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
The amendment filed June 11, 2026 has been entered. Claims 2, 4, and 28-38 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 7-9 of Remarks, filed June 11, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 2, 4, and 28-38 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Visual Components (Simplify an imported 3D CAD file - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGvTN5H2FVE).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 2, 4, and 28-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muthler et al. (US 20200051312 A1) in view of Main et al. (US 20230107740 A1), Shkurko (US 11741658 B2), and Visual Components (Simplify an imported 3D CAD file - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGvTN5H2FVE), hereinafter Muthler, Main, Shkurko, and Visual Components respectively.
Regarding claim 2, Muthler in view of Main, Shkurko, and Visual Components teaches the computer system of claim 28 (see rejection of claim 28 below). Muthler does not teach wherein the polygon mesh model is obtained from a CAD model. However, Visual Components teaches wherein the polygon mesh model is obtained from a CAD model (Screenshots 1 and 2 – Screenshot 1 shows a CAD stp file being imported, and screenshot 2 shows a polygon mesh model that is obtained as a result of the importing).
PNG
media_image1.png
894
1428
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Screenshot 1 (taken from Visual Components)
PNG
media_image2.png
1194
1911
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Screenshot 2 (taken from Visual Components)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Muthler to incorporate the teachings of Visual Components to obtain the polygon mesh model from a CAD model because CAD modeling is efficient, customizable, and precise. Turning the CAD model into a polygon mesh model would allow it to be rendered and displayed to users.
Regarding claim 4, Muthler in view of Main, Shkurko, and Visual Components teaches the computer system of claim 28 (see rejection of claim 28 below). Muthler does not teach wherein the polygon mesh model is obtained from a simulated representation of a physical object. However, Visual Components teaches wherein the polygon mesh model is obtained from a simulated representation of a physical object (Screenshots 1 and 2 – Screenshot 1 shows a CAD stp file being imported, which contains a simulated representation of a robot, and screenshot 2 shows a polygon mesh model that is obtained as a result of the importing). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Muthler to incorporate the teachings of Visual Components to obtain the polygon mesh model from a simulated representation of a physical object because a simulated representation contains important information about the object, such as structure and behavior, which is useful for creating a visual model of it. Turning the simulated representation into a polygon mesh model would allow it to be rendered and displayed to users.
Regarding claim 28, Muthler teaches a computer system (Paragraph 0340, 0345 – “a system 1965 is provided including at least one central processing unit 1930…the system 1965 may take the form of a desktop computer, a laptop computer…”) comprising:
at least one processor (Paragraph 0340, 0344 – “a system 1965 is provided including at least one central processing unit 1930 that is connected to a communication bus 1975…Computer programs, or computer control logic algorithms, may be stored in the main memory 1940 and/or the secondary storage. Such computer programs, when executed, enable the system 1965 to perform various functions”);
and at least one non-transitory processor-readable storage medium communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, the at least one non-transitory processor-readable storage medium storing instructions that when executed cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising (Paragraph 0340, 0343-0344 – “a system 1965 is provided including at least one central processing unit 1930 that is connected to a communication bus 1975…The system 1965 may also include a secondary storage (not shown). The secondary storage includes, for example, a hard disk drive and/or a removable storage drive, representing a floppy disk drive, a magnetic tape drive, a compact disk drive, digital versatile disk (DVD) drive… Computer programs, or computer control logic algorithms, may be stored in the main memory 1940 and/or the secondary storage. Such computer programs, when executed, enable the system 1965 to perform various functions”; Note: the secondary storage is non-transitory, and it is implied to be coupled to the processor since it contains programs which require a processor to be executed):
accessing a polygon mesh model comprising a set of polygons (Paragraph 0092 – “FIGS. 3A-3C illustrate ray tracing applied to the FIG. 2G bounding volume 208 including triangle mesh 320…To determine whether the ray 302 intersects one or more triangles in the mesh 320, each triangle could be directly tested against the ray 302”; Note: the mesh contains a set of triangles);
determining a bounding geometry enclosing the polygon mesh model (Paragraph 0092 – “FIGS. 3A-3C illustrate ray tracing applied to the FIG. 2G bounding volume 208 including triangle mesh 320”; Note: there is a bounding volume/surface of a polygon/triangle mesh model);
determining a viewpoint of the polygon mesh model (Paragraph 0093 – “if a ray such as ray 304 shown in FIG. 3B intersects a bounding volume 310 that contains geometry, then the ray may or may not intersect the geometry inside of the bounding volume so further tests need to be performed on the geometry itself to find possible intersections. Because the rays 304, 306 in FIGS. 3B and 3C intersect a bounding volume 310 that contains geometry, further tests need to be performed to determine whether any (and which) of the primitives inside of the bounding volume are intersected”; Note: the viewpoint is determined and is shown as an eye in Fig. 3C; see screenshot below);
PNG
media_image3.png
337
434
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Screenshot of Fig. 3C (taken from Muthler)
for the viewpoint, directing a ray from the viewpoint into the polygon mesh model (Paragraph 0093 – “if a ray such as ray 304 shown in FIG. 3B intersects a bounding volume 310 that contains geometry, then the ray may or may not intersect the geometry inside of the bounding volume so further tests need to be performed on the geometry itself to find possible intersections. Because the rays 304, 306 in FIGS. 3B and 3C intersect a bounding volume 310 that contains geometry, further tests need to be performed to determine whether any (and which) of the primitives inside of the bounding volume are intersected”; Note: a ray is casted from the viewpoint onto the mesh, as shown in Fig. 3C);
