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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 19, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed January 19, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 11-14, and 21-27 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 7-11 of Remarks, filed January 19, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4, 11-14, and 21-27 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Muthler et al. (US 20200051312 A1).
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 1, 4, 11, 14, and 21-26 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), and Shkurko (US 11741658 B2), hereinafter Muthler, Main, and Shkurko respectively.
Regarding claim 1, 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:
a controller, the controller 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”; Note: it is implied that the system has a controller since it is needed for a computer to run properly and since the storage contains control logic);
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 processor-executable instructions and/or data that, when executed by the at least one processor (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), cause the computer system to perform a method for reducing the number of polygons in a polygon mesh model of an object (Paragraph 0102, 0174-0175 – “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…The method includes testing primitives in the primitive range for intersection with the ray…The method includes omitting intersected primitives which can be determined to not have a functional impact on visualizing a resulting scene”; Note: the method includes omitting/culling/reducing the polygons in the mesh), the polygon mesh model of the object comprising a set of one or more 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), wherein the method includes:
determining one or more bounding surfaces of the polygon mesh model of the object (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 one or more viewpoints of one or more bounding surfaces as determined (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_image1.png
337
434
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Screenshot of Fig. 3C (taken from Muthler)
for each viewpoint of the one or more viewpoints located on the one or more bounding surfaces as determined, directing a ray from the viewpoint into the polygon mesh model of the object (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);
for each ray directed into the polygon mesh model of the object from a respective viewpoint, determining a respective first subset of polygons of the set of one or more polygons of the polygon mesh model of the object not intersected by the ray (Paragraph 0093, 0102 – “In FIG. 3B, further testing of the intersections with the primitives would indicate that even though the ray 304 passes through the bounding volume 310, it does not intersect any of the primitives the bounding volume encloses… 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”; Note: for each ray, it is determined whether or not the rays intersect the primitives/polygons);
determining a first intersection of the respective first subset of polygons (Paragraph 0102 – “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: there is a spatial intersection, which is equivalent to the first intersection, of the ray against the polygons behind the “front” opaque polygon);
and removing from the polygon mesh model of the object at least some of the polygons in the first intersection (Paragraph 0102 – “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: triangles that are hidden behind the “front” triangle (in the first intersection) are culled/removed).
Muthler does not teach that the one or more viewpoints are located on the one or more bounding surfaces. However, Main teaches that the one or more viewpoints are located on the one or more bounding surfaces (Paragraph 0052 – “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”; Note: the viewpoint is located on the bounding surface). 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 viewpoint 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.
Muthler modified by Main does not teach the “cone of rays” from the limitation: “directing a cone of rays from the viewpoint into the polygon mesh model of the object” and “for each cone of rays directed into the polygon mesh model from a respective viewpoint…”. 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 4, Muthler in view of Main and Shkurko teaches the computer system of claim 1. Muthler further teaches wherein the object is a simulated representation of a physical object (Paragraph 0112 – “in the mesh shown in FIG. 2G, the spout of the teapot alone is made up of over a hundred triangles…FIGS. 3A-3C illustrate ray tracing applied to the FIG. 2G bounding volume 208 including triangle mesh 320…FIGS. 7A and 7B illustrates how the traversal coprocessor 138 transforms the same ray into three different object spaces. FIG. 7A shows three objects on a table: a cup, a teapot and a pitcher. These three objects and a table comprise a scene, which exists in world space”; Note: the object is a simulated representation of a teapot, or spout of a teapot).
Regarding claim 11, Muthler teaches a computer program product (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”) comprising
data and processor- executable instructions stored in a non-volatile processor-readable storage medium that, when executed by a processor communicatively coupled to the storage medium (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 the storage medium, and it is implied to be coupled to the processor since it contains programs which require a processor to be executed), cause the processor to perform a method for reducing the number of polygons in a polygon mesh model of an object (Paragraph 0102, 0174-0175 – “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…The method includes testing primitives in the primitive range for intersection with the ray…The method includes omitting intersected primitives which can be determined to not have a functional impact on visualizing a resulting scene”; Note: the method includes omitting/culling/reducing the polygons in the mesh), the polygon mesh model of the object comprising a set of one or more 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), wherein the method includes:
determining one or more bounding surfaces of the polygon mesh model of the object (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 one or more viewpoints of one or more bounding surfaces as determined (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 each viewpoint of the one or more viewpoints located on the one or more bounding surfaces as determined, directing a ray from the viewpoint into the polygon mesh model of the object (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);
for each ray directed into the polygon mesh model of the object from a respective viewpoint, determining a respective first subset of polygons of the set of one or more polygons of the polygon mesh model of the object not intersected by the ray (Paragraph 0093, 0102 – “In FIG. 3B, further testing of the intersections with the primitives would indicate that even though the ray 304 passes through the bounding volume 310, it does not intersect any of the primitives the bounding volume encloses… 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”; Note: for each ray, it is determined whether or not the rays intersect the primitives/polygons);
determining a first intersection of the respective first subset of polygons (Paragraph 0102 – “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: there is a spatial intersection, which is equivalent to the first intersection, of the ray against the polygons behind the “front” opaque polygon);
and removing from the polygon mesh model of the object at least some of the polygons in the first intersection (Paragraph 0102 – “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: triangles that are hidden behind the “front” triangle (in the first intersection) are culled/removed).
Muthler does not teach that the one or more viewpoints are located on the one or more bounding surfaces. However, Main teaches that the one or more viewpoints are located on the one or more bounding surfaces (Paragraph 0052 – “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”; Note: the viewpoint is located on the bounding surface). 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 viewpoint 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.
Muthler modified by Main does not teach the “cone of rays” from the limitation: “directing a cone of rays from the viewpoint into the polygon mesh model of the object” and “for each cone of rays directed into the polygon mesh model from a respective viewpoint…”. 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 14, Muthler in view of Main and Shkurko teaches the computer program product of claim 11. Muthler further teaches wherein the object is a simulated representation of a physical object (Paragraph 0112 – “in the mesh shown in FIG. 2G, the spout of the teapot alone is made up of over a hundred triangles…FIGS. 3A-3C illustrate ray tracing applied to the FIG. 2G bounding volume 208 including triangle mesh 320…FIGS. 7A and 7B illustrates how the traversal coprocessor 138 transforms the same ray into three different object spaces. FIG. 7A shows three objects on a table: a cup, a teapot and a pitcher. These three objects and a table comprise a scene, which exists in world space”; Note: the object is a simulated representation of a teapot, or spout of a teapot).
Regarding claim 21, Muthler in view of Main and Shkurko teaches the computer system of claim 1. Muthler does not teach wherein the one or more bounding surfaces comprises a bounding sphere. However, Main teaches wherein the one or more bounding surfaces comprises a bounding sphere (Paragraph 0052 – “the trajectory can be defined on the surface of a sphere encapsulating the selected object instance”; Note: the bounding surface 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 surface 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 22, Muthler in view of Main and Shkurko teaches the computer system of claim 21. Muthler does not teach wherein determining one or more viewpoints on the one or more bounding surfaces comprises determining randomly- located points on the bounding sphere. However, Main teaches wherein determining one or more viewpoints on the one or more bounding surfaces comprises determining randomly- located points on the bounding sphere (Paragraph 0050, 0052 – “the 3D environment is represented by a mesh of triangles and each object instance is associated with a respective set of triangles underneath it… From the given viewpoint associated with the initial scene, only a subset of the triangles associated with the object instance to be extracted are visible, hence the need to generate a plurality of viewpoints around the object instance selected for extraction to ensure that all triangles associated with the object instance can be detected…the trajectory can be defined on the surface of a sphere encapsulating the selected object instance…the position and/or number of viewpoints and/or the trajectory may be randomly selected”; Note: the positions of the viewpoints, which correspond to points, are randomly selected on the surface of the 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 determine randomly-located points on the bounding sphere for the benefit of unbiased prediction of the incoming direction of light, which may help produce more accurate results.
Regarding claim 23, Muthler in view of Main and Shkurko teaches the computer system of claim 1. Muthler further teaches determining a respective second subset of polygons of the set of one or more polygons intersected by the respective cone of rays (Paragraph 0094, 0099 – “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… the SM 132 can command the traversal coprocessor 138 to report the nearest visible primitive revealed by the intersection test, or to report all primitives the ray intersects irrespective of whether they are the nearest visible primitive”; Note: the polygons that were intersected by the ray are determined. The cone of rays was previously taught by Shkurko in the rejection of claim 1); and determining the respective first subset of polygons of the set of one or more polygons from at least some of the polygons in a complement of the respective second subset of polygons (Paragraph 0094, 0099, 0101-0102 – “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… the SM 132 can command the traversal coprocessor 138 to report the nearest visible primitive revealed by the intersection test, or to report all primitives the ray intersects irrespective of whether they are the nearest visible primitive… Opaque primitives will block a ray from passing through the primitive because the eye cannot see through the primitive's opaque surface… 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”; Note: polygons that are not visible are determined by finding the polygons intersected by a ray and then any leftover polygons are considered not visible and are removed. That process is equivalent to taking the complement of a subset of visible polygons).
Regarding claim 24, Muthler in view of Main and Shkurko teaches the computer program product of claim 11. Muthler does not teach wherein the one or more bounding surfaces comprises a bounding sphere. However, Main teaches wherein the one or more bounding surfaces comprises a bounding sphere (Paragraph 0052 – “the trajectory can be defined on the surface of a sphere encapsulating the selected object instance”; Note: the bounding surface 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 surface 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 25, Muthler in view of Main and Shkurko teaches the computer program product of claim 24. Muthler does not teach wherein determining one or more viewpoints on the one or more bounding surfaces comprises determining randomly- located points on the bounding sphere. However, Main teaches wherein determining one or more viewpoints on the one or more bounding surfaces comprises determining randomly- located points on the bounding sphere (Paragraph 0050, 0052 – “the 3D environment is represented by a mesh of triangles and each object instance is associated with a respective set of triangles underneath it… From the given viewpoint associated with the initial scene, only a subset of the triangles associated with the object instance to be extracted are visible, hence the need to generate a plurality of viewpoints around the object instance selected for extraction to ensure that all triangles associated with the object instance can be detected…the trajectory can be defined on the surface of a sphere encapsulating the selected object instance…the position and/or number of viewpoints and/or the trajectory may be randomly selected”; Note: the positions of the viewpoints, which correspond to points, are randomly selected on the surface of the 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 determine randomly-located points on the bounding sphere for the benefit of unbiased prediction of the incoming direction of light, which may help produce more accurate results.
Regarding claim 26, Muthler in view of Main and Shkurko teaches the computer program product of claim 11. Muthler further teaches determining a respective second subset of polygons of the set of one or more polygons intersected by the respective cone of rays (Paragraph 0094, 0099 – “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… the SM 132 can command the traversal coprocessor 138 to report the nearest visible primitive revealed by the intersection test, or to report all primitives the ray intersects irrespective of whether they are the nearest visible primitive”; Note: the polygons that were intersected by the ray are determined. The cone of rays was previously taught by Shkurko in the rejection of claim 11); and determining the respective first subset of polygons of the set of one or more polygons from at least some of the polygons in a complement of the respective second subset of polygons (Paragraph 0094, 0099, 0101-0102 – “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… the SM 132 can command the traversal coprocessor 138 to report the nearest visible primitive revealed by the intersection test, or to report all primitives the ray intersects irrespective of whether they are the nearest visible primitive… Opaque primitives will block a ray from passing through the primitive because the eye cannot see through the primitive's opaque surface… 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”; Note: polygons that are not visible are determined by finding the polygons intersected by a ray and then any leftover polygons are considered not visible and are removed. That process is equivalent to taking the complement of a subset of visible polygons).
Claims 2-3 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muthler in view of Main, Shkurko, and Szilagyi (US 20210225075 A1), hereinafter Szilagyi.
Regarding claim 2, Muthler in view of Main and Shkurko teaches the computer system of claim 1. Muthler does not teach wherein the object is a CAD model. However, Szilagyi teaches wherein the object is a CAD model (Paragraph 0005, 0028 – “a method is disclosed that comprises obtaining, by a device, visualization data that depicts at least one three-dimensional object…Optimizing visualization data 108 can also be quite beneficial with respect to converting and exporting visualization data from one 3D file into another. Indeed, there are upwards of hundreds of different 3D file types, each of which is optimized for its own specific software. For instance, Blend uses the BLEND file format, AutoCAD uses the .DWG format, Clo uses the .zprj format, Browzwear uses the .bw format, etc.”; Note: the 3D object is represented by visualization data, which is a 3D file used in CAD). 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 Szilagyi to have the object be a CAD model for the benefit of “taking manufacturing design files for AutoCad or Solidworks that are too large to use in marketing materials for web, mobile, VR/AR, etc., and shrinking them down to a usable size without affecting the overall quality of the shape and image” (SZILAGYI: Paragraph 0042). CAD models are common in many fields, so optimizing a CAD model of an object would be useful.
Regarding claim 3, Muthler in view of Main, Shkurko, and Szilagyi teaches the computer system of claim 2. Muthler further teaches wherein the CAD model includes an internal surface, the internal surface non-visible for each viewpoint of the one or more viewpoints (Paragraph 0102 – “FIGS. 5A-5C illustrate some of these scenarios using an example of three triangles assumed to be in the same bounding volume and each intersected by a ray. 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”; Note: the model has an internal surface (the triangles behind the opaque triangle), which is not visible from the viewpoint. The internal surface can be seen in Fig. 3C above. The CAD model was previously taught by Szilagyi in the rejection of claim 2), wherein the removing from the polygon mesh model at least some of the polygons in the first intersection includes removing at least some of the polygons of the internal surface (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”; Note: the triangles of the internal surface (triangles that are behind the opaque triangle) are culled/removed).
Regarding claim 12, Muthler in view of Main and Shkurko teaches the computer program product of claim 11. Muthler does not teach wherein the object is a CAD model. However, Szilagyi teaches wherein the object is a CAD model (Paragraph 0005, 0028 – “a method is disclosed that comprises obtaining, by a device, visualization data that depicts at least one three-dimensional object…Optimizing visualization data 108 can also be quite beneficial with respect to converting and exporting visualization data from one 3D file into another. Indeed, there are upwards of hundreds of different 3D file types, each of which is optimized for its own specific software. For instance, Blend uses the BLEND file format, AutoCAD uses the .DWG format, Clo uses the .zprj format, Browzwear uses the .bw format, etc.”; Note: the 3D object is represented by visualization data, which is a 3D file used in CAD). 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 Szilagyi to have the object be a CAD model for the benefit of “taking manufacturing design files for AutoCad or Solidworks that are too large to use in marketing materials for web, mobile, VR/AR, etc., and shrinking them down to a usable size without affecting the overall quality of the shape and image” (SZILAGYI: Paragraph 0042). CAD models are common in many fields, so optimizing a CAD model of an object would be useful.
Regarding claim 13, Muthler in view of Main, Shkurko, and Szilagyi teaches the computer program product of claim 12. Muthler further teaches wherein the CAD model includes an internal surface, the internal surface non-visible for each viewpoint of the one or more viewpoints (Paragraph 0102 – “FIGS. 5A-5C illustrate some of these scenarios using an example of three triangles assumed to be in the same bounding volume and each intersected by a ray. 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”; Note: the model has an internal surface (the triangles behind the opaque triangle), which is not visible from the viewpoint. The internal surface can be seen in Fig. 3C above. The CAD model was previously taught by Szilagyi in the rejection of claim 12), wherein the removing from the polygon mesh model at least some of the polygons in the first intersection includes removing at least some of the polygons of the internal surface (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”; Note: the triangles of the internal surface (triangles that are behind the opaque triangle) are culled/removed).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muthler in view of Main, Shkurko, and Comer (US 11308673 B2), hereinafter Comer.
Regarding claim 27, 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:
a controller, the controller 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”; Note: it is implied that the system has a controller since it is needed for a computer to run properly and since the storage contains control logic);
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 processor-executable instructions and/or data that, when executed by the at least one processor (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), cause the computer system to perform a method for reducing the number of polygons in a polygon mesh model of an object (Paragraph 0102, 0174-0175 – “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…The method includes testing primitives in the primitive range for intersection with the ray…The method includes omitting intersected primitives which can be determined to not have a functional impact on visualizing a resulting scene”; Note: the method includes omitting/culling/reducing the polygons in the mesh), the polygon mesh model of the object comprising a set of one or more 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), wherein the method includes:
determining one or more bounding surfaces of the polygon mesh model of the object (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 one or more viewpoints of one or more bounding surfaces as determined (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 each viewpoint of the one or more viewpoints located on the one or more bounding surfaces as determined, directing a ray from the viewpoint into the polygon mesh model of the object (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);
for each ray directed into the polygon mesh model of the object from a respective viewpoint, determining a respective first subset of polygons of the set of one or more polygons of the polygon mesh model of the object not intersected by the ray (Paragraph 0093, 0102 – “In FIG. 3B, further testing of the intersections with the primitives would indicate that even though the ray 304 passes through the bounding volume 310, it does not intersect any of the primitives the bounding volume encloses… 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”; Note: for each ray, it is determined whether or not the rays intersect the primitives/polygons);
determining a first intersection of the respective first subset of polygons (Paragraph 0102 – “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: there is a spatial intersection, which is equivalent to the first intersection, of the ray against the polygons behind the “front” opaque polygon);
and removing from the polygon mesh model of the object at least some of the polygons in the first intersection (Paragraph 0102 – “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: triangles that are hidden behind the “front” triangle (in the first intersection) are culled/removed).
Muthler does not teach that the one or more viewpoints are located on the one or more bounding surfaces. However, Main teaches that the one or more viewpoints are located on the one or more bounding surfaces (Paragraph 0052 – “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”; Note: the viewpoint is located on the bounding surface). 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 viewpoint 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.
Muthler modified by Main does not teach the “cone of rays” from the limitation: “directing a cone of rays from the viewpoint into the polygon mesh model of the object” and “for each cone of rays directed into the polygon mesh model from a respective viewpoint…”. 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.
Finally, Muthler modified by Main and Shkurko does not teach determining one or more articulations of the object; nor “polygons of the one or more articulations” in the limitation: “for each cone of rays directed into the polygon mesh model from a respective viewpoint, determining a respective first subset of polygons of the one or more articulations of the object not intersected by the cone of rays”. However, Comer teaches determining one or more articulations of the object and polygons of the one or more articulations (Col. 36 lines 34-43 – “the DCC application can partition each of the polygon meshes 1304 into articulation segment. Each of the articulation segments may include a subset of the vertices which make up the complete polygon mesh for the virtual character. An articulation segment can consist essentially of those vertices which pertain to a given body part; or which change position and/or orientation substantially together as a group from one pose to another with articulation of a given anatomical joint or set of anatomical joints by the physical subject”; Note: the articulations of the object, which is a virtual character in this case, are determined). 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 Comer to determine the articulations of an object and analyze each articulation because it would make it easier to track the movement and position of the articulations in a model, which affects what parts are visible. Additionally, Muthler’s process of determining subsets of polygons can easily be applied to the articulations of an object since the articulations would already a part of the polygon mesh of the object.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Maillot (US 20050146522 A1) teaches a method of determining the occlusion of a mesh by performing intersection tests between a ray and the mesh using tessellations. Newhall (US 6489955 B1) teaches a method of reducing the number of intersection tests for a ray and polygons by grouping polygons based on their orientation. Sowizral et al. (US 20020050990 A1) teaches a method of determining the visibility of an object using a cone hierarchy and a bounding hierarchy.
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