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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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 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.
2. 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 of this title, 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.
3. Claims 1, 5, 7- 11, 15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanley et al., US 2018/0114369 A1, and further in view of Kudo US 2023/0101386 A1.
4. As per claim 1, Stanley discloses: A computer-implemented method for capturing one or more samples within a three-dimensional (3D) immersive environment, (Stanley, Abstract, “Aspects of the technology described herein provide for sampling the material properties of a source object within a virtual 3D drawing space, and then applying those properties to a target object within the drawing space.”) the method comprising:
rendering and displaying a first 3D object within a first 3D immersive environment (Stanley, [0015], ”The user interface 100 includes a canvas 102 on which a virtual object 104 has been created. In this instance, the virtual object 104 is a crown. The virtual object 104 may be a 2D or a 3D object.”) , wherein the first 3D object comprises at least a first component used for rendering and displaying the first 3D object; (Stanley, [0016], “For example, if a user selects a paintbrush, the user may then paint the sampled material onto the target object. In this way, the target object receives both the color and the material properties of the source object.”) and
capturing the at least the first component as a first sample; (Stanley, [0016], “Any object, including both 2D and 3D objects, may have its surface sampled. Both the surface color and other material properties of the source object may be sampled in this manner. The sampled material may then be applied to a target object in the drawing space.”) and
storing the first sample within a sample data structure to allow one or more additional operations to be performed on the first sample. (Stanley, [0019], “These properties are then available for application to another object within the drawing space. Thus, the user may cause another object in the drawing space to interact with light in the same manner in which the selected portion of the crown interacts with light.”, and [0039] Memory 612 includes computer storage media in the form of volatile and/or nonvolatile memory., and [0036], “ Generally, program modules, including routines, programs, objects, components, data structures.”)
5. Stanley doesn’t expressly disclose:
The first sample is accessible via a sample user interface that displays a first sample icon that visually represents the first sample.
6. Kudo discloses:
The first sample is accessible via a sample user interface that displays a first sample icon that visually represents the first sample. (Kudo, [0091], “The category selector 51F displays icons of parts categories. When a category of the category selector 51F is selected by the user 10, the registered parts corresponding to the selected category are displayed in the registered parts list 51E. When a part displayed in the registered parts list 51E is selected by the user 10, the user device 12 displays the selected part in the part or area of the avatar object 100 indicated by the attribute data associated with the part. Further, the color selector 51D displays color sample icons such as “black”, “yellow”, “orange”, “red”, and “pink”. When a color sample icon is selected, the color of the part changes.”, and [0098], “When a color sample icon is selected by the color selector 53G, the color can be selected.”)
7. Kudo is analogous art with respect to Stanley because they are from the same field of endeavor. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include:” The first sample is accessible via a sample user interface that displays a first sample icon that visually represents the first sample.”, as taught by Kudo into the teaching of Stanley. The suggestion for doing so would allow the user to select the favorite sample. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kudo with Stanley.
8. As per claim 5, Stanley in view of Kudo discloses: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the sample data structure stores a plurality of samples captured from a plurality of different 3D immersive environments. (Stanley, [0036], “Aspects of the disclosure may be practiced in a variety of system configurations, including handheld devices, consumer electronics, general-purpose computers, more specialty computing devices, etc. Aspects of the disclosure may also be practiced in distributed computing environments where tasks are performed by remote-processing devices that are linked through a communications network.”)
9. As per claim 7, Stanley in view of Kudo discloses: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the sample data structure stores a plurality of samples that are viewable (Stanley, [0019], “These properties are then available for application to another object within the drawing space. Thus, the user may cause another object in the drawing space to interact with light in the same manner in which the selected portion of the crown interacts with light.”, and [0039] Memory 612 includes computer storage media in the form of volatile and/or nonvolatile memory.) and accessible via the sample user interface that displays a plurality of sample icons that visually represent the plurality of samples. (Stanley, [0019], “ In the example shown in FIG. 1, a user has selected a portion of the crown 104, thus indicating a command to sample the selected portion of the crown 104. If a gold portion of the crown 104 is selected, then the sampled properties may include a gold color, a particular shine, a metallic appearance, and other indicators of the manner in which the selected portion of the crown 104 interacts with light.”, and [0016],” The toolbar 110 also includes a material selection tool that is represented by an eyedropper (or pipette) 114. In some instances, the material selection tool may be represented by other icons.”)
