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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-9 and 11 have been canceled and as such all rejections to the canceled claims have been withdrawn as moot.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s correspondence, filed 4/17/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 10 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hayama et al.
Claim Warning
Applicant is advised that should claim 19 be found allowable, claim 27 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 12, 16-18, 20, 24-26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites “wherein the one or more environmental conditions in the virtual space … comprise an amount of fatigue that is associated with the virtual space.” Applicant’s specification fails to disclose any environmental condition that comprises an amount of fatigue. Paragraph 29 of applicant’s Specification filed. 7/18/2024 discloses changes in skin can be due to fatigue, but discusses how the user in the scene is affected by the environment of the scene and can sweat “under influence of the environment.” This is not the same thing as the environment itself having “fatigue” but rather a human condition reflected by the emulated skin as representing fatigue, rather than the environment condition being fatigue. Accordingly, the claim recites a limitation that is not supported by the specification and therefore is directed to new matter.
Claims 20 and 28 recite substantially the same language as claim 12 and are therefore rejected for the same written description issues as claim 12 discussed above.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites “wherein the one or more environmental conditions in the virtual space … comprise a level of exposure of the human object to sunburn within the virtual space.” Applicant’s specification fails to disclose any environmental condition that comprises the extent a human is sunburn which appears to be a condition of the human, as opposed to the environment (i.e. how much the human burns or extent of the skin exposure to burning, such as pigment or light/sun hitting the skin itself, as opposed to how sunny it is). Paragraph 31 of applicant’s Specification filed. 7/18/2024 discloses changes based on a degree of sunburn as state information, but not how this is a condition of the environment. Similarly paragraph 38 discusses the conditions of the person, not the environment. Accordingly, the claim recites a limitation that is not supported by the specification and therefore is directed to new matter.
Claim 24 recites substantially the same language as claim 16 and is therefore rejected for the same written description issues as claim 16 discussed above.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites “wherein the one or more environmental conditions in the virtual space that are contributors to perspiration in real humans comprise a level of alcohol exposure of the human object within the virtual space.” The specification does not describe anything related to exposure to alcohol and in particular an environmental condition of alcohol exposure. At most, the specification discusses changes based on a degree of drunkenness of the human object. This is not a disclosure of exposure to alcohol, however, but rather a condition of the human object itself. Accordingly, the limitation recites unsupported new matter.
Claim 25 recites substantially the same language as claim 17 and is therefore rejected for the same written description issues as claim 17 discussed above.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites “wherein the one or more environmental conditions in the virtual space that are contributors to perspiration in real humans comprise a propensity of the human object to perspire.” Applicant’s specification fails to disclose any environmental condition that comprises a propensity of a human to perspire, which is furthermore a condition of the human, as opposed to the environment. Accordingly, the claim recites a limitation that is not supported by the specification and therefore is directed to new matter.
Claim 26 recites substantially the same language as claim 18 and is therefore rejected for the same written description issues as claim 18 discussed above.
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.
Claims 12, 16-18, 20, 24-26 and 28-30 are 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.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites “wherein the one or more environmental conditions in the virtual space … comprise an amount of fatigue that is associated with the virtual space” which is unclear as to the intended meaning, as an environment itself cannot have fatigue. Fatigue is a human condition, and not something that is associated with a virtual space or environment. Accordingly, how the environment has fatigue is unclear, and renders the claim indefinite.
Claims 20 and 28 recite substantially the same language related to “fatigue” as claim 12 set forth above. As such, the claims are indefinite for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 12.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites “wherein the one or more environmental conditions in the virtual space … comprise a level of exposure of the human object to sunburn within the virtual space,” which is unclear as to the intended meaning, as an environment itself cannot have a level of exposure of the human object itself to sunburn This is a measure of a human condition, and not something that is associated with a virtual space or environment (as opposed to level of sunlight would be a measurable condition of the environment). Accordingly, how the environment has the level of exposure to sunburn is unclear, and renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 24 recites substantially the same language as claim 16 and is therefore rejected for the same written description issues as claim 16 discussed above.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites “wherein the one or more environmental conditions in the virtual space that are contributors to perspiration in real humans comprise a level of alcohol exposure of the human object within the virtual space.” This is not a condition of the environment, but rather a condition of the human object. As such, by reciting it as an environmental condition, the claim is unclear as to the intended meaning of how the level of exposure of alcohol of the human is tied into the condition of the environment. As such, the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claim 25 recites substantially the same language as claim 17 and is therefore rejected for the same written description issues as claim 17 discussed above.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites “wherein the one or more environmental conditions in the virtual space that are contributors to perspiration in real humans comprise a propensity of the human object to perspire,” which is unclear as to the intended meaning, as an environment itself cannot have a propensity of the human object to perspire, but is rather a condition of the human object, i.e. a measure of a human condition, and not something that is associated with a virtual space or environment. Accordingly, how the environment has the level of exposure to sunburn is unclear, and renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 26 recites substantially the same language as claim 18 and is therefore rejected for the same written description issues as claim 18 discussed above.
Regarding claim 28, the claim recites “The media of claim 27” but is referring to the system claim 27. Accordingly, the dependency renders the claim indefinite as it appears to attempt to be dependent on claim 27, which is a system claim, but then only attempts to incorporate the media of claim 27. Furthermore, the claim merely states “the media” instead of “the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media” of claim 27 and therefore lacks antecedent basis. As such, the claim is rendered indefinite.
Examiner recommends amending claim 27 to recite:
“A non-transitory computer-readable media that stores instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:”
Examiner further suggests amending claim 28 to recite:
“The non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 27,”
Claims 29 and 30 are rejected for the same issues as claim 28, as the claims recite the same dependency and antecedent issues as claim 28. Examiner suggests amending claims 29 and 30 similar to claim 28 discussed above.
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) 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Beeler et al. (US 2020/0082572 A1) in view of
Hayama et al. (US 2001/0033282 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Beeler discloses:
A system comprising one or more processors, and one or more non-transitory computer readable media that store instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (Beeler, ¶34: systems, methods, and computer-readable medium for generating a comprehensive model for dynamic skin appearance that couples dynamic reflectance parameters for skin (albedo and specular reflectance) with dynamic geometry; ¶¶110-112 discloses computer architecture for device, including processors and memory, storage and/or media having instructions for implementation) comprising:
Acquiring map data that includes one or more values that define an appearance of skin of a human object that represents a person in virtual space; (Beeler, Fig. 1, input image 102 – human object; ¶39: generate a three-dimensional (3D) rendering 104 of the input image 102 using an albedo map 106 and a shading map 108 of the image data; ¶42: Skin Reflectance Model - The disclosed techniques can model skin as a two-layer material composed of a rough dielectric layer, the stratum corneum, which accounts for reflection at the surface of the skin, and a diffuse layer that accounts for body reflection; ¶44: Skin albedo can mainly be the result of underlying concentrations of melanin and hemoglobin in the skin; Fig. 6 and ¶75: FIG. 6 shows exemplary images of a plurality of maps for dynamic appearance of skin, including four parameter maps per frame, namely albedo 602, diffuse ambient occlusion (AO) 604, specular attenuation 608, and high-resolution normals 608, which are maps are time-varying and can be used with existing rendering packages to render a face under different illumination conditions; ¶77: Figs. 8A and 8B discloses dynamic albedo map, where blood flow changes over time based on physiological effects, such as overheating or exercise, e.g. exercise albedo image 804 depicts the albedo map highlighting the color changes on the forehead of a subject; Fig. 14 and ¶87 discloses mapped data used to render realistic faces with dynamic albedo and specular shading modulated by specular intensity)
Identifying one or more environmental conditions in the virtual space(Beeler, ¶5: techniques can also re-render the actor's face under multiple environmental and lighting conditions that can differ from the conditions the images were captured; ¶96 discusses re-rending the subject in a different environment, e.g. near a volcano)
Adjusting one or more of the values that are included in the map data based at least one the identified one or more environmental conditions in the virtual space(Beeler, ¶5: techniques can also re-render the actor's face under multiple environmental and lighting conditions that can differ from the conditions the images were captured; ¶77 discusses dynamic albedo map including changing over time due to blood flow caused by physiological effects such as exercise of overheating, and displaying the effects;
Beeler further discloses the particular manner of adjusting the values in map data based on changes in the body temperature:
¶44: albedo changes caused by varying hemoglobin concentration due to blood flow, where the blood concentration in skin can change either due to physiological effects, such as blushing, or physical effects such as muscular activity that actively presses hemoglobin out of one part of the skin and into another;
¶47: for given skin patch, albedo represented by equation (4) calculating albedo ρf at any given time using scalar hf describing blood-flow-induced change in hemoglobin concentration – scalar hf is state information;
¶50: dynamic albedo capture only requires the estimation of a single degree of freedom hf per texel and per frame;
¶96 discusses re-rending the subject in a different environment, e.g. near a volcano;
¶97: One of the time-varying maps can include an albedo map depicting time-varying blood flow of the patch of skin comprising a shading free color of the face, where the albedo variation over time can be modeled as a one-dimensional curve in a color space code, with a one-dimensional curve can be precomputed and leaving a single free parameter of a position along the curve to be estimated; ¶106: the albedo can have both a static component and a dynamic component that appears during facial expressions or changes in body temperature); and
Generating a spatial image that illustrates the human object in the virtual space based at least one the adjusted one or more values that are included in the map data. (Beeler, ¶7: The albedo map can depict a time-varying blood flow of the patch of skin including a shading free color of the face, where one of the plurality of time-varying parameter maps can include a specular intensity map, where the specular intensity map can model light reflected off a surface of the patch of skin; ¶75: FIG. 6 shows exemplary images of a plurality of maps for dynamic appearance of skin; the output of the proposed technique can be a set of four parameter maps per frame, namely albedo 602, diffuse ambient occlusion (AO) 604, specular attenuation 608, and high-resolution normals 608, where the maps are time-varying and can be used with existing rendering packages to render a face under different illumination conditions; Fig. 14 and ¶87 discloses mapped data used to render realistic faces with dynamic albedo and specular shading modulated by specular intensity – see rendered column)
Beeler does not explicitly disclose the identified environmental condition as contributors to perspiration in real humans. Beeler teaches the dynamic change of the modeled skin based on different factors, that represents things like overheating, which is directly related, but does not explicitly state a correspondence between a virtual condition in the environment itself that is related to the contribution of perspiration in real humans (e.g. temperature, etc.). In other words, Beeler teaches the simulation of physiological effects of the skin from overheating. The only missing limitation is that the triggering condition for the overheating is the environment rather than some other trigger.
It is well known in the art that a computer generated model of a human can have a physiological response to an environmental condition, including contributors to perspiration in real humans. Hayama discloses:
Identifying one or more environmental conditions in the virtual space that are contributors to perspiration in real humans (Hayama - ¶40 discloses invention for controlling shape, pattern and type of texture applied to an object, where the object is a person; ¶127 discloses polygon data simulating the expansion and contraction of natural tissue; ¶257 further discloses polygon data corresponding to skin; ¶266: special effects applied to objects including change in texture data; ¶292: temperature of environment, i.e. stage, has changed, and movements of object changed according to temperature, such as “Furthermore, in a scene where the sun is shining on the object, or the object is moving about, it can be imagined that the temperature is high and motion data producing a "sweating" action in the object can be applied”)
Both Beeler and Hayama are directed to computer systems for simulating virtual objects representing a human to show physiological effects. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the system and technique for rendering dynamic changes to a virtual object in an virtual environment using skin condition parameters to render realistic images of a dynamic human model as provided by Beeler, by using a determined change in the environment for triggering a physiological simulation change as provided by Hayama, using known electronic interfacing and programming techniques. The modification merely substitutes one known trigger for physiological changes in a virtual object for another, yielding predictable results of using environment conditions for triggering a change in the model. The modification results in an improved simulation of human skin in a virtual space by allowing for more diverse simulations, and ensuring the resulting simulation is more realistic when animated by coordinating environmental effects with the physiological responses.
Regarding claim 10, the device of claim 19 performs the method of claim 10 and as such claim 10 is rejected based on the same rationale as claim 19 set forth above.
Regarding claim 27, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as claim 19 set forth above as the claim is duplicate of claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, Beeler modified by Hayama further discloses:
Wherein the one or more environmental conditions in the virtual space that are contributors to perspiration in real humans comprise an amount of fatigue that is associated with the virtual space (Beeler, ¶77: dynamic albedo map changes caused physiological effects from exercise)
Regarding claim 12, the device of claim 20 performs the method of claim 12 and as such claim 12 is rejected based on the same rationale as claim 20 set forth above.
Regarding claim 28, the system of claim 20 has the same media and instructions as recited by claim 28 and as such claim 28 is rejected based on the same rationale as claim 20 set forth above.
Regarding claim 21, Beeler modified by Hayama further discloses:
Wherein the one or more environmental conditions in the virtual space that are contributors to perspiration in real humans comprise an air temperature that is associated with the virtual space (Hayama - ¶40 discloses invention for controlling shape, pattern and type of texture applied to an object, where the object is a person; ¶127 discloses polygon data simulating the expansion and contraction of natural tissue; ¶257 further discloses polygon data corresponding to skin; ¶266: special effects applied to objects including change in texture data; ¶292: temperature of environment, i.e. stage, has changed, and movements of object changed according to temperature, such as “Furthermore, in a scene where the sun is shining on the object, or the object is moving about, it can be imagined that the temperature is high and motion data producing a "sweating" action in the object can be applied”)
Beeler and Hayama are combinable for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 19.
Regarding claim 13, the device of claim 21 performs the method of claim 13 and as such claim 13 is rejected based on the same rationale as claim 21 set forth above.
Regarding claim 29, the system of claim 21 has the same media and instructions as recited by claim 29 and as such claim 29 is rejected based on the same rationale as claim 21 set forth above.
Regarding claim 23, Beeler modified by Hayama further discloses:
Wherein the one or more environmental conditions in the virtual space that are contributors to perspiration in real humans comprises an amount of time that has elapsed within the virtual space (Beeler, ¶44: albedo changes caused by varying hemoglobin concentration due to blood flow, where the blood concentration in skin can change either due to physiological effects, such as blushing, or physical effects such as muscular activity that actively presses hemoglobin out of one part of the skin and into another; ¶47: for given skin patch, albedo represented by equation (4) calculating albedo ρf at any given time using scalar hf describing blood-flow-induced change in hemoglobin concentration – scalar hf is state information; ¶50: dynamic albedo capture only requires the estimation of a single degree of freedom hf per texel and per frame; ¶¶97-98 discloses time varying parameter maps including the albedo changes for blood flow as well as modeling reflected light off a surface based on specular intensity)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the system and technique for rendering dynamic changes to a virtual object in an virtual environment using skin condition parameters to render realistic images of a dynamic human model as provided by Beeler, by using a determined change in the environment for triggering a physiological simulation change as provided by Hayama, by further including the dynamic properties based on time as further provided by Beeler, using known electronic interfacing and programming techniques. The modification results in an improved dynamic modeling of a human object by allowing changing animations for a more realistic and engaging simulation of effects.
Regarding claim 15, the device of claim 23 performs the method of claim 15 and as such claim 15 is rejected based on the same rationale as claim 23 set forth above.
Regarding claim 24, Beeler modified by Hayama further discloses:
Wherein the one or more environmental conditions in the virtual space that are contributors to perspiration in real humans comprise a level of exposure of the human object to sunburn within the virtual space (Examiner notes that accounting to exposure to sun is read on by this claim - Hayama - ¶40 discloses invention for controlling shape, pattern and type of texture applied to an object, where the object is a person; ¶127 discloses polygon data simulating the expansion and contraction of natural tissue; ¶257 further discloses polygon data corresponding to skin; ¶266: special effects applied to objects including change in texture data; ¶292: temperature of environment, i.e. stage, has changed, and movements of object changed according to temperature, such as “Furthermore, in a scene where the sun is shining on the object, or the object is moving about, it can be imagined that the temperature is high and motion data producing a "sweating" action in the object can be applied”)
Beeler and Hayama are combinable for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 19.
Regarding claim 16, the device of claim 24 performs the method of claim 16 and as such claim 16 is rejected based on the same rationale as claim 24 set forth above.
Regarding claim 26, Beeler further discloses:
Wherein the one or more environmental conditions in the virtual space that are contributors to perspiration in real humans comprise a propensity of the human object (Beeler, ¶44: albedo changes caused by varying hemoglobin concentration due to blood flow, where the blood concentration in skin can change either due to physiological effects; ¶47: for given skin patch, albedo represented by equation (4) calculating albedo ρf at any given time using scalar hf describing blood-flow-induced change in hemoglobin concentration – scalar hf is state information; ¶50: dynamic albedo capture only requires the estimation of a single degree of freedom hf per texel and per frame; ¶81 discusses mapping mesoscopic skin detail such as pores)
Hyama further discloses:
Wherein the one or more environmental conditions in the virtual space that are contributors to perspiration in real humans comprise a propensity of the human object to perspire (Hayama - ¶40 discloses invention for controlling shape, pattern and type of texture applied to an object, where the object is a person; ¶127 discloses polygon data simulating the expansion and contraction of natural tissue; ¶257 further discloses polygon data corresponding to skin; ¶266: special effects applied to objects including change in texture data; ¶292: temperature of environment, i.e. stage, has changed, and movements of object changed according to temperature, such as “Furthermore, in a scene where the sun is shining on the object, or the object is moving about, it can be imagined that the temperature is high and motion data producing a "sweating" action in the object can be applied” – note the “propensity” is just an inclination, which reads on sweats or does not sweat, and Hayma teaches an object responding to sun by sweating, which is a propensity to sweat)
Beeler and Hayama are combinable for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 19.
Regarding claim 18, the device of claim 26 performs the method of claim 18 and as such claim 18 is rejected based on the same rationale as claim 26 set forth above.
Claim(s) 14, 22, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Beeler et al. (US 2020/0082572 A1) in view of
Hayama et al. (US 2001/0033282 A1) and in further view of
Frerichs et al. (Applicant IDS reference filed 10/31/2025 - Frerichs et al., “Computer graphics simulation of natural mummification by desiccation,” Computer Animation and Virtual Worlds, June 8, 2020, 31(6):e1927, 21 pages)
Regarding claim 22, the limitations included from claim 19 are rejected based on the same rationale as the rejection of claim 19 provided above. Further regarding claim 22, Beeler teaches the state information affecting the change of the image map data can be a result of temperature (Beeler, ¶106: the albedo can have both a static component and a dynamic component that appears during changes in body temperature). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to correlate body temperature with environment temperature, as it is well-known that environmental temperature can affect body temperature.
Frerichs, however, discloses:
Wherein the one or more environmental conditions in the virtual space are contributors to perspiration in real humans comprise a humidity level that is associated with the virtual space (Frerichs, pp. 2-3, Section 3, ¶1: “A well-known example is mummification by desiccation in hot, dry, and arid environments”, where Frerichs disclosed technology is directed to natural mummification by desiccation; Page 11, Section 8.3, ¶1: “This work represents the skin as two layers; the epidermis (top) and dermis layer (bottom), similar to the Donner et al. method, and each layer is rendered separately. In order to get the final skin render, Frerichset al. apply a screen space diffuse approximation approach for subsurface scattering on each layer individually. The epidermis and dermis maps are then convolved into the final skin map”, equation (36), with Ae representing the absorption by melanin.”; Section 8.3, ¶2: “Themelanin distribution map specifies the amount of the chromophore melanin in the body's epidermis layer. This is used to compute the light absorption by melanin when computing the hemoglobin contribution to the skin coloration inspired by Donner et al. 34 Coloration changes within the dermis were simulated using a look up texture based on hemoglobinh(x, y) and oxygen o(x, y) content information for each pixel (x, y)”; Section 8.3, ¶3: “In order to use this method to render skin coloration changes caused by mummification, the dermis color look-up texture, absorption by melanin and convolution weights need to be adjusted in order to account for the affects of moisture loss in the skin”; Furthermore, Section 8.3 discloses altering texture based on hemoglobin degradation, using equation (38), where “The hemoglobin degradation level is a combination of the oxygen o(x, y) and humidity m(x, y) levels and is computed” – Fig. 3 and p. 12 is a resulting blood color look-up texture based on the results of the accounting of hemoglobin degradation using humidity levels; Also see Fig. 9 showing shading based on hydration stages)
Both Beeler and Frerichs are directed to rendering 3D facial images using dynamic skin conditions for rendering an image. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the system and technique for rendering dynamic changes to a virtual object in an virtual environment using skin condition parameters to render realistic images of a dynamic human model as provided by Beeler, by using a determined change in the environment for triggering a physiological simulation change as provided by Hayama, by incorporating the use of the humidity parameter for determining color mapping effects to skin on a virtual model as provided by Frerichs, using known electronic interfacing and programming techniques. The modification results in an improved simulation of human skin in a virtual space by accounting for additional realistic effects and conditions, and rendering more dynamic and interactive effects.
Regarding claim 14, the device of claim 22 performs the method of claim 14 and as such claim 14 is rejected based on the same rationale as claim 22 set forth above.
Regarding claim 30, the system of claim 22 has the same media and instructions as recited by claim 30 and as such claim 30 is rejected based on the same rationale as claim 22 set forth above.
Claim(s) 17 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Beeler et al. (US 2020/0082572 A1) in view of
Hayama et al. (US 2001/0033282 A1) and in further view of
Yoda et al. (Yoda, Tamae, et al., “Effects of alcohol on thermoregulation during mild heat exposure in humans”, Alcohol, Volume 36, Issue 3, 2005, pp 195-200)
Regarding claim 25, the limitations included from claim 19 are rejected based on the same rationale as the rejection of claim 19 provided above. Further regarding claim 25, Beeler modified by Hayama further discloses changing the physiological effects of a model based on different conditions (Beeler, ¶77 discusses dynamic albedo map including changing over time due to blood flow caused by physiological effects such as exercise of overheating, and displaying the effects; ¶44: albedo changes caused by varying hemoglobin concentration due to blood flow, where the blood concentration in skin can change either due to physiological effects, such as blushing, or physical effects such as muscular activity that actively presses hemoglobin out of one part of the skin and into another; ¶47: for given skin patch, albedo represented by equation (4) calculating albedo ρf at any given time using scalar hf describing blood-flow-induced change in hemoglobin concentration – scalar hf is state information).
Beeler modified by Hayama further discloses wherein the one or more environmental conditions in the virtual space that are contributors to perspiration in real humans comprise a (Hayama - ¶40 discloses invention for controlling shape, pattern and type of texture applied to an object, where the object is a person; ¶127 discloses polygon data simulating the expansion and contraction of natural tissue; ¶257 further discloses polygon data corresponding to skin; ¶266: special effects applied to objects including change in texture data; ¶292: temperature of environment, i.e. stage, has changed, and movements of object changed according to temperature, such as “Furthermore, in a scene where the sun is shining on the object, or the object is moving about, it can be imagined that the temperature is high and motion data producing a "sweating" action in the object can be applied”)
Both Beeler and Hayama are directed to computer systems for simulating virtual objects representing a human to show physiological effects. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the system and technique for rendering dynamic changes to a virtual object in an virtual environment using skin condition parameters to render realistic images of a dynamic human model as provided by Beeler, by using a determined change in the environment for triggering a physiological simulation change as provided by Hayama, using known electronic interfacing and programming techniques. The modification merely substitutes one known trigger for physiological changes in a virtual object for another, yielding predictable results of using environment conditions for triggering a change in the model. The modification results in an improved simulation of human skin in a virtual space by allowing for more diverse simulations, and ensuring the resulting simulation is more realistic when animated by coordinating environmental effects with the physiological responses.
The only limitation not explicitly taught by Beeler and Hayama is that the physiological response triggered by alcohol exposure. This, however, is a well known cause and effect of the human condition, and one of ordinary skill in the art dealing with the simulation of physiological effects in a human model would have found such a cause and effect correlation would be an obvious modification to a system that simulates human physiological responses to different conditions, both based on mapping blood parameters to determine skin effects as in Beeler and the triggering of physiological effects based on environmental conditions as in Hayama. In particular, Yoda teaches:
Conditions that are contributors to perspiration in real humans comprise a level of alcohol exposure of the human object (Yoda, Abstract: Skin blood flow and chest sweat rate in the alcohol session significantly increased over those in controls 10 min after drinking)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the system and technique for rendering dynamic changes to a virtual object in an virtual environment using skin condition parameters to render realistic images of a dynamic human model as provided by Beeler, by using a determined change in the environment for triggering a physiological simulation change as provided by Hayama, by incorporating the correlation of alcohol consumption to perspiration effects as taught by Yoda, using known electronic interfacing and programming techniques. The modification merely applies a known physiological cause and effect in humans to a system that simulates physiological cause and effects in a virtual realm, yielding predictable results of simulating a well-known physiological condition of human sweat resulting from alcohol in a system that is intended to replicate physiological cause and effects in a virtual realm. The modification moreover merely substitutes one known cause and effect for another, yielding the predictable results of having a skin simulation system replicate a human condition, such as alcohol causing sweating. This also results in an improved simulation by accounting for more human conditions and allowing greater versatility and usability, as well as improved user engagement with the simulation.
Regarding claim 17, the device of claim 25 performs the method of claim 17 and as such claim 17 is rejected based on the same rationale as claim 25 set forth above.
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 WILLIAM A BEUTEL whose telephone number is (571)272-3132. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM (EST).
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 at 571-272-7642. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILLIAM A BEUTEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2616
Prosecution Insights