66DETAILED 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 .
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 – 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.
Claims 1 – 9 and 11 – 13 recite multiple instances of “processing hardware”. It is unclear if each of “processing hardware” are the same or completely different from each other.
Claim 1 recites “a base mesh” and “a mesh encoder” at the last line. It is unclear if each of “a base mesh” and “a mesh encoder” are the same or completely different from each other.
Claims 11 – 13 and 15 recite “the surface of a projected mesh P(i)”, “the angle”, “the normal N(v)”, “the nearest point H(v)”, “the dot product of the two 3D vectors”, and “the final deformed mesh F(i)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 16 recites “the same connectivity”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites “wherein pm(i) and pm(j)”. It is unclear if “pm(i)” and “pm(j)” is the same as “a base mesh pm(i)” and “a base mesh pm(j)” are the same or completely different from each other.
Claim 17 recites “input meshes M(i) and M(j)” as claim 16 recites “a reference mesh M(j) and a mesh M(i). It is unclear if theses meshes are the same between the these claims.
Claim 17 recites the limitations “the projected mesh P(j)” and "the displacement field d(i)" in the first limitation and the last limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 17 recites multiple instances, not limiting, with “a Fitting Subdivison Surface module”, “processing hardware”, various references to mesh M(i) and mesh M(j), “a mesh encoder”. It is unclear if each of these respective elements in their instances are the same or different from each other.
Claim16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: “wherein pm(i) and pm(j) have the same connectivity”. It is unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art would ascertain the connectivity between the two base meshes since no steps or description are provided to determine the connectivity.
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) 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johansson et al. (US 2010/0277476).
Regarding independent claim 14, Johansson teaches a method of decimating an input mesh M(i) or a mesh with unified vertices UM(i) derived therefrom by duplicate vertex removal to produce a decimated mesh dm(i), the method comprising:
{1}reducing a number of vertices/faces{1} of {2}the input mesh M(i) {2} (paragraph 33: The simplification/reduction method comprises {1}a series of edge-collapse operations{1} that maps {2}the original mesh{2} onto the reduced mesh with each subsequent edge collapse) while substantially preserving a shape of the original mesh (Figure 8: the reduced 3D meshes 801, 802 preserve the shape of the original 3D mesh 800); and
tracking a mapping between the input mesh M(i) by projecting {1}removed vertices{1} onto {2}the decimated mesh dm(i){2} (paragraph 39: When calculating absolute distances for mesh data there are two types of distances that should be computed. The first [absolute distance] comprises the distances between {1}the original positions of collapsed vertices{1} to {2}the mapped position of those vertices on the collapsed surface{2}. The other distances to be computed are those of the original edges to that of their corresponding path on the collapsed mesh).
Regarding dependent claim 16, teaches a method of time consistent remeshing, the method comprising:
reusing {1, 2}a base mesh pm(j){1, 2} (Figure 8: first reduced 3D Mesh 801) associated with {1}a reference mesh M(j){1} (Figure 8: initial 3D Mesh 800) for {2}a base mesh pm(i){2} (Figure 8: second reduced 3D Mesh 802) associated with {1}a mesh M(i){1} (Figure 8: first reduced 3D Mesh 801. Examiner notes a base mesh pm(j) and a mesh M(i) are both mapped to the first reduced 3D Mesh 801, being the same mesh that is reused to generate the second reduced 3D Mesh 802; paragraph 33: The simplification/reduction method comprises a series of edge-collapse operations that maps {1}the original mesh{1} onto {2}the reduced mesh{2} with each subsequent edge collapse), wherein pm(i) and pm(j) have the same connectivity (paragraph 39: When calculating absolute distances for mesh data there are two types of distances that should be computed. The first [absolute distance] comprises the distances between the original positions of collapsed vertices to the mapped position of those vertices on the collapsed surface. The other distances to be computed are those of the original edges to that of their corresponding path on the collapsed mesh. Examiner notes the original mesh and the reduced mesh with their iterations of reducing the reduced mesh all have mappings between each mesh’s vertices and edges that corresponds to “the same connectivity”).
Conclusion
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