DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 11/10/2025 which has
been entered and made of record. Claims 1-3, 8-9, 18-19 and 21 have been amended. No
claim has been newly added. Claims 1-14 and 18-23 are pending in the application. Applicant’s
amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection
previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed November 10th, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to claims 1-14 and 18-23, filed on 11/10/25 with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 103, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that “It can be seen that, though in Sikachev, the percentage of vertices is mentioned, and a few example numbers are given as a threshold percentage. The threshold percentage of vertices in Sikachev is used to determine the number limit of vertices, which is further used to determine how many times the revised position calculation should be performed. The revised position calculation determines if a particular vertex in the chosen vertices should be repositioned (i.e., acquiring a new 2D position) or not. …Thus, even though Sikachev mentions a percentage of vertices, the percentage of vertices in Sikachev has nothing to do with determining a reference area including projected coordinates of each of the plurality of candidate vertices, and are chosen for completely different purposes” examiner respectfully disagrees. As recited in claim 1, these limitations are taught by the combination of LINDAHL and SIKACHEV. In particular, and in addition to the citations in claim 1 below, SIKACHEV paragraph 46 teaches “The aforementioned technique may be carried out over a number of iterations. That is, once the above revised position calculation has been performed for all vertices in the original set of vertices 410, the aforementioned technique may be reiterated for all vertices in the original set of vertices 410, and repeated a number of times. This number of times may be fixed without there being a particular limitation on the number (e.g., 2, 5, 10, 50 or 100 times), or it may be performed as many times as necessary so that the revised position changes by no more than a threshold amount (e.g., 1%, 5%, 10%, or even by a certain absolute distance in the 3D world space), for at least a threshold percentage of vertices (e.g., 75%, 80%, 90%, 99%, etc., this percentage being the percentage of vertices being processed overall in the original set of vertices 410 or only within each batch)”. This shows Sikachev teaches vertices to a selectable percent of vertices which fall within the threshold range of the applicant’s amended claim language, also, applicant admits “threshold percentage of vertices in Sikachev is used to determine the number limit of vertices” which reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language since the preset proportion being projected/processed is limiting the vertices. Examiner would like to warn that attorney argument doesn’t constitute evidence and applicant arguing to do things for a different reason without reciting the reason in the claim language does not further distinguish the prior art from the claim language.
In response to applicant's argument that “each of the plurality of candidate vertices, and are chosen for completely different purposes”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “chosen for completely different purposes”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-9, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LINDAHL et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0358127), hereinafter referenced as LINDAHL, in view of SIKACHEV (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0143589).
Regarding claim 1, LINDAHL teaches A model establishment method applied to a computer device, the method comprising: (abstract teaches "method and image processing apparatus for creating simplified representations of an existing virtual 3D model for use in occlusion culling"); and establishing, based on projected coordinates of the M vertices and height information of the original model, a proxy model corresponding to the original model (paragraph 9 teaches "method further comprises increasing the volumetric size of the visual hull of the existing 3D model to envelop the existing virtual 3D model to provide the visual hull as an occludee model,"); the aforementioned simplified representation of the existing 3D model is the proxy model which here is referred to as the visual hull/occludee model and since size is increased to envelop existing 3D model, it is based on projected coordinates and height information of the original model.
However, LINDAHL fails to teach obtaining N coordinates, wherein the N coordinates are projected coordinates of N vertices that are in an original model and that are projected on a target plane, and N is a positive integer greater than or equal to 3, wherein the obtaining the N coordinates comprises: determining a plurality of candidate vertices based on the projected coordinates of the vertices that are comprised in the original model and that are projected on the target plane, wherein projected coordinates of each of the plurality of candidate vertices projected on the target plane are located in a reference area, and the reference area is an area in which a preset proportion of vertices in the original model are projected on the target plane, wherein the preset proportion is set to be greater than 90% and less than or equal to 98%; determining M vertices from the N vertices based on the N coordinates, wherein M is a positive integer greater than or equal to 3 and less than or equal to N;
However, SIKACHEV teaches obtaining N coordinates, wherein the N coordinates are projected coordinates of N vertices that are in an original model and that are projected on a target plane, and N is a positive integer greater than or equal to 3 (SIKACHEV, fig. 5, step 520 teaches "finding texture coordinates for the vertices in the original set of vertices" and fig. 9, fig. 13 and paragraph 56 teach "FIG. 13 denotes by 1220A_o, 1220B_o, 1220C_o the vertices in the original set of vertices 410 corresponding to the three vertices 1220A_n, 1220B_n, 1220C_n in the “corresponding subset” of vertices for the given vertex 1210 (this correspondence is also shown in FIG. 9)"); original set of vertices means in the original model [thus, coordinates of such are obtained], these vertices are shown in mentioned figures as projected onto target plane and N here is 3 since 1220A_o, 1220B_o, 1220C_o are the three referred to vertices in the original set[which would have texture coordinates taken for them as cited] , wherein the obtaining the N coordinates comprises: determining a plurality of candidate vertices based on the projected coordinates of the vertices that are comprised in the original model and that are projected on the target plane, (SIKACHEV, paragraph 5 teaches "an original set of vertices of a terrain mesh; producing a new set of vertices from the original set of vertices" ); new set of vertices here would be candidate vertices and since they're from original set, it means they're based on original set of vertices/projected coordinates of vertices comprised in original model (same ones from above that are projected); wherein projected coordinates of each of the plurality of candidate vertices projected on the target plane are located in a reference area, (SIKACHEV, fig. 1, reference 120 and paragraph 40 teach "one way to achieve the new mapping for an original set of vertices 410 in the 2D vertex grid 120 is by producing a new set of vertices from the original set of vertices (STEP 510)"); vertex grid 120 shown in fig. 1 would be reference area since it's an area and has the new set of vertices (which are projected coordinates of each of the plurality of candidate vertices projected on target plane); and the reference area is an area in which a preset proportion of vertices in the original model are projected on the target plane, (SIKACHEV, abstract teaches "combining may comprise determining a weighted sum of the obtained texture coordinates, and the weights may be the weights for which the given vertex in the original set of vertices is the centroid of a polygon formed by the corresponding vertices in the new set of vertices"); having weighted sum means proportions must exist (there are proportions of vertices of original set/model behind the weighted sum to decide the correct centroid for the reference area [reference area indicated by new set since as aforementioned, the new set is in reference area]); wherein the preset proportion is set to be greater than 90% and less than or equal to 98% (SIKACHEV, paragraph 46 teaches “once the above revised position calculation has been performed for all vertices in the original set of vertices 410, the aforementioned technique may be reiterated for all vertices in the original set of vertices 410, and repeated a number of times. This number of times may be fixed without there being a particular limitation on the number (e.g., 2, 5, 10, 50 or 100 times), or it may be performed as many times as necessary so that the revised position changes by no more than a threshold amount (e.g., 1%, 5%, 10%, or even by a certain absolute distance in the 3D world space), for at least a threshold percentage of vertices (e.g., 75%, 80%, 90%, 99%, etc., this percentage being the percentage of vertices being processed overall in the original set of vertices 410 or only within each batch).”; this shows vertices to a selectable percent of vertices which fall within the threshold range of the applicant’s 91-98% and processed here for vertices shows those would be the ones projected; determining M vertices from the N vertices based on the N coordinates, wherein M is a positive integer greater than or equal to 3 and less than or equal to N (SIKACHEV, paragraph 53 teaches "a “corresponding subset” of vertices in the new set of vertices 810 is found for the given vertex 1210 in the original set of vertices 410. With reference to FIG. 12, the corresponding subset of vertices can include at least three vertices 1220A_n, 1220B_n, 1220C_n, and these may be the three vertices in the new set of vertices 810 that are “closest” to the given vertex 1210 and together surround the given vertex 1210"); since this is subset it is from the aforementioned set (from the N vertices and coordinates thereof) and since subset of vertices can include at least three [M] vertices 1220A_n, 1220B_n, 1220C_n, this means M is positive, equal to three and also equal to N from above. SIKACHEV is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of obtaining coordinates of a model in relation to vertices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify LINDAHL’s invention with the subset and coordinate techniques of SIKACHEV to ensure improved realism when rendering the 3D terrain mesh 110, and in particular where the heightmap 130 is indicative of steep slopes (SIKACHEV, paragraph 39). This shows more realistic and accurate mesh/model thus better user experience.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of LINDAHL and SIKACHEV teaches determining the N vertices from the plurality of candidate vertices (SIKACHEV, paragraph 41 teaches "Producing a new set of vertices from the original set of vertices 410 may include computing a revised 2D position (or revised X-Y coordinates) for at least some of the vertices in the original set of vertices 410"); revised position for original set means that those would become the N vertices since those[original set] are N vertices in claim 1 and here the location is simply revised for the new set/candidate vertices meaning the N vertices would be determined from the revised locations caused by the new set; and determining the projected coordinates of the N vertices projected on the target plane (SIKACHEV, paragraph 41 teaches "Producing a new set of vertices from the original set of vertices 410 may include computing ...(or revised X-Y coordinates) for at least some of the vertices in the original set of vertices 410"); revised coordinates for original set means that those would become the projected coordinates of N vertices since those[original set] are used to obtain projected coordinates of N vertices in claim 1 and here the coordinates are simply revised for the new set/candidate vertices meaning the projected coordinates of N vertices would be determined from the revised coordinates caused by the new set. The same motivations used in claim 1 apply here in claim 2.
Regarding claim 8, the chip system claim 8 recites similar limitations as method claim 1, and thus is rejected under similar rationale. In addition, SIKACHEV, fig. 19 shows a chip system/processing entity 1912 and paragraph 65 teaches "processing entity may include electronic components such as a computer processor on a microchip. The graphics pipeline may be encoded as a subset 1916 of the computer-readable instructions 1920 in the memory 1914. An input/output (I/O) 1918 enables the processing entity 1912 to communicate externally"; one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the mentioned processor on a microchip has a logic circuit and I/O mentioned to communicate externally is for data transmission due to the mention of communicating externally. The same motivations used in claim 1 apply here in claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, the chip system claim 9 recites similar limitations as method claim 2, and thus is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 18, the computer device claim 18 recites similar limitations as method claim 1, and thus is rejected under similar rationale. In addition, LINDAHL, paragraph 37 teaches "a image processing system 200, such as the conceptual image processing system shown in FIG. 2...processor 202 may be or include any number of hardware components for conducting data or signal processing or for executing computer code stored in memory.".
Regarding claim 19, the computer device claim 19 recites similar limitations as method claim 2, and thus is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 3-4, 10-11, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of LINDAHL and SIKACHEV as applied to claim 2, 8, 18 and 20 above, and further in view of Karlsson (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0190505), hereinafter referenced as Karlsson.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of LINDAHL and SIKACHEV teaches wherein the determining the N vertices from the plurality of candidate vertices comprises:
determining N groups of candidate vertices based on projected coordinates of each of the plurality of candidate vertices projected on the target plane, (SIKACHEV, paragraph 45 teaches "above revised position calculation technique may be performed for all vertices… technique is to perform the revised position calculation in parallel for sub-groups (or “batches”) of vertices in the original set of vertices 410...one can create M batches...M, can be a positive integer power of 2, namely either 2, 4, 8, etc."); batches of vertices shows groups which are N groups because M here can be 4, 8, etc (still N is greater than 3 as mentioned in claim 1), this is for the candidate vertices/new set since for revised position calculation (as aforementioned for new set in claim 2), thus are based on projections of such (and coordinates for location thereof) on the target plane; wherein each group of candidate vertices in the N groups of candidate vertices comprises at least one vertex, (SIKACHEV, paragraph 45 teaches "sub-groups (or “batches”) of vertices in the original set of vertices 410. The vertices in each batch may be selected"); batches are of vertices and vertices in each batch means the group of candidate vertices/batches each have at least one vertex; and
determining the N vertices, wherein the N vertices respectively belong to the N groups of candidate vertices (SIKACHEV, paragraph 42 teaches "N points 610B, there are various ways to choose them. For example, the N points 610B may be points in 3D space corresponding to N vertices 410B in the original set of vertices 410 that are “in the neighborhood” of the particular vertex 410A, also elevated by the heightmap 130. To select N vertices 410B as being “in the neighborhood of” the particular vertex" and paragraph 45 teaches "a viable value for M may be dependent on the value of N."); N points are from original set of vertices thus are the N vertices here and they belong to N group of candidate vertices since the M/batch value depends on N value.
However, the combination of LINDAHL and SIKACHEV fails to teach projected coordinates of any two candidate vertices that belong to a same group and that are projected on the target plane are the same, and projected coordinates of any two candidate vertices that belong to different groups and that are projected on the target plane are different;
However, Karlsson teaches projected coordinates of any two candidate vertices that belong to a same group and that are projected on the target plane are the same, (Karlsson, paragraph 88 teaches "may adjust coordinates of vertices within the same group to an average of vertex coordinates in the group"); this would mean each vertex in group of vertices has average value of vertex coordinates (meaning two vertices have the same average value in the same group) and when viewed in combination these would be the vertices from SIKACHEV that are projected on the target plane; and projected coordinates of any two candidate vertices that belong to different groups and that are projected on the target plane are different (Karlsson, paragraph 88 teaches "module 214 may first group vertices that are connected along a line or near collinear with each other (oblique within 15 degrees)"); this shows different groups would have different coordinates of vertices since grouped together based on similarity (near collinear) and when viewed in combination these would be the vertices from SIKACHEV that are projected on the target plane. Karlsson is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of vertices grouping and relation in coordinates thereof. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of LINDAHL and SIKACHEV with the vertex grouping techniques of Karlsson to improve the quality of data collection (Karlsson, paragraph 37). This would be due to the specific grouping techniques of similar data and coordinates.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of LINDAHL, SIKACHEV and Karlsson teaches wherein the N vertices are vertices with a maximum coordinate value in a reference direction of the N groups of candidate vertices, (SIKACHEV, paragraph 17 teaches "6B is a diagram showing 3D points corresponding to the vertices in FIG. 6A", paragraph 41 teaches "position for a particular vertex 410A in the original set of vertices 410 can be computed based on a distance, in 3D space, between point 610A and each of N points 610B. Point 610A is a point in 3D space corresponding to the particular vertex 410A elevated by the heightmap 130." and paragraph 45 teaches "sub-groups (or “batches”) of vertices in the original set of vertices 410"); since aforementioned in claim 3, N points 610B are the N vertices, since the batches/groups are for vertices 410 those are the N groups, reference direction is direction where the points extend and maximum coordinate value is determined by height map (the elevation to which the points go to), thus these citations alongside fig. 6B show N vertices (points 610B), with max coordinate value in reference direction (height) of the N groups of candidate vertices (batches of points 410B); and the reference direction is a direction perpendicular to the target plane (SIKACHEV, fig. 6b shows reference direction (where 610 vertices are located in relation to 410) being perpendicular to plane); and the height information of the original model is coordinate values of the M vertices in the reference direction (SIKACHEV, paragraph 9 teaches "storing a heightmap that maps terrain vertices to associated height values, a mapping between texture coordinates and the terrain vertices"); subset/M mentioned in claim 1 is also a type of the terrain vertices thus the heightmap accounts for it alongside a reference direction of height (positive Z axis). The same motivations used in claim 1 apply here in claim 4.
Regarding claim 10, the chip system claim 10 recites similar limitations as method claim 3, and thus is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 11, the chip system claim 11 recites similar limitations as method claim 4, and thus is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 20, the computer device claim 20 recites similar limitations as method claim 3, and thus is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of LINDAHL and SIKACHEV teaches
wherein the N vertices are vertices with a maximum coordinate value in a reference direction of the N groups of candidate vertices, (SIKACHEV, paragraph 17 teaches "6B is a diagram showing 3D points corresponding to the vertices in FIG. 6A", paragraph 41 teaches "position for a particular vertex 410A in the original set of vertices 410 can be computed based on a distance, in 3D space, between point 610A and each of N points 610B. Point 610A is a point in 3D space corresponding to the particular vertex 410A elevated by the heightmap 130." and paragraph 45 teaches "sub-groups (or “batches”) of vertices in the original set of vertices 410"); since aforementioned in claim 3, N points 610B are the N vertices, since the batches/groups are for vertices 410 those are the N groups, reference direction is direction where the points extend and maximum coordinate value is determined by height map (the elevation to which the points go to), thus these citations alongside fig. 6B show N vertices (points 610B), with max coordinate value in reference direction (height) of the N groups of candidate vertices (batches of points 410B); and the reference direction is a direction perpendicular to the target plane (SIKACHEV, fig. 6b shows reference direction (where 610 vertices are located in relation to 410) being perpendicular to plane); and the height information of the original model is coordinate values of the M vertices in the reference direction (SIKACHEV, paragraph 9 teaches "storing a heightmap that maps terrain vertices to associated height values, a mapping between texture coordinates and the terrain vertices"); subset/M mentioned in claim 1 is also a type of the terrain vertices thus the heightmap accounts for it alongside a reference direction of height (positive Z axis). The same motivations used in claim 1 apply here in claim 21.
Claim(s) 5, 12, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of LINDAHL and SIKACHEV as applied to claim 1, 8 and 18 above, and further in view of O'Leary (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0267705), hereinafter referenced as O'Leary.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of LINDAHL and SIKACHEV fails to explicitly teach wherein the height information of the original model is height information of a bounding box, and all vertices in the original model are located in the bounding box. Although, Lindhall paragraph 23 teaches "a marching cubes algorithm"; which typically uses bounding volumes and thus height of such.
However, O'Leary explicitly teaches wherein the height information of the original model is height information of a bounding box, (O'Leary, paragraph 79 teaches "Voxel data for models is stored in a grid of dimensions equal to the bounding box of the model (the width, height, and depth of the model)"); this shows height for model (inclusive of original model since Lindahl abstract mentions it as voxel data "the voxel volume fully encloses the existing virtual 3D model") and height for bounding box matching; and all vertices in the original model are located in the bounding box (O'Leary, fig. 7, reference 704 teaches voxel data being in a bounding box); as aforementioned since Lindahl abstract mentions voxel data fully enclosing existing/original 3D model, it means the voxel data (here in O'Leary enclosed in bounding box) contains all vertices of the original model. O'Leary is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of using bounding box for models. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of LINDAHL and SIKACHEV with the bounding box techniques of O'Leary to provide for a smooth and efficient experience for users (O'Leary, paragraph 95). This would be due to the enclosed accurate data in the bounding box.
Regarding claim 12, the chip system claim 12 recites similar limitations as method claim 5, and thus is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 22, the computer device claim 22 recites similar limitations as method claim 5, and thus is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 6, 13 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of LINDAHL and SIKACHEV as applied to claim 1, 8 and 18 above, and further in view of Lee (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0292909), hereinafter referenced as Lee.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of LINDAHL and SIKACHEV fails to teach wherein the determining the M vertices from the N vertices based on the N coordinates comprises: traversing the N vertices based on the N coordinates, and deleting an abnormal vertex from the N vertices to obtain the M vertices, wherein an angle of an included angle between a first reference line and a second reference line is greater than a preset angle, the first reference line is a connection line between the abnormal vertex and a first adjacent point, the second reference line is a connection line between the abnormal vertex and a second adjacent point, and the first adjacent point and the second adjacent point are two vertices that are located on two sides of the abnormal vertex and adjacent to the abnormal vertex in the N vertices.
However, Lee teaches wherein the determining the M vertices from the N vertices based on the N coordinates comprises: traversing the N vertices based on the N coordinates, and deleting an abnormal vertex from the N vertices to obtain the M vertices, (Lee, fig. 9 teaches traversing each additional vertex [inclusive of N vertices] at step 960 to select it as target vertex at step 910 and remove it at step 950 if angle sum equals 270 at step 930); removed vertex is deleting it, the angle sum being 270 is what makes it abnormal and when viewed in combination the vertices are associated with the coordinates in claim 1; wherein an angle of an included angle between a first reference line and a second reference line is greater than a preset angle, (Lee, paragraph 94 teaches "determining that the target vertex is shared by the three surfaces, the system 420 determines threes angles, where each of the three angles is an angle between two normal vectors of two of the three surfaces. If a sum of the three angles is substantially equal to 270 degree" ); two normal vectors shows first and second reference line and angles each must be greater than a preset angle in order to equal 270; the first reference line is a connection line between the abnormal vertex and a first adjacent point, the second reference line is a connection line between the abnormal vertex and a second adjacent point, (Lee, fig. 10B and paragraph 99 teach "In the example shown in FIG. 10B, the vertex 1020C is determined to be a vertex to be removed. The system 420 obtains a first normal vector N1 of a triangle T1 having vertexes 1030D, 1030F, 1020C, a second normal vector N2 of a triangle T2 having vertexes 1020C, 1030F, 1030G"); since 1020C is vertex to be removed/abnormal vertex, vector N2/second reference line is connection along an adjacent point to that abnormal vertex and vector N1/first reference line is connection along another adjacent point to that abnormal vertex; and the first adjacent point and the second adjacent point are two vertices that are located on two sides of the abnormal vertex and adjacent to the abnormal vertex in the N vertices (Lee, fig. 10B shows adjacent points 1030G and 1030D located on the two sides of the vertex to be removed 1020C); the abnormal vertex would be in the N vertices when viewed in combination and as explained above since traversal is done for all vertices. Lee is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of vertex traversal and removal using connection lines and adjacent points. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of LINDAHL and SIKACHEV with the vertex traversal and removal techniques of Lee to ensure computing resources can be conserved and processing efficiency can be improved (Lee, paragraph 92). This would be done by removing erroneous data/vertices leading to better calculations.
Regarding claim 13, the chip system claim 13 recites similar limitations as method claim 6, and thus is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 23, the computer device claim 23 recites similar limitations as method claim 6, and thus is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of LINDAHL and SIKACHEV as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Nicholl et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0377272), hereinafter referenced as Nicholl.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of LINDAHL and SIKACHEV teaches wherein the establishing, based on the projected coordinates of the M vertices and the height information of the original model, the proxy model corresponding to the original model comprises: determining, based on the projected coordinates of the M vertices and the height information of the original model, coordinates of M top vertices located on a top plane of the proxy model and coordinates of M bottom vertices located on a bottom plane of the proxy model; (SIKACHEV, paragraph 5 teaches "obtaining texture coordinates for vertices in a subset" and paragraph 9 teaches "storing a heightmap that maps terrain vertices to associated height values, a mapping between texture coordinates and the terrain vertices"); this would be based on projected coordinates of M vertices and height information of original model because SIKACHEV [where subset is M as described in claim 1 and heightmap shows height information of original model].
However, the combination of LINDAHL and SIKACHEV fails to teach determining, based on the projected coordinates of the M vertices and the height information of the original model, coordinates of M top vertices located on a top plane of the proxy model and coordinates of M bottom vertices located on a bottom plane of the proxy model; and determining a vertex index based on the coordinates of the M top vertices and the coordinates of the M bottom vertices, wherein the vertex index is used to record a connection sequence of vertices in the proxy model, and the proxy model comprises the coordinates of the M top vertices, the coordinates of the M bottom vertices, and the vertex index.
However, Nicholl teaches determining, based on the projected coordinates of the M vertices and the height information of the original model, coordinates of M top vertices located on a top plane of the proxy model and coordinates of M bottom vertices located on a bottom plane of the proxy model (Nicholl, paragraph 145 teaches "the first set of coordinates is used to determine point arrays that define the planes that represent the walls of the interior space. That is, points located at the extreme corners of the planes representing the walls (i.e. the points where the wall meets the ceiling or floor) are determined"); extreme corners here would be M/subset of points from SIKACHEV and since these are for ceiling or floor meeting walls it would mean that the coordinates/points of vertices are for top plane(ceiling) and bottom plane (floors), also, as further explained below, this would be for a mesh/proxy model; and determining a vertex index based on the coordinates of the M top vertices and the coordinates of the M bottom vertices, (Nicholl, paragraph 5 teaches "Generating a polygon mesh for input to a rendering engine typically involves applying a mesh-generation technique to an array of predefined vertices (three-dimensional coordinates of surface points of the object or space)"); array shows vertex index and is based on the vertices thus also the coordinates of M top and M bottom vertices; wherein the vertex index is used to record a connection sequence of vertices in the proxy model, (Nicholl, paragraph 6 teaches "An array of edges which connect pairs of the vertices is generated (or may itself be predefined, in an edge table for example)"); this shows vertex index/array records connection sequence of vertices in mesh/proxy model (proxy since less detailed version of model); and the proxy model comprises the coordinates of the M top vertices, the coordinates of the M bottom vertices, and the vertex index (Nicholl, paragraph 7-10 teaches "Using the array of edges, all polygons (typically triangles), which are closed sets of the edges, are generated; All polygons on the same face plane are combined; All polygon faces which are in the same horizontal or vertical plane are grouped; and All groups of polygon faces are combined to form the 3D polygonal mesh of the object or space being modelled."); this means all polygons (including M top vertices, M bottom vertices and vertex index) would be grouped to create the mesh/proxy model. Nicholl is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of storing vertices connection sequence in vertex index. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of LINDAHL and SIKACHEV with the connection and index of vertex techniques of Nicholl to improve the accuracy of the polygon mesh that will be generated from the points (Nicholl, paragraph 134). This means a better proxy model since although simplified without additional texture details and coordinates, it would still be accurate using ample points.
Regarding claim 14, the chip system claim 14 recites similar limitations as method claim 7, and thus is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Couture-Gagnon (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0017721) paragraph 49 teaches “"Reduction Amount" sub-category 600 of the tab in FIG. 6A contains options to control the amount of reduction. Such options include a menu for selecting the units in which the amount of reduction is expressed, and sliders or associated input text boxes to provide a value indicative of the amount of desired reduction. The amount of desired reduction may be expressed in terms of a ratio, a vertex count or a triangle count”; slider and amount of desired reduction in terms of ratio or a vertex count shows scenarios where preset proportion is set to be greater than 90% and less than or equal to 98%.
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 NAUMAN U AHMAD whose telephone number is (703)756-5306. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Kee Tung can be reached at (571) 272-7794. 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.
/N.U.A./Examiner, Art Unit 2611
/KEE M TUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611