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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed July 15th 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims 1, 11, and 20 have overcome the rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed May 7th 2026. A further search has been performed to address the material amended in the aforementioned claims. Newly found references InstaLOD (Removing Hidden Geometry with Occlusion Culling - Part 1: Settings Overview) in view of Stack Overflow (NPL: Different between rotating the camera vs rotating the scene point (only the point, not the entire scene)?), and InstaLOD (NPL: Removing Hidden Geometry with Occlusion Culling - Part 2: Automatic Interior) were used for the newly amended claim limitations.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner thanks the Applicant for the clarifications provided during the interview on June 22nd 2026.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 5, 10, 11, 15, and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 11, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over InstaLOD (Removing Hidden Geometry with Occlusion Culling - Part 1: Settings Overview; hereinafter InstaLOD Pt. 1) in view of Stack Overflow (NPL: Different between rotating the camera vs rotating the scene point (only the point, not the entire scene)?), InstaLOD (NPL: Removing Hidden Geometry with Occlusion Culling - Part 2: Automatic Interior, hereinafter InstaLOD Pt. 2), and Moon (US 20170319308 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
InstaLOD Pt. 1 teaches:
A model processing method, comprising:
obtaining model information of a three-dimensional model of a virtual object and one or more view angles corresponding to views of the three-dimensional model (InstaLOD Pt. 1: The mode option allows users to toggle between how occlusion culling is applied in the scene. Automatic Interior looks at the scene from the outside, see Note 1A);
determining one or more visible model regions corresponding to each of the one or more view angles of the three-dimensional model based on the model information, a visible model region of the one or more visible model regions corresponding to a kth view angle of the one or more view angles (InstaLOD Pt. 1: Using the culling strategy we can decide what InstaLOD should look at; see Note 1C) being determined based on a rotated three-dimensional model corresponding to a predefined view angle, the rotated three-dimensional model being obtained by
(i) rotating the three-dimensional model of the virtual object by a first angle in a first direction (see Note 1B) and
(ii) rotating the three-dimensional model of the virtual object by a second angle in a second direction according to the model information (see Note 1B);
Note 1A: At 0:53, InstaLOD Pt. 1 showcases an example of the Automatic Interior mode, which depicts 12 cameras rotated around a three-dimensional model of a virtual object, where each camera “looks at the scene from the outside” as described by InstaLOD Pt. 1 (reproduced below). Therefore, the Examiner interprets each camera to correspond to a view of the three-dimensional model.
PNG
media_image1.png
754
1341
media_image1.png
Greyscale
InstaLOD Pt. 1 showcases the Automatic Interior method at 0:53.
Note 1B: Because the Automatic Interior method depicted by InstaLOD Pt. 1 (as shown above) showcases a sphere with lines depicting rotations in at least two directions around the model that is aligned with the plurality of cameras, the Examiner submits that it would be obvious to rotate the camera viewing the virtual object by a first angle in a first direction and rotate the camera viewing the virtual object by a second angle in a second direction according to the model information in order to determine camera views of the 3D model.
The Examiner submits that rotating the camera while the three-dimensional model is kept stationary is analogous to rotating the three-dimensional model while the camera is kept stationary, because both operations result in the same viewpoint of the camera used for reconstructing the three-dimensional model. The Examiner analogizes this situation to a Reversal of Parts (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(A): “In reGazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) (Prior art disclosed a clock fixed to the stationary steering wheel column of an automobile while the gear for winding the clock moves with steering wheel; mere reversal of such movement, so the clock moves with wheel, was held to be an obvious modification.)”.
MPEP 2144.04 states: “As discussed in MPEP § 2144, an examiner may utilize legal precedent as a source of supporting rationale when warranted and appropriately supported. In formulating any rejection invoking legal precedent, the examiner must take care to ensure that the rationale is explained and shown to apply to the facts at hand.” In support of the reversal of parts rationale, the Examiner also found prior art reference Stack Overflow, which teaches: “I think rotating the camera and taking the photo of a scene would yield the same result with keeping the camera stable and rotating the scene in reverse way” (Pg. 1, par. 1) and that “mathematically they are both almost the same (except inversion of all operations)” (Pg. 2, par. 5), (emphasis added).
Before the effective filing date, it would be obvious to combine the teachings of Stack Overflow with InstaLOD Pt. 1 because either rotating one or more cameras or one or more objects may be faster based on the amount of objects and cameras: “physically rotating camera means changing single matrix but to rotate scene you have to rotate all the objects in your world (can be thousands and more) which is a lot slower” (Stack Overflow, Pg. 2, par. 1).
Note 1C: InstaLOD Pt. 1 showcases that each camera may determine a visible region for occlusion culling at 1:15, and that “The resolution works similar to a ray tracer. For every pixel it shoots out a ray. If that ray hits a polygon. If that ray hits a polygon, that polygon is considered visible.” (1:43 - 1:53).
PNG
media_image2.png
590
1042
media_image2.png
Greyscale
InstaLOD Pt. 1 showcases a camera viewing a region of a model at 1:16.
PNG
media_image3.png
599
1054
media_image3.png
Greyscale
InstaLOD Pt. 1 showcases a camera acting as a raytracer to determine visible polygons at 1:53.
InstaLOD Pt. 1 in view of Stack Overflow fails to explicitly teach:
(i) rotating the three-dimensional model of the virtual object by a first angle in an x-axis direction and
(ii) rotating the three-dimensional model of the virtual object by a second angle in a y-axis direction according to the model information;
determining a combined visible model region corresponding to the three-dimensional model based on the one or more visible model regions corresponding to the one or more view angles; and
generating a processed three-dimensional model based on the combined visible model region corresponding to the three-dimensional model, wherein the processed three- dimensional model does not include a non-visible region of the three-dimensional model that is outside of the combined visible model region corresponding to the three- dimensional model.
InstaLOD Pt. 2 teaches:
determining a combined visible model region corresponding to the three-dimensional model based on the one or more visible model regions corresponding to the one or more view angles (see Note 1D); and
generating a processed three-dimensional model based on the combined visible model region corresponding to the three-dimensional model, wherein the processed three- dimensional model does not include a non-visible region of the three-dimensional model that is outside of the combined visible model region corresponding to the three- dimensional model (InstaLOD Pt. 2: In the resulting scene, we can see how the hidden polygons of the blue sphere have now all been removed, 1:23 - 1:27; see also Note 1E and Note 1D).
Note 1D: At 3:32, InstaLOD Pt. 2 teaches: “First off, I have this motor, with loads of internal parts, screws, gears, and so on. To remove the interior, I’m going to select “By Polygon”, set the resolution to 512, keep the adjacency depth on 0, and click start” (3:25 - 3:40).
It was previously shown that:
In By Polygon mode, a single camera determines only the polygons it can view to be visible, as shown in Note 1C.
The Automatic Interior strategy utilizes multiple cameras positioned around the model to perform occlusion culling (i.e., polygons that are occluded, or not visible, are culled or removed), as shown in Note 1A.
InstaLOD Pt. 2 shows that even though a model may include multiple triangle meshes (more details in Note 5A below), the Automatic Interior strategy preserves the outward appearance of the model when removing the non-visible regions. Therefore, when the teachings of InstaLOD Pt. 2 are combined with InstaLOD Pt. 1 in view of Stack Overflow, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the Automatic Interior strategy taught by InstaLOD Pt. 1 generates a combined model based on the visible regions determined by each camera placed around the mesh.
PNG
media_image4.png
400
711
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
401
707
media_image5.png
Greyscale
InstaLOD Pt. 2 showcases the motor before removing interior geometry at 3:25 (left) and the interior of the motor at 3:28 (right).
PNG
media_image6.png
401
708
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
401
711
media_image7.png
Greyscale
After performing occlusion culling, InstaLOD Pt. 2 showcases the motor at 3:42 (left), and the interior of the motor with the non-visible region not present at 3:52 (right).
Note 1E: InstaLOD Pt. 2 teaches: “I have a simple scene composed of two spheres, of which one is within the other. The outer sphere has a hole in it, exposing some of the polygons of the blue sphere.” (0:31 - 0:42).
PNG
media_image8.png
797
1167
media_image8.png
Greyscale
At 0:40, InstaLOD showcases both spheres with complete geometry in the user interface prior to occlusion culling.
InstaLOD Pt. 2 further teaches: “for the first scenario, I want to remove all of the polygons from the blue sphere that we can’t see”, (InstaLOD Pt. 2, 0:43 – 0:45). After clicking “Start” at 1:20, InstaLOD showcases that the non-visible region has been removed from the 3D model at 1:25.
PNG
media_image9.png
670
941
media_image9.png
Greyscale
InstaLOD Pt. 1 showcases the orientation of the blue sphere within the outer sphere when clicking Start at 1:20.
PNG
media_image10.png
822
1102
media_image10.png
Greyscale
InstaLOD Pt. 1 showcases how the blue sphere was modified within generated model after occlusion culling at 1:25.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to combine the teachings of InstaLOD Pt. 2 with InstaLOD Pt. 1 because the prior art references are two parts of the same video series and because InstaLOD Pt. 1 teaches that the Automatic Interior method is described more in detail in InstaLOD Pt. 2: “We’re going to look at these two modes in more detail in other parts of this video series” (1:00 – 1:04).
PNG
media_image11.png
627
1108
media_image11.png
Greyscale
InstaLOD Pt. 1 shows that Automatic Interior (right) and Camera Based (left) modes will be discussed in other parts of the video series at 1:03.
InstaLOD Pt. 1 in view of Stack Overflow and InstaLOD Pt. 2 still fails to teach:
(i) rotating the three-dimensional model of the virtual object by a first angle in an x-axis direction and
(ii) rotating the three-dimensional model of the virtual object by a second angle in a y-axis direction according to the model information;
Moon teaches:
(i) rotating the three-dimensional model by a first angle in an x-axis direction and
(ii) rotating the three-dimensional model by a second angle in a y-axis direction according to the model information (Moon: the dental model 1200 is mounted to the disc of the rotating unit 420, the disc is moved in the rotation direction, the x-axis direction, and the y-axis direction, [0039]; see Note 1F);
Note 1F: When the teachings of Moon are combined with the teachings of InstaLOD Pt. 1, Stack Overflow, and InstaLOD Pt. 2, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the rotations around the x and y axes to the three-dimensional model of the virtual object(s) shown in the InstaLOD references.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Moon with InstaLOD Pt. 1, Stack Overflow, and InstaLOD Pt. 2. Capturing images of the model by rotating the model on an x-axis and y-axis, as in Moon, would benefit the InstaLOD Pt. 1, Stack Overflow, and InstaLOD Pt. 2 teachings by ensuring that the view angles capture the each portion of the model: “the disc is moved in the rotation direction, the x-axis direction, and the y-axis direction, along with the dental model 1200, whereby the optical three-dimensional measurement unit 110 is capable of measuring the all parts of the dental model 1200.” (Moon, [0039]).
Regarding claim 5:
InstaLOD Pt. 1 in view of Stack Overflow, InstaLOD Pt. 2, and Moon teaches:
The method according to claim 1 (as shown above), wherein the determining the combined visible model region corresponding to the three-dimensional model comprises:
determining, when the one or more view angles include one view angle, a visible model region corresponding to the view angle as the visible model region corresponding to the three-dimensional model (InstaLOD Pt. 1: The resolution works similar to a ray tracer. For every pixel it shoots out a ray. If that ray hits a polygon. If that ray hits a polygon, that polygon is considered visible. (1:43 - 1:53); see Note 1C);
obtaining, when the one or more view angles include at least two view angles, a visible region that corresponds to each view angle and that is of an ith triangle mesh in the three-dimensional model, i being 1, 2, ..., or N, N being an integer greater than 1, and N being a total number of triangle meshes in the three-dimensional model (see Note 1D and Note 5A);
merging visible regions that correspond to the at least two view angles and that are of the ith triangle mesh in the three-dimensional model to obtain a merged visible region corresponding to the ith triangle mesh (see Note 1D and Note 5B); and
determining merged visible regions corresponding to a first triangle mesh to an Nth triangle mesh as the combined visible model region corresponding to the three-dimensional model (see Note 1D and Note 5B).
Note 5A: In Note 1D, it was shown that the Automatic Interior method determines a view angle for each camera viewing the three-dimensional model. At 3:37, InstaLOD showcases that any model may be made up of one or more triangle mesh objects (“i_Object_61129”, “i_Object_63025”, “i_Object_63026”, etc.). Indeed, InstaLOD Pt. 2 showcases that each triangle mesh may be selected and hidden at 3:25 - 3:27 and 3:45 - 3:48. Therefore, in performing occlusion culling on the motor mesh, each camera corresponding to a view angle would determine a visible region for each triangle mesh that is visible.
PNG
media_image12.png
398
765
media_image12.png
Greyscale
InstaLOD Pt. 2 showcases multiple objects defining the motor under the Outliner region of the user interface at 3:37.
Note 5B: At 3:43, the topology of the motor is shown, where the motor is made up of triangle primitives, indicating the motor includes at least one triangle mesh. Additionally, At 3:25 – 3:27, InstaLOD Pt. 2 showcases that individual triangle meshes may be hidden, indicating that the motor includes a plurality of triangle meshes.
From 3:45 – 3:48, InstaLOD Pt. 2 showcases that even after applying occlusion culling, the same triangle meshes may be selected and hidden individually, indicating that the Automatic Interior method may determine visible regions for each triangle mesh and generates the updated model based on the visible regions from each triangle mesh.
PNG
media_image13.png
560
994
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Topology of the motor as shown at 3:43, including multiple triangle primitives.
PNG
media_image14.png
389
687
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
392
692
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Selecting and hiding triangle meshes of the motor before occlusion culling at 3:25 – 3:27.
PNG
media_image16.png
385
675
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
388
682
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Selecting and hiding triangle meshes of the motor after occlusion culling at 3:45 – 3:48.
Regarding claim 11:
Claim 11 is substantially similar to claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons. Claim 11 contains the following notable differences:
Claim 11 claims an apparatus instead of a method. Moon teaches a apparatus comprising processing circuitry: (Moon: scanning apparatus according to the embodiment of the present invention [that] includes an optical three-dimensional measurement unit 110, a data processor 120, [0025])
Regarding claim 15:
Claim 15 is substantially similar to claim 5, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons. Claim 15 contains the following notable differences:
Claim 15 claims an apparatus instead of a method. In the rejection of claim 11, it was shown that Moon teaches a apparatus.
Regarding claim 20:
Claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons. Claim 20 contains the following notable differences:
Claim 20 claims a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium instead of a method. Moon teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium:
Moon teaches: “the data transmission unit 130 is configured to receive the three-dimensional tooth data from the data processor 120, and transmit the received three-dimensional tooth data to a personal computer, or the like” [0028]. A computer that can receive transmitted data inherently includes a memory, or non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over InstaLOD (Removing Hidden Geometry with Occlusion Culling - Part 1: Settings Overview; hereinafter InstaLOD Pt. 1) in view of Stack Overflow (NPL: Different between rotating the camera vs rotating the scene point (only the point, not the entire scene)?), InstaLOD (NPL: Removing Hidden Geometry with Occlusion Culling - Part 2: Automatic Interior, hereinafter InstaLOD Pt. 2), Moon (US 20170319308 A1) and Cheng (CN 108765549 A).
InstaLOD Pt. 1 in view of Stack Overflow and InstaLOD Pt. 2 in view of Moon teaches:
The method according to claim 1 (as shown above),
InstaLOD Pt. 1 in view of Stack Overflow and InstaLOD Pt. 2 in view of Moon fails to teach:
wherein the processed three-dimensional model is a training model for training a neural network.
Cheng teaches:
wherein the processed three-dimensional model is a training model for training a neural network (Cheng: using the three-dimensional model and its corresponding image composed of the training data set to train the three dimensional image rendering model, Pg. 3, par. 5).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Cheng with InstaLOD Pt. 1 in view of Stack Overflow and InstaLOD Pt. 2 in view of Moon. Using the processed three-dimensional model as a training model for training a neural network, as in Cheng, would benefit the InstaLOD Pt. 1 in view of Stack Overflow and InstaLOD Pt. 2 in view of Moon teachings by enabling a neural network to learn the shape of the model and render it accurately from arbitrary angles: “based on multi-angle images or video splicing not only cannot display the product in the continuous change of the viewpoint, but also needs a special photographing apparatus. three-dimensional display special purpose device convenience and cost and other factors such that it is not suitable for a lot of small and medium or small micro enterprise; on the other hand, of the product will display the user sees the image discontinuous and jitter caused by if not using the special shooting device” (Cheng, Pg. 2, par. 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, and 19 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2:
InstaLOD Pt. 1 in view of Stack Overflow, InstaLOD Pt. 2, and Moon teaches:
The method according to claim 1 (as shown above), wherein the determining the one or more visible model regions corresponding to each of the one or more view angles comprises:
InstaLOD Pt. 1 in view of Stack Overflow, InstaLOD Pt. 2, and Moon fails to explicitly teach:
determining the first angle and the second angle corresponding to the kth view angle, k being a positive integer greater than or equal to 1;
rotating, based on the model information, the three-dimensional model counterclockwise by the first angle in the x-axis direction, and then rotating the three-dimensional model counterclockwise by the second angle in the y-axis direction, to obtain the rotated three-dimensional model corresponding to a bottom view angle;
determining, based on the rotated three-dimensional model, a three-dimensional lowest envelope of the three-dimensional model at a first view angle and a two-dimensional projection of the three-dimensional lowest envelope, the two-dimensional projection comprising at least one projection face;
determining a visible region corresponding to each projection face, and determining, based on the visible region corresponding to each projection face, a visible region comprised in each triangle mesh in the three-dimensional lowest envelope; and
rotating the visible region corresponding to each triangle mesh clockwise by the second angle in the y-axis direction, and then rotating the visible region corresponding to each triangle mesh clockwise by the first angle in the x-axis direction, to obtain the visible model region corresponding to the kth view angle of the three-dimensional model.
Xi (US 20210118158 A1) teaches:
determining a first angle corresponding to a kth view angle, k being a positive integer greater than or equal to 1 (Xi: rotating the three-dimensional model of the face by a first angle [0006]);
rotating, based on the model information (Xi: rotating the three-dimensional model of the face by a first angle [0006]), the three-dimensional model counterclockwise by the first angle in an x-axis direction, and then
Castillo (WO 2021155246 A1) teaches:
determining a first angle and a second angle corresponding to a kth view angle, k being a positive integer greater than or equal to 1 (Castillo: the computer-implemented method can include capturing a first 2D image of a physical structure from a first pose. […] The computer-implemented method can include capturing a second 2D image depicting the physical structure from a second pose [0010]);
determining, based on the rotated three-dimensional model, a three-dimensional lowest envelope of the three-dimensional model at a first view angle (Castillo: FIG. 18D illustrates such an envelope bounding box, depicted as a quadrilateral, though other shapes and sizes are possible [0128]) and a two-dimensional projection of the three-dimensional lowest envelope (Castillo: In some implementations, the bounding box is projected after a target location function is performed to identify the location of the subject in the display [0107]), the two-dimensional projection comprising at least one projection face;
Sirakov (NPL: A Fast Approach for Determining of Visibility of 3D Object's Surfaces) teaches:
rotating, based on the model information, the three-dimensional model counterclockwise by the first angle (Sirakov: Let us rotate the polygon in positive direction (anticlockwise) by angle Φ, PG. 4, Section 3: Rotation Problem of Plane Figures) in an x-axis direction (see Note 2A), and then rotating the three-dimensional model counterclockwise by the first angle in a y-axis direction (see Note 2A), to obtain a rotated three-dimensional model;
Note 2A: Sirakov teaches: “In order to find the first point of the description of a rotated polygon we apply the formulas (2) over the first point of the regularities: x' = x.cos(Φ); y =y.sin(Φ),” (Pg. 5, par. 4). X’ = x*cos(Φ) and Y’ = y*sin(Φ) are well known formulas in the art for rotating a coordinate by the angle Φ. It follows that Sirakov teaches “rotating, based on the model information, the three-dimensional model counterclockwise by the first angle in an x-axis direction and then rotating the three-dimensional model counterclockwise by the first angle in a y-axis direction”.
However, Castillo, Xi, and Sirakov still fail to teach:
rotating, based on the model information, the three-dimensional model counterclockwise by the first angle and then rotating the three-dimensional model counterclockwise by the second angle in a y-axis direction, to obtain a rotated three-dimensional model corresponding to a bottom view angle;
determining, based on the rotated three-dimensional model, a two-dimensional lowest envelope of the three-dimensional model at a first view angle and a two-dimensional projection of the three-dimensional lowest envelope, the two-dimensional projection comprising at least one projection face;
determining a visible region corresponding to each projection face, and determining, based on the visible region corresponding to each projection face, a visible region included in each triangle mesh in the three-dimensional lowest envelope; and
rotating the visible region corresponding to each triangle mesh clockwise by the second angle in the y-axis direction, and then rotating the visible region corresponding to each triangle mesh clockwise by the first angle in the x-axis direction, to obtain the visible model region corresponding to the kth view angle of the three-dimensional model.
Claim 12 is substantially similar to claim 2 and shares many of the same limitations. Therefore, none of the other prior art searched or on the record teaches, suggests, or renders obvious the limitations of Claims 2 and 12.
Claims 3, 4, 13, and 14 are dependent on one of claim 2 or 12, and therefore are allowable for the same reasons listed above.
Regarding claim 6:
InstaLOD Pt. 1 in view of Stack Overflow, InstaLOD Pt. 2 and Moon teaches:
The method according to claim 5 (as shown above), wherein the merging comprises:
InstaLOD Pt. 1 in view of Stack Overflow, InstaLOD Pt. 2 and Moon fails to teach:
transforming the visible regions that correspond to the at least two view angles and that are of the ith triangle mesh into two-dimensional space to obtain two-dimensional visible regions corresponding to the at least two view angles;
merging the two-dimensional visible regions corresponding to the at least two view angles to obtain a merged region corresponding to the ith triangle mesh; and
transforming the plurality of two-dimensional triangles into a three-dimensional space to obtain the merged visible region corresponding to the ith triangle mesh.
Hladky teaches:
transforming the visible regions that correspond to the at least two view angles and that are of the ith triangle mesh into two-dimensional space to obtain two-dimensional visible regions corresponding to the at least two view angles (Hladky: the 2D COS can be seen as an orthographic projection of triangles from a 3D space where the third dimension corresponds to depth [0056]);
merging the two-dimensional visible regions corresponding to the at least two view angles to obtain a merged region corresponding to the ith triangle mesh (Hladky: The creation of the PVS involves the combination of multiple 2D COS evaluations [0099]);
transforming the plurality of two-dimensional triangles into a three-dimensional space to obtain the merged visible region corresponding to the ith triangle mesh (Hladky: The structure shows […] extending the 2D COS to 3D, the triangle/tetrahedron is embedded on a flat hyperplane in the respective space [0056]).
InstaLOD Pt. 1 in view of Stack Overflow, InstaLOD Pt. 2, Moon, and Hladky still fails to teach:
performing triangle dissection on the merged region corresponding to the ith triangle mesh to obtain a plurality of two-dimensional triangles; and
Wonka teaches:
performing triangle dissection on the environment corresponding to the ith triangle mesh to obtain a plurality of two-dimensional triangles (Wonka: For our system we chose to use a constrained Delaunay triangulation of free space. The actual view cells are found by erecting a prism above each triangle of the triangulation, Pg. 8, Section 3.1: Subdivision into View Cells); and
However, Wonka does not appear to implicitly or explicitly teach triangle dissection on the merged region as claimed, because Wonka teaches a “constrained Delaunay triangulation of free space” (Pg. 8, Section 3.1: Subdivision into View Cells) but does so before merging the PVS: “Calculate view cell visibility (merge PVS or intersect umbra volumes of sample points)” (Pg. 7, Section 2.3: Algorithm Overview).
Claim 16 is substantially similar to claim 6 and shares many of the same limitations. Therefore, none of the other prior art searched or on the record teaches, suggests, or renders obvious the limitations of Claims 6 and 16.
Claims 7, 8, 9, 17, 18, and 19 are dependent on one of claim 6 or 16, and therefore are allowable for the same reasons listed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT ALEXANDER PROVIDENCE whose telephone number is (571)270-5765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-5:00.
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.
/VINCENT ALEXANDER PROVIDENCE/Examiner, Art Unit 2617 /KING Y POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2617
Prosecution Insights