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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed January 19, 2026, with respect to claims 1, 2, 19, 20 and 21 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claims 1, 2, 19, 20 and 21 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments additional arguments, filed January 19, 2026, have been noted; however, these arguments are moot in view of a new ground of rejection discussed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 13, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28 and 29 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salahieh et al. (“Test Model 10 for MPEG
Immersive Video,” International Organization for Standardization (ISO), ISO/IEC
JTC 1/SC 29/WG 04, MPEG Video Coding, N0112, July 2021, pp. 1-54, already of
record, referred to herein as “Salahieh”) in view of Song et al. (US 2016/0041524 A1, already of record, referred to herein as “Song”) and Pesonen et al. (US 2021/0241496 A1, referred to herein as “Pesonen”).
Regarding claim 1, Salahieh discloses: A method, comprising reconstructing… from a multiple plane
image (Salahieh: page 33, section 4.6, disclosing multi-plane coding), wherein reconstructing… comprises:
decoding data representative of at least one patch of at least one layer of the multiple plane image (Salaheih:
page 8, disclosing an encoding process of separating views into entity layers and generating patches;
pages 33-34, section 4.6.1, disclosing multi-plane image encoding; Fig. 34, page 40, section 5.1.2,
disclosing decoding of patch data; page 49, section 5.6, disclosing multi-plane decoding/rendering),
the data comprising a first location for placing the at least one patch in a first image of the multiple plane image (Salaheih: page 32, section 4.4.4.2, disclosing packing of sub-stream components; pages 33-34, section 4.6.1, disclosing multi-plane image coding with patches placed at locations in the multi-plane image), the first location being used for placing reconstructed content of the at least one patch in a 3D scene (Salaheih: pages 41-42, sections 5.2.1-5.2.3, Fig. 36, disclosing use of reconstructed content of the patch in a 3D scene);
[…]; and
determining for the at least one patch… a second location for placing the at least one patch in a second image
(Salaheih: pages 41-42, section 5.2.3, Fig. 36, disclosing patches copied to proper position in a view
image), the second image having a reduced size with respect to the first image (Salaheih: pages 30-31, sections 4.4.2-4.4.3, disclosing geometry and occupancy downscaling; page 46, section 5.4.2.1 and page 47, section 5.4.2.3, disclosing parameters—including scaling and stretch—for target view images—e.g.,
including a second image)…
Salaheih does not explicitly disclose: reconstructing a computer-generated hologram and images
being intended to be used for determining the computer-generated hologram and determining metadata associated with the data representative of the at least one patch and determining patch location based on the metadata associated with the data representative of the at least one patch.
However, Song discloses: reconstructing a computer-generated hologram and images being intended
to be used for determining the computer-generated hologram (Song: Fig. 1, paragraphs [0055] – [0059] and
[0136], disclosing use of image data to generate a 3D hologram of an object; paragraph [0142],
disclosing that the holographic generation may be done via a computer).
At the time the application was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person
having ordinary skill in the art to use the computer-generated hologram of Song in the method of
Salaheih.
One would have been motivated to modify Salaheih in this manner in order to present 3D
data to a user (Song: paragraphs [0003] – [0009]).
Salaheih and Song do not explicitly disclose: determining metadata associated with the data representative of the at least one patch and determining patch location based on the metadata associated with the data representative of the at least one patch.
However, Posenen discloses: determining metadata associated with the data representative of the at least one patch and determining patch location based on the metadata associated with the data representative of the at least one patch (Posenen: paragraph [0075], disclosing that metadata may be associated with patches and sub patches and may include information for indicating a patch location).
At the time the application was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the metadata of Posenen in the method of Salaheih and Song.
One would have been motivated to modify Salaheih and Song in this manner in order to better signal information used in 3D video coding involving patch information (Posenen: paragraphs [0002]-[0014]).
Regarding claim 2, Salaheih, Song, and Posenen disclose: An apparatus comprising one or more processors configured for reconstructing a computer-generated hologram from a multiple plane image (Salahieh: page 33, section 4.6, disclosing multi-plane coding; Song: Fig. 1, paragraphs [0055] – [0059] and [0136],
disclosing use of image data to generate a 3D hologram), wherein being configured for reconstructing the
computer-generated hologram comprises being configured for:
decoding data representative of at least one patch of at least one layer of the multiple plane image (Salaheih:
page 8, disclosing an encoding process of separating views into entity layers and generating patches;
pages 33-34, section 4.6.1, disclosing multi-plane image encoding; Fig. 34, page 40, section 5.1.2,
disclosing decoding of patch data; page 49, section 5.6, disclosing multi-plane decoding/rendering),
the data comprising a first location for placing the at least one patch in a first image of the multiple plane image (Salaheih: page 32, section 4.4.4.2, disclosing packing of sub-stream components; pages 33-34, section 4.6.1, disclosing multi-plane image coding with patches placed at locations in the multi-plane image), the first location being used for placing reconstructed content of the at least one patch in a 3D scene (Salaheih: pages 41-42, sections 5.2.1-5.2.3, Fig. 36, disclosing use of reconstructed content of the patch in a 3D scene);
determining metadata associated with the data representative of the at least one patch (Posenen: paragraph [0075], disclosing that metadata may be associated with patches and sub patches); and
determining for the at least one patch, based on the metadata associated with the data representative of the at least one patch, a second location for placing the at least one patch in a second image (Salaheih: pages 41-42, section 5.2.3, Fig. 36, disclosing patches copied to proper position in a view image; Posenen: paragraph [0075], disclosing that metadata may include information for indicating a patch location), the second image having a reduced size than the first image (Salaheih: pages 30-31, sections 4.4.2-4.4.3, disclosing geometry and occupancy downscaling; page 46, section 5.4.2.1 and page 47, section 5.4.2.3, disclosing parameters—including scaling and stretch—for target view images—e.g., including a second image) and being intended to be used for determining the computer-generated hologram (Song: Fig. 1, paragraphs [0055] – [0059] and [0136], disclosing use of image data to generate a 3D hologram of an object; paragraph [0142], disclosing that the holographic generation may be done via a computer).
The motivation for combining Salaheih, Song, and Posenen has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 3, Salaheih Song, and Posenen disclose: The apparatus of claim 2, wherein at least one of a width or height of the second image is smaller than a respective width or height of the first image (Salaheih: page 46, section 5.4.2.1 and page 47, section 5.4.2.3, disclosing parameters—including scaling and stretch—for target view images—e.g., including a second image).
Regarding claim 4, Salaheih, Song, and Posenen disclose: The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the meta data associated with the data representative of the at least one patch comprises at least one syntax element associated with the patch, the at least one syntax element being representative of the second location (Salaheih: page 4, disclosing use of syntax to signal coding parameters; page 24, disclosing use of flags to signal patch data; Posenen: paragraph [0075], disclosing that metadata may be associated with patches and sub patches and may include information for indicating a patch location).
The motivation for combining Salaheih, Song, and Posenen has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 5, Salaheih, Song, and Posenen disclose: The apparatus of claim 2, the one or more processors being further configured for:
arranging the at least one patch into said the second image using said the second location (Salaheih: pages
33-34, section 4.6.1, disclosing multi-plane image coding with patches placed at locations in the
multi-plane image; pages 41-42, section 5.2.3, Fig. 36, disclosing patches copied to proper position in
a view image); and
reconstructing the computer-generated hologram based at least on the second image and on the first location of
said the at least one patch (Salaheih: pages 41-42, sections 5.2.1-5.2.3, Fig. 36, disclosing use of reconstructed content of the patch in a 3D scene; Song: Fig. 1, paragraphs [0055] – [0059] and
[0136], disclosing use of image data to generate a 3D hologram of an object;).
The motivation for combining Salaheih, Song, and Posenen has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 9, Salaheih, Song, and Posenen disclose: The method of claim 1, wherein determining the second location comprises: decoding at least one of data indicating areas in the second image wherein patches can be relocated, or data indicating patches that have to be relocated in the second image (Salaheih: pages 41-42, sections 5.2.1-5.2.3, Fig. 36, disclosing use of reconstructed content of the patch in a 3D scene; page 34, section 4.6.1, disclosing use of a decoder to decode multi-plane image data).
Regarding claim 13, Salaheih, Song, and Posenen disclose: The method of claims 1, wherein determining the second location for the at least one patch is based on a grouping of patches of the at least one layer of the multiple plane image in an area that is smaller than an area in which patches of the at least one layer are placed (Salaheih: page 7, section 4.1.1., disclosing group-based coding of view information; pages 30-31, sections 4.4.2-4.4.3, disclosing geometry and occupancy downscaling; page 46, section 5.4.2.1 and page 47, section 5.4.2.3, disclosing parameters—including scaling and stretch—for target view images—e.g., including views smaller than the area).
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 2, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 21, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. (Note that Song discloses implementation via computer-
readable medium in paragraph [0142].)
Regarding claim 22, Salaheih, Song, and Posenen disclose: The method computer readable medium bitstream of claim 21, wherein the at least one item of information comprises at least one of:
data indicating areas in the second image wherein patches can be relocated;
data indicating patches that have to be relocated in the second image;
at least one syntax element associated with the at least one patch, the at least one syntax element being
representative of the second location;
a syntax element indicating a presence of the second location in the bitstream;
a syntax element indicating that pixels of the at least one patch have a constant depth; or
a syntax element indicating whether information for computer-generated hologram reconstruction is present in a bitstream or not (Salaheih: page 34, disclosing use of depth-constant patches; page 24, disclosing use
of flags to signal patch data).
Regarding claim 24, Salaheih, Song, and Posenen disclose: A computer readable storage medium having stored thereon instructions for causing one or more processors to perform the method of any one of claim 1 (Song: paragraph [0142], disclosing implementation via instructions stored on a computer-readable storage medium and associated processors).
The motivation for combining Salaheih, Song, and Posenen has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 26, Salaheih, Song, and Posenen disclose: The apparatus of claim 2, further comprising: at least one of (i) an antenna configured to receive a signal, the signal including data representative of at least one patch of at least one layer of a multiple plane image, the data comprising a first location for placing the at least one patch in a first image of the multiple plane image, the first location being used for placing reconstructed content of said the at least one patch in a 3D scene, (ii) a band limiter configured to limit the signal to a band of frequencies that includes the data representative of at least one patch of at least one layer of a multiple plane image, or (iii) a display configured to display the computer-generated hologram (Song: paragraphs [0140] and [0144], disclosing use of a display to display a computer-generated hologram).
The motivation for combining Salaheih, Song, and Posenen has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 27, Salaheih, Song, and Posenen disclose: The apparatus of device according to claim 26, wherein the display is a holographic display (Song: paragraphs [0140] and [0144], disclosing use of a display to display a computer-generated hologram).
The motivation for combining Salaheih, Song, and Posenen has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 28, Salaheih, Song, and Posenen disclose: The apparatus of claim 26, comprising a television, a cell phone, a tablet or a set top box (Song: paragraph [0141], disclosing a TV for generating holographic data).
The motivation for combining Salaheih, Song, and Posenen has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 29, Salaheih, Song, and Posenen disclose: An The apparatus of claim 20 further comprising: an accessing unit configured to access data comprising a signal that includes a computer readable medium according to claim 21; and a transmitter configured to transmit the data (Song: paragraph [0130], disclosing an
input/output unit that can execute a computer program and transmit received information).
The motivation for combining Salaheih, Song, and Posenen has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14 and 15 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 6, 7, 8 and 11, Salaheih, either alone or in combination with other prior art
of record, does not teach, suggest, or disclose determining a separation value between patches in the
second image, the separation value being based on at least one characteristic of at least one display
used for displaying the computer-generated hologram.
Regarding claim 12, Salaheih, either alone or in combination with other prior art of record,
does not teach, suggest, or disclose propagating the second image to a hologram plane, the second
image having a same depth as the first image of the multiple plane images; and arranging, in the
computer-generated hologram, propagated data corresponding to the at least one patch using the
first location of the at least one patch.
Regarding claim 14, Salaheih, either alone or in combination with other prior art of record,
does not teach, suggest, or disclose where the grouping of patches takes into account a surrounding area of each patch wherein patches shall not overlap, the surrounding area corresponding to a propagation zone determined when reconstructing a computer-generated hologram from the
patches of the at least one layer.
Regarding claim 15, Salaheih, either alone or in combination with other prior art of record,
does not teach, suggest, or disclose where the at least one syntax element comprises a horizontal
offset and a vertical offset.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Christopher Braniff whose telephone number is (571)270-5009. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM to 4PM.
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, Thai Tran can be reached at (571) 272-7382. 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.
CHRISTOPHER T. BRANIFF
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2484
/CHRISTOPHER BRANIFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484
Prosecution Insights