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 .
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
The previous claim objections are withdrawn. However, new claim objections are raised to certain claims as discussed below in the following Detailed Action.
35 U.S.C. 112 Rejection
The previous 35 U.S.C. 112 Rejection is withdrawn. However, new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 are raised to certain claims as discussed below in the following Detailed Action.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection
Applicant's arguments filed 2/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 11, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai et al., A High-Resolution Texture Mapping Technique for a 3D Textured Model, Applied Sciences, Vol. 8, Article 2228, November 2018 (hereinafter “Lai”) (made of record of the IDS submitted 5/31/2025) in view of Stahl et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0351477 A1, hereinafter “Stahl”).
For independent claims 1, 19 and 20, Applicants argue the references fail to disclose presenting a view of the initial 3D model in a user interface and receiving user input via the user interface that adjusts the initial alignment of the plurality of textures to the respective portions of the initial 3D model to provide a revised 3D model. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Lai discloses a software algorithm to automatically generate an initial 3D model of the object based on an initial alignment of the object images to corresponding portions of the initial 3D model (pages 5-6/Fig. 1(d)). Lai further discloses acquisition of correction and optimization data as input for adjusting the initial alignment of the object images to the corresponding portions of the initial 3D model to provide a corrected 3D model as a revised model (pages 5-6/Figs. 1(e-f)).
Lai does not specifically disclose presenting a view of a 3D model in a user interface and receiving user input via the user interface.
However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Stahl.
Stahl similarly discloses a system and method for aggregating multiple textures into a final texture for mapping to an entire 3D model (par. 7 and 39). Stahl explains its system implements a user interface for presenting a view of a 3D model for accepting user input for making corrections to the multiple textures and the 3D model where the input may correspond to stretching a position of a texture viewed in the user interface (par. 39, 62-63 and 79). It follows Lai may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Stahl to present a view of its initial 3D model in a user interface to receive user input via the user interface to appropriately edit its initial 3D model as desired by a user.
Again, Applicants cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
Therefore, the combination of Lai and Stahl discloses the limitations of claims 1, 19 and 20.
For the remaining rejected claims, Applicants argue for their allowance based on their dependence to claim 1. It follows the remaining rejected claims are rejected for the reasons discussed above and in the following Detailed Action.
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 8, 12 and 14-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
For claim 3, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
obtaining a particular 3D model of the object;
initializing UV mapping between each of the plurality of textures and corresponding portions of the particular 3D model to provide the initial 3D model;
refining the UV mapping based on the user input; and
generating the single texture based on refining of the UV mapping.
For claim 8, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The method of claim 1, wherein receiving the user input comprises:
receiving a selection of a region of the initial 3D model; and
updating a blending map and a UV map to change an association of the region from a first texture to a second texture of the plurality of textures, the blending map providing continuous blending that gradually changes based on a direction of [[a]] the view of the initial 3D model.
For claim 12, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
generating a transformation function that deforms the initial 3D model based on the user input.
For claim 14, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The method of claim 12, further comprising:
presenting [[a]] the view of the initial 3D model in [[a]] the user interface, the user input being received via the user interface;
determining that the user input corresponds to stretching, shrinking, or changing a position of a texture currently being viewed in the user interface; and
applying the user input to the transformation function to smoothly deform the view of the initial 3D model.
For claim 15, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
selecting [[a]] the view of the initial 3D model;
obtaining a direction of a view angle associated with each of the plurality of textures; and
for each surface point of the initial 3D model corresponding to the selected view, computing a pixel value as a function of a dot product between the surface point and the direction of the view angle of each texture of the plurality of textures.
For claim 16, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The method of claim 15, further comprising:
presenting the view of the initial 3D model in [[a]] the user interface;
receiving, as the user input, a request to change an association between an individual surface point of the initial 3D model from a first texture of the plurality of textures to a second texture of the plurality of textures; and
updating a blending map and UV map based on the request to change the association.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
For dependent claim 14, parent claim 1 establishes a first “a view” and claim 14 establishes a second “a view”. Claim 14 goes on to recite the phrase “the view” and it is unclear and ambiguous to which of the first “view” and second “view” is being referenced by the phrase “the view”. Parent claim 1 further establishes a first “user interface” and claim 14 establishes a second “a user interface”. Claim 14 goes on to recite the phrase “the user interface” and it is unclear and ambiguous to which of the first “user interface” and second “user interface” is being referenced by the phrase “the user interface”. Examiner has suggested amendments in the claim objections discussed above to resolve the ambiguities.
For dependent claim 16, parent claim 1 establishes a first “a view” and parent claim 15 establishes a second “a view”. Claim 16 goes on to recite the phrase “the view” and it is unclear and ambiguous to which of the first “view” and second “view” is being referenced by the phrase “the view”. Examiner has suggested amendments in the claim objections discussed above to resolve the ambiguities.
For dependent claim 17, this claim depends from claim 16 and inherits the deficiencies of claim 16 and is likewise indefinite.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 11, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai et al., A High-Resolution Texture Mapping Technique for a 3D Textured Model, Applied Sciences, Vol. 8, Article 2228, November 2018 (hereinafter “Lai”) (made of record of the IDS submitted 5/31/2025) in view of Stahl et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0351477 A1, hereinafter “Stahl”).
For claim 1, Lai discloses a method (page 1) comprising: receiving a plurality of textures associated with an object, each texture of the plurality of textures corresponding to a different view of the object (disclosing acquisition of a plurality of object images as textures associated with an object where each object image corresponds to a different view of the object (pages 4-5/Fig. 1(a))); automatically generating an initial three-dimensional (3D) model of the object based on an initial alignment of the plurality of textures to respective portions of the initial 3D model (disclosing a software algorithm to automatically generate an initial 3D model of the object based on an initial alignment of the object images to corresponding portions of the initial 3D model (pages 5-6/Fig. 1(d))); receiving input that adjusts the initial alignment of the plurality of textures to the respective portions of the initial 3D model to provide a revised 3D model (disclosing acquisition of correction and optimization data as input for adjusting the initial alignment of the object images to the corresponding portions of the initial 3D model to provide a corrected 3D model as a revised model (pages 5-6/Figs. 1(e-f))); combining the plurality of textures into a single texture based on the input that adjusts the initial alignment of the plurality of textures, the single texture defining visual attributes of the object from multiple views (disclosing the object images are combined into a single output texture map based on the correction and optimization data for adjusting the initial alignment of the object images, the output texture map representing visual attributes of the object from multiple views of the combined object images (pages 5-6)); and storing the single texture (disclosing the output texture map is stored by saving the output texture map (pages 5-6)).
Lai does not specifically disclose presenting a view of a 3D model in a user interface and receiving user input via the user interface; and storing a 3D model in association with a texture.
However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Stahl.
Stahl similarly discloses a system and method for aggregating multiple textures into a final texture for mapping to an entire 3D model (par. 7 and 39). Stahl explains its system implements a user interface for presenting a view of a 3D model for accepting user input for making corrections to the multiple textures and the 3D model where the input may correspond to stretching a position of a texture viewed in the user interface (par. 39, 62-63 and 79). Stahl explains a 3D model may be stored in association with a corresponding final texture so that the system may accept user input for making corrections to the 3D model (par. 40-41 and 62-63). It follows Lai may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Stahl to present a view of its initial 3D model in a user interface to receive user input via the interface; and store its revised 3D model in association with its single texture.
A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify Lai with the teachings of Stahl. Stahl is analogous art in dealing with a system and method for aggregating multiple textures into a final texture for mapping to an entire 3D model (par. 7 and 39). Stahl discloses its storage of a 3D model with corresponding texture data is advantageous in facilitating appropriate correction of a 3D model as desired by a user (par. 40-41 and 62-63). Consequently, a PHOSITA would incorporate the teachings of Stahl into Lai for facilitating appropriate correction of a 3D model as desired by a user. Therefore, claim 1 is rendered obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For claim 3, depending on claim 1, Lai as modified by Stahl discloses further comprising: obtaining a particular 3D model of the object (Lai discloses acquisition of a particular 3D model of the object (pages 5-6/Fig. 1(a))); initializing UV mapping between each of the plurality of textures and corresponding portions of the particular 3D model to provide the initial 3D model (Lai discloses initialization of UV mapping between the object images and corresponding portions of the particular 3D model to generate the initial 3D model (pages 5-6/Figs. 1(a-d))); refining the UV mapping based on the input (Lai discloses the UV mapping is refined based on the received correction and optimization data (pages 5-6/Fig. 1(e))); and generating the single texture based on refining of the UV mapping (Lai discloses generation of the output texture map based on refinement of the UV mapping (pages 5-6)).
For claim 11, depending on claim 1, Lai as modified by Stahl discloses wherein receiving the user input comprises: receiving a selection of a first texture of the plurality of textures; and in response to the selection, enabling modifications to the first texture independently of a second texture of the plurality of textures (Stahl similarly discloses a system and method for aggregating multiple textures into a final texture for mapping to an entire 3D model (par. 7 and 39); Stahl explains a user may select a texture and modify the texture separately and independently of other textures of a plurality of textures (par. 39, 46, 62-63, 79 and 102); and it follows Lai may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Stahl to select a first texture of its plurality of textures and enable modifications to the first texture independently of a second texture of its plurality of textures).
For claim 19, Lai as modified by Stahl discloses a system comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory component having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the at least one processor (Stahl similarly discloses a system and method for aggregating multiple textures into a final texture for mapping to an entire 3D model (par. 7 and 39); Stahl discloses the system includes a processor and a memory for storing instructions for execution by the processor to perform the functions of the system (par. 137-140); and it follows Lai may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Stahl to implement a system to appropriately carry out its software algorithm), cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising the method of claim 1 (see above as to claim 1).
For claim 20, Lai as modified by Stahl discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon instructions that, when executed by at least one processor (Stahl similarly discloses a system and method for aggregating multiple textures into a final texture for mapping to an entire 3D model (par. 7 and 39); Stahl discloses the system includes a memory for storing instructions for execution by a processor to perform the functions of the system (par. 137-140); and it follows Lai may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Stahl to implement a system to appropriately carry out its software algorithm), cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising the method of claim 1 (see above as to claim 1).
Claim(s) 2, 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai in view of Stahl further in view of Lim (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0328307 A1).
For claim 2, depending on claim 1, Lai as modified by Stahl discloses wherein the object represents a fashion item (Lai discloses its object may represent a show as a fashion item (page 5/Fig. 1)), comprising computing a pixel value for an individual surface location (Stahl similarly discloses a system and method for aggregating multiple textures into a final texture for mapping to an entire 3D model (par. 7 and 39); Stahl explains its system computes a pixel value for an individual surface location (par. 60 and 75); and it follows Lai may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Sthal to compute a pixel value for an individual surface location of its object as a fashion item).
Lai as modified by Stahl does not disclose multiplying a first pixel value from a first image by a first weight, multiplying a second pixel value from a second image by a second weight, and summing the multiplied first and second pixel values.
However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Lim.
Lim similarly discloses a system and method for generating a texture for application to a model (par. 14-15). Lim explains its system multiplies a first pixel value from a first image by a first weight and multiplies a second pixel value from a second image by a second weight so that the multiplied first and second pixel values are summed (par. 52 and 89-90). It follows Lai and Stahl may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Lim to multiply a first pixel value from a first texture by a first weight, to multiply a second pixel value from a second texture by a second weight and summing the multiplied first and second pixel values to compute its pixel value for its individual surface location of its object.
A PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify Lai and Stahl with the teachings of Lim. Lim is analogous art in dealing with a system and method for generating a texture for application to a model (par. 14-15). Lim discloses its use of weighting is advantageous in appropriately blending pixel values for appropriate application of a texture to an object (par. 52 and 89-90). Consequently, a PHOSITA would incorporate the teachings of Lim into Lai and Stahl for appropriately blending pixel values for appropriate application of a texture to an object. Therefore, claim 2 is rendered obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For claim 12, depending on claim 1, Lai as modified by Stahl and Lim discloses generating a transformation function that deforms the initial 3D model based on the input (Lim similarly discloses a system and method for generating a texture for application to a model (par. 14-15); Lim explains its system may generate a transformation function to perform a deformation of a model (par. 92-93 and 97); and it follows Lai and Stahl may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Lim to generate a transformation function that deforms its initial 3D model based on its input to enhance quality).
For claim 14, depending on claim 12, Lai as modified by Stahl and Lim discloses further comprising: presenting a view of the initial 3D model in a user interface, the input being received via the user interface; determining that the input corresponds to stretching, shrinking, or changing a position of a texture currently being viewed in the user interface; and applying the input to the transformation function to smoothly deform the view of the initial 3D model (Stahl similarly discloses a system and method for aggregating multiple textures into a final texture for mapping to an entire 3D model (par. 7 and 39); Stahl explains its system implements a user interface for presenting a view of a 3D model for accepting user input for making corrections to the multiple textures and the 3D model where the input may correspond to stretching a position of a texture viewed in the user interface (par. 39, 62-63 and 79); and it follows Lai may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Stahl to implement a user interform for viewing its initial 3D model and accepting its input as user input for stretching a texture viewed in the user interface; Lim similarly discloses a system and method for generating a texture for application to a model (par. 14-15). Lim explains its system may generate a transformation function to perform a deformation of a model (par. 92-93); as Lai discloses the use of mesh smoothing to smooth its initial 3D model (page 5), it follows Lai and Stahl may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Lim to apply its input to a transformation function to smoothly deform a view of its initial 3D model).
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai in view of Stahl further in view of Eisenacher et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0015828 A1, hereinafter “Eisenacher”).
For claim 4, depending on claim 3, Lai as modified by Stahl discloses wherein the initial 3D model has a separate UV mapping for each of the plurality of textures (Stahl similarly discloses a system and method for aggregating multiple textures into a final texture for mapping to an entire 3D model (par. 7 and 39); Stahl explains it is known to implement a separate UV mapping for each texture of multiple textures (par. 39 and 45); and it follows Lai may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Stahl to implement a separate UV mapping for each of its plurality of textures to appropriately align its textures to its initial 3D model).
Lai as modified by Stahl does not disclose a blending map that associates each surface location of a model with one or more of the plurality of textures.
However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Eisenacher.
Eisenacher similarly discloses a system and method for three-dimensional texture mapping (par. 2). Eisenacher explains its system generates a blending map for associating surface locations of a 3D object as a model with a plurality of patterns as textures (par. 23-25 and 33). It follows Lai and Stahl may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Eisenacher to implement a blending map that associates each surface location of its initial 3D model with one or more of its plurality of textures.
A PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify Lai and Stahl with the teachings of Eisenacher. Eisenacher is analogous art in dealing with a system and method for three-dimensional texture mapping (par. 2). Eisenacher discloses its use of a blending map is advantageous in appropriately mapping multiple textures for appropriate application to a surface of a 3D object (par. 33). Consequently, a PHOSITA would incorporate the teachings of Eisenacher into Lai and Stahl for appropriately mapping multiple textures for appropriate application to a surface of a 3D object. Therefore, claim 4 is rendered obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For claim 5, depending on claim 1, Lai as modified by Stahl and Eisenacher discloses further comprising: automatically generating a blending map for each surface location of the initial 3D model, the blending map defining an amount of one or more textures that is associated with each surface location (Eisenacher similarly discloses a system and method for three-dimensional texture mapping (par. 2); Eisenacher explains its system implements an image processing application to automatically generate a blending map for associating surface locations of a 3D object as a model with an amount of patterns as textures (par. 19, 23-25 and 33); and it follows Lai and Stahl may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Eisenacher to implement a blending map that associates each surface location of its initial 3D model with one or more of its plurality of textures for appropriate application of multiple textures to a surface of its initial 3D model).
For claim 6, depending on claim 5, Lai as modified by Stahl and Eisenacher discloses further comprising: automatically generating a UV map for each surface location of the initial 3D model, the UV map defining which texture of the plurality of textures is used for the surface location (Stahl similarly discloses a system and method for aggregating multiple textures into a final texture for mapping to an entire 3D model (par. 7 and 39); Stahl explains it is known to implement a UV mapping for each texture of multiple textures to define which texture of the multiple textures is used for a surface location of a 3D model (par. 39, 45 and 75); and it follows Lai may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Stahl to implement a UV mapping for each of its plurality of textures to appropriately align its textures to its initial 3D model).
For claim 7, depending on claim 6, Lai as modified by Stahl and Eisenacher discloses further comprising: associating a first weight with an individual surface location of the initial 3D model, the first weight representing a first amount of a first texture of the plurality of textures; associating a second weight with the individual surface location of the initial 3D model, the second weight representing a second amount of a second texture of the plurality of textures; and storing the first and second weights in the blending map in association with the individual surface location (Eisenacher similarly discloses a system and method for three-dimensional texture mapping (par. 2); Eisenacher explains its system implements an image processing application to automatically generate a blending map for associating individual surface locations of a 3D object as a model with an amount of patterns as textures (par. 19, 23-25 and 33); Eisenacher further explains each surface location is associated with a first weight representing a first amount of a first pattern (texture) and a second weight representing a second amount of a second pattern (texture) of multiple textures where the weights are stored in the blending map (par. 23-25 and 33); and it follows Lai and Stahl may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Eisenacher to implement a blending map of weights that associates each surface location of its initial 3D model with one or more of its plurality of textures for appropriate application of multiple textures to a surface of its initial 3D model).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10, 13, 15 and 18 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 and to address any claim objections discussed above in the Detailed Action.
Claims 16-17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and to address any claim objections discussed above in the Detailed Action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES TSENG whose telephone number is (571)270-3857. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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, Xiao Wu can be reached at (571) 272-7761. 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.
/CHARLES TSENG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613