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 § 112
Claims 17-20 recites the limitation "the at least one processor" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-5, 7, 9-12, 14 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DaCosta et al., U.S. Patent Publication Number 2014/0229865 A1, in view of Switzer et al., U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0373770 A1.
Regarding claim 1, DaCosta discloses a method comprising: receiving at least one update to a set of assets of a virtual environment, the at least one update corresponding to a description of a set of properties and values of the virtual environment (paragraph 0029, updates are received by the end-user client during rendering; paragraph 0136, for individual geometric object (e.g., triangle meshes, particle and fiber clusters) bounding-volume hierarchies (BVHs) of degree four are constructed; from sets of BVHs representing complex objects, a top-level k-d tree is constructed), the description selected from a plurality of descriptions of properties and values included in the set of assets (paragraph 0037, user may modify various properties of the 3D object (e.g., its position, size, orientation, color, texture, etc.); paragraph 0073, geometry data refers to data that specifies the size, topology, location and orientation of geometric primitives that represent objects in a scene; geometry is represented by set of typed data streams, including, e.g., values of type); generating, based at least on the at least one update, at least one object of the virtual environment (paragraph 0059, a set of typed objects identified by Global Unique Identifiers (GUIDs), where each GUID is associated with a set of properties and parameters; GUID may be generated and associated with an object of a particular type by the first client to create the object; paragraph 0062, when data is changed, a mesh is sent to all clients in the channel containing the GUID of the changed object, along with any parameters and properties of the object that have been changed); resolving the set of properties and values using the at least one object and the description (paragraph 0085, resolving the 3-D mesh corresponding to a new asset); and rendering, using the set of properties and values, one or more images to be presented using at least one display device corresponding to at least one client of a plurality of clients accessing at least one asset of the set of assets of the virtual environment (paragraph 0062, upon receiving such a message, a rendering client, for example, might start producing new rendered imaged based on the updated lens properties of the identified CAMERA object; paragraph 0066, modified geometry is transferred; when it receives the updates, the rendering client updates its copy of the project’s state and begins to render the scene according to the new geometry) .
However, it is noted that DaCosta discloses paragraph 0008, creating and changing 3-D assets and displaying a substantially synchronized view of a 3-D project, but fails to disclose generating, based at least on the at least one update, at least one synchronized asset of the virtual environment; resolving the set of properties and values using the at least one synchronized asset and the description.
Switzer discloses receiving at least one update to a set of assets of a virtual environment, the at least one update corresponding to a description of a set of properties and values of the virtual environment, the description selected from a plurality of descriptions of properties and values included in the set of assets (paragraph 0052, receiving and updating the version mapping for the digital asset based on receiving an update; paragraph 008, component includes content within a defined bounding of a digital asset and is modifiable); generating, based at least on the at least one update, at least one synchronized asset of the virtual environment (paragraph 0052, digital synchronization system creates a new version mapping); resolving the set of properties and values using the at least one synchronized asset and the description (paragraph 0080, digital asset synchronizer can resolve the conflict).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include as the objects as disclosed by DaCosta, the objects as digital synchronized asset as disclosed by Switzer, to providing updating based on synchronized assets to facilitate a synchronized view to achieve progressive rendering.
Regarding claim 2, DaCosta discloses further comprising transmitting, using one or more network communications, the one or more images to the at least one client to cause the one or more images to be presented using the at least one display device corresponding to the at least one client (paragraph 0028, rendered image is transmitted over the network to the end-user client, where it is displayed on the screen).
Regarding claim 3, DaCosta discloses paragraph 0085, resolving the 3-D mesh corresponding to a new asset.
DaCosta fails to disclose further comprising: resolving a second set of properties and values using the at least one synchronized asset and a second description of the second set of properties and values of the virtual environment, the second description from the plurality of descriptions; and rendering, using the second set of properties and values, one or more second images to be presented using at least one display device corresponding to at least one second client of the plurality of clients.
Switzer discloses resolving a second set of properties and values using the at least one synchronized asset and a second description of the second set of properties and values of the virtual environment, the second description from the plurality of descriptions (paragraph 0080, multiple application modify the same component at the same time, the digital asset synchronizer can resolve the conflict within the digital asset; the digital asset synchronizer resolves the conflict by create one or more additional component that include the conflicting modifications; for example, if App 1 and App 2 both make a modification to Layer 1 of a digital image, the digital asset synchronizer replaces the original pre-modified Layer 1); and rendering, using the second set of properties and values, one or more second images to be presented using at least one display device corresponding to at least one second client of the plurality of clients (paragraph 0082, the digital asset synchronizer detects component modifications and sends modified versions mappings).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the resolve as disclosed by DaCosta, resolving with a second client and second descriptions as disclosed by Switzer, and rendering or sending the modified version, to the system uses progressive rendering to provide incremental updates to the user throughout the rendering process as disclosed by DaCosta paragraph 0029, in that DaCosta further discloses in paragraph 0070, application server does not always transfer a project update to all end-user clients; the updated project information is only transferred to the clients that need it.
Regarding claim 4, DaCosta discloses wherein the set of properties includes a property having at least one first value and the second set of properties includes the property having at least one second value (paragraph 0038, a particular set of components make up a digital asset (e.g., a digital asset version); for example, an image includes layers and sub-layers as components; a video or video project includes shorter video segments, titles, and static graphics as components; a document includes pages, canvases, artboards, text and image boxes, rows, columns, and/or graphics as components; and a three-dimensional model includes meshes, maps, scenes, and skins as components).
Regarding claim 5, DaCosta discloses wherein the rendering is performed at least partially using at least one server that receives the at least one update and streams the one or more images to the display device corresponding to the at least one client (paragraph 0069, throughout the rendering process, a rendering client produces a stream of progressive, rendered image data; this data is sent to the Application Server and distributed to end user clients).
Regarding claim 7, DaCosta discloses wherein the rendering is performed using multiple nodes that render different tiles corresponding to the one or more images (paragraph 0124, using tile-based rendering, the memory consumption and computation time of the above method can be further reduced).
Regarding claims 9-12 and 14, they are rejected based upon similar rational as above claims 1-3, 5 and 7. DaCosta discloses a system comprising: one or more processors to perform operations (1202, processor; paragraph 0193).
Regarding claim 16, DaCosta discloses at least one datacenter comprising: one or more computing nodes (FIG. 1, distributed 3-D editing system), at least one computing node of the one or more computing nodes comprising one or more graphics processing units (paragraph 0144, general processing) to render, using a set of properties and values of a virtual environment corresponding to a game associated with at least one game engine (paragraph 0059, a set of typed objects identified by Global Unique Identifiers (GUIDs), where each GUID is associated with a set of properties and parameters), one or more frames for a video being presented using at least one client of a collaborative content creation application (paragraph 0024, user interface for viewing, editing and rendering a 3-D project; a project includes various types of assets (e.g., 3-D models, 3-D scenes, images, animations, simulations, etc.) that may be created and edited simultaneously by multiple members), the set of properties and values resolved (paragraph 0085, resolving the 3-D mesh corresponding to a new asset).
However, it is noted that DaCosta discloses resolving, but fails to disclose resolving using at least one synchronized asset of the virtual environment, the at least one synchronized asset generated based at least on receiving at least one change made to a set of assets of the virtual environment using the collaborative content creation application and corresponding to a description of the set of properties and values, the description selected from a plurality of descriptions of properties and values included in the set of assets.
Switzer resolving using at least one synchronized asset of the virtual environment (paragraph 0080, digital asset synchronizer can resolve the conflict), the at least one synchronized asset generated based on receiving at least one change made to a set of assets of the virtual environment using the collaborative content creation application and corresponding to a description of the set of properties and values, the description selected from a plurality of descriptions of properties and values included in the set of assets (paragraph 0052, receiving and updating the version mapping for the digital asset based on receiving an update; paragraph 008, component includes content within a defined bounding of a digital asset and is modifiable; digital synchronization system creates a new version mapping; paragraph 0080, multiple application modify the same component at the same time, the digital asset synchronizer can resolve the conflict within the digital asset; the digital asset synchronizer resolves the conflict by create one or more additional component that include the conflicting modifications; for example, if App 1 and App 2 both make a modification to Layer 1 of a digital image, the digital asset synchronizer replaces the original pre-modified Layer 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include as the objects as disclosed by DaCosta, the objects as digital synchronized asset as disclosed by Switzer, to providing updating based on synchronized assets to
Regarding claims 17-19, they are rejected based upon similar rational as above claims 2, 3, and 5 respectively.
Claim(s) 6, 13 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DaCosta in view of Switzer as applied to claims 1, 9 and 16 above, and further in view of Neill et al., U.S. Patent Publication Number 2014/0125650 A1.
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 20, DaCosta discloses paragraph 0062, upon receiving such a message, a rendering client, for example, might start producing new rendered imaged based on the updated lens properties of the identified CAMERA object; paragraph 0066, modified geometry is transferred; when it receives the updates, the rendering client updates its copy of the project’s state and begins to render the scene according to the new geometry.
It is noted that DaCosta and Switzer fail to disclose wherein the one or more images correspond to a first viewpoint in the virtual environment, and the at least one client receives depth and hole-filling data from one or more other viewpoints that the at least one client uses to reproject stale data from a second viewpoint using the depth and hole-filling data.
Neill discloses herein the one or more images correspond to a first viewpoint in the virtual environment, and the at least one client receives depth and hole-filling data from one or more other viewpoints that the at least one client uses to reproject stale data from a second viewpoint using the depth and hole-filling data (paragraph 0005, image pixel element (pixels) for one eye undergo a reprojection step utilizing the depth frame to create image pixels for the second eye; each eye sees a slightly different view of a scene, some of the pixel in the image generated for the second eye may not map to a corresponding pixel in the first eye; holes or gaps appear in the image; techniques to minimize creation of holes and techniques to fill such gaps).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the camera updated rendering as disclosed by DaCosta, the depth and hole filing as disclosed by Neil, to minimize the creation of holes when viewing an image from a different perspective in that the image may not map correspondingly as disclosed by Neill.
Claim(s) 8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DaCosta in view of Switzer as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Losacco et al., U.S. Patent Number 8,812,590 B2.
Regarding claims 8 and 15, DaCosta discloses paragraphs 0040-0052, asset management and permissions; paragraph 0090, application server will notify the clients over the contextualized channel that he asset has been updated, at which point each client will fetch the additional information provided by the transcoding server, and update it local representation with the new information.
However, it is noted that DaCosta in view of Switzer fails to disclose wherein at least one node transmits the one or more images to the at least one client, and the receiving of the at least one update is by the at least one node based at least on the at least one node having a subscription to at least one asset of the set of assets, the subscription including a selection of the description from the plurality of descriptions.
Losacco discloses asset sharing within an enterprise using a peer-to-peer network (FIG. 1). Losacco further discloses wherein at least one node transmits the one or more images to the at least one client, and the receiving of the at least one update is by the at least one node based at least on the at least one node having a subscription to at least one asset of the set of assets, the subscription including a selection of the description from the plurality of descriptions (col. 12, lines 45-50, requestor node loads a list of peer nodes available in the peer-to-peer network, for each unsubscribed node in the list of peer nodes loaded, the subscriber manager module of the requestor node sends the unsubscribed node a request for a subscription).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the permission set as disclosed by DaCosta, the subscription as disclosed by Losacco in that Losacco discloses the subscription to the asset indicates to the computer system whether the peer node is permitted to request the shared asset.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Horns et al., U.S. Patent Number 11,321,012 B2
Horns discloses col. 14, lines 4-6, receives the second modified component version (e.g., Component 1B), for example, during a synchronization update; col. 14, lines 38-50, each version of the digital asset includes a manifest that structures the digital asset by nodes; each node includes properties, components and child nodes; description of properties, components and child nodes is provided; col. 13, lines 5-10, detects a component conflict between the two modified versions of the component (e.g., Component 1A and Component 1C); col. 14, lines 22-26, resolve the component conflict and provide the resolved component to the corresponding client devices.
Arnaud et al., U.S. Patent Publication Number 20110047217 A1
Arnaud discloses paragraph 0029, an asset update request is received; paragraph 0030, update request is compared to a prior version of the asset; paragraph 0026-0027, determine the differences between versions that may originated in different languages; the server need only know the change in an asset; two user may seek to make inconsistent changes; one user seeks to delete an asset, another user seeks to modify, then an incoherency exists.
Chu et al., U.S. Patent Publication Number 2016/0219267 A1
Chu discloses paragraph 0137, synthesize the current second eye viewport based on the current rendered rendering surface and the previously rendered rendering surface, comprises instructions to: reproject from the current rendered rendering surface to the current second eye viewport, detect one or more visual holes in the current second eye viewport, and interpolate one or more pixel data items for the one or more visual holes based on the previously rendered rendering surface.
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