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 .
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) 1-6, 8-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (U.S. PGPUB 2014/0187331).
Re claims 1, 8, and 15: Kim discloses a method, comprising:
begin receiving at the client device, from a server over a network, an encoded slice of a plurality of encoded slices of a video frame before the server fully transmits the plurality of encoded slices of the video frame to the client device (see paragraph [0015, 0023, 0031, 0033]: the cloud gaming server uses a slice encoder and packetizer to encode a slick of a video frame and packages each slice into transmission packets for distribution to and receiving by client devices), wherein the video frame is generated at the server and encoded by an encoder at the server into the plurality of encoded slices (see paragraph [0017, 0023]: the slice encoder encodes a video frame into a plurality of slices for transmission); and
decoding at the client device the plurality of encoded slices (see paragraph [0033]: “The video frame slice depacketizer 510 depacketizes each video frame slice transmission as it is received.“).
Re claims 2, 9, 16: Kim discloses with respect to the method of claim 1, further comprising:
wherein the begin receiving of the encoded slice at the client device is performed before the encoder fully encodes the video frame into the plurality of encoded slices (see paragraph [0015]: “The video frame is encoded employing multiple slices, wherein a cloud gaming server reads back an encoded bitstream for each completed slice and transmission of the completed slice begins at completion of its pipeline processing instead of waiting until full video frame encoding is completed”).
Re claims 3, 10, 17: Kim discloses with respect to the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving from the server at a client device the plurality of encoded slices of the video frame (see paragraphs [0031-0034]); and
begin decoding the encoded slice before fully receiving the plurality of encoded slices (see paragraphs [0031-034]: “The video frame slice depacketizer 510 depacketizes each video frame slice transmission as it is received.“).
Re claims 4, 11, 18: Kim discloses with respect to the method of claim 1,
wherein the encoded slice of the plurality of encoded slices is fully received at the client device before the server fully transmits the plurality of encoded slices of the video frame to the client device (see paragraphs [0031-0034]: the client device receives the slice on a slice-by-slice basis wherein each slice is subsequently decoded and then displayed).
Re claims 5, 12, 19: Kim discloses with respect to the method of claim 1, wherein the decoding at the client device the plurality of encoded slices includes:
begin decoding the first encoded slice before the server fully transmits the plurality of encoded slices of the video frame to the client device (see paragraph [0031-033]: the client device decodes slice by slice as the plurality of slices arrive, to provide a display that “provides a more enhanced user experience, since a rendered display is “painted” slice by slice on the user device instead of just appearing after a noticeable delay.”).
-
Re claims 6, 13: Kim discloses with respect to the method of claim 1, further comprising:
decoding the encoded slice at the client device; and
begin displaying the first encoded slice that is decoded before fully decoding the plurality of encoded slices (see paragraphs [0031-0034]).
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) 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Colenbrader (U.S. PGPUB 2015/0181084).
Re claims 7, 14, 20: Kim fails to disclose with respect to the method of claim 1,
wherein the video frame is generated responsive to processing of an application by the server,
wherein a scan-out operation of the video frame sends the video frame to the encoder,
wherein the begin receiving the encoded slice at the client device is performed before completion of the scan-out operation of the video frame. However, Colenbrader discloses a system that scans-out a frame from a frame buffer (see paragraph [0111]), wherein said scanned-out frame is sent to a video capture device and then compressed and encoded (see paragraph [0079, 0116]]). Thus, Colenbrader teaches the process of scanning out frame information and then encoding said information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to modify the encoding frame slice system of Kim, with the scanning out of frame information process of Colenbrader, for the purpose of reducing latency within frame transferring process.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINALD A RENWICK whose telephone number is (571)270-1913. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
REGINALD A. RENWICK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3714
/REGINALD A RENWICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights