CTNF 18/828,871 CTNF 79747 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Notice to Applicants This communication is in response to the Application filed on 9/9/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 5-6, 8, 12-13, 15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by US 7,098,916 to Khodakovsky et al. (hereafter, “Khodakovsky”) . With regard to claim 1 Khodakovsky discloses a method for decoding connectivity information of a polygon mesh ( Fig. 2 and 7; col. 4 lines 61-63, col. 9 lines 19-33 ), the method comprising: receiving coded information including a first syntax element of a split vertex incident to a current face that is being processed, the current face being one of a plurality of faces of the polygon mesh ( col. 3 lines 48-56 “a vertex 202a, an edge 204, and a face 206 of a portion 200 of a polygonal mesh. The "connectivity" of a mesh describes the incidences between the topologic elements, and is implied by the topology”; col. 5 lines 28-31 “In FIG. 4A, initialization is accomplished. In one implementation, seed face 402 is selected, and the degree of this face, six, is output in the encoding data stream” ); determining a number of edges between a pivot vertex incident to the current face and another vertex incident to the current face, each of the edges between the pivot vertex and the other vertex being incident to a respective processed face of the plurality of faces ( Fig. 2; col. 3 lines 48-67 “The number of edges incident to a vertex is its "valence." Thus, in FIG. 2, the valence of vertex 208 is four, since there are four edges, identified respectively with numerals 210a, 210b, 210c, and 210d, incident to the vertex. The number of edges incident to a face is its "degree." Thus, in FIG. 2, the valence of face 206 is five, since there are five edges, identified respectively with numerals 202a, 202b, 202c, 202d, and 202e, incident to the face. The "ring" of a vertex is an ordered list of all its incident faces” ); and when the number of edges between the pivot vertex and the other vertex is indicated by the first syntax element, determining that the other vertex is the split vertex and reconstructing the connectivity information of the polygon mesh based on the other vertex incident to the current face being the split vertex ( col. 4 lines 39-49; col. 8 lines 36-51; col. 9 lines 19-33; “a vertex is designated as a split symbol, since the vertex splits the boundary between processed and unprocessed regions into disconnected components. When such a vertex is encountered, in lieu of outputting the valence of the vertex, a split symbol S is output in the encoding stream” ). With regard to claim 5 Khodakovsky discloses wherein one of the processed faces in the plurality of faces comprises multiple vertices and a vertex degree of each of the multiple vertices is determined (Figures 8A & 8B, 9A & 9B; col. 8 lines 58-61 “It is known that vertex 2 was previously visited since it is the current vertex. Vertex 3 is also known to have been visited since it is shared by faces C and D, and face C is known to have already been completely processed”). With regard to claim 6 Khodakovsky discloses wherein the split vertex is an active vertex that is incident to one of the processed faces in the plurality of faces and a face to be processed in the plurality of faces ( col. 8 lines 36-51 “a split symbol S is output in the encoding stream, followed by an index or pointer to the location in the active queue where the vertex already appears.”; col. 9 lines 19-23 “a method of decoding connectivity encoding information for a polygonal mesh representation of an object such as generated through performance of the method of FIG. 3”; col. 11 lines 3-13 and 29-37 ). With regard to claim 8 Khodakovsky discloses a method for encoding connectivity information of a polygon mesh ( Fig. 3, col. 4 lines 1-11 ), the method comprising: determining a number of edges between a pivot vertex incident to a current face that is being processed and a split vertex incident to the current face, each of the edges being incident to a respective processed face of a plurality of faces of the polygon mesh, the current face being one of the plurality of faces of the polygon mesh ( Fig. 2; col. 3 lines 48-67 “The number of edges incident to a vertex is its "valence." Thus, in FIG. 2, the valence of vertex 208 is four, since there are four edges, identified respectively with numerals 210a, 210b, 210c, and 210d, incident to the vertex. The number of edges incident to a face is its "degree." Thus, in FIG. 2, the valence of face 206 is five, since there are five edges, identified respectively with numerals 202a, 202b, 202c, 202d, and 202e, incident to the face. The "ring" of a vertex is an ordered list of all its incident faces” ); encoding, in a connectivity bitstream, a first syntax element of the split vertex indicating the number of the edges between the pivot vertex and the split vertex ( col. 8 lines 36-51 “a split symbol S is output in the encoding stream, followed by an index or pointer to the location in the active queue where the vertex already appears.”; col. 9 lines 19-23 “a method of decoding connectivity encoding information for a polygonal mesh representation of an object such as generated through performance of the method of FIG. 3”; col. 11 lines 3-13 and 29-37 ). With regard to claim 12, claim 12 is rejected same as claim 5 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 5 are equally applicable to claim 12, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 5 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference. With regard to claim 13, claim 13 is rejected same as claim 6 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 6 are equally applicable to claim 13, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 6 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference. With regard to claim 15, claim 15 is rejected same as claim 1 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 1 are equally applicable to claim 15, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 1 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference. With regard to claim 19, claim 19 is rejected same as claim 5 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 5 are equally applicable to claim 19, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 5 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference. With regard to claim 20, claim 20 is rejected same as claim 6 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 6 are equally applicable to claim 20, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 6 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7,098,916 to Khodakovsky et al. (hereafter, “Khodakovsky”) in combination with US 2022/0392115 to Mammou . With regard to claim 2, Khodakovsky teaches the method of claim 1. However, Khodakovsky does not expressly teach wherein the coded information comprises a second syntax element that indicates a position of the current face in a data structure associated with the split vertex, the data structure associated with the split vertex indicating faces incident to the split vertex. Mammou teaches wherein the coded information comprises a second syntax element that indicates a position of the current face in a data structure associated with the split vertex, the data structure associated with the split vertex indicating faces incident to the split vertex (paragraphs [0030, 0039 and 0131-0133]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Khodakovsky’s reference to have coded information include element that indicates a position of the face in a data structure of Mammou’s reference. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to encode information regarding polygon meshes with a higher degree of efficiency, as suggested by Mammou at paragraph [0032]. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Mammou with Khodakovsky to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2. With regard to claims 9 and 16, claims 9 and 16 are rejected same as claim 2 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 2 are equally applicable to claims 9 and 16, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 2 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 3-4, 7, 10-11, 14, and 17-18 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. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the cited art of record fails to teach, disclose or suggest the limitation/feature of “ traversing, from the pivot vertex, each of at least one first edge that is incident to a respective first processed face of the polygon mesh, the at least one first edge being incident to the pivot vertex, the first processed faces including a first one of the processed faces; determining, for each of the at least one first edge, whether the other vertex is connected to the pivot vertex via the respective first edge; and when the other vertex is determined not to be connected to the pivot vertex via any of the at least one first edge, traversing, from a vertex that is incident to one of the at least one first edge, each of at least one second edge that is incident to a respective second processed face of the polygon mesh, the at least one second edge being incident to the vertex, the second processed faces including a second one of the processed faces, and determining, for each of the at least one second edge, whether the other vertex is connected to the vertex that is incident to the one of the at least one first edge via the respective second edge” recited in claims 3, 10, and 17; “wherein the reconstructing the connectivity information of the polygon mesh comprises reconstructing the connectivity information of the polygon mesh using a dual-degree based polygon mesh compression method that uses a sequence of vertex degrees and a sequence of face degrees” in claims 7 and 14. Dependent claims 4, 11 and 18 would be allowable for the same reasons . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2018/01342083 discloses the valence-based encoding of connectivity data of a 3D mesh. A command is generated for each free edge of each vertex traversed and describes the vertex at the other end of the edge. The obtained list of commands is encoded by mapping each command onto a symbol. A mapping table associating commands with a set of respective consecutive numeral symbols is used. The list of symbols is then encoded, separately to the encoding of parameters of the commands. A joint encoding may be used to encode two or more consecutive symbols using a single coding word. A look-up table may be used based on the valence values intrinsically defined by each symbol, in order to give priority to the most frequent valence values (usually around 6). Prior to generating the commands, a vertex may be added to the 3D mesh to artificially fill any hole therein. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEFALI D. GORADIA whose telephone number is (571)272-8958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-6PM, Friday 8AM-12PM. 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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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. SHEFALI D. GORADIA Primary Patent Examiner Art Unit 2676 /SHEFALI D GORADIA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/828,871 Page 2 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/828,871 Page 3 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/828,871 Page 4 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/828,871 Page 5 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/828,871 Page 6 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/828,871 Page 7 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/828,871 Page 8 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/828,871 Page 9 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/828,871 Page 10 Art Unit: 2676
Prosecution Insights