DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 3rd December, 2025. Claims 1-6, 9, 11-15, 19, and 21 have been amended. Claims 1-21 remain rejected in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to Claims 1, 11, and 21 filed on 3rd December, 2025, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, regarding that the prior art does not teach the limitation(s): "obtaining a target animation including a plurality of frames, wherein at least a first frame of the plurality of frames includes a target three-dimensional element in the virtual scene and at least a second frame of the plurality of frame does not include the target three-dimensional element", "sampling the target animation to obtain a plurality of mesh sequence frames including the target three-dimensional element", and "obtaining mesh data corresponding to the target three-dimensional element from the plurality of mesh sequence frames" have been fully considered, but are moot because of new grounds for rejection. It has now been taught by the combination of Lin, Szeliski, and Sheblak.
Regarding arguments to Claims 2-10 and 12-20, they directly/indirectly depend on independent Claims 1, 11, and 21 respectively. Applicant does not argue anything other than independent Claims 1, 11, and 21. The limitations in those claims, in conjunction with combination, was previously established as explained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 8, 11, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (CN 111260762 A, previously cited), in view of Szeliski et al. (US 6600491 B1), hereinafter referenced as Szeliski, and further in view of Sheblak et al. (US 20110306417 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Sheblak.
Regarding Claim 1, Lin discloses a method for rendering a virtual scene performed by an electronic device (Lin, [0146]: teaches a scene environment being created <read on method for rendering virtual scene> for a target virtual object, which is run by a terminal device <read on electronic device>), the method comprising:
obtaining a target animation including a plurality of frames (Lin, [0116]: teaches obtaining a target animation segment T1 being composed of at least a first key frame and a second key frame <read on plurality of frames>, where the second key frame is adjacent to the first key frame; Note: it should be noted that it is common knowledge in the art that an animation is a sequence of frames played in order), wherein
at least a first frame of the plurality of frames includes a target three-dimensional element in the virtual scene [[and at least a second frame of the plurality of frame does not include the target three-dimensional element]] (Lin, [0100]: teaches obtaining a target animation segment that includes a first key frame <read on first frame of frames>, where the first key frame includes the initial posture data of a target virtual character; [0101]: teaches the target virtual character being a 3D form <read on target 3D element>);
sampling the target animation to obtain a plurality of mesh sequence frames including the target three-dimensional element (Lin, [0100]: teaches obtaining <read on sampling> a target animation segment T0, where it contains key frames <read on obtain mesh sequence frames>, which further includes the initial posture data of a target virtual character <read on target 3D element>; [0137]: teaches sampling 10 frames of the root joints of the target virtual character of a posture sequence <read on target animation> within a one second historical time window),
the plurality of mesh sequence frames comprising a current frame and at least one historical frame (Lin, [0126]: teaches obtaining a state information of the target virtual character in a key frame <read on current frame>; [0131]: teaches the state information of the target virtual character further includes current phase data, current posture data, current speed data, and a historical pose/posture sequence <read on at least one historical frame> of the target virtual character), and
each historical frame comprising the target three-dimensional element (Lin, [0137]: teaches the historical pose/posture sequence being used "to represent the pose of the target virtual character in the historical time period <read on each historical frame comprising target 3D element>");
obtaining mesh data corresponding to the target three-dimensional element from the plurality of mesh sequence frames (Lin, [0100]: teaches obtaining the target animation segment T0 <read on mesh sequence frames>, where it contains the first key frame, which further includes the initial posture data <read on obtaining mesh data> of a target virtual character <read on target 3D element>; [0101]: teaches the target virtual character being displayed in a 3D form);
[[creating a transformed two-dimensional element corresponding to the target three-dimensional element through transforming the mesh data corresponding to the target three-dimensional element; and]]
[[rendering the transformed two-dimensional element corresponding to the target three-dimensional element in the current frame.]]
However, Lin does not expressly disclose
at least a first frame of the plurality of frames includes a target three-dimensional element in the virtual scene and at least a second frame of the plurality of frame does not include the target three-dimensional element;
creating a transformed two-dimensional element corresponding to the target three-dimensional element through transforming the mesh data corresponding to the target three-dimensional element; and
rendering the transformed two-dimensional element corresponding to the target three-dimensional element in the current frame.
Szeliski discloses
at least a first frame of the plurality of frames includes a target three-dimensional element in the virtual scene and at least a second frame of the plurality of frame does not include the target three-dimensional element (Szeliski, FIG. 16 teaches extracting an object from frames <read on second frame> of an input video clip <read on frame not including target 3D element>; Note: it should be noted that the second frame not including the target 3D element is being interpreted as an irrelevant frame that is to be ignored, such as frames that exclude the object);
PNG
media_image1.png
633
344
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[[creating a transformed two-dimensional element corresponding to the target three-dimensional element through transforming the mesh data corresponding to the target three-dimensional element; and]]
[[rendering the transformed two-dimensional element corresponding to the target three-dimensional element in the current frame.]]
Szeliski is analogous art with respect to Lin because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely rendering animations for video processing. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a video processing system perform object extraction for 2D sprite animation generation as taught by Szeliski into the teaching of Lin. The suggestion for doing so would allow the system to identify relevant frames and regions to generate an optimal and desired 2D animation clip, thereby yielding predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Szeliski with Lin.
However, the combination of Lin and Szeliski does not expressly disclose
creating a transformed two-dimensional element corresponding to the target three-dimensional element through transforming the mesh data corresponding to the target three-dimensional element; and
rendering the transformed two-dimensional element corresponding to the target three-dimensional element in the current frame.
Sheblak discloses
creating a transformed two-dimensional element corresponding to the target three-dimensional element through transforming the mesh data corresponding to the target three-dimensional element (Sheblak, [0047]: teaches dynamically generating 2D images <read on creating transformed 2D element> of corresponding 3D models to output a 3D imposter; Note: it should be noted that the system sees these images as billboarded sprites, where the sprite will always face the camera for seamless immersion); and
rendering the transformed two-dimensional element corresponding to the target three-dimensional element in the current frame (Sheblak, [0047]: teaches creating and displaying imposter 2D data <read on rendering transformed 2D element>, where the system determines priority for render order).
Sheblak is analogous art with respect to Lin, in view of Szeliski because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely manipulating mesh data for desired output results. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine a rendering system that dynamically generates 2D images from 3D mesh data into a separate rendering system that adjusts 3D mesh animation as taught by Sheblak into the teaching of Lin, in view of Szeliski. The suggestion for doing so would allow the system to render sorted 2D images, such as billboarded particle effects, onto a 3D mesh, which would result in an output that is void of geometric clipping, thereby yielding desired results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Sheblak with Lin, in view of Szeliski.
Regarding Claim 11, it recites the limitations that are similar in scope to Claim 1, but in an electronic device. As shown in the rejection, the combination of Lin, Szeliski, and Sheblak discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Additionally, Lin discloses an electronic device (Lin, [0277]: teaches an electronic device 140), comprising:
a memory, configured to store executable instructions (Lin, [0277]: teaches the electronic device 140 including a memory 143; [0278]: teaches memory 143 being used to store software programs <read on executable instructions> and modules); and
a processor, configured to execute the executable instructions and cause the electronic device to implement a method for rendering a virtual scene including (Lin, [0279]: teaches processor 141 being the control center of electronic device 140, where it executes software programs <read on executable instructions> and/or modules stored in memory 143; [0146]: teaches a scene environment being created <read on method for rendering virtual scene> for a target virtual object, which is run by a terminal device):…
Thus, Claim 11 is met by Lin according to the mapping presented in the rejection of Claim 1, given the method corresponds to an electronic device.
Regarding Claim 21, it recites the limitations that are similar in scope to Claim 1, but in a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. As shown in the rejection, the combination of Lin, Szeliski, and Sheblak discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Additionally, Lin discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing executable instructions (Lin, [0278]: teaches memory 143 being used to store software programs <read on executable instructions> and modules, where memory 143 can be non-volatile memory <read on non-transitory computer-readable storage medium>),
the executable instructions, when executed by a processor of an electronic device, causing the electronic device to implement a method for rendering a virtual scene including (Lin, [0279]: teaches processor 141 being the control center of electronic device 140, where it executes software programs <read on executable instructions> and/or modules stored in memory 143; [0146]: teaches a scene environment being created <read on method for rendering virtual scene> for a target virtual object, which is run by a terminal device):…
Thus, Claim 21 is met by Lin according to the mapping presented in the rejection of Claim 1, given the method corresponds to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.
Regarding Claims 8 and 18, the combination of Lin, Szeliski, and Sheblak discloses the method and the electronic device of Claims 1 and 11 respectively. The combination of Lin and Szeliski does not expressly disclose the limitations of Claims 8 and 18; however, Sheblak discloses wherein
the transformed two-dimensional element corresponding to the target three-dimensional element is stored in a first memory space (Sheblak, [0036]: teaches the system acquiring data, such as 2D image data <read on transformed 2D element> between connected components, such as disk drive 14 reading optical disk 4, which further stores a game program and its assets, where data on the optical disk is read and written into an internal main memory 11e <read on first memory space>; Note: it should be noted that it is being interpreted that the 2D image data is stored on the optical disk itself, which is being interpreted as a first memory space); and
before the rendering the transformed two-dimensional element corresponding to the target three-dimensional element in the current frame, the method further comprises (Sheblak, [0048]: teaches prior to texture mapping the 2D images <read on before rendering transformed 2D element>):
applying for a second memory space (Sheblak, [0047]: teaches storing the 2D imposter images in VRAM 11d <read on applying for second memory space>);
generating rendering data corresponding to the transformed two-dimensional element based on the transformed two-dimensional element corresponding to the target three-dimensional element in the first memory space (Sheblak, [0038]: teaches generating an image in accordance with a graphics command (rendering command) from CPU 10, where "VRAM 11d stores data (data such as polygon data and texture data) necessary for the GPU 11b to execute the graphics command <read on generating rendering data>");
sorting the transformed two-dimensional element in the first memory space based on the rendering data (Sheblak, [0052]: teaches storing sorting layer info in the Imposter System; [0066]: teaches each sprite sheet entry being in order of desired depth sort, which is performed in internal main memory 11e <read on sort transformed 2D element in first memory space>, where sorting is based on z-depth); and
storing the sorted transformed two-dimensional element into the second memory space (Sheblak, [0047]: teaches storing the 2D imposter images in VRAM 11d <read on storing sorted transformed 2D element into second memory space>), wherein
the sorting is used for determining a rendering order between the elements (Sheblak, [0066]: teaches a desired depth sort <read on determining rendering order> for each entry in the Imposter-Bin).
Sheblak is analogous art with respect to Lin, in view of Szeliski because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely manipulating mesh data for desired output results. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine a rendering system that dynamically generates 2D images from 3D mesh data into a separate rendering system that adjusts 3D mesh animation as taught by Sheblak into the teaching of Lin, in view of Szeliski. The suggestion for doing so would allow the system to render sorted 2D images, such as billboarded particle effects, onto a 3D mesh, which would result in an output that is void of geometric clipping, thereby yielding desired results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Sheblak with Lin, in view of Szeliski.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (CN 111260762 A, previously cited), in view of Szeliski et al. (US 6600491 B1), hereinafter referenced as Szeliski, and further in view of Sheblak et al. (US 20110306417 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Sheblak as applied to Claims 1 and 11 above respectively, and further in view of Green et al. (US 20130120418 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Green.
Regarding Claims 2 and 12, the combination of Lin, Szeliski, and Sheblak discloses the method and the electronic device of Claims 1 and 11 respectively. Additionally, Lin further discloses wherein the obtaining mesh data corresponding to the target three-dimensional element from the mesh sequence of frames comprises:
[[determining a renderer type of a renderer corresponding to an element type of the target three-dimensional element; and]]
obtaining the mesh data corresponding to the target three-dimensional element from at least one of the plurality of mesh sequence frames [[corresponding to the renderer of the renderer type]] (Lin, [0100]: teaches obtaining the target animation segment T0, where it contains the first key frame, which further includes the initial posture data <read on obtaining mesh data> of a target virtual character <read on target 3D element>; [0101]: teaches the target virtual character being displayed in a 3D form).
However, the combination of Lin, Szeliski, and Sheblak does not expressly disclose
determining a renderer type of a renderer corresponding to an element type of the target three-dimensional element; and
obtaining the mesh data corresponding to the target three-dimensional element from at least one of the plurality of mesh sequence frames corresponding to the renderer of the renderer type.
Green discloses
determining a renderer type of a renderer corresponding to an element type of the target three-dimensional element (Green, [0099]: teaches a render graph render manager 502 specifying other render managers <read on determining renderer type of renderer> and mesh renderers as shown in FIG. 5; [0101]: teaches a render manager that includes type 604 <read on element type of target 3D element>); and
PNG
media_image2.png
438
409
media_image2.png
Greyscale
obtaining the mesh data corresponding to the target three-dimensional element from at least one of the plurality of mesh sequence frames corresponding to the renderer of the renderer type (Green, [0112]: teaches a mesh renderer inheriting a parameter from an associated shape node <read on corresponding to renderer of renderer type> and rendering an object described in the shape node based on said parameter).
Green is analogous art with respect to the combination of Lin, Szeliski, and Sheblak because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely using mesh renderers to render 2D/3D geometric data. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement a render manager that handles a plurality of mesh renderers as taught by Green into the combined teaching of Lin, Szeliski, and Sheblak. The suggestion for doing so would allow the graphics system to perform render sort by priority, such as object type, thereby improving rendering performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Green with the combination of Lin, Szeliski, and Sheblak.
Claims 3-4 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (CN 111260762 A, previously cited), in view of Szeliski et al. (US 6600491 B1), hereinafter referenced as Szeliski, and further in view of Sheblak et al. (US 20110306417 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Sheblak, and further in view of Green et al. (US 20130120418 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Green as applied to Claims 2 and 12 above respectively, and further in view of Burnett III et al. (US 20180253884 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Burnett.
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, the combination of Lin, Szeliski, Sheblak, and Green discloses the method and the electronic device of Claims 2 and 12 respectively. The combination of Lin, Szeliski, Sheblak, and Green does not expressly disclose the limitations of Claims 3 and 13; however, Burnett discloses wherein the obtaining the mesh data corresponding to the target three-dimensional element from at least one of the plurality of mesh sequence frames corresponding to the renderer of the renderer type comprises:
when the element type of the target three-dimensional element is a skinned three-dimensional element (Burnett, [0108]: teaches the multi-view rendering system 300 segmenting render load into foreground and background objects, where objects in motion in a scene are tagged as foreground objects <read on skinned 3D element>):
obtaining mesh data corresponding to the skinned three-dimensional element from a mesh sequence frame corresponding to a skinned renderer (Burnett, [0109]: teaches separating the foreground and background objects into separate frame buffers whereby the foreground buffer <read on skinned renderer> is overlaid on the background buffer, where foreground objects in motion are rendered in subsequent frames <read on mesh sequence frame>; [0125]: teaches the multi-view rendering system 300 receiving 3D data 340 for a scene that includes geometry data 342, including data for one or more 3D models <read on obtaining mesh data>), wherein
the mesh data corresponding to the skinned three-dimensional element comprises translation data, rotation data, and scaling data (Burnett, [0126]: teaches the multi-view rendering system 300 receiving model transforms 344, which are matrices that can move <read on translation data>, rotate <read on rotation data>, and scale <read on scaling data> 3D models in "a common world space that has a homogenous 3D coordinates and a unified ‘world scale’ (which may be application dependent) for vertex locations within a scene"),
a coordinate system of the translation data and the rotation data uses a position of the skinned three-dimensional element as an origin (Burnett, [0126]: teaches the multi-view rendering system 300 receiving model transforms 344, which are matrices that can move, rotate, and scale 3D models in "a common world space that has a homogenous 3D coordinates <read on translation and rotation data using a local coordinate system> and a unified ‘world scale’ (which may be application dependent) for vertex locations within a scene"; Note: it should be noted that the coordinate system of both the translation and rotation data are being interpreted as using a local/model space coordinate system, where it is common in the art to treat the position of an object, such as the skinned 3D element, as an origin point; in addition, paragraph [0047] defines the original coordinate system as local space, which is also commonly referred to as model or object space), and
a coordinate system of the scaling data uses a center point of a target canvas as an origin (Burnett, [0126]: teaches the multi-view rendering system 300 receiving model transforms 344, which are matrices that can move, rotate, and scale 3D models in "a common world space that has a homogenous 3D coordinates and a unified ‘world scale’ <read on scaling data using a world coordinate system> (which may be application dependent) for vertex locations within a scene"; Note: it should be noted that the scaling data is being interpreted as using a world space coordinate system, where it is common in the art to treat the center of the virtual world/scene as an origin point; in addition, paragraph [0048] of the specification defines the canvas coordinate system as world space).
Burnett is analogous art with respect to the combination of Lin, Szeliski, Sheblak, and Green because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely manipulating graphics data for desired output. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement a rendering system that separates foreground and background objects as taught by Burnett into the combined teaching of Lin, Szeliski, Sheblak, and Green. The suggestion for doing so would allow the system to prioritize dynamic foreground objects, which would free up graphics resources, thereby improving overall rendering performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Burnett with the combination of Lin, Szeliski, Sheblak, and Green.
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, the combination of Lin, Szeliski, Sheblak, and Green discloses the method and the electronic device of Claims 2 and 12 respectively. The combination of Lin, Szeliski, Sheblak, and Green does not expressly disclose the limitations of Claims 4 and 14; however, Burnett discloses wherein the obtaining the mesh data corresponding to the target three-dimensional element from at least one of the plurality of mesh sequence frames corresponding to the renderer of the renderer type comprises:
when the element type of the target three-dimensional element is a static three-dimensional element (Burnett, [0108]: teaches the multi-view rendering system 300 segmenting render load into foreground and background objects, where fixed items, such as terrain and/or buildings, are tagged as background objects <read on static 3D element>):
obtaining mesh data corresponding to the static three-dimensional element from a mesh sequence frame corresponding to a mesh renderer (Burnett, [0109]: teaches separating the foreground and background objects into separate frame buffers whereby the foreground buffer is overlaid on the background buffer <read on mesh renderer>, where foreground objects in motion are rendered in subsequent frames <read on mesh sequence frame>; [0125]: teaches the multi-view rendering system 300 receiving 3D data 340 for a scene that includes geometry data 342, including data for one or more 3D models <read on obtaining mesh data>), wherein
a coordinate system of the mesh data corresponding to the static three-dimensional element uses a position of the static three-dimensional element as an origin (Burnett, [0115]: teaches 3D models in a 3D scene having its own model space <read on coordinate system of mesh data>; Note: it should be noted that the coordinate system of both the translation and rotation data are being interpreted as using a local/model space coordinate system, where it is common in the art to treat the position of an object, such as the static 3D element, as an origin point; in addition, paragraph [0047] defines the original coordinate system as local space, which is also commonly referred to as model or object space).
Burnett is analogous art with respect to the combination of Lin, Szeliski, Sheblak, and Green because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely manipulating graphics data for desired outputs. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement a rendering system that separates foreground and background objects as taught by Burnett into the combined teaching of Lin, Szeliski, Sheblak, and Green. The suggestion for doing so would allow the system to prioritize dynamic foreground objects, which would free up graphics resources, thereby improving overall rendering performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Burnett with the combination of Lin, Szeliski, Sheblak, and Green.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (CN 111260762 A, previously cited), in view of Szeliski et al. (US 6600491 B1), hereinafter referenced as Szeliski, and further in view of Sheblak et al. (US 20110306417 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Sheblak, and further in view of Green et al. (US 20130120418 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Green as applied to Claims 2 and 12 above respectively, and further in view of Young et al. (US 20180357810 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Young, and further in view of Burnett III et al. (US 20180253884 A1, previously cited).
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, the combination of Lin, Szeliski, Sheblak, and Green discloses the method and the electronic device of Claims 2 and 12 respectively. The combination of Lin, Szeliski, Sheblak, and Green does not expressly disclose the limitations of Claims 5 and 15; however, Young discloses wherein the obtaining the mesh data corresponding to the target three-dimensional element from at least one of the plurality of mesh sequence frames corresponding to the renderer of the renderer type comprises:
when the element type of the target three-dimensional element is a particle three-dimensional element (Young, [0071]: teaches a programmable processor 401 performing particle simulation of particles <read on element type being a particle 3D element> in a virtual scene):
obtaining first mesh data corresponding to the particle three-dimensional element from a mesh sequence frame corresponding to a renderer run by a central processing unit (Young, [0072]: teaches a vertex shader 410 component receiving input geometries 405 <read on obtaining first mesh data from mesh sequence frame that corresponds to renderer>; [0071]: teaches the components, such as the renderer, rasterizer, and fragment shader, being either a CPU <read on renderer run by CPU> or GPU implementation; Note: it should be noted that the term "particles" in the prior art is being interpreted as a mesh/geometry);
obtaining second mesh data corresponding to the particle three-dimensional element from a mesh sequence frame corresponding to a renderer run by a graphics processing unit (Young, [0072]: teaches a vertex shader 410 component receiving input geometries 405 <read on obtaining second mesh data from mesh sequence frame that corresponds to renderer>; [0071]: teaches the components, such as the renderer, rasterizer, and fragment shader, being either a CPU or GPU implementation <read on renderer run by GPU>); and
determining the first mesh data and the second mesh data as mesh data corresponding to the particle three-dimensional element (Young, [0074]: teaches the vertex shader 410 determining which particles from a draw list <read on determining first and second mesh data as mesh data> to keep and discard for rendering), wherein
a coordinate system of the mesh data corresponding to the particle three-dimensional element [[uses a center point of a target canvas as an origin]] (Young, [0070]: teaches texture coordinate/mapping information <read on coordinate system> for vertex attributes of geometries of the particle system <read on coordinate system of mesh data of particle 3D element>).
Young is analogous art with respect to the combination of Lin, Szeliski, Sheblak, and Green because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely utilizing renderers to manipulate geometric data for desired outputs. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement a particle system that simulates particles within a foveal region as taught by Young into the combined teaching of Lin, Szeliski, Sheblak, and Green. The suggestion for doing so would allow the system to prioritize high quality rendering within the field of view of the user, thereby improving overall rendering performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Young with the combination of Lin, Szeliski, Sheblak, and Green.
However, the combination of Lin, Szeliski, Sheblak, Green, and Young does not expressly disclose
a coordinate system of the mesh data corresponding to the particle three-dimensional element uses a center point of a target canvas as an origin.
Burnett discloses
a coordinate system of the mesh data corresponding to the particle three-dimensional element uses a center point of a target canvas as an origin (Burnett, [0126]: teaches the multi-view rendering system 300 receiving model transforms 344, which are matrices that can move, rotate, and scale 3D models in "a common world space that has a homogenous 3D coordinates and a unified ‘world scale’ <read on using a world coordinate system> (which may be application dependent) for vertex locations within a scene"; Note: it should be noted that it is common in the art to treat the center of the virtual world/scene as an origin point; in addition, paragraph [0048] of the specification defines the canvas coordinate system as world space).
Burnett is analogous art with respect to the combination of Lin, Szeliski, Sheblak, Green, and Young because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely manipulating graphics data for desired output. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement a rendering system that separates foreground and background objects as taught by Burnett into the combined teaching of Lin, Szeliski, Sheblak, Green, and Young. The suggestion for doing so would allow the system to prioritize dynamic foreground objects, which would free up graphics resources, thereby improving overall rendering performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Burnett with the combination of Lin, Szeliski, Sheblak, Green, and Young.
Claims 6-7 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (CN 111260762 A, previously cited), in view of Szeliski et al. (US 6600491 B1), hereinafter referenced as Szeliski, and further in view of Sheblak et al. (US 20110306417 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Sheblak as applied to Claims 1 and 11 above respectively, and further in view of Burnett III et al. (US 20180253884 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Burnett.
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, the combination of Lin, Szeliski, and Sheblak discloses the method and the electronic device of Claims 1 and 11 respectively. The combination of in and Szeliski does not expressly disclose the limitations of Claims 6 and 16; however, Sheblak discloses wherein the creating a transformed two-dimensional element corresponding to the target three-dimensional element through transforming the mesh data corresponding to the target three-dimensional element and rendering the transformed two-dimensional element corresponding to the target three-dimensional element in the current frame comprises:
[[transforming the mesh data corresponding to the target three-dimensional element into first transformed mesh data based on an original coordinate system and second transformed mesh data based on a canvas coordinate system, wherein]]
[[the canvas coordinate system uses a center point of a target canvas as an origin, and]]
[[the original coordinate system uses a position of the transformed two-dimensional element as an origin;]]
[[transforming the first transformed mesh data into third transformed mesh data based on the canvas coordinate system;]]
creating the transformed two-dimensional element corresponding to the target three-dimensional element [[based on the third transformed mesh data and the second transformed mesh data]] (Sheblak, [0047]: teaches dynamically generating 2D images <read on creating transformed 2D element> of corresponding 3D models to output a 3D imposter); and
rendering the created transformed two-dimensional element corresponding to the target three-dimensional element (Sheblak, [0047]: teaches creating and displaying imposter 2D data <read on rendering transformed 2D element>, where the system determines priority for render order).
Sheblak is analogous art with respect to Lin, in view of Szeliski because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely manipulating mesh data for desired output results. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine a rendering system that dynamically generates 2D images from 3D mesh data into a separate rendering system that adjusts 3D mesh animation as taught by Sheblak into the teaching of Lin, in view of Szeliski. The suggestion for doing so would allow the system to render sorted 2D images, such as billboarded particle effects, onto a 3D mesh, which would result in an output that is void of geometric clipping, thereby yielding desired results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Sheblak with Lin, in view of Szeliski.
However, the combination of Lin, Szeliski, and Sheblak does not expressly disclose
transforming the mesh data corresponding to the target three-dimensional element into first transformed mesh data based on an original coordinate system and second transformed mesh data based on a canvas coordinate system, wherein
the canvas coordinate system uses a center point of a target canvas as an origin, and
the original coordinate system uses a position of the transformed two-dimensional element as an origin;
transforming the first transformed mesh data into third transformed mesh data based on the canvas coordinate system; and
creating the transformed two-dimensional element corresponding to the target three-dimensional element based on the third transformed mesh data and the second transformed mesh data.
Burnett discloses
transforming the mesh data corresponding to the target three-dimensional element into first transformed mesh data based on an original coordinate system and second transformed mesh data based on a canvas coordinate system (Burnett, [0120]: teaches a vertex list, which each vertex is defined in terms of its vertex location in object space (location in a particular model coordinate system <read on transform mesh data of target 3D element into first transformed mesh data based on original coordinate system>), for a plurality of models, where a model transform matrix is used, such as "a model transform that transforms a position in object space to a position in the world space <read on transform mesh data of target 3D element into second transformed mesh data based on canvas coordinate system>), wherein
the canvas coordinate system uses a center point of a target canvas as an origin (Burnett, [0126]: teaches the multi-view rendering system 300 receiving model transforms 344, which are matrices that can move, rotate, and scale 3D models in "a common world space that has a homogenous 3D coordinates and a unified ‘world scale’ <read on using a world coordinate system> (which may be application dependent) for vertex locations within a scene"; Note: it should be noted that it is common in the art to treat the center <read on center point> of the virtual world/scene as an origin point; in addition, paragraph [0048] of the specification defines the canvas coordinate system as world space), and
the original coordinate system uses a position of the transformed two-dimensional element as an origin (Burnett, [0126]: teaches the multi-view rendering system 300 receiving model transforms 344, which are matrices that can move, rotate, and scale 3D models in "a common world space that has a homogenous 3D coordinates <read on using a local coordinate system> and a unified ‘world scale’ (which may be application dependent) for vertex locations within a scene"; Note: it should be noted that it is common in the art to treat the position of an object, such as the skinned 3D element, as an origin point in a local/object coordinate system; in addition, paragraph [0047] defines the original coordinate system as local space, which is also commonly referred to as model or object space);
transforming the first transformed mesh data into third transformed mesh data based on the canvas coordinate system (Burnett, [0129]: teaches transforming model space geometry to world space <read on transforming first transformed mesh data into third transformed mesh data based on canvas coordinate system>); and
creating the transformed two-dimensional element corresponding to the target three-dimensional element based on the third transformed mesh data and the second transformed mesh data (Burnett, [0126]: teaches the multi-view rendering system 300 receiving model transforms 344 (e.g., M matrices) <read on based on second and third transformed mesh data> to move, rotate, and scale 3D models to a common world space that has a homogenous 3D coordinates and a unified 'world scale' for vertex locations within a scene; Note: it should be noted that the second and third transformed mesh data are both in world coordinates, where the process of creating a transformed 2D element is being interpreted as using object-to-world space transform matrices).
Burnett is analogous art with respect to the combination of Lin, Szeliski, and Sheblak because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely manipulating graphics data for desired outputs. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement a rendering system that separates foreground and background objects as taught by Burnett into the combined teaching of Lin, Szeliski, and Sheblak. The suggestion for doing so would allow the system to prioritize dynamic foreground objects, which would free up graphics resources, thereby improving overall rendering performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Burnett with the combination of Lin, Szeliski, and Sheblak.
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, the combination of Lin, Szeliski, Sheblak, and Burnett discloses the method and the electronic device of Claims 6 and 16 respectively. The combination of Lin and Szeliski does not expressly disclose the limitations of Claims 7 and 17; however, Sheblak discloses wherein the creating the transformed two-dimensional element corresponding to the target three-dimensional element based on the third transformed mesh data and the second transformed mesh data comprises
[[determining coordinates of the target three-dimensional element in the canvas coordinate system based on the third transformed mesh data and the second transformed mesh data; and]]
creating a transformed two-dimensional element corresponding to the target three-dimensional element [[based on the coordinates and geometric features of the target three-dimensional element]] (Sheblak, [0047]: teaches dynamically generating 2D images <read on creating transformed 2D element> of corresponding 3D models to output a 3D imposter), wherein
[[the geometric features characterize a geometric shape of the target three-dimensional element.]]
Sheblak is analogous art with respect to Lin, in view of Szeliski because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely manipulating mesh data for desired output results. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine a rendering system that dynamically generates 2D images from 3D mesh data into a separate rendering system that adjusts 3D mesh animation as taught by Sheblak into the teaching of Lin, in view of Szeliski. The suggestion for doing so would allow the system to render sorted 2D images, such as billboarded particle effects, onto a 3D mesh, which would result in an output that is void of geometric clipping, thereby yielding desired results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Sheblak with Lin, in view of Szeliski.
However, the combination of Lin, Szeliski, and Sheblak does not expressly disclose
determining coordinates of the target three-dimensional element in the canvas coordinate system based on the third transformed mesh data and the second transformed mesh data; and
creating a transformed two-dimensional element corresponding to the target three-dimensional element based on the coordinates and geometric features of the target three-dimensional element, wherein
the geometric features characterize a geometric shape of the target three-dimensional element.
Burnett discloses
determining coordinates of the target three-dimensional element in the canvas coordinate system based on the third transformed mesh data and the second transformed mesh data (Burnett, [0141]: teaches the multi-view rendering system 300 determining positions <read on determining coordinates of target 3D element> and normals for world space <read on canvas coordinate system> and view volume space; [0126]: teaches the multi-view rendering system 300 receiving model transforms 344 (e.g., M matrices) <read on based on second and third transformed mesh data> to move, rotate, and scale 3D models to a common world space that has a homogenous 3D coordinates and a unified 'world scale' for vertex locations within a scene); and
creating a transformed two-dimensional element corresponding to the target three-dimensional element based on the coordinates and geometric features of the target three-dimensional element (Burnett, [0126]: teaches the multi-view rendering system 300 receiving model transforms 344 (e.g., M matrices) to move, rotate, and scale 3D models to a common world space <read on coordinates of target 3D element> that has a homogenous 3D coordinates and a unified 'world scale' for vertex locations within a scene; [0155]: teaches assigning a bounding volume (spherical or cuboid) <read on geometric features> for each model that encompasses the geometry), wherein
the geometric features characterize a geometric shape of the target three-dimensional element (Burnett, [0155]: teaches assigning a bounding volume (spherical or cuboid) <read on geometric features> for each model that encompasses the geometry <read on characterizing geometric shape>).
Burnett is analogous art with respect to the combination of Lin, Szeliski, and Sheblak because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely manipulating graphics data for desired outputs. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement a rendering system that separates foreground and background objects as taught by Burnett into the combined teaching of Lin, Szeliski, and Sheblak. The suggestion for doing so would allow the system to prioritize dynamic foreground objects, which would free up graphics resources, thereby improving overall rendering performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Burnett with the combination of Lin, Szeliski, and Sheblak.
Claims 9-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (CN 111260762 A, previously cited), in view of Szeliski et al. (US 6600491 B1), hereinafter referenced as Szeliski, and further in view of Sheblak et al. (US 20110306417 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Sheblak as applied to Claims 1 and 11 above respectively, and further in view of Zhang (US 20200272825 A1, previously cited).
