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 .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson, U.S. Patent Publication Number 2013/0127874 A1, in view of Nordmark et al., U.S. Patent Number 10,776,541 B2.
Regarding claim 1, Peterson discloses a method comprising: at a device (1000, computer system) including one or more processors (1010a-1010n, processor), a non-transitory memory (1020, memory), one or more input devices (1050, input/output device) and a display (1080, display): presenting, on the display, an environment that includes a first object and a second object, wherein the first object is associated with a display mesh (paragraph 0009, a 2D simulation tool may be selected; a 2D graphic object may be selected; figure 10, 240, tool and graphic object; 222, object is associated with mesh representation); detecting an interaction between the first object and the second object (paragraph 0038, initiate a physical simulation, the user may apply the selected tool to the selected object; figure 10; 240, apply tool to object; paragraph 0059, the selected tool may be applied to the object; for example, a stroke gesture with a hammer tool may have the effect of striking the object at a position intersected by the stroke); and displaying a result of the interaction based on a physics simulation associated with the first object, wherein the physics simulation associated with the first object is different from the display mesh associated with the first object (paragraph 0005, apply a physics-based simulation to the selected 2D object as indicated by the gesture; 260, display results of iteration; paragraph 0041, hammer tool may be applied by swinging the hammer across or onto a selected object; a brittle fracture simulation may be initiated, creating cracks and fissures in the object; paragraph 0063, the resulting object may be rendered and displayed; FIGS. 3A-3C).
However, it is noted that Peterson discloses a physics simulation, with fractures but fails to specifically disclose a physics mesh.
Nordmark discloses presenting, on the display, an environment that includes a first object and a second object, wherein the first object is associated with a display mesh (col. 5, lines 41-43, modeling system to represent or define geometric of physical systems as base geometries; col. 16, lines 43-45, allow for data to be received via specific fields displayed in the settings window, and in some aspects, be displayed graphically); a physics mesh associated with the first object, wherein the physics mesh associated with the first object is different from the display mesh associated with the first object (FIG, 19, physics-controlled mesh 1900b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the physics simulation as disclosed by Peterson, allowing a user to select a and use a physic mesh, as disclosed by Nordmark, in that Nordmark discloses col. 7, lines 53-60, meshing of a shell and adding an extra geometry is a preferable and better way of defining a thin structure than defining it as a full three-dimensional solid.
Regarding claim 2, Peterson discloses wherein the physics simulation has a lower complexity than the display mesh (figure 3B, physics simulation producing fracturing effect has lower complexity than display mesh, figure 2, mesh representation).
Nordmark discloses physics mesh (FIG. 19, physics controlled mesh, with element size selections from extremely fine to extremely coarse, 1900c).
Regarding claim 3, Peterson discloses wherein the physics simulation has fewer polygons than the display mesh (figures 3B and 3C, fracturing effect from physics simulation has fewer polygons than the display mesh, figure 2, mesh representation 44).
Nordmark discloses physics mesh (FIG. 19, physics controlled mesh, with element size selections from extremely fine to extremely coarse, 1900c).
Regarding claim 4, Peterson discloses wherein the physics simulation is smoother than the display mesh (figure 3A, physics simulation is smoother than the mesh representation, FIG. 2, 44)
Nordmark discloses physics mesh (FIG. 19, physics controlled mesh, with element size selections from extremely fine to extremely coarse, 1900c; figures 1D (shell), 4A).
Regarding claim 5, Peterson discloses further comprising: prior to detecting the interaction between the first object and the second object, receiving a user input that associates the physics simulation with the first object (paragraph 0041, one or more global simulation parameters may be adjusted to vary the physical effect; paragraph 0069, the user interface may also provide a materials palette that includes one or more user interface elements via which a user may specify various type of predefined material or substances; in this example, materials palette includes wood, stone, glass, ice, rubber, plastic, paper, and metal as example predefined materials).
Nordmark discloses receiving a user input that associated the physics mesh with the first object (figure 19, add physics, mesh; col. 13, 50-57, a GUI can be displayed to a user for selecting a shell physics interface; the shell physics interface can be configured to generate a predefined extra dimensions feature for describing certain physical quantities and physical properties; such an extra dimension feature can, for example, be added by a modeling system user to allow for some customization of a model).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the physics simulation as disclosed by Peterson, the selection and add of physics, mesh as disclosed by Nordmark, to add dimension features for some customization of a model and also meshing of a shell and adding an extra geometry is a preferable and better way of defining a thin structure than defining it as a full three-dimensional solid.
Regarding claim 5, Nordmark discloses wherein the user input changes the physics mesh from a first mesh that is the same as the display mesh to a second mesh that is different from the display mesh (figure 4C, add physics, mesh; col. 13, 50-57, a GUI can be displayed to a user for selecting a shell physics interface; the shell physics interface can be configured to generate a predefined extra dimensions feature for describing certain physical quantities and physical properties; such an extra dimension feature can, for example, be added by a modeling system user to allow for some customization of a model).
Regarding claim 7, Nordmark discloses wherein receiving the user input comprises: displaying a physics mesh affordance for changing the physics mesh of the first object (FIG. 6A, block, cone, cylinder, sphere, more primitives); detecting a contact at a location of the physics mesh affordance (FIG. 6A); displaying a plurality of physics meshes (FIG. 6A); and detecting a selection of one of the plurality of physics meshes (FIG. 6B).
Regarding claim 8, Peterson discloses wherein the first object is a virtual object and the second object is a physical object (figure 12C).
Regarding claim 9, Peterson discloses wherein the first object is a first virtual object and the second object is a second virtual object (FIG. 9A).
Regarding claim 10, it is noted that Peterson fails to disclose further comprising receiving a user input that corresponds to importing the physics mesh into an object file for the first object.
Nordmark discloses receiving a user input that corresponds to importing the physics mesh into an object file for the first object (col. 9, lines 1-7, it would be desirable for the simulation method to be available in, or accessible to, an engineering analysis system, such as a Multiphysics modeling system, as part of generating a model described in a model object; FIG. 12 A, FIG. 13A-13B).
Regarding claims 11-19, they are rejected based upon similar rational as above claims 1-9. Peterson further discloses a device comprising: a non-transitory memory; one or more input devices; a display; and one or more processors (FIGS. 11 and 15).
Regarding claim 20, it is rejected based upon similar rational as above claim 1. Peterson further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions encoded thereon which, when executed by an electronic device including a display, one or more input devices, and one or more processors (paragraph 0097).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Baraff et al., U.S. Patent Publication Number 20070002042 A1
Baraff discloses (2CPU’s), (3, 5, 6, disk memory, main memory, frame buffer), (4, input device), (8, CRT); (paragraph 0014, a plurality of object represented by a plurality of meshes are provided; each of the plurality of objects being represented by one of the plurality of meshes); (paragraph 0014, determine if the edges of meshes intersect with any of the plurality of meshes; paragraph 0038, kinematic objects described herein are preferably characters that are animated and interact with other elements in the animation scene); (paragraph 0017, when the intersection path is an intersection between a first mesh and a second mesh; the color of the vertices of the first mesh or first region contained in the intersection path is set to a first color and the color of vertices of the second mesh or second region contained within the intersection path is set to a second color; colors can be displayed in the object on the computer display).
Park et al., U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0046738 A1
Park discloses paragraph 0078, each of the virtual models has a mesh which is subject to physics simulation, and physics simulation may be performed thereto by calculating an interaction between the meshes.
Anderson, 10,297,085 B2
Anderson discloses col. 3, line 55, one or more objects in a scene; col. 65-67, interaction behavior between the scene-based virtual object and a second object in the scene; col. 4, lines 6-11, associate the first modality with the scene-based virtual object and to associate the second input modality with the second object.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Motilewa Good-Johnson whose telephone number is (571)272-7658. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6am-2:30pm.
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, Jason Chan can be reached at 571-272-3022. 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.
MOTILEWA . GOOD JOHNSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2616
/MOTILEWA GOOD-JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619
Prosecution Insights