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 statements (IDS) submitted on March 6, 2024 and January 20, 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 9, 15, and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 14, 20, and 26 of copending Application No. 18/690,052 (hereinafter referred to as the reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the current application are more broad in scope than those of the reference application.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 compares to claims 9 and 14 of the reference application as indicated below:
Current application (claim 9)
Reference application (claim 9 and 14)
Notes
An encoder for encoding three-dimensional (3D) content comprising: at least one processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the encoder to perform
An encoder for encoding three-dimensional (3D) content comprising: at least one processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the encoder to perform: claim 9)
Verbatim the same.
determining connectivity information of a mesh frame;
segmenting a mesh representative of the 3D content into segments; processing each segment to sort faces and vertex indices within each segment; generating a connectivity information frame for each processed segment;
Current application is more broad
packing the connectivity information of the mesh frame into coding blocks; dividing the coding blocks into connectivity coding units (CCUs) comprising connectivity coding samples
wherein the connectivity information frames are divided into block and the blocks are divided into connectivity coding units (CCUs). (claim 14)
Merely a rewording of the claim language
generating a video connectivity frame associated with the mesh frame based on the coding blocks and the connectivity coding units
segmenting a mesh representative of the 3D content into segments; processing each segment to sort faces and vertex indices within each segment; generating a connectivity information frame for each processed segment;
Current application is more broad
and encoding the video connectivity frame based on a video codec
and encoding the connectivity information frames based on a video codec.
Verbatim the same
The claims of the current application claim the same thing as the reference application. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 compares to claims 15 and 20 of the reference application as indicated below:
Current application (claim 15)
Reference application (claim 15 and 20)
Notes
A decoder for decoding three-dimensional (3D) content comprising: at least one processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the decoder to perform:
A decoder for decoding three-dimensional (3D) content comprising: at least one processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the decoder to perform:
Verbatim the same.
extracting a video frame from a video, wherein the video frame includes connectivity information associated with the 3D content;
extracting a video frame from a video, wherein the video frame includes connectivity information associated with the 3D content;
Verbatim the same
and reconstructing the 3D content based on the connectivity information, wherein the connectivity information is stored in video connectivity frames comprising coding blocks divided into connectivity coding units (CCUs) comprising connectivity coding samples.
and reconstructing the 3D content based on the connectivity information, wherein the connectivity information comprises: segments representing the 3D content; and sorted faces and vertex indices within each segment (claim 15); wherein the connectivity information are in connectivity information frames, the connectivity information frames divided into blocks, the blocks divided into connectivity coding units (CCUs). (claim 20)
Current application is more broad
The claims of the current application claim the same thing as the reference application, in a more broad fashion. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 compares to claims 21 and 26 of the reference application as indicated below:
Current application (claim 21)
Reference application (claim 21 and 26)
Notes
A method for decoding three-dimensional (3D) content comprising:
A method for decoding three-dimensional (3D) content comprising:
Verbatim the same.
extracting a video frame from a video, wherein the video frame includes connectivity information associated with the 3D content;
extracting a video frame from a video, wherein the video frame includes connectivity information associated with the 3D content;
Verbatim the same
and reconstructing the 3D content based on the connectivity information, wherein the connectivity information is stored in video connectivity frames comprising coding blocks divided into connectivity coding units (CCUs) comprising connectivity coding samples.
and reconstructing the 3D content based on the connectivity information, wherein the connectivity information comprises: segments representing the 3D content; and sorted faces and vertex indices within each segment (claim 21); wherein the connectivity information are in connectivity information frames, the connectivity information frames divided into blocks, the blocks divided into connectivity coding units (CCUs). (claim 26)
Current application is more broad
The claims of the current application claim the same thing as the reference application, in a more broad fashion. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
A rejection was considered on each of the dependent claims, but they appears to have different dependencies and therefore, different scopes, than the reference application.
Claim Interpretation
The claim language include a number of limitations that do not have an ordinary and customary meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art. These limitations include “connectivity coding units (CCU)” and “connectivity coding samples”. As per MPEP 2111.01(V), if the claim language includes language that does not ordinary and customary meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art, the Examiner should check the specification to determine whether it provides a meaning to the claim term. If the specification provides a meaning for the claim term, the examiner should use the meaning provided by the specification. In the instant case, since the claim limitations “connectivity coding units (CCU)” and “connectivity coding samples” do not have an ordinary and customary meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art, the Examiner must consult the specification to see if there is a meaning provided in the specification. In paragraphs 0030 and 0031 of the applicant’s specification the applicant provides a meaning to the aforementioned claim limitations:
“[0030] Connectivity Coding Unit (CCU): a square unit of size N x N connectivity coding samples that carry connectivity information.”
“[0031] Connectivity Coding Sample: a coding element of the connectivity information calculated as a difference of elements between a current face and a predictor face.”
Therefore, the Examiner will use these definitions for the claim terms.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-14, 16-20, and 22-28 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.
Claims 9-28 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the non-statutory double patenting rejection(s) set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 9, the primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter is that the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest packing the connectivity information of the mesh frame into coding blocks; dividing the coding blocks into connectivity coding units (CCUs) comprising connectivity coding samples; generating a video connectivity frame associated with the mesh frame based on the coding blocks and the connectivity coding units. In particular, the prior art fails to teach the particular arrangement of the data in each video connectivity frame, in view of the definitions from the specification of “connectivity coding units (CCU)” and “connectivity coding samples”.
As for claims 15 and 21, the primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter is that the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest reconstructing the 3D content based on the connectivity information, wherein the connectivity information is stored in video connectivity frames comprising coding blocks divided into connectivity coding units (CCUs) comprising connectivity coding samples. In particular, the prior art fails to teach the particular arrangement of the data in each video connectivity frame, in view of the definitions from the specification of “connectivity coding units (CCU)” and “connectivity coding samples”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M VILLECCO whose telephone number is (571)272-7319. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6:00 AM-4:00 PM EST.
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.
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.
/JOHN VILLECCO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2661