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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 29th July, 2026. Claims 1, 7, and 13 have been amended. Claims 3, 9, and 14 have been cancelled. Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-13, and 15-21 remain rejected in the application. Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the non-final office action mailed 29th April, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to Claims 1, 7, and 13, filed on 29th July, 2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 regarding that the prior art does not teach "in response to user input, updating the rendering effect within the value range specified by the metadata by modifying only pixels of the patch pictures associated with the 3D object" and "bounding-box data restricting the user-modifiable rendering effect to the associated object". The proposed amended claim limitations have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Therefore, applicant’s remark cannot be considered persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the prior art does not teach "in response to user input, updating the rendering effect within the value range specified by the metadata by modifying only pixels of the patch pictures associated with the 3D object" as recited in Claim 1, these limitations are taught by the combination of Ilola and Du. In particular, Du teaches the following:
Paragraph [0195]: discloses "the client computer sends an indication of the user input to a metadata generator at the server computer system, which reacts by adjusting the metadata to account for the user input," which is used to adjust special effects;
Paragraph [0193]: discloses metadata including parameters, which are user-modifiable, that specifies effects to be added to the dynamic 3D model for one or more objects;
Paragraph [0201]: discloses the rendering component modifying texture values of texture maps, interpreted to be pixels of patch pictures, applied to a dynamic 3D model of a given viewpoint; and
Paragraph [0212]: discloses the rendering component adding stylized edges and/or surfaces to a rendered view of a textured, dynamic 3D model, where "the applied texture values can be color values and/or alpha (opacity/transparency) values dependent on normal vector values for at least some points of the dynamic 3D model"; opacity and transparency values must have value ranges that define how opaque or transparent the effect should be (e.g., 0 being transparent and 100 being opaque).
Therefore, applicant’s remark cannot be considered persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the prior art does not teach "bounding-box data restricting the user-modifiable rendering effect to the associated object" as recited in Claim 1, these limitations are taught by the combination of Ilola, Chang, Vienneau, and Du. In particular, Du teaches the following:
Paragraph [0174]: discloses a metadata generator 1517 setting metadata 1523 that specifies one or more special effects for rendered views;
Paragraph [0193]: discloses metadata including parameters, which are user-modifiable, that specifies effects, interpreted to be rendering effects, to be added to the dynamic 3D model for one or more objects;
Paragraph [0192]: discloses the dynamic 3D model being a deformable volumetric representation; 3D volumetric models inherently use a bounding box, such as an axis aligned bounding box, for faster calculations; in addition, bounding boxes, by their very nature, restricts data to within the set boundaries of the bounding box; therefore, anything applied within the boundaries of the bounding box stays within the bounding box, such as an applied glassy filter on the object;
Paragraph [0195]: discloses a user input that indicates a setting/preference for one or more special effects and adjusting the metadata to account for the user input; and
Paragraph [0201]: discloses the rendering component modifying texture values of texture maps applied to a dynamic 3D model of a given viewpoint.
Therefore, applicant’s remark cannot be considered persuasive.
Regarding arguments to Claims 2, 4-6, 8, 10-12, and 15-21, they directly/indirectly depend on independent Claims 1, 7, and 13 respectively. Applicant does not argue anything other than independent Claims 1, 7, and 13. The limitations in those claims, in conjunction with combination, was previously established as explained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ilola et al. (US 20230134675 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Ilola, in view of Du et al. (US 20190213778 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Du.
Regarding Claim 1, Ilola discloses a method (Ilola, [0135]: teaches a method comprises receiving, by a client device, information about a scene associated with a 3D presentation for initiating viewport rendering by an application) comprising:
obtaining an atlas image (Ilola, FIG. 5 teaches decoded picture pairs/atlases <read on atlas images>),
PNG
media_image1.png
404
581
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the atlas image packing patch pictures (Ilola, [0145]: teaches packing identified 2D patches <read on patch pictures> into one or more novel atlases),
the atlas image being representative of a three-dimensional scene (3D) (Ilola, [0148]: teaches the server determining necessary patches and image data associated with the patches to define an atlas that represents a portion of a scene <read on 3D scene>);
obtaining metadata comprising, for a 3D object of the 3D scene, an identification of the 3D object (Ilola, [0145]: teaches generating metadata that describes (e.g., identifies or an identification) the layout of 2D patches on the atlases, which is then used to generate one or more metadata bitstreams containing said layout of the 2D patches and information required to re-project said 2D patches into the 3D representation <read on 3D object>),
[[a value range for a rendering effect associated with the 3D object and]]
data associating the (3D) object with patch pictures of the atlas image (Ilola, [0145]: teaches packing identified 2D patches into one or more novel atlases, where the server generates "one or more metadata bitstream containing said layout of the 2D patches and information required to re-project said 2D patches into the 3D representation <read on 3D object>"; [0148]: teaches the server determining the needed patches and image data associated with the patches <read on patch pictures>);
rendering a view of the 3D scene by inverse projecting pixels of the atlas image for a point of view (Ilola, [0047]: teaches the decoder decoding the video and performing an inverse projection to regenerate the 3D scene in any desired representation format; [0079]: teaches "the image generation process exploits the 3D to 2D mapping computed during the packing process to store the geometry and texture of the point cloud as images <read on atlas images>," where "in order to better handle the case of multiple points being projected to the same pixel, each patch is projected onto two images, referred to as layers"; FIG. 7 teaches step 706, which renders the given viewport <read on point of view> as a sub-segment of the 3D representation of the scene based on said one or more 2D patches and the related metadata; Note: it should be noted that inverse projecting pixels is being interpreted as mapping pixels from a 3D scene to a 2D display, which would serve as a way to render only visible pixels, thus saving on rendering performance) and
PNG
media_image2.png
424
455
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[[by applying a default value belonging to the value range for the rendering effect to the pixels of the patch pictures associated with the (3D) object;]]
[[determining, during rendering, whether the 3D object is subject to a dynamic modification of the rendering effect;]]
[[in response to user input, updating the rendering effect within the value range specified by the metadata by modifying only pixels of the patch pictures associated with the 3D object; and]]
[[displaying an interface to allow a user to modify the value of the rendering effect within the value range.]]
However, Ilola does not expressly disclose
a value range for a rendering effect associated with the 3D object and
by applying a default value belonging to the value range for the rendering effect to the pixels of the patch pictures associated with the (3D) object;
determining, during rendering, whether the 3D object is subject to a dynamic modification of the rendering effect;
in response to user input, updating the rendering effect within the value range specified by the metadata by modifying only pixels of the patch pictures associated with the 3D object; and
displaying an interface to allow a user to modify the value of the rendering effect within the value range.
Du discloses
a value range for a rendering effect associated with the 3D object (Du, [0030]: teaches a rendering component applying special effects indicated by metadata to rendered views of a textured, dynamic 3D model <read on 3D object> in a virtual scene <read on 3D scene, where the rendering component applying special effects <read on rendering effect> indicated by metadata to rendered views of a textured, dynamic 3D model; [0032]: teaches a texture value including an opacity value <read on value range> that defines an opacity associated with a point/location; the opacity is being interpreted as having a level between being fully opaque and fully transparent; [0174]: teaches a server computer system 1511 including a metadata generator 1517 that sets metadata 1523 that specifies one or more special effects for rendered views, which is associated with a dynamic 3D model) and
by applying a default value belonging to the value range for the rendering effect to the pixels of the patch pictures associated with the (3D) object (Du, [0153]: teaches the rendering component determining the initial texture weights <read on default value> for a current frame, which are based on texture values that include alpha/opacity values; [0212]: teaches as part of the rendering, the rendering component projects some points of the dynamic 3D model to locations in the view, "and assign corresponding applied texture values to the locations in the view," such as applying filters to modify the appearance of the dynamic 3D model);
determining, during rendering, whether the 3D object is subject to a dynamic modification of the rendering effect (Du, [0196]: teaches a client computer system directly adjusting special effects <read on determining dynamic modification> in response to user input, where it specifies how the special effects <read on rendering effects> are incorporated into rendered views);
in response to user input, updating the rendering effect within the value range specified by the metadata by modifying only pixels of the patch pictures associated with the 3D object (Du, [0195]: teaches "the client computer sends an indication of the user input to a metadata generator at the server computer system, which reacts by adjusting the metadata to account for the user input," which is used to adjust special effects; [0193]: teaches metadata including parameters, which are user-modifiable, that specifies effects to be added to the dynamic 3D model for one or more objects; [0201]: teaches the rendering component modifying texture values of texture maps <read on pixels of patch pictures> applied to a dynamic 3D model of a given viewpoint; [0212]: teaches the rendering component adding stylized edges and/or surfaces to a rendered view of a textured, dynamic 3D model, where "the applied texture values can be color values and/or alpha (opacity/transparency) values dependent on normal vector values for at least some points of the dynamic 3D model"; Note: it should be noted that opacity and transparency values must have value ranges that define how opaque or transparent the effect should be (e.g., 0 being transparent and 100 being opaque)); and
displaying an interface to allow a user to modify the value of the rendering effect within the value range (Du, [0196]: teaches the client computer system directly adjusting special effects <read on modify value of rendering effect> in response to user input <read on displayed interface>, where the user input indicates a setting and/or preference for the special effects, such as modifying color, luminance, and alpha values <read on value range> of texture values; [0201]: teaches the rendering component modifying texture values of texture maps, where the texture values include color values and alpha values, which is interpreted to be user-modifiable).
Du is analogous art with respect to Ilola because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely incorporating 2D atlases for reconstructing volumetric video. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a metadata generator that allows for user-specified special effects, such as the alpha, luminance, and color values, of associated dynamic 3D models as taught by Du into the teaching of Ilola. The suggestion for doing so would allow the user to modify the appearance of the associated dynamic 3D model in real-time, thereby improving the overall user experience. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Du with Ilola.
Regarding Claim 7, it recites the limitations that are similar in scope to Claim 1, but in a device. As shown in the rejection, the combination of Ilola and Du discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Additionally, Ilola discloses a device comprising a memory associated with a processor configured for (Ilola, [0164]: teaches a client device comprising at least one processor and at least one memory):…
Thus, Claim 7 is met by Ilola according to the mapping presented in the rejection of Claim 1, given the method corresponds to a device.
Regarding Claims 2 and 8, the combination of Ilola and Du discloses the method and the device of Claims 1 and 7 respectively. Additionally, Ilola further discloses wherein
[[when the value of the rendering effect is modified to a new value, the method comprises:]]
on condition that the metadata comprise data associating the 3D object with a bounding box, apply the [[new]] value to pixels of the associated patch pictures inverse projected in the bounding box (Ilola, [0151]: teaches the server maintaining data that describes "a division of the scene into a plurality of sub-viewing-volumes <read on data that associates 3D object with bounding box>, wherein each sub-viewing-volume is associated with one or more slices and/or atlases <read on pixels of associated patch pictures> of volumetric data" and the sub-viewing-volumes are defined as bounding boxes; [0155]: teaches "based on the metadata comprising sub-viewing-volume related information, the client device determines <read on condition> which parts of the sub-viewing volume information is required to render the required part of the scene, i.e. the desired viewport");
[[otherwise, apply the new value to pixels of the associated patch pictures.]]
However, Ilola does not expressly disclose
when the value of the rendering effect is modified to a new value, the method comprises:
on condition that the metadata comprise data associating the 3D object with a bounding box, apply the new value to pixels of the associated patch pictures inverse projected in the bounding box;
otherwise, apply the new value to pixels of the associated patch pictures.
Du discloses
when the value of the rendering effect is modified to a new value (Du, [0203]: teaches the rendering component quantizing then converting brightness values <read on new values> and color-difference values to create a special effect <read on modified rendering effect> that is indicated with metadata; Note it should be noted that the texture values and metadata are being interpreted as being updated for a new rendered view), the method comprises:
on condition that the metadata comprise data associating the 3D object with a bounding box, apply the new value to pixels of the associated patch pictures inverse projected in the bounding box (Du, [0203]: teaches the rendering component quantizing then converting brightness values <read on applied new values> and color-difference values);
otherwise, apply the new value to pixels of the associated patch pictures (Du, [0201]: teaches the rendering component modifying texture values of texture maps <read on pixels of associated patch pictures> applied to a dynamic 3D model of a given viewpoint; [0213]: teaches, for a given viewpoint for a current frame, the rendering component assigning an alpha value <read on new value to pixels> depending on how close the normal vector value and output viewpoint are to being perpendicular, where parallel values are nearly transparent and perpendicular are nearly opaque).
Du is analogous art with respect to Ilola because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely incorporating 2D atlases and metadata for reconstructing volumetric video. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement a rendering component that modifies texture values of an associated dynamic 3D model based on metadata input from the user as taught by Du into the teaching of Ilola. The suggestion for doing so would allow the user to modify the appearance of the associated dynamic 3D model in real-time, thereby improving the overall user experience. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Du with Ilola.
Regarding Claims 5 and 11, the combination of Ilola and Du discloses the method and the device of Claims 1 and 7 respectively. Ilola does not expressly disclose the limitations of Claims 5 and 11; however, Du discloses wherein the rendering effect is
a transparency effect or a color filtering or a blurring or a contrast adapting (Du, [0212]: teaches the rendering component applying a glassy filter effect <read on transparency effect>).
Du is analogous art with respect to Ilola because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely incorporating 2D atlases for reconstructing volumetric video. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a metadata generator that allows for user-specified special effects, such as the alpha values, of associated dynamic 3D models as taught by Du into the teaching of Ilola. The suggestion for doing so would allow the user to modify the appearance of the associated dynamic 3D model in real-time, thereby improving the overall user experience. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Du with Ilola.
Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ilola et al. (US 20230134675 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Ilola, in view of Du et al. (US 20190213778 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Du as applied to Claims 1 and 7 above respectively, and further in view of Mertens (US 20160307602 A1, previously cited).
Regarding Claims 4 and 10, the combination of Ilola and Du discloses the method and the device of Claims 1 and 7 respectively. The combination of Ilola and Du does not expressly disclose the limitations of Claims 4 and 10; however, Mertens discloses wherein the metadata comprise
information indicating whether the value range for the rendering effect associated with the 3D object is an update of a previous or default value range for the rendering effect for the 3D object (Mertens, [0113]: teaches "selected histogram/range/color properties and/or parameters can include, e.g., one or more of at least one luminance value
(
L
x
)
, a minimum and maximum luminance
(
L
m
i
n
,
L
m
a
x
)
<read on update of a default value range>, multipliers for specifying the relationship of a first and second luminance, etc.").
Mertens is analogous art with respect to Ilola, in view of Du because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely capturing video content. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the user be able to update and modify parameters of the video, such as the luminance and color as taught by Mertens into the teaching of Ilola, in view of Du. The suggestion for doing so would allow the user to personalize their viewing experience that they deem is more suitable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Mertens with Ilola, in view of Du.
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ilola et al. (US 20230134675 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Ilola, in view of Du et al. (US 20190213778 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Du as applied to Claims 1 and 7 above respectively, and further in view of Oyman (US 20210021664 A1, previously cited).
Regarding Claims 6 and 12, the combination of Ilola and Du discloses the method and the device of Claims 1 and 7 respectively. The combination of Ilola and Du does not expressly disclose the limitations of Claims 6 and 12; however, Oyman discloses wherein
the metadata are encoded in Supplemental Enhanced Information messages (Oyman, [0130]: teaches "HEVC SEI <read on Supplemental Enhanced Information> messages for each of the dedicated HEVC bitstreams may carry additional metadata on each encoded information, including occupancy map data 730, geometry data 736 and attribute data 714").
Oyman is analogous art with respect to Ilola, in view of Du because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely video data structures. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have high efficiency video coding (HEVC) SEI messages carry additional metadata, such as occupancy map data, geometry data, and attribute data as taught by Oyman into the teaching of Ilola, in view of Du. The suggestion for doing so would enable additional content to be superimposed in the volumetric video input, thereby allowing for more creative video. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Oyman with Ilola, in view of Du.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ilola et al. (US 20230134675 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Ilola, in view of Du et al. (US 20190213778 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Du as applied to Claim 1 above respectively, and further in view of Vienneau et al. (US 20070198584 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Vienneau.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Ilola and Du discloses the method of Claim 1. The combination of Ilola and Du does not expressly disclose the limitations of Claim 18; however, Vienneau discloses wherein the metadata further comprises
a flag identifying the rendering effect as user-adjustable or fixed for the 3D object (Vienneau, [0073]: teaches media (i.e., image data) and metadata, such as data relating to actions performed by the user and information relating to the media; [0091]: teaches allowing a user to perform write operations <read on user-adjustable> on compositions <read on rendering effects>; [0095]: teaches a user having an option to manually set a read-only <read on fixed> flag on a composition <read on rendering effect>).
Vienneau is analogous art with respect to Ilola, in view of Du because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely processing video media for further modifications. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have metadata that tracks the user's modification of a composition, such as a composited video effect, with either automatic and/or manual read-write permissions as taught by Vienneau into the teaching of Ilola, in view of Du. The suggestion for doing so would allow the user to keep track of their previous edits, thereby allowing for easy undo-type edits, thus resulting in a more intuitive user experience. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Vienneau with Ilola, in view of Du.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ilola et al. (US 20230134675 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Ilola, in view of Du et al. (US 20190213778 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Du as applied to Claim 1 above respectively, and further in view of Chang et al. (US 20220067979 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Chang.
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Ilola and Du discloses the method of Claim 1. The combination of Ilola and Du does not expressly disclose the limitations of Claim 19; however, Chang discloses wherein
the rendering effect is limited by a producer-defined minimum and maximum value stored as part of the metadata range (Chang, [0075]: teaches two-partial transparency levels, including minimum and maximum alpha quantization level for alpha values <read on rendering effect> that are stored in metadata; [0075]: further teaches the two partial-transparency levels being set by encoder device 204 <read on producer-defined>).
Chang is analogous art with respect to Ilola, in view of Du because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely processing texture data for 3D rendering. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement a two-partial transparency level system for rendering 3D objects as taught by Chang into the teaching of Ilola, in view of Du. The suggestion for doing so would allow for automatic transparent effects to be applied on the 3D object at a given viewpoint, thereby yielding predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Chang with Ilola, in view of Du.
Claims 13, 16, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ilola et al. (US 20230134675 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Ilola, in view of Chang et al. (US 20220067979 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Chang, and further in view of Vienneau et al. (US 20070198584 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Vienneau, and further in view of Du et al. (US 20190213778 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Du.
Regarding Claim 13, Ilola discloses a non-transitory storage medium storing video data (Ilola, [0156]: teaches sub-viewing-volume data being encoded in bitstream partitions or slices <read on video data> stored in a server <read on non-transitory storage medium>) comprising
an atlas image packing patch pictures, representative of a three-dimensional (3D) scene (Ilola, [0145]: teaches packing identified 2D patches <read on patch pictures> into one or more novel atlases <read on atlas image>; [0148]: teaches the server determining necessary patches and image data associated with the patches to define an atlas that represents a portion of a scene <read on 3D scene>); and
[[metadata comprising instructions to limit a change of a rendering effect value associated with a 3D object of the 3D scene to within a predefined range,]]
the metadata associating the 3D object with patch pictures of the atlas image (Ilola, [0145]: teaches packing identified 2D patches into one or more novel atlases, where the server generates "one or more metadata bitstream containing said layout of the 2D patches and information required to re-project said 2D patches into the 3D representation <read on 3D object>"; [0148]: teaches the server determining the needed patches and image data associated with the patches <read on patch pictures>); wherein
[[the metadata further includes a flag identifying the rendering effect as user-modifiable and]]
bounding-box data [[restricting the user-modifiable rendering effect to the associated object]] (Ilola, [0063]: teaches a point cloud frame of a 3D object within a 3D volumetric bounding box <read on bounding-box data>, where the 3D object is bound to the bounding box).
However, Ilola does not expressly disclose
metadata comprising instructions to limit a change of a rendering effect value associated with a 3D object of the 3D scene to within a predefined range,
the metadata further includes a flag identifying the rendering effect as user-modifiable and
bounding-box data restricting the user-modifiable rendering effect to the associated object.
Chang discloses
metadata comprising instructions to limit a change of a rendering effect value associated with a 3D object of the 3D scene to within a predefined range (Chang, [0075]: teaches two-partial transparency levels <read on limit change>, including minimum and maximum alpha quantization level for alpha values <read on rendering effect value within predefined range> that are stored in metadata),
[[the metadata further includes a flag identifying the rendering effect as user-modifiable and]]
[[bounding-box data restricting the user-modifiable rendering effect to the associated object.]]
Chang is analogous art with respect to Ilola because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely processing texture data for 3D rendering. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement a two-partial transparency level system for rendering 3D objects as taught by Chang into the teaching of Ilola. The suggestion for doing so would allow for automatic transparent effects to be applied on the 3D object at a given viewpoint, thereby yielding predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Chang with Ilola.
However, the combination of Ilola and Chang does not expressly disclose
the metadata further includes a flag identifying the rendering effect as user-modifiable and
bounding-box data restricting the user-modifiable rendering effect to the associated object.
Vienneau discloses
the metadata further includes a flag identifying the rendering effect as user-modifiable (Vienneau, [0073]: teaches media (i.e., image data) and metadata, such as data relating to actions performed by the user and information relating to the media; [0091]: teaches allowing a user to perform write operations <read on user-adjustable> on compositions <read on rendering effects>; [0095]: teaches a user having an option to manually set a read-only <read on fixed> flag on a composition <read on rendering effect>) and
[[bounding-box data restricting the user-modifiable rendering effect to the associated object.]]
Vienneau is analogous art with respect to Ilola, in view of Chang because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely processing video media for further modifications. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have metadata that tracks the user's modification of a composition, such as a composited video effect, with either automatic and/or manual read-write permissions as taught by Vienneau into the teaching of Ilola, in view of Chang. The suggestion for doing so would allow the user to keep track of their previous edits, thereby allowing for easy undo-type edits, thus resulting in a more intuitive user experience. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Vienneau with Ilola, in view of Chang.
However, the combination of Ilola, Chang, and Vienneau does not expressly disclose
bounding-box data restricting the user-modifiable rendering effect to the associated object.
Du discloses
bounding-box data restricting the user-modifiable rendering effect to the associated object (Du, [0174]: teaches a metadata generator 1517 setting metadata 1523 that specifies one or more special effects for rendered views; [0193]: teaches metadata including parameters, which are user-modifiable, that specifies effects <read on rendering effect> to be added to the dynamic 3D model for one or more objects; [0192]: teaches the dynamic 3D model being a deformable volumetric representation; Note: it should be noted that one of ordinary skill in the art would know that 3D volumetric models inherently use a bounding box, such as an axis aligned bounding box, for faster calculations; in addition, bounding boxes, by their very nature, restricts data to within the set boundaries of the bounding box; therefore, anything applied within the boundaries of the bounding box stays within the bounding box, such as an applied glassy filter on the object; [0195]: teaches a user input that indicates a setting/preference for one or more special effects and adjusting the metadata to account for the user input; [0201]: teaches the rendering component modifying texture values of texture maps applied to a dynamic 3D model of a given viewpoint).
Du is analogous art with respect to the combination of Ilola, Chang, and Vienneau because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely incorporating 2D atlases for reconstructing volumetric video. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a metadata generator that allows for user-specified special effects, such as the alpha, luminance, and color values, of associated dynamic 3D models as taught by Du into the combined teaching of Ilola, Chang, and Vienneau. The suggestion for doing so would allow the user to modify the appearance of the associated dynamic 3D model in real-time, thereby improving the overall user experience. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Du with the combination of Ilola, Chang, and Vienneau.
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Ilola, Chang, Vienneau, and Du discloses the non-transitory storage medium of Claim 13. The combination of Ilola, Chang, and Vienneau does not expressly disclose the limitations of Claim 16; however, Du discloses wherein the rendering effect is
a transparency effect or a color filtering or a blurring or a contrast adapting (Du, [0212]: teaches the rendering component applying a glassy filter effect <read on transparency effect>).
Du is analogous art with respect to the combination of Ilola, Chang, and Vienneau because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely incorporating 2D atlases for reconstructing volumetric video. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a metadata generator that allows for user-specified special effects, such as the alpha values, of associated dynamic 3D models as taught by Du into the combined teaching of Ilola, Chang, and Vienneau. The suggestion for doing so would allow the user to modify the appearance of the associated dynamic 3D model in real-time, thereby improving the overall user experience. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Du with the combination of Ilola, Chang, and Vienneau.
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Ilola, Chang, Vienneau, and Du discloses the non-transitory storage medium of Claim 13. The combination of Ilola, Vienneau, and Du does not expressly disclose the limitations of Claim 20; however, Chang discloses wherein
the rendering effect is limited by a producer-defined minimum and maximum value stored as part of the metadata range (Chang, [0075]: teaches two-partial transparency levels, including minimum and maximum alpha quantization level for alpha values <read on rendering effect> that are stored in metadata; [0075]: further teaches the two partial-transparency levels being set by encoder device 204 <read on producer-defined>).
Chang is analogous art with respect to the combination of Ilola, Vienneau, and Du because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely processing texture data for 3D rendering. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement a two-partial transparency level system for rendering 3D objects as taught by Chang into the combined teaching of Ilola, Vienneau, and Du. The suggestion for doing so would allow for automatic transparent effects to be applied on the 3D object at a given viewpoint, thereby yielding predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Chang with the combination of Ilola, Vienneau, and Du.
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Ilola, Chang, Vienneau, and Du discloses the non-transitory storage medium of Claim 13. The combination of Ilola, Chang, and Du does not expressly disclose the limitations of Claim 21; however, Vienneau discloses wherein the metadata further comprises
a flag identifying the rendering effect as user-adjustable or fixed for the 3D object (Vienneau, [0073]: teaches media (i.e., image data) and metadata, such as data relating to actions performed by the user and information relating to the media; [0091]: teaches allowing a user to perform write operations <read on user-adjustable> on compositions <read on rendering effects>; [0095]: teaches a user having an option to manually set a read-only <read on fixed> flag on a composition <read on rendering effect>).
Vienneau is analogous art with respect to the combination of Ilola, Chang, and Du because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely processing video media for further modifications. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have metadata that tracks the user's modification of a composition, such as a composited video effect, with either automatic and/or manual read-write permissions as taught by Vienneau into the combined teaching of Ilola, Chang, and Du. The suggestion for doing so would allow the user to keep track of their previous edits, thereby allowing for easy undo-type edits, thus resulting in a more intuitive user experience. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Vienneau with the combination of Ilola, Chang, and Du.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ilola et al. (US 20230134675 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Ilola, in view of Chang et al. (US 20220067979 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Chang, and further in view of Vienneau et al. (US 20070198584 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Vienneau, and further in view of Du et al. (US 20190213778 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Du as applied to Claim 13 above respectively, and further in view of Mertens (US 20160307602 A1, previously cited).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Ilola, Chang, Vienneau, and Du discloses the non-transitory storage medium of Claim 13. The combination of Ilola, Chang, Vienneau, and Du does not expressly disclose the limitations of Claim 15; however, Mertens discloses wherein the metadata comprise
an information indicating whether the value range for the rendering effect associated with the 3D object is an update of a previous or default value range for the rendering effect for the 3D object (Mertens, [0113]: teaches "selected histogram/range/color properties and/or parameters can include, e.g., one or more of at least one luminance value
(
L
x
)
, a minimum and maximum luminance
(
L
m
i
n
,
L
m
a
x
)
<read on update of a default value range>, multipliers for specifying the relationship of a first and second luminance, etc.").
Mertens is analogous art with respect to the combination of Ilola, Chang, Vienneau, and Du because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely capturing video content. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the user be able to update and modify parameters of the video, such as the luminance and color as taught by Mertens into the combined teaching of Ilola, Chang, Vienneau, and Du. The suggestion for doing so would allow the user to personalize their viewing experience that they deem is more suitable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Mertens with the combination of Ilola, Chang, Vienneau, and Du.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ilola et al. (US 20230134675 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Ilola, in view of Chang et al. (US 20220067979 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Chang, and further in view of Vienneau et al. (US 20070198584 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Vienneau, and further in view of Du et al. (US 20190213778 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Du as applied to Claim 13 above respectively, and further in view of Oyman (US 20210021664 A1, previously cited).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Ilola, Chang, Vienneau, and Du discloses the non-transitory storage medium of Claim 13. The combination of Ilola, Chang, Vienneau, and Du does not expressly disclose the limitations of Claim 17; however, Oyman discloses wherein
the metadata are encoded in Supplemental Enhanced Information messages (Oyman, [0130]: teaches "HEVC SEI <read on Supplemental Enhanced Information> messages for each of the dedicated HEVC bitstreams may carry additional metadata on each encoded information, including occupancy map data 730, geometry data 736 and attribute data 714").
Oyman is analogous art with respect to the combination of Ilola, Chang, Vienneau, and Du because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely video data structures. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have high efficiency video coding (HEVC) SEI messages carry additional metadata, such as occupancy map data, geometry data, and attribute data as taught by Oyman into the combined teaching of Ilola, Chang, Vienneau, and Du. The suggestion for doing so would enable additional content to be superimposed in the volumetric video input, thereby allowing for more creative video. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Oyman with the combination of Ilola, Chang, Vienneau, and Du.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bangham (US 20040130554 A1) discloses adding a visual effect to a region of interest; and
Hur et al. (US 20200021791 A1) discloses a 360-degree image data processing system that uses metadata for data encoding.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KARL TRUONG whose telephone number is (703)756-5915. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30 AM - 7:30 PM.
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, Kent Chang can be reached at (571) 272-7667. 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.
/K.D.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2614
/KENT W CHANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2614
Prosecution Insights