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. Priority Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged (US Provisional Applications 63/438,198; 63/438,417; and 63/439,456 the earliest of which is 63/438,198 filed on January 10 th , 2023). Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on December 28 th , 2023, July 17 th , 2024, and March 21 st , 2025 was filed before the mailing date of the First Action on the Merits (this Office Action). The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “118” and “120” [Figure 1 not in Paragraphs 36 – 40]; “No” and “Yes” [Figure 6] Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “600” [Figure 6 in Paragraph 77]. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “116” has been used to designate both HMD and a base station / transceiver [Figure 1 and Paragraph 36]. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the encoding and decoding of “geometry data” [Claims 1 and 17]] must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In Paragraph 78, the acronym “V-DMC” is not defined on first use for clarity. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretation – Functional Analysis The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” or a generic placeholder but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “processor configured to …” in claims 1 and 17. The Examiner affords the claimed “processor” status as connoting sufficient structure to one of ordinary skill in the art and thus does NOT invoke functional analysis. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function. Claim Objections Claim s 2 – 8, 10 – 16, and 18 – 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 2, the phrase “Claim” [line 1] should read as --claim-- for clarity . Regarding claims 3 – 8, 10 – 16, and 18 – 20, see claim 2 regarding the typographical error Objected to in referring to previous / independent claims and thus are similarly Objected. Appropriate correction is required. 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 – 20 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. Regarding claim 1, the claim mere recites “decode at least a portion of the compressed bitstream … ” and “reconstruct at least a portion of a mesh-frame…” which has Indefinite metes and bounds regarding “a portion” as no criteria for information decoded or how much a portion is as the information usually is fully decoded thus further Indefinite metes and bounds exist as to which decoding steps would fulfill “a portion” of the decoding process. Regarding claim 9 , see claim 1 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method and thus is similarly Rejected. Regarding claims 2 – 8 and 10 – 16, the dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of their respective independent claims and thus are similarly Rejected. Regarding claim 17, the functional claim language “are capable of” has Indefinite metes and bounds and raises issues (e.g. no independence required as in the decoder and no relationship limited or required to be of the same mesh) as to the patentable weight if any to afford the limitation. Regarding claims 18 – 20, the dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of the their respective independent claims and thus are similarly Rejected. Claim limitation “a communication interface configured to …” [Claims 1 and 17] has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because in Specification Paragraph 46, the description of the claimed “communication interface” is not described in a manner to restrict the interface to only physical embodiments and lacks the clear correspondence required under 112(f). The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function; (b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function; (c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or (d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function. Regarding claims 2 – 8 and 18 – 20, the dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of the their respective independent claims and thus are similarly Rejected. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 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. 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. Claim(s) 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tourapis, et al. (US PG PUB 2024/0022765 A1 referred to as “Tourapis” throughout in which the Examiner cites from the US PG PUB instead of all enabling US Provisional Application) , and further in view of Martemianov, et al. (WO2024/084326 A1 referred to as “Mart” throughout) and Oh, et al. (US Patent #12,010,341 B2 referred to as “Oh” throughout) . Regarding claim 9, see claim 1 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method. Regarding claim 10, see claim 2 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method. Regarding claim 11, see claim 3 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method. Regarding claim 12, see claim 4 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method. Regarding claim 13, see claim 5 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method. Regarding claim 14, see claim 6 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method. Regarding claim 15, see claim 7 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method. Regarding claim 16, see claim 8 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method. Regarding claim 1, Tourapis teaches a system for point cloud coding / decoding in which sub-meshes are partially and independently decodable with some associated syntax elements for processing the sub-meshes. Mart teaches additional syntax elements for partial decoding of meshes using sub-meshes to be partially and independently decodable where the syntax elements are signaled in SEI messages. Oh renders obvious coding point cloud information with minimal / smallest bounding boxes and additional considerations for partial decoding of sub-meshes and independent mesh / sub-mesh encoding / decoding. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Tourapis to incorporate the additional syntax elements of Mart with smallest box and partial decoding and independent decoding / encoding considerations as taught by Oh. The combination teaches a communication interface [Tourapis Figure 17 (see at least reference character 1740) as well as Paragraphs 167 – 172 (network interface for communication between devices / pro c essors )] configured to receive a compressed bitstream having sub-bitstreams including a base mesh sub-bitstream, a displacement sub-bitstream, and an attributes sub-bitstream [Tourapis Figures 5, 7 , and 10 – 1 2 (see bitstream inputs to the decoder which is compressed from encoders)) as well as Paragraphs 62 – 68 (base mesh sub stream / sub bitstream with similar attribute and displacement sub-components / bitstreams), 87 – 92 ( attribute and displacement sub-streams as obvious variants of the claims sub-bitstream to one of ordinary skill in the art ) , and 109 – 110 (base mesh sub bitstream compressed in Figures 4 (see output of reference character 406 and 438), 6, 8, and 10 as well as Paragraphs 95 – 101 (see heading describing compressed base mesh bitstream) ) ] ; and a processor operably coupled to the communication interface [Tourapis Figure 17 (see at least reference characters 1710, 1710a, 1710b, 1710n) as well as Paragraphs 167 – 172 (processors coupled to a communication interface) ] , the processor configured to : decode at least a portion of the compressed bitstream, wherein the processor is configured to decode a plurality of submeshes from the base mesh sub-bitstream, decode geometry data from the displacement sub-bitstream, and decode attributes data from the attributes sub-bitstream [Tourapis Figures 5, 7, and 10 – 12 (see bitstream inputs to the decoder which is compressed from encoders)) as well as Paragraphs 48 – 50, 59, and 64 – 73 (displacement is part of the geometry information / data and part of prediction information to supplement attribute information (Paragraphs 63 and 73 at least) to combine with Mart Figure 24 Paragraphs 280 – 282 (displacements part of geometry information / data / frames) ), 62 – 68 (base mesh sub stream / sub bitstream with similar attribute and displacement sub-components / bitstreams), 87 – 92 (attribute and displacement sub-streams as obvious variants of the claims sub-bitstream to one of ordinary skill in the art), and 109 – 110 (base mesh sub bitstream compressed in Figures 4 (see output of reference character 406 and 438), 6, 8, and 10 as well as Paragraphs 95 – 101 (see heading describing compressed base mesh bitstream))] ; subdivide a submesh of the plurality of submeshes to generate a subdivided submesh [Tourapis Figures 1 – 2 and 14 – 16 (subdivision of sub - me sh es) as well as Paragraphs 38 – 43, 50 – 5 6 and 73 – 76 (subdividing submeshes), combinable with Mart Figures 7 – 8 (subdivision techniques on meshes / submeshes) and 29 as well as Paragraphs 154 and 272 – 282 (subdivision process for submeshes / iterative process rendering obvious the “plurality” claimed) ] ; reconstruct vertex positions [In combination with next limitation – see Mart Figures 5 – 6 (see at least reference characters 506, 512 and 614)), 24 and 29 as well as Paragraphs 89 and 118 – 125 (reconstruction of vertex positions / coordinates which require displacement and attribute information) , 239 (independently decodable submeshes), and 280 – 282 (displacements part of geometry information / data / frames)] , using the decoded geometry data, and attributes, using the decoded attributes data, of the subdivided submesh independently of decoded data corresponding to one or more other submeshes [ See “decoded a plurality of submeshes” limitation for citations of Tourapis and Mart for the “geometry data, attributes, and attribute data” and regarding the decoding of attribute data and independence see additionally Tourapis Figures 5, 7 (attribute data decoded separately from other decoded submesh / mesh data) , and 12 – 14 as well as Paragraphs 70, 91 – 95 (attribute sub-stream decoding and displacement / geometry sub-streams to decode), 106 – 112 and 138 – 140 (independently decodable sub-meshes and sub-streams) where Oh Column 11 lines 6 – 27 and Column 44 line 7 – Column 45 line 37 (independently encoding / decoding information such as attribute information from the mesh information) ] ; and reconstruct at least a portion of a mesh-frame using the reconstructed vertex positions [In combination with next limitation – see Mart Figures 5 – 6 (see at least reference characters 506, 512 and 614)), 24 and 29 as well as Paragraphs 89 and 118 – 125 (reconstruction of vertex positions / coordinates which require displacement and attribute information), 239 (independently decodable submeshes), and 280 – 282 (displacements part of geometry information / data / frames)] and reconstructed attributes corresponding to the subdivided submesh [ T o urapis Figures 4 – 7 (see at least the reconstructed base mesh and the decoded mesh using displacement and vertex information see at least reference characters 408, 516 (decoding / reconstructing attribute data – combinable with Mart), and 706 ) as well as Paragraphs 46 and 53 – 56 (reconstruction of the base mesh / mesh frame from submeshes, displacement, and attribute information), 63 – 76 and 88 – 93 (reconstruction of the mesh / decoding the mesh similar processes as in the encoder / decoder), and 101 – 104 in combination with Mart Figures 14 – 15 as well as Paragraphs 145 – 148 (reconstruction of base mesh with attribute information) ] . The motivation to combine Mart with Tourapis is to combine features in the same / related field of invention of encoding / decoding image for volumetric video [Mart Paragraphs 1 – 2] in order to improve compression performance [Mart Paragraphs 137 and 280 where the Examiner observes KSR Rationales (D) or (F) are also applicable]. The motivation to combine Oh with Mart and Tourapis is t o combine features in the same / related field of invention of processing point cloud data [Oh Column 1 lines 16 – 34] in order to improve efficiency and quality of the display / services using the point cloud data [Oh Column 2 lines 23 – 30]. This is the motivation to combine Tourapis, Mart, and Oh which will be used throughout the Rejection. Regarding claim 2, Tourapis teaches a system for point cloud coding / decoding in which sub-meshes are partially and independently decodable with some associated syntax elements for processing the sub-meshes. Mart teaches additional syntax elements for partial decoding of meshes using sub-meshes to be partially and independently decodable where the syntax elements are signaled in SEI messages. Oh renders obvious coding point cloud information with minimal / smallest bounding boxes and additional considerations for partial decoding of sub-meshes and independent mesh / sub-mesh encoding / decoding. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Tourapis to incorporate the additional syntax elements of Mart with smallest box and partial decoding and independent decoding / encoding considerations as taught by Oh. The combination teaches wherein the processor is further configured to [See claim 1 for citations of claimed “processor” ] use an inverse wavelet transform on the decoded geometry data corresponding to the submesh to obtain displacements associated with the subdivided submesh independently from the decoded geometry data corresponding to the one or more other submeshes [ See claim 1 for citations of Tourapis and Mart for the “geometry data” and additionally Tourapis Figures 4 – 7 (see at least reference characters 424 and 514 ), and 12 – 14 as well as Paragraphs 7 6 (inverse wavelet transform to reconstruct displacement information) , 10 0 – 112 and 138 – 140 (independently decodable sub-meshes and sub-streams) where Oh Column 11 lines 6 – 27 and Column 44 line 7 – Column 45 line 37 (independently encoding / decoding information sub-meshes, attribute, and geometry / displacement data – combinable with Mart “geometry data” citations ) ]. See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Tourapis, Mart, and Oh. Regarding claim 3 , Tourapis teaches a system for point cloud coding / decoding in which sub-meshes are partially and independently decodable with some associated syntax elements for processing the sub-meshes. Mart teaches additional syntax elements for partial decoding of meshes using sub-meshes to be partially and independently decodable where the syntax elements are signaled in SEI messages. Oh renders obvious coding point cloud information with minimal / smallest bounding boxes and additional considerations for partial decoding of sub-meshes and independent mesh / sub-mesh encoding / decoding. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Tourapis to incorporate the additional syntax elements of Mart with smallest box and partial decoding and independent decoding / encoding considerations as taught by Oh. The combination teaches wherein, to decode the at least a portion of the compressed bitstream, the processor is further configured to [See claim 1 for citations of the “decode at least a portion …” limitation and “processor” limitation] decode the geometry data [ Tourapis Figures 4 – 7 and 10 – 12 (see bitstream inputs to the decoder which is compressed from encoders)) as well as Paragraphs 48 – 50, 59, and 64 – 76 (displacement is part of the geometry information / data and part of prediction information to supplement attribute information (Paragraphs 63 and 73 at least) to combine with Mart Figure 24 Paragraphs 280 – 282 (displacements part of geometry information / data / frames)), 62 – 68 (base mesh sub stream / sub bitstream with similar attribute and displacement sub-components / bitstreams), 87 – 92 (attribute and displacement sub-streams as obvious variants of the claims sub-bitstream to one of ordinary skill in the art), and 100 – 110 (base mesh sub bitstream compressed in Figures 4 (see output of reference character 406 and 438), 6, 8, and 10 as well as Paragraphs 95 – 101 (see heading describing compressed base mesh bitstream)) ] and attributes of the subdivided submesh independently from coded data associated with the one or more other submeshes included in the compressed bitstream [ Tourapis Figures 4 – 7 (see at least reference characters 516 and 520 in which the attribute data / map is separate from the displacement / geometry data ), and 12 – 14 as well as Paragraphs 63 – 76 ( independently decoding attribute from displacement / geometry data ), 100 – 112 and 138 – 140 (independently decodable sub-meshes and sub-streams and the attributes and displacements are independent as well ) where Oh Column 11 lines 6 – 27 and Column 44 line 7 – Column 45 line 37 (independently encoding / decoding information sub-meshes, attribute, and geometry / displacement data ) ]. See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Tourapis, Mart, and Oh. Regarding claim 4 , Tourapis teaches a system for point cloud coding / decoding in which sub-meshes are partially and independently decodable with some associated syntax elements for processing the sub-meshes. Mart teaches additional syntax elements for partial decoding of meshes using sub-meshes to be partially and independently decodable where the syntax elements are signaled in SEI messages. Oh renders obvious coding point cloud information with minimal / smallest bounding boxes and additional considerations for partial decoding of sub-meshes and independent mesh / sub-mesh encoding / decoding. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Tourapis to incorporate the additional syntax elements of Mart with smallest box and partial decoding and independent decoding / encoding considerations as taught by Oh. The combination teaches wherein the processor is further configured to [See claim 1 for citations of claimed “processor”] identify one or more flags in the compressed bitstream indicating whether or not each independently decodable unit of at least one of the displacement sub-bitstream and the attributes sub-bitstream includes data corresponding to (i) one and only one submesh or (ii) at most one submesh [ Tourapis Figures 12 – 14 as well as Paragraphs 102 and 107 – 110 (indications of one submesh used for a frame or more with flags / syntax in Paragraphs 129 – 132 and included Tables to combine / incorporate syntax of Mart); Mart Paragraphs 180 – 187 (Tables included – see at least syntax elements afps_vmc_ext_single_submesh_in_frame_flag (Paragraph 180 and Table in Paragraph 183) and ath_num_submesh (Table top of Page 31)), 201 – 203 (coding a single or multiple submeshes), and 240 – 247 (bsmi_use_single_mesh_flag and bsmi_num_submeshes_minus1) ]. See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Tourapis, Mart, and Oh. Regarding claim 5 , Tourapis teaches a system for point cloud coding / decoding in which sub-meshes are partially and independently decodable with some associated syntax elements for processing the sub-meshes. Mart teaches additional syntax elements for partial decoding of meshes using sub-meshes to be partially and independently decodable where the syntax elements are signaled in SEI messages. Oh renders obvious coding point cloud information with minimal / smallest bounding boxes and additional considerations for partial decoding of sub-meshes and independent mesh / sub-mesh encoding / decoding. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Tourapis to incorporate the additional syntax elements of Mart with smallest box and partial decoding and independent decoding / encoding considerations as taught by Oh. The combination teaches wherein the one or more flags are signaled as part of Volumetric Visibility Information or as part of a Supplemental Enhancement Information (SEI) message [Mart Paragraphs 223, 231, and 247 – 250 (sending syntax elements / flags in data unit as part of SEI messages)]. See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Tourapis, Mart, and Oh. Regarding claim 6 , Tourapis teaches a system for point cloud coding / decoding in which sub-meshes are partially and independently decodable with some associated syntax elements for processing the sub-meshes. Mart teaches additional syntax elements for partial decoding of meshes using sub-meshes to be partially and independently decodable where the syntax elements are signaled in SEI messages. Oh renders obvious coding point cloud information with minimal / smallest bounding boxes and additional considerations for partial decoding of sub-meshes and independent mesh / sub-mesh encoding / decoding. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Tourapis to incorporate the additional syntax elements of Mart with smallest box and partial decoding and independent decoding / encoding considerations as taught by Oh. The combination teaches wherein the processor is further configured to [See claim 1 for citations of claimed “processor”] decode a bounding box associated with the subdivided submesh signaled by an encoder, the bounding box corresponding to two-dimensional (2D) coordinates of at least one of the displacement sub-bitstream [See next limitation and additionally Oh Figure 12 as well as Column 24 line 47 – Column 25 line 20 (bounding boxes on geometry / displacement data)] and the attributes sub-bitstream [Tourapis Paragraph s 36 – 37 (2D bounding box associated with at least an attribute patch with coordinate considerations to combine signaling from Mart or Oh Figures 4 – 6 and 22 as well as Column 13 lines 21 – 54 ) more fully described in Mart Figure 3 (subfigures included see at least reference character 306) as well as Paragraphs 93 – 97 (bounding boxes on patch data for geometry / attribute information with coordinate information and associated syntax ) ] . See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Tourapis, Mart, and Oh. Regarding claim 7 , Tourapis teaches a system for point cloud coding / decoding in which sub-meshes are partially and independently decodable with some associated syntax elements for processing the sub-meshes. Mart teaches additional syntax elements for partial decoding of meshes using sub-meshes to be partially and independently decodable where the syntax elements are signaled in SEI messages. Oh renders obvious coding point cloud information with minimal / smallest bounding boxes and additional considerations for partial decoding of sub-meshes and independent mesh / sub-mesh encoding / decoding. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Tourapis to incorporate the additional syntax elements of Mart with smallest box and partial decoding and independent decoding / encoding considerations as taught by Oh. The combination teaches wherein the bounding box occupies a smallest possible area while still including all 2D positions that contain coded data corresponding to the submesh [Mart Figure 3 (subfigures included see at least reference character 306) as well as Paragraphs 93 – 97 (bounding boxes on patch data for geometry / attribute information) and 287 – 292 (optimizing the packing / bounding boxes to combine with Oh Figure 21 as well as Column 13 lines 29 – 41 suggests / teaches a smallest bounding box to be used also in Column 36 lines 45 – 61) ]. See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Tourapis, Mart, and Oh. Regarding claim 8 , Tourapis teaches a system for point cloud coding / decoding in which sub-meshes are partially and independently decodable with some associated syntax elements for processing the sub-meshes. Mart teaches additional syntax elements for partial decoding of meshes using sub-meshes to be partially and independently decodable where the syntax elements are signaled in SEI messages. Oh renders obvious coding point cloud information with minimal / smallest bounding boxes and additional considerations for partial decoding of sub-meshes and independent mesh / sub-mesh encoding / decoding. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Tourapis to incorporate the additional syntax elements of Mart with smallest box and partial decoding and independent decoding / encoding considerations as taught by Oh. The combination teaches wherein the processor is further configured to [See claim 1 for citations of claimed “processor”] identify from a signaling element a number of independently decodable units of at least one of the displacement sub-bitstream and the attributes sub-bitstream corresponding to the subdivided submesh, and an identifier for each of the independently decodable units [See claim 1 for citations of “independently” and additionally Mart Figures 3 – 4 and 23 – 27 as well as Paragraphs 162 and 174 – 177 (e.g. asps_vmc_ext_num_attribute) and 183 (signaling attribute and displacement / subdivision information based on the number of submeshes present and the indexing with the attribute parameters (e.g. the flag for single attribute in the frame or the attribute transform flags)) and 239 – 244 and 253 – 256 (see included tables as well with signaling the number of submeshes associated attribute data), and 292 – 299 (signaling the displacement information for the submeshes / subdivisions as well as how much / many displacement vertices are present for the submesh)] . See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Tourapis, Mart, and Oh. Regarding claim 17, Tourapis teaches a system for point cloud coding / decoding in which sub-meshes are partially and independently decodable with some associated syntax elements for processing the sub-meshes. Mart teaches additional syntax elements for partial decoding of meshes using sub-meshes to be partially and independently decodable where the syntax elements are signaled in SEI messages. Oh renders obvious coding point cloud information with minimal / smallest bounding boxes and additional considerations for partial decoding of sub-meshes and independent mesh / sub-mesh encoding / decoding. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Tourapis to incorporate the additional syntax elements of Mart with smallest box and partial decoding and independent decoding / encoding considerations as taught by Oh. The combination teaches a communication interface [Tourapis Figure 17 (see at least reference character 1740) as well as Paragraphs 167 – 172 (network interface for communication between devices / processors)] ; and a processor operably coupled to the communication interface [Tourapis Figure 17 (see at least reference characters 1710, 1710a, 1710b, 1710n) as well as Paragraphs 167 – 172 (processors coupled to a communication interface)] , the processor configured to: encode geometry data [ In combination with the next limitation / citation see Mart Figure 24 Paragraphs 280 – 282 (displacements part of geometry information / data / frames) ] and attributes data associated with an individual submesh into a displacement sub-bitstream and an attributes sub-bitstream, respectively [ Tourapis Figures 1 – 2 (geometry information as vertex locations part of the data to encode to generate displacement bitstreams), 4 – 7 (see the attribute map separate of the displacement bitstreams generated ) as well as Paragraphs 36, 43, and 59 (geometry data part of vertex and displacement data as well as in Paragraphs 73 – 76 – to combine with Mart) where similar to claim1 regarding the “separate should independent by meant 70, 91 – 95 (attribute sub-stream decoding and displacement / geometry sub-streams to decode), 106 – 112 and 138 – 140 (independently decodable sub-meshes and sub-streams) where Oh Figures 2, 4, 10 – 12, 14 – 15, and 18 – 19 (encode / decode geometry and attribute data) as well as Column 11 lines 6 – 27 and Column 44 line 7 – Column 45 line 37 (independently encoding / decoding information such as attribute information from the mesh information) and Column 20 lines 35 – 67 (encode / decode geometry information) ] , wherein the geometry data [In combination with the next limitation / citation see Mart Figure 24 Paragraphs 280 – 282 (displacements part of geometry information / data / frames) ] and attributes data associated with the individual submesh are capable of being separated from data corresponding to one or more other submeshes in the displacement sub-bitstream and the attributes sub-bitstream during decoding [Tourapis Figures 1 – 2 (geometry information as vertex locations part of the data to encode to generate displacement bitstreams), 4 – 9 (see at least reference character 504 as the demultiplexer ) as well as Paragraphs 36, 43, and 53 – 59 (geometry data part of vertex and displacement data as well as in Paragraphs 73 – 76 to combine with Mart) where similar to claim1 regarding the “separate should independent by meant 70, 91 – 95 (attribute sub-stream decoding and displacement / geometry sub-streams to decode), 106 – 112 and 138 – 140 (independently decodable sub-meshes and sub-streams) where Oh Figures 2, 4, 10 – 12, 14 – 15, and 18 – 19 (encode / decode geometry and attribute data) as well as Column 11 lines 6 – 27 and Column 44 line 7 – Column 45 line 37 (independently encoding / decoding information such as attribute information from the mesh information) and Column 20 lines 35 – 67 (encode / decode geometry information) ] ; and combine the displacement sub-bitstream and the attributes sub-bitstream into a compressed bitstream [Tourapis Figures 4 – 7 (see the attribute map separate of the displacement bitstreams generated and combined in multiplexer in reference character 438) as well as Paragraphs 56 – 59 (combining bitstreams into one bitstream further described in Paragraphs 64 – 67 and 88 – 96) ] . See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Tourapis, Mart, and Oh. Regarding claim 18, Tourapis teaches a system for point cloud coding / decoding in which sub-meshes are partially and independently decodable with some associated syntax elements for processing the sub-meshes. Mart teaches additional syntax elements for partial decoding of meshes using sub-meshes to be partially and independently decodable where the syntax elements are signaled in SEI messages. Oh renders obvious coding point cloud information with minimal / smallest bounding boxes and additional considerations for partial decoding of sub-meshes and independent mesh / sub-mesh encoding / decoding. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Tourapis to incorporate the additional syntax elements of Mart with smallest box and partial decoding and independent decoding / encoding considerations as taught by Oh. The combination teaches wherein the processor is further configured to [See claim 17 for citations of claimed “processor”] set one or more flags in the compressed bitstream indicating whether or not each independently decodable unit of at least one of the displacement sub-bitstream and the attributes sub-bitstream includes data corresponding to (i) one and only one submesh or (ii) at most one submesh [Tourapis Figures 4 – 7 (see encoders) and 12 – 14 as well as Paragraphs 102 and 107 – 110 (indications of one submesh used for a frame or more with flags / syntax in Paragraphs 129 – 132 and included Tables to combine / incorporate syntax of Mart); Mart Paragraphs 180 – 187 (Tables included – see at least syntax elements afps_vmc_ext_single_submesh_in_frame_flag (Paragraph 180 and Table in Paragraph 183) and ath_num_submesh (Table top of Page 31)), 201 – 203 (coding a single or multiple submeshes), and 240 – 247 (bsmi_use_single_mesh_flag and bsmi_num_submeshes_minus1)]. See claim 17 for the motivation to combine Tourapis, Mart, and Oh. Regarding claim 1 9 , Tourapis teaches a system for point cloud coding / decoding in which sub-meshes are partially and independently decodable with some associated syntax elements for processing the sub-meshes. Mart teaches additional syntax elements for partial decoding of meshes using sub-meshes to be partially and independently decodable where the syntax elements are signaled in SEI messages. Oh renders obvious coding point cloud information with minimal / smallest bounding boxes and additional considerations for partial decoding of sub-meshes and independent mesh / sub-mesh encoding / decoding. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Tourapis to incorporate the additional syntax elements of Mart with smallest box and partial decoding and independent decoding / encoding considerations as taught by Oh. The combination teaches wherein the processor is further configured to [See claim 17 for citations of claimed “processor”] signal a bounding box associated with the individual submesh, the bounding box corresponding to two-dimensional (2D) coordinates of at least one of the displacement sub-bitstream and the attributes sub-bitstream [Tourapis Figures 4 – 7 as well as Paragraphs 36 – 37 (2D bounding box associated with at least an attribute patch with coordinate considerations to combine signaling from Mart or Oh Figures 4 – 6 and 22 as well as Column 13 lines 21 – 54) more fully described in Mart Figure 3 (subfigures included see at least reference character 306) as well as Paragraphs 93 – 97 (bounding boxes on patch data for geometry / attribute information with coordinate information and associated syntax)] . See claim 17 for the motivation to combine Tourapis, Mart, and Oh. Regarding claim 20 , Tourapis teaches a system for point cloud coding / decoding in which sub-meshes are partially and independently decodable with some associated syntax elements for processing the sub-meshes. Mart teaches additional syntax elements for partial decoding of meshes using sub-meshes to be partially and independently decodable where the syntax elements are signaled in SEI messages. Oh renders obvious coding point cloud information with minimal / smallest bounding boxes and additional considerations for partial decoding of sub-meshes and independent mesh / sub-mesh encoding / decoding. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Tourapis to incorporate the additional syntax elements of Mart with smallest box and partial decoding and independent decoding / encoding considerations as taught by Oh. The combination teaches wherein the processor is further configured to [See claim 17 for citations of claimed “processor”] form the bounding box to be at least one of : in a smallest possible area while still including all 2D positions that contain coded data corresponding to the individual submesh [Mart Figure 3 (subfigures included see at least reference character 306) as well as Paragraphs 93 – 97 (bounding boxes on patch data for geometry / attribute information) and 287 – 292 (optimizing the packing / bounding boxes to combine with Oh Figure 21 as well as Column 13 lines 29 – 41 suggests / teaches a smallest bounding box to be used also in Column 36 lines 45 – 61)]; and non-overlapping with one or more other bounding boxes associated with one or more other submeshes [Mart Figure 3 (subfigures included see at least reference character 306 where the patches / partitions do not overlap rendering obvious the claim limitation to one of ordinary skill in the art) as well as Paragraphs 93 – 97 (bounding boxes on patch data for geometry / attribute information), 280 – 282 (noon overlapping patches / meshes), and 287 – 292 (optimizing the packing / bounding boxes to combine with Oh Figure 21 as well as Column 13 lines 29 – 41 suggests / teaches a smallest bounding box to be used also in Column 36 lines 45 – 61)]. See claim 17 for the motivation to combine Tourapis, Mart, and Oh. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mammou, et al. (US PG PUB 2021/0090301 A1 referred to as “Mammou” throughout) teaches in Paragraphs 522 and 561 – 567 the independent processing of sub meshes and associated processing with patch placement considerations related to the bounding box . References considered that could raise ODP issues b