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 § 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.
Claim 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Paragraphs 0203 in the specification defines states "computer-readable storage medium may be transient." Therefore, said computer-storage medium can also be in a signal/wave form. A signal/wave fails to fall within a statutory category of invention. It is not a process occurring as a result of executing the program, a machine programmed to operate in accordance with the program nor a manufacture structurally and functionally interconnected with program in a manner which enables the program to act as a computer component and realize functionality. It's also clearly not directed to a composition of matter. Therefore, it is non-statutory under 35 USC 101.
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 (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.
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) 1-3, 5, 10-12, 14, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Malaika (PGPUB Document No. US 2021/0185294).
Regarding claim 10, Malaika teaches a task processing device, comprising:
A memory storing program instructions (memory 126, Malaika: 0032);
And a processor (processor 124, Malaika: 0032) coupled to the memory, wherein when being executed the processor, the program instructions cause the processor to:
In response to a first electronic device in a target device cluster obtaining a target processing task triggered by a target application (“the host computer 106 may be executing an application 130 thereon, such as a video game 130(1), that is tasked with rendering a first frame of a series of frames” (Malaika: 0047)),
Establish a target communication connection with at least one second electronic device determined from the target device cluster (“The communications interface(s) 120 of the HMD 102 may include wired and/or wireless components (e.g., chips, ports, etc.) to facilitate wired and/or wireless data transmission/reception to/from the host computer 106” (Malaika: 0031) and “The host computer 106 may further include a communications interface(s) 134, which may include wired and/or wireless components (e.g., chips, ports, etc.) to facilitate wired and/or wireless data transmission/reception to/from the HMD 102” (Malaika: 0035));
And send a first part of the target processing task to the at least one second electronic device through the target communication connection (“at least some of this extra data 138 may be sent to the HMD 102 to aid the HMD 102 in the second partial rendering workload 100(2)” (Malaika: 0039)),
Such that the at least one second electronic device processes the first part of the target processing task (“the host computer 106 and the HMD 102 are configured to work together in a collaborative fashion by splitting the rendering workload for a given frame into partial workloads performed on the respective devices” (Malaika: 0043). “splitting a rendering workload for an individual frame between the HMD and the host computer such that the host computer performs a first portion of the rendering workload and the HMD performs a second portion of the rendering workload” (Malaika: 0015));
Wherein the first part of the target processing task is the remaining task in the target processing task except a second part of the target processing task processed by the first electronic device (“for a given frame, the host computer 106 is configured to perform a first partial rendering workload 100(1) (e.g., a first portion of the rendering workload 100 for a given frame), and the HMD 102 is configured to perform a second partial rendering workload 100(2) (e.g., a second portion of the rendering workload 100 for the given frame)” (Malaika: 0021)),
And the target device cluster is a resource cluster including multiple electronic devices (the host computer 106 and HMD 102 configured to work together in a collaborative fashion (Malaika: 0043)).
Regarding claim 11, Malaika teaches the device according to claim 10, wherein the processor is further configured to: send a task processing request to a third electronic device to determine the at least one second electronic device capable of processing the task processing request through the third electronic device (“the rendering workload 100 can be partitioned between more than two devices, such as three device: the host computer 106, the intermediate computing device 802, and the HMD 102.” (Malaika: 0090)),
Wherein the third electronic device is a device determined from a target device cluster (“the host computer 106 is communicatively coupled to the HMD 102 via an intermediate computing device 802, such as a laptop or a tablet computer” (Malaika: 0090)).
Regarding claim 12, Malaika teaches the device according to claim 11, wherein when determining the at least one second electronic device capable of processing the task processing request through the third electronic device, the processor is further configured to perform at least one of:
In response to the task processing request carrying target identification information, and the target identification information matching identification information of at least one electronic device in the target device cluster, determining the at least one electronic device matching the target identification information as the at least one second electronic device (“FIG. 1 depicts example implementations of a host computer 106 in the form of a laptop 106(1) carried in a backpack, for example, or a personal computer (PC) 106(N), which may be situated in the user's 104 household” (Malaika: 0020).
Note, selecting a host device (such as between a laptop 106(1) and PC 106(N)) via a network identifiers (hostname, MAC, IP address) corresponds to “matching the target identification information” for the purpose of determining the second electronic device, as presently claimed (Malaika:));
In response to the task processing request carrying the target identification information, but the target identification information not being matched in the target device cluster, determining the at least one second electronic device capable of processing the task processing request based on the task processing request and a device resource status of each electronic device in the target device cluster;
Or in response to the task processing request not carrying the target identification information, determining the at least one second electronic device capable of processing the task processing request based on the task processing request and the device resource status of each electronic device in the target device cluster (“When a user of the HMD disclosed herein wishes to play a video game with richer graphics, however, the user may operate the HMD in connected mode to leverage the additional graphics processing capacity of the host computer by connecting the HMD thereto, either over a wired or wireless communication link. A wired communication link may still be utilized by users who wish to play video games with richer graphics for long periods of time by leveraging the additional power capacity of the host computer (e.g., so the HMD does not run out of battery power)” (Malaika: 0018). As cited, Malaika dynamically selects the processing target (local host, remote server, HMD/headset) based on what is being requested (rich graphics vs simple video), and/or the resource states of the devices (battery level, power capacity, network latency) (Malaika: )).
Regarding claim 14, the device according to claim 10, wherein the processor is further configured to:
Merge a processing result of the first part of the target processing task fed back by the at least one second electronic device and a processing result of the second part of the target processing task (“At 516, the logic of the HMD 102 (e.g., the compositor 116) may apply re-projection adjustments to the pixel data 136 based at least in part on the extra pixel data 138(3) received at block 514 to obtain modified pixel data 518” (Malaika: 0077). Note, pixel data 136 and extra data 138 fed back by the host computer corresponds to the “processing result of the first part.” The re-projection adjustments correspond to the “processing result of the second part.”)
and then feed it back to the target application (“to output the modified pixel data to a frame buffer (e.g., a stereo frame buffer) so that a corresponding image(s) can be presented on the display panel(s) 108 of the HMD 102.” (Malaika: 0029). Note, under BRI, outputting the final modified pixel data to the display pipeline, graphics application or frame buffer to render the image corresponds to feeding it back to the target application);
And/or send a task completion notification to the at least one second electronic device through a third electronic device (the wireless access point (AP) 800 through which devices communicate with each other corresponds to the “third electronic device” (Malaika: 0089)) to disconnect the target communication connection with the at least one second electronic device (“The host computer 106 can discard head tracking data 122 that is older than a predefined age to conserve memory resources, while retaining at least some past head tracking data 122” (Malaika: 0064)).
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5 are corresponding method claim(s) of claim(s) 10-12 and 14. The limitations of claim(s) 1-3 and 5 are substantially similar to the limitations of claim(s) 10-12 and 14. Therefore, it has been analyzed and rejected substantially similar to claim(s) 1-3 and 5.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 are corresponding computer-readable storage medium claim(s) of claim(s) 10 and 11. The limitations of claim(s) 19 and 20 are substantially similar to the limitations of claim(s) 10 and 11. Therefore, it has been analyzed and rejected substantially similar to claim(s) 19 and 20. Note, Malaika teaches a computer-readable storage medium (Malaika: 0028).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malaika as applied to the claim(s) above, and further in view of Guim et al. (PGPUB Document No. US 2021/0144517).
Regarding claim 13, Malaika teaches the device according to claim 10, wherein when sending the first part of the target processing task to the at least one second electronic device through the target communication connection such that the at least one second electronic device processes the first part of the target processing task (“the host computer 106 and the HMD 102 are configured to work together in a collaborative fashion by splitting the rendering workload for a given frame into partial workloads performed on the respective devices” (Malaika: 0043)...splitting a rendering workload for an individual frame between the HMD and the host computer such that the host computer performs a first portion of the rendering workload and the HMD performs a second portion of the rendering workload” (Malaika: 0015)).
However, Malaika does not expressly teach but Guim teaches the processor is further configured to perform at least one of:
In response to the at least one second electronic device being unique, directly sending the first part of the target processing task to the unique second electronic device such that the unique second electronic device and the first electronic device process the target processing task in parallel or in series (“edge computing devices and entities to dynamically support multiple entities” (Guim: 0088)…managed or orchestrated in multi-tenant and multi-service edge computing configurations” (Guim: 0089). Note, Guim teaches parallel processing of workloads (Guim: 0480, 0482));
Or in response to the second electronic device being not unique, sending subtasks of the first part of the target processing task to the corresponding second electronic device based on a device resource status of each second electronic device such that the non-unique second electronic devices and the first electronic device process corresponding processing tasks in parallel or in series.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art to apply the edge orchestration and parallel task distribution teachings of Guim to the multi-device rendering system of Malaika , because the dynamic load balancing of Guim helps improving hardware overloading, bottlenecks and efficient resource utilization.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malaika as applied to the claim(s) above, and further in view of Leroy et al. (PGPUB Document No. US 2013/0127858).
Regarding claim 15, Malaika does not expressly teach but Leroy teaches the device according to claim 10, wherein the processor is further configured to:
Intercept a target application's call request to a GPU of the first electronic device through a first graphics library interface, and divide the target processing task into the first part of the target processing task and the second part of the target processing task based on a device resource status of the first electronic device (“an interceptor 150 may intercept one or more function calls 115 intended for a graphics API 130” (Leroy: 0019)…cause the GPU 200 to perform the requested operation(s) (e.g., render the scene)” (Leroy: 0033). Leroy teaches an interception system where an interceptor 150 intercepts API function calls 115 (to the GPU) and divides/redirects the geometry 116B and shaders 220B to optimize rendering).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art to apply Leroy’s API interception teaching to Malaika’s split rendering system, because this enables efficient collaboration when rendering among multiple devices.
Regarding claim 16, the device according to claim 15, wherein:
Intercepting the target application's call request to the GPU of the first electronic device through the target graphics library interface includes intercepting a call request sent by the target application to its kernel mode through a user mode of a graphics driver model after the first graphics library interface (“the interceptor 150 may comprise a driver or virtual driver for the graphics API 130” (Leroy: 0022). “the interceptor 150 may replace the original implementation of the graphics API 130 only for a selected set of programs…the interceptor 150 may be given the original filename of the original implementation of the graphics API 130” (Leroy: 0023));
And correspondingly, sending the first part of the target processing task to the at least one second electronic device through the target communication connection includes sending the first part of the target processing task to the at least one second electronic device after encoding (“…the host computer 106 (e.g., the render component 132) may compress and/or serialize data that is to be sent to the HMD 102 for purposes of rendering imagery… The compression at block 314 may be optimized for a pre-distorted image(s)” (Malaika: 0052). “…the host computer 106 may send, to the HMD 102, data that includes the pixel data 136 and extra data 138” (Malaika: 0053)),
And passing the second part of the target processing task to a GPU driver layer of the first electronic device for subsequent processing (Leroy teaches the local interceptor generating and passing commands to the GPU (driver layer) to perform local GPU processing (Leroy: 0033). When combined with Malaika, the local client device (HMD) by passes offloading the local second partial workload and route the tasks/instructions to the local GPU (Malaika: 0021)).
Claims 6 and 7 correspond to claims 15 and 16. Therefore, the rejections to claims 6 and 7 similarly applies to claims 15 and 16.
Claim(s) 8, 9, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malaika as applied to the claim(s) above, and further in view of Leroy in view of Guim.
Regarding claim 17, Malaika does not expressly teach but Leroy teaches the device according to claim 10, wherein the processor is further configured to: intercept a target application's call request to a first graphics library interface through a second graphics library interface (as stated in the rejection to claim 16 above, graphics API 130 corresponds to the “first graphics library interface” and the virtual driver interceptor wrapper 150 corresponds to the “second graphics library interface” (Leroy: 0019). Leroy teaches modifying the original library filename, and the interceptor 150 may be given the original filename (Leroy: 0023) for redirecting and intercepting GPU call requests),
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art to apply Leroy’s API interception teaching to Malaika’s split rendering system, because this enables efficient collaboration when rendering among multiple devices.
However, the combined teachings above do not expressly teach but Guim teaches
and split the target application’s call request into a first call request and at least one second call request based on a device resource status of the first electronic device and a device resource status of other electronic devices in the target device cluster (Guim teaches edge collaboration device clusters exchange local and peer-level resource utilization data (Guim: 0457). Therefore, the cluster orchestrator “splits” the incoming workload into local and remote subtasks to “divide and conquer” execution in parallel (Guim: 0480),
to send the first call request to the first graphics library interface and send the at least one second call request to a third graphics library interface of the at least one second electronic device (“Within edge computing networks, there may be scenarios in services which the compute resource will be “moved” to the data” (Guim: 0110)…at a client computer (client PC 1024) may invoke processing capabilities further in the edge cloud” (Guim: 0154). Guim teaches routing the remaining offloaded workload portions over the edge network to invoke remote GPU interfaces. This corresponds to sending the second call request to a “third graphics library interface” on the second device, as presently claimed).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art to apply the edge orchestration and parallel task distribution teachings of Guim to the multi-device rendering system of the combined teachings above, because the dynamic load balancing of Guim helps improving hardware overloading, bottlenecks and efficient resource utilization.
Regarding claim 18, the device according to claim 10, wherein the processor is further configured to:
intercept a target application’s call request to a first graphics library interface through a second graphics library interface (as stated in the rejection to claim 16 above, graphics API 130 corresponds to the “first graphics library interface” and the virtual driver interceptor wrapper 150 corresponds to the “second graphics library interface” (Leroy: 0019). Leroy teaches modifying the original library filename, and the interceptor 150 may be given the original filename (Leroy: 0023) for redirecting and intercepting GPU call requests),
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art to apply Leroy’s API interception teaching to Malaika’s split rendering system, because this enables efficient collaboration when rendering among multiple devices.
However, the combined teachings above do not expressly teach but Guim teaches
and split the target application’s call request into at least one second call request based on a device resource status of the target device cluster (evaluating active and predicted execution states across edge nodes in the cluster to determine load-balancing configuration and workload divisions (Guim: 0486)), to send the at least one second call request to a third graphics library interface of the at least one second electronic device (routing the offloaded call request to a GPU on a remote edge node (Guim: 0154)).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art to applying the cluster-wide orchestration of Guim to the combined teachings above, because this enables efficiently partitioning and load-balancing workloads across a multi-device network.
Claims 8 and 9 correspond to claims 17 and 18. Therefore, the rejections to claims 8 and 9 similarly applies to claims 17 and 18.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David H Chu whose telephone number is (571)272-8079. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30 - 1:30pm, 3:30-8:30pm.
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, Daniel F Hajnik can be reached at (571) 272-7642. 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.
/DAVID H CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2616
Prosecution Insights