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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The limitations “list of border points and segments of border points” recited in line 3 of claim 1 would at least put the reader in doubt because it is unclear whether they both refer to segments of the borders of the patches as described in page 9 of the specification. A similar limitation also occurs in claim 2. Please clarify.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 3 recites the limitation reconstructing three-dimensional meshes of said patches. This limitation is not clear whether "reconstructing three-dimensional meshes of said patches" is a step performed during encoding. Another step of claim 3 also comprises creating a reconstructed point cloud. It is not clear from the wording of the claim how these steps are actually performed with the aim of encoding. A similar limitation also occurs in claim 4. Please clarify.
Claim 3 refers to a method of encoding a mesh model. However, it is not specified how the encoding is achieved, namely which parameters are stored/ transmitted representing the input data. The claim as it reads now is merely a sequence of steps. Please clarify.
Claim 5 is directed to "generating an occupancy map", but the features claimed therein do not result in an occupancy map. In other words, the steps of claim 5, and particularly "indicating intersection points that are within said patches", do not define how the points of the generated occupancy map are to be set. Please clarify.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "reconstructed patches" in line 12. The prior claim language does not refer to reconstruction of patches. Claim 3 recites the limitation "extracting patch border segments of patches" in line 5. The prior claim language does not refer to patches. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
Since claims 6, (7+8), (9+10), and (11+12) depend on claims 1, 2, 3, and 4 respectively, they are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for the same reason set forth above for claims 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Notice re prior art available under both pre-AIA and AIA
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.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Graziosi (Video-Based Dynamic Mesh Coding).
With regard to claim 3, as best understood, Graziosi discloses a method for encoding a mesh model (See for example, Fig. 1), comprising: correcting geometry and topology of a scaled three-dimensional mesh model (See for example, Fig. 1: mesh voxelization); grouping triangles of the mesh into connected components (See for example, Fig. 1: via patch generation: normal calculation, adjacency calculation, and initial segmentation; and section 3.2); refining said connected components (See for example, Fig. 1: Refinement; and section 3.2); extracting patch border segments of patches (See for example, Fig. 1, wherein Vertices (U, V) location + connectivity are extracted; and section 3.2); creating occupancy maps of said patches from said patch border segments (See for example, section 3.4); rasterizing meshes of the connected component of said patches to create depth maps of the patches and depth video frames (See for example, Fig. 1: patch rasterization + V3C image creation, Geometry); reconstructing three-dimensional meshes of said patches from depth maps and said occupancy maps (See for example, Fig. 1: mesh reconstruction; and section 3.5); filling (via zippering algorithm) inter-patch spaces, i.e., gaps, based on said patch border segments and border edge of the reconstructed meshes of the patches (See for example, section 3.5); extracting all vertices of the mesh based on said reconstructed meshes to create a reconstructed point cloud (See for example, Fig. 1: Vertices (U, V); and Point Cloud Reconstruction); coloring, i.e., recoloring, the points of the reconstructed point cloud (See for example, section 3.4); and, using the colored reconstructed point cloud to create attribute video frames (See for example, section 3.4: a recoloring scheme like the one used for point clouds could also be implemented). Thus, each of the requirements of claim 3 is met.
Claim 4 is rejected the same as claim 3 except claim 4 is an apparatus claim. Thus, arguments similar to that presented above for claim 3 is applicable to claim 4. With regard to memory and processor, these features are inherently required by coding/compression scheme for meshes shown in Figure 1.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graziosi (Video-Based Dynamic Mesh Coding) in view of (Text of ISO/IEC FDIS 23090-5 Visual Volumetric Video-based Coding and Video-based Point Cloud Compression) hereinafter “ISO”).
With regard to claim 1, as best understood, Graziosi discloses a method for decoding mesh models (See for example, page 3133, Section 1, second paragraph: “The coded videos with some additional metadata are then transmitted to the decoder, which can reconstruct the volumetric content using the decoded videos and some additional metadata streams.”) comprising: decoding one or more video bitstreams to obtain depth maps and attribute maps (See for example, Fig. 1 Geometry and Attribute; and Page 3135, Section 3.1, second paragraph: On the decoder side, the same decoding procedure, as specified by the V3C standard, can be performed); building meshes of said patches based on occupancy, depth, and attribute maps (See for example, Fig. 1: Mesh Reconstruction; and Section 3.5); and, filling of inter-patch spaces between reconstructed patches and said segments of border points to obtain reconstructed models (See for example, Section 3.5). Graziosi does not expressly call for the above crossed-out limitations. However, ISO discloses further decoding a bitstream containing lists of border points to obtain segments of border points (See for example, page 267: “border point determination”); generating a plurality of lists of adjacent patches based on syntax information (See for example, page 268 “Neighboring patches determination”); obtaining segments of border points of patches from said border points coded in said bitstream and from said lists of adjacent patches (See for example, page 269); generating occupancy maps of said patches using segments of border points of patches (See for example, page 270, wherein a modified occupancy map is generated via Occupancy filtering). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching as taught by ISO into the system of Graziosi, and to do so would at least allow representing the patches using segments of border points, and generate modified occupancy maps of the patches using segments of border points of patches. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Graziosi with ISO to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Claim 2 is rejected the same as claim 1 except claim 2 is an apparatus claim. Thus, argument similar to that presented above for claim 1 is applicable to claim 2. With regard to memory and processor, these features are inherently required by coding/compression scheme for meshes shown in Figure 1.
Claims 5, 7, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graziosi in view of ISO as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Joshi, et al. (US 12,125,249 B2).
With regard to claim 5, Graziosi (as modified by ISO) discloses all of the claimed subject matter as already addressed above in paragraph 11, and incorporated herein by reference. Graziosi (as modified by ISO) does not expressly call for wherein said generating occupancy maps comprises: computing intersection points with border segments of said patches; and, indicating intersection points that are within said patches. However, Joshi, et al. (See for example, Col. 31, lines 54-67) teach this feature. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching as taught by Joshi, et al. into the system of Graziosi, if for no other reason than to compute and indicate intersection points within edge points of the patches. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Graziosi (as modified by ISO) with Joshi, et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Claim 7 is rejected the same as claim 5 except claim 7 is an apparatus claim. Thus, argument similar to that presented above for claim 5 is applicable to claim 7.
Claim 9 is rejected the same as claim 5. Thus, argument similar to that presented above for claim 5 is applicable to claim 9.
Claim 11 is rejected the same as claim 9 except claim 11 is an apparatus claim. Thus, argument similar to that presented above for claim 9 is applicable to claim 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Number 11,373,339 (See entire document); U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0364904 (See for example, Figs. 5-9 and the associated text).
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL G MARIAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7394. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mathew Bella can be reached at (571)272-7778. 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.
/DANIEL G MARIAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675
Prosecution Insights