determining a first subset of the set of polygons intersected by the ray directed from the viewpoint (Paragraph 0094 – “FIG. 3C shows a situation in which the bounding volume 310 intersected by ray 306 and contains geometry that ray 306 intersects. Traversal coprocessor 138 tests the intersections between the ray 306 and the individual primitives to determine which primitives the ray intersects”; Note: primitives/polygons that are intersected by the ray are part of the first subset);
determining a second subset of the set of polygons not in the first subset of the set of polygons (Paragraph 0102 – “FIG. 5A illustrates a ray directed towards these three triangles, with the first triangle the ray encounters relative to the viewpoint being opaque. Because the “front” (from the standpoint of the direction of the ray from the eye) intersected triangle is opaque, that triangle will block the ray so the ray will not reach the other triangles even through it spatially intersects them. In this example, the triangles “behind” the opaque triangle from the viewpoint can be ignored (culled) after the intersection of the opaque triangle is identified because the “front”, opaque triangle hides the other triangles from the user's view along the ray. Culling is indicated by dotted lines in FIGS. 5A-5C. In this case, the traversal coprocessor 138 may only need to report the identification of the first, opaque triangle to the SM 132”; Note: the hidden polygons not intersected by the ray are part of the second subset and not the first subset);
and removing at least a portion of the second subset of the polygons from the polygon mesh model to produce an optimized polygon mesh model with a reduced set of polygons (Paragraph 0080, 0102 – “The traversal coprocessor 138 provides a hardware logic configured to hide those items or triangles which are provably capable of being hidden without a functional impact on the resulting scene. The reduction in returns of results to the SM and synchronization steps between threads greatly improves the overall performance of traversal…the triangles “behind” the opaque triangle from the viewpoint can be ignored (culled) after the intersection of the opaque triangle is identified because the “front”, opaque triangle hides the other triangles from the user's view along the ray. Culling is indicated by dotted lines in FIGS. 5A-5C. In this case, the traversal coprocessor 138 may only need to report the identification of the first, opaque triangle to the SM 132”; Note: the hidden polygons not intersected by the ray are part of the second subset and are culled/removed, which result in a mesh model with less polygons).
Muthler does not teach wherein the polygon mesh model represents a multi-part object comprising a first part and a second part, wherein the second part is enclosed within the first part, and wherein the first part is opaque. However, Visual Components teaches wherein the polygon mesh model represents a multi-part object comprising a first part and a second part, wherein the second part is enclosed within the first part, and wherein the first part is opaque (Screenshot 2 and 3 – The screenshots show a polygon mesh model of an object with multiple parts. Screenshot 2 shows the first part, which is opaque. Screenshot 3 shows the second part, which is inside the first part. See screenshot 2 above and screenshot 3 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
1187
1902
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Screenshot 3 (taken from Visual Components)
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the single-part object of Muthler (see Fig. 2A) could have been substituted for the multi-part object of Visual Components because both the single-part object and multi-part object serve the purpose of being modeled by a polygon mesh model with opaque polygons. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the substitution. Finally, the substitution achieves the predictable result of reducing polygons in the polygon mesh model of the object. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the single-part object of Muthler for the multi-part object of Visual Components according to known methods to yield the predictable result of reducing polygons in the polygon mesh model of the object. Furthermore, the system of Muthler handles polygons “behind” other polygons (see Fig. 5A-5C), so it would have been obvious for it to be able to handle polygon mesh models of objects that have parts enclosed within.
Muthler modified by Visual Components does not teach the “plurality of viewpoints of the polygon mesh model” in the limitation: “determining a plurality of viewpoints of the polygon mesh model on the bounding geometry, wherein the viewpoints are spatially distributed over the bounding geometry” and in following limitations. However, Main teaches determining a plurality of viewpoints of the polygon mesh model on the bounding geometry, wherein the viewpoints are spatially distributed over the bounding geometry (Paragraph 0052, 0066 – “The viewpoints can be generated to define a trajectory surrounding the selected object instance and centered at the center of mass of the selected object instance. Embodiments of the present invention provide for the trajectory to be on a surface of an ellipsoid with the viewpoints placed at one or more planes or orbits defined on the surface of the ellipsoid. Alternatively, the trajectory can be defined on the surface of a sphere encapsulating the selected object instance…The viewpoints are generated to ensure that the entire selected object instance is covered as the imaging device 4 progresses through the viewpoints. For example, the viewpoints can be placed on the surface of the ellipsoid equidistantly from each other along one or more horizontal planes or orbits to ensure a complete coverage of the selected object instance”; Note: the viewpoints are located on the bounding surface. The viewpoints are spatially distributed equidistantly from each other). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Muthler to incorporate the teachings of Main to have the viewpoints be located on the bounding surface because in Muthler, it is already determined that the viewpoint line-of-sight, represented by a ray, intersects the bounding surface (Muthler: Paragraph 0093 – “Because the rays 304, 306 in FIGS. 3B and 3C intersect a bounding volume 310 that contains geometry, further tests need to be performed to determine whether any (and which) of the primitives inside of the bounding volume are intersected”). Then, it would be logical that for the next ray-intersection test, the viewpoint is placed on the bounding surface so that the ray can be casted inside the bounding volume to determine if it intersects the mesh. By extending the ray from the bounding surface to the object inside, the focus is given to the object in question, rather than to irrelevant space. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Muthler to incorporate the teachings of Main to have the viewpoints be spatially distributed on the bounding surface for the benefit of being able to render the target object from multiple points of view, instead of being limited to one, and ensuring proper coverage of the object.
