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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: spec [040] refers to arrow 220A as 202A.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-10, 12, 14-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metze, III, et al. (US 11328480 B1) in view of Igarashi, et al. (US 6549201 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Metze, III teaches A method, comprising:
accessing a three-dimensional (3D) base mesh corresponding to at least a portion of a character; (col. 4, lines 25-28; “To generate the composite meshes, collections of shrink-wrapped 3D models may be associated with particular features as originally defined by the material IDs of the base mesh.”)
accessing a 3D feature mesh (col. 19, lines 47-50; “polygonal mesh pieces may be extracted corresponding to the particular material ID of the base mesh to which each of shrink-wrapped 3D models 1402, 1404, 1406, 1408, and 1410 were assigned.”) corresponding to a feature of the character; (col. 11, lines 23-25; “Each of material IDs 802, 804A, 804B, 806A, 806B, 808, and 810 may denote a particular feature on base mesh 800.”)
modifying at least one of a texture (col. 25 lines 1-3; “At step 520, the intersections of the extracted texture map feature selections forming the composite texture map may be blended to create a more cohesive texture.”) or normals (col. 25, lines 61-65; “Additionally and/or alternatively, the processes described in step 320B of FIG. 3, and steps 505-520 of FIG. 5 in regard to texture maps may be performed for one or more other maps including, but not limited to, displacement, color, specular, roughness, normal, thickness, and occlusion maps.”) of the first modified 3D feature mesh based on at least one of a texture or normals of the 3D base mesh to generate a textured 3D feature mesh; and (col. 26, lines 13-17; “As an illustrative, non-limiting example to further describe the joining of composite meshes and composite texture maps into 3D characters, reference is made to FIG. 12, which depicts a 3D character as formed from a composite mesh and a composite texture map.”)
rendering a first image based on the 3D base mesh and the textured 3D feature mesh. (col. 26, lines 55-56; “At step 330, the 3D characters may be presented to an end user via a user interface device.”)
However, Metze, III does not teach deforming one or more portions of the 3D feature mesh using surface projection based on an overlapping region for the 3D base mesh and the 3D feature mesh to generate a first modified 3D feature mesh;
Igarashi teaches deforming one or more portions of the 3D feature mesh using surface projection based on an overlapping region for the 3D base mesh and the 3D feature mesh to generate a first modified 3D feature mesh; (4.6 Smoothing; “it first removes all the polygons surrounded by the closed red surface line and then creates an entirely new surface that covers the region smoothly. This operation is useful to remove unwanted bumps and cavities (FIGS. 3x-z', FIG. 10a), or to smooth the creases caused by earlier extrusion operations (FIG. 10b).”)
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to take Metze, III’s program and implement Igarashi’s closed red surface line to determine an overlapping region between the base mesh and a feature mesh (rather than between two different feature meshes) to create a first modified 3D feature mesh. A person possessing ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make a first modified 3D feature mesh more appealing to look at.
Regarding claim 2, Metze, III in view of Igarashi teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising:
However, Metze, III does not teach determining an intersecting portion of the 3D base mesh that intersects with the 3D feature mesh; and
removing the intersecting portion from the 3D base mesh.
Igarashi teaches determining an intersecting portion of the 3D base mesh that intersects with the 3D feature mesh; and (4.4 Extrusion; “When the user draws a closed stroke on the object surface, the system highlights the corresponding surface line in red, indicating the initiation of ‘extrusion mode’ (FIG. 3i). The user then rotates the model to bring the red surface line sideways (FIG. 3j) and draws a silhouette line to extrude the surface (FIG. 3k).”)
removing the intersecting portion from the 3D base mesh. (4.4 Extrusion; “They can also make a cavity on the surface by drawing an inward silhouette (FIGS. 7a-c).”)
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to add Igarashi’s technique of removing a portion of a base mesh to Metze, III’s program. The person possessing ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to create the inside of a mouth of a character model.
Regarding claim 4, Metze, III teaches The method of claim 1,
However, Metze, III does not teach further comprising deforming one or more portions of the 3D base mesh based on the overlapping region, comprising blending the overlapping region based on aligning at least some of the one or more portions of the 3D base mesh and the 3D feature mesh.
Igarashi teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising deforming one or more portions of the 3D base mesh based on the overlapping region, comprising blending the overlapping region (Igarashi; 4.6 Smoothing; “This system lets the user smooth the surface by drawing a scribble during ‘extrusion mode.’ Unlike erasing, this operation modifies the actual geometry: it first removes all the polygons surrounded by the closed red surface line and then creates an entirely new surface that covers the region smoothly. This operation is useful to remove unwanted bumps and cavities (FIGS. 3x-z', FIG. 10a), or to smooth the creases caused by earlier extrusion operations (FIG. 10b).”) based on aligning at least some of the one or more portions of the 3D base mesh and the 3D feature mesh. (Metze, III; col. 18, lines 61-64; “the disparate polygonal mesh pieces identified by respective material IDs constituting the composite mesh may be blended, adjusted, moved,”)
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to add Igarashi’s technique of blending meshes to Metze, III’s program where feature meshes are moved. The person possessing ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make the character model look better.
Regarding claim 6, Metze, III in view of Igarashi discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the feature of the character comprises at least one of: (i) a mouth of the character, (Metze, III; fig. 10, 1008; “MOUTH”) (ii) an ear of the character, (Metze, III; fig. 10, 1010; “EARS”) or (iii) a nose of the character. (Metze, III; fig. 10, 1006; “NOSE”)
Regarding claim 8, Metze, III in view of Igarashi discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining an updated position of the 3D feature mesh; (col. 18, lines 61-66; “In performing the blending, the disparate polygonal mesh pieces identified by respective material IDs constituting the composite mesh may be blended, adjusted, moved, shaped, or otherwise changed based on one or more corresponding disparate polygonal mesh pieces identified by respective material IDs constituting the reference model.”)
deforming one or more portions of the 3D feature mesh to generate a second modified 3D feature mesh; and (Igarashi; 4.6 Smoothing; “This system lets the user smooth the surface by drawing a scribble during ‘extrusion mode.’ Unlike erasing, this operation modifies the actual geometry: it first removes all the polygons surrounded by the closed red surface line and then creates an entirely new surface that covers the region smoothly. This operation is useful to remove unwanted bumps and cavities (FIGS. 3x-z', FIG. 10a), or to smooth the creases caused by earlier extrusion operations (FIG. 10b).”)
rendering a second image based on the 3D base mesh and the second modified 3D feature mesh. (col. 26, lines 55-56; “At step 330, the 3D characters may be presented to an end user via a user interface device.”)
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to use Metze, III’s reference models as a means to where to position a feature mesh and then use Igarashi’s blending technique to create a second modified 3D mesh to be rendered via a user interface device. The person possessing ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to create multiple models of the same character for animation.
Regarding claim 9, Metze, III discloses One or more non-transitory computer readable media containing, in any combination, computer program code that, when executed by operation of a computing system, performs operations comprising: (Metze, III; fig. 1, 110; “MEMORY”)
The rest of the limitations of claim 9 are recitations of the limitations of claim 1 and are
therefore, rejected using the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claims 10 and 16, they recite the limitations of claim 2, but they depend on claims 9
and 15 respectively and are rejected using the same rationale as claim 2.
Regarding claims 12 and 18, they recite the limitations of claim 4, but they depend on claims 9
and 15 respectively and are rejected using the same rationale as claim 4.
Regarding claims 14 and 20, they recite the limitations of claim 8, but they depend on claims 9
and 15 respectively and are rejected using the same rationale as claim 8.
Regarding claim 15, Metze, III in view of Igarashi discloses A system, comprising:
one or more processors; (Metze, III; fig. 1, 140; “PROCESSOR”)
The rest of the limitations of claim 15 are recitations of the limitations of claim 9 and are
therefore, rejected using the same rationale as claim 9.
Claims 3, 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metze, III, et al. (US 11328480 B1) in view of Igarashi, et al. (US 6549201 B1) and Takahashi (US 20210049826 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Metze, III in view of Igarashi teaches The method of claim 2, wherein determining the intersecting portion comprises:
extruding a rig geometry corresponding to an outline of the 3D feature mesh; (Igarashi; 4.4 Extrusion; “The user then rotates the model to bring the red surface line sideways (FIG. 3j) and draws a silhouette line to extrude the surface (FIG. 3k). This is basically a sweep operation that constructs the 3D shape by moving the closed surface line along the skeleton of the silhouette (FIGS. 3l-m).”)
However, Metze, III in view of Igarashi does not teach generating a signed distance field (SDF) based on the extruded rig geometry and the 3D base mesh; and
determining the intersecting portion based on the SDF.
Takahashi teaches generating a signed distance field (SDF) based on the extruded rig geometry and the 3D base mesh; and (spec [0083]; “The SDF is a known technology of representing a positional relationship of three-dimensional shapes, and a distance from a predetermined location included in the selected region 8 to the nearest polygon 4 is set as a signed distance field of the selected region 8.”)
determining the intersecting portion based on the SDF. (spec [0084]; “That is, in a case where the distance set in the selected region 8 is a value equal to or more than 0, the object 2 configured by the polygons 4 interferes with the selected region 8.”)
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to add Takahashi’s SDF to Metze, III’s program to determine where the intersecting portion is on a base mesh involving rig geometry from Igarashi. The person possessing ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use an SDF to determine the edges of an intersecting portion more smoothly.
Regarding claims 11 and 17, they recite the limitations of claim 3, but they depend on claims 9
and 15 respectively and are rejected using the same rationale as claim 3.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metze, III, et al. (US 11328480 B1) in view of Igarashi, et al. (US 6549201 B1) and Quinn, et al. (US 20150123967 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Metze, III in view of Igarashi fails to teach The method of claim 1, wherein modifying the at least one of the texture the normals of the first modified 3D feature mesh comprises blending the texture of the 3D base mesh with the texture of the 3D feature mesh based on the overlapping region.
Quinn teaches The method of claim 1, wherein modifying the at least one of the texture (Metze, III; col. 25 lines 1-3; “At step 520, the intersections of the extracted texture map feature selections forming the composite texture map may be blended to create a more cohesive texture.”) or the normals of the first modified 3D feature mesh (Metze, III; col. 26, lines 13-17; “As an illustrative, non-limiting example to further describe the joining of composite meshes and composite texture maps into 3D characters, reference is made to FIG. 12, which depicts a 3D character as formed from a composite mesh and a composite texture map.”) comprises blending the texture of the 3D base mesh with the texture of the 3D feature mesh based on the overlapping region. (Quinn; spec [0063]; “An example of blending criteria may be limits on a distance change between adjacent vertices in any of the 3D dimensions. Texture and color are added as well to the remapped base avatar head mesh personalized for the user based on rules associated with head features in the defined art style of the avatar.”)
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply Quinn’s blending criteria to Metze, III’s program after using Igarashi’s smoothing technique to blend textures. The person possessing ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to ensure the textures of the modified 3d meshes are more appealing to look at.
Regarding claim 7, Metze, III in view of Igarashi teaches The method of claim 1,
However, Metze, III in view of Igarashi does not teach wherein the 3D base mesh lacks at least one of: (i) a mouth of the character, (ii) an ear of the character, or (iii) a nose of the character.
Quinn teaches wherein the 3D base mesh lacks at least one of: (i) a mouth of the character, (ii) an ear of the character, or (iii) a nose of the character. (spec [0052]; “In one approach, the avatar characterization engine 120 begins with an otherwise featureless 3D head model having the selected avatar head shape.”)
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to add Quinn’s featureless head model to Metze, III’s program. The person possessing ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to create a new character model from scratch.
Regarding claims 13 and 19, they recite the limitations of claim 5, but they depend on claims 9
and 15 respectively and are rejected using the same rationale as claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to IRVING SHI whose telephone number is (571)272-9613. The examiner can
normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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,
Tammy Goddard can be reached at (571) 272-7773. 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.
/IRVING NMN SHI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2611
/TAMMY PAIGE GODDARD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights