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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 12, 2024 has been considered by the examiner and placed in the file.
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 7, 15 and 18-20 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.
These claims recite “a fifth syntax element that indicates a symmetric mesh id the respective mesh is symmetric to”. The meaning of this limitation is unclear and renders these claims indefinite. In particular, it is unclear what is meant by “respective mesh” or what it “is symmetric to”.
Claims 19-20 are indefinite due to their direct or indirect dependence from claim 18.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) 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 BRI of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification.
In the following, some of the terms in the claims have been given BRIs in light of the specification. These BRIs are used for purposes of searching for prior art and examining the claims, but cannot be incorporated into the claims. The following are BRIs for some of the claim terms:
mesh, based on para. [00024] of the present specification: a composition of one or more polygons that describe the surface of a volumetric object;
sub-mesh, based on para. [00034] of the present specification: a portion of a mesh;
connectivity information, based on para. [00024] of the present specification: information on how vertices of the polygons of the mesh are connected;
connection pair, based on paras. [00047-[00050] of the present specification: a pair of sub-meshes that have been separated from one another at the intersection of sub-meshes when the mesh is divided into sub-meshes;
position quantization parameter, based on para. [00051] of the present specification: the number of bits used to represent the position attribute in the header;
texture coordinate quantization parameter, based on para. [00051] of the present specification: the number of bits used to represent the texture coordinate in the header;
normal quantization parameter, based on para. [00051] of the present specification: the number of bits used to represent the normal attribute in the header;
header, based on para. [00034]: syntax or metadata transmitted with the encoded mesh data in the bitstream providing information about the payload that is used by the decoder on the receiver side to decode the encoded mesh data;
cutting plane, based on para. [00040]: an imaginary plane along which a 3D mesh is subdivided into sub-meshes.
Should Applicant believe that different interpretations are appropriate, Applicant should point to the portions of the specification that clearly support a different interpretation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-11, 13-14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publ. Appl. No. 2025/0373850 A1 to Park et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Park”).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a method for mesh compression (para. [0025]), the method being performed by at least one processor (para. [0063], Fig. 1, each component of the transmission device 100 “may correspond to hardware, software, a processor, and/or a combination thereof”), the method comprising:
generating more than one sub-mesh from a received mesh using one or more cutting planes (Figs. 3 and 5, paras. [0113]-[0115], fitting subdivision surface component 300 subdivides the base mesh received in component 300 along a cutting plane into sub-meshes using a subdivision method such as a mid-edge subdivision mesh), wherein the received mesh comprises a symmetric part and a non-symmetric part (Fig. 10 shows a 3D mesh corresponding to be subdivided that includes an image of a person playing soccer that would have a symmetric part (e.g., the soccer ball) and an asymmetric part (e.g., the person));
encoding the more than one sub-mesh in a bitstream, the more than one sub-mesh being encoded using different quantization parameters (Fig. 3 shows encoder 201 receiving the mesh that has been subdivided into sub-meshes and output from fitting subdivision surface component 300; Fig. 5 and para. [0019] disclose the encoding process; para. [0285] discusses each sub-mesh being encoded with a respective quantization parameter and transmitting the respective quantization parameters to the decoder of the receiver device, which means the quantization parameters that are used to encode the sub-meshes can be different: “the encoder may transmit … a quantization parameter per partition unit (e.g., patch group, subgroup, slice, tile, etc.) to the decoder of the reception device”);
encoding connectivity information according to the more than one sub-mesh in the bitstream using at least one header in the bitstream (paras. [0131] and [0178]-[0180] discuss encoding the vertex connectivity information of the base mesh, which is the subdivided input mesh, and transmitting it in the bitstream with the subdivided base mesh; paras. [0245] and [0408] discuss an auxiliary information header that is used to transmit syntax indicating connectivity information in the bitstream),
wherein the at least one header comprises a sub-mesh general header with a first syntax element that indicates a total number of sub-meshes generated among the more than one sub-mesh (para. [0258] discusses syntax indicating the total number of clusters (i.e., sub-meshes) that is included in the auxiliary information header) and a second syntax element that indicates a total number of connection pairs generated among the more than one sub-mesh (as indicated above, the auxiliary information header includes syntax indicating the connectivity information of the sub-meshes); and
transmitting the bitstream over a network (Fig. 1, paras. [0071]-[0077], transmission device 100 transmits the compressed bitstream over a network to a reception device 110).
Park does not explicitly disclose that the second syntax element indicates a total number of connection pairs generated among the more than one sub-mesh. However, the connectivity information in Park includes “vertex connectivity information including the additional vertices, texture coordinates, and connectivity information about the texture coordinates” (para. [0199]). This information is part of the auxiliary information that is encoded and transmitted in the bitstream (paras. [0223]-[0225]). All of this information indicates the interconnections between pairs of sub-meshes. As indicated above, the auxiliary information header includes syntax indicating the total number of sub-groups that the mesh has been subdivided into (para. [0258]).
Since syntax indicating the total number of sub-meshes is included in the header and since the connections between pairs of sub-meshes is known and is included in the auxiliary information that is transmitted in the bitstream along with the encoded mesh data, it would be obvious one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present disclosure, to include syntax indicating the total number of connection pairs in the auxiliary information header. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include this syntax to properly and efficiently decode the bitstream and reconstruct the mesh in the decoder of the reception device. The modification could have could have been made by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure with a reasonable expectation of success because making the modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (modifying the software executed by the processor implementing the subgroup partitioner 12013 of Fig. 16 to include this syntax in the auxiliary information header).
Regarding claim 2, Park discloses that generating the sub-meshes comprises:
determining a cutting plane to separate the received mesh into two sub-meshes (Figs. 3 and 5, paras. [0113]-[0115], fitting subdivision surface component 300 subdivides the base mesh received in component 300 along a cutting plane into sub-meshes using a subdivision method such as a mid-edge subdivision method; the subdivision method can be a “user-defined method”; the processor that implements the subdivision surface component 300 determines the cutting plane based on the user-defined method);
in response to determining that one or more faces in the received mesh is intersected by the cutting plane, determine points in the cutting plane at one or more intersections (paras. [0114]-[0116], Fig. 4 (duplicated below), in response to determining that the faces of the mesh are intersected mid-edge by the cutting planes, the points in the cutting planes where the intersections occur are determined as new vertices, as seen by comparing the original mesh to the 1st subdivision result); and
separating the received mesh into the two sub-meshes by adding the determined points as vertices in the two sub-meshes (paras. [0114]-[0116], Fig. 4 (duplicated below), the received mesh is separated into at least two sub-meshes as shown in the 1st subdivision result and vertices are added at the points of intersection; the number of sub-meshes depends on the user-defined method chosen for subdividing the mesh and the chosen fitting process).
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Park does not explicitly disclose determining a cutting plane to separate the received mesh into exactly two meshes because the example given in Park of a user-defined subdivision method is the mid-edge method in which each edge of the mesh is intersected by a cutting plane in the middle of the edge, which results in more than two sub-meshes. However, it would be obvious one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present disclosure, to use any suitable user-defined subdivision method, including one that separates the mesh into only two sub-meshes. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to separate a mesh into only two sub-meshes if it was desirable to do so, such as to simply encoding and/or decoding complexity and/or to facilitate decoding reconstruction. The modification could have could have been made by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure with a reasonable expectation of success because making the modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (modifying the software executed by the processor implementing the fitting subdivision surface component shown in Fig. 3 to perform the desired, user-defined subdivision method).
Regarding claim 3, Park discloses determining a cutting plane along an edge of the received mesh to separate the received mesh into two sub-meshes (Figs. 3 and 5, paras. [0113]-[0115], fitting subdivision surface component 300 subdivides the base mesh received in component 300 along a cutting plane into sub-meshes using a subdivision method such as a mid-edge subdivision method; the subdivision method can be a “user-defined method”; the processor that implements the subdivision surface component 300 determines the cutting plane based on the user-defined method);
responsive to determining the cutting plane, determine one or more vertices along the edge of the received mesh (paras. [0114]-[0116], Fig. 4 (duplicated above), in response to determining that the cutting planes intersect the mid-edges of the mesh, the points in the cutting planes where the intersections occur are determined as new vertices, as seen by comparing the original mesh shown in Fig. 4 to the 1st subdivision result shown in Fig. 4); and
separating the received mesh into the two sub-meshes by adding the determined points as vertices in the two sub-meshes (paras. [0114]-[0116], Fig. 4 (duplicated below), the received mesh is separated into at least two sub-meshes as shown in the 1st subdivision result and vertices are added at the points of intersection; the number of sub-meshes depends on the user-defined method chosen for subdividing the mesh and the chosen fitting process).
As indicated above in the rejection of claim 2, Park does not explicitly disclose determining a cutting plane to separate the received mesh into two exactly two meshes because the example given in Parks of a user-defined subdivision method is the mid-edge method in which each edge of the mesh is intersected by a cutting plane in the middle of the edge, which results in more than two sub-meshes. However, it would be obvious one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present disclosure, to use any suitable user-defined subdivision method, including one that separates the mesh into only two sub-meshes. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to separate a mesh into only two sub-meshes if it was desirable to do so, such as to simply encoding and/or decoding complexity and/or to facilitate decoding reconstruction. The modification could have could have been made by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure with a reasonable expectation of success because making the modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (modifying the software executed by the processor implementing the fitting subdivision surface component shown in Fig. 3 to perform the desired, user-defined subdivision method).
Regarding claim 5, as indicated above in the rejection of claim 1, Fig. 10 of Park shows a 3D mesh corresponding to a person playing soccer that would have a symmetric part (e.g., the soccer ball) and an asymmetric part (e.g., the person). During subdivision of the received mesh to, for example, separate a portion of the received mesh containing the sole of the person’s footwear from the portion of the received mesh containing the soccer ball, the cutting plane separates the symmetric part corresponding to the soccer ball from the non-symmetric part corresponding to the sole of the footwear. In Park, the sub-mesh general header (the portion of the frame header and/or the auxiliary information header containing the connectivity information) is associated with the received mesh because it includes the connectivity information that associates the sub-mesh with the received input mesh in order to allow the decoder to decode and reconstruct the mesh from the sub-meshes.
Regarding claim 6, Park does not explicitly disclose that the syntax of the frame header or of the auxiliary information header is an array comprising a list of sub-mesh pairs that were connected to each other. However, as indicated above in the rejection of claim 1, the connectivity information indicating connectivity between the sub-meshes is included in the headers in order to allow the mesh to be decoded and reconstructed by the decoder of the reception device. This information in each of the headers is syntax comprising an ordered array of binary words, which is essentially a list of pairs of sub-meshes having vertices and edges that were connected before the subdivision process that was used to create the sub-meshes. The sub-mesh connectivity header (the portion of the frame header and/or the auxiliary information header containing the connectivity information) is associated with the received mesh because it includes the connectivity information that associates the sub-mesh with the received input mesh in order to allow the decoder to decode and reconstruct the mesh from the sub-meshes.
Since syntax indicating the total number of sub-meshes is included in the header and since the connections between pairs of sub-meshes is known and is included in the auxiliary information that is transmitted in the bitstream along with the encoded mesh data, it would be obvious one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present disclosure, to include syntax indicating the total number of connection pairs in the auxiliary information header. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include this syntax to properly and efficiently decode the bitstream and reconstruct the mesh in the decoder of the reception device. The modification could have could have been made by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure with a reasonable expectation of success because making the modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (modifying the software executed by the processor implementing the subgroup partitioner 12013 of Fig. 16 to include this syntax in the auxiliary information header).
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 applies mutatis mutandis to claim 8. Park discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, the instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a device for mesh compression, cause the one or more processors to perform the method of claim 1 (para. [0437]).
Regarding claim 9, to the extent that claim 9 recites the same limitations that are recited in claim 1, the rejection of claim 1 applies mutatis mutandis to claim 9. As indicated above, Park discloses at least processor for performing the steps recited in claim 1 and at least one memory device for storing program code for execution by the at least one processor (para. [0063], Fig. 1; para. [0437]).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, the rejections of claims 2 and 3 apply mutatis mutandis to claims 10 and 11, respectively.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, the rejections of claims 5 and 6 apply mutatis mutandis to claims 13 and 14, respectively.
Regarding claim 16, to the extent that claim 16 recites the same limitations that are recited in claim 1, the rejection of claim 1 applies mutatis mutandis to claim 16. Park discloses performing a conversion between a visual media file and a bitstream of a visual media data according to a format rule (para. [0063], the encoding process is a conversion of a visual media file (e.g., video) into a bitstream of encoded visual media mesh data according to a format rule(s) of the encoding algorithm executed by the mesh video encoder 102, Fig. 1),
wherein the bitstream includes one or more sub-mesh information headers and more than one encoded sub-meshes with corresponding sub-mesh headers (the sub-mesh information headers are part of the frame header (paras. [0194]-[0195]) and/or the auxiliary information header (paras. [0245], [0253], [0257]-[0258], [0264], [0351]-[0356] and [0407]-[0416]),
wherein the format rule specifies that a first syntax element and a second syntax element is included in a configuration record in the visual media file (in the encoding process, the format rule(s) generates syntax that is included in the encoded headers as a configuration file; see Figs. 28 and 29 showing the syntax of the configuration files and paras. [0407]-[0428]),
wherein the first syntax element indicates a total number of sub-meshes encoded among the more than one encoded sub-mesh and a total number of connection pairs encoded among the more than one encoded sub-mesh (see the rejection of claim 1 regarding this limitation), and
wherein the second syntax element indicates each connection pair encoded among the more than one encoded sub-mesh (see the rejection of claim 1 regarding this limitation).
Regarding claim 17, the rejections of claim 6 applies mutatis mutandis to claim 17.
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Japanese Publ. Appl. No. 2004295917 to Signes (hereinafter referred to as “Signes”).
Regarding claim 4, as indicated above, Park discloses encoding the different sub-meshes using different quantization parameters. However, Park does not explicitly disclose that the quantization parameters include position quantization parameters, texture coordinate quantization parameters and normal quantization parameters. It is well known to those of ordinary skill in the art of 3D mesh encoding that quantization parameters typically include all three of these types of quantization parameters. Signes, in the same field of endeavor, discloses using position, texture coordinate and normal quantization parameters when encoding graphic scenes (paras. [0013] and [0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present disclosure, to use a different set of position, texture coordinate and normal quantization parameters for each sub-mesh during the encoding process of Park since Park discloses that different quantization parameters can be used for each sub-mesh and since position, texture coordinate and normal quantization parameters are commonly used in 3D mesh encoding as taught by Signes.
Assuming there are two sub-meshes resulting from the subdivision process of Park, there would be at least two position quantization parameters (i.e., one position quantization parameter for each of the two sub-meshes), at least two texture coordinate quantization parameters (i.e., one texture coordinate quantization parameter for each of the two sub-meshes), and two normal quantization parameters (i.e., one normal quantization parameter for each of the two sub-meshes). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to quantize position, texture coordinate and normals during encoding since they all need to be quantized to be injected into the bitstream. The modification could have been made by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure with a reasonable expectation of success because making the modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (modifying the software executed by the processor implementing the quantizer of the encoder to use respective sets of position, texture coordinate and quantization parameters for the respective sub-meshes).
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 4 applies mutatis mutandis to claim 12.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 15 and 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and to overcome the rejections of these claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding claims 7, 15 and 18, none of the art teaches or suggests, in combination with the other limitations of the claims from which they depend, including syntax in a header that indicates whether a sub-mesh is symmetric and syntax indicating a symmetric mesh ID the respective mesh is symmetric to.
Claims 19 and 20 recite allowable subject matter due to their direct or indirect dependencies from claim 18.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J SANTOS whose telephone number is (571)272-2867. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Matt Bella can be reached at (571)272-7778. 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.
/DANIEL J. SANTOS/Examiner, Art Unit 2667
/MATTHEW C BELLA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2667