10. As per claim 8, Stanley in view of Kudo discloses: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a selection of a first point within the first 3D immersive environment; (Stanley, [0017],” In response to the user selection of the eyedropper 114, a selection indicator 106 may be provided for presentation within the user interface 100.”)
in response, capturing a single-color sample associated with the first point; (Stanley, [0017], ” The window 108 may provide a preview of the material that is available for sampling. This preview may take several different forms. In one example, the window 108 indicates the color of the material that is available for sampling.”, and [0023], “Thus, when the window 208 displays only diffuse RGB values without a gradient overlay, that may provide an indication that only a flat color (without additional material properties) is available for sampling.”), and
storing the single-color sample within the sample data structure. (Stanley, [0019],” In the example shown in FIG. 1, a user has selected a portion of the crown 104, thus indicating a command to sample the selected portion of the crown 104. If a gold portion of the crown 104 is selected, then the sampled properties may include a gold color, a particular shine, a metallic appearance, and other indicators of the manner in which the selected portion of the crown 104 interacts with light. These properties are then available for application to another object within the drawing space).” )
11. As per claim 9, Stanley in view of Kudo discloses: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a selection of a plurality of 3D objects within the first 3D immersive environment; (Wayne, [0016], ”For example, a user may first select the eyedropper 114 and then select a portion of an object within the drawing space, thus indicating a command to sample the selected portion of the object within the drawing space. Any object, including both 2D and 3D objects, may have its surface sampled. “)
in response, capturing a color-palette sample associated with the plurality of 3D objects; (Stanley, [0015], “The virtual object 104 may be a 2D or a 3D object. The user interface 100 also includes a toolbar 110. The toolbar 110 provides various tools for working in the virtual drawing space. For example, a user may select an artistic tool from a variety of options, including markers, pencils, ink pens, paintbrushes, and 3D input options. A user may also select a color from the color palette 112. The color palette 112 may include a number of predefined color options. The selected tool and the selected color may then be associated with user inputs in the virtual drawing space.”) and
storing the color-palette sample within the sample data structure. (Stanley, [0019],” In the example shown in FIG. 1, a user has selected a portion of the crown 104, thus indicating a command to sample the selected portion of the crown 104. If a gold portion of the crown 104 is selected, then the sampled properties may include a gold color, a particular shine, a metallic appearance, and other indicators of the manner in which the selected portion of the crown 104 interacts with light. These properties are then available for application to another object within the drawing space).”)
12. As per claim 10, Stanley in view of Kudo discloses: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising displaying at least one sampling suggestion within the first 3D immersive environment, wherein the at least one sampling suggestion comprises at least one of a suggested 3D object, a suggested texture, a suggested animation, a suggested motion path, a suggested set of physical parameters, or a suggested image. (Stanley, [0027], “The dropdown menu 402 may also include detail textures (e.g., wood). A preset material for a detail texture may be associated with a preset ID, such that when the preset material is sampled with the eyedropper, the drawing application recognizes that the sampled material includes detail texture. “)
13. Claims 11, 15, and 17, which are similar in scope respectively to claims 1, 5, and 7, are thus rejected under the same rationale.
14. Claim 20, which is similar in scope to claim 1, thus rejected under the same rationale.
15. As per claim 19, Stanley in view of Kudo discloses: The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, wherein the first sample comprises object metadata for rendering the first 3D object, further comprising:
rendering and displaying a second 3D immersive environment; and modifying the second 3D immersive environment by applying the first sample within the second 3D immersive environment to render and display the first 3D object within the second 3D immersive environment. (Stanley, [0016], ” Any object, including both 2D and 3D objects, may have its surface sampled. Both the surface color and other material properties of the source object may be sampled in this manner. The sampled material may then be applied to a target object in the drawing space. For example, if a user selects a paintbrush, the user may then paint the sampled material onto the target object. In this way, the target object receives both the color and the material properties of the source object.”)
16. Claims 2-4, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanley et al., US 2018/0114369 A1, in view of Kudo US 2023/0101386 A1, and further in view of Phillips et al. US 11367270 B2.
17. As per claim 2, Stanley in view of Kudo discloses: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, (See rejection of claim1 above)
18. Stanley in view of Kudo doesn’t disclose: The first component comprises metadata for a 3D model associated with the first 3D object.
19. Phillips discloses: The first component comprises metadata for a 3D model associated with the first 3D object. (Phillips, column 2, lines 30-35, “Identifications enable the retrieval of further information and metadata such as web pages, Bluetooth APIs, names, 3D models, ownership information, permissions, maintenance information, price, reviews, handling methods, and interpretive or interrogative algorithms for condition, relationships and other properties of the object.”)
20. Phillips is analogous art with respect to Stanley in view of Kudo because they are from the same field of endeavor. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include:” The first component comprises metadata for a 3D model associated with the first 3D object.”, as taught by Phillips into the teaching of Stanley in view of Kudo. The suggestion for doing so would classify and locate objects and activities in an environment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Phillips with Stanley in view of Kudo.
21. As per claim 3, Stanley in view of Kudo, and in view of Phillips discloses: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first component comprises metadata for a first property associated with the first 3D object. (Phillips, column 2, lines 30-35, “Identifications enable the retrieval of further information and metadata such as web pages, Bluetooth APIs, names, 3D models, ownership information, permissions, maintenance information, price, reviews, handling methods, and interpretive or interrogative algorithms for condition, relationships and other properties of the object.”)
22. As per claim 4, Stanley in view of Kudo, and in view of Phillips discloses: The computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein the first property comprises a texture, an animation, a motion path, or a set of physical parameters associated with the first 3D object. (Phillips, column 12, lines 21-29, “(66) FIG. 5 illustrates a flow diagram of a method for identifying detected objects and retrieving additional information about the detected object. The method starts at step S200. At step S201 an image is acquired and processed. The image is processed and lines, edges, ridges, corners, blobs, textures, shapes, gradients, regions, boundaries, surfaces, volumes, colours, shadings etc., within the image are determined so that at least one object within the image can be detected (if present) at step S202.”)
23. Claims 12-14, which are similar in scope respectively to claims 2-4, are thus rejected under the same rationale.
24. Claims 6, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanley et al., US 2018/0114369 A1, in view of Kudo US 2023/0101386 A1, and further in view of Wayne et al. US 20220361755 A1.
25. As per claim 6, Stanley in view of Kudo discloses: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, (See rejection of claim 1 above.)
26. As per claim 6, Stanley in view of Kudo doesn’t disclose: The sample data structure includes a plurality of entries corresponding to a plurality of samples, each entry has a set of data fields for a corresponding sample, wherein the set of fields includes at least one of a sample identifier field, an associated object field, a sample metadata field, or a sample icon field.
27. Wayne discloses: The sample data structure includes a plurality of entries corresponding to a plurality of samples, each entry has a set of data fields for a corresponding sample, wherein the set of fields includes at least one of a sample identifier field, an associated object field, a sample metadata field, or a sample icon field. (Wayne, [0140], ” For example, FIGS. 21A-21E illustrate sample data structures that can be stored by a medical device such as those described herein. A portion of the information contained within the data structures can be transferred as a portion of a payload containing high-priority data as described herein. For example, as shown in FIG. 21A, data structure 2200 can include information related to monitoring and treatment of a patient using a defibrillator as described herein. As shown in FIG. 21A, the data structure 2200 can include various categories of fields such as data identifier fields 2205 and data fields 2210.)
28. Wayne is analogous art with respect to Stanley in view of Kudo because they are from the same field of endeavor. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include:” The sample data structure includes a plurality of entries corresponding to a plurality of samples, each entry has a set of data fields for a corresponding sample, wherein the set of fields includes at least one of a sample identifier field, an associated object field, a sample metadata field, or a sample icon field.”, as taught by Wayne into the teaching of Stanley in view of Kudo. The suggestion for doing so would provide high-priority data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Wayne with Stanley in view of Kudo.
29. Claim 6, which is similar in scope to claim 16, thus rejected under the same rationale.
30. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanley et al., US 2018/0114369 A1, in view of Kudo US 2023/0101386 A1, and further in view of Berretti et al. NPL: "3D Mesh decomposition using Reeb graphs", 2009.
31. As per claim 18, Stanley in view of Kudo discloses: The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11 (See Claim 11 above.)
32. Stanley in view of Kudo doesn’t expressly disclose: The first 3D object comprises a sub-portion of a second 3D object that was deconstructed into a plurality of sub-portions within the first 3D immersive environment.
33. Berretti discloses: The first 3D object comprises a sub-portion of a second 3D object that was deconstructed into a plurality of sub-portions within the first 3D immersive environment. (Berretti, Page 1549, Section: 4.2. “Perceptual saliency of decomposed objects A key aspect of mesh decomposition approaches relates to the ability to yield object decomposition into perceptually salient parts. In order to quantitatively measure the saliency of 3D object decompositions, a test has been carried out aiming to compare results of manual versus automatic objects decomposition. The comparison has been carried out on a ground-truth archive comprising 17 reference 3D models (shown in Fig. 7) which represent real objects of different structural complexity. I”)
34. Berretti is analogous art with respect to Stanley in view of Kudo because they are from the same field of endeavor. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include:” The first 3D object comprises a sub-portion of a second 3D object that was deconstructed into a plurality of sub-portions within the first 3D immersive environment”, as taught by Berretti into the teaching of Stanley in view of Kudo. The suggestion for doing so would provide automatic decomposition of 3D models. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Berretti with Stanley in view of Kudo.
Response to Arguments
35. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims filed 11/25/2025 have been considered but are moot because Applicant submitted new amended claims. Accordingly, new grounds of rejection are set forth above. The new grounds of rejection conclusion have been necessitated by Applicant's amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
36. Applicants amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 ABDERRAHIM MEROUAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5254. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 7:30 AM to 5:00 PM.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDERRAHIM MEROUAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights