DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levene (US20070018993A1) in view of Liu (CN112464031A).
Regarding claim 1, Levene teaches a method for rendering a 3D virtual object, comprising:
receiving a processing operation by the user on the 3D virtual object; “The improved methods allow a user to paint directly onto the surface of a three-dimensional virtual object. The methods also allow a user to interactively modify the shape” (Levene, 0012).
and rendering the 3D virtual object based on the processing operation. “The substeps include updating texture layers according to user brush strokes 1708, combining the texture layers into blended composite textures 1710, binding the composite texture to a graphics application (where the graphics application provides hardware and/or software for display of the virtual object in object space) 1712, and transmitting texture coordinates to the graphics application” and “the creation and rendering of blended composite textures of step 1704 continues” (Levene, 0118).
Levene does not explicitly teach the below claimed limitations, but Levene in combination with Liu teaches:
obtaining a 3D virtual object of a target category in response to a selection operation of a user; “in response to the selection operation, determining the selected target virtual object from at least one virtual object” and “the user selects a target virtual object” (Liu).
Levene and Liu are combinable because they are in the same field of endeavor of image processing. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine target virtual object of Liu with 3D of Levene in order to improve resolution of surface properties, such as color values, within each surface element, and allow certain operations to be performed on the three-dimensional object as if it were flat (Levene, 0005).
Regarding claim 2, The method of claim 1, Levene teaches wherein receiving the processing operation by the user on the 3D virtual object comprises:
obtaining a surface map of the 3D virtual object, wherein the surface map is a map corresponding to an entire or a part of a surface of the 3D virtual object; “FIG. 1A is schematic diagram illustrating a surface mesh of a three dimensional virtual object, according to an illustrative embodiment of the invention” (Levene, 0029).
and receiving a processing operation by the user on the surface map, wherein the processing operation comprises at least one of: adjusting a color, drawing a pattern, and adding a pattern; “The allocation process of FIG. 3 begins when the user enters a paint command, or otherwise indicates she is ready to begin painting or otherwise editing the surface of the virtual object” (Levene, 0064) and “when the user paints a virtual object in object space (interpreted as drawing/adding a pattern)” (Levene, 0074).
rendering the 3D virtual object based on the processing operation comprises:
rendering the 3D virtual object based on the processed surface map. “Texture mapping includes texture allocation and texture rendering” and “texture rendering involves sending data representing the contents of each texture element to a graphics rendering interface, such as a graphics card and/or graphics application” (Levene, 0074).
Regarding claim 12, the method of claim 1, Levene in combination with Liu teaches further comprising:
presenting at least one predetermined effect in response to a trigger operation of the user on an effect control; “Displaying the at least one virtual object on the video play interface corresponding to the current video” (Liu).
and in response to a selection operation of the user on a target predetermined effect, displaying the target predetermined effect in an interface in a predetermined manner. “Displaying the target virtual object on the video playing interface” (Liu).
Regarding claim 13, the method of claim 1, Levene in combination with Liu teaches wherein after obtaining the 3D virtual object of the target category, further comprising:
identifying a target part of an object in a video stream; “Determining the selected target virtual object from at least one virtual object, and displaying the target virtual object on the video playing interface” (Liu).
and adding the 3D virtual object to the target part. “Selects a target virtual object from a plurality of virtual objects” (Liu).
Regarding claim 14, the claim is directed to a method claim with the similar limitations as claim 1. As such, claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is directed to a method claim with the similar limitations as claim 2. As such, claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is directed to a method claim with the similar limitations as claim 1. As such, claim 20 is rejected on the same grounds.
Claim(s) 3, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levene (US20070018993A1) in view of Liu (CN112464031A) and further in view of Lorry (US20220092825A1).
Regarding claim 3, the method of claim 2, Levene teaches wherein in response to the processing operation being adjusting a color, receiving the processing operation by the user on the surface map comprises:
adjusting a color of the surface map based on the first target color. “Methods of the invention involve the modification of paint colors of images and/or textures, as well as the blending of paint colors between two or more images and/or textures” (Levene, 0114).
Levene does not explicitly teach the below claimed limitations, but Lorry in combination with Levene teaches:
displaying a first color selection control in response to a trigger operation of the user on a color control; “Display a pick color user interface displaying the first selected image with a color selection dropper … and confirmation of the color with the user computing device” (Lorry, 0012).
receiving a first target color selected by the user in the first color selection control; “Receive a first selected color in response to selection of a color” (Lorry, 0012).
Levene, Liu, and Lorry are combinable because they are in the same field of endeavor of image processing. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine target virtual object of Liu with 3D of Levene and first color of Lorry in order to help people to easily and reliably determine colors of different objects for comparison (Lorry, 0004).
Regarding claim 16, the claim is directed to a method claim with the similar limitations as claim 3. As such, claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds.
Claim(s) 4, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levene (US20070018993A1) in view of Liu (CN112464031A) and further in view of Cai (CN115861503A).
Regarding claim 4, the method of claim 1, Leven and Liu do not explicitly teach the claimed limitations, but Levene and Liu in combination with Cai teaches wherein after adjusting the color of the surface map based on the first target color, further comprising:
obtaining a predetermined mask map; “Converting the target object sampling pattern into a first mask pattern” (Cai).
and fusing the surface map after adjusting the color with the predetermined mask map to obtain a masked surface map. “Based on the first mask image after fuzzy processing to fuse the current image and the virtual object, can make smooth transition between the target object and the virtual object” (Cai).
Levene, Liu, and Cai are combinable because they are in the same field of endeavor of image processing. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine target virtual object of Liu with 3D of Levene, first color of Lorry, and fuzzing processing of Cai in order to improve the rendering effect and fusion efficiency.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is directed to a method claim with the similar limitations as claim 4. As such, claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds.
Claim(s) 5, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levene (US20070018993A1) in view of Liu (CN112464031A) and Lorry, and further in view of Duan (WO2018120682A1).
Regarding claim 5, the method of claim 3, wherein rendering the 3D virtual object based on the processed surface map comprises:
obtaining an original color of the 3D virtual object; “The material model may determine the output color of the pixel or voxel based on the original color of a pixel or voxel of the partial image associated with it” (Duan).
fusing the original color and the first target color to obtain a fusion color; “The operation of scanning data to generate an image may include one or more of … three-dimensional reconstruction, multi-modal fusion, and the like”, “the fusion operation”, and “each pixel/voxel of a color image may be a mixed color of different colors belonging to a plurality of color types”(Duan).
and rendering vertices corresponding to the surface map in the 3D virtual object based on a shader and the fusion color. “The human interface 160 can provide a series of interface elements (eg, shader 750) that represent different material models” (Duan).
Levene, Liu, Duan, and Lorry are combinable because they are in the same field of endeavor of image processing. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine target virtual object of Liu with 3D of Levene, first color of Lorry, and shader of Duan in order to improve the adjustment efficiency of an image display effect as well as an interactive experience.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is directed to a method claim with the similar limitations as claim 5. As such, claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds.
Claim(s) 6, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levene (US20070018993A1) in view of Liu (CN112464031A) and further in view of Shugrina (US11087503B2).
Regarding claim 6, the method of claim 2, Levene and Liu do not explicitly teach the claimed limitations, but Levene and Liu in combination with Shugrina teaches wherein in response to the processing operation being drawing a pattern, receiving the processing operation by the user on the surface map comprises:
displaying a canvas corresponding to the surface map and a second color selection control in response to a trigger operation of the user on a drawing control; “The interactive palette interface 600 further includes a color picker 606, which displays a gamut of colors from which the user can choose colors to add to the mixing dish 602. For instance, the user can select a point on the color picker 606 corresponding to the color the user wishes to add to the mixing dish” (Shugrina, Col. 8, line 13);
“The second set of attributes includes a second reference coordinate point, a second color value, and a second size value” (Shugrina, col. 69);
“The color may, for example, be selected using any suitable color selection techniques, such as a color wheel, color slider, or color swatch interface” (Shugrina, col. 35).
receiving a second target color selected by the user in the second color selection control; “A user creates a color blob in the mixing dish 400 by selecting a color from, for example, a color wheel (see, for example, color picker 606 of FIG. 6), adding the selected color to the mixing dish 400 to create the color blob” (Shugrina, Col. 6, line 1);
“The artist can touch the palette to select a mixed color and begin painting with the selected color” (Col. 6, line 59).
“The methodology 700 further includes assigning 704 a second set of attributes to a second pixel group. The second set of attributes includes a second reference coordinate point, a second color value, and a second size value” (Shugrina, Col. 10, line 55).
and receiving a pattern of the second target color drawn by the user in the canvas. “FIG. 4D shows the example mixing dish 400 of FIGS. 4A-4C where the user selects one or more colors from the mixing dish 400 to paint an artwork 420 using a paintbrush tool (interpreted as drawing control) within the digital painting application. The colors can be selected by touching or otherwise selecting a point in the mixing dish 400 corresponding to the desired color for the paintbrush tool” (Shugrina, col. 38) and “FIG. 4F shows the example mixing dish 400 of FIGS. 4A-4E where the user selects various colors from the mixing dish 400 by tapping on the desired colors while painting the artwork 420” (Shugrina, col. 40).
Levene, Liu, and Shugrina are combinable because they are in the same field of endeavor of image processing. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine target virtual object of Liu with 3D of Levene, and second color of Shugrina in order to allow an artist to create a custom view of the color space that is specific to the artwork. Additionally, the traditional palette allows an artist to easily access previously mixed colors.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is directed to a method claim with the similar limitations as claim 6. As such, claim 19 is rejected on the same grounds.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levene (US20070018993A1) in view of Liu (CN112464031A) and Shugrina (US11087503B2), and further in view of Peterson (US20190371008A1).
Regarding claim 7, the method of claim 6, Levene, Liu, and Shugrina do not explicitly teach the claimed limitations, but in combination with Shugrina teaches wherein receiving the pattern of the second target color drawn by the user in the canvas comprises:
determining a line segment connected by a touch point of a current frame and a touch point of a previous frame; “Based on a first user interaction with the raster element displayed in the raster image within a graphical user interface, the disclosed systems generate a pixel line (i.e., a set of pixels generated by stepping along pixels of an edge detected in the edge map) when a corresponding edge within the edge map is detected. In addition, the disclosed systems overlay the pixel line generated from the edge within the edge map to the user over the raster image. Upon detecting a second user interaction of selecting a pixel line within the graphical user interface, the disclosed systems fit a vector drawing segment (i.e., a parametric curve such as a Bezier curve) to the pixel line and displays the fitted vector drawing segment within the graphical user interface” (Peterson, 0010).
determining a distance from a respective pixel in the canvas to the line segment; “The image transformation system determines whether a detected edge is within a threshold distance (e.g., within 3, 5, or 10 pixels) of the mapped cursor” and “the image transformation system identifies a pixel on a detected edge closest to the position (e.g., x, y coordinates) of the mapped cursor” (Peterson, 0084).
determining a drawing transparency of the pixel based on the distance; “The image transformation system highlights, bolds, colors, weights, shades, makes more transparent, or hides the second portion 406b of the vector drawing segment” (Peterson, 0114).
and adjusting a color of the pixel in the canvas based on the drawing transparency and the second target color to obtain a drawn pattern. “The image transformation system determines an edge based on a change in image brightness, shading, or color within the raster image” (Peterson, 0070).
Levene, Liu, Shugrina, and Peterson are combinable because they are in the same field of endeavor of image processing. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine target virtual object of Liu with 3D of Levene, second color of Shugrina, and pattern of Peterson in order to convert raster images into vector drawings (Peterson, 0002).
Regarding claim 8, the method of claim 7, Levene and Liu do not explicitly teach the claimed limitations, but in combination with Peterson and Shugrina teach wherein adjusting the color of the pixel in the canvas based on the drawing transparency and the second target color to obtain the drawn pattern comprises:
determining a drawing color based on the drawing transparency and the second target color; “The image transformation system determines an edge based on a change in image brightness, shading, or color within the raster image” (Peterson, 0070).
and adjusting the color of the pixel in the canvas based on the drawing color to obtain the drawn pattern. “The methodology 1000 is configured to convert one or more colors from an existing digital artwork into an interactive palette interface. This is particularly useful when the user wishes to create a palette using colors found in an existing artwork as a starting point for modifying the artwork or creating a new artwork having colors similar to the existing artwork” (Shugrina, Col. 13, line 15).
Levene, Liu, Shugrina, and Peterson are combinable because they are in the same field of endeavor of image processing. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine target virtual object of Liu with 3D of Levene, second color of Shugrina, and pattern of Peterson in order to convert raster images into vector drawings (Peterson, 0002).
Regarding claim 9, the method of claim 6, Levene, Liu, and Shugrina do not explicitly teach the claimed limitations, but in combination with Peterson teaches wherein in response to the processing operation being adding a pattern, after responding to the trigger operation of the user on the drawing control, further comprising:
displaying a list of predetermined patterns; “The term “vector drawing” refers to a digital image include a series of mathematical curves and lines” (Peterson, 0048).
obtaining a target predetermined pattern selected by the user from the list of predetermined patterns; “The pixel line generator 1012 receives a position (e.g., coordinates) of a user interaction with a raster image and identifies a pixel edge based on the user interaction” (Peterson, 0206).
and adding the target setting pattern to a corresponding position in the canvas in response to a click operation of the user in the canvas. “FIG. 6 illustrates an overview of generating a pixel line from an edge map based on user interaction with a raster image in a graphical user interface. In various embodiments, the image transformation system performs the series of acts” (Peterson, 0142).
Levene, Liu, Shugrina, and Peterson are combinable because they are in the same field of endeavor of image processing. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine target virtual object of Liu with 3D of Levene, second color of Shugrina, and pattern of Peterson in order to convert raster images into vector drawings (Peterson, 0002).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levene (US20070018993A1) in view of Liu (CN112464031A) and further in view of Bao (US20250367560).
Regarding claim 10, The method of claim 1, further comprising:
displaying a plurality of target styles in response to a triggering operation of the user on a category control; ”A plurality of selection controls corresponding to a plurality of skills are displayed on the list control” (Bao, 0096) and “the user can accurately learn a time point of the function change, thereby better grasping a function trigger occasion” (Bao, 0016).
and switching the 3D virtual object to a selected target style in response to a selection operation of the user on the target style. “The terminal 110 switches the basic appearance style of the button control” (Bao, 0048).
Levene, Liu, and Bao are combinable because they are in the same field of endeavor of image processing. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine target virtual object of Liu with 3D of Levene, and plurality of selection controls of Bao in order to improve utilization of the control (Bao, 0117).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levene (US20070018993A1) in view of Liu (CN112464031A) and further in view of Zhang (US20250332507A1).
Regarding claim 11, the method of claim 2, Levene in combination with Liu teach further comprising:
obtaining N historical surface maps, wherein N is a positive integer greater than or equal to 1; “FIG. 14B illustrates the blending of multiple texture layers for each texture region in which a brush stroke falls” (Levene, 0100) and “The index for each jack corresponds to one of the finite number of surface element configurations” (Levene, 0016).
Levene and Liu alone do not explicitly teach the below claimed limitations, but in combination with Zhang teaches:
in response to a rollback operation triggered by the user, obtaining a historical surface map corresponding to the rollback operation, wherein the rollback operation comprises a number of consecutive rollbacks; “In response to a trigger operation of a rollback function” (Zhang, 0009).
and rendering the 3D virtual object based on the historical surface map. “A three-dimensional map” (Zhang, 0037).
Levene, Liu, and Zhang are combinable because they are in the same field of endeavor of image processing. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine target virtual object of Liu with 3D of Levene, and rollback of Zhang in order to improve the flexibility of operation control and the efficiency of obtaining the object state.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIANA SZE whose telephone number is (571)272-9916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6am-4pm.
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, Kent Chang can be reached at (571) 272-7667. 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.
/B.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2614
/KENT W CHANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2614
Prosecution Insights