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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, 11, 12, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zohar et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0080584), referred herein as Zohar.
Regarding claim 1, Zohar teaches a computer-implemented method to modify three-dimensional (3D) avatar bodies, the computer-implemented method comprising: identifying a first avatar body having a first body cage; identifying a target avatar body having a target body cage (figs 7 and 8; paragraph 36, lines 4-9; paragraph 37, lines 5-13; paragraph 38, lines 1-15; paragraph 58, lines 1-12; a first avatar body with a first body cage mesh, and a target avatar body with a target body cage mesh are identified);
and performing an interpolation between the first body cage and the target body cage to obtain a second body cage corresponding to a second avatar body to provide a transformation of the first avatar body into the second avatar body (figs 7 and 8; paragraph 37, lines 1-5 and 13-20; paragraph 38, lines 1-20; paragraph 58, the last 10 lines; paragraph 59, lines 1-14; paragraph 131; morphing [i.e. interpolation] is performed between the first body cage and target body cage to obtain a second body cage such that a transformation is provided from the first avatar to the second avatar).
Regarding claim 2, Zohar teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein performing the interpolation comprises performing the interpolation to generate the second body cage that completely matches the target body cage to provide a full transformation (fig 7; paragraph 37, lines 1-13; paragraph 59, the last 13 lines; paragraph 131).
Regarding claim 3, Zohar teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein performing the interpolation comprises transforming the first avatar body into the second avatar body that is a blend between the first avatar body and the target avatar body to provide a partial transformation (fig 8; paragraph 37, the last 15 lines; paragraph 58, lines 1-15; paragraphs 132 and 134).
Regarding claim 4, Zohar teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein performing the interpolation comprises morphing a portion of the first avatar body that is less than an entirety of the first avatar body (fig 8; paragraph 37, the last 15 lines; paragraph 58, lines 1-15; paragraphs 132 and 134).
Regarding claim 5, Zohar teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein morphing the portion of the first avatar body that is less than the entirety of the first avatar body comprises morphing the portion of the first avatar body to perform a partial transformation of the portion of the first avatar body (fig 8; paragraph 37, the last 15 lines; paragraph 58, lines 1-15; paragraphs 132 and 134).
Regarding claim 6, Zohar teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first avatar body is part of a virtual experience, performing the interpolation is performed while the avatar participates in the virtual experience, and the target avatar body is selected from a plurality of target avatar bodies in the virtual experience (paragraph 29, the last 10 lines; paragraph 37, lines 1-13; paragraph 111, lines 1-7 and 14-25).
Regarding claim 7, Zohar teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein performing the interpolation is performed in a configuration environment and the target avatar body is selected from a plurality of target avatar bodies in a library in the configuration environment (fig 5; paragraph 29, the last 10 lines; paragraph 37, lines 1-13; paragraph 104, lines 1-10; paragraph 111, lines 1-7 and 14-25).
Regarding claim 8, Zohar teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 7, wherein the configuration environment includes a transformation tool that enables a user to control an amount of the transformation of the first avatar body to obtain the second avatar body, and wherein performing the interpolation is based on the amount of the transformation (paragraph 37, lines 13-17; paragraph 58, the last 7 lines; paragraph 104, lines 1-10; paragraph 131).
Regarding claim 11, Zohar teaches a computer-implemented method to modify three-dimensional (3D) avatar bodies, the computer-implemented method comprising: identifying a first avatar body having a corresponding first body cage (figs 7 and 8; paragraph 36, lines 4-9; paragraph 37, lines 5-13; paragraph 38, lines 1-15; paragraph 58, lines 1-12; a first avatar body with a first body cage mesh is are identified); and
performing a manipulation of the first body cage to generate a second body cage corresponding to a second avatar body to provide a transformation of the first avatar body into the second avatar body (figs 7 and 8; paragraph 37, lines 1-5 and 13-20; paragraph 38, lines 1-20; paragraph 58, the last 10 lines; paragraph 59, lines 1-14; paragraph 131; morphing [i.e. manipulation] is performed to generate a second body cage such that a transformation is provided from the first avatar to the second avatar),
wherein the manipulating comprises repositioning portions of the first body cage (fig 8; paragraph 37, the last 15 lines; paragraph 39; paragraph 58, lines 1-15; paragraph 130, the last 12 lines; paragraphs 132 and 134; portions of the body cage are morphed and repositioned when generating the second body cage).
Regarding claim 12, Zohar teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 11, wherein performing the manipulation is performed in a configuration environment (fig 5; paragraph 29, the last 10 lines; paragraph 37, lines 1-13; paragraph 104, lines 1-10; paragraph 111, lines 1-7 and 14-25), and
wherein the configuration environment includes a transformation tool that enables a user to control aspects of the manipulation of the first body cage to obtain the second body cage, and wherein performing the manipulation is based on the aspects of the manipulation (paragraph 37, lines 13-17; paragraph 58, the last 7 lines; paragraph 104, lines 1-10; paragraph 131).
Regarding claim 15, Zohar teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 13, wherein transforming the first avatar body into the second avatar body comprises performing an interpolation between the first body cage and the second body cage (figs 7 and 8; paragraph 37, lines 1-5 and 13-20; paragraph 38, lines 1-20; paragraph 58, the last 10 lines; paragraph 59, lines 1-14; paragraph 131).
Regarding claim 16, Zohar teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 13, wherein transforming the first avatar body into the second avatar body comprises morphing a portion of the first avatar body that is less than an entirety of the first avatar body (fig 8; paragraph 37, the last 15 lines; paragraph 58, lines 1-15; paragraphs 132 and 134).
Regarding claim 17, the limitations of this claim substantially correspond to the limitations of claim 1 (except for the memory, instructions, and processing device, which are disclosed by Zohar, paragraph 143); thus they are rejected on similar grounds.
Regarding claims 18-20, the limitations of these claims substantially correspond to the limitations of claims 2-4, respectively; thus they are rejected on similar grounds as their corresponding claims.
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 9, 10, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zohar, in view of Wedig (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0260156), referred herein as Wedig.
Regarding claim 9, Zohar teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying a skeleton of the first avatar body and a skinning of the first avatar body; after performing the interpolation, updating the first avatar body to correspond to the second body cage; and animating the first avatar body by moving and deforming a skinning of the updated avatar (figs 7 & 8; paragraph 36, lines 4-9; paragraph 37, lines 1-17; paragraph 38, lines 1-15; paragraph 58, lines 1-15; paragraph 109).
Zohar does not explicitly teach identifying a rig of the first avatar body, the rig comprising identifying a skeleton of the first avatar body, updating the rig of the first avatar body to correspond to the second body cage, and animating the first avatar body by moving a skeleton of the updated rig and deforming a skinning of the updated rig.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Wedig teaches a method for modifying 3D avatar bodies, comprising identifying a first avatar body with a first body cage, and performing an interpolation deformation between the first body cage and a second body cage to transform the first avatar body into a second avatar body (paragraph 121; paragraph 142; paragraph 145, lines 1-11), and further comprising identifying a rig of the first avatar body, the rig comprising identifying a skeleton of the first avatar body, updating the rig of the first avatar body to correspond to the second body cage, and animating the first avatar body by moving a skeleton of the updated rig and deforming a skinning of the updated rig (paragraphs 146 and 147; paragraphs 155 and 157).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the rigging and body cage deformation of Wedig with the body cage deformation of Zohar because rigging provides more accurate movement in association with the body cage, which greatly improves the mesh deformations such that higher quality animation output can be produced (see, for example, Wedig, paragraphs 151 and 163).
Regarding claim 10, Zohar in view of Wedig teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 9, wherein moving the skeleton of the updated rig and deforming the skinning of the updated rig comprises reusing skin weights from the skinning of the first avatar body based on determining areas of skinning of the updated rig that are influenced by bones in the skeleton of the first avatar body (Wedig, paragraph 155, lines 1-13; paragraphs 157 and 158; the motivation to combine is substantially similar to that discussed above in the rejection of claim 9).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, the limitations of these claims substantially correspond to the limitations of claims 9 and 10, respectively; thus they are rejected on similar grounds as their corresponding claims.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Appleboim (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0090209); Virtual presentations without transformation-induced distortion of shape-sensitive areas.
Zohar (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0090645); Deforming real-world object using an external mesh.
Carter (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0131669); Efficient avatar creation with mesh penetration avoidance.
Stemple (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0193838); Computer-implemented method for controlling a virtual avatar.
Cooper (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0331330); System and method for dynamically improving the performance of real-time rendering systems via an optimized data set.
Feng (Avatar Reshaping and Automatic Rigging Using a Deformable Model); ACM; 2015.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID T WELCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5364. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 8:30-5:30 EST, and alternate Fridays, 9:00-2:30 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 on 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.
DAVID T. WELCH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2613
/DAVID T WELCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613
