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 .
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because Figs. 7-10, 12, and 15 have blurry, indistinguishable text. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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)(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 36-39, 41-44, 46-49, and 51-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mammou et al. (US 2023/0290008; hereinafter “Mammou”).
Regarding claim 36, Mammou discloses An apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code; wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to (“the processor core complex may execute instructions stored in local memory,” para. 646): decode, for a frame of three-dimensional object data, a base mesh of the three-dimensional object data (“using a selected mesh decoder to produce a reconstructed quantized base mesh,” para. 4), wherein the base mesh has been generated with a geometry component (“the 3D textured mesh being defined by … geometry,” para. 3); and decode, for the frame, a displacement field, where the displacement field comprises wavelet encoded and/or quantized position displacements (“performing an inverse wavelet transform ... to produce a decoded displacement field,” para. 7).
Regarding claim 37, Mammou discloses decode, for the frame, an attribute component comprising texture information (“decoding the compressed attribute bitstream,” para. 7; “An example of attribute would be texture information,” para. 154).
Regarding claim 38, Mammou discloses decode the base mesh where the base mesh has been generated further with occupancy component (Fig. 1 illustrates “Reconstructed Occupancy Map” and “Occupancy Substream”).
Regarding claim 39, Mammou discloses where the wavelet encoded and/or quantized position displacements comprise where a wavelet transform is an identity or none transform (“Selectively disabling quantization of wavelets coefficients,” para. 119; “disabling … quantization,” para. 130).
Regarding claims 41-44, they are rejected using the same citations and rationales described in the rejections of claims 36-39, respectively.
Regarding claim 46, Mammou discloses An apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code; wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to (“the processor core complex may execute instructions stored in local memory,” para. 646): generate a base mesh of the three-dimensional object data (“generate base mesh,” para. 4), wherein the base mesh is generated with geometry component (“the 3D textured mesh being defined by … geometry,” para. 3); and generate a displacement field, where the displacement field comprises wavelet encoded and/or quantized position displacements (“performing a wavelet transform on the updated displacement field,” para. 4).
Regarding claims 47-49, they are rejected using the same citations and rationales described in the rejections of claims 37-39, respectively.
Regarding claims 51-54, they are rejected using the same citations and rationales described in the rejections of claims 36-39, respectively.
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 40, 45, 50, and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mammou in view of Sheng et al. (CN 113591964; hereinafter “Sheng”; machine translation used for citations).
Regarding claim 40, Mammou discloses wherein the base mesh of the three-dimensional object data and the displacement field has been generated based upon input meshes for a frame of the three-dimensional object data (“A static/dynamic mesh can be represented as a set of 3D Meshes,” para. 56).
Mammou does not disclose wherein the input meshes comprise a mesh file and a material file.
In the same art of mesh representation, Sheng teaches wherein the input meshes comprise a mesh file and a material file (“The geometry folder includes … Mesh files … Material files,” para. 6).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Sheng to Mammou. The motivation would have been that it “facilitates unified information … and improves the efficiency” (Sheng, para. 3).
Regarding claims 45, 50, and 55, they are rejected using the same citations and rationales described in the rejection of claim 40.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan McCulley whose telephone number is (571)270-3754. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Kee Tung can be reached at (571) 272-7794. 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.
/RYAN MCCULLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights