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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 filed on 01/14/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 USC 102/103 rejections with respect to the amended limitations of claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “input” and “engine” in claims 19-20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou et al (ZOU Z-X., et al., "Sparse3D: Distilling Multiview-Consistent Diffusion for Object Reconstruction from Sparse Views," 3 hitos://arxiv.org/abs/2308.14078, 20 December 2023, pp. 1-17. Applicant cited), in view of Li et al (US 20240212374 A1).
RE claim 1, Zou teaches A method of generating a three-dimensional (3D) object (abstract, Fig 2), comprising:
generating, with a multi-view stereo (MVS) neural reconstruction network, a 3D feature volume from images of a subject, the images of the subject including multiple viewpoints of the subject wherein the 3D feature volume (Figs 2-3, page 7902 cols 1-2, page 7903 col 1 etc, wherein feature maps with depth maps are generated from input MVS images defining a 3D feature volume) defines geometry and appearance information of 3D positions of the subject (page 7903 col 1); and
applying score distillation sampling (SDS) fine-tuning to the feature volume resulting in a 3D object of the subject (Figs 2-3, page 7903 cols 1-2), wherein generating, with the MVS neural reconstruction network, the 3D feature volume from images of the subject comprises: extracting, by the MVS neural reconstruction network, two-dimensional (2D) feature maps from the images of the subject (Figs 2-3, page 7902 cols 2-page 7903 col 1).
Zou is silent RE: aggregating the 2D feature maps to the 3D feature volume and applying the score distillation sampling (SDS) fine-tuning to the 3D feature volume.
However Li teaches in Figs 1, 4-7, abstract, [0032]- [0039], [0066], [0067], [0070], [0148] etc to effectively fuse the 3D features in the feature volume and directly apply the SDS tuning on the 3D fused feature volume aiming to improve the three-dimensional representation of each scale.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Zou wherein the images correspond to at least four viewpoints of the subject, as suggested by Li; in order to to effectively fuse the 3D features in the feature volume and directly apply the SDS tuning on the 3D fused feature volume saving computation time and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
RE claim 2, Zou teaches wherein the SDS fine-tuning is guided by one or more of: rendering loss based on comparison of the images of the subject to images generated from rending the 3D object at the multiple viewpoints, and SDS loss based on comparison of images generated from rendering of the 3D object at viewpoints different from the multiple viewpoints to corresponding images expected from a multi-view diffusion model that generates one of the images of the subject (Figs 1-2,4, page 7903 cols 1- 2, page 7904 col 2 wherein new images are generated from the diffusion model).
RE claim 3, Zou teaches wherein the SDS fine-tuning is guided by both the rendering loss and the SDS loss (Fig 2, page 7903 cols 1- 2, page 7904 col 2).
RE claim 5, Zou teaches further comprising: generating the images of the subject based on input text, wherein the input text corresponds with the subject (Fig 3, page 7903 cols 1- 2).
RE claim 6, Zou teaches wherein the images of the subject are generated based on the input text using a multi-view diffusion model (Figs 2-3, page 7902 col 2-page 7903 col 2).
RE claim 7, Zou teaches wherein the generating of the images of the subject based on the input text includes: the multi-view diffusion model generating first images of the subject based on the input text, and a view interpolation diffusion model generating second images of the subject based on the first images of the subject, the images of the subject include the first images and the second images of the subject (Figs 2-4, page 7902 col 1, page 7903 col 1).
RE claim 9, Zou teaches further comprising: generating an output image of the subject by rendering the 3D object from a viewpoint (Figs 2, 4, page 7903 col 1).
RE claim 10, Zou teaches wherein the output image is rendered using a multi-layer preceptor for the feature volume (Figs 2, 4, page 7902 col 2, page 7904 col 2).
RE claim 11, Zou teaches wherein the applying of the SDS fine-tuning to the feature volume includes applying the SDS fine-tuning to both the feature volume and the multi-layer preceptor for the feature volume (Figs 2, 4, page 7902 col 2, page 7904 col 2).
RE claim 12, Zou teaches wherein the method is configured to generate the 3D object in at or less than 1 hour (page 7905 col 1).
RE claim 13, Zou teaches wherein the MVS neural reconstruction network is trained on a generic database of objects (page 7904 col 2, page 7905 col 1).
Claims 14-18 recite limitations similar in scope with limitations of claims 1-3,5, 9 and therefore rejected under the same rationale. In addition Zou teaches A non-volatile computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions stored thereon (Fig 2, abstract, typical CRM for storing the application/method components).
Claims 19-20 recite limitations similar in scope with limitations of claims 1-2 and therefore rejected under the same rationale. In addition Zou teaches A system for providing a three-dimensional (3D) object, comprising: an input and a 3D object engine (Fig2, abstract, typical computer for implementing the application/method components).
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou as modified by Li, and further in view of Kreis et al (US 20250182404 A1).
RE claim 4, Zou as modified by Li is silent RE wherein the images correspond to at least four viewpoints of the subject.
However Kreis teaches in [0062] to amplify the effect of directional text prompt augmentation.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Zou as modified by Li wherein the images correspond to at least four viewpoints of the subject, as suggested by Kreis; in order to amplify the effect of directional text prompt augmentation and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
RE claim 8, Zou as modified by Li is silent RE wherein the second images each have a viewpoint that bisects a respective pair of viewpoints of the first images.
However Kreis teaches in [0062] to amplify the effect of directional text prompt augmentation.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Zou as modified by Li wherein the second images each have a viewpoint that bisects a respective pair of viewpoints of the first images, as suggested by Kreis; in order to amplify the effect of directional text prompt augmentation and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (See attaches 892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SULTANA MARCIA ZALALEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kent Chang can be reached at (571)272-7667. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Sultana M Zalalee/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2614