DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's Submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of a response on 6/15/2026 has been received and fully considered. In the response, claims 1, 19, and 20 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-20 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, 19, and 20 are 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.
With regard to claims 1, 19, and 20, the scope of “the attribute extras field is less common and reusable than the newly added attribute defined in the attribute extension field.” More specifically is it unclear what the boundaries are to define “less common” and less “reusable”. What metrics define “less common” or less “reusable”? Other than the indefinite language of “less common and reusable”, it is unclear what distinguishes an attribute extension field from an attribute extras field. Are they the same, but separated by rarity? Clarification is required.
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, 2, 6, 10, 13, 14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Non-Patent Literature titled, glTF – what the [rubber duck]? An overview of the basics of GL Transmission Format For glTF 2.0! as published by Khronos Group in 2019 (hereinafter Khronos NPL).
As an initial matter, it appears that Applicant is intending to claim add-on attribute extensions to the standardized glTF 3D file format. The Examiner cites Khronos NPL as an overview of the glTF 3D file format standard, which notes on page 8 that “the glTF format allows extensions to add new functionality, or to simplify the definitions of commonly used properties.” Also on page 8, Khronos NPL notes that some “file extensions are already developed and maintained on the Khronos GitHub repository.” The following are examples of existing glTF extensions: Specular-Glossiness Materials, Unlit Materials, Punctual Lights, WebGL Rendering Techniques, and Texture transforms.
Therefore (as best understood in light of the 112 rejection), with regard to claim 1, Khronos NPL discloses a method, comprising: comprising: defining an attribute newly added to a target format compatible with glTF format by using an attribute extension field or an attribute extras field of a target formatted file associated with the target format (e.g. see page 8 that discusses that “the glTF format allows extensions to add new functionality, or to simplify the definitions of commonly used properties”), wherein the target format is obtained by defining extension field information of the glTF format; generating a 3D image based on the target formatted file; and loading the target format file to implement, based on the newly added attribute in the target formatted file, an effect/function that is newly added to the existing/function supported by the glTF format (e.g. see page 8 that discusses “file extensions are already developed and maintained on the Khronos GitHub repository”), wherein the newly added attribute defined in the attribute extras field is less common and reusable than the newly added attribute defined in the attribute extension field (e.g., see page 8 that discloses various types of file extensions, wherein some will naturally be less common than others; it is the Examiner’s position, as best understood, that the less common file extensions equate to the recited attribute extras field and the more common file extensions equate to the recited attribute extension field);
[claim 2] wherein the newly added attribute comprises: an attribute defined in the attribute extension field to be pointed to by a node; an attribute defined in the attribute extension field, to which no node points; and/or an attribute defined in a node (e.g., see page 2 that discusses scenes and nodes used in glTF);
[claim 6] wherein defining the newly added attribute in the attribute extension field of the target formatted file comprises: defining an expression transformation attribute in the attribute extension field to be pointed to by a node, wherein the expression transformation attribute comprises material information and expression file information used to set a mesh blend shape (e.g., see at least page 2 that describes meshes, including multiple “morph targets”).
[claim 10] wherein defining the newly added attribute in the attribute extension field of the target formatted file comprises: defining a lightmap attribute in the attribute extension field, wherein the lightmap attribute is used to instruct an engine to pre-calculate a change in brightness of surfaces in a scene (e.g., see at least page 8 that discusses existing extension for lighting, including unlit materials and punctual lights);
[claim 13] defining a cubemap attribute in the attribute extension field, which is used as a map type to be pointed to in a material, wherein the cubemap attribute comprises a layout, texture mapping (e.g., see at least page 8 that discusses existing extension for texture, including Texture transforms), and texture of each side of a cubemap;
[claim 14] wherein defining the newly added attribute in the attribute extension field of the target formatted file comprises at least one of: defining a story timeline attribute in the attribute extension field to be pointed to by a node, wherein the story timeline attribute is used to arrange a track of an object and create a cutscene and a game sequence, and defining a sprite attribute in the attribute extension field to be pointed to by a node, wherein the sprite attribute comprises a layout, texture reference, a texture position, a border, a physical shape and/or a spatial position (e.g., see at least page 8 that discusses existing extension for texture, including Texture transforms);
[claim 16] wherein the target formatted file comprises a node; and wherein the method further comprises: defining a resource variable attribute in the node (e.g., see page 2 that discusses scenes and nodes used in glTF), wherein the resource variable attribute comprises a variable type and a set of indexes pointing to reference fields to support the use of resources;
[claim 17] further comprising: defining an import mode and an export mode, wherein the export mode is used to define an export of a provided material parameter and/or an export of a provided component parameter (e.g., see at least page 4 for discussion of materials that can be imported in the 3D file).
[claim 18] defining some non-common parameters in an attribute extras field which is mounted to a node or mounted under an object (e.g., see page 2 that discusses scenes and nodes used in glTF).
Claims 19 and 20 are anticipated by Khronos based on the analysis set forth above for claim 1, which is similar in claim scope. It is noted that implementation of glTF 2.0 necessarily requires a computer device with a processor and memory.
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 3-5, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khronos NPL in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0099773 to Bouazizi.
With regard to claims 3-5, 12, and 15, Khronos NPL fails to expressly disclose existing extensions include audio files for playing audio segments, as well as, streaming media with URL data and scripting.
In the same field of endeavor, Bouazizi teaches a method of defining extensions for glTF that including streaming media/audio files with URL data for playing video/audio segments (e.g., see at least paragraph 97 for general discussion of adding extensions to conventional glTF2; see also paragraph 47 for discussion of media data identifiers including URL, URN, and URI; see also paragraphs 44 and 131-133 for discussion of streaming video/audio data; see at least paragraph 134 for discussion of scripting).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Khronos NPL with the various types of attribute extensions taught by Bouazizi in order to use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. In this case, adding additional functionality improves the options available to developers to make a more robust development application.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khronos NPL in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0295034 to Bouazizi ‘034.
With regard to claim 7, Khronos NPL fails to expressly disclose existing extensions include collision data.
In the same field of endeavor, Bouazizi ‘034 teaches a method of defining extensions for glTF that including collision data (e.g., see at least paragraph 81 for discussion of setting collision boundaries for data of scene description).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Khronos NPL with the various types of collision data as taught by Bouazizi ‘034 in order to use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. In this case, adding additional functionality improves the options available to developers to make a more robust development application.
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khronos NPL in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0094941 to Kondrad.
With regard to claims 8 and 11 Khronos NPL fails to expressly disclose existing extensions include bone data.
In the same field of endeavor, Kondrad teaches a method of defining extensions for glTF that including bone data (e.g., see at least paragraph 81 for discussion of setting bone data). In at least paragraph 4, Kondrad discusses the use of metadata in 3D format files.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Khronos NPL with the various types of bone data as taught by Kondrad in order to use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. In this case, adding additional functionality improves the options available to developers to make a more robust development application.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khronos NPL in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0385351 to Luo.
With regard to claim 9 Khronos NPL fails to expressly disclose existing extensions include clothing data.
In the same field of endeavor, Kondrad teaches a method of defining extensions for glTF that including clothing data (e.g., see at least paragraph 103 for discussion of setting clothing).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Khronos NPL with the various types of clothing data as taught by Luo in order to use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. In this case, adding additional functionality improves the options available to developers to make a more robust development application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 6/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
On page 8, Applicant clarified the recited features of claim 2 and the Examiner has withdrawn the prior 112 rejection of claim 2.
On page 9, Applicant argued that the newly added features of claims 1, 19, and 20 are not disclosed by the prior art. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, the newly added features fail to provide boundaries for what is less common or less reusable. Additionally, other than the recited “less common and reusuable” recitation, it is unclear what the difference is between an attribute extension field and an attribute extras field. The Examiner is interpreting an attribute extension field and an attribute extras field as analogous with the exception of the “less common and reusable” versions are attribute extra fields, while the more common fields are attribute extension fields. Since different extensions fields are naturally going to be more or less common than others, the more common field is an attribute extension field and the less common field is an attribute extras field. It is the Examiner’s position that Khronos NPL anticipates the newly added features of claims 1, 19, and 20 because Khronos NPL discloses a plurality of file extensions (e.g., see page 8) and some of the file extensions will be considered attribute extension fields and some less common file extensions will be considered attribute extra fields.
On page 10, Applicant’s argument regarding 101 is persuasive and the Examiner has withdrawn th1 101 rejection.
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 JAMES S MCCLELLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7167. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8:30AM-5:00PM).
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, Kang Hu can be reached at 571-270-1344. 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.
/James S. McClellan/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights