DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 1-10, & 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IVAN LI CHUEN YEOH Et. At. (Pat. Pub. JP-2023126616-A, herein after “Yeoh”) in view of MICHAEL ROBERTS (Pat. Pub. WO-2023164244-A1, herein after “Roberts”) and further in view of SAMI ARPA (Pat. Pub. US-10593125-B2, herein after “Arpa”).
In regard to claim 1, Yeoh teaches [a] computer-implemented method comprising:
causing a graphical object to be displayed in a virtual space “The display system may be configured to present virtual objects …” (Yeoh, Page 4);
determining that the graphical object straddles a transition boundary in the virtual space, wherein the transition boundary has a location relative to a virtual camera that provides a displayed view of the virtual space “11B-11E illustrate examples of various resolution adjustment zone configurations. Additional shapes and configurations of resolution adjustment zones, not shown, may be utilized, and the examples are not to be considered exhaustive” (Yeoh, Page 25) where the transition boundary is used to decrease or increase an object’s resolution when its proximity to the camera is decreased or increased. Additionally, this may be known in the art as a render distance; and
PNG
media_image1.png
478
587
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yeoh, Fig. 11E, showing zones (items 1112A-C) used to detect an object’s proximity to a field of view. It is noted that the zones may be in any shape.
Yeoh fails to explicitly teach in response to determining that the graphical object straddles the transition boundary:
obtaining a corresponding object that is displayed with a different number of spatial dimensions than the graphical object
placing the corresponding object at a location in the virtual space that contacts or is adjacent to the graphical object
causing at least a portion of the graphical object and at least a portion of the corresponding object to be displayed that are not occluded by the corresponding object or the graphical object.
Roberts teaches in response to determining that the graphical object straddles the transition boundary:
obtaining a corresponding object that is displayed with a different number of spatial dimensions than the graphical object “for the user on that machine, nearby avatars and models can play high-resolution animations. Medium-distance models can play medium resolution, and far distance models over a certain threshold can use billboards using the techniques discussed herein” (Roberts, Page 10);
placing the corresponding object at a location in the virtual space that contacts or is adjacent to the graphical object “Figure 3 illustrates an example display in which a first object 3010 is quite close to the view point and so is rendered in a high level of detail, whereas object 3020 is remote from the camera viewpoint and is therefore rendered using a low quality of detail rendering based on a Flipboard display in which the object is represented as a texture 3022 on a 2D quad 3021” (Roberts, Page 14); and
PNG
media_image2.png
235
373
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Roberts, Fig. 3, showing the object (item 3010) closer to a view and therefore in higher resolution/display next to the object (item 3020) further from view and therefore rendered on a flipboard style display.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of a transition boundary, where an object may be rendered in a lower quality when further away taught by Yeoh with the method of having a corresponding object be 2D, and using it to represent the further object taught by Roberts to produce a render distance where the object is rendered in 2D when too far away. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to reduce strain of the rendering device when multiple objects are present.
Yeoh in view of Roberts fail to explicitly teach causing at least a portion of the graphical object and at least a portion of the corresponding object to be displayed that are not occluded by the corresponding object or the graphical object.
Arpa teaches causing at least a portion of the graphical object and at least a portion of the corresponding object to be displayed that are not occluded by the corresponding object or the graphical object “In order to create a smoother transition between the 2D and the 3D elements of the scene object, we incorporate a bas-relief onto the region of the scene object to be rendered in 2D (called “non-ROI part of the object”) and refine the attached ROI accordingly” (Arpa, ¶ [0042]) where sculpting methods are used to create a 3D protrusion on a 2D surface, referred to as 2D-3D art. This technique teaches a graphical object in 3D, where a desired portion nearest to the viewer is three dimensional, and the remaining corresponding object is the background.
PNG
media_image3.png
587
491
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Arpa, Fig. 9, showing a shark object with 3D ambiguity (item 97) standing out from the 2D remainder (item 96).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of rendering three-dimensional virtual objects in two dimensions past a threshold value taught by Yeoh and Roberts with the method of partially displaying a 3D object, with the remainder being displayed two dimensionally taught by Arpa to blend the process of rendering the object in a lower dimension. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to create a smooth transition to a lower object resolution.
In regard to claim 2, Yeoh in view of Roberts and Arpa teach [t]he computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining that a distance between the virtual camera and the graphical object has changed in a particular direction and that the graphical object and the corresponding object are no longer straddling the transition boundary “It should be appreciated that the resolution of the various virtual objects presented by the display system may vary dynamically as the fixation point changes location” (Yeoh, Page 22) where the virtual objects may move in virtual space, thus, their proximity to the user and virtual camera are subject to change; and
in response to determining that the distance between the virtual camera and the graphical object has changed in a particular direction and that the graphical object and the corresponding object are no longer straddling the transition boundary, halting the display of the graphical object and causing the corresponding object to be displayed to represent the graphical object “the user's field of view 1004 is illustrated with a fixation point 1006. Three virtual objects are illustrated, with the first virtual object 1012A being closer to the fixation point 1006 than the second virtual object 1012B or the third virtual object 1012C … Accordingly, when virtual objects 1012A-1012C are presented to a user, the display system determines that rendering the first virtual object 1012A is given a greater resource allocation than the second virtual object 1012B (e.g., object 1012A rendered at a higher resolution) … Third virtual object 1012C is optionally outside of field of view 1004 and therefore may not be rendered at all” (Yeoh, Page 22) where shaped zones are used to determine a render quality for an object, the strength of rendering is changeable, and may include not rendering an object at all.
PNG
media_image4.png
455
534
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Yeoh, Fig. 10C, showing a fixation point (item 1006) within a user’s field of view, which may be read as the user’s location, or the virtual camera’s location, with an elliptical zone showing different render distances. An object closer to the fixation point is rendered with higher quality.
In regard to claim 3, Yeoh in view of Roberts and Arpa teach [t]he computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising, in response to determining that the graphical object straddles the transition boundary, matching an update rate of the graphical object with an update rate of the corresponding object “adjustments in resolution can include adjusting the polygon count, adjusting the primitives utilized to generate the virtual object ... adjusting operations performed on the virtual object (e.g., shader operations); adjusting texture information; adjusting color resolution, or depth; number of rendering cycles or frame rate; and adjusting quality at one or more points within a graphics pipeline of a graphics processing unit (GPU)” (Yeoh, Page 24) objects at different gradual distances can experience different resolutions. Changing the resolution of an object is known in the art to benefit computer performance, and includes adjusting rendering cycles or frame rate (frames per second), objects at the same distance will have the same resolution.
In regard to claim 4, Yeoh in view of Roberts and Arpa teach [t]he computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the corresponding object is a corresponding three-dimensional (3D) object when the graphical object is a two-dimensional (2D) object, and the corresponding object is a corresponding 2D object when the graphical object is a 3D object “… based on the position of the primary user viewing the scene. Generally, for the user on that machine, nearby avatars and models can play high-resolution animations. Medium-distance models can play medium resolution, and far distance models over a certain threshold can use billboards using the techniques discussed herein” (Roberts, Page 10) where the graphical object nearby would be a 3D avatar or model, and as it becomes further from the user, its corresponding object resolution becomes 2D via a “billboards technique”. It is understood that this process may be performed in reverse, where a 2D object far away may return to a 3D corresponding object as it approaches the user.
In regard to claim 5, Yeoh in view of Roberts and Arpa teach [t]he computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein the 2D object has a lower update rate than an update rate of the 3D object “At 128x128 pixels per flip book image, 256 such images or tiles can be encoded in a 2048x2048 or 2k square render target output bitmap. This is sufficient for smooth animation on a decent length animation loop of 17 seconds at 15 frames per second (fps). A 4k square image can support a similar length of time at 60 fps. Other variants can exist” (Roberts, Page 9) where a 2D object, or billboard, can have a lower resolution, for example, a 2D object may be animated by a sequence of images, or a “flip book”, while a 3D object can maintain its normal animation qualities. Additionally, GIFs are known in the art to be 2D animations created from sequences of static images, GIFs typically have lower update rates than their 3D animated counterparts.
In regard to claim 6, Yeoh in view of Roberts and Arpa teach [t]he computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the transition boundary is shaped as at least a portion of a sphere “The resolution adjustment zone may have an arbitrary three-dimensional shape, such as a cube, or other three-dimensional polygonal shape, or a curved three-dimensional shape, as described herein. In some embodiments, all resolution adjustment zones have a similar shape, such as a cuboid or a sphere” (Yeoh, Page 5).
In regard to claim 7, Yeoh in view of Roberts and Arpa teach [t]he computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the graphical object is a 3D object and the corresponding object is a 2D object “Figure 3 illustrates an example display in which a first object 3010 is quite close to the view point and so is rendered in a high level of detail, whereas object 3020 is remote from the camera viewpoint and is therefore rendered using a low quality of detail rendering based on a Flipboard display in which the object is represented as a texture 3022 on a 2D quad 3021” (Roberts, Page 14), and wherein obtaining the corresponding object includes generating the 2D object based on a current orientation of the 3D object at the transition boundary relative to the virtual camera “Billboards are frequently used in video games for, e g., sprites (small moving objects), particle systems, or grass. In such a system, the billboard contains a flat two-dimensional (2D) image of a blade of grass or plant … Such billboards (a subset of LOD models) are often rendered facing the user - a billboard - for example, is a simple quad - a rectangular polygon, textured with a bitmap with a known transparent color which can be interpreted by a shader” (Roberts, Page 8) where the level of detail may decrease to a billboard, or a 2D projection of the object facing the user or camera.
In regard to claim 8, Yeoh in view of Roberts and Arpa teach [t]he computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the graphical object is a 3D object and the corresponding object is a 2D object when a distance between the graphical object and the virtual camera has increased relative to a previous location of the graphical object “lower level of detail data can advantageously be used by devices presenting a field of view of the 3 -Dimensional space in which the 3D renderable objects appear at a sufficient distance (from the view point of the field of view) that they subtend only a small viewing angle such that the lower level of detail data is sufficient to represent the 3D objects at a predetermined level of quality for more remote objects ... Preferably, the lower level of detail data for distribution to other devices to use for rendering an object or objects at a lower level of detail, comprises a series of flat images representing frames within a 2D animation of the object from a particular direction suitable for providing a texture to a simple 2D quadrangle” (Roberts, Page 4) where increasing the distance of the 3D object from the user or virtual camera can cause the object to become 2D.
In regard to claim 9, Yeoh in view of Roberts and Arpa teach [t]he computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein the 3D object includes multiple 3D objects “Billboards are frequently used in video games for, e g., sprites (small moving objects), particle systems, or grass. In such a system, the billboard contains a flat two-dimensional (2D) image of a blade of grass or plant. Blades of grass or plants near to users are rendered using a conventional 3D model” (Roberts, Page 8) for example, multiple blades of grass near the user are multiple 3D models, and further comprising, in response to determining that the graphical object straddles the transition boundary:
grouping the multiple 3D objects into a single aggregate 3D object that represents the multiple 3D objects, wherein the corresponding object is the 2D object that is generated based on the aggregate 3D object “The technique of using “instanced drawing” using calls such as glDrawElementsIndirect is well known in real-time computer graphics. In such a technique, a buffer can contain high-level data on the position of geometric objects. In the case of “grass” rendering discussed earlier, such a buffer can contain the position and orientation of a large number of quads corresponding to the blades of grass” (Roberts, Page 10) where multiple 3D grass models may be combined in an instanced drawing to make one comprehensive 2D grass image.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeoh in view of Roberts and Arpa, and further in view of Patrick Evans (Pat. Pub. US-20170372516-A1, herein after “Evans”).
In regard to claim 10, Yeoh in view of Roberts and Arpa teach [t]he computer-implemented method of claim 8
Yeoh in view of Roberts and Arpa fail to explicitly teach determining that the 2D object is positioned more than a threshold distance from the virtual camera;
in response to determining that the 2D object is positioned more than the threshold distance from the virtual camera:
incorporating the 2D object into a particular skybox portion that is a portion of a skybox object displayed in the virtual space; and
removing the 2D object from the virtual space.
Evans teaches further comprising:
determining that the 2D object is positioned more than a threshold distance from the virtual camera “In some embodiments, the method can further include obtaining a relative viewpoint depth value within the virtual environment, determining that the relative viewpoint depth value meets a far-field depth threshold associated with the at least one near-field object configured for far-field perception …” (Evans, ¶ [0121]);
in response to determining that the 2D object is positioned more than the threshold distance from the virtual camera:
incorporating the 2D object into a particular skybox portion that is a portion of a skybox object displayed in the virtual space “… employing at least portions of the at least one stereoscopic projection transform to stereoscopically render the at least one near-field object configured for far-field perception based on determining that the relative viewpoint depth value exceeds the far-field depth threshold” (Evans, ¶ [0121]) where if an object is far enough, it is placed in the far-field, or skybox; and
removing the 2D object from the virtual space “when the near-field environment rendering component determines that the near-field object is configured for far-field perception, it sends a request to a far-field perception harmonizing component to generate at least one harmonize transform for the configured object” (Evans, ¶ [0143]) where the object is transformed to go from near-field to far-field, replacing it with a skybox adaptation.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of rendering three-dimensional virtual objects in two dimensions past a threshold value and partially displaying a 3D object, with the remainder being displayed two dimensionally taught by Yeoh, Roberts, and Arpa, with the method of transforming a near object to a far object and adding it to the skybox taught by Evans to produce a more enjoyable viewing of the far object. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to allow the user to view far objects without adding stress to rendering far objects.
In regard to claim 13, Yeoh in view of Roberts and Arpa teach [t]he computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the graphical object is a 2D object and the corresponding object is a 3D object “Level of detail (LOD) is a well-known video game technique in which high resolution models are used for three-dimensional (3D) details close to the user, and lower resolution models are substituted for models which are further away from the user” (Roberts, Page 8), and wherein obtaining the corresponding object includes retrieving the 3D object from storage “Preferably content of the shared virtual space is stored in a distributed manner across a multiplicity of the server devices and is accessible by the user computing devices” (Roberts, Page 7).
In regard to claim 14, Yeoh in view of Roberts and Arpa teach [t]he computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the graphical object is a 2D object and the corresponding object is a 3D object when a distance between the graphical object and the virtual camera has decreased relative to a previous location of the graphical object “lower level of detail data can advantageously be used by devices presenting a field of view of the 3 -Dimensional space in which the 3D renderable objects appear at a sufficient distance (from the view point of the field of view) that they subtend only a small viewing angle such that the lower level of detail data is sufficient to represent the 3D objects at a predetermined level of quality for more remote objects ... Preferably, the lower level of detail data for distribution to other devices to use for rendering an object or objects at a lower level of detail, comprises a series of flat images representing frames within a 2D animation of the object from a particular direction suitable for providing a texture to a simple 2D quadrangle” (Roberts, Page 4) similarly to claim 8, this process may be performed in reverse, where a 2D object may move to become a 3D object.
In regard to claim 15, Yeoh in view of Roberts and Arpa teach [t]he computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the graphical object is a second 3D object “The entity, or animated object which the billboard represents, can have a number of properties” (Roberts, Page 10) where a property is another instance, or resolution, of the model, and further comprising:
causing a first 3D object to be displayed in the virtual space in place of the second 3D object at a distance from the virtual camera below a threshold distance “A determination of whether to use a high-resolution model/animation or a lower resolution model/animation can be made locally at each machine, dynamically, based on the position of the primary user viewing the scene” (Roberts, Page 10) where nearby objects are rendered in high resolution,
wherein causing the second 3D object to be displayed in the virtual space is performed in response to the first 3D object being positioned at greater than the threshold distance from the virtual camera, wherein the second 3D object corresponds to and replaces the first 3D object in the virtual space, and wherein the second 3D object has a lower amount of geometric complexity than the first 3D object “Medium-distance models can play medium resolution, and far distance models over a certain threshold can use billboards using the techniques discussed herein” (Roberts, Page 10) a high definition model is displayed when near the user, once the model has crossed a threshold distance it becomes the medium resolution model. This process may be performed in reverse to yield the opposite result.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeoh in view of Roberts and Arpa, and further in view of Simulation distance – Minecraft Wiki (herein after “Minecraft”).
In regard to claim 16, Yeoh in view of Roberts and Arpa teach [t]he computer-implemented method of claim 1,
Yeoh in view of Roberts and Arpa fail to explicitly teach further comprising:
determining a movement of the virtual camera from a first location to a second location;
determining whether the second location of the virtual camera is within a play region surrounding the virtual camera at the first location;
in response to the second location of the virtual camera being within the play region, maintaining the location of the transition boundary based on the first location of the virtual camera; and
in response to the second location of the virtual camera being at least partially outside of the play region, updating the location of the transition boundary based on the second location of the virtual camera.
Minecraft teaches determining a movement of the virtual camera from a first location to a second location;
PNG
media_image5.png
198
535
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Minecraft, where it is known in the art to have a method of tracking player location. Tick updates are used to track game aspects, such as player location. Additionally, tick updates, in tandem with player location, check the player chunk to determine render distance, so as the player moves between chunks, the render distance follows the current chunk.
determining whether the second location of the virtual camera is within a play region surrounding the virtual camera at the first location;
PNG
media_image6.png
268
210
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Minecraft, where as the player moves, the simulation distance maintains 4 chunks from around the player, this is calculated based on the current chunk location, or play region.
in response to the second location of the virtual camera being within the play region, maintaining the location of the transition boundary based on the first location of the virtual camera; and
PNG
media_image6.png
268
210
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Minecraft, where the simulation distance will continue to be 4 chunks from the current chunk if the player does not leave their current chunk, or play region.
in response to the second location of the virtual camera being at least partially outside of the play region, updating the location of the transition boundary based on the second location of the virtual camera.
PNG
media_image7.png
356
870
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Minecraft, where the simulation distance is based on the current chunk, and not the player themselves, so as the player’s chunk is updated, the simulation distance changes to match that chunk.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of rendering three-dimensional virtual objects in two dimensions past a threshold value and partially displaying a 3D object, with the remainder being displayed two dimensionally taught by Yeoh, Roberts, and Arpa, with the method of breaking the playing zone into groups and rendering based on the current playing zone taught by Minecraft to have the render distance follow the user based on the user’s playing zone. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to only render objects within the current play zone and reduce the stress of rendering.
In regard to claims 17 & 19, Yeoh teaches [a] system comprising: at least one processor “The control subsystem includes several controllers, such as one or more microcontrollers, microprocessors or central processing units (CPUs), digital signal processors, graphics processing units (GPUs), application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), etc. Other integrated circuit controllers include programmable gate arrays (PGAS), such as field PGAS (FPGAS), and/or programmable logic controllers (PLUs)” (Yeoh, Page 51); and
a memory coupled to the at least one processor, with software instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the at least one processor “Display system 7000A further includes read only memory (ROM) and random access memory (RAM)” (Yeoh, Page 51), cause the at least one processor to perform operations including:
causing a 3D object to be displayed in a virtual space “The display system may be configured to present virtual objects …” (Yeoh, Page 4);
determining that the 3D object straddles a transition boundary in the virtual space, wherein the transition boundary has a location relative to a virtual camera that provides a displayed view of the virtual space “11B-11E illustrate examples of various resolution adjustment zone configurations. Additional shapes and configurations of resolution adjustment zones, not shown, may be utilized, and the examples are not to be considered exhaustive” (Yeoh, Page 25) where the transition boundary is used to decrease or increase an object’s resolution when its proximity to the camera is decreased or increased;
Yeoh fails to explicitly teach in response to determining that the 3D object straddles the transition boundary:
generating a 2D object corresponding to the 3D object;
placing the 2D object in the virtual space at the transition boundary and contacting or adjacent to the 3D object;
causing at least a portion of the 3D object that is not occluded by the 2D object to be displayed; and
causing a first portion of the 2D object that is not occluded by the 3D object to be displayed, wherein a second portion of the 2D object is occluded by the 3D object and is not displayed.
Roberts teaches in response to determining that the 3D object straddles the transition boundary:
generating a 2D object corresponding to the 3D object “… based on the position of the primary user viewing the scene. Generally, for the user on that machine, nearby avatars and models can play high-resolution animations. Medium-distance models can play medium resolution, and far distance models over a certain threshold can use billboards using the techniques discussed herein” (Roberts, Page 10) where the graphical object nearby would be a 3D avatar or model, and as it becomes further from the user, its corresponding object resolution becomes 2D via a “billboards technique”;
placing the 2D object in the virtual space at the transition boundary and contacting or adjacent to the 3D object “Figure 3 illustrates an example display in which a first object 3010 is quite close to the view point and so is rendered in a high level of detail, whereas object 3020 is remote from the camera viewpoint and is therefore rendered using a low quality of detail rendering based on a Flipboard display in which the object is represented as a texture 3022 on a 2D quad 3021” (Roberts, Page 14);
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of a transition boundary, where an object may be rendered in a lower quality when further away taught by Yeoh with the method of having a corresponding object be 2D, and using it to represent the further object taught by Roberts to produce a render distance where the object is rendered in 2D when too far away. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to reduce strain of the rendering device when multiple objects are present.
Yeoh in view of Roberts fail to explicitly teach causing at least a portion of the 3D object that is not occluded by the 2D object to be displayed; and
causing a first portion of the 2D object that is not occluded by the 3D object to be displayed, wherein a second portion of the 2D object is occluded by the 3D object and is not displayed.
Arpa teaches causing at least a portion of the 3D object that is not occluded by the 2D object to be displayed “The initial challenge consists of matching the topologies and tessellations of the 3D part and the 2D part in order to create an attachment ensuring a smooth transition between the two parts. We cut the region of interest (3D part of object) directly from the scene, create a 2D grid that has homeomorphic boundaries and the same topology as the 3D part, and attach this 3D part to the grid” (Arpa, ¶ [0013]); and
causing a first portion of the 2D object that is not occluded by the 3D object to be displayed, wherein a second portion of the 2D object is occluded by the 3D object and is not displayed “In order to create a smoother transition between the 2D and the 3D elements of the scene object, we incorporate a bas-relief onto the region of the scene object to be rendered in 2D (called “non-ROI part of the object”) and refine the attached ROI accordingly” (Arpa, ¶ [0042]) where sculpting methods are used to create a 3D protrusion on a 2D surface, referred to as 2D-3D art. This technique teaches a graphical object in 3D, where a desired portion nearest to the viewer is three dimensional, and the remaining corresponding object is the background.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of rendering three-dimensional virtual objects in two dimensions past a threshold value taught by Yeoh and Roberts with the method of partially displaying a 3D object, with the remainder being displayed two dimensionally taught by Arpa to blend the process of rendering the object in a lower dimension. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to create a smooth transition to a lower object resolution.
In regards to claim 19, claim 17 is substantially similar to claim 19, hence the rejection analysis for claim 17 is also applied to claim 19. Yeoh in view of Roberts and Arpa teach the additional limitations of [a] non-transitory computer-readable medium with instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising: causing a 2D object to be displayed in a virtual space (Yeoh, Page 4); determining that the 2D object straddles a transition boundary in the virtual space, wherein the transition boundary has a location relative to a virtual camera that provides a displayed view of the virtual space (Yeoh, Page 25); in response to determining that the 2D object straddles the transition boundary: obtaining a 3D object corresponding to the 2D object (Roberts, Page 10); placing the 3D object in the virtual space at the transition boundary and contacting or adjacent to the 2D object (Roberts, Page 14); causing at least a portion of the 3D object that is not occluded by the 2D object to be displayed (Arpa, ¶ [0013]); and causing a first portion of the 2D object that is not occluded by the 3D object to be displayed, wherein a second portion of the 2D object is occluded by the 3D object and is not displayed (Arpa, ¶ [0042]).
In regard to claims 18 & 20, Yeoh in view of Roberts and Arpa teach [t]he system of claim 17, wherein the 3D object has a first update rate that is the same as a second update rate of the 2D object “It may be ensured that frames per second do not fall below a threshold rate. As an example, the display system may render content, such as a first virtual object located in the zone of the fixation point, at full resolution. Instead of reducing the maximum resolution of the first virtual object and ensuring that frames per second remain above a certain threshold, the display system dynamically reduces the rate of resolution decline based on distance” (Yeoh, Page 28) where the resolution may decrease to maintain a threshold frames per second.
In regards to claim 20, claim 18 is substantially similar to claim 20, hence the rejection analysis for claim 18 is also applied to claim 20. Yeoh in view of Roberts and Arpa teach the additional limitations of [t]he computer-readable medium of claim 19, wherein the 3D object has a first update rate that is the same as a second update rate of the 2D object (Yeoh, Page 28).
Allowable Subject Matter
In regard to claim 11, claim 11 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 11 recites caching the particular skybox portion that includes the 2D object;
retrieving one or more other previously-generated skybox portions of the skybox object from a cache; and
generating an updated skybox object for display in the virtual space, the updated skybox object including the particular skybox portion and the one or more other previously-generated skybox portions which depends on claim 10. The previous references Yeoh, Roberts, Arpa, and Evans do not explicitly teach caching the section of the skybox which has been altered from a previously-generated skybox portion and updating the cached portion to reflect that a 2D object has passed a threshold, causing it to be removed from the virtual space and visualized on the skybox. The examiner does not find an obvious combination to complete all aforementioned steps and is supplying a notice of allowable subject matter.
In regard to claim 12, claim 12 allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 12 depends on claim 11, which is allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pat. Pub. JP-4540753-B2 is not relied upon but teaches a relevant method of rendering and displaying images to reduce graphics strain.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAIDEN ALEXANDER USSERY whose telephone number is (571)272-1192. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday* 7:30AM - 5PM.
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, Tammy Goddard can be reached at (571) 272-7773. 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.
/C.A.U./Examiner, Art Unit 2611
/TAMMY PAIGE GODDARD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights