DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on/after Mar. 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 26 June 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp., filed 2, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1, 22, and 28 under 35 U have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Gueziec et al. (U.S. Patent 6,031,548). The Examiner notes that the previously cited SURTI reference is not relied upon in this Office action. Please see the Office action below for further explanation regarding the rationale(s) for the rejection of the newly amended independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 USC 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 1, 22-24, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hemmer et al. (US PG-PUB 2020/0265611, ‘HEMMER*5611’) in view of Gueziec et al. (U.S. Patent 6,031,548; 'GUEZIEC').
Regarding claim 1, HEMMER*5611 discloses a method of processing a decoded 3D textured mesh (HEMMER*5611; FIG. 3; ¶ 117; “… an output of the … cost-driven progressive encoding is a progressive bitstream 380 [that] includes a header 382 generated from the single-rate geometry encoding operation 370 on the lowest LOD 362. The header 382 records the encoded mesh of the lowest LOD 362, the lowest resolution texture encoded via progressive JPEG, the number of bits used for XYZ [3D’] and UV coordinates, and the bounding box required to reverse the quantization operations. … progressive bitstream 380 also includes a heterogeneous series of geometry and/or texture refinements 383-385 … Recovery bitstream 388 is placed in front of older recovery bitstreams 383-385, i.e., closer to the header 382. [This] placement is used in a decoding operation that reverses the encoding operations.”), the method comprising:
receiving, from a mesh decoder (HEMMER*5611; FIG. 3; ¶ 0065; “The recovery bitstream data 158 represents a recording of the LOD reduction operation—in this case, the decimation operation—by which the previous LOD may be recovered. The recovery bitstream data 158 is used by a decoder to generate the next higher LOD using the inverse of the LOD reduction operation, in this case the inverse of the mesh decimation operation performed by the mesh decimation manager 142.”),
a decoded base mesh m’(i) (HEMMER*5611; ¶ 0162; “At 1302, the LOD manager 1230 obtains data (e.g., initial LOD data 1232) representing an initial level of detail (LOD), the initial LOD including an initial mesh LOD (e.g., initial mesh LOD data 1234) and an initial texture image LOD (texture image LOD data 1239), the initial mesh LOD [‘base mesh’] including an initial triangular mesh (e.g., position data 1235, connectivity data 1236, edge data 1237) and an initial texture atlas (texture atlas data 1238).”) and
displacements d’(i) associated with vertices of the decoded base mesh m’(i) (HEMMER*5611; ¶ 0093; “… the measure of distortion ΔD is an absolute value of a sum over displacements of one of the XYZ [‘vertex coordinates’] and UV coordinates. … the measure of distortion ΔD is an absolute value of a sum over displacements of the XYZ and UV coordinates.”); and
receiving control parameters (HEMMER*5611; ¶ 0030; “A technical solution to the above-described technical problem involves defining a cost metric that predicts how much computing resources are necessary to decode and render a mesh at a given LOD. The cost metric may be optimized by a selection of a LOD reduction process of a plurality of processes at each LOD reduction step. For each process of the plurality of processes, the LOD is reduced according to that process and the resulting reduced LOD is evaluated according to the cost metric.” ¶ 0031; “A technical advantage of the … technical solution is that a progressive mesh encoder resulting from such an optimization of the agony at each LOD reduction phase will improve the rate-distortion tradeoff and, ultimately, the user's experience in decoding and rendering the LODs representing [3-D] objects in an application.”) for consuming the decoded 3D textured mesh (HEMMER*5611; ¶ 0032; “… a LOD as defined herein is a representation of a surface that includes a mesh (e.g., a triangular mesh including connectivity data), … texture atlas(es) (i.e., a section of a plane that include texture patches, each of which is mapped onto clusters of faces of the mesh), as well as potentially other attributes (e.g., vertex coordinates, normal, colors). LODs rather than meshes are operated on herein so that cost metrics may be dependent on all data used to describe the object represented by the LOD rather than the mesh only, for instance, the LOD may also be reduced by reducing the quality of the used texture image.”), wherein the control parameters include available processing and rendering capabilities (HEMMER*5611; ¶ 0029-30; “A technical solution to the above-described technical problem [compressing triangular mesh data lacks flexibility and may result in a suboptimal decoding experience for a user] involves defining a cost metric that predicts how much computing resources are necessary [available processing and rendering capabilities] to decode and render a mesh at a given LOD. The cost metric may be optimized by a selection of a LOD reduction process of … processes at each LOD reduction step. For each process …, the LOD is reduced according to that process and the resulting reduced LOD is evaluated according to the cost metric. Each such process at that LOD reduction step produces a respective LOD, which includes a mesh, zero or more texture atlases, and/or other attributes. The LOD produced by the process having the lowest value of the cost metric at a reduction step is the LOD that is input into the next LOD reduction step. As an example, three LOD reduction processes include decimation, quantization of vertex coordinates (i.e., “XYZ coordinates”), and quantization of texture coordinates (i.e., “UV coordinates”).”) ([GUEZIEC discloses this limitation.]);
adaptively tessellating, based on the received control parameters, the decoded base mesh m’(i) by performing … subdivision(s) of the decoded base mesh m’(i) (HEMMER*5611; ¶ 0112; “It is noted that the increase in distortion introduced by a coarse quantization is smaller for a coarse mesh than a dense mesh. … an adaptive quantization [‘adaptively tessellating’] operation includes decreasing the precision of vertex or texture (XYZ or UV) coordinates as the LOD reductions [‘control parameter(s)’] progress. … a quantization operation decrements by one the number of quantization bits for a coordinate type (e.g., XYZ or UV). Such a quantization operation is performed when its agony is less than that produced by other types of operations (e.g., mesh decimation). Reversing this operation in decoding involves relocating each vertex to the center of a smaller cell in a denser lattice. Predicting the new locations [is] accomplished by generating a distance to a centroid of neighboring vertices of a cell of a parent lattice. The adaptive quantization operation helps improve the compression rate by using single-rate compression with lower quantization bits, shifting the R-D curve to the left.”) to produce a subdivided decoded base mesh m’’(i) (HEMMER*5611; ¶ 0065), ([GUEZIEC discloses this limitation.]); and
processing the subdivided decoded base mesh m’’(i) (HEMMER*5611; ¶ 51-55; “A subdivision is a decomposition of a first set into a second set of subsets such that the intersection of each pair of subsets is empty and such that the union of all subsets equals the first set. Thus, each element of the first set belongs exactly to one subset of the second set. … the first set may be a set of all triangles of an input mesh; the subdivision is a set of patches (not necessarily triangular) embedded in a texture image.”) with the displacements d’(i) to generate the decoded 3D textured mesh (HEMMER*5611; ¶ 0063; “The UV quantization manager 146 … performs a UV quantization operation on the texture data 138, specifically a UV quantization operation on UV coordinate pairs represented by the texture data 138, to produce the candidate data 150″. Like the XYZ quantization operation, the UV quantization operation is a reduction in which the length of a bit string representing an approximation to the real numbers of the UV coordinates is decreasing by a bit. The UV coordinate of the texture atlas is at the center of a cell of a [2-D] lattice of UV coordinates. The UV quantization manager then moves the coordinate to the center of a cell of a new lattice that has a larger spacing than the previous lattice.” ¶ 0093; “… the measure of distortion ΔD is an absolute value of a sum over displacements of one of the XYZ and UV coordinates. … the measure of distortion ΔD is an absolute value of a sum over displacements of the XYZ and UV coordinates.”).
PNG
media_image1.png
252
585
media_image1.png
Greyscale
HEMMER*5611 does not explicitly disclose network conditions that are to indicate a change in availability of a consumer system, which GUEZIEC discloses (GUEZIEC; Col. 3, Lines 24-33; “Such polygonal surfaces and LODs of polygonal surfaces are increasingly exchanged over computer networks. When transmitting several LODs of the same polygonal surface, it is desirable to avoid transmitting duplicate information. … when transmitting the data through a computer network, one may wish to progressively display a surface such that while the computer is busy [network conditions and availability of a consumer system] preparing high resolution images, lower resolution images are quickly available for display and interaction using simplified models.”) or adaptively tessellating, based on the received control parameters, the decoded base mesh m’(i) by performing … subdivision(s) of the decoded base mesh m’(i) to produce a subdivided decoded base mesh m’’(i), which GUEZIEC also discloses (GUEZIEC; Col. 7, Lines 66-67 ~ Col. 8, Lines 1-4; “… a novel representation referred to as the Progressive Multi-Level Representation (PMR) [adaptively tessellating … the … mesh … by performing … subdivision(s)], [and] a data structure for transmitting or displaying a triangular mesh progressively in increasing resolution, and for interactively selecting a particular resolution for display …”), wherein a number of the … subdivision(s) is to compensate for the change in availability of the consumer system (GUEZIEC; Col. 3, Lines 28-33; “… when transmitting the data through a computer network, one may wish to progressively display a surface such that while the computer is busy [change in availability of the consumer system] preparing high resolution images, lower resolution images are quickly available for display and interaction using simplified models [a number of the … subdivision(s) is to compensate].”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of processing a decoded 3D textured mesh of HEMMER*5611 to include the network conditions that are to indicate a change in availability of a consumer system, the adaptively tessellating, based on the received control parameters, the decoded base mesh m’(i) by performing … subdivision(s) of the decoded base mesh m’(i) to produce a subdivided decoded base mesh m’’(i), and that wherein a number of the … subdivision(s) is to compensate for the change in availability of the consumer system of GUEZIEC. The motivation for this modification is to provide a computer data structure for representing a multi-level progressive representation of a triangular mesh (GUEZIEC; Col. 4, Lines 44-46).
Independent claim 22 presents similar scope as compared to independent claim 1; therefore, the same motivation to combine references will be maintained.
Regarding claim 22, HEMMER*5611-GUEZIEC discloses an electronic device, comprising:
decoding circuitry (HEMMER*5611; ¶ 0216; “… the method further comprises transmitting the hybrid-encoded recovery bitstream to a client computer, the client computer [‘circuitry’] … configured to perform a decompress operation [‘decoding’] on the hybrid-encoded recovery bitstream to render the surface on a display connected to the client computer at a specified LOD.”) [and] processing circuitry (HEMMER*5611; FIG. 1, processing units 124; ¶ 0035-36) configured to:
decode a compressed bitstream to generate a decoded base mesh and … displacements, wherein at least a portion of the … displacements are associated with vertices of the decoded base mesh (HEMMER*5611; FIG. 3; ¶ 0065; “The recovery bitstream data 158 represents a recording of the LOD [level-of-detail] reduction operation—in this case, the decimation operation—by which the previous LOD may be recovered. The recovery bitstream data 158 is used by a decoder to generate the next higher LOD using the inverse of the LOD reduction operation, in this case the inverse of the mesh decimation operation performed by the mesh decimation manager 142.” ¶ 0093; “Each of the geometry-based LOD reduction operations, the mesh decimation operation 324, the XYZ quantization step 326, and the UV quantization operations 328, introduces an increase in the measure of distortion ΔD while reversing a LOD reduction operation during a decoding uses a bitrate ΔR. … the measure of distortion ΔD is a perceptual distortion metric (i.e., distortions from multiple points of view). … the measure of distortion ΔD is an absolute value of a sum over displacements of one of the XYZ [‘vertex coordinates’] and UV coordinates [‘texture coordinates’]. … the measure of distortion ΔD is an absolute value of a sum over displacements of the XYZ and UV coordinates.”); and
process the decoded base mesh and the … displacements to generate a decoded mesh (HEMMER*5611; ¶ 0093, ¶ 0216; “… transmitting the hybrid-encoded recovery bitstream to a client computer [which] … performs a decompress operation [‘process the decoded base mesh’] on the hybrid-encoded recovery bitstream to render the surface on a display [‘generate a decoded mesh’] connected to the client computer at a specified LOD.”), wherein processing the decoded base mesh comprises
adaptively tessellating, based on the … control parameter(s), the decoded base mesh by performing … subdivision(s) of the decoded base mesh (HEMMER*5611; ¶ 0112), adaptively tessellating the decoded base mesh comprises
performing … subdivision(s) of the decoded base mesh (HEMMER*5611; ¶ 0065; “The recovery bitstream data 158 represents a recording of the LOD reduction operation—in this case, the decimation operation—by which the previous LOD may be recovered. The recovery bitstream data 158 is used by a decoder to generate the next higher LOD using the inverse of the LOD reduction operation, in this case the inverse of the mesh decimation operation performed by the mesh decimation manager 142.”), wherein a number of the … subdivision(s) is to compensate for the change in availability of the consumer system (GUEZIEC; Col. 3, Lines 28-33).
Regarding claim 23, HEMMER*5611-GUEZIEC discloses the electronic device of claim 22, wherein the decoding/processing circuitry:
decodes the compressed bitstream to generate … attribute map(s) associated with the base mesh (HEMMER*5611; FIG. 13; ¶ 0164; “At 1306, … single-rate encoding manager 1270 performs single-rate encoding operations [‘compressed bitstream’] on the respective mesh LODs [‘base mesh’] … to produce a sequence of single-rate encoded mesh LODs, [that] when combined with an encoding of corresponding texture image LODs [‘attribute map(s)’], form [a] compression of the data (e.g., encoded LOD sequence 1274) that, upon decoding, enables a user to render the surface at any LOD.”), and …
processes the decoded base mesh, the … displacements (HEMMER*5611; ¶ 0093; “… the measure of distortion ΔD is an absolute value of a sum over displacements of one of the XYZ and UV coordinates. … the measure of distortion ΔD is an absolute value of a sum over displacements of the XYZ and UV coordinates.”), and the … attribute map(s) to generate the decoded mesh and … processed attribute map(s) (HEMMER*5611; FIGS. 1, 12; ¶ 0151; “The initial LOD mesh data 1234 [‘decoded base mesh’] represents a triangular mesh and a texture atlas [‘attribute map(s)’]. The mesh includes vertices, edges connecting the vertices, and triangular faces defined by the edges. … the initial LOD mesh data 1234 includes position data 1235, connectivity data 1236, edge data 1237, and texture atlas data 1238.”; ¶ 0216; “… the method … comprises transmitting the hybrid-encoded recovery bitstream to a client computer [which] performs a decompress operation on the hybrid-encoded recovery bitstream to render the surface on a display connected to the client computer at a specified LOD.”).
Regarding claim 24, HEMMER*5611-GUEZIEC discloses the electronic device of claim 22, wherein performing the … subdivision(s) of the decoded base mesh comprises locally subdividing regions of the decoded base mesh (HEMMER*5611; ¶ 0052-55; “A subdivision is a decomposition of a first set into a second set of subsets such that the intersection of each pair of subsets is empty and such that the union of all subsets equals the first set. … each element of the first set belongs exactly to one subset of the second set. … The first set [is] a set of all triangles of an input-mesh [‘decoded base mesh’]; the subdivision is a set of patches (not necessarily triangular) embedded in a texture image.”).
Independent claim 28 exhibits similar scope as compared to independent claim 1; therefore, the same motivation to combine references will be maintained.
Regarding claim 28, HEMMER*5611-GUEZIEC discloses a method of processing a decoded 3D textured mesh, the method comprising:
receiving from a mesh decoder (HEMMER*5611; FIG. 3; ¶ 0065) a decoded base mesh m'(i) (HEMMER*5611; ¶ 0162) and displacements d'(i) associated with vertices of the decoded base mesh m'(i) (HEMMER*5611; ¶ 0093); and
receiving control parameters for consuming the decoded 3D textured mesh (HEMMER*5611; ¶ 30-32), wherein the control parameters include available processing and rendering capabilities (HEMMER*5611; ¶ 0029-30) and network conditions that are to indicate a change in availability of a consumer system (GUEZIEC; Col. 3, Lines 24-33);
adaptively tessellating, based on the received control parameters, the decoded base mesh m'(i) by performing … subdivision(s) of the decoded base mesh m'(i), wherein … the … subdivision(s) is/are to compensate for the change in availability of the consumer system (GUEZIEC; Col. 3, Lines 28-33); and
processing the subdivided decoded base mesh m"(i) (HEMMER*5611; ¶ 0051-55) with the displacements d'(i) to generate the decoded 3D textured mesh (HEMMER*5611; ¶ 0063, ¶ 0093).
Claims 2, 8-10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HEMMER*5611 in view of GUEZIEC as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Migdal et al. (U.S. PG-PUB 2001/0013866, 'MIGDAL').
Regarding claim 2, HEMMER*5611-GUEZIEC discloses disclose the method of claim 1; however, HEMMER*5611-GUEZIEC discloses do not explicitly disclose that performing the … subdivision(s) of the decoded base mesh m'(i) comprises globally subdividing the decoded base mesh m’(i) to implement a global mesh resolution, which MIGDAL discloses (MIGDAL; ¶ 0052; “[Using] … a symmetrical subdivision technique, … the triangles can be subdivided sequentially [‘globally subdividing the decoded base mesh m’(i)’], rather than all at once and that can provide computational and processing efficiencies such as a saving of memory space and processor resources. A subdividing system … may apply recursive techniques to analyze all or selected edges of a mesh and perform subdivisions following this a symmetrical subdivision technique. With such a technique, each original triangle of the original base mesh can be subdivided, extruded, rendered, and recursively subdivided, if needed, into thousands of smaller triangles. When the first triangle is refined to the desired level of smoothness, the memory space used to store the variables needed for these smaller triangles can be released. The next triangle of the base mesh can then be subdivided, extruded, rendered, and recursively subdivided, if needed, using the same memory space allocated for the smoothing of the first triangle since that memory space was released.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of claim 1 of HEMMER*5611-GUEZIEC discloses to include the disclose that performing the … subdivision(s) of the decoded base mesh m'(i) comprises globally subdividing the decoded base mesh m’(i) of MIGDAL. The motivation for this modification is to implement a symmetrical subdivision technique in which triangle primitives can be subdivided sequentially, rather than all at once and that can provide computational and processing efficiencies such as saving memory space and processor resources (MIGDAL; ¶ [0052]).
PNG
media_image2.png
387
575
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, HEMMER*5611-GUEZIEC disclose the method of claim 1; however, HEMMER*5611-GUEZIEC do not explicitly disclose that performing the … subdivision(s) of the decoded base mesh m’(i) comprises locally subdividing regions of the decoded base mesh m’(i), which MIGDAL discloses (MIGDAL; FIG. 1; ¶ 0045; “The system and method of the present invention allows the triangle to be subdivided in any one of a number of manners and is not limited only to subdividing a mesh triangle in one manner, for example, the quadruple subdivision described above … The present invention includes two other types of subdivisions, a double subdivision, and a triple subdivision. A double subdivision of the present invention divides a mesh triangle into two sub-triangles. … the line creating the subdivision is formed using one of the vertices of the existing triangle and a new vertex inserted along the edge opposite the original vertex. The new vertex may be called the subdivision point. A triple subdivision subdivides a mesh triangle into three sub-triangles. … the subdivision is formed with two lines, the first line formed using one vertex of the existing triangle and a new vertex inserted along the edge opposite the original vertex. The second line is formed using the new vertex and a second newly inserted vertex inserted in either one of the opposite edges from the first newly inserted vertex. Once again, these newly inserted vertices may be referred to as subdivision points.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of claim 1 of HEMMER*5611-GUEZIEC to include the locally subdividing regions of the decoded base mesh m’(i) of MIGDAL. The motivation for this modification is to implement a system and a method for refining a mesh model of a 3-D object or surface through adaptive subdivision that results in a smooth interpolation of the mesh surface. The system can operate upon a triangulated mesh model and analyze each edge of a triangle in question to determine whether that edge should be subdivided based on predetermined subdivision criteria. After an analysis of each of the edges of that triangle (using the adaptive subdivision criteria) the system and the method may make one of several different types of subdivisions--e.g. dividing the mesh triangle into two, three, or four smaller triangles (MIGDAL; Abstract).
Regarding claim 9, HEMMER*5611-GUEZIEC-MIGDAL discloses the method of claim 8, wherein locally subdividing regions of the decoded base mesh m’(i) further comprises:
analyzing local properties of the decoded base mesh m’(i);
based on the analyzed local properties, determining for each edge of each polygon of the decoded base mesh m’(i) whether that edge should be subdivided (MIGDAL; ¶ 49; “… the decision whether to subdivide an edge is based on the information located in the two vertices of the edge being checked for subdivision a data point generally provides the XYZ 3D spatial location of the point's location within the mesh model. However, a data point may also have associated with it other information such as normal vector data, (e.g. vertex normals reflecting the normal of the object surface at the data point [‘analyzing local properties of the decoded base mesh’], and corner normals which are normal vectors for the triangles [‘polygons’] to which the data point is connected from the data points "corner" of the triangle). … This coordinate … can be examined each edge to determine whether an edge subdivision is to be made.”);
for each polygon of the decoded base mesh m’(i), subdividing the polygon (MIGDAL; ¶ 0052; “A … consequence of a symmetrical subdivision technique is that the triangles [‘polygons’] can be subdivided sequentially, rather than all at once … A subdividing system … may apply recursive techniques to analyze all or selected edges of a mesh and perform subdivisions following this symmetrical subdivision technique. … each original triangle of the original base mesh can be subdivided, extruded, rendered, and recursively subdivided, if needed, into thousands of smaller triangles.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of claim 8 of HEMMER*5611-GUEZIEC-MIGDAL to include the various teachings of MIGDAL. The motivation for this modification is to implement a symmetrical subdivision technique in which triangle primitives can be subdivided sequentially, rather than all at once and that can provide computational and processing efficiencies such as saving memory space and processor resources (MIGDAL; ¶ [0052]).
Regarding claim 10, HEMMER*5611-GUEZIEC-MIGDAL disclose the method of claim 9; however, HEMMER*5611-GUEZIEC-MIGDAL do not explicitly disclose that analyzing the local properties of the decoded base mesh m’(i) includes analyzing the displacements d’(i) associated with the vertices of the decoded base mesh m’(i), which GUEZIEC discloses (GUEZIEC; FIG. 5; Col. 13, Lines 20-37; “… a method to assign levels to vertices and triangles and determine vertex representatives. This method is based on successively applying edge collapses to a triangular mesh. An edge collapse … operates as follows: in an edge (v1, v2) v1 is "moved" towards v2 until it becomes identified with v2 [displacements d’(i) associated with the vertices]. After the operation, one vertex of the mesh (v1) is not used, as well as one or two triangles of the mesh. It is useful to refer to [these] vertices and triangles as "blue vertices" and "blue triangles". Vertices and triangles that remain after the edge collapse are referred to as "red vertices" and "red triangles". Before any edge is collapsed, all vertices and triangles of the mesh are red vertices and red triangles and are assigned the Level 0 [analyzing]. The triangular mesh before the application of edge collapses is referred to as the "original mesh"; while the triangular mesh obtained after the application of a succession of edge collapses is referred to as the "current mesh".”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of claim 9 of HEMMER*5611-GUEZIEC-MIGDAL to include analyzing the displacements associated with the vertices of the decoded base mesh of GUEZIEC. The motivation for this modification is to progressively display a surface such that while a computer is busy preparing high resolution images, lower resolution images are quickly available for display and interaction using simplified models, when transmitting the data through a computer network (GUEZIEC; Col. 3, Lines 28-33).
Regarding claim 16, HEMMER*5611-GUEZIEC-MIGDAL disclose the method of claim 8, wherein locally subdividing the regions of the decoded base mesh m’(i) comprises iteratively subdividing the regions of the decoded base mesh m’(i) (MIGDAL; ¶ 52; “[Using] … a symmetrical subdivision technique, … the triangles [are] subdivided sequentially, rather than all at once … A subdividing system … may apply recursive techniques to analyze … edges of a mesh and perform subdivisions following … a symmetrical subdivision technique [wherein] each original triangle of the original base mesh [is] subdivided, extruded, rendered, and recursively subdivided, if needed, into [many] smaller triangles. When the first triangle is refined to the desired level of smoothness, the memory space … can be released. The next triangle of the base mesh can then be subdivided, extruded, rendered, and recursively subdivided, if needed, using the same memory space allocated for the smoothing of the first triangle since that memory space was released.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of claim 8 of HEMMER*5611-GUEZIEC-MIGDAL to include iteratively subdividing the regions of the decoded base mesh m’(i) of MIGDAL. The motivation for this modification is to implement a symmetrical subdivision technique in which triangle primitives can be subdivided sequentially, rather than all at once and that can provide computational and processing efficiencies such as saving memory space and processor resources (MIGDAL; ¶ [0052]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HEMMER*5611 in view of GUEZIEC and MIGDAL as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Wei et al. (U.S. PG-PUB 2009/0237401, 'WEI').
Regarding claim 6, HEMMER*5611-GUEZIEC-MIGDAL disclose the method of claim 2; however, HEMMER*5611-GUEZIEC-MIGDAL do not explicitly disclose that the control parameters further include power consumption constraints, which WEI discloses (WEI; ¶ 0059; “Shader 30, 32 or 36 or tessellation hardware 38 subdivides the portion of the curve represented by the line segments into more additional line segments as the scale factor increases. Thus, the number of additional line segments (or sub-segments) M to tessellate each portion of the curve may be computed as a function of the scale factor. Subdividing the portion of the curve as a function of the scale factor allows shader 30, 32 or 36 or tessellation hardware 38 to preserve more detail of the curve when the curve is scaled heavily, while allowing for less detail of the curve when the curve is not scaled or only lightly scaled. In this manner, the multi-stage tessellation techniques described in this disclosure allow for dynamic tessellation that is adaptive to a resolution requirement of the graphics image. When high resolution is needed (e.g., large scaling) shader 30, 32 or 36 or tessellation hardware 38 tessellates the curve more and when high resolution is unnecessary (e.g., little or no scaling) shader 30, 32 or 36 or tessellation hardware 38 tessellates the curve less and GPU processing resources are saved. Thus, instead of over-tessellating the curve to ensure quality, the techniques of this disclosure produce the additional line segments as needed based on the scaling. Therefore, no extra line segments are sent through the graphics pipeline, thereby improving pipeline performance and power consumption by utilizing the computing resources in a more efficient way.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of claim 2 of HEMMER*5611-GUEZIEC-MIGDAL to include the disclosure that the control parameters further include power consumption constraints of WEI. The motivation for this modification is to produce additional line segments to tessellate each portion of the curve as needed based on scaling instead of over-tessellating a curve to ensure quality. Therefore, no extra line segments are sent through the graphics pipeline, thereby improving pipeline performance and power consumption by utilizing the computing resources in a more efficient way (WEI; ¶ [0059]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HEMMER*5611 in view of GUEZIEC and MIGDAL as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Stafford et al. (U.S. PG-PUB 2017/0287112, 'STAFFORD').
PNG
media_image3.png
337
913
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, HEMMER*5611-GUEZIEC-MIGDAL disclose the method of claim 9; however, HEMMER*5611-GUEZIEC-MIGDAL do not explicitly disclose that analyzing the local properties of the decoded base mesh m’(i) includes analyzing explicitly encoded attributes associated with the decoded base mesh m’(i) describing saliency, importance, priority, OR region of interest information, which STAFFORD discloses (STAFFORD; FIGS. 4A-4B; ¶ 0079-80; “A foveal region may be determined at 506 by an application to be of interest to a viewer because (a) it is a region the viewer is likely look at, (b) it is a region the viewer is actually looking at, or (c) it is a region it is desired to attract the user to look at. With respect to (a), the foveal region may be determined to be likely to be looked at in a context sensitive manner. … the application may determine that certain portions of the screen space or certain objects in a corresponding [3-D] virtual space are “of interest” and such objects may be consistently drawn using a greater number of vertices than other objects in the virtual space. Foveal regions may be contextually defined to be of interest in a static or dynamic fashion. As a non-limiting example of static definition, a foveal region may be a fixed part of the screen space, e.g., a region near the center of the screen, if it is determined that this region is the part of the screen space that a viewer is most likely to look at. … if the application is a driving simulator that displays an image of a vehicle dashboard and a windshield, the viewer is likely to be looking at these portions of the image. … the foveal region may be statically defined in the sense that the region of interest is a fixed portion of the screen space. As a non-limiting example of dynamic definition, in a video game a user's avatar, fellow gamer's avatars, enemy artificial intelligence (AI) characters, and certain objects of interest (e.g., the ball in a sports game) may be of interest to the user. Such objects of interest may move relative to the screen space and therefore the foveal region may be defined to move with the object of interest.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of claim 9 of HEMMER*5611-GUEZIEC-MIGDAL to include the disclosure that analyzing local properties of the mesh includes analyzing explicitly encoded attributes associated with the mesh describing saliency, importance, priority, OR region of interest information of STAFFORD. The motivation for this modification is to implement tessellation based on human vision that can reduce computational load and or rendering time for an image by reducing the level of detail (LOD, or number of triangles per unit area) in areas of lesser interest, as opposed to more important regions representing people, moving objects, central vision, etc. (STAFFORD; ¶ 0059).
Claims 12-13 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HEMMER*5611 in view of GUEZIEC and MIGDAL as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Alliez et al. (U.S. PG-PUB 2004/0090438, 'ALLIEZ').
Regarding claim 12, HEMMER*5611-GUEZIEC-MIGDAL disclose the method of claim 9; however, HEMMER*5611-GUEZIEC-MIGDAL do not explicitly disclose that analyzing the local properties of the decoded base mesh m’(i) includes analyzing implicitly derived saliency, importance, priority, OR region of interest [ROI] information, which ALLIEZ discloses (ALLIEZ; ¶ 0154-155; “FIGS. 18a-18c show the results obtained using the refinement process … on a … mesh representing a face [The Examiner asserts that optimal detail, refinement, and attention should be paid to the human face, as this is the countenance that portrays human emotion and conveys much of the visual component of interpersonal human communication. The Examiner asserts that a human face has both ‘saliency’ and ‘importance’ and should be given ‘importance’ and ‘priority’.]. FIG. 18a shows the original mesh 181 before … FIG. 18b shows image 182 obtained after four iterations of the refinement process in the field of vision of an observer and eight iterations on the silhouette of the face 181. Note in FIG. 18c that the polygonal aspect of the silhouette has been eliminated, and the geometry of the mesh has only been refined on visually relevant regions of the image 183 [‘ROI information’].”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of claim 9 of HEMMER*5611-GUEZIEC-MIGDAL to include the disclosure that analyzing local properties of the mesh includes analyzing implicitly derived saliency, importance, priority, OR region of interest information of ALLIEZ. The motivation for this modification is to adapt an image to a viewpoint of a virtual observer. These techniques use silhouettes (which means all edges of the mesh sharing two faces, one of which is oriented facing a virtual camera, and the other is in the opposite direction), the pyramid of vision and the orientation of the faces of objects facing a camera or the eye of an observer. The main result is to avoid "over coding" of areas that are only slightly visible or are not visible at all, or are less relevant, to the detriment of visually important areas [‘regions of interest’] (ALLIEZ; ¶ [0013]).
Regarding claim 13, HEMMER*5611-GUEZIEC-MIGDAL-ALLIEZ disclose the method of claim 12, wherein the implicitly derived saliency, importance, priority, OR region of interest information includes surface curvature (ALLIEZ; ¶ 0042; “… selected regions of interest are regions considered to be visually relevant for a person observing the mesh. It may seem pointless to refine areas of the mesh that are not visible or only slightly visible to the user, from the current viewpoint. Selected regions of interest may also be silhouettes of observed objects, which play a preferred role in cognitive processes. It is particularly important to refine curved surfaces of the silhouette of the object which appear in polygonal form when they are described too briefly by a mesh network.”), gradient of vertex attributes or attribute maps (ALLIEZ; ¶ 36; “Regions of interests [are] explicitly defined by an operator … and/or deduced from a phase that detects regions considered to be visually relevant, [e.g.,] such as regions with high illumination gradient, or silhouettes.”) of the decoded base mesh m’(i), edge length (ALLIEZ; ¶ 0142; “It may also be useful to refine regions adjacent to silhouette until an edge length less than the resolution of the output peripheral is obtained (in the event, one pixel).”), or any combination thereof.
PNG
media_image4.png
850
330
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 33, HEMMER*5611-GUEZIEC-MIGDAL discloses the method of claim 2; however, HEMMER*5611-GUEZIEC-MIGDAL do not explicitly disclose that the control parameters further include a region of interest information that is to identify … portion(s) of the decoded base mesh m’(i) as a region of interest to be presented with more detail as compared to another region of the decoded base mesh m’(i), which ALLIEZ discloses (ALLIEZ; FIGS. 1, 6; ¶ 0094-98; “After selecting a region of interest during the step reference 12, a hybrid subdivision 13 is made on the faces of the mesh included within the selected region of interest. … The mesh is refined iteratively by a 1-to-3 subdivision 61 of its elements and by swapping 62 the edges of the original mesh, to avoid the degeneration of triangles making up the mesh. The effect of the one to three triangular subdivision(s) is to increment the valence of the vertices in the original mesh, in other words the number of edges reaching the vertices of the mesh, and the swap 62 thus alleviates degeneration of the mesh. Therefore, one face 63 is subdivided into three faces by inserting a vertex 64 at its center, and by creating two new faces 65 and 66. A swap is then done by deleting the edges of the face 63 before the subdivision and creating three new edges 67 that join the inserted vertex 64 to the vertices of the faces adjacent to the face 63 opposite the deleted edges. At the end of the subdivision step 13, a step 14 is applied for adaptive filtering of the mesh geometry.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of claim 2 of HEMMER*5611-GUEZIEC-MIGDAL to include the disclosure that the control parameters further include a region of interest information that is to identify … portion(s) of the decoded base mesh m’(i) as a region of interest to be presented with more detail as compared to another region of the decoded base mesh m’(i) of ALLIEZ. The motivation for this modification is to adapt an image to a viewpoint of a virtual observer. These techniques use silhouettes (which means all edges of the mesh sharing two faces, one of which is oriented facing a virtual camera, and the other is in the opposite direction), the pyramid of vision and the orientation of the faces of objects facing a camera or the eye of an observer. The main result is to avoid "over coding" of areas that are only slightly visible or are not visible at all, or are less relevant, to the detriment of visually important areas [regions of interest] (ALLIEZ; ¶ [0013]).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HEMMER*5611 in view of GUEZIEC as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Levanon et al. (U.S. PG-PUB 2002/0120753, 'LEVANON').
Regarding claim 25, HEMMER*5611-GUEZIEC disclose the electronic device of claim 22; however, HEMMER*5611-GUEZIEC do not explicitly disclose that the … control parameter(s) further comprise a viewing frustum associated with a camera of the electronic device, which LEVANON discloses (LEVANON; FIG. 10; ¶ 60; “… Algorithm (180) … [determines] the detail level L value for a given viewing frustum … The optimal detail level L is … the limit at which the resolution of image parcel data … exceeds the resolution of the client display. … to determine the optimal detail level L, the viewpoint or camera position of the viewing frustum is determined (182) relative to the displayed image. A nearest polygon P of depth D is then determined (184) from the effective altitude and attitude of the viewpoint.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the electronic device of claim 22 of HEMMER*5611-GUEZIEC to include the disclosure that the … control parameter(s) comprise a viewing frustum associated with a camera of the electronic device of LEVANON. The motivation for this modification is to provide a system and method(s) for efficiently selecting and distributing image parcels through a narrowband or otherwise limited bandwidth communications channel [bitstream’] to support presentation of high-resolution images subject to dynamic viewing frustums (LEVANON; ¶ [0004]).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HEMMER*5611 in view of GUEZIEC as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of WEI.
Regarding claim 27, HEMMER*5611-GUEZIEC disclose the electronic device of claim 22; however, HEMMER*5611-GUEZIEC do not explicitly disclose that the … control parameter(s) further include power consumption constraints of the electronic device, which WEI discloses (WEI; ¶ 0059; “Shader 30, 32 or 36 or tessellation hardware 38 subdivides the portion of the curve represented by the line segments into more additional line segments as the scale factor increases. Thus, the number of additional line segments (or sub-segments) M to tessellate each portion of the curve may be computed as a function of the scale factor. Subdividing the portion of the curve as a function of the scale factor allows shader 30, 32 or 36 or tessellation hardware 38 to preserve more detail of the curve when the curve is scaled heavily, while allowing for less detail of the curve when the curve is not scaled or only lightly scaled. In this manner, the multi-stage tessellation techniques described in this disclosure allow for dynamic tessellation that is adaptive to a resolution requirement of the graphics image. When high resolution is needed (e.g., large scaling) shader … or tessellation hardware 38 tessellates the curve more and when high resolution is unnecessary (e.g., little or no scaling) shader … or tessellation hardware 38 tessellates the curve less and GPU processing resources are saved. Thus, instead of over-tessellating the curve to ensure quality, the techniques of this disclosure produce the additional line segments as needed based on the scaling. Therefore, no extra line segments are sent through the graphics pipeline, thereby improving pipeline performance and power consumption by utilizing the computing resources in a more efficient way.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the electronic device of claim 22 of HEMMER*5611-GUEZIEC to include wherein the … control parameter(s) further include power consumption constraints of the electronic device of WEI. The motivation for this modification is to produce additional line segments to tessellate each portion of the curve as needed based on scaling instead of over-tessellating a curve to ensure quality. Therefore, no extra line segments are sent through the graphics pipeline, thereby improving pipeline performance and power consumption by utilizing the computing resources in a more efficient way (WEI; ¶ [0059]).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HEMMER*5611 in view of GUEZIEC as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of STAFFORD.
Regarding claim 29, HEMMER*5611-GUEZIEC disclose the method of claim 28; however, HEMMER*5611-GUEZIEC do not explicitly disclose that the control parameters further include region of interest information, which STAFFORD discloses (STAFFORD; FIGS. 4A-4B; ¶ 0079-80; “A foveal region may be determined at 506 by an application to be of interest to a viewer because (a) it is a region the viewer is likely look at, (b) it is a region the viewer is actually looking at, or (c) it is a region it is desired to attract the user to look at. With respect to (a), the foveal region may be determined to be likely to be looked at in a context sensitive manner. … the application may determine that certain portions of the screen space or certain objects in a corresponding [3-D] virtual space are “of interest” and such objects may be consistently drawn using a greater number of vertices than other objects in the virtual space. Foveal regions may be contextually defined to be of interest in a static or dynamic fashion. As a non-limiting example of static definition, a foveal region may be a fixed part of the screen space, e.g., a region near the center of the screen, if it is determined that this region is the part of the screen space that a viewer is most likely to look at. … if the application is a driving simulator that displays an image of a vehicle dashboard and a windshield, the viewer is likely to be looking at these portions of the image. … the foveal region may be statically defined in the sense that the region of interest is a fixed portion of the screen space. As a non-limiting example of dynamic definition, in a video game a user's avatar, fellow gamer's avatars, enemy artificial intelligence (AI) characters, and certain objects of interest (e.g., the ball in a sports game) may be of interest to the user. Such objects of interest may move relative to the screen space and therefore the foveal region may be defined to move with the object of interest.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of claim 28 of HEMMER*5611-GUEZIEC to include the disclosure that the control parameters further include region of interest information of STAFFORD. The motivation for this modification is to implement tessellation based on human vision that can reduce computational load and or rendering time for an image by reducing the level of detail (LOD, or number of triangles per unit area) in areas of lesser interest, as opposed to more important regions representing people, moving objects, central vision, etc. (STAFFORD; ¶ 0059).
Claims 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HEMMER*5611 in view of GUEZIEC and MIGDAL as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Munshi et al. (U.S. PG-PUB 2006/0290696, 'MUNSHI').
Regarding claim 30, HEMMER*5611-GUEZIEC-MIGDAL discloses the method of claim 2; however, HEMMER*5611-GUEZIEC-MIGDAL do not explicitly disclose that the control parameters further include current camera position, and wherein the number of the … subdivision(s) is to change between different portions of the subdivided decoded base mesh m"(i) based on the current camera position, which MUNSHI discloses (MUNSHI; ¶ 0026; “One … implementation for selecting two LOD representations of an object instance for a scene will now be described … A bounding box is associated with the object, located at the same position as the object. Also associated with the object are detail ranges for each level of detail representation of the object. These detail-ranges correspond to the number of pixels to which the bounding box will project on the view plane (i.e. the perceived size of the object). System 204 converts these detail ranges to respective distances between the camera [based on the current camera position] and the bounding box. … system 204 will maintain camera distances for each level of detail representation. Thus, when an LOD object appears in the scene, system 204 determines the current distance between the object in the scene (or, preferably, the bounding box associated with the object) and the current camera position and compares the current distance between the distances stored for each LOD representation. … the current distance will fall between two of the stored distances. System 204 will then select the LOD representations corresponding to the two stored distances for use in the scene. System 204 then assigns weights using … straight line interpolation between the two stored distances with respect to their closeness to the computed distance [the number of the … subdivision(s) is to change between different portions of the … mesh … based on the current camera position]. … if the current distance falls exactly in the middle between two stored distances, each representation corresponding to the stored distances will be assigned a weight of 0.5. If the computed current distance falls closer to one of the stored distances, the representation (i.e. the "appropriate" representation) corresponding to that stored distance will be assigned a weight greater than 0.5, while the other representation (i.e. the "alternative" representation) is assigned a weight less than 0.5.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of claim 2 of HEMMER*5611-GUEZIEC-MIGDAL to include the disclosure that the control parameters further include current camera position, and wherein the number of the … subdivision(s) is to change between different portions of the subdivided decoded base mesh m"(i) based on the current camera position of MUNSHI. The motivation for this modification is to enable computer graphics applications involving scene rendering to use objects modeled at multiple levels of detail (MUNSHI; Abstract). Further, it is advantageous to be able to render objects at a multiplicity of levels of detail (LODs) such that objects farther from an observer can be rendered at a lower LOD, saving computing resources, time, and power consumption. Specifically, an object can also be rendered proportionally according to a distance from an observing camera as described above.
Regarding claim 31, HEMMER*5611-GUEZIEC-MIGDAL discloses the method of claim 2; however, HEMMER*5611-GUEZIEC-MIGDAL do not explicitly disclose that the control parameters further include a predicted future camera position, and wherein the number of the … subdivision(s) is to change between different portions of the subdivided decoded base mesh m"(i) based on the predicted future camera position, which MUNSHI discloses (MUNSHI; ¶ 0026; “One … implementation for selecting two LOD representations of an object instance for a scene will now be described … A bounding box is associated with the object, located at the same position as the object. Also associated with the object are detail ranges for each level of detail representation of the object. These detail-ranges correspond to the number of pixels to which the bounding box will project on the view plane (i.e. the perceived size of the object). System 204 converts these detail ranges to respective distances between the camera [based on the current camera position] and the bounding box. … system 204 will maintain camera distances for each level of detail representation. Thus, when an LOD object appears in the scene, system 204 determines the current distance between the object in the scene (or … the bounding box associated with the object) and the current camera position and compares the current distance between the distances stored for each LOD representation. … the current distance will fall between two of the stored distances. System 204 will then select the LOD representations corresponding to the two stored distances for use in the scene. System 204 then assigns weights using … straight line interpolation [predicted future camera position] between the two stored distances with respect to their closeness to the computed distance [the number of the … subdivision(s) is to change between different portions of the … mesh … based on the predicted future camera position].”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of claim 2 of HEMMER*5611-GUEZIEC-MIGDAL to include the disclosure that the control parameters further include a predicted future camera position, and wherein the number of the … subdivision(s) is to change between different portions of the subdivided decoded base mesh m"(i) based on the predicted future camera position of MUNSHI. The motivation for this modification is to enable computer graphics applications involving scene rendering to use objects modeled at multiple levels of detail (MUNSHI; Abstract). Further, it is advantageous to be able to render objects at a multiplicity of levels of detail (LODs) such that objects farther from an observer can be rendered at a lower LOD, saving computing resources, time, and power consumption. Specifically, an object can also be rendered proportionally according to a distance from an observing camera.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HEMMER*5611 in view of GUEZIEC and MIGDAL as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of LEVANON.
Regarding claim 32, HEMMER*5611-GUEZIEC-MIGDAL discloses the method of claim 2; however, HEMMER*5611-GUEZIEC-MIGDAL do not explicitly disclose that the control parameters further include viewing frustum, and wherein the number of the … subdivision(s) is to change between different portions of the subdivided decoded base mesh m"(i) based on the viewing frustrum, which LEVANON discloses (LEVANON; FIG. 10; ¶ 0060; “The preferred algorithm 180 for determining the detail level L value for a given viewing frustum … The optimal detail level L is effectively the limit at which the resolution of image parcel data functionally exceeds the resolution of the client display. … to determine the optimal detail level L, the viewpoint or camera position of the viewing frustum is determined 182 [related] to the displayed image.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of claim 2 of HEMMER*5611-GUEZIEC-MIGDAL to include the disclosure that the control parameters further include viewing frustum, and wherein the number of the … subdivision(s) is to change between different portions of the subdivided decoded base mesh m"(i) based on the viewing frustrum of LEVANON. The motivation for this modification is to provide a system and method(s) for efficiently selecting and distributing image parcels through a narrowband or otherwise limited bandwidth communications channel [bitstream’] to support presentation of high-resolution images subject to dynamic viewing frustums (LEVANON; ¶ [0004]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M COFINO whose telephone number is (303) 297-4268. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10A-4P MT.
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, Kent Chang can be reached at 571-272-7667. 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.
/JONATHAN M COFINO/ Examiner, Art Unit 2614
/KENT W CHANG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2614
