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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on December 01, 2023, October 25, 2024, January 21st 2026, and January 28th 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
This is in response to applicant’s amendment/response filed on 12/22/2025 which have been entered and made of record.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Claim 1 recites, inter alia, "[a] encoding each of the blocks into a plurality of block bitstreams, each of the block bitstreams corresponding to a respective encoding configuration and having a distortion value associated therewith; [b] for each block, selecting the block bitstreams having the lowest associated distortion values for the respective block such that up to a predetermined number of distinct block bitstreams are selected; [and] [c] for each selected block bitstream, obtaining a plurality of data chunks such that each data chunk is a contiguous section of the respective selected block bitstream from which it is obtained, the data chunks for the respective selected block bitstream starting from each position of the respective selected block bitstream and spanning until the end of the respective selected block bitstream ..., wherein data chunks of different sizes are obtainable for the selected bitstreams." These features of claim 1 are not found in the cited art, alone and/or in combination. The cited art therefore does not render obvious claim 1.
Vosoughi relates to techniques that purportedly enhance the rate-distortion optimization (RDO) performance of a video-coding for point cloud compression (V-PCC) encoder. See paragraph 20 of Vosoughi in this regard. The V-PCC based encoder of Vosoughi arguably divides a texture into a plurality of blocks, and the blocks could be represented as bitstreams. However, the Office Action is incorrect in relying on Vosoughi with regard to the claim 1 requirement that "each of the block bitstreams correspond[s] to a different respective encoding configuration and ha[s] a distortion value associated therewith." Nothing in the cited portions of Vosoughi teaches or suggests this subject matter of claim 1. That is, nothing in Fig. 3, or any of paragraphs 6, 20, or 24, of Vosoughi clearly teaches or suggests an encoding approach in which "each of the block bitstreams correspond[s] to a different respective encoding configuration and ha[s] a distortion value associated therewith."
In general, V-PCC based encoders do not typically output multiple different encodings of the same content. Instead, they decompose a single 3D point cloud into multiple distinct sub-bitstreams that must be combined to reconstruct the original 3D object. See, for example, the various modules mentioned in paragraph 31 (which presumably help generate geometry video, attribute video, occupancy map, and atlas/patch metadata). Even if these sub-bitstreams were deemed equivalent claimed block bitstreams, it would not make sense to select the ones "having the lowest associated distortion values" because they are all needed for reconstruction of the 3D object. Cited paragraphs 6, 88, and 92 of Vosoughi do not teach or suggest "selecting the block bitstreams having the lowest associated distortion values for the respective block" in general, much less doing so "for each block" -- let alone for each of the sub-bitstreams used by a V-PCC encoder, which simply would not make technical sense because they are all needed for object reconstruction. Vosoughi therefore does not, and seemingly cannot, correspond to parts [a] and [b] of claim 1 cited above when starting from this perspective. Even the combination is deficient.
From the "block" or "patch" perspective, a standard V-PCC encoder does not ultimately encode a single block or patch into multiple alternative configurations. Instead, the encoder performs a "best-of-one" selection via standard RDO. In a sense, then, a standard RDO approach used with a standard V-PCC encoder might arguably be said to "test" different encoding decisions for a given "block" or "patch." But only the single best option is then selected. The Office Action cites to paragraph 88 of Vosoughi, which suggests that this standard implementation is used therein. The best-of-one selection does not teach or suggest the claim 1 language that requires plural selections for each block, i.e., "for each block, selecting the block bitstreams having the lowest associated distortion values... such that up to a predetermined number of distinct block bitstreams are selected." In standard V-PCC encoding with standard RDO, and apparently in Vosoughi, only one selection is made for each block -- which is different from the claim 1 requirement which includes selection of multiple block bitstreams for each block. Vosoughi does not teach or suggest parts [a] and [b] of claim 1 cited above when examining what happens with blocks/patches. Even the combination is deficient in this regard.
In view of the foregoing, then, Applicant respectfully submits that Vosoughi fails to clearly teach or suggest the encoding operation of claim 1 (part [a] of claim 1 identified above). Even more so, regardless of whether Vosoughi is viewed from the perspective of sub-bitstreams or the perspective of blocks/patches, Vosoughi does not teach or suggest the selecting operation of claim 1 (part [b] of claim 1 identified above). Citation to Mammou does not cure the deficiencies of Vosoughi. The rejection of claim 1 is flawed for at least these reasons.
Examiner respectable disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., "each of the block bitstreams correspond[s] to a different respective encoding configuration”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181”, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The following claim limitation of claim 1 recites “each of the block bitstreams corresponding to a respective encoding configuration and having a distortion value associated therewith;” (Referred to as Part [a] in Remarks). According to broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) the claim is interpretated as each block bitstreams having a corresponding encoding configuration and a distortion value associated with them, where the encoding configuration can be any encoding configuration (i.e., Same/Similar/Different) with any associated distortion value. Vosoughi teaches blocks have associated distortion values (Para. 0006, Calculations are performed on each block to optimize encoding by utilizing distortions present in the blocks.) and encoding configurations (Para. 0020, Encoding Configuration V-PCC). Thus, Vosoughi teaches Part [a].
The next claim limitation of claim 1 recites “for each block, selecting the block bitstreams having the lowest associated distortion values for the respective block such that up to a predetermined number of distinct block bitstreams are selected;” (Referred to as Part [b] in Remarks). According to BRI this limitation is interpreted as selecting a predetermined number of distinct block bitstreams having the lowest associated distortion value, where the predetermined number can be any number including 1. Vosoughi teaches performing RDO (Rate-distortion Optimization) on a block basis (Para. 0088 and 0092) and disregarding portions of the block that have distortions (Para. 0006). By disregarding the portions containing distortions. The block bitstreams left are those with the lowest associated distortion values as they would contain no distortions which are then used (i.e., Selected). Thus, Vosoughi teaches Part [b].
Applicant argues Moreover, there are further issues with regard to the reliance on Mammou. For example, the Office Action cites to a variety of portions for the claimed "obtaining a plurality of data chunks" feature of claim 1 (part [c] of claim 1 identified above). The Office Action cites generically to "mesh/block/patch/tile" features of Mammou, along with (at least) paragraphs 69- 71, 97, 122, 609, and 613. While these portions passingly mention subdivision and subdivided curves (meshes), it is unclear just what is being relied upon -- particularly given that the Office Action blends together different structures (some of which are not mentioned in these paragraphs with regard to any subdivision or other like approach), and different pre- and post-processing approaches.
What is clear, however, is that there is no teaching or suggestion of the actual claim 1 language in part [c] identified above. Subdivision does not per se start from each position of a respective selected block bitstream (or other structure) and span until the end of the respective selected block bitstream. An example of how this claim language operates is provided in connection with Fig. 4. As can be seen in Fig. 4, a given 8-byte block bitstream is divided into 5 different chunks. A first chunk spans from byte position 1 to byte position 8, a second chunk spans from byte position 2 to byte position 8, a third chunk spans from byte position 3 to byte position 8, etc. Mammou does not appear to teach or suggest obtaining data chunks of a block bitstream in this manner. The way in which it subdivides curves (meshes) indeed appears to be quite different. Nor is there any clear teaching or suggestion that data chunks of different sizes are obtained. Thus, Mammou does not teach or suggest the part [c] of claim 1 -- or really any feature that follows thereafter. Even the combination is flawed in these respects.
Examiner respectable disagrees. The following claim limitation of claim 1 recites “for each selected block bitstream, obtaining a plurality of data chunks such that each data chunk is a contiguous section of the respective selected block bitstream from which it is obtained, the data chunks for the respective selected block bitstream starting from each position of the respective selected block bitstream and spanning until the end of the respective selected block bitstream such that the respective data chunk has a minimum data chunk size, wherein data chunks of different sizes are obtainable for the selected bitstreams;” (Referred to as Part [c] in Remarks). According to BRI this limitation is interpretated as obtaining data chunks from the selected block bitstreams, where the data chunks are a contiguous sections of the block bitstreams. The data chunks have a starting and end positions that span the block bitstream and a minimum data chunk size that can be different sizes. The terminology block and chunk are broad and can be referred to in several different ways such as Mesh/Block/Patch/Tile. As they all can represent portions of a texture. Mammou teaches subdividing meshes (Para. 0069-0071) which can be encoded/decoded as bitstreams (Para. 0060 and 0068). The mesh can be subdivided into Patches, Tiles (Para. 0122), Blocks (Para. 0097) ,and other Regions of Interest (Para. 0613). Therefore, the block bitstream can be a Mesh/Block/Patch/Tile and the data chunks the Subdivided Mesh/Block/Patch/Tile. A subdivided Mesh/Block/Patch/Tile is a contiguous section of the previous Mesh/Block/Patch/Tile as they can be used to recreate the original Mesh/Block/Patch/Tile. Thus, Mammou teaches Part [c].
Regarding the remaining arguments applicant argues with respect to the amended claim language, which is fully addressed in the prior art rejections set forth below.
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.
Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vosoughi et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 20200279406 A1(hereinafter Vosoughi) in view of Mammou et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 20230290009 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Vosoughi teaches a method of encoding a texture (Point Cloud, Para 0021), the method comprising: (Para. 0027)
retrieving the texture from a data store; (Retrieving point cloud from hardware, Para. 0027)
dividing the texture into a plurality of blocks; (Para. 0036-0037 and 0081)
encoding each of the blocks into a plurality of block bitstreams, (Fig. 3) each of the block bitstreams corresponding to a respective encoding configuration and having a distortion value associated therewith; (Para. 0006, 0020 and 0024) As stated above, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., "each of the block bitstreams correspond[s] to a different respective encoding configuration”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181”, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The following claim limitation of claim 1 recites “each of the block bitstreams corresponding to a respective encoding configuration and having a distortion value associated therewith;” (Referred to as Part [a] in Remarks). According to broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) the claim is interpretated as each block bitstreams having a corresponding encoding configuration and a distortion value associated with them, where the encoding configuration can be any encoding configuration (i.e., Same/Similar/Different) with any associated distortion value. Which Vosoughi teaches blocks have associated distortion values (Para. 0006, Calculations are performed on each block to optimize encoding by utilizing distortions present in the blocks.) and encoding configurations (Para. 0020, Encoding Configuration V-PCC). Thus, Vosoughi teaches Part [a].
for each block, selecting the block bitstreams having the lowest associated distortion values for the respective block such that up to a predetermined number of distinct block bitstreams are selected; (Vosoughi’s encoder utilizes rate-distortion optimization techniques, it can be configured to choose the lowest associated distortion values based on the number of block bitstreams selected. Since, the encoder is already choosing blocks based on the cost and quality of them. Para. 0006, 0088, and 0092) As stated above, the next claim limitation of claim 1 recites “for each block, selecting the block bitstreams having the lowest associated distortion values for the respective block such that up to a predetermined number of distinct block bitstreams are selected;” (Referred to as Part [b] in Remarks). According to BRI this limitation is interpreted as selecting a predetermined number of distinct block bitstreams having the lowest associated distortion value, where the predetermined number can be any number including 1. Vosoughi teaches performing RDO (Rate-distortion Optimization) on a block basis (Para. 0088 and 0092) and disregarding portions of the block that have distortions (Para. 0006). By disregarding the portions containing distortions, the block bitstreams left are those with the lowest associated distortion values as they can contain no distortion which are then used (i.e., Selected). Thus, Vosoughi teaches Part [b].
However, Vosoughi fails to teach:
for each selected block bitstream, obtaining a plurality of data chunks such that each data chunk is a contiguous section of the respective selected block bitstream from which it is obtained, the data chunks for the respective selected block bitstream starting from each position of the respective selected block bitstream and spanning until the end of the respective selected block bitstream such that the respective data chunk has a minimum data chunk size, wherein data chunks of different sizes are obtainable for the selected bitstreams;
detecting collisions among the obtained data chunks;
based on the detected collisions, forming match chains with redundant data chunks such that, for each match chain, the redundant data chunks therein represent a common truncated value of an associated block bitstream; and
iteratively selecting the best match chains from among the formed match chains, the best match chains being determined using a hyperparameter;
obtaining a lossy encoding of the texture from the iteratively selected best match chains.
Vosoughi and Mammou are analogous to the claimed invention because both of them are in the same field of texture compression.
Mammou teaches:
for each selected block bitstream (Mesh/Block/Patch/Tile, Para. 0069, 0097, and 0122), obtaining a plurality of data chunks (Subdivided Mesh, Para. 0069-0071) such that each data chunk (Subdivided Mesh) is a contiguous section of the respective selected block bitstream (Mesh/Block/Patch/Tile) from which it is obtained, the data chunks (Subdivided Mesh) for the respective selected block bitstream (Mesh/Block/Patch/Tile) starting from each position of the respective selected block bitstream (Mesh/Block/Patch/Tile) and spanning until the end of the respective selected block bitstream (Mesh/Block/Patch/Tile) such that the respective data chunk (Subdivided Mesh) has a minimum data chunk (Subdivided Mesh) size, wherein data chunks (Subdivided Mesh) of different sizes are obtainable for the selected bitstreams; (Para. 0069-0071, 0609, and 0613 Subdividing the mesh/block/patch/tile into a smaller subdivision is a plurality of data chunks. Each chunk is a subdivided mesh which would be a contiguous section of the previous mesh/block. Parameters can be set to determine the size of the subdivided mesh and the type of subdivision, Para. 0122.) As stated above, the following claim limitation of claim 1 recites “for each selected block bitstream, obtaining a plurality of data chunks such that each data chunk is a contiguous section of the respective selected block bitstream from which it is obtained, the data chunks for the respective selected block bitstream starting from each position of the respective selected block bitstream and spanning until the end of the respective selected block bitstream such that the respective data chunk has a minimum data chunk size, wherein data chunks of different sizes are obtainable for the selected bitstreams;” (Referred to as Part [c] in Remarks). According to BRI this limitation is interpretated as obtaining data chunks from the selected block bitstreams, where the data chunks are a contiguous sections of the block bitstreams. The data chunks have a starting and end positions that span the block bitstream and a minimum data chunk size that can be different sizes. The terminology block and chunk are broad and can be referred to in several different ways such as Mesh/Block/Patch/Tile. As they all can represent portions of a texture. Mammou teaches subdividing meshes (Para. 0069-0071) which can be encoded/decoded as bitstreams (Para. 0060 and 0068). The mesh can be subdivided into Patches, Tiles (Para. 0122), Blocks (Para. 0097) ,and other Regions of Interest (Para. 0613). Therefore, the block bitstream can be a Mesh/Block/Patch/Tile and the data chunks the Subdivided Mesh/Block/Patch/Tile. Which a subdivided Mesh/Block/Patch/Tile is a contiguous section of the previous Mesh/Block/Patch/Tile as they are used to recreate the original Mesh/Block/Patch/Tile. Thus, Mammou teaches Part [c].
detecting collisions (Collision Detection) among the obtained data chunks; (Subdivided Mesh, Para. 0614)
based on the detected collisions, (Collision Detection, Para. 0614) forming match chains (Fig. 6 and Fig. 7) with redundant data chunks (Subdivided Meshes, Para. 0069-0071) such that, for each match chain (Chain of Redundant Subdivided Meshes), the redundant data chunks (Subdivided Meshes) therein represent a common truncated value of an associated block bitstream; and (Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 showcase the difference in the original mesh compared to other processes performed on the mesh in a 2D curve. Collision Detection can be performed on the subdivided meshes, Para. 0614. A match chain is a chain of chunks and in this case a chain of subdivided meshes. The subdivided curve in Fig. 6 shows a chain of subdivided meshes and thus can be used to show only redundant subdivided meshes.)
iteratively selecting the best match chains (Fig. 6 and Fig. 7, Chain of Redundant Subdivided Meshes) from among the formed match chains, the best match chains being determined using a hyperparameter; (Rate-Distortion, Para. 0060 and 0259) (With the use of Rate Distortion Optimization the best redundant subdivided meshes can be chosen.)
obtaining a lossy encoding of the texture (Para. 0078-0079, and 0102, The mesh can be a lossy or losslessly.) from the iteratively selected best match chains. (Para. 0060 and 0259, Best subdivided mesh chains are selected by Rate-Distortion.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vosoughi’s Texture Block Bitstreams to incorporate Mammou’s Method to Subdivide Blocks, Detect Collisions, Form Chains of the Subdivisions to Obtain an Encoding of the Texture. Since doing so would provide the benefit of improving compression efficiently for the meshes. (Mammou, Para. 0003) Both Vosoughi and Mammou utilize V-PCC and Rate Distortion Optimization, hence combining their methods would be obvious.
Regarding claim 2, Vosoughi teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising encoding the lossy encoded texture (Texture Image) using a lossless compressor. (Para. 0040 and 0069-0070)
Regarding claim 3, Vosoughi fails to teach the method of claim 1, wherein the data chunks start from different byte locations.
However, Mammou teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the data chunks (Subdivided Meshes, Para. 0069-0071) start from different byte locations. (Para. 0259 and 0548) Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vosoughi’s Texture Blocks to incorporate Mammou’s Subdivided Meshes. Since doing so would provide the benefit of improving compression efficiently for the meshes. (Mammou, Para. 0003) Changing the starting point of the subdivided meshes would be a simple parameter change.
Regarding claim 4, Vosoughi teaches the method of claim 1,
wherein for each block, as many distinct block bitstreams as possible, up to the predetermined number, are selected; (Para. 0034, 0037, 0059, and 0068-0069, The controller 650 controls the parameters which can include block/patch/picture size and groups. Therefore, it’s possible to choose blocks based on a parameter, such as a predetermined number, since the controller 650 can be configured for other suitable functions.)
the method further comprising providing an indicator for each block for which the number of selected block bitstreams is less than the predetermined number. (Para. 0034, 0037, 0059, and 0068-0069, Similar to above this indicator can be a simple parameter associated with each block/patch/picture, that is used to determine if the number of blocks bitstreams is met. With controller 650 being configurable one could configure it to have the parameter discussed above.)
Regarding claim 5, Vosoughi fails to teach the method of claim 1, further comprising
receiving input specifying a maximum distortion value for one or more specified blocks in the plurality of blocks,
wherein for each of the one or more specified blocks, only those block bitstreams having distortion values better than the maximum distortion value are selectable for the respective specified block.
However, Mammou teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising
receiving input specifying a maximum distortion value (Rate/Distortion Criteria, Para. 0182-0183) for one or more specified blocks in the plurality of blocks, (Para. 0060, Parameters can be set to specify rate/distortion criteria to select meshes or remove meshes that don’t fit.)
wherein for each of the one or more specified blocks, only those block bitstreams (Mesh/Block/Patch/Tile, Para. 0069, 0097, and 0122), having distortion values (Rate-Distortion, Para. 0060) better than the maximum distortion value (Rate/Distortion Criteria, Para. 0182-0183) are selectable for the respective specified block. (Para. 0060, Rate Distortion Optimization is used to determine a tradeoff between distortion and size and is a standard in improving compression quality.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vosoughi’s block bitstreams to incorporate Mammou’s Rate/Distortion Criteria Parameter for Meshes. Since doing so would provide the benefit of improving compression efficiently for the meshes. (Mammou, Para. 0003)
Regarding claim 6, Vosoughi fails to teach the method of claim 1, wherein the minimum data chunk size is at least as large as a minimum size usable by a lossless compressor to which the lossy encoding of the texture is to be applied.
However, Mammou teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the minimum data chunk size (Subdivided Mesh, Para. 0069-0071) is at least as large as a minimum size usable by a lossless compressor (Lossless Coding, Para. 0122) to which the lossy encoding (Para. 0078, Mesh can be encoded lossy or losslessly) of the texture is to be applied. (The minimum size of the subdivided mesh has to be at least be the minimum size usable by the compressor or else the compressor will not work. Parameters are used to determine the size of the meshes, Para. 0122, Para. 0609)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vosoughi’s block bitstream to incorporate Mammou’s Subdivided Mesh Parameters. Since doing so would provide the benefit of providing flexibility to the compression system by using parameters to modify the sizes of blocks/meshes.
Regarding claim 7, Vosoughi fails to teach the method of claim 1, wherein the obtaining of the data chunks comprises:
extracting a subset of valid data chunks for a given selected block bitstream;
and generating the remaining data chunks for the given selected block bitstream from the extracted subset.
However, Mammou teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the obtaining of the data chunks comprises:
extracting a subset of valid data chunks (Subdivided Meshes, Para. 0069-0071) for a given selected block bitstream; (Mesh/Block/Patch/Tile, Para. 0069, 0097, and 0122),
and generating the remaining data chunks (Subdivided Meshes, Para. 0069-0071) for the given selected block bitstream (Mesh/Block/Patch/Tile, Para. 0069, 0097, and 0122), from the extracted subset. (Para. 0122 and 0132-0133, Information associating Mesh/Block/Patch/Tile with each other can be used to encode/decode other Meshes/Blocks/Patches/Tiles.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vosoughi’s Texture Blocks to incorporate Mammou’s Generation of Subdivided Meshes. Since doing so would provide the benefit of improving compression efficiently for the meshes. (Mammou, Para. 0003)
Regarding claim 8, Vosoughi fails to teach the method of claim 1, wherein the
hyperparameter trades off rate and distortion and is a part of a defined function that determines which match chains are best.
However, Mammou teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the hyperparameter trades off rate and distortion (Rate-Distortion, Para. 0060 and 0256) and is a part of a defined function that determines which match chains are best. (With the use of Rate Distortion Optimization, the best redundant subdivided meshes can be chosen.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vosoughi’s Texture Compression to incorporate Mammou’s Rate Distortion Optimization Parameter. Since doing so would provide the benefit of improving compression efficiently for the meshes. (Mammou, Para. 0003)
Regarding claim 9, Vosoughi teaches the method of claim 1,
further comprising dividing the texture (Subgroups/Patch) into slices each including a predetermined number of blocks, (Para. 0055 and 0032-0033)
wherein the slices are treated as individual textures to be separately divided into blocks. (Para. 0032-0033, A texture image or Point cloud can be divided into blocks/patches/tiles/slices which can be divided again.)
Regarding claim 10, Vosoughi fails to teach the method of claim 1, wherein match chains that are determined to be not selectable in the iterative selection are not considered for the formation of the match chains.
However, Mammou teaches the method of claim 1, wherein match chains (Chain of Redundant Subdivided Meshes, Fig. 6 and Fig. 7) that are determined to be not selectable in the iterative selection are not considered for the formation of the match chains. (Para. 0060 and 0259) (Para. 0614, Collision Detection can be performed on each subdivided meshes to determine a chain of redundant subdivided meshes.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vosoughi’s Texture blocks to incorporate Mammou’s Subdivided Mesh Chains. Since doing so would provide the benefit of improving compression efficiently for the meshes. (Mammou, Para. 0003)
Regarding claim 11, Vosoughi fails to teach the method of claim 10, further comprising discarding a given match chain in response to a determination that there is or will be another match chain formed that is equal to or better than the given match chain.
However, Mammou teaches the method of claim 10, further comprising discarding a given match chain (Chain of Redundant Subdivided Meshes, Fig. 6 and Fig. 7) in response to a determination that there is or will be another match chain formed that is equal to or better than the given match chain. (Para. 0060, 0183, and 0259, To determine the best match chain, Rate Distortion Optimization is used to compare each chain, hence discarding a chain for a better one is a common practice.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vosoughi’s Texture Blocks to incorporate Mammou’s Subdivided Mesh Chains. Since doing so would provide the benefit of improving compression efficiently for the meshes. (Mammou, Para. 0003)
Regarding claim 12, Vosoughi fails to teach the method of claim 11, wherein application of a function involving the hyperparameter to the match chains enables different match chains to be compared to one another.
However, Mammou teaches the method of claim 11, wherein application of a function involving the hyperparameter (Rate-Distortion, Para. 0060 and 0256) to the match chains (Chains of Redundant Subdivided Meshes, Fig. 6 and Fig. 7) enables different match chains to be compared to one another. (Para. 0060, 0183, and 0259, To determine the best match chain, Rate Distortion Optimization is used to compare each chain, hence discarding a chain for a better one is a common practice. Chains need to be compared to other chains to determine the best chain.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vosoughi’s Texture Blocks to incorporate Mammou’s Subdivide Mesh Chains. Since doing so would provide the benefit of improving compression efficiently for the meshes. (Mammou, Para. 0003)
Regarding claim 13, Vosoughi fails to teach the method of claim 10, wherein the iterative selection selects the best match chains.
However, Mammou teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the iterative selection selects the best match chains. (Para. 0060, 0183, and 0259, The best chain is selected based on the Rate Distortion Optimization.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vosoughi’s Texture Blocks to incorporate Mammou’s Subdivided Mesh Chains. Since doing so would provide the benefit of improving compression efficiently for the meshes. (Mammou, Para. 0003)
Regarding claim 14, has similar limitations as of claim 1 therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, has similar limitations as of claim 2 therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2.
Regarding claim 16, has similar limitations as of claim 3 therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3.
Regarding claim 17, has similar limitations as of claim 4, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4.
Regarding claim 18, has similar limitations as of claim 5, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5.
Regarding claim 19, has similar limitations as of claim 7, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7.
Regarding claim 20, Vosoughi teaches a method of providing a virtual environment (Virtual Reality, Para. 0022) in connection with a computing system (Electronic Device 220, Para. 0027), the method comprising:
retrieving an encoded texture (Point Cloud) from a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, the texture (Point Cloud) having been encoded using the method of claim 14; (Para. 0089 and 0027, Fig. 2)
and providing the encoded texture to at least one processor of the computing system (Electronic Device 220, Para. 0027) for decoding of the texture and use of the decoded texture in the virtual environment. (Para. 0027, 0089, and 0114)
Regarding claim 21, has similar limitations as of claim 20, therefore it is rejected under the same rational as claim 20.
Regarding claim 22, Vosoughi teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause a computer to perform operations corresponding to the method of claim 1. (Para. 0089)
Regarding claim 23, has similar limitations as of claim 22, therefore it is rejected under the same rational as claim 22.
Regarding claim 24, has similar limitations as of claim 22, therefore it is rejected under the same rational as claim 22.
Regarding system claim 25, Vosoughi in view of Mammou disclose the method of claim 1 and a data store (Para. 0027) storing a texture and a memory and at least one processor (Para. 0089) configured to perform operations of claim 1. Therefore claim 25 is rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
Regarding claim 26, has similar limitations as of claim 2, therefore it is rejected under the same rational as claim 2.
Regarding claim 27, has similar limitations as of claim 4, therefore it is rejected under the same rational as claim 4.
Regarding claim 28, Vosoughi in view of Mammou disclose the method of claim 5 and a user interface (Electronic Display 4302 and Electronic Device 4300, Para. 0648) configured to receive input of claim 5. Therefore claim 28 is rejected under the same rational as claim 5.
Regarding claim 29, has similar limitations as of claim 7, therefore it is rejected under the same rational as claim 7.
Regarding claim 30, Vosoughi teaches a computing system (Electronic Device 220, Para. 0027 via which a virtual environment (Virtual Reality, Para. 0022) is displayable, the system comprising:
a memory coupled to one or more processors configured to perform operations comprising: (Para. 0089, Para. 0027)
retrieving an encoded texture from a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, the texture (Point Cloud) having been encoded using the method of claim 14; (Para. 0089 and 0027, Fig. 2)
and providing the encoded texture (Point Cloud) to at least one of the one or more processors of the computing system (Electronic Device 220, Para. 0027) for decoding of the texture and use of the decoded texture in the virtual environment. (Para. 0027, 0089, and 0114)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIANNA R COCHRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4671. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at (571) 272-2330. 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.
/BRIANNA RENAE COCHRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2615
/ALICIA M HARRINGTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2615