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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Double Patenting.
Applicant argues:
Without acquiescing to the double patenting rejections, Applicant notes that independent Claims 1, 10, and 17 have been amended. Applicant submits that the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejections are moot in view of the current amendments because the claims of the '530 application do not recite the features added via the current amendments. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejections.
Examiner replies that:
Withdrawn.
Regarding 35 USC § 102/103.
Applicant argues:
Paragraph [0063] of Carlin is cited in the Office Action for disclosing payment in the context of a "business model," which "requires charging some one or more parties for the image rendering services." See Carlin, [0063]. In particular, Carlin discloses a business model where (i) parties requesting image generation are "expected to pay ... for image generation" and/or (ii) parties "placing 3D models and/or textures in the database might pay a recurring or non- recurring fee upon entrance of each model into the database." See Id. In this regard, Applicant submits that the payments discussed in Carlin would best be understood in the context of running a business, where payment is provided in exchange for (i) a rendered image and/or (ii) uploading, storing, or using models or textures in renderings.
However, the payments in Carlin are not described as a "conversion constraint" that imposes "a limit on a rendering-generation cost and used to constrain operation of the RaaS platform when generating the rendering," as required by amended Claim 1. For example, the payments or costs in Carlin are not described as constraining or affecting operation of the system when rendering the images, but rather merely bill the user for services performed. Accordingly, Applicant submits that Carlin does not disclose systems for generating a rendering of industrial equipment that includes, among other features, "executing a rendering job ... to generate [a] rendering of [] industrial equipment," where "the rendering of the industrial equipment is generated subject to a conversion constraint comprising a limit on a rendering-generation cost and used to constrain operation of the RaaS platform when generating the rendering," as recited in amended Claim 1.
In view of the foregoing, Applicant submits that none of the cited references, alone or in any proper combination, disclose, teach, or suggest the features of amended Claim 1. Independent Claims 10 and 17 have been amended to recite similar features as amended Claim 1, and are believed to be allowable over Carlin for similar reasons as Claim 1. Claims 6, 8, and 15 variously depend from Claims 1 and 10, and are allowable for at least the same reasons as their parent claims.
Examiner replies that:
Applicant has amended the claims to change the scope since the previous action. The amendment(s) necessitate new ground(s) of rejection and are rejected in detail under the § 102/103 headings below.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8, 10, 15, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlin U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20140125649 in view of Urbach U.S. Patent/PG Publication 9197642.
Regarding claim 1 (independent):
A Rendering as a Service (RaaS) platform for generating a rendering of industrial equipment, the RaaS platform comprising: one or more memory devices having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: (Carlin Abstract In a network-linked computer graphics image rendering system serving to render images of objects in scenes, these objects are so rendered from high-resolution 3D models and textures that are, in particular, stored and maintained on one or more server computers in one or more libraries that are secure.)(Carlin [0008] In particular, the (1) digitally modeled objects may be items such as architectural products, furniture and furnishings that are prospectively shown appropriately colored and textured as located within modeled scenes of a prospective purchaser's real property or equipment.)
receiving, via a graphical user interface presented on a user device, a first user selection of a three-dimensional (3D) model of the industrial equipment (Carlin [0095] A user begins to develop a 3D scene on the client computer 10 (shown in FIG. 1) at 206. [0096] This user realizes he wants to incorporate 3D objects residing on the central repository at 208. [0097] The user searches for, finds and downloads desired stand-in objects and textures from the central repository at 210.)
receiving, via the graphical user interface, a second user selection of one or more rendering options from a plurality of selectable rendering options presented via the graphical user interface (Carlin [0101] The user provides instructions to the server computer 14 (shown in FIG. 1) regarding specifications for the desired rendering at 218.)
obtaining, at the RaaS platform based on the first user selection, the 3D model of the industrial equipment from a remote data source (Carlin [0100] The user at the client computer 10 (shown in FIG. 1) uploads his scene file to the server computer 14 (also shown in FIG. 1) at 216.)(Carlin [0097] The user searches for, finds and downloads desired stand-in objects and textures from the central repository at 210.)
and executing a rendering job, based on the first user selection of the 3D model and the second user selection of the one or more rendering options, to generate the rendering of the industrial equipment (Carlin [0102] The user optionally pays for, and initiates, rendering on the server computer 14 (shown in FIG. 1) at 220.)
wherein the rendering of the industrial equipment is generated subject to a conversion constraint comprising a cost (Carlin [0063] Completion of the business model requires charging some one or more parties for the image rendering services performed. At the onset those parties requiring photorealistic images would normally be expected to pay equitably and fairly for image generation.) since a cost (payment) associated with the rendering is required for generation and is a conversion constraint since without payment there is no conversion.
Carlin does not teach a limit on a rendering generation cost. In a related field of endeavor, Urbach teaches:
and executing a rendering job, based on the first user selection of the 3D model (Urbach C2 L45-50 In particular embodiments, a server-side application rendering system delivers, utilizing one or more servers, a server-side rendered application to one or more remote users.)
and the second user selection of the one or more rendering options, to generate the rendering of the industrial equipment (Urbach C10 L5-20 As discussed above, a user, either in response to a notification or generally, may adjust one or more session quality settings that affect the load attributable to a given user session. The session quality settings may include, but are not limited to display settings (such as resolution and screen size), frame rate, video quality (tied to compression settings, for example, such as target bit rate).)
wherein the rendering of the industrial equipment is generated subject to a conversion constraint comprising a limit on a rendering-generation cost and used to constrain operation of the RaaS platform when generating the rendering. (Urbach C5-30 In addition, the user may allow server-side application rendering system 20 to automatically determine the user's session quality settings to minimize the token expiration rate.)(Urbach C10 L60-67 In another implementation, the system 20 may allow a user to control token expiration by specifying overall budget parameters. For example, the system 20 may allow a user to specify a token budget (i.e., a maximum number of tokens he or she desires to spend during a session or some other time period) and either a maximum data size transfer budget (the number of bytes of data transfer) or a maximum time budget (the amount of time the user would like the token budget to last). In one implementation, the system 20 also allows the user to indicate other session quality parameters that the user would like to fix, such as screen size, render quality, and the like. The system 20 can compute one or more session quality parameters based on the user settings and the cost considerations described herein. For example, the system 20 can compute an initial maximum bit rate for the session based on the token budget and transfer size or time budget. As the session progresses, the system 20 can periodically modulate the initial bit rate based on the number of remaining tokens and the remaining time or data transfer budget.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a limit on rendering generation cost as taught by Urbach. The motivation for doing so would have been to more adjust cost based on usage (Urbach C6 L50-55)(Urbach C7 L20-30), reducing costs to certain users. Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Urbach with Carlin to obtain the invention.
Regarding claim 6:
The RaaS platform of claim 1, has all of its limitations taught by Carlin in view of Urbach. Carlin further teaches wherein obtaining the 3D model of the industrial equipment includes obtaining the 3D model in a first format, and wherein generating the rendering of the industrial equipment includes generating the rendering of the industrial equipment in a second format different than the first format (Carlin [0090] The server computer 14 can receive and render the scene file transmitted from the client computer 10, and return a perspective view and/or 3D (stereo) image rendered on the server computer 14 utilizing the image file transmitted from the client computer 10.).
Regarding claim 8:
The RaaS platform of claim 1, has all of its limitations taught by Carlin in view of Urbach. Carlin further teaches wherein the remote data source comprises at least one of a virtual modeling application, a commissioning application, a storage application, or local storage of the user device (Carlin [0048] In its system and process aspects, the present invention contemplates a central or distributed secure repository database, connected upon a worldwide communications network, for (1) storing three-dimensional computer models and textures of architectural, engineering and interior decoration objects and design components, and for (2) providing remote rendering services, across the worldwide communications network, such that users of the repository database may remotely render photorealistic images of objects represented by the 3D models in the repository as are placed, positioned, textured, oriented and illuminated within one or more scenes that are, most typically, real-world scenes of a user's specification or choosing.).
Regarding claim 10 (independent):
The claim is a parallel version of claim 1. As such it is rejected under the same teachings.
Regarding claim 15:
The claim is a parallel version of claim 6. As such it is rejected under the same teachings.
Regarding claim 17 (independent):
The claim is a parallel version of claim 1. As such it is rejected under the same teachings.
Claim(s) 2, 4-5, 11, 13-14, 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlin U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20140125649 in view of Urbach U.S. Patent/PG Publication 9197642 and Choi U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20070188488.
Regarding claim 2:
The RaaS platform of claim 1, has all of its limitations taught by Carlin in view of Urbach. Choi further teaches wherein the operations further comprise:
receiving, along with the first user selection of the 3D model, a third user selection of a rendering format, and wherein executing the rendering job to generate the rendering of the industrial equipment includes generating the rendering of the industrial equipment in the selected rendering format (Carlin [0039] It allows creation of high-quality 3D models in MetaCreation's MetaStream file format, which can be transmitted quickly over the network for further manipulation.)
Carlin in view of Urbach does not teach selecting from multiple formats. In a related field of endeavor, Choi teaches:
receiving, along with the first user selection of the 3D model, a third user selection of a rendering format, and wherein executing the rendering job to generate the rendering of the industrial equipment includes generating the rendering of the industrial equipment in the selected rendering format (Choi [0020] The server generates a 2D image (e.g., JPEG) or images of the higher resolution 3D model, and sends the 2D image or images to the client. Here, the final rendered image is created on the server and can be delivered to the client computer as a standard 2D image such as a JPEG file, a video file (such as a Quicktime.RTM. or Windows Media.RTM. file), or as a Macromedia Flash.RTM. SWF or FLV file.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have multiple formats as taught by Choi. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve compatibility and provide the user with more options. Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Choi with Carlin to obtain the invention.
Regarding claim 4:
The RaaS platform of claim 2, has all of its limitations taught by Carlin in view of Urbach and Choi. Choi further teaches wherein the selected rendering format is an image file format (Choi [0020] The server generates a 2D image (e.g., JPEG) or images of the higher resolution 3D model, and sends the 2D image or images to the client.)
Regarding claim 5:
The RaaS platform of claim 1, has all of its limitations taught by Carlin in view of Urbach. Carlin in view of Urbach does not teach view as a parameter. In a related field of endeavor, Choi teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise:
receiving, along with the first user selection of the 3D model, a third user selection of at least one of a view or (Choi [0035] The "shot" parameters may include, for example, a variety of camera settings, position, camera path (to generate a desired video), objects selected (e.g., vehicle, wheels, etc.), object settings (color of car), object positions, effects, selected backgrounds, etc. A variety of data is needed to establish the camera positions and create the scenes. The "shot" parameters may vary as those skilled in the art would appreciate.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a view parameter as taught by Choi. The rationale for doing so would have been that it combines prior art elemnets according to known methods to yield predictable results since Carlin allows a user to adjust rendering parameters but does not define the parameters and Choi allows a user to adjust rendering parameters and defines view as a parameter, where there are predictable results since both are using parameters to render. Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Choi with Carlin to obtain the invention.
Regarding claim 11:
The claim is a parallel version of claim 2. As such it is rejected under the same teachings.
Regarding claim 13:
The claim is a parallel version of claim 4. As such it is rejected under the same teachings.
Regarding claim 14:
The claim is a parallel version of claim 5. As such it is rejected under the same teachings.
Regarding claim 18:
The claim is a parallel version of claim 2. As such it is rejected under the same teachings.
Regarding claim 20:
The claim is a parallel version of claim 4. As such it is rejected under the same teachings.
Claim(s) 3, 7, 12, 16, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlin U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20140125649 in view of Urbach U.S. Patent/PG Publication 9197642 and Lebaredian U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20210358188.
Regarding claim 3:
The RaaS platform of claim 2, has all of its limitations taught by Carlin in view of Urbach and Choi. Carlin in view of Urbach and Choi does not teach a universal scene description file format. In a related field of endeavor, Lebaredian teaches:
wherein the selected rendering format is a universal scene description file format (Lebaredian [0043] The renderer 114 may leverage any number of GPUs—and/or nodes thereof—for rendering the display data or image data from the graphical data. For example, ray tracing—e.g., real time ray tracing—and/or path tracing may be executed using one or more GPUs to generate more photo-realistic renderings. The renderer 114 may, in some non-limiting embodiments, use PIXAR'S Universal Scene Description (USD) format and/or another 3D scene description and file format for content creation and interchange between and among various different tools. Once rendered, the graphical and/or audio output may be compressed/encoded before being transmitted to a computing device corresponding to users or participants interacting with the AI agent where the compressed or encoded data is decompressed (decoded) before presentation.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a universal scene description file format as taught by Lebaredian. The motivation for doing so would have been that the universal scene description file format provides interoperability between 3D software and is an efficient file format. Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Lebaredian with Carlin in view of Choi to obtain the invention.
Regarding claim 7:
The RaaS platform of claim 6, has all of its limitations taught by Carlin in view of Urbach. Carlin further teaches wherein the first format is a 3D virtual model data format, and wherein the second format is a (Carlin [0068] The method continues with sending the 3D scene file so formulated at the client computer from the client computer to the one or more server computers upon the computer network;). (Carlin [0090] The server computer 14 can receive and render the scene file transmitted from the client computer 10, and return a perspective view and/or 3D (stereo) image rendered on the server computer 14 utilizing the image file transmitted from the client computer 10.).
Carlin in view of Urbach and Choi does not teach a universal scene description file format. In a related field of endeavor, Lebaredian teaches:
and wherein the second format is a universal scene description file format (Lebaredian [0043] The renderer 114 may leverage any number of GPUs—and/or nodes thereof—for rendering the display data or image data from the graphical data. For example, ray tracing—e.g., real time ray tracing—and/or path tracing may be executed using one or more GPUs to generate more photo-realistic renderings. The renderer 114 may, in some non-limiting embodiments, use PIXAR'S Universal Scene Description (USD) format and/or another 3D scene description and file format for content creation and interchange between and among various different tools. Once rendered, the graphical and/or audio output may be compressed/encoded before being transmitted to a computing device corresponding to users or participants interacting with the AI agent where the compressed or encoded data is decompressed (decoded) before presentation.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a universal scene description file format as taught by Lebaredian. The motivation for doing so would have been that the universal scene description file format provides interoperability between 3D software and is an efficient file format. Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Lebaredian with Carlin in view of Choi to obtain the invention.
Regarding claim 12:
The claim is a parallel version of claim 3. As such it is rejected under the same teachings.
Regarding claim 16:
The claim is a parallel version of claim 7. As such it is rejected under the same teachings.
Regarding claim 19:
The claim is a parallel version of claim 3. As such it is rejected under the same teachings.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlin U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20140125649 in view of Urbach U.S. Patent/PG Publication 9197642 and Van Luchene U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20070218987.
Regarding claim 9:
The RaaS platform of claim 1, has all of its limitations taught by Carlin in view of Urbach. Carlin further teaches wherein the operations further comprise:
transmitting the rendering of the industrial equipment from the RaaS platform to a metaverse platform for use in representing the industrial equipment in an (Carlin [0069] The method preferably further includes, after the photorealistic rendering, a sending of the rendered photorealistic image upon the network to the client computer for viewing thereat.).
Carlin in view of Urbach does not teach a virtual environment. In a related field of endeavor, Van Luchene teaches:
transmitting the rendering of the industrial equipment from the RaaS platform to a metaverse platform for use in representing the industrial equipment in an interactive virtual environment (Van Luchene [0128] According to yet another embodiment, an alteration creation tool is provided that allows alterations to be created and set up with a licensing structure. For example, a player can create various masks that can be applied to avatars to alter their appearance. The player can also set up a licensing fee that other virtual entities can pay to use the mask to alter the appearance of avatars. Virtual entities can pay or be paid for use of an alteration license. To create an alteration, a player can import image or text files, alter and enhance them, and store them as alterations. Alternatively, players can create alterations using in game tools, third party tools, plug-ins or any other applicable means and store them with licensing agreements for use by other players. ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the product in a virtual environment as taught by Van Luchene. The rationale for doing so would have been that it combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, where Carlin outputs an image and Van Luchene imports an image, where there are predictable results since they are using the same format. Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Van Luchene with Carlin to obtain the invention.
Conclusion
For the prior art referenced and the prior art considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure but not relied upon, see PTO-892 “Notice of References Cited”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON PRINGLE-PARKER whose telephone number is (571) 272-5690 and e-mail is jason.pringle-parker@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30am-5:00pm est Monday-Friday. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, King Poon can be reached on (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 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, seehttp://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.
/JASON A PRINGLE-PARKER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2617
Prosecution Insights