DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
This office action is responsive to the communication filed on 12/30/2025. As an initial matter, the 35 USC 112 rejections set forth in the previous office action have been withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendments and arguments. Applicant's remaining arguments regarding the 35 USC 103 rejections with respect to amended limitations of claims 1-6, 8-15, 17-22 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 6, 8-10, 15, 17-19, 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tappeh et al (GharehTappeh, Zohreh Sohrabi, and Qingjin Peng. "Simplification and unfolding of 3D mesh models: review and evaluation of existing tools." Procedia Cirp 100 (2021): 121-126.), and further in view of Wang et al (Wang, Peng-Shuai, et al. "Adaptive O-CNN: A patch-based deep representation of 3D shapes." ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 37.6 (2018): 1-11.), and further in view of Raymond (US 20220096933 A1).
RE claim 1, Tappeh teaches An image rendering method, performed by a computer device (abstract, Figs 1-2), the method comprising:
flattening an original object mesh model to obtain a flat mesh model, the original object mesh model being an original three-dimensional mesh model of a target virtual object (abstract, Figs 1-2, 7-9, page 122 col 2);
generating a patch model of the flat mesh model (abstract, Figs 1-2, 8, page 122 col 2-page 123 col 1);
performing topological reconstruction on the patch model, to obtain a reconstructed mesh model, a quantity of surfaces of the reconstructed mesh model being less than a quantity of surfaces of the original object mesh model; and reconstructing a three-dimensional mesh model based on the reconstructed mesh model (abstract, Figs 1-2, page 122 col 2-page 123 col 1 where the simplification reduces the quantity of the surfaces as in page 123 col 2.).
Tappeh is silent RE: according to a bounding box patch of the flat mesh model. However Wang teaches in Figs 2-3, page 3 col 2, to generate an adaptive patch model based on the bounding box patch of a surface model and convert to a 3D mesh model, reducing memory requirement.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Tappeh a system and method generating the patch model according to a bounding box patch of the flat mesh model, as suggested by Wang in order to reduce memory requirement and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
Tappeh as modified by Wang is silent RE and rendering multiple instances of the target virtual object from the three-dimensional reconstructed mesh model according to respective distances between a viewpoint for the virtual object and the virtual object, wherein the multiple instances of the target virtual object have different levels of details in the rendered target virtual object corresponding to the respective distances between the viewpoint for the virtual object and the virtual object.
However Raymond teaches in Fig 5A, abstract, [0013], [0041] etc to automatically control object LOD based on distance in a game environment.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Tappeh as modified by Wang a system and method of rendering multiple instances of the target virtual object from the three-dimensional reconstructed mesh model according to respective distances between a viewpoint for the virtual object and the virtual object, wherein the multiple instances of the target virtual object have different levels of details in the rendered target virtual object corresponding to the respective distances between the viewpoint for the virtual object and the virtual object, as suggested by Raymond, in order to automatically control object LOD based on distance in a game environment and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
RE claim 6, Tappeh as modified by Wang and Raymond teaches wherein the method further comprises: performing surface reduction on the three-dimensional reconstructed mesh model, to obtain a surface-reduced mesh model, wherein a quantity of surfaces of the surface-reduced mesh model is less than a quantity of surfaces of the three-dimensional reconstructed mesh model; and the surface-reduced mesh model is configured to render the target virtual object (Tappeh Figs 1, 7, page 123 col1 wherein the simplification can equally be applied on the reconstructed mesh model to further simplify, as readily recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. In addition Wang teaches rendering the reconstructed 3D mesh in Fig 6).
RE claim 8, Tappeh as modified by Wang and Raymond teaches wherein the rendering multiple instances of the target virtual object from the three-dimensional reconstructed mesh model according to respective distances between a viewpoint for the virtual object and the virtual object further comprises: rendering the multiple instances of the target virtual object from the three-dimensional reconstructed mesh model according to an insert model corresponding to the original object mesh model, wherein a quantity of surfaces of the insert model is less than a quantity of surfaces of the three-dimensional reconstructed mesh model. (Raymond Figs 2A, 4, 5A, Abstract, [0060]-[0061]).
RE claim 9, Tappeh as modified by Wang and Raymond teaches wherein the target virtual object comprises a virtual tree in a game scene; the three-dimensional reconstructed mesh model comprises a three-dimensional reconstructed tree model; and the three-dimensional reconstructed tree model is configured to obtain the virtual tree by rendering in the game scene (Raymond Fig 5A, Abstract, [0094]).
Claims 10, 15, 17-18 recite limitations similar in scope with limitations of claims 1, 6 and 8-9 therefore rejected under the same rationale. In addition Tappeh teaches A computer device, comprising a memory and one or more processors, the memory storing computer-readable instructions (abstract, wherein the software tools are implemented in a typical computer device, comprising a memory and one or more processors).
Claims 19, 21-22 recite limitations similar in scope with limitations of claims 1, 6 and 8-9 therefore rejected under the same rationale. In addition Tappeh teaches One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (abstract, wherein the software tools are encoded in typical non-transitory computer-readable storage medium).
Claims 2-3, 11-12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tappeh as modified by Wang and Raymond, and further in view of Joshi et al (US 20220164994 A1).
RE claim 2, Tappeh as modified by Wang and Raymond is silent RE wherein the flattening an original object mesh model to obtain a flat mesh model comprises: transforming the original object mesh model located at an original model location in a world coordinate space to a model processing plane of the world coordinate space, to obtain a flattened flat mesh model located on the model processing plane; and transforming the reconstructed mesh model to the original model location, to obtain the three-dimensional reconstructed mesh model located at the original model location.
However Joshi teaches in Figs 4A-G, [0040]-[0041] to effectively generate a 2D patch model.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Tappeh as modified by Wang and Raymond a system and method wherein the flattening an original object mesh model to obtain a flat mesh model comprises: transforming the original object mesh model located at an original model location in a world coordinate space to a model processing plane of the world coordinate space, to obtain a flattened flat mesh model located on the model processing plane; and transforming the reconstructed mesh model to the original model location, to obtain the three-dimensional reconstructed mesh model located at the original model location, as suggested by Joshi, in order to effectively flatten the 3D mesh and thereby ensuring system effectiveness and user experience.
RE claim 3, Tappeh as modified by Wang and Raymond teaches wherein the method further comprises: determining a bounding box of the flat mesh model wherein the bounding box comprises a plurality of bounding surfaces (Wang Figs 2-3, page 3 col 2).
Tappeh as modified by Wang and Raymond is silent RE determining a target bounding surface from the plurality of bounding surfaces according to areas respectively corresponding to the plurality of bounding surfaces, and using the target bounding surface as the bounding box patch of the flat mesh model.
However Joshi teaches in Figs 4A-G, [0042]-[0044], to effectively generate a 2D patch model utilizing the planar projection.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Tappeh as modified by Wang and Raymond a system and method of determining a target bounding surface from the plurality of bounding surfaces according to areas respectively corresponding to the plurality of bounding surfaces, and using the target bounding surface as the bounding box patch of the flat mesh model, as suggested by Joshi, in order to effectively map the 3D points to corresponding patches and thereby ensuring system effectiveness and user experience.
Claims 11-12 recite limitations similar in scope with limitations of claims 2-3 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 20 recites limitations similar in scope with limitations of claim 2 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tappeh as modified by Wang and Raymond, and further in view of Oh (US 20210005006 A1).
RE claim 4, Tappeh as modified by Wang and Raymond teaches wherein the generating a patch model according to a bounding box patch of the flat mesh model comprises: attaching a point on the bounding box patch of the flat mesh model to the flat mesh model, to obtain an initial patch model (Wang Figs 2, 4-5, page 4 col 1).
Tappeh as modified by Wang and Raymond is silent RE wherein a value range of model map coordinate information of the initial patch model comprises a value range of model map coordinate information of the flat mesh model; and assigning a map attribute to the initial patch model, to obtain the patch model.
However Oh teaches in Figs 6-7, [0198]- [0203] to effectively determining the positions of individual patches on the 2D patch model utilizing the planar projection.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Tappeh as modified by Wang and Raymond a system and method of determining a target bounding surface from the plurality of bounding surfaces according to areas respectively corresponding to the plurality of bounding surfaces, and using the target bounding surface as the bounding box patch of the flat mesh model, as suggested by Oh, in order to effectively map the 3D points to corresponding patches and thereby ensuring system effectiveness and user experience.
Claim 13 recites limitations similar in scope with limitations of claim 4 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tappeh as modified by Wang and Raymond, and further in view of Attene et al (Marco Attene, Marcel Campen, and Leif Kobbelt. 2013. Polygon mesh repairing: An application perspective. ACM Comput. Surv. 45, 2 (2013), 15:1–15:33.).
RE claim 5, Tappeh as modified by Wang and Raymond is silent RE wherein the performing topological reconstruction on the patch model, to obtain a reconstructed mesh model comprises: deleting an internal surface of the patch model; and performing, according to vertices on the patch model with the internal surface deleted, internal surface re-division on the patch model with the internal surface deleted, to obtain the reconstructed mesh model.
However Attene teaches in Fig 1, page 20 3rd paragraph-page 21 2nd paragraphs, page 28 1st paragraph, page 29 1st- 4th paragraphs etc to generate a high quality mesh repairing internal artifacts utilizing known mesh repair methods. This is readily available as cited by Wang for mesh reconstruction and repair for generating a watertight mesh (Wang page 4 col 1)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Tappeh as modified by Wang and Raymond a system and method wherein the performing topological reconstruction on the patch model, to obtain a reconstructed mesh model comprises: deleting an internal surface of the patch model; and performing, according to vertices on the patch model with the internal surface deleted, internal surface re-division on the patch model with the internal surface deleted, to obtain the reconstructed mesh model, as suggested by Attene, in order to effectively generate a watertight mesh repairing internal artifacts and thereby ensuring system effectiveness and user experience.
Claim 14 recites limitations similar in scope with limitations of claim 5 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see attached 892).
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 SULTANA MARCIA ZALALEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kent Chang can be reached at (571)272-7667. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Sultana M Zalalee/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2614