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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/02/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/02/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
4. Acknowledgement is made of amendment filed on September 02, 2026, in which claims 1, 6, 14 and 20 are amended, and claims 1-20 are still pending.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments, filed on September 02, 2026, with respect to Claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
6. With regards to arguments for independent claims 1, 14 and 20, applicants argue that Sharp (US 2011/0227934 A1) and Kapoor et al. (US 2018/0329961 A1) fail to disclose receiving data associated with a rendered version of the three-dimensional model from the rendering server. The examiner respectfully agrees and moots in view of the new grounds of rejections regarding claims 1, 14 and 20, since in Frommhold et al. (US 2020/0327740 A1) teaches (“Providing the object information may include providing a three-dimensional model (e.g. high-polygon mesh, voxel-based model, etc.) comprising a geometry and a material for the object, as indicated at 406. For example, a computing device may provide a model for remote rendering via a scene graph API, as described in FIG. 3. … providing the object information may comprise providing the object information to a remote computing system (e.g. remote rendering system 110, 204), as indicated at 409. … method 400 comprises receiving, from the second local or remote process, a rendering of the object. In some examples, receiving the rendering of the object comprises receiving video data comprising a color buffer, as indicated at 412. Such video data may also comprise a representation of depth (e.g. a depth buffer or other depth data), as indicated as 414.” [0049-0050]) Frommhold teaches the object information includes a three-dimensional model comprising a geometry and a material for remote rendering and the rendering comprises receiving video data. Therefore, Frommhold teaches the arguments of the limitations for claims 1, 14 and 20 as it is recited.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Claim(s) 1, 11, 13, 14, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharp (US 2011/0227934 A1) in view of Frommhold et al. (US 2020/0327740 A1).
11. With reference to claim 1, Sharp teaches A method comprising: receiving input data associated with a user request from a user for a data set associated with a three-dimensional model to be rendered; (“volume rendering algorithms take an input signal defined on a three-dimensional domain and project it onto a two-dimensional image.” [0001] “Volume data such as 3-dimensional data sets or higher dimensional data sets are stored on a storage server 102. A non-exhaustive list of examples of multi-dimensional image data is: 3D medical image data, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data, computed tomography (CT) data, single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) data, positron emission tomography (PET) data, DTI tractography data and ultrasound scan data. Other non-medical applications, such as radar or microscopy can also generate multi-dimensional data.” [0019] “the volume data is loaded as a 3-dimensional texture to the selected GPU attached to the rendering server.” [0028] “Each time the user requests a different image the volume is re-rendered. Storing volumes in the GPU cache reduces the time taken to execute repeat instructions from the user. A request received by the calling thread 400 may contain many parameters.” [0038] “a calling thread receives 502 a request to render a volume (in this example volume 2). The calling thread then determines 406 which GPU is loaded with volume 2. A request is added 408 to the found GPU's device thread (in this example GPU B).” [0040] “The computing-based device 700 comprises one or more inputs 718 which are of any suitable type for receiving media content, Internet Protocol (IP) input, FTP input, TCP/IP input, HTTP input or any other appropriate input and including three or higher dimensional volume data.” [0048] “The methods described herein may be performed by software in machine readable form on a tangible storage medium.” [0052]) Sharp also teaches communicating the user request to a rendering server, the rendering server selected from a plurality of rendering servers based at least on a load balancing score for each of the plurality of rendering servers, the load balancing score based at least on a graphics processing parameter for each of the plurality of rendering servers; (“Load balancing techniques can be used to select an appropriate GPU. In the examples herein the rendering server can be selected by looking for the GPU with the most free memory and returning its host's address to the client. However, any appropriate load balancing mechanism can be used. Examples of load balancing mechanisms are round robin or random choice algorithms. Other factors may be taken into account when selecting which GPU to use.” [0025] “FIG. 2 is a flow diagram of rendering server selection. In an example a master rendering server node receives 200 a request for the processing of a volume or image from a client. The master node selects 202 a rendering server from a plurality of rendering servers (that are in its control or which are associated with it) and sends the address of the rendering server to the requesting client. The selection process may involve using load balancing techniques as described above to select a GPU and then selecting the rendering server to which that GPU is connected. In an example the client communicates only with the master node. In another example the client may then negotiate directly with the selected rendering server. The client may specify parameters in its request. A non-exhaustive list of parameters the client may specify is; desired frames, viewpoint, color transfer functions, opacity. The selected volume rendering server retrieves volume data from the storage server and loads 204 the data to the selected GPU. By performing load balancing among multiple processors (such as a cluster of rendering servers each having one or more GPUs) scalability is achieved that allows the data center to serve many different client requests simultaneously.” [0028])
PNG
media_image1.png
707
327
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sharp does not explicitly teach receiving data associated with a rendered version of the three-dimensional model from the rendering server, and communicating the rendered version to a user device for display to the user. This is what Frommhold teaches (“Providing the object information may include providing a three-dimensional model (e.g. high-polygon mesh, voxel-based model, etc.) comprising a geometry and a material for the object, as indicated at 406. For example, a computing device may provide a model for remote rendering via a scene graph API, as described in FIG. 3. … providing the object information may comprise providing the object information to a remote computing system (e.g. remote rendering system 110, 204), as indicated at 409. … method 400 comprises receiving, from the second local or remote process, a rendering of the object. In some examples, receiving the rendering of the object comprises receiving video data comprising a color buffer, as indicated at 412. Such video data may also comprise a representation of depth (e.g. a depth buffer or other depth data), as indicated as 414.” [0049-0050] “method 400 comprises outputting, to a display, the rendering of the object to display the object.” [0054]) Frommhold teaches the object information includes a three-dimensional model comprising a geometry and a material for remote rendering and the rendering comprises receiving video data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Frommhold into Sharp, in order to reduce client-side processing requirements while provide the rendered model to the client for display.
12. With reference to claim 11, Sharp teaches requesting user input to define the data set. (“volume rendering algorithms take an input signal defined on a three-dimensional domain and project it onto a two-dimensional image.” [0001] “Volume data such as 3-dimensional data sets or higher dimensional data sets are stored on a storage server 102. A non-exhaustive list of examples of multi-dimensional image data is: 3D medical image data, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data, computed tomography (CT) data, single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) data, positron emission tomography (PET) data, DTI tractography data and ultrasound scan data. Other non-medical applications, such as radar or microscopy can also generate multi-dimensional data.” [0019] “In an example the thin client provides the ability to control the rendering service to load volume data sets from the storage server 102 to a GPU at the data center 100, to choose a rendering mode, to interactively manipulate a viewpoint and transfer functions; and to define and interactively manipulate clipping planes or carry out any other appropriate task. … In an example a master rendering server node receives 200 a request for the processing of a volume or image from a client.” [0027-0028] “a calling thread receives 502 a request to render a volume (in this example volume 2). The calling thread then determines 406 which GPU is loaded with volume 2. A request is added 408 to the found GPU's device thread (in this example GPU B).” [0040] “The computing-based device 700 comprises one or more inputs 718 which are of any suitable type for receiving media content, Internet Protocol (IP) input, FTP input, TCP/IP input, HTTP input or any other appropriate input and including three or higher dimensional volume data.” [0048])
13. With reference to claim 13, Sharp teaches the data communicated to the user device does not include geometry data associated with the three-dimensional model. (“In the examples described herein volume rendering may be carried out by graphics processing units of which there is at least one integral with or connected to each rendering server. GPUs 110,120, 122,124,126 may provide efficient volume rendering due to their parallelism, their built in tri-linear texture sampling and their superior memory bandwidth (as compared with CPUs). Client side software is optionally provided on the client machines 114, 118 to enable an end user to request and view images rendered at the data centre 100. In an example the client side software is a thin client which may provide a graphical user interface to a rendering service provided by the data center 100. … The selected volume rendering server retrieves volume data from the storage server and loads 204 the data to the selected GPU. By performing load balancing among multiple processors (such as a cluster of rendering servers each having one or more GPUs) scalability is achieved that allows the data center to serve many different client requests simultaneously. Rather than needing to equip each client machine with the relevant hardware for rendering, it is possible to equip the rendering servers according to price and/or performance constraints without restricting the clients that may request rendered images. Also, by performing rendering remotely the system enables a surgeon at home (for example) with her netbook to see the same visualizations as a radiologist in his lab with a workstation. For example, the volume data is loaded as a 3-dimensional texture to the selected GPU attached to the rendering server.” [0026-0028] “A rendering algorithm is applied 412 and the output image is transferred 414 to main memory. A notification signal that the request is completed is sent 416 to the calling thread and image data is sent 418 to the client.” [0040])
14. Claim 14 is similar in scope to claim 1, and thus is rejected under similar rationale. Sharp additionally teaches A system comprising: one or more processors (“The methods described herein may be performed by software in machine readable form on a tangible storage medium. Examples of tangible (or non-transitory) storage media include disks, thumb drives, memory etc and do not include propagated signals. The software can be suitable for execution on a parallel processor or a serial processor such that the method steps may be carried out in any suitable order, or simultaneously.” [0052], Fig.1)
15. Claim 17 is similar in scope to claim 11, and thus is rejected under similar rationale.
16. Claim 20 is similar in scope to claim 1, and thus is rejected under similar rationale. Sharp additionally teaches A non-transitory, computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to (“The methods described herein may be performed by software in machine readable form on a tangible storage medium. Examples of tangible (or non-transitory) storage media include disks, thumb drives, memory etc and do not include propagated signals. The software can be suitable for execution on a parallel processor or a serial processor such that the method steps may be carried out in any suitable order, or simultaneously.” [0052])
17. Claim(s) 2 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharp (US 2011/0227934 A1) and Frommhold et al. (US 2020/0327740 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Kapoor et al. (US 2018/0329961 A1).
18. With reference to claim 2, Sharp does not explicitly teach receiving input data indicating user selection of a portion of the rendered version; mapping the input data to a unique part number; generating metadata associated with the unique part number; and communicating the metadata to the user device. This is what Frommhold teaches. Frommhold teaches receiving input data indicating user selection of a portion of the rendered version; (“The remote rendering system 204 further comprises an app remoting service 216 configured to provide input, such as updated object information (e.g. scene graph data) received from the computing device 202 to a rendering engine 218, and provide a rendering of the object to the computing device 202.” [0031] “Method 500 further comprises, at 520, rendering the object based on the updated object information received. When the updated object information is based on a pose/gaze of the user of the computing device, rendering the object may comprise rendering based on the pose and/or gaze, as indicated at 522. For example, a remote computing system may render the object based on a determined virtual camera position received. When the updated object information is based on a user input to the computing device, rendering the object may comprise rendering based on the user input.” [0062]) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Frommhold into Sharp, in order to reduce client-side processing requirements while provide the rendered model to the client for display.
The combination of Sharp and Frommhold does not explicitly teach mapping the input data to a unique part number; generating metadata associated with the unique part number; and communicating the metadata to the user device. This is what Kapoor teaches (“A record classifier 625 can generate or detect a template identifier corresponding to a file. The template identifier can include, for example, a code (e.g., an alphanumeric code, a numeric code, a bar code, or a QR code), a document title or a document header (e.g., that includes a code, document title, source identifier, and/or date). Whether a template identifier is to be generated or detected can depend on a source of a file (e.g., such that template identifiers are to be detected when a file is received from a user device and/or generated when received from a supervisor device), whether an identifier is included in metadata or content of the received file (e.g., generating the identifier when none is detected), and/or whether or what input was received (e.g., generating a template identifier in response to detecting input requesting template-identifier generation).” [0090] “When a template identifier is to be generated, the generation may occur using a pseudo-random selection technique, or the identifier may be generated based on pertinent data. For example, part or all of the identifier may be indicative of or identify a source device, a supervisor or user corresponding to a source device, a course and/or a date.” [0092] “The detection can be performed, for example, by identifying an extension of the content object, pertinent metadata for the content object and/or a source from which the content object was received (e.g., a source device or application). … record classifier 625 may detect a mark or code included in the object data and/or may detect input received in association with the content object. For example, the input may identify a content object type that is being uploaded. In some instances, a template identifier can be determined based on, for example, metadata associated with the content object and/or other stored data. For example, account data for a user may identifier a course or group that the user is involved in, and such information (e.g., in combination with identification of a time, location, document type and/or other information) may be used to identify the template identifier.” [0147-0148]) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the cloud rendering/result transmission techniques of Kapoor into the remote rendering frame work of Sharp, in order to allow a user to select particular portion of a rendered model and obtain corresponding part specific information without require the entire model or its associated information to be transmitted or processed at the client.
19. Claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 2, and thus is rejected under similar rationale.
20. Claim(s) 3, 4, 6-10, 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharp (US 2011/0227934 A1) and Frommhold et al. (US 2020/0327740 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Brebner (US 2020/0285464 A1).
21. With reference to claim 3, the combination of Sharp and Frommhold does not explicitly teach monitoring a rendering application on the rendering server; and responsive to detecting that the rendering application has unexpectedly stopped responding, restarting the rendering application. These are what Brebner teaches. Brebner teaches monitoring a rendering application on the rendering server; (“a server kit 200 may include a data export capability. The data export capability may include, for example, structured templating, free-flow text templating (in HTML for example), and visual templating (e.g., for PDF, PNG and JPG), and may be provided to render out assets from data.” [0389] “a server kit 200 may issue and revoke tokens for client application instances and maintain analytics relating to a client application via application usage logs and transaction logs. In these embodiments, the server kit 200 may maintain analytics pertaining to a client application by monitoring various aspects of a client application, such as authentication requests, resource requests, telemetry behavior, and the like.” [0393]) Brebner also teaches responsive to detecting that the rendering application has unexpectedly stopped responding, restarting the rendering application. (“States 130 can be established by checking the rules upon startup and after changes to any of these attributes. The rules may be evaluated in order and each rule may maintain a state 130 of how it has been applied so that when it is applied the first time, the rule matches and is correctly reset when the rule stops matching,” [0296] “a server kit 200 may include a data export capability. The data export capability may include, for example, structured templating, free-flow text templating (in HTML for example), and visual templating (e.g., for PDF, PNG and JPG), and may be provided to render out assets from data.” [0389] “a workflow associated with a client application may refuse service to a client application instance if the analytics associated with the client application instance trigger a rule that bars the client application instance from making particular resource calls (e.g., the client application instance has exceed a threshold number of permitted API calls to a particular resource in a defined period of time).” [0393] “The configuration update statements are configuration statements that are meant to the update the configuration of one or more aspects of the server kit. For example, an administrator may provide configuration update statements to add a new workflow, to edit a pre-existing workflow (e.g., adjust a workflow node or add a new workflow node), to add new plugins, add new templates, expose new databases, expose new APIs, and the like.” [0456]) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Brebner into the combination of Sharp and Frommhold, in order to enable rapid development of digital-content-rich applications.
22. With reference to claim 4, the combination of Sharp and Frommhold does not explicitly teach prior to receiving the input data, receiving, from a user authentication application, a user authentication associated with the user request. This is what Brebner teaches (“the server kit 200 may maintain analytics pertaining to a client application by monitoring various aspects of a client application, such as authentication requests, resource requests, telemetry behavior, and the like.” [0393] “For each API that an administrator adds, the GUI may allow the administrator to provide authentication data to have access to specific APIs (e.g., a key used by the API provider to authenticate the client application), caching data (e.g., whether a response may be cached, and if so, one or more properties of client application instances that may receive the cached data), expiration data relating to the data provided via a particular API (e.g., data may be cached for up to one hour or one day), data transformation data relating to specific APIs (e.g., mapping functions for formatting returned data), and the like. The GUI may allow the user to provide additional configuration data as well, including configurations relating to cascading operations, file generation, server deployment strategies, caching strategies, and the like. In embodiments, the GUI may allow the user to configure a user data store associated with the client application, including defining the types of rights users may be granted, the different roles that users may be assigned, and the type of user metadata, including analytical data that may be collected with respect to a user. In response to receiving input from an administrator via the GUI, the administrator interface module 222 may generate one or more configuration statements based on the administrator input and may output the configuration statements to the server configuration module 224. The administrator interface module 222 may receive configuration statements from an administrator device 212 in other suitable manners as well. In embodiments, the administrator interface module 222 may receive configuration statements via a command prompt or similar interface displayed by an administrator device 212 in response to the administrator using a command line. In response to determining the configuration statements (provided via a GUI or a command prompt), the administrator interface module 222 may generate a configuration file that indicates a configuration of the server kit 200 or an update to the configuration of the server kit 200, whereby the configuration statements are arranged in the configuration file. Additionally or alternatively, the administrator interface module 222 may allow a user to upload an entire configuration file that includes a series of configuration statements.” [0413-0414]) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Brebner into the combination of Sharp and Frommhold, in order to enable rapid development of digital-content-rich applications.
23. With reference to claim 6, the combination of Sharp and Frommhold does not explicitly teach generating a shareable session that includes the rendered version. This is what Brebner teaches (“This may provide a user with the ability to simply select and copy an item (e.g., an image, video, text, animation, GUI element, or the like) in the visual editor 108 and paste that content into a different project. A user may also share the clipboard contents with another user, who can then paste the content into their own project. … Applications may have the same optical result on any system, as the graphical rendering may be controlled down to low level OpenGL commands and font rasterization. This may allow designers to rely solely on the results of live editing on their computer, even when a smartphone device profile is selected. This unified rendering may provide a shared effects system. This may allow GPU shaders, such as vertex and pixel shaders, to be applied to any object or group of objects in a scene tree.” [0164-0165] “the visual editor 108 may include a shared editing environment. The shared editing environment may enable real time, multi-user, simultaneous development, including shared simulation of the runtime behavior of the application 150 that is being edited. The shared editing environment may be synchronized by a multi-user layer sync application and asset system 120. The visual editor 108 may include support for the dynamic language 140, private portal, editing engine, object classes, 3D content, 3D content generation user interface and hybrid 2D and 3D scene trees as described previously in this disclosure.” [0379]) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Brebner into the combination of Sharp and Frommhold, in order to enable rapid development of digital-content-rich applications.
24. With reference to claim 7, the combination of Sharp and Frommhold does not explicitly teach receiving, from the user authentication application, a second user authentication associated with a second user request from a second user for the data set. This is what Brebner teaches (“the engine 102 may be configured to support a multi-user infrastructure by which, for example, different users of the engine may edit a scene tree description 124 for an application 150 or otherwise collaborate to create an application. Each user may edit the scene tree description 124 for the application simultaneously with other users of the visual editor 108. In embodiments, a user may edit the scene tree description 124 for the application 150 simultaneously with other users of the visual editor 108 or users of the runtime of the application 150.” [0363] “the server kit 200 may maintain analytics pertaining to a client application by monitoring various aspects of a client application, such as authentication requests, resource requests, telemetry behavior, and the like.” [0393] “a workflow may define a manner by which a server instance adds a new user, including obtaining and verifying user info (e.g., email address, password), assigning authentication data to the user, assigning a role to the user, and/or assigning a set of rights (or permissions) to the user.” [0407] “the user data store 274 stores data relating to users of the client application, including rights 276 of a user, roles 278 of a user, and user metadata 280 relating to the user (e.g., user ID, user profile, and the like). For each user of the client application, the rights 276 of the user may define the permissions the user has with respect to the client application, and the resources that the client application instance of the user may access. The roles 278 of a user may define the various roles of the user with respect to the client application. Examples of roles may include: administrator, user, and authorizer. The user metadata of a user may define any data that is pertinent to a particular user, such as a user ID, authentication data of the user, a location of the user, current tasks and the like.” [0431]) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Brebner into the combination of Sharp and Frommhold, in order to enable rapid development of digital-content-rich applications.
25. With reference to claim 8, Sharp does not explicitly teach receiving input data indicating user selection of a portion of the rendered version; mapping the input data to a unique part number; generating second metadata associated with the unique part number for the second user; and communicating the second metadata to a second user device associated with the second user. This is what Frommhold teaches. Frommhold teaches receiving input data indicating user selection of a portion of the rendered version; (“The remote rendering system 204 further comprises an app remoting service 216 configured to provide input, such as updated object information (e.g. scene graph data) received from the computing device 202 to a rendering engine 218, and provide a rendering of the object to the computing device 202.” [0031] “Method 500 further comprises, at 520, rendering the object based on the updated object information received. When the updated object information is based on a pose/gaze of the user of the computing device, rendering the object may comprise rendering based on the pose and/or gaze, as indicated at 522. For example, a remote computing system may render the object based on a determined virtual camera position received. When the updated object information is based on a user input to the computing device, rendering the object may comprise rendering based on the user input.” [0062]) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Frommhold into Sharp, in order to reduce client-side processing requirements while provide the rendered model to the client for display.
The combination of Sharp and Frommhold does not explicitly teach mapping the input data to a unique part number; generating second metadata associated with the unique part number for the second user; and communicating the second metadata to a second user device associated with the second user. This is what Kapoor teaches (“A record classifier 625 can generate or detect a template identifier corresponding to a file. The template identifier can include, for example, a code (e.g., an alphanumeric code, a numeric code, a bar code, or a QR code), a document title or a document header (e.g., that includes a code, document title, source identifier, and/or date). Whether a template identifier is to be generated or detected can depend on a source of a file (e.g., such that template identifiers are to be detected when a file is received from a user device and/or generated when received from a supervisor device), whether an identifier is included in metadata or content of the received file (e.g., generating the identifier when none is detected), and/or whether or what input was received (e.g., generating a template identifier in response to detecting input requesting template-identifier generation).” [0090] “When a template identifier is to be generated, the generation may occur using a pseudo-random selection technique, or the identifier may be generated based on pertinent data. For example, part or all of the identifier may be indicative of or identify a source device, a supervisor or user corresponding to a source device, a course and/or a date.” [0092] “An electronic template may be associated with a supervisor identifier, a date (e.g., a date at which one or more content objects that are to be evaluated based on the template are expected to be received), an identifier of each of one or more users and/or user devices (e.g., users and/or user devices expected to be associated with content objects corresponding to the template) and/or an identifier of a key that specifies how one or more data segments are to be assessed.” [0100] “The detection can be performed, for example, by identifying an extension of the content object, pertinent metadata for the content object and/or a source from which the content object was received (e.g., a source device or application). … record classifier 625 may detect a mark or code included in the object data and/or may detect input received in association with the content object. For example, the input may identify a content object type that is being uploaded. In some instances, a template identifier can be determined based on, for example, metadata associated with the content object and/or other stored data. For example, account data for a user may identifier a course or group that the user is involved in, and such information (e.g., in combination with identification of a time, location, document type and/or other information) may be used to identify the template identifier.” [0147-0148]) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the cloud rendering/result transmission techniques of Kapoor into the remote rendering frame work of Sharp, in order to allow a user to select particular portion of a rendered model and obtain corresponding part specific information without require the entire model or its associated information to be transmitted or processed at the client.
26. With reference to claim 9, Sharp does not explicitly teach receiving data associated with a second rendered version of the three-dimensional model from the rendering server; and communicating the data to a second user device for display to the second user. This is what Frommhold teaches (“method 400 comprises providing, to a second local or remote process, object information regarding an object to be rendered by the second local or remote process. Providing the object information may include providing a three-dimensional model (e.g. high-polygon mesh, voxel-based model, etc.) comprising a geometry and a material for the object, as indicated at 406. For example, a computing device may provide a model for remote rendering via a scene graph API, as described in FIG. 3. … providing the object information may comprise providing the object information to a remote computing system (e.g. remote rendering system 110, 204), as indicated at 409. In other examples, providing the object information may comprise providing the object information to a second local process that is different from the first local process. … method 400 comprises receiving, from the second local or remote process, a rendering of the object. In some examples, receiving the rendering of the object comprises receiving video data comprising a color buffer, as indicated at 412. Such video data may also comprise a representation of depth (e.g. a depth buffer or other depth data), as indicated as 414. … receiving the rendering of the object may comprise receiving any other suitable data from the second local or remote process.” [0049-0050] “method 400 comprises outputting, to a display, the rendering of the object to display the object.” [0054]) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Frommhold into Sharp, in order to reduce client-side processing requirements while provide the rendered model to the client for display.
27. With reference to claim 10, Sharp does not explicitly teach the rendered version is different from the second rendered version. This is what Frommhold teaches (“method 400 comprises providing, to a second local or remote process, object information regarding an object to be rendered by the second local or remote process. Providing the object information may include providing a three-dimensional model (e.g. high-polygon mesh, voxel-based model, etc.) comprising a geometry and a material for the object, as indicated at 406. For example, a computing device may provide a model for remote rendering via a scene graph API, as described in FIG. 3. … providing the object information may comprise providing the object information to a remote computing system (e.g. remote rendering system 110, 204), as indicated at 409. In other examples, providing the object information may comprise providing the object information to a second local process that is different from the first local process. … method 400 comprises receiving, from the second local or remote process, a rendering of the object. In some examples, receiving the rendering of the object comprises receiving video data comprising a color buffer, as indicated at 412. Such video data may also comprise a representation of depth (e.g. a depth buffer or other depth data), as indicated as 414. … receiving the rendering of the object may comprise receiving any other suitable data from the second local or remote process.” [0049-0050]) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Frommhold into Sharp, in order to reduce client-side processing requirements while provide the rendered model to the client for display.
28. Claim 16 is similar in scope to claim 3, and thus is rejected under similar rationale.
29. Claim 19 is similar in scope to claim 4, and thus is rejected under similar rationale.
30. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharp (US 2011/0227934 A1), Frommhold et al. (US 2020/0327740 A1) and Brebner (US 2020/0285464 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Srinivasan et al. (US 2019/0340333 A1).
31. With reference to claim 5, the combination of Sharp, Frommhold and Brebner does not explicitly teach communicating authentication data to the rendering server, the authentication data associated with one or more objects of the three-dimensional model that can be selectively rendered based on the authentication data. This is what Srinivasan teaches (“The techniques described herein enable content displayed in an experience to be restricted and/or tailored based on a user identification. User information (e.g., login name, authentication credentials such as a password or biometric data, etc.) can be used to determine and/or authenticate an identification of a user that enters and/or consumes an experience via a head-mounted display device or another computing device connected to a head-mounted display device.” [0027] “an identity of the user 102 may be mapped to a level of authentication that satisfies a threshold level of authentication associated with the object (e.g., user 102 may be an employee with a position that satisfies certain qualifications or experience).” [0030] “the information that defines the user permissions can be metadata associated with an object. In some examples, the information can be accessed using a widget associated with an object. Thus, the widget can be embedded in, or part of, a three-dimensional scene. As part of the rendering process of the three-dimensional scene, a head-mounted display device, or a device connected to the head-mounted display device, can use the widget to retrieve data useable to render and display the content of the object. Moreover, the widget can be used to retrieve the metadata that defines user permissions. … when rendering the three-dimensional scene, a head-mounted display device can determine that an object is a restricted object. … a head-mounted display device can be configured provide an option for a viewing user to request permission to view content of a restricted object. For example, FIG. 1 illustrates a selectable control 122 associated with the wall frame on the right of the room wall. The user 102 can provide input to activate the selectable control 122, and based on this input, the head-mounted display device 106 can be configured to send a request to an owner of the object for user permission to view the content of the object.” [0035-0037] “a user identity and/or authorization credentials can be provided to a network provider that stores tailored content for an object. The network provider can be identified via a widget in the three-dimensional scene. The network provider can then determine and provide the tailored content based on the user identity. In some examples, the network provider can provide the tailored content to a class or a category of users. Thus, a user identification or other user information, can first be associated with a specific class or category of users. Consequently, a widget (e.g., a URL) can be used to pass along a user identification or a user category to a network provider, and the network provider is responsible for identifying the tailored content to be rendered and displayed based on the user identity or the user category.” [0042]) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Srinivasan into the combination of Sharp, Frommhold and Brebner, in order to protect confidential or sensitive portions of the three dimensional model, provide object level access control, and allow different users to receive different portions or content of the same three dimensional model.
32. Claim(s) 12 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharp (US 2011/0227934 A1) and Frommhold et al. (US 2020/0327740 A1), as applied to claims 1, 11, 14 and 17 above, and further in view of Smith-Casem et al. (US 2013/0328874 A1).
33. With reference to claim 12, the combination of Sharp, Frommhold and Brebner does not explicitly teach requesting the user input to define the data set comprises requesting user input to exclude a portion of a larger data set. This is what Smith-Casem teaches (“The user may operate the user input 22 to position a clipping surface (e.g., clipping object), set rendering values (e.g., select a type of rendering or set an offset viewing angle), or operate the system 10. The processor 12 defines the clipping surface and volume renders a selected sub-volume in response to user activation or user sub-volume selection with the user input 22.” [0030] “The clipping surface is generated by the processor 12 in response to input from the user input 22.” [0038] “The processor 12 renders an image from the medical data. The data remaining after clipping is volume rendered. … The clipping surface defines the locations used for then selecting the data from which to render the sub-volume or clipped volume.” [0049] “volume rendering from the medical data remaining after the clipping comprises volume rendering from the medical data remaining after only the clipping with the curved clipping surface.” claim 4) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Srinivasan into the combination of Sharp and Frommhold, in order to reduce the amount of data processed and rendered by the remote rendering system, eliminate unwanted or obstructive portions of the model, and focus of the resulting rendering on the portion relevant to the user's task.
34. Claim 18 is similar in scope to claim 12, and thus is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
35. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michelle Chin whose telephone number is (571)270-3697. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 AM-4:30 PM.
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:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Kent Chang can be reached on (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:/Awww.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent- center for more information about Patent Center and https:/Awww.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.
/MICHELLE CHIN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2614
Prosecution Insights