DETAILED ACTION
The action is in response to the original filing on February 13, 2024, and the Remarks and Amendments filed on August 03, 2026. Claims 1-12 & 15-22 are pending and have been considered below. Claims 1, 3-5, 12, & 17-20 have been amended. Claims 13 & 14 are cancelled. Claims 21 & 22 have been added. Claims 3, 10-12, 18, & 20-22 are objected to for being dependent on a rejected claim but would otherwise be allowable.
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 Objections
Claims 3, 10-12, 18, & 20-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regard to claim 3, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 3 recites [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 while the corresponding object straddles the transition boundary.
Following page 10 of the Remarks filed August 3rd, 2026, the Examiner is persuaded that no reference covers a graphical object and corresponding object as stated in claim 1 with matching update rates once the corresponding object straddles the transition boundary. Although tick rates, refresh rates, and update rates are known in the art to be used with boundaries for object state updates, no cited art uses these methods or provides an obvious combination to match the rates between the graphical object and corresponding object.
In regard to claim 10, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 10 recites 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 which depends upon claim 8.
Following page 11 of the Remarks filed on August 3rd, 2026, the Examiner is persuaded that no reference confidently teaches nor makes an obvious combination to teach the claimed incorporation step for the 2D object to be added to the skybox object. The references on record teach of objects that may be scaled down to 2D from 3D based on preset distance-based thresholds. The object scaling may be done progressively with a lower frame rate such as how a flipbook works. Although skyboxes are a known term in the art and are frequently used in videogames to represent the space around a playable area, the act of incorporating an object into the skybox with the specific limitations of claims 1, 8, and 10 are deemed patentable by the Examiner.
In regard to claim 11, 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, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 12 depends on claim 11.
In regard to claim 18, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 18 recites the similar step of matching update rates between the graphical object and corresponding object to claim 3.
In regard to claim 20, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 20 recites the similar step of matching update rates between the graphical object and corresponding object to claim 3.
In regard to claim 21, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 21 depends on claim 3.
In regard to claim 22, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 22 contains the substantially similar incorporating step of claim 10.
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 1-2, 4-9, 15, 17, & 19 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”), SAMI ARPA (Pat. US-10593125-B2, herein after “Arpa”), and further in view of Franck Ouay (Pat. Pub. US-20050110789-A1, herein after “Ouay”).
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 represents the graphical object when displayed and 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 to be displayed not occluded by the corresponding 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 represents the graphical object when displayed and 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), additionally, “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) where the lower resolution corresponding object is a representation of the graphical object;
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), additionally, “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. In this way, 3D objects which are at a remote position for a particular user do not need to be rendered at a high quality (which would incur a large processing cost on the GPU of the associated user computing device)” (Roberts, Page 4) where the object is replaced with its lower level of detail representation once it crosses a predetermined threshold distance so as to decrease the strain of computing or processing. Examiner would like to note that Figure 3 below merely represents what the object variations may look like near (on the right) and far (on the left) and are not an actual representation of the object being replaced; 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 to be displayed not occluded by the corresponding object and at least a portion of the corresponding object to be displayed not occluded by the graphical object.
Arpa teaches causing at least a portion of the graphical object to be displayed not occluded by the corresponding object and at least a portion of the corresponding object to be displayed not occluded by 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.
Yeoh in view of Roberts and Arpa disclose various object displays, but may not clearly teach a portion of the graphical object to be displayed not occluded by the corresponding object and at least a portion of the corresponding object to be displayed not occluded by the graphical object.
Ouay teaches a portion of the graphical object to be displayed not occluded by the corresponding object and at least a portion of the corresponding object to be displayed not occluded by the graphical object “Once the projection point position is determined, and the 2D imposters are generated at the projection point position, the run-time process can begin rendering the 3D models and the 2D imposters. FIG. 13 is a flow diagram illustrating the logic for rendering the 3D models and 2D imposters of the visible spectator sections. At a decision step 500, the run-time process determines whether a particular spectator section is at least partially visible … this determination is based on whether a spectator section's bounding box intersects the view frustum. If a particular spectator section is visible, the run-time process determines, at a step 502, which corresponding groups, subgroups, and/or cells of the spectator section are located within a predefined modulated radius from the current camera position. The modulated radius is similar to previously discussed modulated distances in that the modulated radius is based on the current zoom, field of view, and other view factors. Those groupings that are within the predefined modulated radius are rendered with 3D models to provide greater realism at close range. These close groupings are sometimes referred to herein as 3D groupings” (Ouay, ¶ [0075]) where 3D models form groups which have 2D imposters based on their distance from the projection point. The 2D impostors may be visible in the viewing frustum at the same time as 3D models.
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, Roberts and Arpa with the method of having both 2D portions and 3D portions visible simultaneously taught by Ouay 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, Arpa, and Ouay 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 4, Yeoh in view of Roberts, Arpa, and Ouay 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 wherein the corresponding 3D object has a higher update rate than the 2D object, and the corresponding object is a corresponding 2D object when the graphical object is a 3D object wherein the corresponding 2D object has a lower update rate than an update rate of 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”. Furthermore “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) where the further object is rendered at a lower resolution, which is read as the 3D object having a higher update rate, and the 2D object having a lower update rate as no specific update rate is claimed. 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, Arpa, and Ouay 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, wherein causing at least a portion of the graphical object and at least a portion of the corresponding object to be displayed includes:
causing at least a portion of the 3D object that is not occluded by the 2D object to be displayed “in FIG. 5, a cell 10 366 cannot be included in set 364, because the spectator locations of cell 10 366 are disposed so close to camera position 358 that 3D spectators will be rendered in cell 10 366 rather than the 2D imposter spectators that will be rendered in the contiguous cells of set 364” (Ouay, ¶ [0054]) where the 3D spectators are not occluded and are visible; 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 “Another set 368 of the remaining contiguous cells within (or intersecting) view volume 360 will be rendered with a single draw primitive to display 2D imposter spectators. Another interruption in contiguous cells' can result when a next cell lies completely outside of the view volume. In that case, none of the spectator positions of the outside cell are visible, so the outside cell is not included in the contiguous set, and no imposters need be rendered for the outside cell” (Ouay, ¶ [0054]) where further spectators are reduced to an imposter view, or 2D, and are behind the 3D spectators.
In regard to claim 6, Yeoh in view of Roberts, Arpa, and Ouay 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, Arpa, and Ouay 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, Arpa, and Ouay 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, Arpa, and Ouay 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.
In regard to claim 15, Yeoh in view of Roberts, Arpa, and Ouay 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.
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 that corresponds to the 3D object and represents the 3D object when displayed;
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 that corresponds to the 3D object and represents the 3D object when displayed “… 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.
Yeoh in view of Roberts and Arpa disclose various object displays, but may not clearly teach 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.
Ouay teaches 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 “Once the projection point position is determined, and the 2D imposters are generated at the projection point position, the run-time process can begin rendering the 3D models and the 2D imposters. FIG. 13 is a flow diagram illustrating the logic for rendering the 3D models and 2D imposters of the visible spectator sections. At a decision step 500, the run-time process determines whether a particular spectator section is at least partially visible … this determination is based on whether a spectator section's bounding box intersects the view frustum. If a particular spectator section is visible, the run-time process determines, at a step 502, which corresponding groups, subgroups, and/or cells of the spectator section are located within a predefined modulated radius from the current camera position. The modulated radius is similar to previously discussed modulated distances in that the modulated radius is based on the current zoom, field of view, and other view factors. Those groupings that are within the predefined modulated radius are rendered with 3D models to provide greater realism at close range. These close groupings are sometimes referred to herein as 3D groupings” (Ouay, ¶ [0075]) where 3D models form groups which have 2D imposters based on their distance from the projection point. The 2D impostors may be visible in the viewing frustum at the same time as 3D models.
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, Roberts and Arpa with the method of having both 2D portions and 3D portions visible simultaneously taught by Ouay 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 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 that corresponds to the 2D object and represents the 2D object when displayed (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]) & (Ouay, ¶ [0075]).
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, Arpa, and Ouay 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, when 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.
Response to Arguments
Examiner would like to thank the Applicant for their patience and clarity during prosecution. Applicant's arguments filed August 3rd, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On Remarks, page 9, Applicant argues in regard to claim 1 that the cited references fail to teach placing the corresponding object at a location in the virtual space that contacts or adjacent to the graphical object. The cited reference Roberts discloses the use of level of detail (Page 4) where a separate billboard object is used to represent the 3D virtual object. The 2D billboard is read as a corresponding object and is used as a representation of the 3D graphical object. The act of rendering the billboard in place of the 3D object is read as placing the billboard adjacent to, or where the original 3D object was. The current claim language does not specify that the 2D corresponding object must exist at the same time as the graphical object, and the broadest reasonable interpretation permits a replaced object to read upon the claim.
Applicant further argues on page 10 of the Remarks in regard to claim 1 that no reference teaches causing at least a portion of the graphical object and at least a portion of the corresponding object to be displayed not occluded by the corresponding object or the graphical object. Examiner understands that reference Arpa fails to teach two separate objects, however the previous reference Roberts discloses separate objects to represent the corresponding object (2D) and graphical object (3D). The Arpa reference is cited to teach the lack of occlusion between 3D and 2D representations, which in combination with the Roberts reference produces the claimed limitation. Examiner additionally cites reference Ouay to more clearly teach the lack of occlusion among model representations to combine with previous references. The substantially similar arguments in regard to claims 16, 17 and 19 are similarly rebutted.
Applicant argues on page 10 of the Remarks in regard to claim 3 that reference Yeoh fails to teach matching an update rate of the graphical object with an update rate of the corresponding object. The Examiner agrees and has moved the claim to allowable, however the claim depends upon rejected claim 1 and is therefore objected to. Claims 18 and 20 are allowable for substantially similar reasons, and claim 21 is allowable due to its dependency on claim 3.
Applicant argues on page 10 of the Remarks in regard to claim 5 that no cited reference teaches 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. The arguments are moot in view of the new ground of rejection made by reference Ouay. Ouay discloses 3D modeled spectators in a crowd that may be reduced to 2D view impostors at a distance where the sections may be behind one another ¶ [0054].
Applicant argues on page 11 of the Remarks in regard to claim 10 that no cited reference teaches incorporating a 2D object into a skybox object. The Examiner agrees and has moved the claim to allowable, however the claim depends upon rejected claim 1 and is therefore objected to. Claim 22 is allowable for substantially similar reasons.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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.
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 GODDARD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights