DETAILED ACTION
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8, 11, and 17-18 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.
Drawings
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
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 of this title, 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 1-3, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brochu (US 20190147649 A1) in view of Orend (US 20250111634 A1).
As per claim 1, Brochu teaches the claimed:
1. An automated method of incorporating sporadic objects (SO) onto an existing object (EO) mesh, the method comprising:
providing an EO mesh; (Brochu [0008]: “The method includes joining a first 3D object having a first closed surface mesh and a second 3D object having a second closed surface mesh”)
Brochu alone does not explicitly teach the remaining claim limitations.
However, Brochu in combination with Orend teaches the claimed:
providing an SO voxelgrid segmentation; (Brochu [0008]: “The method includes joining a first 3D object having a first closed surface mesh and a second 3D object having a second closed surface mesh”
Orend [0062]: “the surface-based image data (or “surface data”) of the model are mesh coordinates of three-dimensional data models”
Orend [0065]: “voxels of a voxel grid are assigned an index of a surface segment. According to the invention, this is the nearest surface segment in each case. Preferably, this applies to the finest voxel grid, i.e. the one with the finest resolution.”)
and applying an SO meshing algorithm, the SO meshing algorithm generating an SO surface mesh from the combination of the EO mesh and the SO voxelgrid segmentation;
(Brochu [0036]: “gap engine 116 implements a gap-closing algorithm to close the gap. When gap engine 116 closes the target gap, gap engine 116 produces a closed portion of the non-regularized Boolean model.”
Brochu [0037]: “When gap engine 116 implements the zippering algorithm, gap engine 116 snaps together matching vertices of a group of boundary edges on the two or more corresponding boundaries.”
Brochu [0041]: “In such instances, the non-regularized Boolean model may be a non-manifold surface model that includes one or more internal sheets represented by interior surface mesh portions.”
Brochu teaches the gap closing algorithm that closes the gap on two meshes to create a new mesh, and a zippering algorithm that matches vertices of two corresponding boundaries to generate a new mesh as well. Both algorithms generate a new mesh that incorporates two objects, therefore, by applying the algorithms it will generate a mesh from the combination of two other meshes.)
wherein the SO mesh has complete mesh correspondence with the EO mesh along contact surfaces; (Brochu [0062]: “The gap-closing algorithm ensures that there is a one-to-one correspondence between vertices of the corresponding boundaries proximate to the target gap.”)
wherein the SO mesh is free of mesh degeneracy; and (Brochu [0088]: “a gap engine smooths each individual surface mesh to maintain a consistent polygonal mesh throughout the non-regularized Boolean model.”)
wherein the EO mesh topology is unchanged. (Brochu [0036]: “The closed portion of the non-regularized Boolean model maintains a consistent polygonal mesh with neighboring portions of the non-regularized Boolean model.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the voxel grid as taught by Orend with the system of Brochu in order to organize and structure 3D volumetric representations more efficiently to be able to handle and modify them more easily.
As per claim 2, Brochu teaches the claimed:
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the EO mesh includes a surface mesh, a volumetric mesh, or a combination thereof. (Brochu [0008]: “The method includes joining a first 3D object having a first closed surface mesh”)
As per claim 3, Brochu teaches the claimed:
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising post-processing the SO voxelgrid segmentation, the post-processing removing undesired spatial gaps between the SO voxelgrid segmentation and the EO mesh. (Brochu [0083]: “Gap engine 116 connects the boundaries to the one or more other portions of the surface mesh such that the surface mesh maintains a consistent polygonal mesh throughout the non-manifold surface mesh. In some embodiments, gap engine 116 implements a gap-closing algorithm that adds and/or matches vertices of the surface mesh of one of the boundaries proximate to the boundary gap with vertices of the surface mesh of another open boundary proximate to the boundary gap.”)
As per claim 21, Brochu teaches the claimed:
21. An apparatus for automated calcification meshing with anatomical consistency, the apparatus comprising:
a processor;
(Brochu [0100]: “In some embodiments, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions that, when executed by a processor”.)
a memory unit; and
(Brochu [0027]: “Memory unit 106 is configured to store data and/or software applications.”)
a communication interface;
(Brochu [0028]: “Rendering engine 110 is also configured to render pixels or voxels that represent 3D surface model 120 and/or adapted 3D surface model 130 to an I/O device 104, such as a display device or a touchscreen.”)
wherein the processor is connected to the memory unit and the communication interface; and wherein the processor and memory are configured to implement the method of claim 1.
(Brochu [0110]: “a system comprises a memory storing an application; and a processor that is coupled to the memory”. Brochu teaches the system that includes a memory and processor, where the system can include I/O devices and a display device, which is a communication interface.)
As per claim 22, Brochu teaches the claimed:
22. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing computer-executable instructions for performing the method of claim 1.
(Brochu [0100]: “In some embodiments, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions”.)
Claim 9 and 12-14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brochu view of Orend in further view of Shen (US 20260030842 A1).
As per claim 9, Brochu and Orend alone does not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Brochu and Orend in combination with Shen teaches the claimed:
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the SO meshing algorithm comprises:
generating a background tetrahedral mesh;
(Shen [0020]: “The deformable tetrahedral mesh may be used as an approximation of an implicit function. To generate the deformable tetrahedral grid, (V.sub.T, T)”.)
converting the SO segmentation to a nodal signed distance function (SDF);
(Shen [Abstract]: “The systems and methods described herein may use a deformable tetrahedral grid that encodes a discretized signed distance function (SDF) and a differentiable marching tetrahedral layer that converts the implicit SDF representation to an explicit surface mesh representation.”
Shen [0019]: “The input(s) 102 may include a point cloud (e.g., a sparse point cloud, in embodiments), a voxelized shape (e.g., a coarse voxelized shape), a scan (e.g., a 3D scan), and/or another type of—e.g., lower quality—input 102. … the input(s) 102 may be processed using the model to: (A) predict a signed distance field (SDF) at an initial grid resolution;”
Shen teaches the voxelized shape, which corresponds to the object segmentation, and then converts it into an SDF based on it.)
generating an isosurface triangular mesh from the background mesh and nodal SDF using marching tetrahedra; and
(Shen [0041]: “a marching tetrahedra algorithm may be executed on the deformable grid (e.g., after subdivision, deformation, and updating the SDF), to extract an iso-surface (e.g., a triangular mesh).”
Shen teaches the extraction of an triangular mesh from the deformable grid, which is the background mesh, and this includes the updating of the SDF in the marching tetrahedra algorithm, thus Shen teaches the generation of the isosurface triangular mesh.)
simultaneously optimizing the nodal SDF and the background mesh, forming an optimized SO surface mesh.
(Shen [Abstract]: “The systems and methods described herein may use a deformable tetrahedral grid that encodes a discretized signed distance function (SDF) and a differentiable marching tetrahedral layer that converts the implicit SDF representation to an explicit surface mesh representation. This combination allows joint optimization of the surface geometry and topology as well as generation of … the surface mesh.”
Shen [0019]: “selectively subdivide tetrahedrons of the grid and interpolate an updated SDF of the subdivided grid; (C) refine boundary SDFs and deform and trim graphs”
Shen teaches the optimization of the SDFs by updating and refining it, with the joint optimization of the surface geometry and topology to help generate the optimized surface mesh.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the tetrahedral mesh as taught by Shen with the system of Brochu as modified by Orend in order to provide high accuracy in rendering complex 3D representations more efficiently.
As per claim 12, Brochu and Orend alone does not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Brochu and Orend in combination with Shen teaches the claimed:
12. The method of claim 9, wherein converting the SO segmentation to a nodal signed distance functions (SDF) comprises:
converting the SO segmentation to a voxelgrid SDF via linear mapping or voxelwise distance calculation from the SO isosurface; and
(Shen [0020]: “the signed distance values may be defined on the vertices of the grid to represent the underlying surface implicitly, in embodiments. The use of signed distance values, instead of occupancy, may provide for more flexibility when representing the underlying surface.”
Shen [0023]: “Once the surface typology inside the tetrahedron is identified, the vertex location of the iso-surface may be computed at the zero crossings of the linear interpolation along the tetrahedron's edges, as illustrated in FIG. 3. In one or more embodiments, the equation may only be evaluated when signs s(v.sub.a)≠signs s(v.sub.b); as such the singularity in the formulation (e.g., when s(v.sub.a)=s(v.sub.b)) can be avoided, and the gradient from a loss defined on the extracted iso-surface can be back-propagated to both vertex positions and SDF values, e.g., via the chainurn rule.”)
interpolating the voxelgrid SDF at each background mesh node, forming nodal SDF.
(Shen [0020]: “The SDF may be represented by interpolating the SDF values defined on the vertices of the grid.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the signed distance function as taught by Shen with the system of Brochu as modified by Orend in order to have more accurate surface reconstruction, geometric analysis, and alignment, improving on the quality of 3D operations.
As per claim 13, Brochu and Orend alone does not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Brochu and Orend in combination with Shen teaches the claimed:
13. The method of claim 9, wherein optimizing the nodal SDF and the background mesh comprises adjusting the nodal SDF and the mesh vertex positions to maximize surface mesh quality and minimize deviation from the SO voxelgrid segmentation.
(Shen [0006]: “A differentiable shape representation may be generated that marries both implicit and explicit 3D representations and … optimizes for a reconstructed surface of a 3D shape to produce higher quality shapes with finer geometric details.”
Shen [0032]: “… one or more modules may be supervised to minimize the error defined on the final predicted mesh, M.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the signed distance function as taught by Shen with the system of Brochu as modified by Orend in order to have more accurate surface reconstruction, geometric analysis, and alignment, improving on the quality of 3D operations.
As per claim 14, Brochu and Orend alone does not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Brochu and Orend in combination with Shen teaches the claimed:
14. The method of claim 13, further comprising setting the nodal SDF values to prescribed values when the nodes are from the original EO mesh nodes or the fake node.
(Shen [0021]: “SDF values may then be computed for the new vertices by, e.g., averaging the SDF values on the edge (e.g., if the SDF values of the original vertices were −2 and +4, the mid-point or new vertex SDF value may be +1).”
Shen gives an example case of prescribing values when determining that the values are from the original vertices of the mesh, thus teaching the prescribed values when the modes are from the original object mesh.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the signed distance function as taught by Shen with the system of Brochu as modified by Orend in order to have more accurate surface reconstruction, geometric analysis, and alignment, improving on the quality of 3D operations.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brochu in view of Orend in view of Shen and in further view of Tomoaki (JP 5755480 B2), in further view of Won (KR 2003-0026300 A), and in further view of Wang (US 20220414282 A1).
As per claim 10, Brochu, Orend and Shen alone does not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Brochu, Orend and Shen in combination with Tomoaki, Won, and Wang teaches the claimed:
10. The method of claim 9, wherein generating the background mesh includes:
extracting the EO surface;
processing the surface for constrained tetrahedral meshing;
performing constrained tetrahedral meshing; and
(Tomoaki (page 3, line 19-23): “a rectangular block having a constraining surface is meshed with tetrahedral elements while maintaining the condition of the constraining surface. … it is possible to cause a computer to realize a function of meshing a rectangular parallelepiped block having a constrained surface in which nodes and connections are set with a node arrangement desired by the user.”
Tomoaki teaches the constrained surface meshed with tetrahedral elements from the original surface state, which indicates there must have been an extraction of the original mesh surface to maintain it. Tomoaki also indicates that the computer can process the surface and realize a mesh having a constrained surface for tetrahedral meshing.)
adding a fake node to all background boundary surface elements to form fake tetrahedral elements.
(Won (page 5, line 30): “a tetrahedral element is generated by creating a new node”.
Wang [0047]: “the boundary layer mesh is obtained by the directed connection of the advancing positions of all the front nodes according to the topology of the original surface mesh”.
Wang [0053]: “guidance to control the advancing distances of the front nodes of each layer, i.e., the volume harmonic energy values of the nodes of each layer of the boundary layer mesh are equal in the tetrahedral background mesh”.
Won teaches the creation of new nodes that form a tetrahedral element, while Wang teaches that the nodes that are in each layer, which includes the background layer, and the nodes help generate the boundary layer mesh that are similar to the tetrahedral background mesh, which correspond to the fake tetrahedral elements.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the constrained meshing as taught by Tomoaki with the system of Brochu as modified by Orend and Shen in order to ensure generated meshes are geometrically accurate and reducing unnecessary cells in regions that are not as important, which improves rendering and efficiency. Also to use the tetrahedral element and boundary layer mesh as taught by Won and Wang, respectively, in order to seamlessly integrate a new node into a mesh, ensuring a complete and accurate representation of the 3D volume.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brochu in view of Orend in view of Shen, and in further view of Gao (US 20240296629 A1).
As per claim 15, Brochu, Orend, and Shen alone do not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Brochu, Orend, and Shen in combination with Gao teaches the claimed:
15. The method of claim 9, further comprising remeshing non-contact surfaces after generating the isosurface triangular mesh of the SO surface, the remeshing of the non-contact surfaces reducing complexity of the mesh.
(Gao [0069]: “The re-meshing approach can include two main stages: a mesh extraction and a mesh optimization. During the mesh extraction stage, an unsigned distance field can be computed (or determined) for M.sub.i. An iso-surface mesh extraction approach can be introduced for a positive offset distance (or an iso-value) d. All invisible disconnected components can further be removed from the extracted iso-surface to obtain a mesh M.sub.d. … The purpose of the mesh extraction stage is to generate a “clean” proxy mesh M.sub.d of the input M.sub.i that possibly has “dirty” topology and geometry configurations. … The simplification step aims to reduce a number of triangles of M.sub.d by performing one pass of quadric edge-collapse decimation for the entire mesh.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the remeshing method as taught by Gao with the system of Brochu as modified by Orend and Shen in order to generate and portray meshes with a balance between mesh simplicity and appearance preservation of the original mesh.
As per claim 16, Brochu, Orend, and Shen alone do not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Brochu, Orend, and Shen in combination with Gao teaches the claimed:
16. The method of claim 15, wherein the remeshing comprises constrained surface remeshing.
(Gao [0045]: “a parallel effort, such as re-meshing, aims to completely reconstruct a new mesh mimicking the original mesh.” Gao teaches the constrained surface remeshing as mimicking the original mesh is a constraint that the remeshing method must follow to look alike to the original mesh.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the remeshing method as taught by Gao with the system of Brochu as modified by Orend and Shen in order to generate and portray meshes with a balance between mesh simplicity and appearance preservation of the original mesh.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brochu in view of Orend in view of Shen, and in further view of Meilland (US 20210225074 A1).
As per claim 19, Brochu and Orend alone does not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Brochu and Orend in combination with Meilland teaches the claimed:
19. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
after applying the SO meshing algorithm, applying a tetrahedralization algorithm to the SO surface mesh, the tetrahedralization algorithm converting the SO surface mesh to a tetrahedral SO volumetric mesh; and
replacing the SO surface mesh with the SO volumetric mesh in the subsequent merging step.
(Meilland [0063]: “the method 400 generates a mesh representing the surfaces based on the first hash table and the second hash table, where the mesh is generated by positioning a vertices of the mesh along a line connecting a first voxel of the first set of voxels with a second voxel of the second set of voxels. … a tetrahedral meshing algorithm, or the like) may be used.”
Meilland teaches the tetrahedral algorithm that generates a volumetric mesh based on the surface mesh. As shown above, the hash tables represent the surface mesh and then using the tetrahedral algorithm, it converts the hash table values to voxel positions, thus generating a tetrahedral volumetric mesh. Additionally, replacing a surface mesh with a volumetric mesh when merging to another mesh is a simple substitution that is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the tetrahedral meshing algorithm as taught by Meilland with the system of Brochu as modified by Orend in order to discretize complex 3D representations to improve quality and preserve features of the 3D volume.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brochu in view of Orend in view of Shen, and in further view of Van Rens (US 6781582 B1).
As per claim 20, Brochu and Orend alone do not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Brochu and Orend in combination with Van Rens teaches the claimed:
20. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
merging the SO surface/volumetric mesh with the EO mesh via coincident nodes.
(Van Rens (col 10, line 18-21): “The discretization of each contour is identical for every mesh it occurs in, i.e. nodes coincide there, which facilitates the meshing of the envelope surfaces.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the merging of meshes as taught by Van Rens with the system of Brochu as modified by Orend in order to combine meshes where there are similar features and to blend the two together to generate a seamless and smooth merged mesh.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA SUO whose telephone number is (571) 272-8387. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm.
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, Daniel Hajnik can be reached on (571) 272-7642. 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.
/JOSHUA SUO/Examiner, Art Unit 2616
/DANIEL F HAJNIK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2616
Prosecution Insights