DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/21/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
3. Claims 1-7, 9-15 and 17-22 are pending. Claim 17 is amended. Claims 8, 16 and 23 were previously cancelled.
Response to Amendment
4. In light of Applicant’s amendments of independent claim 17, the rejection of record of claims 17-22 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed on January 21, 2026 with respect to rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been fully considered; but they are not found persuasive. Specifically, in page 7 of its reply, Applicant argues in third paragraph that Huang does not teach generating (u, v) coordinates because first array carries UV coordinates, which means the coordinates are readily available. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The processing circuitry in Huang does not receive readily available coordinates, rather, it receives a bitstream which includes encoded patch information within— ¶0005: “processing circuitry receives a bitstream carrying encoded information of a mesh that is partitioned into patches. The bitstream includes a first portion and a second portion”. The circuitry then decodes the second portion of the bitstream to obtain an array with coordinate data— ¶0008: “the processing circuitry decodes a first array from the second portion. The first array carries UV coordinates for mapping the boundary vertices”. Which means, the coordinates not simply received, rather they are generated through processing patch information and mapping parameters. Therefore, Applicant’s the arguments are not found persuasive.
6. Applicant’s amendment of independent Claim 17, which has altered the scope of the claims 17-22 of the instant application, has necessitated new ground(s) of rejection presented in this office action with respect to claims of the instant application. Accordingly, because Applicant’s arguments are merely directed to the amended portion of the claims, new analyses have been presented below, which make Applicant’s arguments moot.
Claim Objections
7. Claims 2-7, 10-15 and 18-22 are objected to because of the following minor informalities:
The claims are missing a comma after the preamble (i.e. Claim 2: “The method of claim 1, further comprising…”).
Double Patenting
Non-statutory
8. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
9. Claims 1-7 and 9-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of co-pending Application No. 18/115,378 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are broader in every aspect than the claims in the above-listed reference application and are therefore obvious variants thereof.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
For example, the following is a chart comparing system claim 17 of the instant application to the system claim 15 and 17 of the co-pending application number 18/115,378:
Instant application: 18/114,910
U.S. Application No.: 18/115,378
Claim 17: A system comprising: an encoder configured for encoding a 3D mesh to generate patch identification information and mapping function parameters; and a decoder configured for: receiving the patch identification information and the mapping function parameters; and generating (u,v) coordinates based on the patch identification and mapping function parameters;
and reconstructing a 3D mesh based on the (u, v) coordinates.
Claim 15: A system comprising: an encoder configured for encoding a 3D mesh to generate patch identification information and mapping function parameters; and a decoder configured for: implementing atlas mapping processing on the patch identification information and the mapping function parameters…
Claim 17. The system of claim 16 wherein the decoder is further for reconstructing a mesh based on the displaced vertices…
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.
10. Claims 1-7 and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (US 2023/0063575 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Huang teaches, A method programmed in a non-transitory memory of a device comprising: (Huang, ¶0184: “the techniques (e.g., methods… execute a program that is stored in a non-transitory computer-readable medium”) receiving patch identification information (Huang, ¶0146: “an entry corresponding to a UV patch can be accessed according to a label of the UV patch”) and mapping function parameters; (Huang, ¶0116: “UV mapping or mesh parameterization are used to map surfaces”) and generating (u,v) coordinates based on the patch identification and mapping function parameters; (Huang, ¶0008: “The processing circuitry determines, according to the first array, first boundary UV coordinates of the first list of boundary vertices for mapping the first patch to a first UV patch”) and reconstructing a 3D mesh based on the (u, v) coordinates. (Huang, ¶0009: “To generate the reconstructed mesh, in some examples, the processing circuitry determines first UV coordinates of first vertices inside the first UV patch”).
Regarding claim 2, Huang teaches, The method of claim 1 further comprising encoding the 3D mesh to generate the patch identification information and mapping function parameters. (Huang, ¶0116: “mesh parameterization are used to map surfaces of a mesh in the 3D domain to 2D domain. In some examples, a mesh is partitioned into patches”; ¶0146: “an entry corresponding to a UV patch can be accessed according to a label of the UV patch”).
Regarding claim 3, Huang teaches, The method of claim 2 wherein the mapping function parameters are encoded on an atlas sub-bitstream. (Huang, ¶0164: “UV patches in a UV atlas are encoded into the first portion of the bitstream, information of boundaries of the UV patches is encoded into the second portion of the bitstream”; ¶0167: “a first array is encoded into the second portion, the first array (e.g., boundary_uv) carries UV coordinates for mapping the boundary vertices of the plurality of patches into a UV atlas).
Regarding claim 4, Huang teaches, The method of claim 2 wherein the mapping function parameters comprise 3D to 2D mapping function parameters. (Huang, ¶0116: “UV mapping or mesh parameterization are used to map surfaces of a mesh in the 3D domain to 2D domain”).
Regarding claim 5, Huang teaches, The method of claim 2 wherein encoding the 3D mesh comprises: generating patches from dynamic mesh information; (Huang, ¶0126: “encoder (1010) encodes an input mesh (1005) (a mesh frame in case of a dynamic mesh”) and packing the patches (Huang, ¶0116: “patches are parameterized respectively into 2D shapes. The 2D shapes can be packed”) on a texture atlas (Huang, ¶0117: “generates a UV atlas (also referred to as UV map) and one or more texture atlas (also referred to as texture map”) using orthographic projections. (Huang, ¶0050: “each patch is projected onto two images”).
Regarding claim 6, Huang teaches, The method of claim 1 wherein generating (u,v) coordinates based on the patch identification and mapping function parameters comprises utilizing a function (Huang, ¶0155: “mesh reconstruction module (1080) applies the hash function on the label of the UV patch to determine a table entry index of a table entry in the boundary_table”) to generate the (u,v) coordinates from the patch identification and the mapping function parameters, wherein the mapping function parameters correspond with the patch identification. (Huang, ¶0156: “based on the boundary vertex indices of the boundary vertices of the UV patch from boundary_table, the array boundary_uv is accessed to obtain the UV coordinates of the boundary vertices of the UV patch”).
Regarding claim 7, Huang teaches, The method of claim 1 wherein the (u,v) coordinates are generated (Huang, ¶0117: “a point in the UV atlas at a 2D coordinates (u,v) has a value that is formed by coordinates (x, y, z)”) based on transforms using a bounding box size, (Huang, ¶0101: “transform unit (551) receives a quantized transform coefficient as well as control information, including which transform to use, block size”) occupancy resolution, (Huang, ¶0046: “convert 3D point cloud frames into…. occupancy maps… occupancy map is a 2D image with pixels filled with values that indicate occupied or unoccupied by patches”) and scaling information. (Huang, ¶0101: “transform unit (551) receives a quantized transform coefficient as well as control information, including… scaling matrices”).
Regarding claim 9, Huang teaches, An apparatus comprising: (Huang, ¶0005: “an apparatus for mesh coding includes”) a non-transitory memory for storing an application, the application for: (Huang, ¶0199: “a computer-readable media can encompass a circuit (such as an integrated circuit (IC)) storing software for execution”) receiving patch identification information (Huang, ¶0146: “an entry corresponding to a UV patch can be accessed according to a label of the UV patch”) and mapping function parameters; (Huang, ¶0116: “UV mapping or mesh parameterization are used to map surfaces”) and generating (u,v) coordinates based on the patch identification and mapping function parameters; (Huang, ¶0008: “The processing circuitry determines, according to the first array, first boundary UV coordinates of the first list of boundary vertices for mapping the first patch to a first UV patch”) reconstructing a 3D mesh based on the (u, v) coordinates; (Huang, ¶0009: “To generate the reconstructed mesh, in some examples, the processing circuitry determines first UV coordinates of first vertices inside the first UV patch”) and a processor coupled to the memory, the processor configured for processing the application. (Huang, ¶0184: “the one or more processors execute a program that is stored in a non-transitory computer-readable medium”).
Regarding claim 10, it recites an apparatus with components corresponding to the steps of the method recited in claim 2. Therefore, the recited components of apparatus claim 10 are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in method claim 2.
Regarding claim 11, it recites an apparatus with components corresponding to the steps of the method recited in claim 3. Therefore, the recited components of apparatus claim 11 are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in method claim 3.
Regarding claim 12, it recites an apparatus with components corresponding to the steps of the method recited in claim 4. Therefore, the recited components of apparatus claim 12 are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in method claim 4.
Regarding claim 13, it recites an apparatus with components corresponding to the steps of the method recited in claim 5. Therefore, the recited components of apparatus claim 13 are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in method claim 5.
Regarding claim 14, it recites an apparatus with components corresponding to the steps of the method recited in claim 6. Therefore, the recited components of apparatus claim 14 are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in method claim 6.
Regarding claim 15, it recites an apparatus with components corresponding to the steps of the method recited in claim 7. Therefore, the recited components of apparatus claim 15 are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in method claim 7.
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.
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.
11. Claims 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2023/0063575 A1) in view of Graziosi (US 2020/0236401 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Huang teaches, A system comprising: (Huang, ¶0185: “a computer system (1300) suitable for implementing certain embodiments of the disclosed subject matter”) an encoder configured for encoding a 3D mesh (Huang, ¶0126: “mesh encoder (1010) encodes an input mesh”) to generate patch identification information (Huang, ¶0146: “an entry corresponding to a UV patch can be accessed according to a label of the UV patch”) and mapping function parameters; (Huang, ¶0116: “UV mapping or mesh parameterization are used to map surfaces”) and a decoder configured for: receiving (Huang, ¶0107: “decoder (800) can be configured to receive”) the patch identification information (Huang, ¶0146: “an entry corresponding to a UV patch can be accessed according to a label of the UV patch”) and the mapping function parameters; (Huang, ¶0114: “exploiting mapping information that parameterizes the mesh with 2D attribute maps”) and generating (u,v) coordinates based on the patch identification and mapping function parameters; (Huang, ¶0008: “processing circuitry determines, according to the first array, first boundary UV coordinates of the first list of boundary vertices for mapping the first patch to a first UV patch”) reconstructing the 3D mesh based on the (u,v) coordinates; (Huang, ¶0009: “To generate the reconstructed mesh, in some examples, the processing circuitry determines first UV coordinates of first vertices inside the first UV patch”) and reconstructing a texture map based on a decoded attribute sub-bitstream by (Huang, ¶0066: “The texture reconstruction module (448) can determine texture information for points in the point cloud based on the decompressed texture images”). However, Huang does not explicitly teach, utilizing a single 4x4 homography transform matrix by using homogenous coordinates.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Graziosi teaches, utilizing a single 4x4 homography transform matrix (Graziosi, ¶0048: “the 4×4 Homography Matrix”) by using homogenous coordinates. (Graziosi, ¶0051: “output point cloud is simply generated by multiplying the homography transform to a vector in homogenous coordinate notion”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huang using the teachings of Graziosi to introduce a 4x4 homography matrix. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of efficiently combining three dimensional transformations into a single matrix multiplication. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Huang and Graziosi to obtain the invention of claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, Huang in view of Graziosi teaches, The system of claim 17 wherein the mapping function parameters are encoded on an atlas sub-bitstream. (Huang, ¶0164: “UV patches in a UV atlas are encoded into the first portion of the bitstream, information of boundaries of the UV patches is encoded into the second portion of the bitstream”; ¶0167: “a first array is encoded into the second portion, the first array (e.g., boundary_uv) carries UV coordinates for mapping the boundary vertices of the plurality of patches into a UV atlas).
Regarding claim 19, Huang in view of Graziosi teaches, The system of claim 17 wherein the mapping function parameters comprise 3D to 2D mapping function parameters. (Huang, ¶0116: “UV mapping or mesh parameterization are used to map surfaces of a mesh in the 3D domain to 2D domain”).
Regarding claim 20, Huang in view of Graziosi teaches, The system of claim 17 wherein encoding the 3D mesh comprises: generating patches from dynamic mesh information; (Huang, ¶0126: “encoder (1010) encodes an input mesh (1005) (a mesh frame in case of a dynamic mesh”) and packing the patches (Huang, ¶0116: “patches are parameterized respectively into 2D shapes. The 2D shapes can be packed”) on a texture atlas (Huang, ¶0117: “generates a UV atlas (also referred to as UV map) and one or more texture atlas (also referred to as texture map”) using orthographic projections. (Huang, ¶0050: “each patch is projected onto two images”).
Regarding claim 21, Huang in view of Graziosi teaches, The system of claim 17 wherein generating (u,v) coordinates based on the patch identification and mapping function parameters comprises utilizing a function (Huang, ¶0155: “mesh reconstruction module (1080) applies the hash function on the label of the UV patch to determine a table entry index of a table entry in the boundary_table”) to generate the (u,v) coordinates from the patch identification and the mapping function parameters, wherein the mapping function parameters correspond with the patch identification. (Huang, ¶0156: “based on the boundary vertex indices of the boundary vertices of the UV patch from boundary_table, the array boundary_uv is accessed to obtain the UV coordinates of the boundary vertices of the UV patch”).
Regarding claim 22, Huang in view of Graziosi teaches, The system of claim 17 wherein the (u,v) coordinates are generated (Huang, ¶0117: “a point in the UV atlas at a 2D coordinates (u,v) has a value that is formed by coordinates (x, y, z)”) based on transforms using a bounding box size, (Huang, ¶0101: “transform unit (551) receives a quantized transform coefficient as well as control information, including which transform to use, block size”) occupancy resolution, (Huang, ¶0046: “convert 3D point cloud frames into…. occupancy maps… occupancy map is a 2D image with pixels filled with values that indicate occupied or unoccupied by patches”) and scaling information. (Huang, ¶0101: “transform unit (551) receives a quantized transform coefficient as well as control information, including… scaling matrices”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEHRAZUL ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0489. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 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, Saini Amandeep can be reached on (571) 272-3382. 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.
/MEHRAZUL ISLAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662