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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/14/26 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 2, 6-8, 13-15 and 19-20 have been amended.
Claims 3-5, 9-12 and 16-18 have been previously presented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-20 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. Claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 15 and 17 each recite the phrase “at least in part” without providing any context or definitive indication that discloses how one skilled in the art could produce an amount or measurement of “at least in part” as claimed in Claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 15 and 17. Therefore claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for reciting indefinite language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 6-9, 13-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poole et al.(hereinafter “Poole”, “Dreamfusion: Text-to-3D using 2D Diffusion”) in view of Kant et al.(hereinafter “Kant”, “Housekeep: Tidying Virtual Households using Commonsense Reasoning”).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, Poole teaches a processor (sec. 1 1st para. lines 1-14 and sec. 5 1st para. lines 1-4, in which systems are utilized to implement rendering of 3D models from text prompts, as also shown in Figs. 1 & 4. Therefore one skilled in the art would clearly recognize that those systems and rendering engines comprise processors to implement the rendering shown in Figs. 1 & 4.), a method (sec. 1 1st para. lines 1-14) and a system (sec. 1 1st para. lines 1-14), comprising:
one or more circuits to cause one or more neural networks (sec. 1 2nd para. lines 1-8) to:
generate, using a large language model, information corresponding to a layout of a graphical scene from one or more text or speech inputs that describe the graphical scene (capt. of Fig. 1 lines 1-4);
generate, using one or more generative text-to-3D models, respective 3D information of the one or more objects based, at least in part on descriptive information of the one or more objects generated by the large language model (capt. of Fig. 1 lines 1-4 and capt. of Fig. 3 lines 1-10); and
cause an image of the graphical scene to be rendered that depicts the one or more objects based, at least in part, on the respective 3D information of the one or more objects (sec. 3 lines 1-11 and Fig. 4). However, Poole fails to teach identify, using the large language model based on the information, a respective location for each of one or more objects in the graphical scene in which to place the one or more objects within the graphical scene, and the graphical scene to be rendered that depicts the one or more objects at their respective locations. Kant teaches identify, using the large language model based on the information, a respective location for each of one or more objects in the graphical scene in which to place the one or more objects within the graphical scene (capt. of Fig. 1 lines 1-5), and the graphical scene to be rendered that depicts the one or more objects at their respective locations (sec. 1 3rd para. lines 1-16). Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of invention to modify the 3D text generated objects of Poole with the object placement techniques of Kant because this combination would produce several complex three dimensional scenes from several angles through placing objects in different available locations to improve arrangement of several objects.
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Poole teaches the information comprises a scene graph comprising one or more sub-areas comprising different ones of the one or more objects (Fig. 3).
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 19, Poole fails to teach store the one or more objects with the identified respective location in a scene description file format. Kant teaches store the one or more objects with the identified respective location in a scene description file format (Table 1 & 2). Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of invention to modify the 3D text generated objects of Poole with the object placement techniques of Kant because this combination would produce several complex three dimensional scenes from several angles through placing objects in different available locations to improve arrangement of several objects.
Regarding claims 7, 14 and 20, Poole teaches wherein at least two of the one or more objects are generated in parallel (Figs. 1 & 4, in which several objects are generated together in the same scene).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 10-12 and 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1, 8 and 15, and if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Said Broome whose telephone number is (571)272-2931. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
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.
/Said Broome/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2612
Prosecution Insights