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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2-26 and 28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites a method according to claim 1; this should be amended to
Claim 3 recites a method according to claim 2; this should be amended to
Claim 4 recites a method according to claim 2; this should be amended to
Claim 5 recites a method according to claim 3; this should be amended to
Claim 6 recites a method according to claim 3; this should be amended to
Claim 7 recites a method according to claim 6; this should be amended to
Claim 8 recites a method according to claim 3; this should be amended to
Claim 9 recites a method according to claim 8; this should be amended to
Claim 10 recites a method according to claim 9; this should be amended to
Claim 11 recites a method according to claim 2; this should be amended to
Claim 12 recites a method according to claim 9; this should be amended to
Claim 13 recites a method according to claim 11; this should be amended to
Claim 14 recites a method according to claim 11; this should be amended to
Claim 15 recites a method according to claim 11; this should be amended to
Claim 16 recites a method according to claim 11; this should be amended to
Claim 17 recites a method according to claim 16; this should be amended to
Claim 18 recites a method according to claim 17; this should be amended to
Claim 19 recites a method according to claim 11; this should be amended to
Claim 20 recites a method according to claim 11; this should be amended to
Claim 21 recites a method according to claim 11; this should be amended to
Claim 22 recites a method according to claim 1; this should be amended to
Claim 23 recites a method according to claim 22; this should be amended to
Claim 24 recites a method according to claim 22; this should be amended to
Claim 25 recites a method according to claim 24; this should be amended to
Claim 26 recites a method according to claim 1; this should be amended to
Claim 28 recites a non-transient computer-readable storage medium; this should be amended to a non-
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites "the musculoskeletal system", “the input representation”, “the tissue component”, “the voxel”, “the particular tissue component” and “the output” in 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th limitations. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
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 1-2 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirota et al. (Simulation of Non-penetrating Elastic Bodies Using Distance Fields, 2000) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2024/0303908) in view of Murai et al. (Dynamic skin deformation simulation using musculoskeletal model and soft tissue dynamics, Computational Visual Media, 2017).
Regarding claim 1, Hirota discloses a method for mitigating penetration in a model used for computer animation (Hirota, 1.1 Main results, [0001], “We present an efficient approach for passive simulation of non-penetrating elastic bodies”. Fig. 1 illustrates a snapshot of the animation automatically generated), the method comprising:
obtaining a computer-based input representation, the input representation comprising an input surface mesh (Hirota, 1.1 Main results, [0001], “The underlying geometric models are composed of polygonal meshes”);
generating a distance field (Hirota, 1.1 Main results, [0002], “precompute the internal distance field of each undeformed model”);
modifying a distance field of a particular component to thereby generate a corresponding modified distance field for the particular component (Hirota, 1.1 Main results, [0003], “first deforming the pre-computed distance fields to quickly estimate a penetration depth and thereby calculating penalty forces to resolve contacts”. Deforming the distance field is considered modifying a distance field);
for each of the one or more particular components, generating a corresponding output surface mesh for the particular component based on the corresponding modified distance field for the particular component (Hirota, 3.1 Problem definition, [0001], “Given the new positions for a subset of vertices Vc as positional constraints, the problem is to deform each object by computing a new positions of the remaining vertices {V-Vc}, taking into consideration material properties and external forces”. The output mesh is generated based on the modified distance field);
wherein, for each of the one or more particular components, the corresponding output surface mesh for the particular component is free from penetration by other ones of the plurality of components (Hirota, 3.1 Problem definition, [0003], “Another example is shown in Figure 2(a)-(c). Our algorithm simulates a snake retreating through a flexible torus ring and coiling itself up with the non-penetration constraints”);
Hirota does not expressly disclose “generating a signed distance field”;
Zhang et al. (hereinafter Zhang) discloses generating a signed distance field (Zhang, [0039], “the input volume 105 format can be an SDF”);
a plurality of voxels arranged in a three-dimensional grid (Zhang, [0039], “the input volume 105 can be an implicit representation (e.g., SDF) to the values (e.g., image, point cloud, voxels, pixels and/or the like)”. The input volume comprises a plurality of voxels arranged in a 3D grid, each voxel representing a portion of a 3D object);
for each voxel, a signed distance function value indicative of a distance of the voxel from a surface and whether the voxel is inside or outside (Zhang, [0039], “the input volume 105 format can be an SDF. An SDF can be a signed distance to the closest surface (positive on the outside and negative on the inside) of the geometry”);
generating a computer-based output representation (Zhang, [0036], “FIG. 1 illustrates a block diagram of an encoder/decoder system according to at least one example embodiment. As shown in FIG. 1, the encoder/decoder system can include an input volume 105, an encoder 110, a latent code 115 block, a decoder 120, and an output volume 125”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the signed distance field of Zhang to modify mesh disclosed in Hirota. The motivation for doing so would have been enabling accurate surface aligned deformation.
Hirota as modified by Zhang does not expressly disclose “tissue in a musculoskeletal model”;
Murai et al. (hereinafter Murai) discloses tissue in a musculoskeletal model (Murai, 3 Method, [0001], “We use a musculoskeletal model to estimate muscle length and tension from motion capture data…A soft tissue dynamics model that describes the passive dynamics of the skin and subcutaneous fat using a mass–spring–damper system”);
a musculoskeletal system (Murai, 3 Method, [0001], “We use a musculoskeletal model to estimate muscle length and tension from motion capture data”. In addition, in the same section, [0002], “our system can simulate skin deformation from novel motion data captured using standard marker sets (i.e., joint angle data)”);
each of a plurality of tissue components (Murai, Fig. 1 illustrates the soft tissue dynamics model that determines the dynamic deformation of fat and viscera).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simulate the non-penetration model using distance field of Hirota using the dynamic skin deformation using musculoskeletal model and soft tissue dynamics of Murai. The motivation for doing so would have been enabling simulation of realistic tissue behavior.
Regarding claim 2, Hirota as modified by Zhang with the same motivation from claim 1 discloses a negative signed distance function value indicates that the voxel is located inside and a positive signed distance function value indicates that the voxel is outside (Zhang, [0039], “An SDF can be a signed distance to the closest surface (positive on the outside and negative on the inside) of the geometry”);
Hirota as modified by Zhang and Murai with the same motivation from claim 1 discloses the tissue component (Murai, Fig. 1 illustrates the soft tissue dynamics model that determines the dynamic deformation of fat and viscera).
Regarding claim 27, Hirota discloses mitigating penetration in a model used for computer animation (Hirota, 1.1 Main results, [0001], “We present an efficient approach for passive simulation of non-penetrating elastic bodies”. Fig. 1 illustrates a snapshot of the animation automatically generated)
Hirota as modified by Zhang with the same motivation from claim 1 discloses a system (Zhang, [0116], “computer executable program code which can be executed on a computer system”) comprising a processor configured to perform the method of claim 1 (Zhang, [0128], “The processor 902 can process instructions for execution within the computing device 900, including instructions stored in the memory 904 or on the storage device 906”).
Hirota as modified by Zhang and Murai with the same motivation from claim 1 discloses a musculoskeletal model (Murai, 3 Method, [0001], “We use a musculoskeletal model to estimate muscle length and tension from motion capture data…A soft tissue dynamics model that describes the passive dynamics of the skin and subcutaneous fat using a mass–spring–damper system”).
Regarding claim 28, Hirota as modified by Zhang with the same motivation from claim 1 discloses a computer program product comprising a non-transient computer-readable storage medium having data stored thereon representing software executable by a process, the software comprising instructions to perform the method of claim 1 (Zhang, [0130], “A computer program product can be tangibly embodied in an information carrier. The computer program product may also contain instructions that, when executed, perform one or more methods, such as those described above. The information carrier is a computer-or machine-readable medium, such as the memory 904, the storage device 906, or memory on processor 902”).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirota et al. in view of Zhang et al. (US 2024/0303908) in view of Murai et al., as applied to claim 1, in further view of Hada (US 2024/0402675).
Regarding claim 26, Hirota as modified by Zhang with the same motivation from claim 1 discloses the signed distance field (Zhang, [0039], “An SDF can be a signed distance to the closest surface (positive on the outside and negative on the inside) of the geometry”); Hirota as modified by Zhang and Murai with the same motivation from claim 1 discloses each of the tissue components (Murai, Fig. 1 illustrates the soft tissue dynamics model that determines the dynamic deformation of fat and viscera);
Hirota as modified by Zhang and Murai does not expressly disclose “a size of the voxels is a user-configurable parameter”;
Hada discloses a size of voxels is a user-configurable parameter (Hada, [0030], “The voxel size designable range means a range of the voxel size that the user can designate”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the concept of user-configurable voxel size taught by Hada to modify the voxel size of the signed distance field of Hirota as modified by Zhang. The motivation for doing so would have been enabling users to modify voxel size to control smoothness of deformation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-25 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE ZHAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3740. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-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, Ke Xiao can be reached at (571) 272 - 7776. 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.
/KYLE ZHAI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611