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 Status
Claims 1-21 are pending. No claim has been added. No claim has been cancelled. Claims 1-6 and 11-16 have been amended. Claims 1-21 are rejected.
Compact Prosecution
With respect to Claim Interpretation, the Examiner has provided some regarding “[BRI on the record]” throughout the Office Action, so that the record is clear about the scope of the claimed invention, and the record is also clear about the basis for the Examiner’s analyses. A clear record of the claim interpretation could expedite the examination by creating the condition to allow the examination to focus on Applicant’s inventive concept and its comparison with related prior art.
If there are disagreements, Applicant may present an alternative interpretation based on MPEP 2111. The Examiner will adopt Applicant’s interpretation on the record, if Applicant’s interpretation is reasonable and/or arguments are persuasive.
Applicant may amend claims relying on the Examiner’s claim interpretation provided on the record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The rejections of Claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 101 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments based on amended limitations are moot in view of the Examiner’s new ground of rejections based on an added reference. However, the Examiner would like to address the following arguments:
(1) Applicant states (Remarks p. 10):
PNG
media_image1.png
306
666
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Examiner disagrees. In order to collaborate and to further edit a given 3D model, the given 3D model is reviewed for correction or improvement.
According to The American Heritage dictionary (American Heritage Dictionary Entry: review), the term “review” could mean “To examine with an eye to criticism or correction.” Which occurs before editing another person’s work.
Further, in order to address added limitations related to “review,” the Examiner introduced Mohri (US 20080221952 A1), which provides explicit teaching. “In the disclosed workflow management system, when a task is completed, the user requests the review/approval requesting unit to request a reviewer (e.g., a project manager) to review and/or approve a task completion report. Thus, in the disclosed workflow management system, progress of tasks is managed by the user.” Mohri ¶ 7.
(2) Applicant states (Remarks p. 11):
PNG
media_image2.png
302
658
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Examiner disagrees.
The premise of Applicant’s argument is flawed. Miller does not disclose that the collaboration must be real-time or require simultaneously co-editing. Miller teaches that a modification to a 3D model is synchronized within the system. However, one does not have to work on the same thing at the same time, even though the system provides the option.
Further, even if there were such requirement, annotation could still help for such collaboration. Verbal communication may not be preferred. A detailed history of edits and contexts could be preserved, and another collaborator could benefit real time or later.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejections of Claims 4-6 and 14-16 under 35 U.S.C. 112 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Claim Objections
The objections to Claims 1 and 11 due to minor informalities are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims. However, the amendments create new informality issues.
The objections to Claims 2 and 12 due to minor informalities are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims. However, the amendments create new informality issues.
The objections to Claims 3 and 13 due to minor informalities are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
The objections to Claims 6 and 16 due to minor informalities are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities. Claim 1 recites “the one or more operations including rotating and scaling” after the amendments. If rotation is an operation and scaling is an operation, there have to be at least two operations to include rotating and scaling. However, meanwhile, the recited “the one or more operations” may be one operation and cannot include two operations of rotating and scaling. Appropriate correction is required.
For the purposes of the art rejection, the Examiner is reading the limitation as “the one or more operations including rotating or scaling.”
Claim 11 is also objected to for a similar informality.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities. Claim 2 recites “the one or more operations including rotating, scaling, starting, stopping, and resuming the at least one three-dimensional animation” after the amendments. If rotation is an operation and scaling is an operation, there have to be at least two operations to include rotating and scaling. Claim 2 requires more operations than these two. However, meanwhile, the recited “the one or more operations” may be one operation and cannot include even the two operations of rotating and scaling. Appropriate correction is required.
For the purposes of the art rejection, the Examiner is reading the limitation as “the one or more operations including rotating, scaling, starting, stopping, or resuming the at least one three-dimensional animation.”
Claim 12 is also objected to for a similar informality.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities. Claim 4 recites, “at least one of a title, a status, budgeted expenses, revenue, expenses, a code, a description, estimated revenue, the name of a creator of the at least one project, a planned start date, an indicator of whether the at least one project is on budget, a due date, an identifier, an indicator of whether the at least one project is on schedule” after the amendments. It is unclear if there should be “and” or “or” before “an indicator of whether the at least one project is on schedule.” Appropriate correction is required.
For the purposes of art rejection, the Examiner is reading the limitation as “at least one of a title, a status, budgeted expenses, revenue, expenses, a code, a description, estimated revenue, the name of a creator of the at least one project, a planned start date, an indicator of whether the at least one project is on budget, a due date, an identifier, or an indicator of whether the at least one project is on schedule” as Applicant probably intends to claim.
Claim 14 is also objected to for a similar informality.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8, 10-11, 13-14, 18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (US 9460542 B2) in view of GURUMOORTHY et al. (WO 2021053694 A1) and Mohri (US 20080221952 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Miller teaches A system for collaboration among a plurality of users on three-dimensional digital media development (“Browser-based Collaborative Development Of A 3D Model” Miller Title. “FIG. 1 is a block diagram of a communication system in which techniques of the present disclosure are utilized to allow a user operating a browser-based 3D modeling software module to develop a three-dimensional (3D) model of an object or a group of objects in collaboration with at least one other user;” Miller col. 3 lines 11-16.) comprising:
at least one processor; a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to provide (Miller col. 5 lines 22-43):
an interface comprising a plurality of display elements (
“Browser-based Collaborative Development Of A 3D Model” Miller Title. A browser interface comprises multiple graphical user interface elements that interface/interact with users), the display elements being configured to:
display a control enabling a first one of the plurality of users to select a file containing at least one three-dimensional object to upload (
“Further, 3D modeling software typically allows users to save models as files that conform to a certain predefined format. To share models, users transmit to each other files with the corresponding model data, or upload the files to data servers.” Miller col. 1 lines 39-52. “In some embodiments, the modeling client 52 then uploads the model data 54 to the model storage 22 automatically or in response to a corresponding command from Abe.” Miller col. 16 lines 22-41. “Browser-based Collaborative Development Of A 3D Model” Miller Title.);
receive information for at least one review
Miller provides an example, where the system could receive information from user Abe, stating “Referring back to FIG. 1, Abe may then decide to invite another user, Bob, to edit or further develop the model in collaboration with Abe. To this end, Abe may activate a control provided by the collaboration modeling client 52 (e.g., a toolbar icon or a button labeled “invite”) to generate an invitation to Bob in the form of an electronic message transmitted over the network 16, for example. The invitation includes Bob's email address, in an embodiment. The modeling client 52 may automatically prompt the user to supply a name for the model 400 and verify, using the modeling server 18, whether the supplied name is unique. User Abe, for example, may name the model 400 AbesModel. The modeling client 52 also may automatically group all previously ungrouped geometry (i.e., 3D geometric shapes) under the root node 452 into a single component so as to enable component-by-component locking during subsequent collaborative development. In some embodiments, the modeling client 52 then uploads the model data 54 to the model storage 22 automatically or in response to a corresponding command from Abe.” Miller col. 16 lines 22-41.
Here, the system receives an invitation from Abe for collaboration including an assignment of a 3D object, e.g., the model 400 AbesModel, to another user, e.g., Rob, for the collaboration, which includes reviewing and editing the 3D object.);
display a control enabling a second one of the plurality of users to perform one or more operations on the at least one three-dimensional object, the one or more operations including rotating and scaling (
[BRI on the record]
Claim 1 has been objected to because of the recitation of “the one or more operations including rotating and scaling,” because the limitation needs clarification. The Examiner is treating the limitation, for the purposes of art rejection, as “the one or more operations including rotating or scaling.”
[Mapping Analysis]
Miller teaches enabling users to manipulate 3D objects, stating “With continued reference to FIG. 2A, the modeling engine 130 interprets model data to generate a raster image of the corresponding 3D model, creates new components in response to commands received via the browser interface module 132, modifies model data to add, remove, resize, retexture, and otherwise update selected components, and provides other functionality for developing 3D models. Using the user interface of the browser application 120 to interact with the modeling engine, a user can generate and position 3D shapes (and, in some cases, 2D shapes), apply colors and/or textures to various shapes, move, scale, rotate, and skew the shapes, groups shapes to define aggregate model components, etc.” Miller col. 9 lines 1-13. “The modeling software also allows the user to rotate a 3D model displayed in a browser application window, change the angle and the distance of the viewpoint relative to the model, and otherwise control the manner in which the model is rendered on a user interface of the client device. During a collaborative development session, the modeling software receives user commands via the browser application for modifying the 3D model, generates a representation of the desired modifications (also referred to below as “mutations” of the model), and causes the modifications to the 3D model to be synchronized with one or more client devices.” Miller col. 4 lines 6-39.); and
receive one or more annotations on one or more locations of the at least one three-dimensional object
Miller teaches annotations on components that have been updated, stating “In an embodiment, the serialized representation of the component branch 454 also may include an indication or description of modifications M.sub.1, M.sub.2, . . . M.sub.N applied to the elements and components that make up the component branch 454. For example, the listing may include a description of the Roof component and an indication (a flag, a bitmask, etc.) that the Roof component has been modified at the device 502. In another embodiment, the update message 514 may identify only the modifications applied to the component 402 relative to a version of the component 402 available at the device 504 and/or the collaboration server 506. The description of modifications conforms to an OT format, according to some embodiments. Of course, the update message 514 in some cases may specify only one modification.” Miller col. 19 lines 40-54.
The claimed “annotations” are mapped to “indication or description of modifications” or “update message” that identifies modifications applied to a component, a location of 3D object.
Miller teaches the annotation (“indication or description of modifications”) is part of user modification of the 3D model, considered part of the review, stating “After the client device 502 has successfully locked the component 402, user Abe may modify the component 402. In particular, user Abe may apply a set of modification commands to the component 102 including, for example, commands to delete shapes, add shapes, reposition shapes, resize shapes, apply different colors or textures to elements, etc. Abe may then notify the collaboration server 506 of the modifications to the component 402 by activating a corresponding control on the user interface such as an update button, for example. The control causes an update message 514 to be generated including (i) an indication of the component to which modifications are applied and (ii) a description of the modifications and/or of the modified component, according to an embodiment.” Col. 18 lines 56- col. 19 line 2.
).
The Examiner mapped the claimed “annotations” to “indication or description of modifications” or “update message.” However, Miller does not explicitly use the term “annotation” or “comment.” In addition, the specification shows that the claimed “annotations” are made by a user, not the computing system. Due to the difference in terminology and disclosure, applicant may argue Miller’s teaching is distinguished from the claimed invention. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner introduces a secondary reference that provides stronger teaching of this limitation.
Further, Miller does not explicitly disclose the at least one review being part of a workflow of a project; or annotations as part of the at least one review.
GURUMOORTHY teaches annotations from a user (
GURUMOORTHY, in a similar context as Miller’s, teaches annotation by a user, stating, “. . . b) Image Sharing- Any user can upload images and can also view the images uploaded by other users. Options are provided for editing the images, for annotating /posting comments. The user name will displayed to indicate the user who edited the image or posted the comment.” GURUMOORTHY ¶ 74.
GURUMOORTHY provides more examples of annotation, stating “Example of the at least one designing tool includes, but not limited to, a text chat module, a video chat module, an audio format, a white board, an image annotation, a voice annotation, a tool to create, share, upload and discuss design related collaterals like sketches, images, drawings, a CAD model, two dimensional model, three dimensional models, an augmented reality / a virtual reality/ a mixed reality (AR/VR/MR) models etc. In an embodiment of the present invention, the at least one designing tool provides for an option to edit, delete, filter, annotate, comment, zoom, rotate, download, arrange or a combination thereof.” GURUMOORTHY ¶ 36.
After the combination of Miller and GURUMOORTHY, a user could provide annotation/comment about a component that has been updated, explaining the reason or context for such update.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine GURUMOORTHY’s teaching on annotation with Miller. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to enhance communication and collaboration. GURUMOORTHY states, “. . . b) Image Sharing- Any user can upload images and can also view the images uploaded by other users. Options are provided for editing the images, for annotating /posting comments. The user name will displayed to indicate the user who edited the image or posted the comment.” GURUMOORTHY ¶ 74.
Miller in view of GURUMOORTHY does not explicitly disclose the at least one review being part of a workflow of a project; or annotations as part of the at least one review.
Mohri teaches the at least one review being part of a workflow of a project (“In the disclosed workflow management system, when a task is completed, the user requests the review/approval requesting unit to request a reviewer (e.g., a project manager) to review and/or approve a task completion report. Thus, in the disclosed workflow management system, progress of tasks is managed by the user.” Mohri ¶ 7.); and
annotations as part of the at least one review (after the combination of Miller in view of GURUMOORTHY and Mohri, Miller in view of GURUMOORTHY’s various types of annotations become part of the at least one review.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mohri’s workflow with Miller in view of GURUMOORTHY. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to maintain or enhance project qualities by an internal control system based on reviews. “In the disclosed workflow management system, when a task is completed, the user requests the review/approval requesting unit to request a reviewer (e.g., a project manager) to review and/or approve a task completion report. Thus, in the disclosed workflow management system, progress of tasks is managed by the user.” Mohri ¶ 7.
Regarding Claim 3, Miller in view of GURUMOORTHY and Mohri teaches The system for collaboration among a plurality of users on three-dimensional digital media development according to claim 1, wherein the display elements are further configured to:
receive information for at least one project; and
receive information for the at least one review (
“Referring back to FIG. 1, Abe may then decide to invite another user, Bob, to edit or further develop the model in collaboration with Abe. To this end, Abe may activate a control provided by the collaboration modeling client 52 (e.g., a toolbar icon or a button labeled “invite”) to generate an invitation to Bob in the form of an electronic message transmitted over the network 16, for example. The invitation includes Bob's email address, in an embodiment. The modeling client 52 may automatically prompt the user to supply a name for the model 400 and verify, using the modeling server 18, whether the supplied name is unique. User Abe, for example, may name the model 400 AbesModel. . . . In some embodiments, the modeling client 52 then uploads the model data 54 to the model storage 22 automatically or in response to a corresponding command from Abe.” Miller col. 16 lines 22-41.
The name of the model may be mapped to information for the collaboration project; while the 3D model may be mapped to information for the review of the model.
GURUMOORTHY provides explicit teachings with respect to the limitations.
“In an embodiment of the present invention, the group of users may be tagged to a project name. In one embodiment of the present invention, the project name may include project information. In an embodiment of the present invention, project information may include, but not limited to, details of the product to be designed, timelines for completion of product designing, information of the at least one user within the group of users, keywords linked to the product to be designed, status of product designing and the like. In an embodiment of the present invention, project name of a public group may be displayed to the at least one user searching for new projects to participate in. In another embodiment of the present invention, project information may be displayed to the at least one user searching for new projects to participate in.” GURUMOORTHY ¶ 33.
GURUMOORTHY discloses providing review history, stating “In an embodiment of the present invention, the search and retrieve module 406 configured to search based on the query and retrieve the at least one document that is uploaded. . . . In another embodiment of the present invention, the at least one document that is retrieved also provides for review and revision history.” GURUMOORTHY ¶ 58.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine GURUMOORTHY’s teaching on including project and review information with Miller. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to enhance communication and collaboration by sharing more information.
Regarding Claim 4, Miller in view of GURUMOORTHY and Mohri teaches The system for collaboration among a plurality of users on three-dimensional digital media development as in claim 3 wherein:
the information for the at least one project includes at least one of a title, a status, budgeted expenses, revenue, expenses, a code, a description, estimated revenue, the name of a creator of the at least one project, a planned start date, an indicator of whether the at least one project is on budget, a due date, an identifier, an indicator of whether the at least one project is on schedule (
[BRI on the record] Claim 4 is objected to, and the Examiner is treating the limitation as “or an indicator of whether the at least one project is on schedule” for the purposes of art rejection.
[Mapping Analysis]
“In an embodiment of the present invention, the group of users may be tagged to a project name. In one embodiment of the present invention, the project name may include project information. In an embodiment of the present invention, project information may include, but not limited to, details of the product to be designed, timelines for completion of product designing, information of the at least one user within the group of users, keywords linked to the product to be designed, status of product designing and the like. In an embodiment of the present invention, project name of a public group may be displayed to the at least one user searching for new projects to participate in. In another embodiment of the present invention, project information may be displayed to the at least one user searching for new projects to participate in.” GURUMOORTHY ¶ 33.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine GURUMOORTHY’s teaching on including project and review information with Miller. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to enhance communication and collaboration. “In an embodiment of the present invention, the group of users may be tagged to a project name. In one embodiment of the present invention, the project name may include project information. In an embodiment of the present invention, project information may include, but not limited to, details of the product to be designed, timelines for completion of product designing, information of the at least one user within the group of users, keywords linked to the product to be designed, status of product designing and the like. In an embodiment of the present invention, project name of a public group may be displayed to the at least one user searching for new projects to participate in. In another embodiment of the present invention, project information may be displayed to the at least one user searching for new projects to participate in.” GURUMOORTHY ¶ 33.
Regarding Claim 8, Miller in view of GURUMOORTHY and Mohri teaches The system for collaboration among a plurality of users on three-dimensional digital media development according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of display elements is further configured to:
receive one or more comments on one or more locations of the three-dimensional object (
GURUMOORTHY teaches comments by a user, stating, “. . . b) Image Sharing- Any user can upload images and can also view the images uploaded by other users. Options are provided for editing the images, for annotating /posting comments. The user name will displayed to indicate the user who edited the image or posted the comment.” GURUMOORTHY ¶ 74.
Miller teaches comments on components updated, stating “In an embodiment, the serialized representation of the component branch 454 also may include an indication or description of modifications M.sub.1, M.sub.2, . . . M.sub.N applied to the elements and components that make up the component branch 454. For example, the listing may include a description of the Roof component and an indication (a flag, a bitmask, etc.) that the Roof component has been modified at the device 502. In another embodiment, the update message 514 may identify only the modifications applied to the component 402 relative to a version of the component 402 available at the device 504 and/or the collaboration server 506. The description of modifications conforms to an OT format, according to some embodiments. Of course, the update message 514 in some cases may specify only one modification.” Miller col. 19 lines 40-54.
After Miller is combined with GURUMOORTHY, comments could be, as an example, about updates to a certain component of a model by a user, and the comments could be shared with other users.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine GURUMOORTHY’s teaching on including comments with Miller. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to enhance communication and collaboration by sharing more information among users. GURUMOORTHY states, “. . . b) Image Sharing- Any user can upload images and can also view the images uploaded by other users. Options are provided for editing the images, for annotating /posting comments. The user name will displayed to indicate the user who edited the image or posted the comment.” GURUMOORTHY ¶ 74.
Regarding Claim 10, Miller in view of GURUMOORTHY and Mohri teaches The system for collaboration among a plurality of users on three-dimensional digital media development according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of display elements is further configured to:
receive an approval of the three-dimensional object from the second one of the plurality of users (
GURUMOORTHY teaches approving tasks, stating “In an embodiment of the present invention, the at least one user from the group of users may perform an activity. In an embodiment of the present invention, the activity may include marking status, uploading files, posting issues, creating project information, editing project information, deleting project information, assigning a task, resolving a task, reviewing a completed task, approving the completed task, rejecting a task, resubmitting a task and the like. In an embodiment of the present invention, the project information and status of activity is updated automatically.” GURUMOORTHY ¶ 34.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine GURUMOORTHY’s teaching on approving tasks with Miller. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to enhance quality of a completed task and to strengthen internal control. “. . . , assigning a task, resolving a task, reviewing a completed task, approving the completed task, rejecting a task, resubmitting a task and the like. In an embodiment of the present invention, the project information and status of activity is updated automatically.” GURUMOORTHY ¶ 34.
Claims 11, 13-14, 18, and 20 are substantially similar to Claims 1, 3-5, 8, and 10. The rejections of Claims 1, 3-5, 8, and 10 based on Miller in view of GURUMOORTHY and Mohri are applied to Claims 11, 13-14, 18, and 20. In addition, Claim 11, 13-14, 18, and 20 recites method claims (Miller figs. 8-13).
Claim 21 includes limitations of Claim 11. The rejection of Claim 11 based on Miller in view of GURUMOORTHY and Mohri is applied to Claim 21. In addition, Claim 21 recites, “A non-transitory computer-readable media comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors on a computing device, are operable to cause the one or more processors to execute . . . ” (Miller col. 5 lines 22-43).
Claims 2, 9, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of GURUMOORTHY and Mohri as applied to Claims 1 and 11, in further view of Westmacott et al. (US 20210342600 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Miller in view of GURUMOORTHY and Mohri teaches The system for collaboration among a plurality of users on three-dimensional digital media development according to claim 1, wherein the display elements are further configured to:
display a control enabling the second one of the plurality of users to select a file containing at least one three-dimensional graphics
“Further, 3D modeling software typically allows users to save models as files that conform to a certain predefined format. To share models, users transmit to each other files with the corresponding model data, or upload the files to data servers.” Miller col. 1 lines 39-52. “In some embodiments, the modeling client 52 then uploads the model data 54 to the model storage 22 automatically or in response to a corresponding command from Abe.” Miller col. 16 lines 22-41.);
display a control enabling the second one of the plurality of uses to perform one or more operations on the at least one three-dimensional graphics graphics
[BRI on the record]
Claim 2 is objected to because of the recitation of “the one or more operations including rotating, scaling, starting, stopping, and resuming the at least one three-dimensional animation.”. The Examiner is treating the limitation, for the purposes of art rejection, as “the one or more operations including rotating, scaling, starting, stopping, or resuming the at least one three-dimensional animation.”
[Mapping Analysis]
“With continued reference to FIG. 2A, the modeling engine 130 interprets model data to generate a raster image of the corresponding 3D model, creates new components in response to commands received via the browser interface module 132, modifies model data to add, remove, resize, retexture, and otherwise update selected components, and provides other functionality for developing 3D models. Using the user interface of the browser application 120 to interact with the modeling engine, a user can generate and position 3D shapes (and, in some cases, 2D shapes), apply colors and/or textures to various shapes, move, scale, rotate, and skew the shapes, groups shapes to define aggregate model components, etc.” Miller col. 9 lines 1-13.
receive an assignment of the at least one three-dimensional graphics to the at least one review (
“Referring back to FIG. 1, Abe may then decide to invite another user, Bob, to edit or further develop the model in collaboration with Abe. To this end, Abe may activate a control provided by the collaboration modeling client 52 (e.g., a toolbar icon or a button labeled “invite”) to generate an invitation to Bob in the form of an electronic message transmitted over the network 16, for example. The invitation includes Bob's email address, in an embodiment. The modeling client 52 may automatically prompt the user to supply a name for the model 400 and verify, using the modeling server 18, whether the supplied name is unique. User Abe, for example, may name the model 400 AbesModel. The modeling client 52 also may automatically group all previously ungrouped geometry (i.e., 3D geometric shapes) under the root node 452 into a single component so as to enable component-by-component locking during subsequent collaborative development. In some embodiments, the modeling client 52 then uploads the model data 54 to the model storage 22 automatically or in response to a corresponding command from Abe.” Miller col. 16 lines 22-41.
Here, the system receives an invitation for collaboration including an assignment of a 3D object, e.g., the model 400 AbesModel, to another user, e.g., Rob, for the collaboration, which includes reviewing and editing the 3D object.)
Miller in view of GURUMOORTHY and Mohri does not explicitly disclose at least one three-dimensional graphics is 3D animation; or receive one or more annotations at one or more locations on the at least one three-dimensional animation at one or more instances in time.
Westmacott teaches at least one three-dimensional graphics is 3D animation (
“Having determined a representation of the bounding box in 3D space for IMG1, this can then be ‘animated’ for further images (e.g. IMG2 in FIG. 33), in 3D space, exploiting the assumed knowledge as to the 3D path of the moving object. By moving the 3D representation of the bounding box (e.g. cuboid) 800 to its assumed location relative to the capture location of a further image IMG2, annotation data can be automatically generated for that image IMG2 by geometrically projecting the moved representation 800 into the image plane thereof.” Westmacott ¶ 367.
PNG
media_image3.png
362
606
media_image3.png
Greyscale
); and
receive one or more annotations at one or more locations on the at least one three-dimensional animation at one or more instances in time (“Annotating a static object such as a parked car, as in the FIG. 21, is relatively straightforward, since once a correct location, orientation and extent is established in the 3D model (by annotating the object with respect to one frame), this annotation will be valid for all frames in which the object is visible. However, a vehicle proceeding along the road is in a different location in 3D space in each frame, which would require each vehicle to be manually annotated in each frame.” Westmacott ¶ 351. Here, the annotations are associated with locations and each frame represents an instance in time.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Westmacott’s teaching on annotation for 3D animation with Miller in view of GURUMOORTHY and Mohri. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to construct and/or improve quality or accuracy of 3D animation through annotation. “Having determined a representation of the bounding box in 3D space for IMG1, this can then be ‘animated’ for further images (e.g. IMG2 in FIG. 33), in 3D space, exploiting the assumed knowledge as to the 3D path of the moving object. By moving the 3D representation of the bounding box (e.g. cuboid) 800 to its assumed location relative to the capture location of a further image IMG2, annotation data can be automatically generated for that image IMG2 by geometrically projecting the moved representation 800 into the image plane thereof.” Westmacott ¶ 367.
Regarding claim 9, Miller in view of GURUMOORTHY, Mohri and Westmacott teaches The system for collaboration among a plurality of users on three-dimensional digital media development according to claim 2,
wherein the plurality of display elements is further configured to: receive one or more comments on the one or more locations of the three-dimensional animation at the one or more instances in time (
GURUMOORTHY teaches making comments, stating, “. . . b) Image Sharing- Any user can upload images and can also view the images uploaded by other users. Options are provided for editing the images, for annotating /posting comments. The user name will displayed to indicate the user who edited the image or posted the comment.” GURUMOORTHY ¶ 74.
After Miller, GURUMOORTHY, Mohri and Westmacott are combined, comments, for example, could be made with respect to 3D objects, e.g., 3D bounding boxes, on each frame regarding their locations or annotation.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine GURUMOORTHY’s teaching on annotation with Miller. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to enhance communication and collaboration. GURUMOORTHY states, “. . . b) Image Sharing- Any user can upload images and can also view the images uploaded by other users. Options are provided for editing the images, for annotating /posting comments. The user name will displayed to indicate the user who edited the image or posted the comment.” GURUMOORTHY ¶ 74.
Claims 12 and 19 are substantially similar to Claims 2 and 9. The rejections of Claims 2 and 9 based on Miller in view of GURUMOORTHY, Mohri and Westmacott are applied to Claims 12 and 19.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of GURUMOORTHY and Mohri as applied to Claims 3 and 13, in further view of GNANESWARAN et al. (US 20210019249 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Miller in view of GURUMOORTHY and Mohri teaches The system for collaboration among a plurality of users on three-dimensional digital media development according to claim 3, wherein:
the information for the at least one review includes at least one of
a name, a type,
[BRI on the record]
With respect to “at least one of A and B”, the Examiner is reading the limitation as at least one of A and at least one of B.
[Mapping Analyses]
name [Wingdings font/0xE0] “The task information 21 includes a task ID identifying a task, a task name, a parent task ID identifying a parent task (indicating a hierarchical structure of tasks), a task period indicating start and completion dates of the task, a user ID identifying a user in charge, and a progress status indicating the status of the task.” Mohri ¶ 75.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mohri’s naming objects with Miller in view of GURUMOORTHY. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to easily identify objects, e.g., reviews or review related informational objects.
type [Wingdings font/0xE0]“With the browser 301, the manager (the user of the manager terminal 300) is able to review progress reports (electronic documents generated based on specified document formats) on tasks of users, to set document formats for different types of progress reports (e.g. daily report, weekly report, and monthly report), and to set circulation routes for the different types of progress reports.” Mohri ¶ 85.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mohri’s type information with Miller in view of GURUMOORTHY. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide guidance and clear communication to a user as to the frequencies of reviews.
status [Wingdings font/0xE0] GURUMOORTHY teaches review status, stating “In an embodiment of the present invention, the at least one user from the group of users may perform an activity. In an embodiment of the present invention, the activity may include marking status, uploading files, posting issues, creating project information, editing project information, deleting project information, assigning a task, resolving a task, reviewing a completed task, approving the completed task, rejecting a task, resubmitting a task and the like. In an embodiment of the present invention, the project information and status of activity is updated automatically.” GURUMOORTHY ¶ 34.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine GURUMOORTHY’s teaching on status information with Miller. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to enhance communication and collaboration by sharing more information.
start date and end date [Wingdings font/0xE0]“The task information 21 includes a task ID identifying a task, a task name, a parent task ID identifying a parent task (indicating a hierarchical structure of tasks), a task period indicating start and completion dates of the task, a user ID identifying a user in charge, and a progress status indicating the status of the task.” Mohri ¶ 75.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mohri’s time information with Miller in view of GURUMOORTHY. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make it easier to track and to search information objects based on time related information.
predecessors [Wingdings font/0xE0] “The DBs 109 include a workflow DB 110 containing workflow information defining execution sequences of tasks constituting workflows according to dependency between the tasks.” Mohri ¶ 65. The dependency specifies predecessors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mohri’s dependency between the tasks with Miller in view of GURUMOORTHY. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to help a user and computing system understand the context of information.).
Miller in view of GURUMOORTHY and Mohri does not explicitly disclose
a name of an owner of the at least one review; or
an indicator of whether the at least one review is automatically completed.
GNANESWARAN teaches
a name of an owner of the at least one review (
“The project information section 550 provides project details 552 that can include a name of a project, a project owner, and a list of reviewers and review processes implemented.” GNANESWARAN ¶ 121. Miller in view of GURUMOORTHY and Mohri already teaches review information. After the combination of GNANESWARAN, the review information also includes name of owner. ); and
an indicator of whether the at least one review is automatically completed (
“In another example, certain risk factors 569 may be displayed as they are determined, with values changing as the automated review is completed. For example, code churn may be displayed at all times and its value may increase as the automated review progresses.” GNANESWARAN ¶ 123.
“The automated review section 560 can provide a status and data determined through an implementation of the prediction service. In particular, the automated review section 560 and provide a code review status 562, an activation recommendation 564, name of values for a code review status 562, an activation recommendation produced 564, and a type of automated review 568 resulting the activation recommendation 564.” GNANESWARAN ¶ 122.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine GNANESWARAN’s automatic completion of reviews with Miller in view of GURUMOORTHY and Mohri. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to a) improve activity tracking and to maintain accountability and to b) save human resources by automating processes.
Claim 15 is substantially similar to Claim 5. The rejection analyses for Claim 5 based on Miller in view of GURUMOORTHY, Mohri and GNANESWARAN are applied to Claim 15.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of GURUMOORTHY and Mohri as applied to Claims 1 and 11, in further view of Dayananda (US 20230019912 A1) and GNANESWARAN
Regarding Claim 6, Miller in view of GURUMOORTHY and Mohri teaches The system for collaboration among a plurality of users on three-dimensional digital media development according to claim 1.
Miller in view of GURUMOORTHY and Mohri does not explicitly disclose
wherein the at least one review comprises a plurality of stages and
wherein the display elements are further configured to:
receive information for at least one of the plurality of stages, the information including a name, a due date, a name of an owner of the at least one of the plurality of stages, an indicator of whether to notify the owner of a response for the at least one of the plurality of stages, and one or more email addresses designated to receive the at least one of the plurality of stages; and notify the owner of the response for the at least one of the plurality of stages.
Dayananda teaches
wherein the at least one review comprises a plurality of stages (
Dayananda teaches a design review stage and its iterative stages, stating “FIG. 1 illustrates a flow diagram 100 of a virtual manufacturing process 120, according to some embodiments. The virtual manufacturing process 120 may begin with a design review stage 102 that receives as an input the 3D design assembly. As discussed above, the 3D design may be developed using CAD tools and may include 3D models that are representations of each of the subassemblies and parts combined to form the overall assembly. The design review stage 102 include a formal design review to ensure that the assembly meets the predetermined specifications. The design review stage 102 may provide a complete/validated design file for the assembly. Any problems discovered during the design review stage 102 can provide feedback to the design engineer, and the design review stage 102 may be iterated until the design is complete/validated.” Dayananda ¶ 22.
Dayananda teaches a second review stage and its iterative stages, stating “After the design has been completed/validated, a second review stage 104 may take place. The second review stage 104 may include a digital mockup (DMU) that is reviewed by ‘Design for’ engineers who review the design for specific requirements. For example, these engineers may primarily review the design and specific models to meet different requirements. Design for Manufacturing (DFM) may review the design to ensure that it can be properly manufactured. Design for Aesthetics (DFAe) may review the design to ensure that it meets aesthetic requirements for form and appearance. Any problems discovered in the second review stage 102 may also be passed back to the design engineer (DE) such that design can be iterated and improved until all the requirements are met in each of the ‘Design for’ review modules.” Dayananda ¶ 23.) and
wherein the display elements are further configured to:
receive information for at least one of the plurality of stages, the information including a name, a due date,
name [Wingdings font/0xE0]“The task information 21 includes a task ID identifying a task, a task name, a parent task ID identifying a parent task (indicating a hierarchical structure of tasks), a task period indicating start and completion dates of the task, a user ID identifying a user in charge, and a progress status indicating the status of the task.” Mohri ¶ 75.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mohri’s naming objects with Miller in view of GURUMOORTHY. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to easily identify objects, e.g., stages or stage related information.
due date [Wingdings font/0xE0]
GURUMOORTHY teaches the use of deadlines, mapped to due date, stating “1. Add/edit schedule with design stages timeline view and deadlines crossed in red.” GURUMOORTHY ¶ 74.
The Examiner is taking an Official Notice that a due date could be used as a deadline. The benefits of combining this well-known knowledge would have been that a deadline is appropriate with respect to the scope of a project. Therefore, expectation is reasonable for a person implementing the project.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine GURUMOORTHY’s deadline with Miller. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to specify clear expectation to facilitate timely completion of a project/task/stage.
indicator of whether to notify the owner of a response for the at least one of the plurality of stages [Wingdings font/0xE0]
“The design review stage 102 may provide a complete/validated design file for the assembly. Any problems discovered during the design review stage 102 can provide feedback to the design engineer, and the design review stage 102 may be iterated until the design is complete/validated.” Dayananda ¶ 22. “Any problems discovered in the second review stage 10[4] may also be passed back to the design engineer (DE) such that design can be iterated and improved until all the requirements are met in each of the ‘Design for’ review modules.” Dayananda ¶ 23.
The owner of a response is mapped to the disclosed “design engineer.” The system receives an indication as to whether or who will be receiving the feedback.
one or more email addresses designated to receive that at least one of the plurality of stages [Wingdings font/0xE0]
Miller teaches receiving communications/notification based on email addresses, stating “At block 658, one or more email addresses (or other suitable identifiers) of users being invited to participate in collaborative modeling are received. For example, an appropriate dialogue box, via which a user may enter an email address, may be displayed on the user interface.” Miller ¶ 89.
Dayananda teaches communications related to stages, for example, stating “The design review stage 102 may provide a complete/validated design file for the assembly. Any problems discovered during the design review stage 102 can provide feedback to the design engineer, and the design review stage 102 may be iterated until the design is complete/validated.” Dayananda ¶ 22.
After Miller, GURUMOORTHY, Mohri, and Dayananda are combined, the communications may be conducted through the specified email addresses.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Dayananda’s email address with Miller in view of GURUMOORTHY and Mohri. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to automatically/efficiently/quickly communicate to users/workers related to a project.); and
notify the owner of the response for the at least one of the plurality of stages (Dayananda ¶¶ 22-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Dayananda’s teaching on review stages with Miller in view of GURUMOORTHY and Mohri. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate different expertise and perspectives into a successful project. “The design review stage 102 may provide a complete/validated design file for the assembly. Any problems discovered during the design review stage 102 can provide feedback to the design engineer, and the design review stage 102 may be iterated until the design is complete/validated.” Dayananda ¶ 22. “Any problems discovered in the second review stage 10[4] may also be passed back to the design engineer (DE) such that design can be iterated and improved until all the requirements are met in each of the ‘Design for’ review modules.” Dayananda ¶ 23.
Miller in view of GURUMOORTHY, Mohri, and Dayananda does not explicitly disclose name of an owner of the at least one of the plurality of stages.
GNANESWARAN teaches name of an owner of the at least one of the plurality of stages (
“The project information section 550 provides project details 552 that can include a name of a project, a project owner, and a list of reviewers and review processes implemented.” GNANESWARAN ¶ 121.
Miller in view of GURUMOORTHY, Mohri, and Dayananda already teaches the plurality of stages. After Miller, GURUMOORTHY, Mohri, Dayananda, and GNANESWARAN are combined, the name of an owner of the stages are recorded.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine GNANESWARAN’s automatic completion of reviews with Miller in view of GURUMOORTHY and Mohri. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve activity tracking and to maintain accountability.
Claim 16 is substantially similar to Claim 6. The rejection of Claim 6 based on Miller in view of GURUMOORTHY, Mohri, Dayananda and GNANESWARAN is applied to Claim 16.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of GURUMOORTHY and Mohri as applied to Claims 1 and 11, in further view of Cheung et al. (US 20140249779 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Miller in view of GURUMOORTHY and Mohri teaches The system for collaboration among a plurality of users on three-dimensional digital media development according to claim 1,
wherein the at least one three-dimensional object comprises a plurality of versions (
Miller states, “In an embodiment, the collaboration server 506 also modifies the master copy of the model according to the update message 514 and generates a new version identifier for the updated version. Referring back to FIG. 1, for example, the modeling server 18 may update the copy of the model data 24 in the model storage 22. For example, if the update message 514 indicates that the modifications M.sub.1, M.sub.2, . . . M.sub.N were applied to version V of the model, the collaboration server 506 may update the master copy of the model, generate version identifier V+1, store the new version identifier V+1 along with the modified master copy of the model, and include the version identifier V+1 in the forwarded message 516.” Miller col. 19 line 66- col. 20 line 16.).
Miller in view of GURUMOORTHY and Mohri does not explicitly disclose
the plurality of display elements is further configured to:
display a first one the plurality of versions of the at least one three-dimensional object on a screen with a second one of the plurality of versions of the at least one three-dimensional object; and
compare the first one of the plurality of versions of the at least one three-dimensional object with the second one of the plurality of versions of the at least one three-dimensional object.
Cheung teaches
the plurality of display elements is further configured to:
display a first one the plurality of versions of the at least one three-dimensional object on a screen with a second one of the plurality of versions of the at least one three-dimensional object (
“At step 110, various versions of the 3D are selected for comparison.” Cheung ¶ 21.
PNG
media_image4.png
324
708
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In the last figure of fig. 5, two versions of the 3D are displayed together in an overlapping manner, with differences highlighted.
The claim does not require displaying two versions of the 3D models side by side. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner conducts an obviousness analysis. The Examiner takes an Official Notice that it would have been well-known in the art the images may be displayed side by side for comparison. The benefits of combining this well-known knowledge would have been that it would have become easier for a user to compare similar images to identify differences.); and
compare the first one of the plurality of versions of the at least one three-dimensional object with the second one of the plurality of versions of the at least one three-dimensional object (
“FIG. 5 is an exemplary 3D model showing the result of file comparison and highlights the change identified in the model. In FIG. 5, Version 1 of the model and Version 2 of the structural design model are compared. The highlighted differences show location 504 as being different between the versions. Location 504 can identify changes in dimension or addition/deletion of parts. It may also represent an equipment change. FIG. 5 illustrates the effectiveness of the disclosed embodiments in identifying changes that are not detectable by visual inspections.” Cheung ¶ 38.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Cheung’s version comparison with Miller in view of GURUMOORTHY and Mohri. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to help a user identify the version differences, so that informed decisions may be made regarding which version to adopt. “In FIG. 5, Version 1 of the model and Version 2 of the structural design model are compared. The highlighted differences show location 504 as being different between the versions. Location 504 can identify changes in dimension or addition/deletion of parts. It may also represent an equipment change. FIG. 5 illustrates the effectiveness of the disclosed embodiments in identifying changes that are not detectable by visual inspections.” Cheung ¶ 38.
Claim 17 is substantially similar to Claim 7. The rejection of Claim 7 based on Miller in view of GURUMOORTHY, Mohri, and Cheung is applied to Claim 17.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DA COSTA et al. (US 20140229865 A1):
PNG
media_image5.png
458
686
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, which generally discloses collaboration among users on 3D modeling. However, it does not discloses details in the claimed invention, including features related to:
receive information for at least one review, the at least one review being part of a workflow of a project, the information including an assignment of the at least one three-dimensional object to the at least one review
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 ZHENGXI LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-7509. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM - 5 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, Kee Tung can be reached at 571-272-7794. 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.
/ZHENGXI LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611