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 § 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 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.
Claims 7 and 13 are 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 7 recites the limitation "the video" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the video" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the US" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (What is the statutory category?):
Claims 1-20 are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (ie: process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2A; Prong I (Does the claim recite an abstract idea?):
Claim 1 (and similarly Claims 9 and 20) recites:
A computer-implemented method/system/non-transitory computer readable media for client-side upscaling of video games, the method comprising:
rendering, via a graphics processing unit (GPU) and at a first resolution, a frame associated with a video game;
extracting one or more layers of information from one or more buffers of the GPU;
encoding the frame to generate an encoded frame and the one or more layers of information to generate one or more encoded layers of information; and
transmitting, to a user device, the encoded frame and the one or more encoded layers of information, wherein the user device upscales a decoding of the encoded frame to a second resolution based on a decoding of the one or more encoded layers of information.
[the Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined elements recite certain method of organizing human activity because they “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)”]
According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines, Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People (e.g. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) "encompasses both activity of a single person (for example a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial or legal interaction). Thus, some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within this grouping." (Emphasis added)
To further elaborate on the Examiner’s interpretation regarding the claimed invention being directed towards certain methods of organizing human activity, the Examiner believes the invention describe managing interactions between people and machine (ie: a gaming machine) in which rules or instructions for the gaming machine is being implemented (ie: upscaling lower-resolution frames to a higher resolution for video games.)
Step 2A; Prong II (Does the claim recite a practical application?):
The Examiner submits that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The dependent claims merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or use a computer as tool to perform the abstract idea.
Taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons. The claim elements of claims 1, 9 and 20 above that are not underlined constitute additional limitations.
The Examiner submits that the following additional limitation merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: non-transitory readable media, graphics processing unit, client device, and one or more processors.
The Examiner finds that there are concepts regarding the application that simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality. For example:
Schlicher et al., US 20250022052 discloses that machine-learning is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 150);
Shaw, US 20240104816 also discloses that machine-learning is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 325).
Citraro et al., US 10600210 discloses that neural networks are well-known computing systems (Col 5, lines 3-38).
The above helps to suggest that the claimed components are no more than generic well-known components.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology; there is no additional element that applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception; the additional elements merely recite the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Step 2B (Are there additional elements that are “something more” than an abstract idea?):
Dependent Claims 2-8, 10-19 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
In addition, with regards to dependent claims, the courts have recognized the computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (ie: at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity because each claim describes physical or software elements that provide a generic environment in which to carry out the abstract idea, which is similar to the conventional activity or as insignificant extra-solution activity of selecting information, based on types of information, for collection, analysis and display in EPG, gathering, receiving and transmitting data in Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs., buySAFE, and performing repetitive calculation in Flook, Bancorp.
Therefore, the dependent claims are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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, 4, 9-10, 16, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lea, US 20220138902 (Lea).
Regarding Claims 1 (and similarly Claim 9 and 20). Lea discloses a computer-implemented method/system/non-transitory computer readable media for client-side upscaling of video games, the method comprising:
rendering, via a graphics processing unit (GPU) and at a first resolution, a frame associated with a video game (Fig 5, elem 502; Abstract, para 12, 14, 19, 28, 43, 54);
extracting one or more layers of information from one or more buffers of the GPU (Abstract, para 23, 31, 49, 56);
encoding the frame to generate an encoded frame and the one or more layers of information to generate one or more encoded layers of information (Fig 5, elem 508; Abstract, para 57, 64, 81); and
transmitting, to a user device, the encoded frame and the one or more encoded layers of information, wherein the user device upscales a decoding of the encoded frame to a second resolution based on a decoding of the one or more encoded layers of information (Fig 5, elem 510; Abstract, para 12, 17, 19, 29, 32-33, 41).
Regarding Claims 2, 16.
Lea further discloses wherein the layers of information include at least one of color data associated with the frame, depth data associated with the frame, motion vector data associated with the frame, state data associated with the frame, sharpening factor data associated with the frame, reactive mask data associated with the frame, or transparency and composure mask data associated with the frame (para 11, 27).
Regarding Claim 4. Lea discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising transmitting a trained neural network to the user device, wherein the user device further upscales the decoding of the encoded frame based on the trained neural network (para 15, 16, 23, 31, 36, 58, 67-68, 72-74, 83).
Regarding Claim 9. Lea discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
rendering, via the GPU and at a third resolution, a second frame associated with the video game (Fig 5, elem 502; Abstract, para 12, 14, 19, 28, 43, 54);
extracting one or more second layers of information from the one or more buffers of the GPU (Abstract, para 23, 31, 49, 56);
encoding the second frame to generate an encoded second frame and the one or more second layers of information to generate one or more encoded second layers of information (Fig 5, elem 508; Abstract, para 57, 64, 81); and
transmitting, to the user device, the encoded second frame and the one or more encoded second layers of information, wherein the user device upscales a decoding of the encoded second frame to the second resolution based on a decoding of the one or more encoded second layers of information (Fig 5, elem 510; Abstract, para 10-20, 29, 32-33, 41).
Regarding Claim 10. Lea discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising executing the video game based on one or more inputs received from the user device (Abstract, para 19, 22, 24, 28, 30 45, 72, 80).
Conclusion
Claims 3, 5-8, 11-15, 17-19 have no prior art rejection but currently stand rejected under USC § 101.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5pm.
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.
/JEFFREY K WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights