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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Elahie (US 12100089 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Elahie teaches a method comprising:
receiving a request to promote a particular visual asset from a plurality of visual assets that form a scene (col. 4, lines 33-37: “3D graphics system 100 generates (at 110) the 3D asset at any desired resolution using the 3D asset definition. For instance, 3D graphics system 100 may receive a request to the render the 3D asset at a second resolution that is greater than the first resolution of the generated (at 104) point cloud.”);
determining at least a first level-of-detail (LoD) at which to render the plurality of visual assets (col. 10, lines 15-21: “In addition to creating and rendering static 3D assets at any dynamic resolution, 3D graphics system 100 may adapt the 3D asset definitions for the creation and rendering of animated 3D assets at any dynamic resolution. For instance, a digital character may be created at a first resolution and animated across different frames of a movie, game, or animation.”);
selecting a second LoD that is greater than the first LoD for the particular visual asset in response to receiving the request to promote the particular visual asset (col. 9, lines 62-67: “3D graphics system 100 generates (at 506) the 3D asset at a second resolution that is greater than the first resolution of the original encoding by adding a second number of points to the original first number of points at positions that intersect or are along the surfaces defined by the equations for the corresponding partitioned shapes of the 3D object.”); and
presenting the scene by rendering each visual asset of the plurality of visual assets except for the particular visual asset at the at least first LoD and the particular visual asset at the second LoD (col. 10, lines 1-3: “3D graphics system 100 renders the first number of points and the added second number of points to generate a visualization of the 3D asset at the second resolution.”).
Regarding claim 2, Elahie teaches the method of claim 1, wherein rendering each visual asset of the plurality of visual assets except for the particular visual asset at the at least first LoD comprises:
generating a visualization for each visual asset of the plurality of visual assets except for the particular visual asset in the scene with a first resolution or fidelity (col. 10, lines 15-21, as above in claim 1 rejection); and
wherein rendering the particular visual asset at the second LoD comprises:
generating a visualization for the particular visual asset in the scene with a second resolution or fidelity that is greater than the first resolution or fidelity (col. 9, lines 62-67, as above in claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claim 3, Elahie teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said rendering comprises:
generating a visualization for each visual asset of the plurality of visual assets except for the particular visual asset in the scene with a reduced clarity, detail, or sharpness relative to a visualization that is generated for the particular visual asset in the scene (col. 2, lines 21-28: “The 3D asset may be rendered at the different resolutions based on a changing render position that necessities the resolution change for presenting the 3D asset at a consistent level-of-detail, or based on the animations exposing parts of the 3D asset that are defined with a lower level-of-detail and that are dynamically upscaled to maintain a consistent or desired level-of-quality with other parts of the 3D asset.”).
Regarding claim 4, Elahie teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining the at least first LoD comprises:
selecting the first LoD for a first set of visual assets that are positioned in a background or a periphery of the scene, and a third LoD for a second set of visual assets that are positioned in a foreground or a center of the scene (col. 12, lines 10-14: “3D graphics system 100 may render the 3D asset at a lower resolution when the 3D asset is viewed from a distance, and may dynamically increase the resolution of the 3D asset when zooming into the 3D asset or viewing the 3D asset from a closer distance.”); and
wherein selecting the second LoD comprises:
increasing the first LoD to the second LoD for the particular visual asset in response to the particular visual asset being located in the background or the periphery of the scene and the second LoD being less than the third LoD (col. 10, lines 4-14: “Similarly, 3D graphics system 100 generates (at 508) the 3D asset at a third resolution that is greater than the first resolution and the second resolution by adding a third number of points to the original first number of points at positions that intersect or are along the surfaces defined by the equations for the corresponding partitioned shapes of the 3D object, wherein the third number of points is greater than the second number of points. 3D graphics system 100 renders the first number of points and the added third number of points to generate a visualization of the 3D asset at the third resolution.”).
Regarding claim 5, Elahie teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining the at least first LoD comprises:
selecting the first LoD for a first set of visual assets that are positioned in a foreground or a center of the scene, and a third LoD for a second set of visual assets that are positioned in a background or a periphery of the scene (col. 12, lines 10-14, as above in claim 4 rejection); and
wherein selecting the second LoD comprises:
increasing the first LoD to the second LoD for the particular visual asset in response to the particular visual asset being located in the foreground or the center of the scene and the second LoD being greater than the third LoD (col. 12, lines 10-14, as above in claim 4 rejection).
Regarding claim 7, Elahie teaches the method of claim 1, wherein selecting the second LoD comprises:
determining a position of the particular visual asset in the scene (col. 7, lines 2-14: “In some embodiments, 3D graphics system 100 adds more points to a first region than to a second region in order to render the first region and the second region at the same increased or dynamic resolution. For instance, the part of the 3D object represented in the first region of the point cloud may have been obscured, partially obstructed, or positioned away from a scanner that measure the positions along that part of the 3D object, whereas the part of the 3D object represented in the second region of the point cloud may have been completely unobscured, positioned close to, and directed at the scanner such that the scanner generates more measurements or points for the second region than for the first region.”);
determining a third LoD that is assigned to a set of the plurality of visual assets at a same depth in the scene as the particular visual asset (col. 10, lines 4-14: “Similarly, 3D graphics system 100 generates (at 508) the 3D asset at a third resolution that is greater than the first resolution and the second resolution by adding a third number of points to the original first number of points at positions that intersect or are along the surfaces defined by the equations for the corresponding partitioned shapes of the 3D object, wherein the third number of points is greater than the second number of points. 3D graphics system 100 renders the first number of points and the added third number of points to generate a visualization of the 3D asset at the third resolution.”); and
increasing from the third LoD to the second LoD in response to the set of visual assets at the same depth in the scene as the particular visual asset being assigned the third LoD (col. 10, lines 21-27: “3D graphics system 100 may use the 3D asset definition for the digital character to create the digital character at a greater second resolution that may be animated across different frames of the same or a different movie, game, or animation without manually recreating the digital character at the greater second resolution and/or redefining the animations of the digital character.”).
Regarding claim 9, Elahie teaches the method of claim 1 further comprising:
retrieving an original encoding of each visual asset from the plurality of visual assets (col. 9, lines 33-43: “The 3D object from which the 3D asset is generated need not be scanned at differing resolutions, and does not have to be digitally created at the different resolutions. Instead, a single encoding of the 3D object at one resolution is sufficient for 3D graphics system 100 to generate digital copies of that 3D object at any resolution with a level-of-detail or quality that directly corresponds to the resolution without quality degradation for shape deformation that may affect other upscaling techniques that interpolate surfaces or points as part of the upscaling.”);
modifying the original encoding of each visual asset of the plurality of visual assets except for the particular visual asset by reducing a fidelity of the original encoding of each visual asset to match a fidelity associated with the at least first LoD (col. 9, lines 49-53: “The original encoding includes a first number of points that are distributed in a 3D space of a point cloud with defined visual characteristics that collectively present the 3D object at a first resolution.”); and
modifying the original encoding of the particular visual asset by changing a fidelity of the original encoding of the particular visual asset to match a fidelity associated with the second LoD (col. 9, lines 62-67, as above in claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claim 10, Elahie teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the scene corresponds to a three-dimensional (3D) environment and each visual asset of the plurality of visual assets corresponds to different 3D content that is included in the 3D environment (col. 12, lines 30-38: “The render position corresponds to a position of a virtual camera in the 3D space of the point cloud or a 3D environment from which the 3D asset is rendered. Each frame of the animation may include changing the render position and/or moving one or more sets of points as part of animating the 3D asset. Changing the render position changes the perspective from which the 3D asset is rendered and/or from which the 3D asset is presented in the 3D environment.”).
Regarding claim 11, Elahie teaches the method of claim 10, wherein each visual asset of the plurality of visual assets is a different 3D mesh model, point cloud, or Gaussian splat representation of a 3D object (col. 2, lines 29-36: “A 3D graphics system defines a 3D asset using points of a point cloud that are disconnected from one another and that are distributed in a 3D space to represent the form of a 3D object. The 3D graphics system parameterizes the point cloud or the surfaces created by different sets of points of the point cloud so that the surfaces may be modeled procedurally or represented by equations that accurately recreate the surfaces formed by the different sets of points.”).
Regarding claim 12, Elahie teaches the method of claim 1 further comprising:
determining a maximum amount of data for rendering the scene at a given frame rate based on available resources (col. 10, lines 15-27: “In addition to creating and rendering static 3D assets at any dynamic resolution, 3D graphics system 100 may adapt the 3D asset definitions for the creation and rendering of animated 3D assets at any dynamic resolution. For instance, a digital character may be created at a first resolution and animated across different frames of a movie, game, or animation. 3D graphics system 100 may use the 3D asset definition for the digital character to create the digital character at a greater second resolution that may be animated across different frames of the same or a different movie, game, or animation without manually recreating the digital character at the greater second resolution and/or redefining the animations of the digital character.”); and
adjusting the at least first LoD and the second LoD until aggregate data for the plurality of visual assets at an adjusted LoD is equal to or less than the maximum amount of data (col. 8, lines 49-52: “Process 400 includes determining (at 412) a number of points to add to the region spanned by each procedural surface in order to adjust the resolution in that region to the second resolution.”).
Claim 13 is substantially similar to claim 1, and differs primarily in that it teaches a system rather than a method. It is therefore rejected on a similar basis to claim 1.
Claim 14 is substantially similar to claim 2, and differs primarily in that it depends from claim 13 rather than claim 1. It is therefore rejected on a similar basis to claim 2.
Claim 15 is substantially similar to claim 3, and differs primarily in that it depends from claim 13 rather than claim 1. It is therefore rejected on a similar basis to claim 3.
Claim 16 is substantially similar to claim 4, and differs primarily in that it depends from claim 13 rather than claim 1. It is therefore rejected on a similar basis to claim 4.
Claim 17 is substantially similar to claim 5, and differs primarily in that it depends from claim 13 rather than claim 1. It is therefore rejected on a similar basis to claim 5.
Claim 19 is substantially similar to claim 7, and differs primarily in that it depends from claim 13 rather than claim 1. It is therefore rejected on a similar basis to claim 7.
Claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 1, and differs primarily in that it teaches a device rather than a method. It is therefore rejected on a similar basis to claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 6, 8, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elahie (US 12100089 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Foco (US 20240203052 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Elahie teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to teach receiving a monetary compensation with the request to promote the particular visual asset.
Foco teaches receiving a monetary compensation with the request to promote the particular visual asset (par. 0031: “The automated generation of such a virtual representation of an environment, including accurate and individual representations of objects in that environment, can provide for performance of a number of different tasks as mentioned previously. In the case of a design or shopping application, for example, such an environment can enable items to be moved, added, replaced, or otherwise modified, and an updated view of the environment representation provided.”).
It would have been obvious to one familiar in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize Elahie for commercial purposes such as those Foco mentions. Three-dimensional image generation and animation is well-known in the art as a costly process; it would therefore be obviously beneficial to receive a monetary compensation for performing the method of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Elahie teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to teach retrieving an original encoding of each visual asset from the plurality of visual assets;
downsampling each visual asset of the plurality of visual assets except for the particular visual asset by a first amount that reduces a maximum LoD of the original encoding for each visual asset to the at least first LoD; and
downsampling the particular visual asset by a second amount that reduces a maximum LoD of the particular visual asset to the second LoD, wherein the second amount is less than the first amount.
Foco teaches retrieving an original encoding of each visual asset from the plurality of visual assets (par. 0067: “A content generation or management application 926 can determine capture or scan data for an image to be generated, which can be passed to a processing component 930 and/or reconstruction component 928, among other such components, modules, or processes, to generate image data, a representation of an object or an environment represented in the scan or image data, which can be transmitted to a client device 902 or other such recipient. At least a portion of that content may be transmitted to client device 902 using an appropriate transmission manager 922 to send by download, streaming, or another such transmission channel. An encoder may be used to encode and/or compress at least some of this data before transmitting to the client device 902.”);
downsampling each visual asset of the plurality of visual assets except for the particular visual asset by a first amount that reduces a maximum LoD of the original encoding for each visual asset to the at least first LoD (par. 0046: “The depth map can be back-projected into a per-pixel vertex map, which can store a 3D camera-frame position of the point seen in each pixel, and a per-pixel normal map can be computed from the vertex map that stores the 3D camera-frame normal direction of the point seen in each pixel. A color/normal/vertex map pyramid can then be generated by downsampling the original maps in several stages, such as where each stage downsamples by a factor of 2.”); and
downsampling the particular visual asset by a second amount that reduces a maximum LoD of the particular visual asset to the second LoD, wherein the second amount is less than the first amount (par. 0036: “A color/normal/vertex map pyramid can be generated by downsampling the original maps in several stages. To perform 3D keypoint extraction for visual tracking, color image data in at least one embodiment can be converted to grayscale and 2D keypoints identified in the grayscale image. Local visual descriptors can be extracted for each keypoint, also from the grayscale image, and the 2D keypoints can be back-projected into 3D keypoints by using the depth. The data may also be passed through at least one filter to reduce noise in the images, whether before, during, or along with other pre-processing of the input data performed using pre-processing module 410. This can be any appropriate filter, such as a linear filter or digital signal processor that may be used with an optimization algorithm to remove noise while retaining fine detail. Other filters can be used as well, such as a blur filter or motion filter.”).
It would have been obvious to one familiar in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the downsampling of Foco to create a greater contrast in detail for the invention of Elahie, as both are in the same field of endeavor of three-dimensional modeling and manipulation. Doing so would allow the invention of Elahie to more dynamically adjust the resolution of objects, which is explicitly stated to be the intention of their invention.
Claim 18 is substantially similar to claim 6, and differs primarily in that it depends from claim 13 rather than claim 1. It is therefore rejected on a similar basis to claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN A BARHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4338. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:30am-5pm EST.
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, Xiao Wu, can be reached at (571) 272-7761. 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.
/RYAN ALLEN BARHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2613
/XIAO M WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights