DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. The amendment filed March 2, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments filed March 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
4. Applicant argues that Surazhsky (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0247458 A1) and Lambert et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0165025 A1) fail to teach the amended claim 1, 12, and 17 limitation: “wherein the data associated with the mesh includes a non-zero non-integer subdivision level representing a fractional level of subdivision, the partially subdivided mesh being generated by blending between subdivision levels.”
Examiner replies that Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 12, and 17 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.
5. Conclusion: The rejections set in the previous Office Action are shown to have been proper, and the claims are rejected below. New citations and parenthetical remarks can be considered new grounds of rejection and such new grounds of rejection are necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Therefore, the present Office Action is made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
8. Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Surazhsky (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0247458 A1) in view of Liktor et al. (“Fractional Reyes-Style Adaptive Tessellation for Continuous Level of Detail”), hereinafter referred to as Liktor.
9. Regarding claim 1, Surazhsky teaches a computer-implemented method comprising: determining, by a computing system (Surazhsky Paragraph 60 teaches the invention is implemented as instructions executed by a computer on any operating system. Computers contain a processor and memory), data associated with a mesh of a three-dimensional object; generating, by the computing system, a partially subdivided mesh based on the mesh and the data (Paragraphs 13-14 teach subdividing a base mesh and determining whether or not to subdivide a face. Thus, the subdivision can be considered a partial subdivision of the mesh; Paragraphs 18-20 teach subdividing the mesh depending on characteristics of the faces in the mesh. The characteristics of the faces is the data associated with a mesh of a three-dimensional object. Thus, some faces will be subdivided and some not leading to a partially subdivided mesh based on the mesh and the data; Paragraph 75-77 and Figures 13a-13c teach subdividing the mesh of a three-dimensional object),
However, Surazhsky is not relied upon for the below claim language: wherein the data associated with the mesh includes a non-zero non-integer subdivision level representing a fractional level of subdivision, the partially subdivided mesh being generated by blending between subdivision levels.
Liktor teaches wherein the data associated with the mesh includes a non-zero non-integer subdivision level representing a fractional level of subdivision, the partially subdivided mesh being generated by blending between subdivision levels (Figure 1 teaches “fractional tessellation allows smooth transition between integer levels.” This teaches generating the fractional subdivision by blending between subdivision levels. An example of a 3.5 fractional subdivision is shown in the figure; Section 2.2 teaches “fractional tessellation factors to seamlessly morph between subsequent integer resolutions.” This teaches one can subdivide a mesh with a fractional level of subdivision and is generated by blending between subdivision levels).
Surazhsky and Liktor are considered analogous to the claimed invention as because both are in the same field of subdividing meshes. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of partial subdivision taught by Surazhsky with the fractional subdivision taught by Liktor in order to allow a continuous level of detail when rendering surfaces (Liktor Abstract and Section 3 Paragraph 2);
10. Regarding claim 2, Surazhsky in view of Liktor teaches the limitations of claim 1. Surazhsky further teaches the computer-implemented method further comprising: causing, by the computing system, generation of a tessellation of the partially subdivided mesh (Paragraph 31 teaches tessellating the partially subdivided surfaces; Paragraph 100 and Figure 3 step 350 teach tessellating the partially subdivided mesh).
11. Regarding claim 3, Surazhsky in view of Liktor teaches the limitations of claim 1. Surazhsky further teaches the computer-implemented method wherein generating the partially subdivided mesh comprises: generating, by the computing system, subdivided face vertices based on faces of the mesh tagged for subdivision (Paragraph 22 teaches storing the vertices of the sub-faces from the subdivision. The vertices of the sub-faces are subdivided face vertices under broadest reasonable interpretation; Paragraph 36 teaches calculating a face control point which can also be considered a subdivided face vertex under broadest reasonable interpretation);
generating, by the computing system, subdivided edge vertices based on edges of the mesh tagged for subdivision and the subdivided face vertices (Paragraph 37 teaches edge control points for the current level of subdivision. These can be considered the subdivided edge vertices that are based off the edges which belong to a face for subdivision under broadest reasonable interpretation. The vertices on the face can be considered the subdivided face vertices);
and generating, by the computing system, subdivided vertices based on vertices of the mesh tagged for subdivision, the subdivided edge vertices, and the subdivided face vertices (Paragraph 22 teaches storing all the vertices of the sub-faces from the subdivision. All the vertices can be considered the subdivided vertices based on the vertices for the subdivided face; Paragraphs 36-37 teach subdivided face and edge vertices. These can also be considered the subdivided vertices which are based on the subdivided face and edge vertices).
12. Regarding claim 4, Surazhsky in view of Liktor teaches the limitations of claim 3. Surazhsky further teaches the computer-implemented method wherein generating the subdivided edge vertices is based on smoothing rules, and wherein the smoothing rules are based on at least one of: an edge creasing weight of an edge to be subdivided and a number of incident faces to be subdivided (Paragraph 103 teaches the subdivision process defines a smooth limit surface. Thus, the subdivision process details can be considered the smoothing rules; Paragraph 96 teaches part of the subdivision process includes knowing the edge and vertex information for subdivision. This includes knowing whether the edge is sharp, semi-sharp, or boundary. These can be considered the edge creasing weights and the smoothing rules or subdivision process is based on this. The applicant does not define what a smoothing rule is so the edge creasing weight affecting the subdivision can be considered to teach the smoothing rule. Only one limitation needs to be taught because of “at least one of”).
13. Regarding claim 5, Surazhsky in view of Liktor teaches the limitations of claim 3. Surazhsky further teaches the computer-implemented method wherein generating the subdivided vertices is based on smoothing rules, and wherein the smoothing rules are based on at least one of: a number of incident edges to be subdivided, a number of incident faces to be subdivided, an edge creasing weight of an incident edge to be subdivided, and an average crease weight of incident edges to be subdivided (Paragraph 101 teaches the subdivision rules include taking into account the valence of the vertex. The valence of the vertex equals the number of edges incident to the vertex. Thus, the smoothing rules are based on the number of incident edges to be subdivided; Paragraphs 116-121 also teach obtaining the vertex valence for subdivision).
14. Regarding claim 6, Surazhsky in view of Liktor teaches the limitations of claim 2. Surazhsky further teaches the computer-implemented method wherein causing generation of the tessellation is based on predefined tessellation rules associated with predefined cases of face configurations (Paragraph 135 teach there is a defined tessellation strategy that creates a mesh with no T-junctions and no gaps between faces. This can be considered the predefined tessellation rules and face configurations).
15. Regarding claim 7, Surazhsky in view of Liktor teaches the limitations of claim 2. Surazhsky further teaches the computer-implemented method wherein causing generation of the tessellation is based on at least one of: a base case of a face that has one or two vertices, a base case of a face that has three face vertices, and a base case of a face that has more than three face vertices and no subdivided edge vertices (Paragraph 139 teaches adding two vertices to the face to generate the tessellation. Therefore, Surazhsky teaches the base case where a face has one or two vertices).
16. Regarding claim 8, Surazhsky in view of Liktor teaches the limitations of claim 2. Surazhsky further teaches the computer-implemented method wherein causing generation of the tessellation comprises:
identifying, by the computing system, a face vertex for a face to be subdivided that is a subdivided edge vertex for the face; and generating, by the computing system, a subdivided face based on the subdivided edge vertex (Paragraph 140 teaches a subdivided edge vertex d1 for a face to be subdivided as seen in Figure 8. Based on this vertex, then in Figure 10 the face is subdivided in a way to avoid the T-junction caused by this vertex).
17. Regarding claim 10, Surazhsky in view of Liktor teaches the limitations of claim 2. Surazhsky further teaches the computer-implemented method wherein the tessellation of the partially subdivided mesh is rendered in real-time (Paragraph 149 teaches the rendered tessellates the subdivided surface and renders the surface for display. Thus, the tessellation is rendered in real-time).
18. Regarding claim 11, Surazhsky in view of Liktor teaches the limitations of claim 1. Surazhsky further teaches the computer-implemented method wherein the data further includes at least one of: a zero level associated with a polygonal face, edge, or vertex, or a non-zero integer level associated with a level of subdivision. (Paragraph 84-85 teaches there is a subdivision level k from 0 to a maximum integer. Thus, Surazhsky teaches that there is a non-zero integer level associated with a level of subdivision. Only one of the requirements need to be met as the claim recites “at least one of”.).
19. Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is the system claim (Surazhsky Paragraph 60 teaches the invention is implemented as instructions executed by a computer on any operating system. Computers contain a processor and memory) of computer-implemented method claim 1 and is accordingly rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that which is set for with respect to claim 1.
20. Regarding claim 13, the claim is similar in scope to claim 2. Therefore, similar rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 2 applies herein.
21. Regarding claim 14, the claim is similar in scope to claim 3. Therefore, similar rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 3 applies herein.
22. Regarding claim 15, the claim is similar in scope to claim 4. Therefore, similar rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 4 applies herein.
23. Regarding claim 16, the claim is similar in scope to claim 5. Therefore, similar rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 5 applies herein.
24. Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim (Surazhsky Paragraph 60 teaches the invention is implemented as instructions executed by a computer on any operating system. Computers contain a processor and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium) of computer-implemented method claim 1 and is accordingly rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that which is set for with respect to claim 1.
25. Regarding claim 18, the claim is similar in scope to claim 2. Therefore, similar rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 2 applies herein.
26. Regarding claim 19, the claim is similar in scope to claim 3. Therefore, similar rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 3 applies herein.
27. Regarding claim 20, the claim is similar in scope to claim 4. Therefore, similar rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 4 applies herein.
28. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Surazhsky (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0247458 A1) in view of Liktor et al. (“Fractional Reyes-Style Adaptive Tessellation for Continuous Level of Detail”), hereinafter referred to as Liktor, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lambert et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0165025 A1), hereinafter referred to as Lambert.
Regarding claim 9, Surazhsky in view of Liktor teaches the limitations of claim 1. However, Surazhsky fails to teach the computer-implemented method wherein the data associated with the mesh are based on a machine learning model, and wherein the machine learning model is trained to determine the data based on animation training data and parameters associated with faces, edges, and vertices of the mesh.
Lambert teaches the computer-implemented method wherein the data associated with the mesh are based on a machine learning model, and wherein the machine learning model is trained to determine the data based on animation training data and parameters associated with faces, edges, and vertices of the mesh (Paragraph 64 teaches a machine learning based tool can be used to identify specific regions, edges, or objects in a displacement map and identify discontinuity lines. The identified regions can then be selected for the sharp tessellation system which uses subdivision. Thus, the machine learning model is trained to determine data and parameters associated with the faces or regions, edges, and vertices associated with those edges and faces; Paragraph 1 teaches the computer graphic techniques are used for animation development or animated films. This allows the machine learning model taught in Paragraph 64 to be trained to determine data based on 3D objects from an animation. Thus, the machine learning model determines data based on animation training data; Paragraph 117-120 teaches using the identified discontinuity lines for subdivision. Thus, the data associated with the mesh for subdivision is based on a machine learning model).
Surazhsky, Liktor, and Lambert are considered analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of subdividing meshes. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of partial subdivision taught by Surazhsky in view of Liktor with using a machine learning model for the data taught by Lambert in order to efficiently render a 3D object and accurately depict sharp surface features (Lambert Paragraph 8).
Conclusion
29. 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.
30. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE Y AHN whose telephone number is (571)272-0672. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alicia Harrington can be reached at (571)272-2330. 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.
/CHRISTINE YERA AHN/Examiner, Art Unit 2615
/ALICIA M HARRINGTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2615