are analogous art as both of them are related to image processing.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Kavallierou modified by Mouyade and Justice by causing the client device to transmit the 3D model to a second client device accessing the media asset, wherein the processing capacity of the client device is greater than a processing capacity of the second client device similar to downloading media asset; causing the client device to transmit the media asset to a second client device accessing the media asset, wherein the processing capacity of the client device is greater than a processing capacity of the second client device as taught by Ray.
The motivation for the above is to avoid prolonged download session and make the file available whenever needed (Ray [0009]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7, 9, 13-14 and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 6 is objected as the combination of the best available prior arts fail to expressly teach the claim limitation.
Claim 7 is objected as the combination of the best available prior arts fail to expressly teach the claim limitation.
Claim 9 is objected as the combination of the best available prior arts fail to expressly teach the claim limitation.
Claim 13 is objected as the combination of the best available prior arts fail to expressly teach the claim limitation.
Claim 14 is also objected by virtue of dependency.
Claim 16 is objected as the combination of the best available prior arts fail to expressly teach the claim limitation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 09/03/2026, with respect to rejection under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks with respect to rejection under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The has been withdrawn. However upon further consideration a new ground of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kavallierou (US Pat. Pub. No. 20200346109 “Kavallierou”) in view of JUSTICE et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 20170274284 “Justice”) and MOUTADE et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 20240356990 “Mouyade”).
Applicant argues see remarks pages 12-13 “Applicant respectfully submits that the cited art fails to disclose at least the following features of new independent claim 82: "receiving, at a server from a client device, a request to access a media asset, wherein the server is configured to perform a first processing task related to causing the media asset to be displayed at the client device; identifying a processing capacity and a latency associated with the client device, wherein the client device is in a different geographic location than the server; selecting, based on the identified processing capacities and latencies, the client device to perform at least one processing task related to the media asset, to assist the server in causing the media asset to be displayed at the client device……………. However, Applicant respectfully submits that a skilled artisan would not modify the teachings of Kavallierou based on such teachings of Justice, at least because Kavallierou employs "cloud game clients"……. On the other hand, new independent claim 82 requires that the same client device that requested access to the media asset be selected to perform the at least one processing task, based on a processing capacity and a latency associated with the client device”.
Examiner wants to note that Kavallierou continuously checks clients processing capability. When the processing capability increases client itself processes and renders processing task instead of CGC see [0054-0055].
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAPTARSHI MAZUMDER whose telephone number is (571)270-3454. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am-4 pm PST.
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, Said Broome can be reached at (571)272-2931. 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.
/SAPTARSHI MAZUMDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612
