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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9-10, 12, 15-16, 18, 21-22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Faramarzi (US 20200286261).
Regarding claim 9, Faramarzi teaches an encoder for encoding three-dimensional (3D) content comprising:
At least one processor (Paragraph 75, memory 360 is coupled to the processor 340);
A memory storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the encoder (Paragraph 61, processor 210 executes instructions that can be stored in a memory) to perform:
Segmenting a mesh representative of the 3D content into segments (Paragraph 79, segment the vertices into multiple segments that form the patches that are presented in the 2D frame, via a point cloud encoder);
Processing each segment to sort faces and vertex indices within each segment (Paragraph 82, An edge, such as the edge 404, is a connection between two of the vertices 400a. The edges represent the connectivity information of a mesh as they connect one vertex to another vertex. FIG. 4C illustrates the faces 400c. A face, such as the face 406, is a set of edges that when closed form a polygon. A face can represent connectivity information of a mesh as it is formed by connecting multiple vertices together; Paragraph 97, The mesh file 480, which describes a mesh, includes a header 482, vertex information 484, and face information 486);
Generating a connectivity information frame for each processed segment (Paragraph 127, The new index relates the connectivity information 514 that specifies the vertices that form each face of the mesh (which is based on the vertex coordinates and attribute information 513 and the mesh 505) to the reconstructed vertices; Paragraph 113, The bitstreams can include two separate bitstreams that are multiplexed together such as the connectivity information and the vertex coordinates and attribute(s)); and
Encoding the connectivity information frames based on a video codec (Paragraph 165, frames are encoded using the encoding engines… The encoding engine 630 can be a video or image codec).
Regarding claim 10, Faramarzi teaches the encoder of claim 9, wherein the mesh representative of the 3D content is segmented based on objects, regions of interest, volumetric tiles, or semantic blocks associated with the 3D content (Paragraph 79, A patch can represent a single aspect of the mesh, such as geometry (a geometric position of a vertex), or an attribute such as color, reflectance, and the like) that are associated with a vertex).
Regarding claim 12, Faramarzi teaches the encoder of claim 9, wherein the faces are sorted in an ascending order and, for each face, the vertex indices are sorted in a descending order (Paragraph 127, The new index relates the connectivity information 514 that specifies the vertices that form each face of the mesh (which is based on the vertex coordinates and attribute information 513 and the mesh 505) to the reconstructed vertices 539a; Paragraph 134, the reverse order of the vertex traversal map 545b is transmitted to the decoder 550. As illustrated, if the vertex order was (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7), the vertex traversal map 545b may be (1, 3, 7, 6, 2, 4, 5)).
Regarding claim 15, Faramarzi teaches a decoder for decoding three-dimensional (3D) content comprising:
At least one processor (Paragraph 75, memory 360 is coupled to the processor 340);
A memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the decoder (Paragraph 61, processor 210 executes instructions that can be stored in a memory) to perform:
Extracting a video frame from a video, wherein the video frame includes connectivity information associated with the 3D content (Paragraph 113, The point cloud decoder can decode multiple frames such as the geometry frame, the one or more attribute frames, and the occupancy map. The connectivity decoder decodes the connectivity information); and
Reconstructing the 3D content based on the connectivity information (Paragraph 113, reconstructs the mesh from the multiple frames and the connectivity information), wherein the connectivity information comprises:
Segments representing the 3D content (Paragraph 118, the point cloud encoder 520 segments the vertex coordinates (geometry) into patches); and
Sorted faces and vertex indices within each segment (Paragraph 118, the point cloud encoder 520 encodes the vertices in the order that they are packed into the frames, which can be different than the order of the connectivity information 514).
Method claim 21 corresponds to system claim 15. Therefore, claim 21 is rejected for the same reasons as used above.
Regarding claim 16, Faramarzi teaches the decoder of claim 15, wherein the 3D content comprises a mesh segmented based on objects, regions of interest, volumetric tiles, or semantic blocks associated with the 3D content (Paragraph 79, A patch can represent a single aspect of the mesh, such as geometry (a geometric position of a vertex), or an attribute such as color, reflectance, and the like) that are associated with a vertex).
Method claim 22 corresponds to system claim 16, Therefore, claim 22 is rejected for the same reasons as used above.
Regarding claim 18, Faramarzi teaches the decoder of claim 15, wherein the faces are sorted in an ascending order and, for each face, the vertex indices are sorted in a descending order (Paragraph 127, The new index relates the connectivity information 514 that specifies the vertices that form each face of the mesh (which is based on the vertex coordinates and attribute information 513 and the mesh 505) to the reconstructed vertices 539a; Paragraph 134, the reverse order of the vertex traversal map 545b is transmitted to the decoder 550. As illustrated, if the vertex order was (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7), the vertex traversal map 545b may be (1, 3, 7, 6, 2, 4, 5)).
Method claim 24 corresponds to system claim 18, Therefore, claim 24 is rejected for the same reasons as used above.
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 11, 13, 17, 19, 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faramarzi in view of Hemmer (US 20200265611).
Regarding claim 11, Faramarzi teaches the encoder of claim 9. While Faramarzi fails to disclose the following, Hemmer teaches:
Wherein generating the connectivity information frame comprises: transforming one dimensional (1D) connectivity components associated with each processed segment to two-dimensional (2D) connectivity coding sample arrays (Paragraph 158, The LOD data 1250, as mentioned above, is generated from a sequence of mesh LODs (i.e., Mesh(1), Mesh(2), . . . , Mesh(N)). For each mesh LOD of the sequence, a set of texture LODs are combined with that mesh LOD to form a respective column as shown in FIG. 12. As shown in FIG. 12, there are N mesh LODs and M texture image LODs).
Hemmer and Faramarzi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of 3D image coding. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Faramarzi to incorporate the teachings of Hemmer and transform 1D connectivity components into 2D arrays. Doing so would have allowed for more efficient calculation when optimizing a cost function (Hemmer, Paragraph 159).
Regarding claim 13, Faramarzi teaches the encoder of claim 9. While Faramarzi fails to disclose the following, Hemmer teaches:
Wherein the vertex indices are sorted by rotating the faces, wherein valid rotations of the faces preserve normals of the faces (Paragraph 41, the connectivity data 136 includes triplets of integer indices for each corner of each triangular face of the mesh, each of the triplets including an index identifier of an associated vertex, an index identifier of an opposite corner, and an index identifier of an adjacent corner. The triplets are arranged in an order for traversal of the mesh).
Hemmer and Faramarzi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of 3D image coding. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Faramarzi to incorporate the teachings of Hemmer and sort vertex indices by rotating faces where the face normal are preserved. Doing so would have allowed for storage of the connectivity information that would allow for efficient reconstruction without losing normal/perpendicular orientation.
Regarding claim 17, Faramarzi teaches the decoder of claim 15. While Faramarzi fails to disclose the following, Hemmer teaches:
Wherein the connectivity information comprises two-dimensional (2D) connectivity coding sample arrays based on one-dimensional (1D) components of mesh frames associated with the 3D content (Paragraph 158, The LOD data 1250, as mentioned above, is generated from a sequence of mesh LODs (i.e., Mesh(1), Mesh(2), . . . , Mesh(N)). For each mesh LOD of the sequence, a set of texture LODs are combined with that mesh LOD to form a respective column as shown in FIG. 12. As shown in FIG. 12, there are N mesh LODs and M texture image LODs).
Hemmer and Faramarzi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of 3D image coding. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Faramarzi to incorporate the teachings of Hemmer and transform 1D connectivity components into 2D arrays. Doing so would have allowed for more efficient calculation when optimizing a cost function (Hemmer, Paragraph 159).
Method claim 23 corresponds to system claim 17, Therefore, claim 23 is rejected for the same reasons as used above.
Regarding claim 19, Faramarzi teaches the decoder of claim 15. While Faramarzi fails to disclose the following, Hemmer teaches:
Wherein the vertex indices are sorted based on rotations of the faces, wherein valid rotations of the faces preserve normals of the faces (Paragraph 41, the connectivity data 136 includes triplets of integer indices for each corner of each triangular face of the mesh, each of the triplets including an index identifier of an associated vertex, an index identifier of an opposite corner, and an index identifier of an adjacent corner. The triplets are arranged in an order for traversal of the mesh).
Hemmer and Faramarzi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of 3D image coding. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Faramarzi to incorporate the teachings of Hemmer and sort vertex indices by rotating faces where the face normal are preserved. Doing so would have allowed for storage of the connectivity information that would allow for efficient reconstruction without losing normal/perpendicular orientation.
Method claim 25 corresponds to system claim 19, Therefore, claim 25 is rejected for the same reasons as used above.
Claims 14, 20, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faramarzi in view of Kim (US 20210250576).
Regarding claim 14, Faramarzi teaches the encoder of claim 9. While Faramarzi fails to disclose the following, Kim teaches:
Wherein the connectivity information frames are divided into blocks and the blocks are divided into connectivity coding units (CCUs) (Paragraph 106, The block division unit may divide into blocks of various units and sizes. The basic coding unit (or maximum coding unit. Coding Tree Unit. CTU) may refer to a basic (or starting) unit for prediction, transform, quantization, and so on in an image encoding/decoding process).
Kim and Faramarzi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of 3D image coding. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Faramarzi to incorporate the teachings of Kim and divide the connectivity information frames into blocks and further divide those into connectivity coding units. Doing so would have allowed for organized storage of the connectivity information that would allow for efficient reconstruction.
Regarding claim 20, Faramarzi teaches the decoder of claim 15. While Faramarzi fails to disclose the following, Kim teaches:
Wherein the connectivity information are in connectivity information frames, the connectivity information frames divided into blocks, the blocks divided into connectivity coding units (CCUs) (Paragraph 106, The block division unit may divide into blocks of various units and sizes. The basic coding unit (or maximum coding unit. Coding Tree Unit. CTU) may refer to a basic (or starting) unit for prediction, transform, quantization, and so on in an image encoding/decoding process).
Kim and Faramarzi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of 3D image coding. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Faramarzi to incorporate the teachings of Kim and divide the connectivity information frames into blocks and further divide those into connectivity coding units. Doing so would have allowed for organized storage of the connectivity information that would allow for efficient reconstruction.
Method claim 26 corresponds to system claim 20. Therefore, claim 26 is rejected for the same reasons as used above.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Faramarzi and Kim as applied to claims 14, 20, and 26 and further in view of Lee (US 20110046923).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Faramarzi and Kim teaches the method of claim 26. While the combination fails to disclose the following, Lee teaches:
Wherein the connectivity information frames comprise connectivity coding samples representing a differential value between a first face vertex index and a second face vertex index of connectivity information (Paragraph 87, In order to code and/or decode the coded data by using a sharing relationship between the previous face and current face, position information, face direction information and a difference value between two vertex indexes that is not shared are required).
Lee and the combination of Faramarzi and Kim are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of 3D image coding. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Faramarzi and Kim to incorporate the teachings of Lee and store a differential value between a first face vertex and second face vertex as connectivity information. Doing so would have allowed for organized storage of the connectivity information that would allow for efficient reconstruction.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Faramarzi and Kim as applied to claims 14, 20, and 26 and further in view of Oh (US 20220141487).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Faramarzi and Kim teaches the method of claim 26. While the combination fails to disclose the following, Oh teaches:
Wherein the connectivity information frames are decoded based on a video codec (Paragraph 275, a 2D video codec such as HEVC or VVC is used to decode a compressed bitstream), the video codec indicated in a sequence parameter set (Paragraph 442, configuration and metadata information (for sequence parameter sets), a picture parameter set, or a supplemental enhancement information associated with the decoded connectivity information frames (Paragraph 529, parameter information and patch parameters related to point cloud data may be efficiently decoded).
Oh and the combination of Faramarzi and Kim are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of 3D image coding. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Faramarzi and Kim to incorporate the teachings of Oh and decode connectivity information based on a sequence parameter set, a picture parameter set, or supplemental enhancement information. Doing so would have allowed for a commonly known way to decode the connectivity information.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant claims Faramarzi fails to disclose processing faces and vertices within each segment. Examiner disagrees due to Paragraph 97 “The mesh file 480, which describes a mesh, includes a header 482, vertex information 484, and face information 486.” While Faramarzi discloses separating vertices from connectivity information for space efficiency, it also discloses processing mesh information (vertex and face) together in a mesh file. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to use the mesh file along with the previously disclosed teachings of Faramarzi to sort connectivity information. Additionally, if the sorting is able to be completed for the whole mesh, it can be accomplished for segments of the mesh as well.
Applicant claims Faramarzi fails to disclose that the mesh segments do not contain connectivity information. Examiner disagrees due to Paragraph 113 “The bitstreams can include two separate bitstreams that are multiplexed together such as the connectivity information and the vertex coordinates and attribute(s).” While Faramarzi describes the process of separating the vertex information from the connectivity information in order to create data that can be more easily compressed and transmitted, Paragraph 113 describes the process of multiplexing the two different information back together. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to segment a 3D mesh and generate the connectivity information within each segment based on the teachings of Faramarzi.
Applicant claims Faramarzi fails to disclose encoding connectivity information based on a video codec. Examiner disagrees due to Paragraph 48 “encoder that generated and compressed the frames can also encode the connectivity information to generate a second bitstream” and Paragraph 46 “the encoder first generates and then compresses the geometry frames using a 2D video codec such as HEVC.” While Faramarzi explicitly teaches encoding the geometry frames using a video codec, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to encode connectivity information based on a video codec.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Faramarzi to create the encoder of claim 9.
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 SNIGDHA SINHA whose telephone number is (571)272-6618. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 12pm-8pm.
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, Jason Chan can be reached at 571-272-3022. 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.
/SNIGDHA SINHA/Examiner, Art Unit 2619
/JASON CHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2619