9Notice 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
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 22 is a machine-readable medium claim but depends on system claim 19. Similarly, claim 23 is a machine-readable medium claim that depends on method claim 1. For the sake of prosecution, Examiner assumes both claim 22 and 23 were intended on being dependent on claim 21 and is treated as such in this office action. Necessary correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0237879), in view of Arunachala (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0115028).
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses a computer-implemented method for generating a clothed three-dimensional (3D) avatar, comprising [Wu: 0002 “the present disclosure is related to the accurate and real - time three dimensional rendering of a person from a video sequence , including the person's clothing”]: combining the body layer and the garment layer for the clothed 3D avatar [Wu: 0026 “create a three - dimensional mesh associated with the subject's clothing”]; and outputting the clothed 3D avatar (interpreted as displaying the clothed avatar in an environment)[Wu: 0021 “the three - dimensional body mesh and a texture , and embedding the three dimensional representation of the subject in a virtual reality a environment , in real - time”](teaches displaying the clothed avatar in a VR environment), but fails to explicitly disclose receiving one or more text prompts; modeling, based on the text prompts, a body layer for the clothed 3D avatar; modeling, based on the text prompts, a garment layer for the clothed 3D avatar.
However, Arunachala discloses receiving one or more text prompts [Arunachala: 0072 “process 800 can obtain a textual description of avatar features, e.g., from the user typing into the input field”]; modeling, based on the text prompts, a body layer for the clothed 3D avatar [Arunachala: 0073 “analyze the textual description to identify avatar features that match available types of avatar characteristics in an avatar library”](teaches analyzing text (prompt) to identify avatar features which can be avatar clothing); modeling, based on the text prompts, a garment layer for the clothed 3D avatar [Arunachala: 0073 “process 800 can identify certain nouns or noun phrases corresponding to avatar features such as hair, shirt, hat, etc.”](teaches identifying avatar garments such as a shirt or hat based on the prompt).
Wu and Arunachala are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of computer-generated avatars. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Wu to incorporate Arunachala’s teachings of using textual prompts to identify avatar features. The motivation for such a combination would provide the benefit of allowing a user to specify clothing features for their avatar.
Regarding claim 8, Wu and Arunachala disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising: modeling lighting effects on the garment layer for the clothed 3D avatar [Wu: 0025 “The system can track the motion and re - shaping of clothing ( e.g. , varying lighting conditions ) as it adapts to the subject's bodily motion”].
Regarding claim 9, Wu and Arunachala disclose the method of claim 1, wherein modeling the body layer and modeling the garment layer are performed in parallel, in sequence, or in a hybrid manner (interpreted as the body layer modeling and garment layer modeling may be performed either at the same time or one after the other or through a mixed hybrid workflow) [Wu: 0028 “some embodiments include a variational auto - encoder to model the body and cloth separately in a canonical pose”](teaches running the body and clothing model separately).
Regarding claim 10, Wu and Arunachala disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the clothed 3D avatar is a clothed 3D human avatar [Wu: 0041 “ILSE 308 estimates an underlying body shape from a sequence of 3D clothed human scans”](the body shapes of the avatar are of human body scans).
Claims 11 and 21 are system and machine-readable medium claims corresponding to claim 1 without any additional limitations. Thus, claims 11 and 21 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above.
Claim 18 is a system claim corresponding to claim 8 without any additional limitations. Thus, claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 8 above.
Claim 19 is a system claim corresponding to claim 9 without any additional limitations. Thus, claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 9 above.
Claims 20 and 23 are system and machine-readable medium claims corresponding to claim 10 without any additional limitations. Thus, claims 20 and 23 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 10 above.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0237879), in view of Arunachala (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0115028), in further view of Hasler et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0072175).
Regarding claim 2, Wu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein modeling the body layer for the clothed 3D avatar comprises: and outputting a body model of the clothed 3D avatar [Wu: 0062 “body mean - view texture 604A - 2 , body residue texture 604A - 3 , and body ambient occlusion 604A - 4 . Body mean view texture 604A - 2 is compounded with body residual texture 604A - 3 to generate body texture 607A - 1 for the body as output”](teaches outputting the avatar body with texture (clothing)), but fails to explicitly disclose determining, based on the one or more text prompts, a body mesh for the clothed 3D avatar; modeling a first set of Gaussians corresponding to the body mesh.
However, Arunachala discloses determining, based on the one or more text prompts, a body mesh for the clothed 3D avatar [Arunachala: 0073 “At block 804, process 800 can analyze the textual description to identify avatar features that match available types of avatar characteristics in an avatar library. Process 800 can identify the avatar features from the textual description by applying one or more natural language processing (NLP) models and/or algorithms to the user-supplied textual description”](teaches deriving avatar features such as clothing from a textual description).
However, Hasler discloses modeling a first set of Gaussians corresponding to the body mesh [Hasler: 0009 “a human model may be represented by a set of spatial Gaussians instead of making use of an explicit surface modeled by geometric primitives or a detailed triangle mesh”](teaches representing a human model with a set of spatial gaussians).
Wu, Arunachala, and Hasler are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of computer-generated avatars. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Wu to incorporate Arunachala’s teachings of using textual prompts to identify avatar features and Hasler’s utilization of Gaussians corresponding to the body representation. The motivation for such a combination would provide the benefit of improving real time 3D human modeling and rendering.
Claim 12 is a system claim corresponding to claim 2 without any additional limitations. Thus, claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2 above.
Claims 3, 13, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0237879), in view of Arunachala (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0115028), in view of Mitchell (U.S. Patent No. 11,961,186), in further view of Hasler et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0072175).
Regarding claim 3, Wu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein modeling the garment layer for the clothed 3D avatar comprises: a latent code corresponding to a garment template, generating, based on the latent code and using a decoder [Wu: 0035 “clothing decoder 244 may also determine a garment texture using a texture branch in the decoder”](discloses a clothing decoder which means Wu utilizes latent code for the avatar’s garments), and outputting a garment model of the clothed 3D avatar [Wu: 0035 “Clothing decoder 244 determines a three - dimensional clothing mesh with a geometry branch to define shape . In some embodiments , clothing decoder 244 may also determine a garment texture using a texture branch in the decoder”](teaches outputting a garment for the avatar), but fails to explicitly disclose determining, based on the one or more text prompts; an unsigned distance field (UDF) corresponding to the garment layer of the clothed 3D avatar; modeling a second set of Gaussians corresponding to the UDF.
However, Arunachala discloses determining, based on the one or more text prompts [Arunchala: 0072 “obtain a textual description of avatar features, e.g., from the user typing into the input field”][Arunachala: 0073 “process 800 can identify certain nouns or noun phrases corresponding to avatar features such as hair, shirt, hat, etc”](teaches obtaining textual description of avatar features and using NLP to identify garment/accessory avatar features such as shirt or hat).
However, Mitchell discloses an unsigned distance field (UDF) corresponding to the garment layer of the clothed 3D avatar (Mitchell: Col. 11, Lines 44-47 “the field’s scalar values can represent distance from a surface of an object in the first volume (e.g., the nearest object surface to the location), creating a distance field”)(teaches utilizing distance fields which in combination with Wu teaches this limitation).
However, Hasler discloses modeling a second set of Gaussians corresponding to the UDF [Hasler; 0009 “a human model may be represented by a set of spatial Gaussians instead of making use of an explicit surface modeled by geometric primitives or a detailed triangle mesh”].
Wu, Arunachala, Mitchell, and Hasler are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of computer-generated avatars. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Wu to incorporate Arunachala’s teachings of using textual prompts to identify avatar features, Mitchell’s teachings of utilizing distance fields, and Hasler’s utilization of Gaussians corresponding to the body representation. The motivation for such a combination would provide the benefit of improving efficient modeling and rendering of the garment layer.
Claims 13 and 22 are system and machine-readable medium claims corresponding to claim 3 without any additional limitations. Thus, claims 13 and 22 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 3 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4-7 and 14-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED TAHA whose telephone number is (571)272-6805. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5 pm, Mon - Fri.
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.
/AHMED TAHA/Examiner, Art Unit 2613
/XIAO M WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights