DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 09/03/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-15 remain pending in the application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/03/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 09/03/2026 have been fully considered and are rendered moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendment.
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.
Claims 1, 6-7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laroche et al., US Patent Application Publication No.: 2018/0253867 A1, hereby Laroche, in view of Marvie et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0386087 A1, hereby Marvie.
Laroche discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Regarding Claims 1, 6-7, and 13, Laroche discloses an encoding/decoding method and encoding/decoding device (Figs. 1-4, 7-9, and 16), comprising:
“encoding connectivity data of vertices for mesh data (Figs. 1-4 and 7-9, and [0096], [0099], [0105], and [0140]-[0141]; see also [0071]-[0084] disclosing encoding/decoding of textured three-dimensional (3D) objects into a bitstream; see also Figs. 8-9, and [0163], [0172]-[0175], [0178]-[0180], and [0185]; see also Fig. 16);
encoding position data of the vertices (Figs. 1-4 and 7-9, and [0096], [0099], [0105], and [0140]-[0141]; see also [0071]-[0084] disclosing encoding/decoding of textured three-dimensional (3D) objects into a bitstream; see also Figs. 8-9, and [0163], [0172]-[0175], [0178]-[0180], and [0185]; see also Fig. 16);
encoding texture coordinate data of the vertices (Figs. 8-9, and [0163], [0172]-[0175], [0178]-[0180], and [0185], disclosing the claimed texture coordinate data encoded based on a coding order for the connectivity data; see also Figs. 1-4 and 7-9, and [0096], [0099], [0105], and [0140]-[0141]; see also [0071]-[0084]; see also Fig. 16); and
encoding normal data of the vertices based on an . . . representation ([0074], disclosing connectivity data and geometry data may be supplemented with other property data including a normal per vertex; Figs. 8-9, and [0163], [0172]-[0175], [0178]-[0180], and [0185], disclosing the claimed texture coordinate data encoded based on a coding order for the connectivity data; see also Figs. 1-4 and 7-9, and [0096], [0099], [0105], and [0140]-[0141]; see also [0071]-[0084]; see also Fig. 16),
wherein the texture coordinate data is encoded based on a coding order for the connectivity data (Figs. 8-9, and [0163], [0172]-[0175], [0178]-[0180], and [0185], disclosing the claimed texture coordinate data encoded based on a coding order for the connectivity data; see also Figs. 1-4 and 7-9, and [0096], [0099], [0105], and [0140]-[0141]; see also [0071]-[0084]; see also Fig. 16), and
wherein a bitstream includes information for representing whether the normal data is encoded based on the . . . representation ([0074], disclosing connectivity data and geometry data may be supplemented with other property data including a normal per vertex; Figs. 8-9, and [0163], [0172]-[0175], [0178]-[0180], and [0185], disclosing the claimed texture coordinate data encoded based on a coding order for the connectivity data; see also Figs. 1-4 and 7-9, and [0096], [0099], [0105], and [0140]-[0141]; see also [0071]-[0084]; see also Fig. 16).”
However, although Laroche does not expressly disclose the claimed normal data associated with octahedral representation, Marvie does expressly disclose the following:
“. . . ; and
encoding normal data of the vertices based on an octahedral representation (Figs. 1-5, 13, 14-15, and 20, and [0070]-[0076], [0090], [0097], and [0104]),
. . . , and
wherein a bitstream includes information for representing whether the normal data is encoded based on the octahedral representation (Figs. 1-5, 13, 14-15, and 20, and [0070]-[0076], [0090], [0097], and [0104]).”
Accordingly, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Laroche and Marvie, to modify the encoding/decoding method and encoding/decoding device of Laroche to use the claimed normal data associated with octahedral representation as in Marvie. The motivation for doing so would have been to create the advantage of providing a flexible compression method, thereby improving coding efficiency (see Marvie, Figs. 1-5, 13, 14-15, and 20, and [0070]-[0076], [0090], [0097], and [0104]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 8-12, and 14-15 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN M WALSH whose telephone number is (571)270-0423. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached at (571) 272-7331. 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.
/KATHLEEN M WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights