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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (“b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as attempting to define a product (i.e., machine or apparatus) entirely by virtue of its function, in the absence of any recited structure. Products must distinguish over the prior art in terms of their structure (or structure + structure's function when claimed functionally) rather than function alone (MPEP 2114). Therefore, an "apparatus/device" not having structural limitations fails to "particularly point out and distinctly claim " the invention in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112 (“b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. The examiner suggests amending the claim by deleting the intended use language "capable of" and replacing it with "arranged to or configured to".
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)(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 1 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mammou, et al. (US 11,450,030 B2. Please note, due to the very broad formulation of claims 1, 11, and 19 their subject matter is disclosed by a plurality of documents. For procedural efficiency, the examiner has focused the search to prior art that discloses further to independent claims).
With regard to claim 1, Mammou, et al. disclose a decoding method (See for example, Fig. 16), comprising: decoding, by a decoder, an obtained bitstream, i.e., compressed bit stream, of a target three-dimensional mesh to obtain geometry information and a connectivity of the target three-dimensional mesh (See for example, col. 75, lines 3-27); and performing, by the decoder, decoding based on the geometry information and the connectivity to obtain texture coordinates of a vertex in the target three-dimensional mesh (See for example, col. 75, lines 27-44). Thus, each of the requirements of claim 1 is met.
Claim 19 is rejected the same as claim 1 except claim 19 is directed to an apparatus claim. Thus, argument analogous to that presented above for claim 1 is applicable to claim 19. Applicant’s attention is further invited to Figure 19 and the associated text.
Claims 11 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park, et al. (US 2024/0338857 A1).
With regard to claim 11, Park, et al. disclose an encoding method, comprising: reconstructing, by an encoder, geometry information and a connectivity (reconstructed based the reconstructed geometric data) of a target three-dimensional mesh based on an encoding result for the geometry information and the connectivity of the target three-dimensional mesh; and encoding, by the encoder, texture coordinates of a vertex in the target three-dimensional mesh based on reconstructed geometry information and a reconstructed connectivity (See for example, paragraphs 0704-0708). Thus, each of the requirements of claim 11 is met.
With regard to claim 20, an encoding device, comprising a processor and a memory, wherein the memory stores a program or instructions capable of running on the processor, and when the program or instructions are executed by the processor, the steps of the encoding method according to claim 11 are implemented (See for example, paragraph 0738).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10 and 12-18 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent No. 12,493,993 B2; US Application Publication No. 2018/025867 (See for example, Figs. 2-3 and the associated text); Computer English Translation of Chinese Patent No. CN 104094317A (See for example, Figs. 2A and 9 and the associated text); Computer English Translation of Chinese Patent No. CN112017292 A (See for example, pages 8-13); and Váša, et al. (Efficient encoding of texture coordinates guided by mesh geometry) (See entire document).
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, ANDREW MOYER can be reached at (571)272-9523. 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