DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Though applicant has amended claims that overcome most of the previous 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections, further 35 U.S.C. 112 issues and prior are rejections have arisen.
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 1 – 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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 1 recites “a mesh derived from the mesh M(i)” and “a mesh derived from the decimated mesh dm(i). It is unclear if “a mesh” in the first instance and “a mesh” in the second instance are the same or different from each other and likewise to “mesh M(i)”. The issue is the object is “a mesh” and identifiers are needed to distinguish between each “a mesh”. Suggestion is to change back to “input mesh M(i) in all referenced claims, change to “a subsequent input mesh derived from the input mesh M(i)”, and change to “a subsequent decimated mesh derived from the decimated mesh dm(i)”.
Claims 2 and 6 recite “a mesh with unified vertices UM(i)”. Again, it is unclear if “a mesh” is the same or different with the above mentioned “a mesh” instances. Suggestion is to change to “a unified mesh with unified vertices UM(i).
Claim 7 recites “a mesh derived from the decimated mesh dm(i)” and “the mesh derived from the decimated mesh dm(i)”. Again, it is unclear if “a mesh” is the same or different with the above mentioned “a mesh” instances. Suggest is to change both instances to “the subsequent decimated mesh”.
Claim 8 recites “a mesh derived from the decimated mesh dm(i)” and “a shape of mesh M(i)”. Again, it is unclear if “a mesh” is the same or different with the above mentioned “a mesh” instances. Suggest is to change to “the subsequent decimated mesh” and “a shape of the input mesh M(i), respectively.
Claim 9 recites “a mesh derived from the decimated mesh dm(i)” thrice, “base mesh m(i)”, and “decimated mesh dm(i)” twice. Again, it is unclear if “a mesh” is the same or different with the above mentioned “a mesh” instances. Suggest is to change to “the subsequent decimated mesh”, “the base mesh m(i)”, and “the decimated mesh dm(i)”, respectively.
Claim 10 recites “a mesh derived from the decimated mesh dm(i)”. Again, it is unclear if “a mesh” is the same or different with the above mentioned “a mesh” instances. Suggest is to change to “the subsequent decimated mesh”.
Claims 11 – 13 recite “a shape of mesh M(i)”. Again, it is unclear if “a mesh” is the same or different with the above mentioned “a mesh” instances. Suggest is to change to “a shape of the input mesh M(i)”.
Claim 17 recites “if mesh M(i) and reference mesh M(j)” twice. Suggestion it to change to “if the input mesh M(i) and the reference mesh M(j)”.
Claim 17 recites “generating mesh M’(j) that is a deformed version of reference mesh M(j)” and “processing mesh M’(j)”. Suggestion is to change “generating a subsequent reference mesh M’(j) that is a deformed version of the reference mesh M(j)” and "processing the subsequent reference mesh M’(j)”, respectively.
Claim 17 recites “the same shape as mesh M(i)”, which lacks antecedent basis. Suggestion is to change “same shape as the input mesh M(i)”.
Claim 17 recites “a mesh derived therefrom”. Again, it is unclear if “a mesh” is the same or different with the above mentioned “a mesh” instances. Suggest is to change “a subsequent decimated mesh derived from the decimated mesh dm(i)”.
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 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johansson et al. (US 2010/0277476).
Regarding independent claim 1, Johansson teaches a re-meshing a 3D textured mesh M(i) to generate a base mesh m(i) and displacement field d(i) for input into a mesh encoder, the method comprising:
reducing a number of vertices or faces of the mesh M(i), or a mesh derived from the mesh M(i) (paragraph 33: The simplification/reduction method comprises a series of edge-collapse operations that maps the original mesh onto the reduced mesh with each subsequent edge collapse), while substantially preserving a shape of the input mesh M(i) (Figure 8: the reduced 3D meshes 801, 802 preserve the shape of the original 3D mesh 800), thereby producing a decimated mesh dm(i) (paragraph 33: the reduced mesh) and a projected mesh P(i) (paragraph 36: When doing subsequent collapses, according to the disclosed method, it is important to keep track of what edges that belong to the original mesh, and what edges that are re-computed after an edge collapse. The reason for this track keeping is that subsequent collapses will re-map the computed paths and edges that belong to the original mesh, but none of the edges that are re-computed on the reduced mesh); and
processing the mesh M(i), the decimated mesh dm(i) or a mesh derived from the decimated mesh dm(i), and the projected mesh P(i) to produce the base mesh m(i) (paragraph 39: When calculating absolute distances for mesh data there are two types of distances that should be computed. The first comprises the distances between the original positions of collapsed vertices to the mapped position of those vertices on the collapsed surface; paragraph 44: By saving projected data during subsequent edge collapse operations it is possible to create advanced geomorphs between different levels of simplified meshes) and the displacement field d(i) (paragraph 39: The other distances to be computed are those of the original edges to that of their corresponding path on the collapsed mesh. If the corresponding path doesn't cross any of the edges on the collapsed surface there is no need to calculate their distance, since the endpoints of the path will be of equal or greater distance. When the path is crossing an edge however, then the distance from the crossing edge and the paths original edge must be calculated; paragraph 44: method by which such 3D morphing can be implemented comprises choosing a simplified level of mesh and add all the projected data to said mesh, and then moving the projected vertices and edges to their instanced initial values) for input into the mesh encoder (intended use).
Regarding dependent claim 4, Johansson teaches detecting and removing connected components having a number of vertices (paragraph 34: An edge and its adjacent triangles are removed, and the two vertices connected through that edge are merged into one), number of triangles (paragraph 34: An edge and its adjacent triangles are removed, and the two vertices connected through that edge are merged into one), or area below a determined threshold from the decimated mesh dm(i) or the mesh derived from the decimated mesh dm(i).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johansson et al. (US 2010/0277476) in view of Official Notice.
Regarding dependent claim 2, Johansson does not expressly disclose removing duplicated vertices from the mesh M(i) to produce a mesh with unified vertices UM(i) that is the mesh derived from the mesh M(i), though Johansson does disclose an edge and its adjacent triangles are removed, and the two vertices connected through that edge are merged into one (paragraph 34). Examiner takes Official Notice that the concept of unified vertices that combines multiple vertices that are close in proximity to each other into one vertex and the advantage of saving memory space of representing the reduced mesh are well known and expected in the art. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the time of the effective filing date of the application (AIA ) to modify Johansson's system to utilized unified vertices method for reducing an initial mesh. One would be motivated to do so because this would reduce memory space needed to representing the initial mesh.
Regarding dependent claim 3, Johansson does not expressly disclose processing the decimated mesh dm(i) to remove triangles that reference the same vertices. Examiner takes Official Notice that the concept of removing duplicate triangles sharing the same vertices in an initial mesh and the advantage of saving memory space of representing the reduced mesh are well known and expected in the art. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the time of the effective filing date of the application (AIA ) to modify Johansson's system to remove duplicate triangles sharing the same vertices in an initial mesh. One would be motivated to do so because this would reduce memory space needed to representing the initial mesh.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johansson et al. (US 2010/0277476) in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA, paragraph 116).
Regarding dependent claim 5, Johansson does not expressly disclose reducing a number of patches of the decimated mesh dm(i) or the mesh derived from the decimated mesh dm(i). AAPA discloses reducing patches using the Atlas Parameterization Module 2005 using techniques such as those described in References [B6], [B7] (paragraph 116). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the time of the effective filing date of the application (AIA ) to modify Johansson's system to reduce the number of patches in an initial mesh. One would be motivated to do so because this would reduce memory space needed to representing the initial mesh.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johansson et al. (US 2010/0277476) in view of Official Notice and Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA, paragraph 116).
Regarding dependent claim 6, Johansson does not expressly disclose removing duplicated vertices from the mesh M(i) to produce a mesh with unified vertices UM(i) that is the mesh derived from the mesh M(i), though Johansson does disclose an edge and its adjacent triangles are removed, and the two vertices connected through that edge are merged into one (paragraph 34). Examiner takes Official Notice that the concept of unified vertices that combines multiple vertices that are close in proximity to each other into one vertex and the advantage of saving memory space of representing the reduced mesh are well known and expected in the art. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the time of the effective filing date of the application (AIA ) to modify Johansson's system to utilized unified vertices method for reducing an initial mesh. One would be motivated to do so because this would reduce memory space needed to representing the initial mesh.
Johansson does not expressly disclose processing the decimated mesh dm(i) to remove triangles that reference the same vertices. Examiner takes Official Notice that the concept of removing duplicate triangles sharing the same vertices in an initial mesh and the advantage of saving memory space of representing the reduced mesh are well known and expected in the art. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the time of the effective filing date of the application (AIA ) to modify Johansson's system to remove duplicate triangles sharing the same vertices in an initial mesh. One would be motivated to do so because this would reduce memory space needed to representing the initial mesh.
Johansson teaches detecting and removing connected components having a number of vertices (paragraph 34: An edge and its adjacent triangles are removed, and the two vertices connected through that edge are merged into one), number of triangles (paragraph 34: An edge and its adjacent triangles are removed, and the two vertices connected through that edge are merged into one), or area below a determined threshold from the decimated mesh dm(i) or the mesh derived from the decimated mesh dm(i).
Johansson does not expressly disclose reducing a number of patches of the decimated mesh dm(i) or the mesh derived from the decimated mesh dm(i). AAPA discloses reducing patches using the Atlas Parameterization Module 2005 using techniques such as those described in References [B6], [B7] (paragraph 116). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the time of the effective filing date of the application (AIA ) to modify Johansson's system to reduce the number of patches in an initial mesh. One would be motivated to do so because this would reduce memory space needed to representing the initial mesh.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johansson et al. (US 2010/0277476) in view of Zou et al. (US 2024/0404120).
Regarding dependent claim 7, Johansson does not expressly disclose wherein processing the mesh M(i), the decimated mesh dm(i) or a mesh derived from the decimated mesh dm(i), and the projected mesh P(i) to produce the base mesh m(i) and the displacement field d(i) for input into the mesh encoder further comprises subdividing polygons of the decimated mesh dm(i) or the mesh derived from the decimated mesh dm(i) to produce a subdivided mesh S(i). Zou discloses after determining of the decimation operation method and the error metric, mesh decimation can be started, and the mesh can be divided into one or more pieces of local meshes, and a vertex error of the initial mesh in the piece is first calculated to obtain the error of each edge (paragraph 75). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the time of the effective filing date of the application (AIA ) to achieve a predictable result or subdividing the decimated mesh by modifying Johansson's system that generated a decimated mesh by further adding dividing the decimated mesh into one or more pieces of local meshes as taught by Zou, and the result would have been predictable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the limitation “moving the vertex v to the new position determined by: Pos(v) + <H(v) - Pos(v), N(v)> * N(v) where <H(v) - Pos(v), N(v)> is the a dot product of the two 3D vectors H(v) - Pos(v) and N(v) and where N(v) is the anormal vector at Pos(v) to produce a new deformed mesh that after a determined number of iterations becomes the a final deformed mesh F(i)” is not taught or rendered obvious by the cited prior arts.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY J CHOW whose telephone number is (571)272-8078. The examiner can normally be reached 11AM-7PM.
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, Devona Faulk can be reached at 571-272-7515. 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.
/JEFFREY J CHOW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2618
Prosecution Insights