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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s priority claim, for U.S. Application No. 18/660,503, to a U.S. Provisional Application filed on 05/11/2023.
Status of Claims
Claims 1–20 are pending in the application.Claims 15 and 17 are cancelled.Claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 14, 18, 19, 22 are rejected.
Claims 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 20, 21 are objected to.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 20, 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim(s), but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim(s) and any intervening claim(s).
Overview of Grounds of Rejection
Ground of Rejection
Claim(s)
Statute(s)
Reference(s)
Ground of Rejection 1
1, 7, 14, 18, 22
§ 103
Lin et al. (US20100321386A1) in view of Sumner et al. (US20150029198A1)
Ground of Rejection 2
2, 19
§ 103
Lin et al. (US20100321386A1) in view of Sumner et al. (US20150029198A1), and further in view of Corazza et al. (US20120019517A1)
Ground of Rejection 3
3, 9
§ 103
Lin et al. (US20100321386A1) in view of Sumner et al. (US20150029198A1), and further in view of Sumner et al. (NPL)
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 of this title, 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.
(Please see the cited paragraphs, sections, pages, or surrounding text in the references for the paraphrased content.)
Ground of Rejection 1
Claims 1, 7, 14, 18, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US20100321386A1) in view of Sumner et al. (US20150029198A1).
As per Claim 1, Lin teaches the following portion of Claim 1, which recites:“A computer-implemented method to create a variant of a template avatar, the method comprising:”
Lin et al. describes a computer-based workflow that deforms a mesh using a control cage, yielding a modified output mesh, i.e., a “variant.” For example, Lin describes an editor/animation application “operable to modify a first animation mesh … into a second animation mesh … such as via cage manipulations…”. “modify a first animation mesh … into a second animation mesh … via cage manipulations”. Lin et al., ¶[0031].
Lin’s “second animation mesh” is a modified version of the “first animation mesh,” consistent with creating a “variant.”
Lin teaches the following portion of Claim 1, which recites:“obtaining a template avatar that includes a template geometry obtained from a mesh of the template avatar;”
Lin et al. teaches obtaining/receiving the mesh-based geometry used as the deformable template. Lin states that the method includes “producing or receiving a high resolution model or geometry of a character…”. Lin et al., ¶[0041].
The claimed “template geometry obtained from a mesh” corresponds to Lin’s obtained “high resolution model or geometry of a character,” which serves as the starting (template) geometry for later cage-driven deformation.
Lin teaches the following portion of Claim 1, which recites:“generating a template cage associated with the template avatar as a low-resolution approximation wrapped around the template geometry;”
Lin et al. teaches generating/providing a low-resolution cage that surrounds the mesh geometry. Lin explains: “A control cage is generally a low polygon-count polyhedron … to enclose a 3D model or animation mesh.” Lin et al., ¶[0006]. Lin also describes that “the method … continues with defining or receiving a control cage for the high resolution model,” and further that “The control cage … is lower resolution mesh than model/animation mesh…”. Lin et al., ¶[0041]. A “low polygon-count polyhedron” / “lower resolution mesh” is a low-resolution approximation, and Lin’s cage that “enclose[s]” the animation mesh corresponds to the claim’s cage “wrapped around the template geometry.”
Lin teaches the following portion of Claim 1, which recites:“creating a target cage from the template cage by modifying the template cage based on input from a user;”
Lin et al. teaches user-driven modification of a base cage into a modified (deformed) cage configuration. Lin states: “when the control cage is modified/manipulated … the … new configuration of the control cage (i.e., new/modified positions of control vertices on the control cage) is used…”. Lin et al., ¶[0064]. Lin further distinguishes cage states: “the control cage at the binding pose may be referred to as the ‘base’ control cage and the control cage at run time may be referred to as the ‘deformed’ control cage.” Lin et al., ¶[0064]. The claimed “template cage” corresponds to Lin’s “base” control cage, and the claimed “target cage” corresponds to Lin’s “deformed” control cage having “new/modified positions of control vertices,” produced by user manipulation.
Lin alone does not explicitly teach all the limitation(s) of the claim. However, when combined with Sumner et al. (US20150029198A1), they collectively teach all of the limitation(s).
Lin and Sumner teach the following portion of Claim 1, which recites:
“morphing the template geometry with the target cage to generate a target avatar that is a variant of the template avatar.”
Limitation: “morphing the template geometry with the target cage”
Lin et al. teaches morphing (deforming) the mesh geometry in response to the modified cage. Lin states: “the method may include manipulating the control cage to deform the high resolution model, wherein the deforming comprises repositioning … vertices of the high resolution model … in response to a manipulation of the control cage.” Lin et al., ¶[0016].
“Manipulating the control cage” (the modified/target cage state) and “repositioning” mesh vertices is the claimed “morphing” of the template geometry using the target cage.
Limitation: “to generate a target avatar that is a variant of the template avatar”
Sumner et al. teaches generating a different baseline geometry by computing a different rest state configuration of a mesh, which supports the “variant” aspect (a changed configuration relative to the template). Sumner’s summary states the method includes “retrieving a geometric mesh … related to a first rest state configuration … [and] computing a second rest state configuration … by adjusting the position of at least one vertex in the plurality of vertices…”. Sumner et al., ¶[0007].
Sumner further frames this as a change from one rest state to another: “X and x denotes the vertex positions … in the undeformed and deformed rest state configurations, respectively…”. Sumner et al., ¶[0043].
Computing a “second rest state configuration” from a “first rest state configuration” by adjusting mesh vertex positions yields a distinct configuration of the object’s mesh, consistent with producing a “target avatar” that is a “variant” of the template avatar (different baseline configuration, not merely a transient frame).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine Lin et al. with Sumner et al. because both references address mesh-based character/object deformation driven by higher-level controls, and the combination would have predictably improved creation of distinct avatar variants. Lin teaches cage-based deformation where a “low polygon-count” control cage “enclose[s] a 3D model or animation mesh” and can be manipulated to induce smooth deformation, providing benefits including “simplicity, flexibility, and speed.” Lin et al., ¶[0006]. Sumner teaches automatically generating different mesh configurations by computing a “second rest state configuration” from a first, via vertex adjustments, supporting variant generation at the geometry level. Sumner et al., ¶[0007]. A POSITA would have reasonably expected that incorporating Sumner’s rest-state-change concept into Lin’s user-editable cage workflow would yield predictable results: user-modified cage controls (Lin) can be used to drive mesh changes, and those changes can be treated as a new baseline configuration (Sumner), producing robust “variants” of an avatar rather than only momentary deformations.
PNG
media_image1.png
9
307
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per Claim 7, Lin teaches the limitation(s) of Claim 7 which recites:
“The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein morphing the template geometry of the template avatar with the target cage to generate the target avatar comprises using at least one surface-based deformation technique.”
Lin et al. teaches that the cage-driven morphing uses a surface-based technique. Lin describes “determining an influence weight … using a surface-based heat diffusion model” as part of the cage-to-mesh binding/deformation workflow. “surface-based heat diffusion model” — Lin et al. (US20100321386A1), ¶[0030].
Lin further teaches morphing the mesh by cage manipulation: “manipulating the control cage to deform the high resolution model, wherein the deforming comprises repositioning … vertices of the high resolution model ….” “repositioning … vertices” — Lin et al. (US20100321386A1), ¶[0016].
Because Lin’s morphing/deformation of the mesh under cage control is performed using weights determined by a “surface-based heat diffusion model,” Lin’s morphing step comprises using at least one surface-based deformation technique.
PNG
media_image1.png
9
307
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Memory Claim 14 does not include any additional limitations that would significantly distinguish it from claim 1. Therefore, it is likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the same references and for the same reasons set forth above.
PNG
media_image1.png
9
307
media_image1.png
Greyscale
System Claim 18 does not include any additional limitations that would significantly distinguish it from claim 1. Therefore, it is likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the same references and for the same reasons set forth above.
PNG
media_image1.png
9
307
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per Claim 22, Lin teaches Claim 22, which recites:“The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein morphing the template geometryof the template avatar with the target cage to generate the target avatar comprises morphing avatar parts of the template avatar such that a shape of the avatar parts changes to match the target cage.”
Lin et al. (US20100321386A1) teaches morphing local parts of the model under cage control: a thin-layer segment can encapsulate “local model vertices” and is “used to define deformation of the model,” and Lin explains that “each segment” is constructed to “deform only nearby model vertices,” which corresponds to morphing avatar parts (localized portions) rather than the entire mesh uniformly. Lin et al., ¶[0048]–[0049].
Lin also teaches that cage manipulation causes the enclosed mesh to follow the cage: the mesh is “bound to the cage to move with” the cage, “based on movement of the control cage,” and the method includes deforming the model by repositioning mesh vertices in response to cage manipulation, which corresponds to the avatar-part shapes changing to match the target cage configuration. Lin et al., ¶[0006]; ¶[0016].
PNG
media_image1.png
9
307
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ground of Rejection 2
Claims 2, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US20100321386A1) in view of Sumner et al. (US20150029198A1), and further in view of Corazza et al. (US20120019517A1).
As per Claim 2, Lin alone does not explicitly teach all of the limitation(s) of the claim. However, when combined with Corazza et al. (US20120019517A1), they collectively teach all the limitation(s).
Corazza teaches the limitation(s) of Claim 2 that recites:
“The computer-implemented method of claim 1, the computer-implemented method further comprising: adjusting a rigging and a skinning of the target avatar to enable animation for the target avatar.”
Corazza et al. teaches adjusting rigging and skinning (skeleton + skinning weights) so the character can be animated. Corazza describes “automatically rigging” a character by “fitting a reference skeleton” and “calculating skinning weights” and then “transferring the skeleton and skinning weights” to the character mesh. Corazza et al., ¶[0008].
It further describes a method of animating a character where rigging includes “fitting a skeleton” and “defining skinning weights”, followed by “animating the 3D character by driving the … mesh in accordance with the fitted skeleton, the skinning weights”. Corazza et al., ¶[0018].
The claimed “adjusting a rigging” corresponds to Corazza’s fitting/transferring a skeleton (rig), and the claimed “adjusting … skinning” corresponds to Corazza’s calculating/defining/transferring skinning weights. The phrase “to enable animation” aligns with Corazza’s teaching of animating by driving the mesh using the fitted skeleton and skinning weights. Corazza et al., ¶[0024].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, a POSITA would have been motivated to combine Lin et al. with Corazza et al. because Lin generates a modified character mesh for animation workflows, while Corazza teaches enabling animation of a non-rigged mesh by “fit[ting] a reference skeleton” and “calculat[ing] skinning weights” and then animating by “driving the … mesh in accordance with the fitted skeleton [and] the skinning weights.” Corazza et al., ¶[0008]. Corazza et al., ¶[0024]. The combination would have predictably yielded a cage-derived avatar variant that remains readily animatable with reduced manual rigging effort.
PNG
media_image1.png
9
307
media_image1.png
Greyscale
System Claim 19 does not include any additional limitations that would significantly distinguish it from claim 2. Therefore, it is likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the same references and for the same reasons set forth above.
PNG
media_image1.png
9
307
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ground of Rejection 3
Claims 3, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US20100321386A1) in view of Sumner et al. (US20150029198A1), and further in view of Sumner et al. (NPL).
As per Claim 3, Lin alone does not explicitly teach all the limitation(s) of the claim. However, when combined with Sumner et al. (NPL), they collectively teach all of the limitation(s).
Sumner (NPL) teaches the limitation(s) of Claim 3 which recites:
“The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the template avatar further includes a template head of the template avatar, wherein the target avatar comprises a target head of the target avatar, and wherein adjusting the rigging and skinning includes one or more of: (i) determining a pose of the target head based on a particular pose of the template head; and (ii) determining a facial expression of the target head based on a particular facial expression of the template head.”
A) “template head … target head”
“the target mesh consists of an entire head and neck” and the facial deformations are “captured and adapted to the target head.”— Sumner et al. (NPL), Results, p.6 (Fig. 7 discussion).
B) Option (ii): “determining a facial expression of the target head based on a particular facial expression of the template head”
“facial expressions of a real person … are transfered onto a digital character … captured and adapted to the target head,” and can “map the facial expressions of a voice actor onto an animated character.”— Sumner et al. (NPL), Results, p.6 (Fig. 7 discussion).
C) Option (i): “determining a pose of the target head based on a particular pose of the template head”
Sumner teaches retargeting “key poses” from a source/reference mesh to produce new target poses: the source is “deformed into seven key poses” and deformation transfer “generates seven new [target] poses” by “transferring the source deformations onto the [target] reference.”— Sumner et al. (NPL), Results, p.5 (Fig. 1 discussion).
(This is pose retargeting generally; the same mechanism applies to head/neck regions when those regions are part of the pose.)
D) “adjusting the rigging and skinning”
Sumner discusses skeleton/weights consistent with skinning: “New target meshes can be swapped in by binding their vertices to the appropriate bones and setting the desired vertex weights,” and also discusses “retargeting motion … from a skeleton of a different size and proportion.”— Sumner et al. (NPL), Background, p.2.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, a POSITA would have been motivated to combine Lin et al. with Sumner et al. (NPL) because Lin teaches generating a target avatar variant by cage-based deformation of a template mesh, while Sumner teaches determining corresponding target head motion and expression from a source head, including transferring “key poses” to “generate… new poses” and mapping “facial expressions… onto an animated character” with a target that “consists of an entire head and neck.” Sumner et al. (NPL), Results, p.5. Combining Sumner’s head pose and facial-expression transfer with Lin’s avatar-variant workflow would have predictably yielded a target avatar whose head pose and expression are determined from the template head, improving animation reuse and reducing manual facial setup.
PNG
media_image1.png
9
307
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per Claim 9, Lin alone does not explicitly teach all the limitation(s) of the claim. However, when combined with Sumner et al. (NPL), they collectively teach all of the limitation(s).
Sumner (NPL) teaches the limitation(s) of Claim 9 which recites:
“The computer-implemented method of claim 7, wherein the at least one surface-based deformation technique comprises variational optimization.”
Sumner et al. (NPL) teaches a surface (triangle-mesh) deformation method that is formulated and solved as an optimization (a variational-style minimization over mesh vertex positions). Sumner states that deformation transfer “solves an optimization problem” to apply transformations to the target shape. “solves an optimization problem” — Sumner et al. (NPL), Abstract, p.1.
Sumner further rewrites the deformation as a minimization over vertex positions: “we rewrite the minimization problem as min …”, and notes “Setting the gradient of the objective function to zero gives the familiar normal equations” for solving the deformed vertices. — Sumner et al. (NPL), Section 4 (Vertex Formulation), p.4.
Minimizing an objective function over mesh vertex positions (and solving via gradient/normal equations) is a classic variational-optimization formulation, so Sumner’s surface-mesh deformation technique satisfies Claim 9.
The rationale and motivation to combine the references as set forth for claim 3 are incorporated herein by reference for the present claim.
PNG
media_image1.png
9
307
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Response to Arguments (Claims 1, 7, 14, 17–18) – Rejection over Lin et al. (US20100321386A1) in view of Sumner et al. (US20150029198A1)
Applicant argues that Lin allegedly “requires” binding involving both a “template cage” and a “target cage,” and that the present claims allegedly “do not involve” binding because the “target cage can be manipulated at runtime and then directly used to morph the template geometry.” Applicant further argues Sumner does not cure the alleged deficiencies.
(1) Applicant’s “no binding” position is not commensurate with the claim language
Claim 1 does not recite any limitation that excludes binding, precomputation of coordinates, or use of a base/reference cage as part of deformation evaluation. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “morphing … with the target cage” is satisfied where the target cage’s modified configuration is used to deform the template geometry, even if the system uses previously computed binding information to apply that deformation.
Lin teaches this workflow: a coordinate is computed when binding is performed, and then “at runtime” when the cage is “modified/manipulated”, the coordinate is used together with the cage’s new configuration to evaluate the deformed position of a model vertex. Lin et al. (US20100321386A1), ¶[0063]. Accordingly, Lin’s deformation is performed with the (modified) cage, which is consistent with Claim 1’s morphing “with the target cage.”
(2) Applicant’s “template cage vs. target cage” distinction actually aligns with Lin’s disclosed cage states
Applicant relies on Lin’s disclosure of a binding pose cage and a runtime cage and argues the claim “merely uses the target cage.” Lin expressly identifies these two cage states: the cage at the binding pose may be referred to as the “base” control cage, and the cage at runtime may be referred to as the “deformed” control cage. Lin et al. (US20100321386A1), ¶[0064].
In the Office Action’s mapping, Lin’s base control cage reasonably corresponds to the claim’s template cage, and Lin’s deformed control cage reasonably corresponds to the claim’s target cage (the modified cage state used at runtime). Further, Lin teaches that the final deformation result depends on the coordinate computed at binding time and the “deformed control cage” during static binding. Lin et al. (US20100321386A1), ¶[0064]. Thus, Lin’s disclosure supports, rather than defeats, the claimed relationship between a template cage and a target cage produced by modification.
(3) Lin’s discussion of static vs. dynamic binding does not teach away from the claim
Applicant argues that Lin’s static/dynamic binding discussion and QSC discussion does not match the claims. However, Claim 1 does not require a particular coordinate scheme, nor does it require avoiding binding or precomputation. Lin teaches that, regardless of static/dynamic binding, the runtime deformation evaluation uses the cage’s modified configuration (the deformed/target cage state) to evaluate vertex deformation. Lin et al. (US20100321386A1), ¶[0063]–[0065]. Lin’s QSC discussion is presented as an improvement for stability and efficiency, not as a disclaimer of cage-driven deformation. Lin et al. (US20100321386A1), ¶[0066]–[0067].
(4) Sumner is not relied upon for “creating the target cage”; it is applied for the “variant” aspect
Applicant argues Sumner does not teach creating a target cage via user modification and thus cannot cure Lin. The rejection does not rely on Sumner for creating the target cage. Lin teaches the cage creation/modification and cage-driven morphing. Sumner is applied to support producing a distinct configuration (variant) via rest-state change, i.e., computing a second rest state configuration from a first rest state configuration. Sumner et al. (US20150029198A1), ¶[0007]. Sumner further frames the baseline change using undeformed versus deformed rest states. Sumner et al. (US20150029198A1), ¶[0043].
Final Remarks:
Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The response does not present amendments or arguments that clearly distinguish the claimed invention from the cited prior art. No significant technical differences have been identified that would warrant withdrawal of the rejection.
Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is maintained.
Conclusion
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 ADEEL BASHIR whose telephone number is (571) 270-0440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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 Hajnik can be reached on (571) 276-7642. 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.
/ADEEL BASHIR/
Examiner, Art Unit 2616
/DANIEL F HAJNIK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2616
Prosecution Insights