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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to claim 1, applicant argues that Jansson discloses a rendering pipeline rather than a physics simulation. However, Jansson is not cited for particular physics simulation characteristics, and it is noted that what is being rendered is simulated hair, as stated on cited p. 7 of the reference. Thus, the transition is between levels of simulated hair and the different methods do correspond to simulation models.
Applicant states that Jansson discloses a lower-detail volumetric level that avoids a reduced geometry representation, which teaches away from the claimed second set of simulation strands corresponding to a subset of the first set of simulation strands. However, nothing in the reference rises to the level of “teaching away” since there is no criticism or discrediting of a subset of strands being used. As stated in MPEP 2145, a reference does not teach away if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not criticize, discredit or otherwise discourage investigation into the invention claimed.
Applicant argues that Bondich does not disclose a dynamically shifting runtime environment driven by a metric threshold. Examiner notes that Bondich is not cited for a dynamically shifting runtime environment, instead being cited for a neighbor distance metric that determines different levels of simulation using different numbers of strands.
Applicant argues that Avkarogullari is directed to GPU power and thermal management rather than strand physics LOD systems. Examiner notes that Avkarogullari is directed to LOD systems, discussing mipmap contributions to a rendered pixel. One skilled in the art, attempting to implement a strand LOD system would certainly look to more generic LOD references that also involve weighting and different methods of deriving a pixel. Further, applicant’s invention is explicitly dealing with expense of computational resources (see applicant’s specification at section 0002), and GPU power usage would be an example of a computational resource expense.
Applicant argues that Zhang is confined to illumination pipelines and blending in Zhang is post-processing. Examiner notes that Zhang explicitly describes modeling hair (section 0059) and blending the results of rendering those models (section 0064). Applicant argues that this is different from making raw physics simulation model results available between systemic levels, but the claims do not specifically recite this, and Zhang is not cited for making raw physics simulation model results available between systemic levels.
Applicant argues that examiner uses impermissible hindsight in the rejection to claim 1. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant argues that Li does not cure the deficiencies of the cited art. Examiner notes that Li is not applied in the rejection of claim 1, and applicant does not present arguments regarding the limitations of claim 6 that Li is cited to teach.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-11, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bondich (U.S. Patent 11,030,786) in view of Jansson (“Real-Time Hybrid Hair Rendering”), Avkarogullari (U.S. Publication 2017/0061570), and Zhang (U.S. Publication 2021/0312695).
As to claim 1, Bondich discloses determining positions of a number of render strands based on a simulation model of simulation strands, wherein each simulation strand in the simulation model corresponds to a render strand, and the number of simulation strands is less than or equal to the number of render strands (col. 2, lines 24-53; col. 6, lines 11-29; col. 6, lines 46-61; generated strands, which would read on simulation strands, are used to produce additional render strands that are rendered; the number of generated/simulation strands is less than the total number of strands rendered, which includes generated/simulation strands and additional strands), wherein:
for a first range of values of a metric less than or equal to a first threshold value, the simulation model is determined in a first simulation level based on a first set of the simulation strands (col. 11, line 52-col. 12, line 32; col. 14, lines 41-59; if strands are within a neighbor distance, a 3-strand interpolation is performed as a simulation model; for example, a set of strands 2 and 3 is used with strand 0);
for a second range of values of the metric greater than or equal to a second threshold value, the simulation model is determined in a second simulation level based on a second set of the simulation strands, the second set of simulation strands corresponding to a subset of the first set of simulation strands (col. 11, line 52-col. 12, line 32; col. 14, lines 41-59; if stands are a greater distance away from each other and not neighboring, a single strand interpolation is performed as a simulation model; for example, a set of strand 3 is used without other strands, which is a subset of the strands used with strand 0);
Bondich does not disclose, but Jansson does disclose for metric values between the first and second threshold values, a transition between the first simulation level and the second simulation level (fig. 3; fig. 5; p. 1; p. 6-7; a transition between the explicit/strand hair simulation level and implicit/volume hair simulation level is performed via blending) which comprises computing the simulation model in the first simulation level, and deriving positions of each render strand from the first set of simulation strands having a first weight and the second set of simulation strands having a second weight (p. 5, section 4; the different hair strand sets derived with different methods are alpha blended to derive rendered pixels representing the strands at particular positions; alpha blending is a blend where two or more values to be blended have alpha values which act as weights in the blend; one method is used for larger distance values while another is used for smaller distance values), wherein computing the simulation model in the first simulation level comprises computing a simulation step for the first simulation level that transforms the first set of simulation strands from initial positions to updated positions, without computing an additional simulation step for the second simulation level that transforms the second set of simulation strands (fig. 1; fig. 5; p. 5, section 4; positions for strands in a first model and positions for strands in a second model are derived separately and then compared or combined in an alpha blend; in other words, the rasterizer model is computed for the first simulation level without the raymarcher and then the rasterizer results are compared or blended with the raymarcher results), and that the transition is from a first simulation level that corresponds to a first level of detail and the second simulation level that corresponds to a second level of detail lower than the first level of detail (p. 5, section 4; the first method/simulation level is for a rasterizer which shows greater details and the second method/simulation level is for a raymarcher that is used for lower detail, further away shots). The motivation for this is that the transition approach is faster and scales better for far away distances (p. 2). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bondich to transition between the first simulation level and the second, lower detail, simulation level by computing the simulation model in the first simulation level, and deriving positions of each render strand from the first set of simulation strands having a first weight and the second set of simulation strands having a second weight, wherein computing the simulation model in the first simulation level comprises computing a simulation step for the first simulation level that transforms the first set of simulation strands from initial positions to updated positions, without computing an additional simulation step for the second simulation level that transforms the second set of simulation strands in order to use an approach that is faster and scales better for far away distances as taught by Jansson.
Jansson discusses combining different representations of levels of detail (p. 2, section 2), but does not go so far as to discuss blending the different levels using thresholding. Avkarogullari, however, discloses a blend method wherein the first weight decreases as the value of the metric increases from the first threshold value to the second threshold value, and the second weight increases as the value of the metric increases from the first threshold value to the second threshold value (p. 2, section 0025; p. 3, section 0035; weights are based on a distance/scale metric, and a first level is used below a first threshold value and a second level is used above a second threshold value). The motivation for this is to reduce operations, and thus limit power of a processor (p. 2, section 0022). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bondich and Jansson to use a blend method wherein the first weight decreases as the value of the metric increases from the first threshold value to the second threshold value, and the second weight increases as the value of the metric increases from the first threshold value to the second threshold value in order to reduce operations, and thus limit power of a processor as taught by Avkarogullari.
Bondich does not disclose, but Zhang does disclose wherein simulation model results for simulation strands of the first simulation level are available for corresponding simulation strands of the second simulation level (p. 2, sections 0022-0023; p. 3, section 0039; p. 4, sections 0064-0065; the hair strands simulated for a first higher density level are available to be blended with corresponding superimposed hair strands for a second lower density level), and also discloses that the simulation step for the first simulation level is without computing an additional simulation step for the second simulation level (p. 2, sections 0022-0023; p. 3, sections 0039-0047; p. 4, sections 0064-0065; the first initial section has a first sampling step which is followed by other sampling, but the other sampling is a separate step rather than being an additional step for the first level). The motivation for this is to simulate a real growth effect (p. 3, section 0037). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bondich, Jansson, and Avkarogullari to have simulation model results for simulation strands of the first simulation level, calculated in a separate step from the second, available for corresponding simulation strands of the second simulation level in order to simulate a real growth effect as taught by Zhang.
As to claim 2, Bondich does not disclose, but Jansson does disclose wherein transitioning between the first simulation level and second simulation further comprises: generating, for each render strand, a respective first temporary render strand having a respective first temporary position based on the first set of simulation strands; generating, for each render strand, a respective second temporary render strand having a respective second temporary position based on the second set of simulation strands; and determining a position for each render strand based on the first temporary position and the first weight, and the second temporary position and the second weight (fig. 1; fig. 5; p. 5, section 4; positions for strands in a first model and positions for strands in a second model are derived; since the results are blended using weights as discussed in the rejection to claim 1, each strand generated by each model reads on a temporary strand; the final image with final positions is generated by blending the temporary strand with first position and temporary strand with second position using respective weights). Motivation for the combination is given in the rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 3, Bondich does not disclose, but Jansson does disclose interpolating, for each render strand, the respective first temporary position and respective second temporary position using the first weight and second weight, to determine the position for each render strand during the transition from the first simulation level to the second simulation level (fig. 1; fig. 5; p. 5, section 4; the final image with final positions is generated by blending the temporary strand with first position and temporary strand with second position using respective weights; the effect is a transition between the strands and associated levels). Motivation for the combination is given in the rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 5, Bondich does not disclose, but Jansson does disclose wherein the metric corresponds to a perceived distance value, and the simulation level transitions from the first simulation level to the second simulation level as the perceived distance value increases from the first threshold value to the second threshold value (p. 5, section 4; for close up distances, one of the simulation levels is used; for far-away distances, the other is used; both can be used and blended for in-between distances). Further, Avkarogullari discloses that the metric corresponds to a perceived distance value, and the simulation level transitions from the first simulation level to the second simulation level as the perceived distance value increases from the first threshold value to the second threshold value (p. 2, section 0025; p. 3, section 0035; a first level is used below a first threshold value and a second level is used above a second threshold value; for in-between distances/scales, weights are based on a distance/scale metric to transition between the levels). Motivation for the combination of references is given in the rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 8, Bondich discloses wherein each render strand comprises a plurality of points, and determining positions of the render strands comprises determining positions of each point of the plurality of points (col. 8, line 53-col. 9, line 5; col. 11, lines 28-51; the positions determined are vertex points of the hair strands).
As to claim 9, see the rejection to claim 1. Further, Bondich discloses an apparatus comprising one or more processors and a memory, the memory comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the method (col. 19, line 39-col. 20, line 7; col. 24, line 36-50).
As to claim 10, see the rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 11, see the rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 15, Bondich discloses wherein the one or more processors comprise at least one graphics processing unit (col. 19, lines 39-60; col. 24, line 36-50).
As to claim 16, see the rejection to claim 1. Further, Bondich discloses a computer readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the method (col. 19, line 39-col. 20, line 7; col. 24, line 36-50).
As to claim 17, see the rejection to claim 2.
Claims 6, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bondich in view of Jansson, Avkarogullari, and Zhang and further in view of Li (U.S. Publication 2018/0374242).
As to claim 6, Bondich does not disclose but Li does disclose wherein, when transitioning from the second simulation level to the first simulation level, the initial positions of the first set of simulation are strands are determined such that for each simulation strand included in the second set of simulation strands, the initial position corresponds to the position of the corresponding simulation strand of the second set of simulation strands, based on the determined simulation model in the second simulation level; and for each simulation strand of the first set of simulation strands not included in the second set of simulation strands, determining an initial position comprises assigning a position of the corresponding render strand determined based on the simulation model in the second simulation level (p. 2, sections 0031-0032; a full set of polystrip hair strands exists, corresponding to a first simulation level, while a subset of polystrip hair strands have positional characteristics already existing, corresponding to a second simulation level; the full set/first set includes initial positions of the second level strands/polystrips that already exist; these initial positions can be modified if new polystrips/strands are added). The motivation for this is that the resulting hairstyle can be generated quickly in high quality. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bondich, Jansson, Avkarogullari, and Zhang to have initial positions correspond to the position of the corresponding simulation strands of the second set of simulation strands, based on the determined simulation model in the second simulation level, and for each simulation strand of the first set of simulation strands not included in the second set of simulation strands, determine an initial position comprising assigning a position of the corresponding render strand determined based on the simulation model in the second simulation level in order to have a resulting hairstyle generated quickly in high quality as taught by Li.
As to claim 13, see the rejection to claim 6.
As to claim 19, see the rejection to claim 6.
Conclusion
Claims 4, 7, 12, 14, 18, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 AARON M RICHER whose telephone number is (571)272-7790. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, King Poon can be reached at (571)272-7440. 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.
/AARON M RICHER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2617
Prosecution Insights