Muthler modified by Visual Components and Main does not teach the “cone of rays” from the limitation: “directing a cone of rays from the viewpoint into the polygon mesh model” and “determining a first subset of the set of polygons intersected by the cones of rays directed from the plurality of viewpoints”. However, Shkurko teaches the cone of rays (Col. 6 lines 61-67, Col. 7 lines 1-8, Col. 8 lines 40-46 – “the frustum 302 extends in a direction substantially parallel with the rays of the subset from the camera 306 (or viewpoint 306) and contains all rays of the subset…In the depicted example, the frustum 302 is a frustum of a rectangular pyramid extending from the camera 306, but the 3D volume that forms the basis of the frustum 302 can be implemented using any of a variety of volumes, such as a circular or elliptical cone, a triangular pyramid (tetrahedron), a pentagonal pyramid, a hexagonal pyramid, or more generally, an N-polygon pyramid with N >=2. Any of a variety of well-known or proprietary techniques may be used to determine the frustum 302 suitable for binding the subset of rays…the intersection test thus involves projecting a bounding volume under test onto the same projection hemisphere 320 and determining whether there is an intersection (or hit) of the frustum 302 on the bounding volume, and thus whether the subset of rays of the frustum 302 are likely to interest the geometric object represented by the bounding volume”; Note: there is a frustrum, which is represented by a cone, containing rays directed from the viewpoint to the geometric object, which is the mesh). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Muthler to incorporate the teachings of Shkurko to direct a cone of rays because having more rays would more accurately represent a viewpoint and allow for efficient ray-intersection testing. Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the ray of Muthler could have been substituted for the cone of rays of Shkurko because both the single ray and the cone of rays serve the purpose of representing a line-of-sight. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the substitution. Finally, the substitution achieves the predictable result of determining visibility of an object from a viewpoint. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the ray of Muthler for the cone of rays of Shkurko according to known methods to yield the predictable result of determining visibility of an object from a viewpoint.
Regarding claim 29, Muthler in view of Main, Shkurko, and Visual Components teaches the computer system of claim 28. Muthler does not teach wherein the polygon mesh model is obtained from a robot CAD model. However, Visual Components teaches wherein the polygon mesh model is obtained from a robot CAD model (Screenshots 1 and 2 – Screenshot 1 shows a CAD stp file of a robot being imported, and screenshot 2 shows a polygon mesh model that is obtained as a result of the importing). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Muthler to incorporate the teachings of Visual Components to obtain the polygon mesh model from a robot CAD model because CAD modeling is efficient, customizable, and precise, which makes it suitable for modeling robots, and the modeling process helps users visualize and plan when trying to build real-life or virtual robots. Turning the CAD model into a polygon mesh model would allow it to be rendered and displayed to users.
Regarding claim 30, Muthler in view of Main, Shkurko, and Visual Components teaches the computer system of claim 28. Muthler does not teach wherein the bounding geometry is a bounding sphere. However, Main teaches wherein the bounding geometry is a bounding sphere (Paragraph 0052 – “the trajectory can be defined on the surface of a sphere encapsulating the selected object instance”; Note: the bounding geometry is a sphere). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Muthler to incorporate the teachings of Main to have the bounding geometry be a sphere for the benefit of having tighter bounds to enclose the object, especially when the object is on the rounder side, which would increase accuracy for checking visibility. Generally, cubes and spheres are common bounding volumes.
Regarding claim 31, Muthler in view of Main, Shkurko, and Visual Components teaches the computer system of claim 28. Muthler does not teach wherein at least two of the viewpoints are on opposed sides of the bounding geometry. However, Main teaches wherein at least two of the viewpoints are on opposed sides of the bounding geometry (Paragraph 0052, 0066 – “viewpoints are generated around the selected object instance at step 108. The viewpoints can be generated to define a trajectory surrounding the selected object instance and centered at the center of mass of the selected object instance. Embodiments of the present invention provide for the trajectory to be on a surface of an ellipsoid with the viewpoints placed at one or more planes or orbits defined on the surface of the ellipsoid…The viewpoints are generated to ensure that the entire selected object instance is covered as the imaging device 4 progresses through the viewpoints. For example, the viewpoints can be placed on the surface of the ellipsoid equidistantly from each other along one or more horizontal planes or orbits to ensure a complete coverage of the selected object instance”; Note: it is implied that there are at least two viewpoints opposite to each other on the bounding geometry (ellipsoid) because the viewpoints ensure complete coverage of the object and define a trajectory surrounding the object). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Muthler to incorporate the teachings of Visual Components to determine at least two viewpoints on opposed sides of the bounding geometry for the benefit of ensuring that most, if not all, sides of the object are rendered so that it can properly be viewed by a user.
