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 .
Preliminary Amendment
Applicant’s submission of a preliminary amendment on 2/8/2024 has been received and considered. In the amendment, Applicant amended claims 1, 3, 5, 9 - 11. Therefore, claims 1 – 11 are pending.
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 1 - 11 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 1 recites the limitation "the recording" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, it is unclear “the recording” is referring to “a recording instruction”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the virtual scene comprising at least one model” in line 4 and “at least one model of the virtual scene” in lines 10 and 11. It is not clear if these are the same element or distinct elements. For clarity, when multiple terms have the same name but are intended to be distinct elements, clearly distinct labels, such as "first element" and "second element" should be used to make the distinct nature clear. Conversely, if the terms are to the same element, a consistent name should be used with “said” or “the” when referring back.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “at least one model” in lines 1 -2. It is not clear if this is the same element or a distinct element to the same named element of claim 1, line 4. For clarity, when multiple terms have the same name but are intended to be distinct elements, clearly distinct labels, such as "first element" and "second element" should be used to make the distinct nature clear. Conversely, if the terms are to the same element, a consistent name should be used with “said” or “the” when referring back.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “at least one model of the virtual scene” in line 2. It is not clear if this is the same element or a distinct element to the same named element of claim 1, line 4. For clarity, when multiple terms have the same name but are intended to be distinct elements, clearly distinct labels, such as "first element" and "second element" should be used to make the distinct nature clear. Conversely, if the terms are to the same element, a consistent name should be used with “said” or “the” when referring back.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “at least one model of the virtual scene” in lines 2 and 3. It is not clear if this is the same element or a distinct element to the same named element of claim 1, line 4. For clarity, when multiple terms have the same name but are intended to be distinct elements, clearly distinct labels, such as "first element" and "second element" should be used to make the distinct nature clear. Conversely, if the terms are to the same element, a consistent name should be used with “said” or “the” when referring back.
All dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the claim(s) from which they depend and are similarly rejected for the same reason.
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
As to Claim 9 which discloses a computer-readable storage medium, is rejected under 101, for having a non-statutory matter. The claim is drawn to a "computer-readable medium". The specification is silent regarding the meaning of this term. Thus, applying the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification and taking into account the meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2111), the claim as a whole covers both transitory and non-transitory media. A transitory medium does not fall into any of the 4 categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Therefore, when the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non- statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007 (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter).
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2.
The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim. Cf. Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation "non- human" to a claim covering a multi-cellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The examiner suggest that the claims to be amended to read "a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium" within the claim.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 29 is directed to software per se, which is ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by George (US Pub. No. 2015/0375102 A1).
As per claim 1, George discloses a method for playing back a virtual scene, used for an electronic device, the method comprising: receiving a recording instruction to record state data at beginning of the recording and change data during a recording process, of the virtual scene comprising at least one model (the game play of the players during the game session may be recorded to a game record. Note that a game record may represent a particular timeline with a particular sequence of events that occurred in the game universe during the recorded game session, see Fig. 2 and [0045]); and receiving a playback instruction, and playing back the virtual scene based on the state data and the change data (see Fig.3 and [0056] – [0058]), wherein, when the virtual scene is played back, an operation instruction is received and an operation result is displayed, the operation instruction comprising any combination of controlling at least one model of the virtual scene and generating an interaction event with at least one model of the virtual scene (during playback, a player can take control of a character during the playback and create a new timeline based off the changes made during the controlling of the character during playback, see [0056] – [0058]).
As per claim 2, George discloses the controlling at least one model of the virtual scene comprises: controlling at least one existing model in the virtual scene or adding a new model
in the virtual scene based on the operation instruction and controlling the new model (upon detecting that the player has assumed control of the character in the game session being played back from the game record as indicated at 302, the actions of one or more other characters in the original game session at the time of the spawn event may from that point forward at least initially be controlled by logic (e.g., artificial intelligence (AI) logic) of the game system according to the players' attributes as recorded in the player profiles corresponding to the characters, Fig. 3 and [0058]).
As per claim 3, George discloses the generating the interaction event with at least one model of the virtual scene comprises: adding a new model to the virtual scene based on the operation instruction, so that an interaction event is generated between at least one existing model in the virtual scene and the new model (see [0054] – [0055]).
As per claim 4, George discloses ending the playback in a case that at least one model of the virtual scene is controlled and/or an interaction event with at least one model of the virtual scene is generated (see [0060]).
As per claim 5, George discloses the state data comprises: a physical form, a position, and an action of the at least one model (the record state data includes game session’s context, characters and environment, see [0029] and [0045]).
As per claim 6, George discloses the change data comprises: the state data that is changed and that is recorded at predetermined time interval (see [0052] and [0056] – [0058]).
As per claim 7, George discloses the playing back the virtual scene based on the state data and the change data further comprises: determining resolutions of the at least one model according to a performance parameter of the electronic device or the operation instruction, and rendering and playing back the virtual scene based on modeling data of the at least one model (see [0054] – [0057]).
As per claim 8, George discloses the operation instruction further comprises: pausing or resuming playing back the virtual scene (playback control interface via game client to the player so that the player can control playback of the game session, for example via video playback controls such as jump back, jump forward, fast playback, slow playback, and so on, see [0064]).
As per claim 9, the instant claim is a computer-readable storage medium in which corresponds to the method of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the reasons set forth.
As per claim 10, the instant claim is an electronic device in which corresponds to the method of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the reasons set forth.
As per claim 11, the instant claim is a computer program in which corresponds to the method of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the reasons set forth.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is listed on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANKIT B DOSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-7863. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri. ~8:30 - ~5:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. 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.
/ANKIT B DOSHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3715