DETAILED ACTION
1. This is a first office action in response to application no. 19/254,934 filed on June 30, 2025 in which claims 1-14 are presented for examination.
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
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-2, 7-9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chhaochharia et al (US Patent Application Publication no. 2013/0151651).
Regarding claim 1 Chhaochharia discloses an apparatus comprising: a processor (See [0005]) configured to: receive, from a device, an identifier of a user action (See [0007]); determine a predicted game state based on the identifier (See [0005], [0035] and [0037]); generate a predicted frame based on the predicted game state (See Fig. 4, and [0036] “dynamically updating probabilities for predictively caching path segments in a multi-path game”); and send, in video data to the device, an encoded predicted frame and associated metadata (See [0037], [0041]).
As per claim 8, Chhaochharia discloses a method comprising: receiving, from a device, an identifier of a user action (See [0007] and [0036]); determining a predicted game state based on the identifier (See [0005], [0035] and [0037]); generating a predicted frame based on the predicted game state (See Fig. 4, and [0036] “dynamically updating probabilities for predictively caching path segments in a multi-path game”); and sending, in video data to the device, an encoded predicted frame and associated metadata (See [0037], [0041]).
As per claims 2 and 9, Chhaochharia further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: generate the encoded predicted frame based on performing at least one encoding function on the predicted frame (See [0021], [0024], [0045] “note the encoding of information”).
As per claims 7 and 14, Chhaochharia further discloses wherein the associated metadata indicates a link between the encoded predicted frame and the user action (See Chhaochharia [0053] “perform actions associated with predictive caching in cloud-based gaming”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claims 3-6 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chhaochharia et al (US Patent Application Publication no. 2013/0151651) in view of Umansky et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2020/0314479).
Regarding claims 3-4 and 10-11, it is noted that Chhaochharia is silent about wherein the associated metadata indicates timing information associated with the encoded predicted frame.
However, Umansky teaches wherein the associated metadata indicates timing information associated with the encoded predicted frame (Umansky [0006], [0038] and [0092]).
Therefore, it is considered obvious that one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of modifying Chhaochharia to incorporate Umansky’s teachings wherein the associated metadata indicates timing information associated with the encoded predicted frame. The motivation for performing such a modification in Chhaochharia is to use a timed metadata, that will provide an indication of the order in which the video chunks for display, and may be included in the content received by a content provider.
As per claim 5 and 12, most of the limitations of these claims have been noted in the above rejection of claims 1 and 8.
It is noted that although Chhaochharia discloses network latency (See Chhaochharia [0021]-[0022]), it is silent about determining a lookahead timing value based on the measured latency, wherein the lookahead timing value is included in the associated metadata.
However, Umansky teaches determining a lookahead timing value based on the measured latency, wherein the lookahead timing value is included in the associated metadata (See Umansky [0116], [0121], [0126]-[0127]).
Therefore, it is considered obvious that one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of modifying Chhaochharia to incorporate Umansky’s teachings to determine a lookahead timing value based on the measured latency, wherein the lookahead timing value is included in the associated metadata. The motivation for performing such a modification in Chhaochharia to performs synchronization based on timing metadata in the received stream and a self-correcting clock, thereby ensuring proper synchronization.
NOTE: The Applicant should not that predictive timing is a look ahead timing.
As per claims 6 and 13, the combination of Chhaochharia and Umansky further teaches wherein a higher lookahead timing value is associated with a higher network latency resilience, and wherein a lower lookahead timing value is associated with a more accurate predicted game state (See Umansky [0024] and [0041]).
NOTE: The Applicant should not that predictive timing is a look ahead timing.
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIMS S PHILIPPE whose telephone number is (571)272-7336. The examiner can normally be reached Maxi Flex.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/GIMS S PHILIPPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights