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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS(s)) submitted on 06/26/2024, 06/28/2024, and 12/06/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0031], “scene data also include locations” should read “scene data also includes locations”.
In paragraph [0053], “secondary line generator 340” should read “secondary line generator 640” as reference character 340 refers to a frame in Fig. 3.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“include” should read “includes”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an analyzer”, “a base curve generator”, “a secondary line generator”, “a visual coherence generator”, and “a combiner” in Claims 10, 11, and 13-16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For the sake of further prosecution, Examiner will treat “an analyzer”, “a base curve generator”, “a secondary line generator”, “a visual coherence generator”, and “a combiner” all as hardware or software configured to perform their respective recited functions/operations.
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.
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 4, 5, 10, 11, 13-16, 19 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 4, it recites, “determining whether visual coherence of the base curves is lacking.”, this is limitation and unclear and subjective. In the specification, paragraphs [0032], [0050], [0052]-[0054], [0069], [0071], and [0073] disclose visual coherence, but do not sufficiently describe what this means or how this subjective measure is determined, therefore this limitation is indefinite.
Claims 5, 13, and 19 also teach visual coherence and are rejected on the same grounds as Claim 4.
Claim limitations:
“analyzer” (Claim 10)
“base curve generator” (Claim 10)
“secondary line generator” (Claims 10 and 11)
“visual coherence generator” (Claim 13)
“combiner” (Claims 14-16)
invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The analyzer is mentioned in paragraphs [0006], [0050], [0051], and [0070] of the specification, but the specification only discloses the claimed function of the analyzer. The base curve generator is mentioned in paragraphs [0006], [0050]-[0052], [0070], and [0071] of the specification, but the specification only discloses the claimed function of the base curve generator. The secondary line generator is mentioned in paragraphs [0006], [0050], [0053], [070], and [0071] of the specification, but the specification only discloses the claimed function of the secondary line generator. The visual coherence generator is mentioned in paragraphs [0050]-[0053] and [0071] of the specification, but the specification only discloses the claimed function of the visual coherence generator. The combiner is mentioned in paragraphs [0054] and [0071] of the specification, but the specification only discloses the claimed function. This disclosure is not sufficient because it fails to disclose the structure of the above elements. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1, 10, and 17 are directed to an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
For Claims 1, 10, and 17:
Step 1: The claims as a whole fall within one or more statutory categories:
Claim 1 is directed to a process; Claims 10 and 17 are directed to machines.
Step 2A: Are the claims directed to a judicial exception (law of nature, natural phenomenon, abstract idea)?
The claims are directed to an abstract idea, see rationale below.
Claim 1 recites:
A method of generating lineworks, comprising: receiving scene data including locations of cameras capturing the scene data; → Data gathering
calculating 3-D mesh of the scene data; → Mathematical concepts
calculating camera angle relative to the 3-D mesh using the locations of the cameras; → Mathematical concepts
parsing the scene data and analyzing potential line locations based on the camera angle relative to the 3-D mesh; → Mental process
generating base curves for the potential line locations; → Mental process that can be performed by a human using a pen and paper; or mathematical concepts
and generating secondary lines on top of the base curves based on a user input to generate stylized curves. - Mental process that can be performed by a human using a pen and paper; or mathematical concepts
Step 2A: Prong 2 Analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Although Claim 1 recites an "A method comprising: …", the claim does not amount to significantly more than a generic method to perform the mental steps and mathematical calculations recited in the claim.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The step to "receiving scene data" is data gathering "calculating 3-D mesh"/“calculating camera angle”, are mathematical calculations, “parsing the scene” is a mental process that could be performed by the human mind, and “generating base curves”/“generating secondary lines” are processes that could be performed by a human using a pen and paper as well as geometric calculations.
Claims 10 and 17 are similar in scope to Claim 1, and are directed to an abstract idea. Claim 10 recites a system using the method of Claim 1 comprising a processor, the claim does not amount to significantly more than a generic system with a processor to perform the abstract ideas in the claim. Claim 17 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program comprising executable instructions of the method of Claim 1, the claim does not amount to significantly more than a generic non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program to perform the abstract ideas recited in Claim 1.
Claims 2 and 3 are directed to further limit generating the stylized curves of Claim 1. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of mental process that could be performed a human using a pen and paper.
Claims 11, 12, and 18 are similar in scope to Claims 2 and 3, and are directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 4 is supplemental to the method of Claim 1 and is directed to determining whether visual coherence is lacking. This step is part of a mental process that could be performed in the human mind, and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5 is directed to limit Claim 4 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of mental process that could be performed a human using a pen and paper.
Claims 13 and 19 are similar in scope to Claims 4 and 5, and are directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 6 is supplemental to the method of Claim 1 and is directed to rendering the stylized curves. This step is part of a mental that could be performed a human using a pen and paper, and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 7 is supplemental to the method of Claim 1 and is directed to adding hand-drawn lines to the stylized curves. This step is part of a mental that could be performed a human using a pen and paper, and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 14 is similar in scope to Claim 7, and is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 8 is directed to further limit Claim 7, and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of mental process that could be performed a human using a pen and paper.
Claim 15 is similar in scope to Claim 8, and is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 9 is directed to further limit Claim 8 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of mental process that could be performed a human using a pen and paper.
Claim 16 is similar in scope to Claim 9, and is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 20 is in similar scope to Claims 7-9, and is directed to an abstract idea.
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, 4, 6, 7, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferrari de Goes et al. (US 2023/0125292 A1), hereinafter referenced as Ferrari de Goes in view of Seymour (“Ink Lines and Machine Learning”, 2019), hereinafter referenced as Seymour in further view of Bickerstaff et al. (GB 2582393 A), hereinafter referenced as Bickerstaff.
Regarding Claim 1, Ferrari de Goes discloses a method of generating lineworks, (Ferrari de Goes, [0006], describes a method for rendering volumetric objects with contours <where contours reads on lineworks>) comprising:
receiving scene data (Ferrari de Goes, [0034], describes receiving an object model <where object model reads on scene data> as input);
calculating 3-D mesh of the scene data (Ferrari de Goes, [0046], describes an object modeling system that can generate a polygonal mesh defining a surface of an object <where object reads on scene data>);
parsing the scene data and analyzing potential line locations based on the camera angle relative to the 3-D mesh (Ferrari de Goes, [0007], teaches identifying one or more points of contour lines; Ferrari de Goes, [0008], teaches the contour lines are generated based on a location of the virtual camera relative to the object);
generating base curves for the potential line locations (Ferrari de Goes, [0008], teaches generated contour lines <where contour lines reads on base curves>; Ferrari de Goes, [Figs. 6A and 6B]);
PNG
media_image1.png
638
378
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and generating secondary lines on top of the base curves input to generate stylized curves (Ferrari de Goes, [0088], describes modifying already visible lines and marking points as visible that weren’t already visible based on spotlights <where a combination of marked visible points that weren’t already visible makes up a secondary line>; Ferrari de Goes , [Fig. 8], reference characters 802 and 810 read as secondary lines which create curves that are stylized);
PNG
media_image2.png
539
467
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ferrari de Goes does not disclose
receiving scene data including locations of cameras capturing the scene data;
and generating secondary lines on top of the base curves based on a user input to generate stylized curves.
However, Seymour recites a method of generating lineworks (Seymour, [Image 2-Image 8] recites SPI using ML to generate linework, solving their problem, this series of operations recites a process) comprising: parsing the scene data and analyzing potential line locations based on the camera angle relative to the 3-D mesh (Seymour, [Image 7], describes GradientBoostingRegressor analyzing potential line locations based on the training data which includes both the mesh and camera angle); generating base curves for the potential line locations (Seymour, [Image 6], Figure described as “Learning spaces”); and further teaches
receiving scene data including locations of cameras capturing the scene data (Seymour, [Image 7], discloses using an arbitrary turntable animation from different angles for training data, where features of this training data include camera angle, this implies camera locations are known);
and generating secondary lines on top of the base curves based on a user input to generate stylized curves (Seymour, [Image 5], describes artists using a “nudging” technique to make adjustments and correct the drawing after the machine learning prediction).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and/or modify the method disclosed by Ferrari de Goes by including camera locations in scene data and basing secondary lines on top of the base curves based on user input as taught by Seymour. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make these modifications to efficiently render scenes. By including camera locations in the scene data, the regressor could predict the best based curves on perspective of the audience. By using the nudging technique from the manual mode on the predicted output of the machine learning mode, artists could quickly and easily adjust their drawings.
The combination of Ferrari de Goes and Seymour further teach but do not disclose
calculating camera angle relative to the 3-D mesh using the locations of the cameras (Ferrari de Goes, [0049], describes teaches calculating a viewing vector pointing from a point toward a virtual camera center where this viewing vector is perpendicular to a viewing vector <because vectors have a fundamental angle describing their orientation, this reads as camera angle relative to the 3-D mesh using the location of a camera>; Ferrari de Goes. [0090] teaches visible lines determined based on virtual cameras, implying there is more than one virtual camera but the calculated camera angle is based only on one camera location);
However, Bickerstaff discloses
calculating camera angle relative to the 3-D mesh using the locations of the cameras (Bickerstaff, [Pg. 13, ln 29-30], teaches calculating camera angles using at least 2 cameras)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and/or modify the method disclosed by Ferrari de Goes and Seymour by calculating camera angle relative to the 3-D mesh using the locations of the cameras as taught by Bickerstaff. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make these modifications to create more realistic 3D models with accurate depth and detailed shading. Multiple perspectives would also improve structural detail and reduce deformations.
Regarding Claim 10, it recites limitations similar in scope to Claim 1, but as a system. As shown in the rejection, the combination of Ferrari de Goes, Seymour, and Bickerstaff disclose the limitations of Claim 1. Additionally, they disclose
A system for generating lineworks (Ferrari de Goes, [0006], a system for rendering volumetric objects with contours), comprising:
a processor to receive scene data and calculate a 3-D mesh, the processor to calculate a camera angle relative to the 3-D mesh (Ferrari de Goes, [0132], discloses a processor where, “methods described herein may be totally or partially performed with a computer system including one or more processors”, stating the provided hardware would be capable of performing the methods recited; Ferrari de Goes, [0034], teaches the processor receiving an object model <reads on scene data> as input; Ferrari de Goes, [0046], teaches the object modeling system <reads on processor> to generate a polygonal mesh; Ferrari de Goes, [0049], teaches the computer system identifying a camera point and a viewing vector);
an analyzer (Ferrari de Goes, [0007], teaches the computer system identifying points for contour lines)…
a base curve generator (Ferrari de Goes, [0035], teaches a contour generation component)…
a secondary line generator (Ferrari de Goes, [0036], teaches a contour modification component)…
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the structure elements mentioned above are capable of their intended function. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and/or modify the method disclosed by Ferrari de Goes, Seymour, and Bickerstaff by developing it as a system including a processor, an analyzer, a base curve generator, and a secondary line generator as taught by Ferrari de Goes. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make this application of a system including a processor because a processor is an efficient way to execute operations of a method.
Regarding Claims 2 and 11, the combination of Ferrari de Goes, Seymour, and Bickerstaff disclose the method and system of Claims 1 and 10 respectively. They further disclose wherein generating the stylized curves includes
assigning properties to achieve a natural look (Ferrari de Goes, [0092], teaches tapering the ends of contour ribbons; Ferrari de Goes, [Fig. 10b], illustrating tapered ends of contour ribbons, 1054).
PNG
media_image3.png
308
360
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Ferrari de Goes, Seymour, and Bickerstaff disclose the method and system of Claims 1 and 10 respectively. They further disclose wherein
determining whether visual coherence of the base curves is lacking (Ferrari de Goes, [0036], teaches a contour modification component that can identify visible lines using ray tracing <where identify visible lines reads on determine visual coherence>, see Fig. 8 for output of this component).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Ferrari de Goes, Seymour, and Bickerstaff disclose the method and system of Claims 1 and 10 respectively. They further disclose
rendering the stylized curves (Ferrari de Goes, [Fig. 8], shows rendered stylized curves; Seymour, [Image 6], shows rendered stylized curves).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Ferrari de Goes, Seymour, and Bickerstaff disclose the method and system of Claims 1 and 10 respectively. They further disclose
adding hand-drawn lines to the stylized curves (Seymour, [Image 5], describes how artists can use the “nudging” workflow on ML predictions to make corrections <where corrections reads on hand drawn lines>)
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ferrari de Goes, Seymour, and Bickerstaff in view of Blender (“Blender Manual - Geometry”, 2023), hereinafter referenced as Blender.
Regarding Claims 3 and 12, the combination of Ferrari de Goes, Seymour, and Bickerstaff disclose the method and system of Claims 2 and 11 respectively. They further disclose tapering as mentioned above, but they do not disclose all of the limitations of Claims 3 and 12. However, Blender discloses wherein the properties (Blender, [Image 1], “Properties > Geometry”) include
varying tapering and offsetting (Blender, [Image 1], shows different settings <varying> for offset, it shows Offset at 0m in “Geometry Panel” and “1 offset” in “Bexier Circle”; Blender, [Images 7-9], show different tapering settings; Blender, [Image 9], Fig. “Taper example 3” shows a irregular <varying> taper curve applied to an object).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and/or modify the method and system disclosed by Ferrari de Goes, Seymour, and Bickerstaff by varying tapering and offsetting as taught by Blender. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention would have been motivated make this modification because tapering and offsetting add dimension to line work, making it look more dynamic and natural.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ferrari de Goes, Seymour, and Bickerstaff in view of MediBang Paint (“nao-comic – How to use the pen setting”, 2022), hereinafter referenced as MediBang.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Ferrari de Goes, Seymour, and Bickerstaff disclose the method of Claim 4. They further disclose
when the base curves lack visual coherence modifying them as needed (Ferraro de Goes, [0036], describes the contour modification component that detects whether lines should be visible and modifies them as needed).
They do not disclose
generating and fading in and out multiple sets of base curves when a condition is met
However, MediBang discloses
generating and fading in and out multiple sets of base curves when… (MediBang, [Image 4], discloses lines that fade in and out; MediBang, [Image 6], illustrates sets of curves using a fade in/out effect <where every couple of illustrated lines is read as a set>; MediBang, [Images 8 and 9], teaches to create sets of lines that fade in and out, the checkbox for “Force Fade In/Out” must be checked and the pen tool will have the effect automatically)
PNG
media_image4.png
488
464
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
244
170
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and/or modify the method and system disclosed by Ferrari de Goes, Seymour, and Bickerstaff by conditionally generating base curves that fade in and out as taught by MediBang. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention would have been motivated make this modification because base curves fading in and out generate a softer and lighter effect, giving a more sketched-out or comic book style appearance.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Ferrari de Goes and Seymour disclose the system of Claim 10. Further, Claim 13 further recites
a visual coherence generator (Ferrari de Goes, [0036], teaches a contour modification component that uses ray tracing to identify whether or not a line is visible <visually coherent>)…
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ferrari de Goes, Seymour, and Bickerstaff in view of Github Freestyle SVG Exporter (“folkertdev – Freestyle SVG Exporter”, 2016), hereinafter referenced as Github.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Ferrari de Goes, Seymour, and Bickerstaff disclose the method of Claim 7. They do not disclose the limitations of Claim 8. However, Github discloses wherein
exporting vector data from a digital content creation application to produce sets of drawings (Github, [Images 1-3], disclose a Blender <digital content creation application> addon that exports sets of drawings under the “Animation” mode as SVGs <inherently vector data>; Blender [Images 4 and 5], show an example of an exported SVG that produces a set of drawings).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and/or modify the method and system disclosed by Ferrari de Goes, Seymour, and Bickerstaff by exporting an SVG from Blender to produce an animation as taught by Github. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention would have been motivated make this modification because this addon provides independent high-resolution graphics and enables 3D-to-2D workflows.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Ferrari de Goes, Seymour, Bickerstaff, and Github disclose the method of Claim 8. They further disclose
interpolating and merging sets of drawings with the stylized curves (Seymour, [Image 1], illustrates sets of drawings combined with stylized curves, shown below using the Figure: “Machine Learning gave SPI the natural look they needed for a comic book illustrative style in CG animation”; Seymour, [Images 4 and 5], teach supplementing the machine learning mode with the manual mode, combining the generated prediction <drawings> with nudges <stylized curves> from manual mode; Seymour, [Image 4], teaches artist’s nudges were automatically keyed and interpolated, “We projected the curves directly onto the geometry and interpolated the nudges in screen-space or an arbitrary UV space (in case of machine learning interpolations)”, further teaching not only the nudges can be interpolated but the machine learning predictions as well)
PNG
media_image6.png
900
1800
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and/or modify the method and system disclosed by Ferrari de Goes, Seymour, Bickerstaff, and Github by interpolating and merging frames as taught by Seymour. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention would have been motivated make this modification to impart smooth motion and higher frame raters on visual content.
Claims 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ferrari de Goes, Seymour, and Bickerstaff in view of MeLinand et al. (US 2017/0103032 A1), hereinafter referenced as MeLinand.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Ferrari de Goes, Seymour, and Bickerstaff recite the limitations of Claim 10. Further, Claim 14 recites similar limitations to Claim 7. In addition, Claim 14 recites
a combiner to add sets of hand-drawn drawings (MeLinand, [0058], teaches application that adds handwritten text and hand-drawn shapes <both read as drawings, where the application reads as the combiner>; MeLinand, [Figs. 7 and 9], illustrates adding in sets of hand-drawn drawings, 404 and 406 being one set of drawings, see Fig 7, and 412 a and b being a second set of drawings in Fig. 9; Fig. 19 further shows more sets of added drawings.)
PNG
media_image7.png
285
368
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
278
368
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and/or modify the method and system disclosed by Ferrari de Goes, Seymour, and Bickerstaff by adding sets of hand-drawn drawings as taught by MeLinand. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention would have been motivated make this modification to enhance the visual appeal, add personal touch and authenticity.
Regarding Claim 17, it recites limitations similar in scope to Claims 1 and 10, but as a non-transitory computer readable storage medium. As shown in the rejection, the combination of Ferrari de Goes, Seymour, and Bickerstaff disclose the limitations of Claims 1 and 10. They further disclose:
storing a computer program to generate lineworks, the computer program comprising executable instructions that cause a computer to: … (Ferrari de Goes, [0125-0125], discloses program code stored in a memory subsystem; Ferrari de Goes, [0132], discloses the executed code including the contour generation method)
However, MeLinand discloses
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program (MeLinand, [0010], discloses a computer program with a non-transitory computer readable medium with a computer readable program code embodied therein adapted to be executed to implement the method)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and/or modify the method and system disclosed by Ferrari de Goes, Seymour, and Bickerstaff by claiming a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program as taught by MeLinand. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention would have been motivated to apply this because a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium provides tangible, persistent storage for instructions that remain available to a processor without needing internet connection.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ferrari de Goes, Seymour, Bickerstaff, and MeLinand in view of Github.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Ferrari de Goes, Seymour, Bickerstaff, and MeLinand disclose the limitations of Claim 14. Further, Claim 15 recites substantially similar limitations to Claim 8 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ferrari de Goes, Seymour, Bickerstaff, MeLinand, and Github in view of Knapp.
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Ferrari de Goes, Seymour, Bickerstaff, MeLinand, and Github disclose the limitations of Claim 15. Further, Claim 16 recites substantially similar limitations to Claim 9 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ferrari de Goes, Seymour, Bickerstaff, and MeLinand in view of Blender.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Ferrari de Goes, Seymour, Bickerstaff, and MeLinand disclose the limitations of Claim 17. Further, Claim 18 recites substantially similar limitations to Claims 3 and 12, and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ferrari de Goes, Seymour, Bickerstaff, and MeLinand in view of MediBang.
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Ferrari de Goes, Seymour, Bickerstaff, and MeLinand disclose the limitations of Claim 17. Further, Claim 19 recites substantially similar limitations to Claims 5 and 13, and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ferrari de Goes, Seymour, Bickerstaff, and MeLinand in view of Github and in further view of Knapp.
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Ferrari de Goes, Seymour, Bickerstaff, and MeLinand disclose the limitations of Claim 17. Further, Claim 20 recites substantially similar limitations to Claims 8, 9, 15, and 16, and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Williford et al. (US 2020/0082583 A1) teaches a digital image processed to determine linework.
Knapp (US 2004/0036782) teaches merging interpolated frames.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISABELLA OCHSNER whose telephone number is (571)272-9322. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 5:00 PM.
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, Devona Faulk can be reached at (571) 272-7515. 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.
/I.O./Examiner, Art Unit 2618
/DEVONA E FAULK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2618