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
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Ki et al., (US 11,782,833).
As per claim 1, 9, and 1, Ki teaches a method, comprising: receiving, by a cloud computing 6environment (Fig. 1), a request to execute an application (available on gaming server, Fig. 2, 202, col. 6, lines 45-col. 8); collecting, by the cloud computing environment, resource usage information (i.e. “enough bandwidth to serve the game” Fig.5D)that quantifies resources (“enough space by evicting inactive game(s), Fig.5D) used by the application over a period of time (Fig. 5a-5d); generating, by the cloud computing environment, an application profile (user devices 104/106, Fig2) that corresponds to the application (selected from gaming server, Fig. 4, col. 8, lines 4-col. 9, lines 1-25), the application profile identifying a resource usage of the application in the cloud computing environment (Figs.5A-5D, col. 9, lines 26-col. 14, lines 1-3); and sending, by the cloud computing environment to a computing device (user devices 104/106 individual game consoles), the application profile (part of Figs. 2-3) for a determination of a resource configuration suitable for executing the application in a computing environment that is external to the cloud computing environment. (i.e. “enough bandwidth to serve the game” Fig.5D that quantifies resources (“enough space by evicting inactive game(s), Fig.5D).
Kai teaches a cloud gaming system using libraries and APIs to store a catalog of gaming applications to enable user devices (individually gaming consoles) to store and access a catalog of content. Kai teaches having a storage device pool configured to load gaming application(s) content from among the catalog of content. Kia teaches determining an available bandwidth for serving the requested content based on passed user device’s usage and based on this develop a “profile” of individual user devices. As per claims 9 and 16, see the rejection for claim 1.
As per claim 2, Kai teaches wherein the resource usage of the application comprises one or more of an input/output (1/O) rate, a central processor utilization, and a random access memory (RAM) utilization over the period of time. (Figs.5A-5D, col. 9, lines 26-col. 14, lines 1-3)
As per claim 3. Kai teaches wherein the application comprises a plurality of services that communicate with one another. (available on gaming server, Fig. 2, 202, col. 6, lines 45-col. 8);
As per claim 4, Kai teaches wherein the resource usage of the application comprises one or more of an input/output (1/O) rate, a central processor utilization, and a random access memory (RAM) utilization over the period of time for each service of the plurality of services. (i.e. “enough bandwidth to serve the game” Fig.5D that quantifies resources (“enough space by evicting inactive game(s), Fig.5D).
As per claim 5, Kai teaches wherein each service of the plurality of services comprises a container. (col. 5, lines 61-col. 6, lines 1-41)
As per claim 6, Kai teaches wherein the application is executed in a plurality of geographic locations (Fig. 5 “request a location of the game”), and wherein the application profile identifies the resource usage of the application in each geographic location of the plurality of geographic locations. (Figs.5A-5D, col. 9, lines 26-col. 14, lines 1-3)
As per claim 7, Kai teaches further comprising prior to sending the application profile (shared namespaces, col. 2, lines 28-64) to the computing device, receiving, by the cloud computing environment from the computing device, a request for the application profile.
As per claim 8, Kai teaches wherein generating, by the cloud computing environment, the application profile is performed in response to the request for the application profile. (col. 5, lines 61-col. 6, lines 1-41)
As per claims 10-15 and 17-20, see the rejection for claims 2-8 above.
RELEVENT ART CITED BY THE EXAMINER
The following prior art made of record and relied upon is citied to establish the level of skill in the applicant’s art and those arts considered reasonably pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See MPEP 707.05(c).
The sited prior art Dharmapurikar et al., (US 2021/0245047) teaches cloud-based server is selected for a latency insensitive cloud-based game and the edge server is selected for a latency sensitive game; and receive a stream of output of remote execution of the cloud-based game from the remote execution resource. ([0205, 0215,0216, Fig. 17a and 21])
Conclusion
The examiner requests, in response to this office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application. When responding to this office action, applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37 C.F.R.I .Hi(c). In amending in reply to a rejection of claims in an application or patent under reexamination, the applicant or patent owner must clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. The applicant or patent owner must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMMARA R PEYTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4157. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm, EST M-F. 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, Henry Tsai can be reached on 571-272-4176. 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.
/TAMMARA R PEYTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2184 June 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights