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 Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed January 16, 2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach “3D objects of interest include an adjustable feature for user customization, where (i) two or more intermediate 3D objects are presented to the user, each corresponding to different variations for the adjustable feature of the one of the multiple 3D objects of interest and (ii) a user-selected one of the presented intermediate 3D objects is set as at least part of an avatar for a user.” Zhu teaches the claimed “3D objects of interest include an adjustable feature for user customization” in his “2 Clothing design based on genetic engineering ideas” (e.g., When a user begins to design a personalized suit style, he or she is actually doing a recombination of different suit style DNA. After the style, fabric and accessories are selected, a custom process of a personalized suit has been completed); furthermore, “where (i) two or more intermediate 3D objects are presented to the user, each corresponding to different variations for the adjustable feature of the one of the multiple 3D objects of interest” (Zhu, 4.2 The flow of clothing interaction design and virtual display - Clothing display interactive platform includes the functions such as user 3D face scanning and 3D head generation, clothing style design via selecting different style element, personal choices on fabric, button, color of sewing thread, etc., and dynamic display of the clothing model with rotation, scaling and translation operations. The user can examine the final effect of the clothing from any angle and in detail, and make changes accordingly until satisfied) (Note: Zhu’s dynamic display of the clothing models with different style elements on clothing display interactive platform during the design shows the claimed “two or more intermediate 3D objects are presented to the user”); and “(ii) a user-selected one of the presented intermediate 3D objects is set as at least part of an avatar for a user” (Zhu, 4.2 The flow of clothing interaction design and virtual display - The user can examine the final effect of the clothing from any angle and in detail, and make changes accordingly until satisfied). Furthermore, based on Turk’s Shape transformation sequence showing the initial shape, the intermediate shapes, and the target shape (e.g., figure 6), it would have been obvious to configure Zhu’s Cloth Design to show a sequence of the transforming cloths at each adjustable style selection (i.e., an initial suit, intermediate suits, and a final selected-style suit) in which the user can select from among the variations, which could be represented side-by-side. Accordingly, the claimed invention as represented in the claims does not represent a patentable distinction over the art of record.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HADFIELD et al (Direct Linear Interpolation of Geometric Objects in Conformal Geometric Algebra) in view of ZHU et al (An interactive clothing design and personalized virtual display system), TURK et al (Shape Transformation Using Variational Implicit Functions), YOON et al (Placement retargeting of virtual avatars to dissimilar indoor environments), and SOLOMON et al (Convolutional Wasserstein Distances: Efficient Optimal Transportation on Geometric Domains).
As per claim 1, Hadfield teaches the claimed “method” comprising: “obtaining, using at least one processing device of an electronic device, an identification of multiple three-dimensional (3D) objects of interest, wherein one of the multiple 3D objects of interest includes an adjustable feature for user customization” (Hadfield, Figure 1 - a Circles, b point pairs, C planes, d spheres. The pure red and green objects here represent X1 and X2 and the intermediate colors show the interpolations between them during adjusting of value α); “generating, using the at least one processing device, multiple intermediate 3D objects based on the multiple 3D objects of interest using optimal transport, wherein the multiple intermediate 3D objects are generated using interpolation or extrapolation based on shapes of the multiple 3D objects of interest” (Hadfield, Figures 1-6 - The transformation of the original objects to the target objects, through several intermediate objects, using interpolation or extrapolation). It is noted that Hadfield does not teach, but Turk and Solomon teach “wherein two or more of the multiple intermediate 3D objects correspond to different variations for the adjustable feature of the one of the multiple 3D objects of interest” (Turk, Figure 6 - 3D shape transformation sequences; Solomon, Figure 7 - Shape interpolation in 3D). Furthermore, Zhu teaches “presenting, using the at least one processing device, the two one or more of the multiple intermediate 3D objects to a user for selection by the user; and in response to a user selection, setting a selected one of the two or more of the multiple intermediate 3D objects” (Zhu, 2 Clothing design based on genetic engineering ideas” (e.g., When a user begins to design a personalized suit style, he or she is actually doing a recombination of different suit style DNA. After the style, fabric and accessories are selected, a custom process of a personalized suit has been completed; 4.2 The flow of clothing interaction design and virtual display - The user can examine the final effect of the clothing from any angle and in detail, and make changes accordingly until satisfied) “as at least part of an avatar for the user” (Zhu, Figure 9 - The interface of interactive clothing design and display which shows a figure representing a particular person, or an avatar) (see also Yoon, Figure 1 – avatar with designed cloth).
Applicant’s arguments filed January 16, 2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Zhu teaches the claimed “3D objects of interest include an adjustable feature for user customization” in his “2 Clothing design based on genetic engineering ideas” (e.g., When a user begins to design a personalized suit style, he or she is actually doing a recombination of different suit style DNA. After the style, fabric and accessories are selected, a custom process of a personalized suit has been completed); furthermore, “where (i) two or more intermediate 3D objects are presented to the user, each corresponding to different variations for the adjustable feature of the one of the multiple 3D objects of interest” (Zhu, 4.2 The flow of clothing interaction design and virtual display - Clothing display interactive platform includes the functions such as user 3D face scanning and 3D head generation, clothing style design via selecting different style element, personal choices on fabric, button, color of sewing thread, etc., and dynamic display of the clothing model with rotation, scaling and translation operations. The user can examine the final effect of the clothing from any angle and in detail, and make changes accordingly until satisfied) (Note: Zhu’s dynamic display of the clothing models with different style elements on clothing display interactive platform during the design shows the claimed “two or more intermediate 3D objects are presented to the user”); and “(ii) a user-selected one of the presented intermediate 3D objects is set as at least part of an avatar for a user” (Zhu, 4.2 The flow of clothing interaction design and virtual display - The user can examine the final effect of the clothing from any angle and in detail, and make changes accordingly until satisfied). Furthermore, based on Turk’s Shape transformation sequence showing the initial shape, the intermediate shapes, and the target shape (e.g., figure 6), it would have been obvious to configure Zhu’s Cloth Design to show a sequence of the transforming cloths at each adjustable style selection (i.e., an initial suit, intermediate suits, and a final selected-style suit) in which the user can select from among the variations, which could be represented side-by-side. It would have been obvious, in view of Zhu, Solomon, and Turk, to configure Hadfield as claimed by showing a sequence of the transforming 3D cloths at each adjustable style selection. The motivation is to allow the user selecting a desired 3D object during the transformation of the 3D object from an initial form to a final form with different steps of adjusting.
Claim 2 adds into claim 1 “wherein the multiple 3D objects of interest comprise objects associated with the avatar” (Zhu, Figure 9 - The interface of interactive clothing design and display which shows a figure representing a particular person, or an avatar) (see also Yoon, 2.1 Placement of Telepresence Avatar - a method to select a suitable furniture object that an avatar should be located near by constructing the correspondence between objects in two spaces and adjusted the body pose to fit the different shapes of the object; 4.5 User Study in AR Environment - In the simple method, the avatar is placed simply to preserve the distance and angle between a user and an entity that is closest from the center of his/her visual field. If the corresponding avatar position is in collision with an object, its placement is modified to a nearby collision-free position found by random sampling). Thus, it would have been obvious, in view of Turk, Zhu, Solomon and Yoon, to configure Hadfield's method as claimed by creating an avatar associated with the 3D objects. The motivation is to provide an animation of an avatar associated with the 3D objects.
Claim 3 adds into claim 2 “wherein the objects associated with the avatar comprise clothes and accessories for the avatar” (Zhu, Figures 11-13 - The tests confirm that the scanned 3D faces show the facial features well. People could easily match the rending 3D face with the real person. After face scanning, customer can do the interactive clothing design and the results could be displayed instantly on the screen). Thus, it would have been obvious, in view of Turk, Zhu, Solomon and Yoon, to configure Hadfield's method as claimed by creating an avatar associated with clothes and accessories. The motivation is to provide an animation of an avatar associated with clothes and accessories.
Claim 4 adds into claim 2 “wherein the objects associated with the avatar comprise furniture to be displayed in association with the avatar” (Yoon, Abstract - we present novel methods to determine the avatar's position in an indoor space to preserve the semantics of the user's position in a dissimilar indoor space with different space configurations and furniture layouts). Thus, it would have been obvious, in view of Turk, Zhu, Solomon and Yoon, to configure Hadfield's method as claimed by creating an avatar associated with furniture. The motivation is to provide an animation of an avatar associated with furniture.
Claim 5 adds into claim 1 “wherein the optimal transport is performed by iteratively using gradient descent optimization on minimization of a Wasserstein distance for the multiple 3D objects of interest” which is well-known in the optimization solution which generalizes standard Euclidean gradient descent (i.e., to find local minima by taking steps proportional to the negative gradient) in the context of the well-known metric Wasserstein distance (see Solomon, 3.1 Optimal Transportation - The 2-Wasserstein distance satisfies all metric axioms and has several attractive properties; 6.3 Wasserstein Propagation - We represent a surface volumetrically using the normalized indicator function of its interior. We interpolate the resulting distributions using convolutional barycenters and extract the level set corresponding to the half the maximum probability value). Thus, it would have been obvious, in view of Turk, Zhu, Solomon and Yoon, to configure Hadfield's method as claimed by using the gradient descent optimization with Wasserstein metric. The motivation is to provide an animation of an avatar associated with furniture.
Claim 6 adds into claim 1 " identifying an initialization model for the optimal transport based on a source input object; wherein generating the multiple intermediate 3D objects comprises generating the multiple intermediate 3D objects based on the multiple 3D objects of interest and the initialization model" (Turk, Figure 6 - 3D shape transformation sequences; Solomon, Figure 7 - Shape interpolation in 3D). Thus, it would have been obvious, in view of Turk, to configure Hadfield's method as claimed by applying an optimal transport, wherein the intermediate 3D objects are generated using interpolation or extrapolation based on the 3D objects of interest and the initialization model. The motivation is to provide an entire sequence of shapes through interpolation or extrapolation based on the 3D objects of interest and the initialization model.
Claim 7 adds into claim 1 "receiving an intensity for the optimal transport; and generating a number of the multiple intermediate 3D objects based on the multiple 3D objects of interest and the intensity for the optimal transport" (Turk, 7 Influence Shapes - 3D slices of this function along the s-dimension between 0 and 1 are simply shape sequences between shapes A and B when the t-dimension value is fixed at zero. If, however, the t-dimension value is allowed to become positive as S varies from 0 to 1, then the intermediate shapes will take on some of the characteristics of shape C. It is noted that the characteristic of shape C contains the intensity); "generating a number of the multiple intermediate 3D objects based on the multiple 3D objects of interest and the intensity for the optimal transport" (Turk, Figure 8: Sequence between star and knot can be influenced by a torus (the influence shape) if the path passes near the torus in the five-dimensional Space; Solomon, Figure 7 - Shape interpolation in 3D; 6.3 Wasserstein Propagation - We represent a surface volumetrically using the normalized indicator function of its interior. We interpolate the resulting distributions using convolutional barycenters and extract the level set corresponding to the half the maximum probability value). Thus, it would have been obvious, in view of Turk and Solomon, to configure Hadfield's method as claimed by applying an optimal transport, wherein the intermediate 3D objects are generated using interpolation or extrapolation based on one or more of the 3D objects of interest and the intensity using the optimal transport. The motivation is to provide an entire sequence of shapes through interpolation or extrapolation based on one or more of the 3D objects of interest and the intensity using the optimal transport.
Claims 8-14 and 15-20 claim an electronic device and a non-transitory readable medium based on the methods of claims 1-7; therefore, they are rejected under a similar rationale.
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 PHU K NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7645. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5pm.
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, Daniel F. Hajnik can be reached at (571) 272-7642. 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.
/PHU K NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2616