Regarding claim 32, Muthler in view of Main, Shkurko, and Visual Components teaches the computer system of claim 28. Muthler does not teach wherein the optimized polygon mesh model with the reduced set of polygons represents the multi-part object with at least a portion of the second part removed. However, Visual Components teaches wherein the optimized polygon mesh model with the reduced set of polygons represents the multi-part object with at least a portion of the second part removed (Screenshots 4-6 – Screenshot 4 shows the removal of the second part (the red components enclosed in the robot). Screenshot 5 shows the optimized polygon mesh model of the multi-part object after the second part is removed. Screenshot 6 shows proof of the numerical reduction of polygons/triangles). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Muthler to incorporate the teachings of Main to remove the second part of the model of the multi-part object because when the outside of the object is opaque, the inside (second part) is not visible to the user and is not necessary for viewing the object. Thus, it would save computational load to remove the non-visible part for rendering or displaying.
Regarding claim 33, one or more non-transitory processor-readable storage media storing processor-executable instructions that when executed cause a computing system comprising at least one processor to perform operations (Paragraph 0340, 0343-0344 – “a system 1965 is provided including at least one central processing unit 1930 that is connected to a communication bus 1975…The system 1965 may also include a secondary storage (not shown). The secondary storage includes, for example, a hard disk drive and/or a removable storage drive, representing a floppy disk drive, a magnetic tape drive, a compact disk drive, digital versatile disk (DVD) drive… Computer programs, or computer control logic algorithms, may be stored in the main memory 1940 and/or the secondary storage. Such computer programs, when executed, enable the system 1965 to perform various functions”; Note: the secondary storage is non-transitory) comprising:
accessing a polygon mesh model comprising a set of polygons (Paragraph 0092 – “FIGS. 3A-3C illustrate ray tracing applied to the FIG. 2G bounding volume 208 including triangle mesh 320…To determine whether the ray 302 intersects one or more triangles in the mesh 320, each triangle could be directly tested against the ray 302”; Note: the mesh contains a set of triangles);
determining a bounding geometry enclosing the polygon mesh model (Paragraph 0092 – “FIGS. 3A-3C illustrate ray tracing applied to the FIG. 2G bounding volume 208 including triangle mesh 320”; Note: there is a bounding volume/surface of a polygon/triangle mesh model);
determining a viewpoint of the polygon mesh model (Paragraph 0093 – “if a ray such as ray 304 shown in FIG. 3B intersects a bounding volume 310 that contains geometry, then the ray may or may not intersect the geometry inside of the bounding volume so further tests need to be performed on the geometry itself to find possible intersections. Because the rays 304, 306 in FIGS. 3B and 3C intersect a bounding volume 310 that contains geometry, further tests need to be performed to determine whether any (and which) of the primitives inside of the bounding volume are intersected”; Note: the viewpoint is determined and is shown as an eye in Fig. 3C; see screenshot above);
for the viewpoint, directing a ray from the viewpoint into the polygon mesh model (Paragraph 0093 – “if a ray such as ray 304 shown in FIG. 3B intersects a bounding volume 310 that contains geometry, then the ray may or may not intersect the geometry inside of the bounding volume so further tests need to be performed on the geometry itself to find possible intersections. Because the rays 304, 306 in FIGS. 3B and 3C intersect a bounding volume 310 that contains geometry, further tests need to be performed to determine whether any (and which) of the primitives inside of the bounding volume are intersected”; Note: a ray is casted from the viewpoint onto the mesh, as shown in Fig. 3C);
determining a first subset of the set of polygons intersected by the ray directed from the viewpoint (Paragraph 0094 – “FIG. 3C shows a situation in which the bounding volume 310 intersected by ray 306 and contains geometry that ray 306 intersects. Traversal coprocessor 138 tests the intersections between the ray 306 and the individual primitives to determine which primitives the ray intersects”; Note: primitives/polygons that are intersected by the ray are part of the first subset);
determining a second subset of the set of polygons not in the first subset of the set of polygons (Paragraph 0102 – “FIG. 5A illustrates a ray directed towards these three triangles, with the first triangle the ray encounters relative to the viewpoint being opaque. Because the “front” (from the standpoint of the direction of the ray from the eye) intersected triangle is opaque, that triangle will block the ray so the ray will not reach the other triangles even through it spatially intersects them. In this example, the triangles “behind” the opaque triangle from the viewpoint can be ignored (culled) after the intersection of the opaque triangle is identified because the “front”, opaque triangle hides the other triangles from the user's view along the ray. Culling is indicated by dotted lines in FIGS. 5A-5C. In this case, the traversal coprocessor 138 may only need to report the identification of the first, opaque triangle to the SM 132”; Note: the hidden polygons not intersected by the ray are part of the second subset and not the first subset);
and removing at least a portion of the second subset of the polygons from the polygon mesh model to produce an optimized polygon mesh model with a reduced set of polygons (Paragraph 0080, 0102 – “The traversal coprocessor 138 provides a hardware logic configured to hide those items or triangles which are provably capable of being hidden without a functional impact on the resulting scene. The reduction in returns of results to the SM and synchronization steps between threads greatly improves the overall performance of traversal…the triangles “behind” the opaque triangle from the viewpoint can be ignored (culled) after the intersection of the opaque triangle is identified because the “front”, opaque triangle hides the other triangles from the user's view along the ray. Culling is indicated by dotted lines in FIGS. 5A-5C. In this case, the traversal coprocessor 138 may only need to report the identification of the first, opaque triangle to the SM 132”; Note: the hidden polygons not intersected by the ray are part of the second subset and are culled/removed, which result in a mesh model with less polygons).
Muthler does not teach wherein the polygon mesh model represents a multi-part object comprising a first part and a second part, wherein the second part is enclosed within the first part, and wherein the first part is opaque. However, Visual Components teaches wherein the polygon mesh model represents a multi-part object comprising a first part and a second part, wherein the second part is enclosed within the first part, and wherein the first part is opaque (Screenshot 2 and 3 – The screenshots show a polygon mesh model of an object with multiple parts. Screenshot 2 shows the first part, which is opaque. Screenshot 3 shows the second part, which is inside the first part. See screenshots above). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the single-part object of Muthler (see Fig. 2A) could have been substituted for the multi-part object of Visual Components because both the single-part object and multi-part object serve the purpose of being modeled by a polygon mesh model with opaque polygons. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the substitution. Finally, the substitution achieves the predictable result of reducing polygons in the polygon mesh model of the object. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the single-part object of Muthler for the multi-part object of Visual Components according to known methods to yield the predictable result of reducing polygons in the polygon mesh model of the object. Furthermore, the system of Muthler handles polygons “behind” other polygons (see Fig. 5A-5C), so it would have been obvious for it to be able to handle polygon mesh models of objects that have parts enclosed within.
Muthler modified by Visual Components does not teach the “plurality of viewpoints of the polygon mesh model” in the limitation: “determining a plurality of viewpoints of the polygon mesh model on the bounding geometry, wherein the viewpoints are spatially distributed over the bounding geometry” and in following limitations. However, Main teaches determining a plurality of viewpoints of the polygon mesh model on the bounding geometry, wherein the viewpoints are spatially distributed over the bounding geometry (Paragraph 0052, 0066 – “The viewpoints can be generated to define a trajectory surrounding the selected object instance and centered at the center of mass of the selected object instance. Embodiments of the present invention provide for the trajectory to be on a surface of an ellipsoid with the viewpoints placed at one or more planes or orbits defined on the surface of the ellipsoid. Alternatively, the trajectory can be defined on the surface of a sphere encapsulating the selected object instance…The viewpoints are generated to ensure that the entire selected object instance is covered as the imaging device 4 progresses through the viewpoints. For example, the viewpoints can be placed on the surface of the ellipsoid equidistantly from each other along one or more horizontal planes or orbits to ensure a complete coverage of the selected object instance”; Note: the viewpoints are located on the bounding surface. The viewpoints are spatially distributed equidistantly from each other). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Muthler to incorporate the teachings of Main to have the viewpoints be located on the bounding surface because in Muthler, it is already determined that the viewpoint line-of-sight, represented by a ray, intersects the bounding surface (Muthler: Paragraph 0093 – “Because the rays 304, 306 in FIGS. 3B and 3C intersect a bounding volume 310 that contains geometry, further tests need to be performed to determine whether any (and which) of the primitives inside of the bounding volume are intersected”). Then, it would be logical that for the next ray-intersection test, the viewpoint is placed on the bounding surface so that the ray can be casted inside the bounding volume to determine if it intersects the mesh. By extending the ray from the bounding surface to the object inside, the focus is given to the object in question, rather than to irrelevant space. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Muthler to incorporate the teachings of Main to have the viewpoints be spatially distributed on the bounding surface for the benefit of being able to render the target object from multiple points of view, instead of being limited to one, and ensuring proper coverage of the object.