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, the combination of Lin, Szeliski, and Sheblak discloses the method and the electronic device of Claims 1 and 11 respectively. Additionally, Lin further discloses wherein the sampling the target animation to obtain a mesh sequence frame of frames including the target three-dimensional element, comprises:
sampling the target animation according to a sampling interval to obtain a plurality of sampling frames (Lin, [0137]: teaches sampling a number of frames <read on sampling interval> of specific root joints of the target visual character within the historical time period <read on sampling animation>, where "the posture information of the root joint of the target virtual character within the historical time period can be used as the historical posture sequence <read on obtain plurality of sampling frames> of the target virtual character <read on target 3D element>"), wherein
the number of the sampling frames is [[negatively]] correlated with a duration of the sampling interval (Lin, [0045]: teaches a duration of a sample animation reaching a duration threshold <read on number of sampling frames correlating with duration of sampling interval>);
determining a start playing time and an end playing time of the target three-dimensional element in the target animation (Lin, [0133]: teaches phase data being time-labeled, where "the playback time corresponding to the first frame of animation is recorded as the start time <read on determining start playing time>"; Note: it should be noted that although not expressly stated, one skilled in the art would understand that if time-related data is being labeled, then a first and last frame <read on end playing time> is labeled); and
determining the mesh sequence frame of frames including the target three-dimensional element among the plurality of sampling frames based on the start playing time and the end playing time (Lin, [0137]: teaches using the historical pose sequence to represent the pose of the target virtual character in the historical time period <read on determine mesh sequence frame>, where playback time is labeled <read on based on start and end playing times>).
However, the combination of Lin, Szeliski, and Sheblak does not expressly disclose
the number of the sampling frames is negatively correlated with a duration of the sampling interval.
Zhang discloses
the number of the sampling frames is negatively correlated with a duration of the sampling interval (Zhang, [0113]: teaches allocating "a corresponding sampling weight to each data set according to a quantity of candidate sample images in each data set, where the sampling weight corresponding to the data set is negatively correlated to the quantity of candidate sample images <read on number of sampling frames> in the data set").
Zhang is analogous art with respect to the combination of Lin, Szeliski, and Sheblak because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely sampling image/video data to generate desired results. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement a neural network that determines the location of each pixel in an image/frame as taught by Zhang into the combined teaching of Lin, Szeliski, and Sheblak. The suggestion for doing so would allow the system to determine important key frames of an animation or an object in motion, which would allow the system to predict subsequent frames over fully rendering and simulating animation/motion, thereby improving overall system performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Zhang with the combination of Lin, Szeliski, and Sheblak.
Regarding Claims 10 and 20, the combination of Lin, Szeliski, Sheblak, and Zhang discloses the method and the electronic device of Claims 9 and 19 respectively. Additionally, Lin further discloses wherein the determining a start playing time and an end playing time of the target three-dimensional element in the animation of the target three- dimensional element comprises:
when the start playing time and the end playing time are the same, determining one sampling frame among the plurality of sampling frames as a mesh sequence frame corresponding to the animation of the target three-dimensional element (Lin, [0221]: teaches determining the end of the sample animation clip when the duration of the sample animation clip reaches a duration threshold; [0222]: teaches "if the duration of the sample animation clip exceeds the set duration threshold, the sample animation clip is considered to be ended" <read on determining one sampling frame>; Note: it should be noted that although not expressly stated, one skilled in the art would understand that if the start and end playing times are identical, then that would mean the total number of frames is one, which would only have one frame available for sampling); and
when the start playing time and the end playing time are different, determining at least two sampling frames between the start playing time and the end playing time among the plurality of sampling frames as the mesh sequence of frames corresponding to the animation of the target three-dimensional element (Lin, [0221]: teaches determining the end of the sample animation clip when the duration of the sample animation clip reaches a duration threshold <read on determining at least two sampling frames>; [0222]: teaches "if the duration of the sample animation clip exceeds the set duration threshold, the sample animation clip is considered to be ended"; Note: it is being interpreted that the duration threshold is greater than 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Redkey (US 20180276870 A1) discloses animating a group of characters in a virtual environment;
Bosch et al. (US 20200126299 A1) discloses synchronizing an animation sequence with a video by identifying key frames;
Zhang et al. (US 20190156546 A1) discloses a spline-based animation process of creating an animation sequence;
Knoll et al. (US 9734615 B1) discloses an animation analyzer that receives an animation sequence and identifies a subsample of frames that are to be rendered; and
Cordes et al. (US 10796489 B1) discloses an immersive content presentation system that captures the motion or position of a performer in a real-world environment.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARL TRUONG whose telephone number is (703)756-5915. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kent Chang can be reached at (571) 272-7667. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.D.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2614
/KENT W CHANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2614
Prosecution Insights