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 .
Applicant’s Submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of a response on 5/14/2026 has been received and considered. In the response, Applicant amended claims 1 – 4 and 9 – 11. Therefore, claims 1 – 11 are pending.
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 a recording process and change data during the 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, wherein the playback is performed based on one or more performance parameters of the electronic device (a player selects a stored game record and “begins playback of the previously played game session” and the game system “regenerates the game universe” from the stored state data and change data and renders the state of the game universe as it progresses along the timeline indicated by the game record, see Fig.1B-C and 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 of the models and generating an interaction event with at least one of the models (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 of the models (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 the one or more performance parameters 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 5/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, the amendments have help overcome the 35 USC 112 and 35 USC 101 rejection.
Applicant argues on p. 7 that claim 1 has been amended to recite that “the playback is performed based on one or more performance parameters of the electronic device,” and that George “does not consider the performance parameters of an electronic device while performing playback”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
George expressly discloses that the game client is “tailored to support the configuration and capabilities of the particular device 120 type and the OS platform of the device” (see [0038]) and that the manner in which the virtual scene is rendered and delivered during playback depends on the hardware and rendering capabilities of the client electronic device. Specifically, George discloses that resource-limited “thin” game client devices having “hardware and/or software limitations that limit the device” capabilities as game clients to process and render data in real time” (see [0127]) and receive game video that is rendered on the provider network and streamed to the device (Fig. 14). Whereas “thick” client devices that implement a rendering component instead render and display the scene locally from game universe data (Fig. 13). George further discloses that this capability-dependent rendering applies during replay, stating that “at least some rendering may instead be performed at the client device … by a thick game client” when the recorded game session is played back (see [0063]).
Therefore, George performs the rendering and display of the played-back virtual scene based on one or more performance parameters (i.e., the hardware and rendering capabilities) of the electronic device, the newly-added limitation of claim 1 does not distinguish over George. Therefore, the 35 USC 102 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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.
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, 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
Prosecution Insights