Muthler modified by Visual Components and Main does not teach the “cone of rays” from the limitation: “directing a cone of rays from the viewpoint into the polygon mesh model” and “determining a first subset of the set of polygons intersected by the cones of rays directed from the plurality of viewpoints”. However, Shkurko teaches the cone of rays (Col. 6 lines 61-67, Col. 7 lines 1-8, Col. 8 lines 40-46 – “the frustum 302 extends in a direction substantially parallel with the rays of the subset from the camera 306 (or viewpoint 306) and contains all rays of the subset…In the depicted example, the frustum 302 is a frustum of a rectangular pyramid extending from the camera 306, but the 3D volume that forms the basis of the frustum 302 can be implemented using any of a variety of volumes, such as a circular or elliptical cone, a triangular pyramid (tetrahedron), a pentagonal pyramid, a hexagonal pyramid, or more generally, an N-polygon pyramid with N >=2. Any of a variety of well-known or proprietary techniques may be used to determine the frustum 302 suitable for binding the subset of rays…the intersection test thus involves projecting a bounding volume under test onto the same projection hemisphere 320 and determining whether there is an intersection (or hit) of the frustum 302 on the bounding volume, and thus whether the subset of rays of the frustum 302 are likely to interest the geometric object represented by the bounding volume”; Note: there is a frustrum, which is represented by a cone, containing rays directed from the viewpoint to the geometric object, which is the mesh). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Muthler to incorporate the teachings of Shkurko to direct a cone of rays because having more rays would more accurately represent a viewpoint and allow for efficient ray-intersection testing. Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the ray of Muthler could have been substituted for the cone of rays of Shkurko because both the single ray and the cone of rays serve the purpose of representing a line-of-sight. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the substitution. Finally, the substitution achieves the predictable result of determining visibility of an object from a viewpoint. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the ray of Muthler for the cone of rays of Shkurko according to known methods to yield the predictable result of determining visibility of an object from a viewpoint.
Regarding claim 34, Muthler teaches a computer-implemented method (Paragraph 0053, 0171 – “a hardware co-processor (herein referred to as a “traversal coprocessor” or in some embodiments a “tree traversal unit” or “TTU”) accelerates certain processes supporting interactive ray tracing including ray-bounding volume intersection tests, ray-primitive intersection tests and ray “instance” transforms…FIG. 11 is a flowchart of an example non-limiting method for accelerated ray-primitives intersection test. The method may be performed by a TTU 700”) comprising:
accessing a polygon mesh model comprising a set of polygons (Paragraph 0092 – “FIGS. 3A-3C illustrate ray tracing applied to the FIG. 2G bounding volume 208 including triangle mesh 320…To determine whether the ray 302 intersects one or more triangles in the mesh 320, each triangle could be directly tested against the ray 302”; Note: the mesh contains a set of triangles);
determining a bounding geometry enclosing the polygon mesh model (Paragraph 0092 – “FIGS. 3A-3C illustrate ray tracing applied to the FIG. 2G bounding volume 208 including triangle mesh 320”; Note: there is a bounding volume/surface of a polygon/triangle mesh model);
determining a viewpoint of the polygon mesh model (Paragraph 0093 – “if a ray such as ray 304 shown in FIG. 3B intersects a bounding volume 310 that contains geometry, then the ray may or may not intersect the geometry inside of the bounding volume so further tests need to be performed on the geometry itself to find possible intersections. Because the rays 304, 306 in FIGS. 3B and 3C intersect a bounding volume 310 that contains geometry, further tests need to be performed to determine whether any (and which) of the primitives inside of the bounding volume are intersected”; Note: the viewpoint is determined and is shown as an eye in Fig. 3C; see screenshot above);
for the viewpoint, directing a ray from the viewpoint into the polygon mesh model (Paragraph 0093 – “if a ray such as ray 304 shown in FIG. 3B intersects a bounding volume 310 that contains geometry, then the ray may or may not intersect the geometry inside of the bounding volume so further tests need to be performed on the geometry itself to find possible intersections. Because the rays 304, 306 in FIGS. 3B and 3C intersect a bounding volume 310 that contains geometry, further tests need to be performed to determine whether any (and which) of the primitives inside of the bounding volume are intersected”; Note: a ray is casted from the viewpoint onto the mesh, as shown in Fig. 3C);
determining a first subset of the set of polygons intersected by the ray directed from the viewpoint (Paragraph 0094 – “FIG. 3C shows a situation in which the bounding volume 310 intersected by ray 306 and contains geometry that ray 306 intersects. Traversal coprocessor 138 tests the intersections between the ray 306 and the individual primitives to determine which primitives the ray intersects”; Note: primitives/polygons that are intersected by the ray are part of the first subset);
determining a second subset of the set of polygons not in the first subset of the set of polygons (Paragraph 0102 – “FIG. 5A illustrates a ray directed towards these three triangles, with the first triangle the ray encounters relative to the viewpoint being opaque. Because the “front” (from the standpoint of the direction of the ray from the eye) intersected triangle is opaque, that triangle will block the ray so the ray will not reach the other triangles even through it spatially intersects them. In this example, the triangles “behind” the opaque triangle from the viewpoint can be ignored (culled) after the intersection of the opaque triangle is identified because the “front”, opaque triangle hides the other triangles from the user's view along the ray. Culling is indicated by dotted lines in FIGS. 5A-5C. In this case, the traversal coprocessor 138 may only need to report the identification of the first, opaque triangle to the SM 132”; Note: the hidden polygons not intersected by the ray are part of the second subset and not the first subset);
and removing at least a portion of the second subset of the polygons from the polygon mesh model to produce an optimized polygon mesh model with a reduced set of polygons (Paragraph 0080, 0102 – “The traversal coprocessor 138 provides a hardware logic configured to hide those items or triangles which are provably capable of being hidden without a functional impact on the resulting scene. The reduction in returns of results to the SM and synchronization steps between threads greatly improves the overall performance of traversal…the triangles “behind” the opaque triangle from the viewpoint can be ignored (culled) after the intersection of the opaque triangle is identified because the “front”, opaque triangle hides the other triangles from the user's view along the ray. Culling is indicated by dotted lines in FIGS. 5A-5C. In this case, the traversal coprocessor 138 may only need to report the identification of the first, opaque triangle to the SM 132”; Note: the hidden polygons not intersected by the ray are part of the second subset and are culled/removed, which result in a mesh model with less polygons).
Muthler does not teach wherein the polygon mesh model represents a multi-part object comprising a first part and a second part, wherein the second part is enclosed within the first part, and wherein the first part is opaque. However, Visual Components teaches wherein the polygon mesh model represents a multi-part object comprising a first part and a second part, wherein the second part is enclosed within the first part, and wherein the first part is opaque (Screenshot 2 and 3 – The screenshots show a polygon mesh model of an object with multiple parts. Screenshot 2 shows the first part, which is opaque. Screenshot 3 shows the second part, which is inside the first part. See screenshots above). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the single-part object of Muthler (see Fig. 2A) could have been substituted for the multi-part object of Visual Components because both the single-part object and multi-part object serve the purpose of being modeled by a polygon mesh model with opaque polygons. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the substitution. Finally, the substitution achieves the predictable result of reducing polygons in the polygon mesh model of the object. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the single-part object of Muthler for the multi-part object of Visual Components according to known methods to yield the predictable result of reducing polygons in the polygon mesh model of the object. Furthermore, the system of Muthler handles polygons “behind” other polygons (see Fig. 5A-5C), so it would have been obvious for it to be able to handle polygon mesh models of objects that have parts enclosed within.
Muthler modified by Visual Components does not teach the “plurality of viewpoints of the polygon mesh model” in the limitation: “determining a plurality of viewpoints of the polygon mesh model on the bounding geometry, wherein the viewpoints are spatially distributed over the bounding geometry” and in following limitations. However, Main teaches determining a plurality of viewpoints of the polygon mesh model on the bounding geometry, wherein the viewpoints are spatially distributed over the bounding geometry (Paragraph 0052, 0066 – “The viewpoints can be generated to define a trajectory surrounding the selected object instance and centered at the center of mass of the selected object instance. Embodiments of the present invention provide for the trajectory to be on a surface of an ellipsoid with the viewpoints placed at one or more planes or orbits defined on the surface of the ellipsoid. Alternatively, the trajectory can be defined on the surface of a sphere encapsulating the selected object instance…The viewpoints are generated to ensure that the entire selected object instance is covered as the imaging device 4 progresses through the viewpoints. For example, the viewpoints can be placed on the surface of the ellipsoid equidistantly from each other along one or more horizontal planes or orbits to ensure a complete coverage of the selected object instance”; Note: the viewpoints are located on the bounding surface. The viewpoints are spatially distributed equidistantly from each other). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Muthler to incorporate the teachings of Main to have the viewpoints be located on the bounding surface because in Muthler, it is already determined that the viewpoint line-of-sight, represented by a ray, intersects the bounding surface (Muthler: Paragraph 0093 – “Because the rays 304, 306 in FIGS. 3B and 3C intersect a bounding volume 310 that contains geometry, further tests need to be performed to determine whether any (and which) of the primitives inside of the bounding volume are intersected”). Then, it would be logical that for the next ray-intersection test, the viewpoint is placed on the bounding surface so that the ray can be casted inside the bounding volume to determine if it intersects the mesh. By extending the ray from the bounding surface to the object inside, the focus is given to the object in question, rather than to irrelevant space. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Muthler to incorporate the teachings of Main to have the viewpoints be spatially distributed on the bounding surface for the benefit of being able to render the target object from multiple points of view, instead of being limited to one, and ensuring proper coverage of the object.
Muthler modified by Visual Components and Main does not teach the “cone of rays” from the limitation: “directing a cone of rays from the viewpoint into the polygon mesh model” and “determining a first subset of the set of polygons intersected by the cones of rays directed from the plurality of viewpoints”. However, Shkurko teaches the cone of rays (Col. 6 lines 61-67, Col. 7 lines 1-8, Col. 8 lines 40-46 – “the frustum 302 extends in a direction substantially parallel with the rays of the subset from the camera 306 (or viewpoint 306) and contains all rays of the subset…In the depicted example, the frustum 302 is a frustum of a rectangular pyramid extending from the camera 306, but the 3D volume that forms the basis of the frustum 302 can be implemented using any of a variety of volumes, such as a circular or elliptical cone, a triangular pyramid (tetrahedron), a pentagonal pyramid, a hexagonal pyramid, or more generally, an N-polygon pyramid with N >=2. Any of a variety of well-known or proprietary techniques may be used to determine the frustum 302 suitable for binding the subset of rays…the intersection test thus involves projecting a bounding volume under test onto the same projection hemisphere 320 and determining whether there is an intersection (or hit) of the frustum 302 on the bounding volume, and thus whether the subset of rays of the frustum 302 are likely to interest the geometric object represented by the bounding volume”; Note: there is a frustrum, which is represented by a cone, containing rays directed from the viewpoint to the geometric object, which is the mesh). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Muthler to incorporate the teachings of Shkurko to direct a cone of rays because having more rays would more accurately represent a viewpoint and allow for efficient ray-intersection testing. Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the ray of Muthler could have been substituted for the cone of rays of Shkurko because both the single ray and the cone of rays serve the purpose of representing a line-of-sight. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the substitution. Finally, the substitution achieves the predictable result of determining visibility of an object from a viewpoint. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the ray of Muthler for the cone of rays of Shkurko according to known methods to yield the predictable result of determining visibility of an object from a viewpoint.
Regarding claim 35, Muthler in view of Main, Shkurko, and Visual Components teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 34. Muthler does not teach wherein accessing the polygon mesh model comprises obtaining the polygon mesh model from a CAD model. However, Visual Components teaches wherein accessing the polygon mesh model comprises obtaining the polygon mesh model from a CAD model (Screenshots 1 and 2 – Screenshot 1 shows a CAD stp file being imported, and screenshot 2 shows a polygon mesh model that is obtained as a result of the importing). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Muthler to incorporate the teachings of Visual Components to obtain the polygon mesh model from a CAD model because CAD modeling is efficient, customizable, and precise. Turning the CAD model into a polygon mesh model would allow it to be rendered and displayed to users.
Regarding claim 36, Muthler in view of Main, Shkurko, and Visual Components teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 34. Muthler does not teach wherein accessing the polygon mesh model comprises obtaining the polygon mesh model from a robot CAD model. However, Visual Components teaches wherein accessing the polygon mesh model comprises obtaining the polygon mesh model from a robot CAD model (Screenshots 1 and 2 – Screenshot 1 shows a CAD stp file of a robot being imported, and screenshot 2 shows a polygon mesh model that is obtained as a result of the importing). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Muthler to incorporate the teachings of Visual Components to obtain the polygon mesh model from a robot CAD model because CAD modeling is efficient, customizable, and precise, which makes it suitable for modeling robots, and the modeling process helps users visualize and plan when trying to build real-life or virtual robots. Turning the CAD model into a polygon mesh model would allow it to be rendered and displayed to users.
Regarding claim 37, Muthler in view of Main, Shkurko, and Visual Components teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 34. Muthler does not teach wherein accessing the polygon mesh model comprises obtaining the polygon mesh model from a simulated representation of a physical object. However, Visual Components teaches wherein accessing the polygon mesh model comprises obtaining the polygon mesh model from a simulated representation of a physical object (Screenshots 1 and 2 – Screenshot 1 shows a CAD stp file being imported, which contains a simulated representation of a robot, and screenshot 2 shows a polygon mesh model that is obtained as a result of the importing). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Muthler to incorporate the teachings of Visual Components to obtain the polygon mesh model from a simulated representation of a physical object because a simulated representation contains important information about the object, such as structure and behavior, which is useful for creating a visual model of it. Turning the simulated representation into a polygon mesh model would allow it to be rendered and displayed to users.
Regarding claim 38, Muthler in view of Main, Shkurko, and Visual Components teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 34. Muthler does not teach wherein determining the plurality of viewpoints of the polygon mesh model on the bounding geometry comprises determining at least two viewpoints on opposed sides of the bounding geometry. However, Main teaches determining at least two viewpoints on opposed sides of the bounding geometry (Paragraph 0052, 0066 – “viewpoints are generated around the selected object instance at step 108. The viewpoints can be generated to define a trajectory surrounding the selected object instance and centered at the center of mass of the selected object instance. Embodiments of the present invention provide for the trajectory to be on a surface of an ellipsoid with the viewpoints placed at one or more planes or orbits defined on the surface of the ellipsoid…The viewpoints are generated to ensure that the entire selected object instance is covered as the imaging device 4 progresses through the viewpoints. For example, the viewpoints can be placed on the surface of the ellipsoid equidistantly from each other along one or more horizontal planes or orbits to ensure a complete coverage of the selected object instance”; Note: it is implied that there are at least two viewpoints opposite to each other on the bounding geometry (ellipsoid) because the viewpoints ensure complete coverage of the object and define a trajectory surrounding the object). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Muthler to incorporate the teachings of Visual Components to determine at least two viewpoints on opposed sides of the bounding geometry for the benefit of ensuring that most, if not all, sides of the object are rendered so that it can properly be viewed by a user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mason (US 20220327782 A1) teaches a method of generating a proxy mesh for an input polygon mesh that contains sub-meshes. Hunt et al. (US 20190318528 A1) teaches a method of using intersection tests with a bounding volume hierarchy for determining visibility of objects in a scene.
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 MICHELLE HAU MA whose telephone number is (571)272-2187. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-5:30.
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, King Poon can be reached at (571) 270-0728. 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.
/MICHELLE HAU MA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2617
/KING Y POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2617
