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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 9, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed December 9, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-10 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 6-9 of Remarks, filed December 9, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-10 under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Price et al. (US 20200234498 A1).
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, 5-6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (Motion-Guided Mechanical Toy Modeling) in view of Price et al. (US 20200234498 A1), hereinafter Zhu and Price respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Zhu teaches a modeling device for three-dimension objects (Fig. 1, Paragraph 3 in 2nd Col. of Page 1 – “We automate design for mechanical toys such as the one in Figure 1. Our larger goal is to integrate kinematic simulation of mechanical assemblies into 3D modeling. Integrated simulation allows a motion-to-form mapping: conversion of user-specified motion into a physical, functioning mechanism”; Note: it is implied that there is a device to perform modeling for 3D objects since the automation and simulation cannot occur without a device), comprising:
pre-established frameworks respectively corresponding to different mechanical parts (Paragraph 2 in 2nd Col. of Page 3 – “Figure 2 illustrates the mechanical parts our system uses. Parts convert rotary motion on the driving axes into other types of motion, such as linear (moving backwards and forwards continuously in a straight line), oscillating (moving backwards and forwards along an arc), or helical (moving up and down along a helix). Motions generated by the various mechanical parts are listed in Table 1”; Note: the mechanical parts are the pre-established frameworks);
determining the pre-established frameworks as a model object framework based on the mechanical device corresponding to an unmodeled object (Paragraphs 4-5 in 2nd Col. of Page 2, Paragraph 3 in 1st Col. of Page 3 – “The input to our algorithm consists of three pieces of information: the 3D geometry and motion of the toy’s feature objects, the dimensions of an underlying box, called the assembly box, in which to install the mechanical assembly producing that motion, and the location on feature objects where they connect to synthesized mechanical parts…With the above inputs, our system searches for a good configuration of an assembly to realize the desired motion. Our algorithm first guesses the type and shape of mechanical parts according to the input motion, and then optimizes the assembly using simulated annealing”; Note: mechanical parts, which are the pre-established frameworks, are determined based on the input toy, which is the mechanical device that is yet to be modeled. The mechanical parts make up an assembly, which is the model object framework);
loading a motion model of the model object framework, wherein the motion model framework indicates a plurality of model components, a motion level of each of the plurality of model components (Fig. 3, Paragraph 3 in 1st Col. of Page 3 – “our system searches for a good configuration of an assembly to realize the desired motion. Our algorithm first guesses the type and shape of mechanical parts according to the input motion, and then optimizes the assembly using simulated annealing. The optimization objective integrates the approximation quality of the generated motion and the layout quality and complexity of the assembly”; Note: an assembly, which is equivalent to the motion model, is searched for and then loaded. The assembly contains mechanical parts that each have a motion level, which is shown in Fig. 3; see screenshot of Fig. 3 below) and a connection relationship among the plurality of model components (Paragraph 3 in 1st Col. of Page 3, Fig. 3 Caption on Page 4, Fig. 4a – “The optimization objective integrates the approximation quality of the generated motion and the layout quality and complexity of the assembly…Schematics for mechanical parts in Figure 2. Based on the shape parameters shown for each part type, the motion of the part’s free end point (indicated by a red dot) is transmitted to a connected feature component”; Note: the layout of the assembly is equivalent to the connection relationship among the model components. Fig. 4a shows an example of the connection relationship between model components; see screenshot of Fig. 4a below);
PNG
media_image1.png
647
558
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Screenshot of Fig. 3 (taken from Zhu)
PNG
media_image2.png
265
307
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Screenshot of Fig. 4a (taken from Zhu)
receiving the unmodeled wherein the unmodeled object comprises a plurality of unmodeled components, wherein there is a connection relationship among the plurality of unmodeled components (Paragraphs 4-5 in 2nd Col. of Page 2 – “The input to our algorithm consists of three pieces of information: the 3D geometry and motion of the toy’s feature objects, the dimensions of an underlying box, called the assembly box, in which to install the mechanical assembly producing that motion, and the location on feature objects where they connect to synthesized mechanical parts. We assume that the feature objects have been separated into rigid components, with specified joint constraints between them”; Note: the overall toy is the unmodeled object, and it has components. The “location on feature objects where they connect to synthesized mechanical parts” is equivalent to the connection relationship of unmodeled components);
reading a component attribute of each of the plurality of unmodeled components (Fig. 1 Caption on Page 1 – “(a) Input. The designer specifies the geometry and motion of the toy’s features, in this case a boy and a crocodile object, forming two kinematic chains and four color-coded feature components. The feature base is colored orange. (b) Mechanical assembly synthesized by our system to generate the target motion”; Note: the geometry and motion of the toy are equivalent to the component attribute);
adjusting the motion level of each of the plurality of model components (Paragraph 4 in 1st Col. of Page 3, Paragraph 3 in 1st Col. of Page 4 – “At each step of assembly optimization, we simulate the mechanism over one animation cycle using forward kinematics. The motion of the assembly’s handles then determines the motion of its feature components through inverse kinematics. We finally measure how similar the features’ simulated motion is to the specified target motion… The position (for a translational connection) or position and orientation (for a rigid connection) of the handle are first set as the target position/orientation of the driven feature component. IK then solves for the translation and rotation of every component on the kinematic chain needed to reach this target”) based on the component attribute of each of the plurality of corresponding unmodeled components to generate a modeled component comprising the component attribute (Fig. 1 Caption on Page 1 – “(a) Input. The designer specifies the geometry and motion of the toy’s features, in this case a boy and a crocodile object, forming two kinematic chains and four color-coded feature components. The feature base is colored orange. (b) Mechanical assembly synthesized by our system to generate the target motion”; Note: the geometry and motion of the toy are equivalent to the component attribute. Fig. 1b shows the modeled components comprising the geometry and motion of the toy’s components; see screenshot of Fig. 1b below);
PNG
media_image3.png
365
382
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Screenshot of Fig. 1b (taken from Zhu)
and obtaining a modeled object after the motion level of each of the plurality of model components is set (Fig. 1 Caption on Page 1 – “Mechanical assembly synthesized by our system to generate the target motion”; Note: Fig. 1b shows the modeled toy with all the set motion levels, which is represented by arrows; see screenshot of Fig. 1b above), wherein the modeled object comprises the modeled components respectively corresponding to the plurality of model components (Fig. 3, Paragraph 3 in 1st Col. of Page 3 – “our system searches for a good configuration of an assembly to realize the desired motion. Our algorithm first guesses the type and shape of mechanical parts according to the input motion, and then optimizes the assembly using simulated annealing”; Note: the modeled components correspond to the mechanical parts, which are model components that were searched for to create the modeled object).
Zhu does not teach a storage media, configured to store a plurality of program codes; and a processor, connected with the storage media and configured to load the plurality of program codes to execute operations. However, Price teaches a storage media, configured to store a plurality of program codes (Paragraph 0052 – “The computing architecture 700 may include or implement various articles of manufacture. An article of manufacture may include a computer-readable storage medium to store logic. Examples of a computer-readable storage medium may include any tangible media capable of storing electronic data, including volatile memory or non-volatile memory…and so forth. Examples of logic may include executable computer program instructions implemented using any suitable type of code”); and a processor, connected with the storage media and configured to load the plurality of program codes to execute operations (Paragraph 0052 – “Embodiments may also be at least partly implemented as instructions contained in or on a non-transitory computer-readable medium, which may be read and executed by one or more processors to enable performance of the operations described herein”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhu to incorporate the teachings of Price to have a storage media and processor because storage media and processors are important to computers to be able to perform the desired operations. For instance, the automation and simulation taught in Zhu would require a computer with processor and storage to be reasonably performed.
Zhu also does not teach the “mechanical devices” portion of the limitation: “pre-established frameworks respectively corresponding to different mechanical devices”. However, Price teaches pre-established frameworks respectively corresponding to different mechanical devices (Paragraph 0024, 0029 – “the user may be prompted by the interface 200 to enter the make and model of the vehicle. Based on this user input, the computing device may acquire from a storage device a 3D model of the vehicle…FIG. 4 illustrates configuring an example 3D model 400 of a physical object according to one or more embodiments. The physical object, again, may be a vehicle and the 3D model 400 of the vehicle may be provided, generated, accessed, or determined. As shown, the 3D model 400 may be an exact virtual replica of the vehicle. It may include all the basic components, details, and trims found in the original vehicle. In examples, the 3D model 400 may be created ahead or time, and thus, provided to a computing device or accessed by the computing device”; Note: 3D models of vehicles are pre-established frameworks, as there are various makes and models that were previously created and stored). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the Zhu’s pre-established frameworks of mechanical parts could have been substituted for the Price’s pre-established frameworks of mechanical devices because both the mechanical parts and devices serve the purpose of representing generic structures. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the substitution. Finally, the substitution achieves the predictable result of having templates that represent generic structures. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Zhu’s pre-established frameworks of mechanical parts for Price’s pre-established frameworks of mechanical devices according to known methods to yield the predictable result of representing generic structures. It would have been beneficial to do so in Zhu’s case because when there are common combinations of mechanical parts, having a pre-established framework combining those parts would make searching for an ideal assembly more efficient.
Finally, Zhu does not teach wherein a connection relationship among the plurality of unmodeled components at least partially corresponds to the connection relationship among the plurality of model components. However, Price teaches wherein a connection relationship among the plurality of unmodeled components at least partially corresponds to the connection relationship among the plurality of model components (Paragraph 0024, 0029 – “the user may be prompted by the interface 200 to enter the make and model of the vehicle. Based on this user input, the computing device may acquire from a storage device a 3D model of the vehicle…FIG. 4 illustrates configuring an example 3D model 400 of a physical object according to one or more embodiments. The physical object, again, may be a vehicle and the 3D model 400 of the vehicle may be provided, generated, accessed, or determined. As shown, the 3D model 400 may be an exact virtual replica of the vehicle. It may include all the basic components, details, and trims found in the original vehicle. In examples, the 3D model 400 may be created ahead or time, and thus, provided to a computing device or accessed by the computing device”; Note: in this case, the vehicle is the unmodeled object, and it inherently contains a connection relationship among its components, such as the car door being attached to the car body. A 3D model of the same make and model vehicle is loaded, and because it is the same make and model, the 3D model has the same connection relationship among its components as the vehicle). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhu to incorporate the teachings of Price to have the connection relationship of the unmodeled components correspond to the connection relationship of the model components for the benefit of producing a modeled object that best represents the target object using the model components. For example, in Zhu, having the correspondence would ensure that the movement of the toy parts match the movement of the mechanical parts, which would help create a model of the toy that incorporates the correct movements.
Regarding claim 5, Zhu in view of Price teaches the modeling device of claim 1. Zhu further teaches establishing the motion level and a motion type of each of the plurality of model components (Paragraph 3 in 1st Col. of Page 4, Paragraph 1 in 2nd Col. of Page 4 – “Inverse kinematics (IK) determines how feature components move, given the position of handles computed from the forward simulation of the assembly in the previous subsection. Note that the motion of a single handle drives the motion of all linked components on each kinematic feature chain. The position (for a translational connection) or position and orientation (for a rigid connection) of the handle are first set as the target position/orientation of the driven feature component. IK then solves for the translation and rotation of every component on the kinematic chain needed to reach this target… For a slotted connection, the IK algorithm’s target constrains the free end point to lie on a line representing the sliding slot”; Note: inverse kinematics is used to establish the motion level and type for the mechanical parts. In the example given for a slotted connection, the motion level is the line representing the sliding slot, and the motion type is translational since sliding is involved), the motion type indicates a collaborative operation between each of the plurality of model components and other model components, wherein the motion type comprises a rotation or a slide (Fig. 3 – Fig. 3 shows the motion types between the different parts. The motion type can be translational or revolute; see screenshot of Fig. 3 above).
Regarding claim 6, Zhu teaches a modeling method for three-dimension objects (Fig. 1, Paragraph 3 in 2nd Col. of Page 1 – “We automate design for mechanical toys such as the one in Figure 1. Our larger goal is to integrate kinematic simulation of mechanical assemblies into 3D modeling. Integrated simulation allows a motion-to-form mapping: conversion of user-specified motion into a physical, functioning mechanism”), comprises:
determining the pre-established frameworks as a model object framework based on the mechanical device corresponding to an unmodeled object (Paragraphs 4-5 in 2nd Col. of Page 2, Paragraph 3 in 1st Col. of Page 3 – “The input to our algorithm consists of three pieces of information: the 3D geometry and motion of the toy’s feature objects, the dimensions of an underlying box, called the assembly box, in which to install the mechanical assembly producing that motion, and the location on feature objects where they connect to synthesized mechanical parts…With the above inputs, our system searches for a good configuration of an assembly to realize the desired motion. Our algorithm first guesses the type and shape of mechanical parts according to the input motion, and then optimizes the assembly using simulated annealing”; Note: mechanical parts, which are the pre-established frameworks, are determined based on the input toy, which is the mechanical device that is yet to be modeled. The mechanical parts make up an assembly, which is the model object framework);
loading a motion model of the model object framework, wherein the motion model framework indicates a plurality of model components, a motion level of each of the plurality of model components (Fig. 3, Paragraph 3 in 1st Col. of Page 3 – “our system searches for a good configuration of an assembly to realize the desired motion. Our algorithm first guesses the type and shape of mechanical parts according to the input motion, and then optimizes the assembly using simulated annealing. The optimization objective integrates the approximation quality of the generated motion and the layout quality and complexity of the assembly”; Note: an assembly, which is equivalent to the motion model, is searched for and then loaded. The assembly contains mechanical parts that each have a motion level, which is shown in Fig. 3; see screenshot of Fig. 3 above) and a connection relationship among the plurality of model components (Paragraph 3 in 1st Col. of Page 3, Fig. 3 Caption on Page 4, Fig. 4a – “The optimization objective integrates the approximation quality of the generated motion and the layout quality and complexity of the assembly…Schematics for mechanical parts in Figure 2. Based on the shape parameters shown for each part type, the motion of the part’s free end point (indicated by a red dot) is transmitted to a connected feature component”; Note: the layout of the assembly is equivalent to the connection relationship among the model components. Fig. 4a shows an example of the connection relationship between model components; see screenshot of Fig. 4a above);
receiving the unmodeled wherein the unmodeled object comprises a plurality of unmodeled components, wherein there is a connection relationship among the plurality of unmodeled components (Paragraphs 4-5 in 2nd Col. of Page 2 – “The input to our algorithm consists of three pieces of information: the 3D geometry and motion of the toy’s feature objects, the dimensions of an underlying box, called the assembly box, in which to install the mechanical assembly producing that motion, and the location on feature objects where they connect to synthesized mechanical parts. We assume that the feature objects have been separated into rigid components, with specified joint constraints between them”; Note: the overall toy is the unmodeled object, and it has components. The “location on feature objects where they connect to synthesized mechanical parts” is equivalent to the connection relationship of unmodeled components);
reading a component attribute of each of the plurality of unmodeled components (Fig. 1 Caption on Page 1 – “(a) Input. The designer specifies the geometry and motion of the toy’s features, in this case a boy and a crocodile object, forming two kinematic chains and four color-coded feature components. The feature base is colored orange. (b) Mechanical assembly synthesized by our system to generate the target motion”; Note: the geometry and motion of the toy are equivalent to the component attribute);
adjusting the motion level of each of the plurality of model components (Paragraph 4 in 1st Col. of Page 3, Paragraph 3 in 1st Col. of Page 4 – “At each step of assembly optimization, we simulate the mechanism over one animation cycle using forward kinematics. The motion of the assembly’s handles then determines the motion of its feature components through inverse kinematics. We finally measure how similar the features’ simulated motion is to the specified target motion… The position (for a translational connection) or position and orientation (for a rigid connection) of the handle are first set as the target position/orientation of the driven feature component. IK then solves for the translation and rotation of every component on the kinematic chain needed to reach this target”) based on the component attribute of each of the plurality of corresponding unmodeled components to generate a modeled component comprising the component attribute (Fig. 1 Caption on Page 1 – “(a) Input. The designer specifies the geometry and motion of the toy’s features, in this case a boy and a crocodile object, forming two kinematic chains and four color-coded feature components. The feature base is colored orange. (b) Mechanical assembly synthesized by our system to generate the target motion”; Note: the geometry and motion of the toy are equivalent to the component attribute. Fig. 1b shows the modeled components comprising the geometry and motion of the toy’s components; see screenshot of Fig. 1b above);
and obtaining a modeled object after the motion level of each of the plurality of model components is set (Fig. 1 Caption on Page 1 – “Mechanical assembly synthesized by our system to generate the target motion”; Note: Fig. 1b shows the modeled toy with all the set motion levels, which is represented by arrows; see screenshot of Fig. 1b above), wherein the modeled object comprises the modeled components respectively corresponding to the plurality of model components (Fig. 3, Paragraph 3 in 1st Col. of Page 3 – “our system searches for a good configuration of an assembly to realize the desired motion. Our algorithm first guesses the type and shape of mechanical parts according to the input motion, and then optimizes the assembly using simulated annealing”; Note: the modeled components correspond to the mechanical parts, which are model components that were searched for to create the modeled object).
Zhu does not teach the “mechanical devices” portion of the limitation: “determining one of pre-established frameworks respectively corresponding to different mechanical devices”. However, Price teaches determining one of pre-established frameworks respectively corresponding to different mechanical devices (Paragraph 0024, 0029 – “the user may be prompted by the interface 200 to enter the make and model of the vehicle. Based on this user input, the computing device may acquire from a storage device a 3D model of the vehicle…FIG. 4 illustrates configuring an example 3D model 400 of a physical object according to one or more embodiments. The physical object, again, may be a vehicle and the 3D model 400 of the vehicle may be provided, generated, accessed, or determined. As shown, the 3D model 400 may be an exact virtual replica of the vehicle. It may include all the basic components, details, and trims found in the original vehicle. In examples, the 3D model 400 may be created ahead or time, and thus, provided to a computing device or accessed by the computing device”; Note: 3D models of vehicles are pre-established frameworks, as there are various makes and models that were previously created and stored). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the Zhu’s pre-established frameworks of mechanical parts could have been substituted for the Price’s pre-established frameworks of mechanical devices because both the mechanical parts and devices serve the purpose of representing generic structures. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the substitution. Finally, the substitution achieves the predictable result of having templates that represent generic structures. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Zhu’s pre-established frameworks of mechanical parts for Price’s pre-established frameworks of mechanical devices according to known methods to yield the predictable result of representing generic structures. It would have been beneficial to do so in Zhu’s case because when there are common combinations of mechanical parts, having a pre-established framework combining those parts would make searching for an ideal assembly more efficient.
Zhu also does not teach wherein a connection relationship among the plurality of unmodeled components at least partially corresponds to the connection relationship among the plurality of model components. However, Price teaches wherein a connection relationship among the plurality of unmodeled components at least partially corresponds to the connection relationship among the plurality of model components (Paragraph 0024, 0029 – “the user may be prompted by the interface 200 to enter the make and model of the vehicle. Based on this user input, the computing device may acquire from a storage device a 3D model of the vehicle…FIG. 4 illustrates configuring an example 3D model 400 of a physical object according to one or more embodiments. The physical object, again, may be a vehicle and the 3D model 400 of the vehicle may be provided, generated, accessed, or determined. As shown, the 3D model 400 may be an exact virtual replica of the vehicle. It may include all the basic components, details, and trims found in the original vehicle. In examples, the 3D model 400 may be created ahead or time, and thus, provided to a computing device or accessed by the computing device”; Note: in this case, the vehicle is the unmodeled object, and it inherently contains a connection relationship among its components, such as the car door being attached to the car body. A 3D model of the same make and model vehicle is loaded, and because it is the same make and model, the 3D model has the same connection relationship among its components as the vehicle). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhu to incorporate the teachings of Price to have the connection relationship of the unmodeled components correspond to the connection relationship of the model components for the benefit of producing a modeled object that best represents the target object using the model components. For example, in Zhu, having the correspondence would ensure that the movement of the toy parts match the movement of the mechanical parts, which would help create a model of the toy that incorporates the correct movements.
Regarding claim 10, Zhu in view of Price teaches the modeling method of claim 6. Zhu further teaches establishing the motion level and a motion type of each of the plurality of model components (Paragraph 3 in 1st Col. of Page 4, Paragraph 1 in 2nd Col. of Page 4 – “Inverse kinematics (IK) determines how feature components move, given the position of handles computed from the forward simulation of the assembly in the previous subsection. Note that the motion of a single handle drives the motion of all linked components on each kinematic feature chain. The position (for a translational connection) or position and orientation (for a rigid connection) of the handle are first set as the target position/orientation of the driven feature component. IK then solves for the translation and rotation of every component on the kinematic chain needed to reach this target… For a slotted connection, the IK algorithm’s target constrains the free end point to lie on a line representing the sliding slot”; Note: inverse kinematics is used to establish the motion level and type for the mechanical parts. In the example given for a slotted connection, the motion level is the line representing the sliding slot, and the motion type is translational since sliding is involved), the motion type indicates a collaborative operation between each of the plurality of model components and other model components, wherein the motion type comprises a rotation or a slide (Fig. 3 – Fig. 3 shows the motion types between the different parts. The motion type can be translational or revolute; see screenshot of Fig. 3 above).
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Price and Kenna (Solidworks- Assembly Training-Coordinate Systems).
Regarding claim 2, Zhu in view of Price teaches the modeling device of claim 1. Zhu does not teach wherein the operations that the processor executes comprise: adjusting an origin coordinate of the modeled object after obtaining the modeled object to control a movement of the modeled object based on the origin coordinate. However, Kenna teaches adjusting an origin coordinate of the modeled object after obtaining the modeled object to control a movement of the modeled object based on the origin coordinate (Images on pages 1-3 – Planes are modified to adjust the origin coordinate of the modeled object, which changes the center of mass, and as a result, can change how the object moves; see modified screenshots 6, 7, and 8 below. Additionally, it is inherent that the adjustments occur after obtaining the modeled object because no adjustments could be made if there were no modeled object).
PNG
media_image4.png
1199
1903
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Modified screenshot 6 (taken from Kenna)
PNG
media_image5.png
1199
1902
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Modified screenshot 7 (taken from Kenna)
PNG
media_image6.png
1199
1900
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Modified screenshot 8 (taken from Kenna)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhu to incorporate the teachings of Kenna to adjust the origin coordinate for the benefit of aligning the components of the model for consistency and changing how the model moves to better accurately represent a desired motion. For instance, as shown in modified screenshot 8, the origin coordinate can be adjusted to change the center of mass.
Regarding claim 7, Zhu in view of Price teaches the modeling method of claim 6. Zhu does not teach adjusting an origin coordinate of the modeled object after obtaining the modeled object; and controlling a movement of the modeled object based on the origin coordinate. However, Kenna teaches adjusting an origin coordinate of the modeled object after obtaining the modeled object and controlling a movement of the modeled object based on the origin coordinate (Images on pages 1-3 – Planes are modified to adjust the origin coordinate of the modeled object, which changes the center of mass, and as a result, can change how the object moves; see modified screenshots 6, 7, and 8 above. Additionally, it is inherent that the adjustments occur after obtaining the modeled object because no adjustments could be made if there were no modeled object). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhu to incorporate the teachings of Kenna to adjust the origin coordinate for the benefit of aligning the components of the model for consistency and changing how the model moves to better accurately represent a desired motion. For instance, as shown in modified screenshot 8, the origin coordinate can be adjusted to change the center of mass.
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (Motion-Guided Mechanical Toy Modeling) in view of Price and Gibson et al. (US 20150178414 A1), hereinafter Gibson.
Regarding claim 3, Zhu in view of Price teaches the modeling device of claim 1. Zhu further teaches adjusting respectively the motion level of each of the plurality of model components (Paragraph 4 in 1st Col. of Page 3, Paragraph 3 in 1st Col. of Page 4 – “At each step of assembly optimization, we simulate the mechanism over one animation cycle using forward kinematics. The motion of the assembly’s handles then determines the motion of its feature components through inverse kinematics. We finally measure how similar the features’ simulated motion is to the specified target motion… The position (for a translational connection) or position and orientation (for a rigid connection) of the handle are first set as the target position/orientation of the driven feature component. IK then solves for the translation and rotation of every component on the kinematic chain needed to reach this target”) based on the component attribute of the plurality of unmodeled components (Fig. 1 Caption on Page 1 – “(a) Input. The designer specifies the geometry and motion of the toy’s features, in this case a boy and a crocodile object, forming two kinematic chains and four color-coded feature components. The feature base is colored orange. (b) Mechanical assembly synthesized by our system to generate the target motion”; Note: the geometry and motion of the toy are equivalent to the component attribute. Fig. 1b shows the modeled components comprising the geometry and motion of the toy; see screenshot of Fig. 1b above). Zhu does not teach an attribute field of the motion level of the plurality of model components comprises a size and an appearance stored in the component attribute. However, Gibson teaches an attribute field of the motion level of the plurality of model components comprises a size and an appearance stored in the component attribute (Paragraph 0012 – “Instructions enable an entity belonging to one of the parts to be specified and the part containing the entity to be analyzed to collect data relevant to a motion study (e.g., size data, location data, and material type data). Additionally, based on the specified entity, parameters for automating motion are inferred and used to automate motion”; Note: motion levels are automated based on attributes of the object, including size and material type. Material type is the equivalent to appearance. Parameters, which are equivalent to attribute fields, comprise size and material type. The corresponding size and material type of the component are already part of the component, meaning they are stored as the component’s attribute). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhu to incorporate the teachings of Gibson to adjust motion level based on size and appearance because size and appearance can restrict movement. For example, the size of the circular parts in a belt pulley (like in Fig. 1b) determines how the belt moves since the belt lays on top of the circular parts.
Regarding claim 8, Zhu in view of Price teaches the modeling method of claim 6. Zhu further teaches adjusting respectively the motion level of each of the plurality of model components (Paragraph 4 in 1st Col. of Page 3, Paragraph 3 in 1st Col. of Page 4 – “At each step of assembly optimization, we simulate the mechanism over one animation cycle using forward kinematics. The motion of the assembly’s handles then determines the motion of its feature components through inverse kinematics. We finally measure how similar the features’ simulated motion is to the specified target motion… The position (for a translational connection) or position and orientation (for a rigid connection) of the handle are first set as the target position/orientation of the driven feature component. IK then solves for the translation and rotation of every component on the kinematic chain needed to reach this target”) based on the component attribute of the plurality of unmodeled components (Fig. 1 Caption on Page 1 – “(a) Input. The designer specifies the geometry and motion of the toy’s features, in this case a boy and a crocodile object, forming two kinematic chains and four color-coded feature components. The feature base is colored orange. (b) Mechanical assembly synthesized by our system to generate the target motion”; Note: the geometry and motion of the toy are equivalent to the component attribute. Fig. 1b shows the modeled components comprising the geometry and motion of the toy; see screenshot of Fig. 1b above). Zhu does not teach an attribute field of the motion level of the plurality of model components comprises a size and an appearance stored in the component attribute. However, Gibson teaches an attribute field of the motion level of the plurality of model components comprises a size and an appearance stored in the component attribute (Paragraph 0012 – “Instructions enable an entity belonging to one of the parts to be specified and the part containing the entity to be analyzed to collect data relevant to a motion study (e.g., size data, location data, and material type data). Additionally, based on the specified entity, parameters for automating motion are inferred and used to automate motion”; Note: motion levels are automated based on attributes of the object, including size and material type. Material type is the equivalent to appearance. Parameters, which are equivalent to attribute fields, comprise size and material type. The corresponding size and material type of the component are already part of the component, meaning they are stored as the component’s attribute). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhu to incorporate the teachings of Gibson to adjust motion level based on size and appearance because size and appearance can restrict movement. For example, the size of the circular parts in a belt pulley (like in Fig. 1b) determines how the belt moves since the belt lays on top of the circular parts.
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Price and Dayde et al. (US 20160189433 A1), hereinafter Dayde.
Regarding claim 4, Zhu in view of Price teaches the modeling device of claim 1. Zhu does not teach wherein the operations that the processor adjusts the motion level of each of the plurality of model components based on the component attribute of each of the plurality of unmodeled components comprises: scaling a default bounding box corresponding to the model component to a size of a minimum bounding box, wherein the minimum bounding box is a three-dimension minimum enclosing rectangle enclosing the modeled component. However, Dayde teaches scaling a default bounding box corresponding to the model component to a size of a minimum bounding box (Paragraph 0066-0067 – “a main bounding box encompassing the 3D modeled assembly is computed… a number n of computed bounding boxes encompassed by the main bounding box is determined by the system. The number n depends on the size of the 3D modeled assembly. The term size means the dimensions of the 3D modeled assembly about its reference frame, that is, the length, width and height of the 3D modeled assembly. The dimensions of the 3D modeled object thus determines the minimal size of a rectangular cuboid or cubic bounding box”; Note: the main bounding box is the equivalent to the default bounding box, and it is divided into smaller bounding boxes that correspond to a size of a minimum bounding box for a component), wherein the minimum bounding box is a three-dimension minimum enclosing rectangle enclosing the modeled component (Paragraph 0067 – “The dimensions of the 3D modeled object thus determines the minimal size of a rectangular cuboid or cubic bounding box”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhu to incorporate the teachings of Dayde to have a minimum rectangle bounding box enclosing a modeled component because “bounding boxes might be used for the purpose of manipulating the assembly”, which would require bounding boxes around particular components (Dayde: Paragraph 0005-0006). Additionally, having the bounding boxes be minimal would make the manipulation of the components more accurate and efficient, and having them be rectangular ensures that the entire component is accounted for. Zhu already teaches using a bounding box for ensuring that parts will not collide (Paragraph 2 in 2nd Col. of Page 6 – “The second term characterizes uniformity of the distribution of parts based on their bounding boxes, where li is the x coordinate of the center of part i’s axis-aligned bounding box… The third term penalizes proximity of adjacent pairs of bounding boxes, and forces their separation to be greater than a specified threshold δ”), so having minimum bounding boxes would help with this goal because the minimum bounding boxes can be used to check if parts are in contact.
Regarding claim 9, Zhu in view of Price teaches the modeling method of claim 6. Zhu does not teach wherein the step of adjusting the motion level of each of the plurality of model components based on the component attribute of each of the plurality of unmodeled components comprises: scaling a default bounding box corresponding to the model component to a size of a minimum bounding box, wherein the minimum bounding box is a three-dimension minimum enclosing rectangle enclosing the modeled component. However, Dayde teaches scaling a default bounding box corresponding to the model component to a size of a minimum bounding box (Paragraph 0066-0067 – “a main bounding box encompassing the 3D modeled assembly is computed… a number n of computed bounding boxes encompassed by the main bounding box is determined by the system. The number n depends on the size of the 3D modeled assembly. The term size means the dimensions of the 3D modeled assembly about its reference frame, that is, the length, width and height of the 3D modeled assembly. The dimensions of the 3D modeled object thus determines the minimal size of a rectangular cuboid or cubic bounding box”; Note: the main bounding box is the equivalent to the default bounding box, and it is divided into smaller bounding boxes that correspond to a size of a minimum bounding box for a component), wherein the minimum bounding box is a three-dimension minimum enclosing rectangle enclosing the modeled component (Paragraph 0067 – “The dimensions of the 3D modeled object thus determines the minimal size of a rectangular cuboid or cubic bounding box”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhu to incorporate the teachings of Dayde to have a minimum rectangle bounding box enclosing a modeled component because “bounding boxes might be used for the purpose of manipulating the assembly”, which would require bounding boxes around particular components (Dayde: Paragraph 0005-0006). Additionally, having the bounding boxes be minimal would make the manipulation of the components more accurate and efficient, and having them be rectangular ensures that the entire component is accounted for. Zhu already teaches using a bounding box for ensuring that parts will not collide (Paragraph 2 in 2nd Col. of Page 6 – “The second term characterizes uniformity of the distribution of parts based on their bounding boxes, where li is the x coordinate of the center of part i’s axis-aligned bounding box… The third term penalizes proximity of adjacent pairs of bounding boxes, and forces their separation to be greater than a specified threshold δ”), so having minimum bounding boxes would help with this goal because the minimum bounding boxes can be used to check if parts are in contact.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Grinstein et al. (US 6714201 B1) teaches a method of modeling an object’s motion as a hierarchical graph and displaying a user interface to edit the motion. Newhard et al. (US 20140114617 A) teaches a method of reading CAD template data, generating a view of the template, and using user input to edit the template. Varanasi et al. (US 20190392653 A1) teaches a method of modifying a template 3D model based on a deformation and dependency data between the template 3D model and a reference model.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE HAU MA whose telephone number is (571)272-2187. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-5:30.
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, King Poon can be reached at (571) 270-0728. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/MICHELLE HAU MA/Examiner, Art Unit 2617 /KING Y POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2617