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 .
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 1-20 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.
Independent claims 1, 8 and 15 each first recite “an asymmetric mesh…determin(ing) one or more sub-meshes in the asymmetric mesh” then recite “determin(ing) a symmetry plane for the first sub-mesh when the first sub-mesh is symmetric.” The claim recites there is an asymmetric mesh, but then says that there is a symmetry plane in the asymmetric mesh which makes it symmetric. Thus, the claims are unclear as to whether the claimed asymmetric mesh is actually asymmetric or symmetric.
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are rejected due to their dependency from the independent claims, respectively.
For examination purposes, the examiner will interpret that the claimed “asymmetric mesh” is just a portion of the input mesh that has a symmetry plane that is different than the global symmetry plane [even though the claims do not recite they are different].
Further, claims 4, 11 and 18 are also rejected because the claims recite “signaling a number of sub-meshes that have associated transformation information” however, claim 1 gives the option of there only being one determined sub-mesh, so it is unclear how there can later be a number of sub-meshes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Simari et al. ("Folding meshes: hierarchical mesh segmentation based on planar symmetry.").
Regarding claim 1, Simari et al. disclose a method for mesh coding, the method being executed by at least one processor, the method comprising:
partitioning an input mesh into a symmetric mesh and an asymmetric mesh using a global symmetry plane (Figure 1(a), for example, shows an original input mesh, where Figure 1(b), for example, shows that a global symmetry plane is used to partition the mesh into a symmetric mesh comprising the two sides of the plane and each individual portion on either side of the global plane are each asymmetric meshes. See Section 3: Symmetric Region Detection, and section 4.2, first paragraph.);
determining one or more sub-meshes in the asymmetric mesh (Figure 4, in half of the dinosaur in Figure 1, i.e. the half being the asymmetric mesh, half of upper body, half leg and leg are detected, i.e. sub-meshes. See also Figure 7.);
for a first sub-mesh in the asymmetric mesh, determining whether the first sub-mesh is symmetric (Figure 7 and section 5, 3rd paragraph. Local symmetry planes are used to determine symmetry.);
determining a symmetry plane for the first sub-mesh when the first sub-mesh is symmetric (Figure 7 and section 5, 3rd paragraph.);
determining transformation information for the first sub-mesh, wherein the transformation information is used for aligning the symmetry plane of the first sub-mesh with the global symmetry plane (Figure 4 and 6, and Figures 5(c) and 5(d), and Table 1 show that the local symmetry plans and the global symmetry plane are aligned, where the information about the trees used is in Table 1, and this information is used in the reconstruction and thus the alignment of the planes as shown in Figure 6.); and
signaling the transformation information (The information in Table 1 is “signaled” in the report by the Matlab 7 implementation. See the explanation under Table 1.).
Regarding claim 3, Simari et al. disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: coding the first sub-mesh as a part of the symmetric mesh instead of the asymmetric mesh (As explained above, the asymmetric mesh is symmetric, and is part of the entire mesh in Figure 1, where the entire mesh is symmetric and thus the first sub-mesh is coded as symmetric.).
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.
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.
Claims 8, 10, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simari et al. ("Folding meshes: hierarchical mesh segmentation based on planar symmetry.") in view of Sunkavalli et al. (US 10,573,040).
Regarding claim 8, please refer to the rejection of claim 1, and furthermore while Simari et al. disclose of program code (See the first paragraph under section 5. Results), Simari et al. fail to explicitly teach an apparatus for mesh compression, the apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store the program code; and at least one processor configured to read the program code and operate as instructed by the program code.
Sunkavalli et al. an apparatus for mesh compression [intended use limitation in preamble.], the apparatus comprising:
at least one memory configured to store program code (Figure 1, 108); and
at least one processor configured to read the program code and operate as instructed by the program code (Figure 1, 106).
Hence the prior art includes each element claimed although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of the actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In combination Simari et al. performs the same function as it does separately of providing program code, and Sunkavalli et al. performs the same function as it does separately of providing a processor and a memory for executing program code.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performed the same function as it does separately. The results of the combination would have been predictable and resulted in an apparatus where the program code is stored on a memory and executed by a processor.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3.
Regarding claim 15, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 8.
Regarding claim 17, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4-7, 9, 11-14, 16, 18-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The primary reasons for indicating allowable subject matter in claim 2 is the inclusion of the limitations reciting “wherein the transformation information comprises: a rotation component, wherein the rotation component comprises three Euler angles; and a translation component, wherein the translation component comprises a distance for moving the symmetry plane of the first sub-mesh to the global symmetry plane” which, in combination with the other recited features, is not taught and/or suggested either singularly or in combination within the prior art.
The primary reasons for indicating allowable subject matter in claim 4 is the inclusion of the limitations reciting “wherein the signaling the transformation information comprises: signaling a number of sub-meshes that have associated transformation information; signaling, for each sub-mesh that has associated transformation information, a sub-mesh ID in the symmetric mesh; and signaling the transformation information” which, in combination with the other recited features, is not taught and/or suggested either singularly or in combination within the prior art.
The primary reasons for indicating allowable subject matter in claim 5 is the inclusion of the limitations reciting “wherein when the symmetry plane of the first sub-mesh is parallel to a cardinal plane, the transformation information comprises: parallel plane index that indicates whether the symmetry plane of the first sub-mesh is parallel to XY plane, YZ plane, or XZ plane; and a translation component, wherein the translation component comprises a distance for moving the symmetry plane of the first sub-mesh to the global symmetry plane” which, in combination with the other recited features, is not taught and/or suggested either singularly or in combination within the prior art.
Claims 6-7 are indicated as having allowable subject matter due to their dependency from claim 5.
Claim 9 is indicated as having allowable subject matter for the same reasons as claim 2 above.
Claim 11 is indicated as having allowable subject matter for the same reasons as claim 4 above.
Claim 12 is indicated as having allowable subject matter for the same reasons as claim 5 above.
Claims 13-14 are indicated as having allowable subject matter due to their dependency from claim 12.
Claim 16 is indicated as having allowable subject matter for the same reasons as claim 2 above.
Claim 18 is indicated as having allowable subject matter for the same reasons as claim 4 above.
Claim 19 is indicated as having allowable subject matter for the same reasons as claim 5 above.
Claim 20 is indicated as having allowable subject matter due to its dependency from claim 19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN G SHERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2941. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 4pm ET.
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, AMR AWAD can be reached at (571)272-7764. 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.
/STEPHEN G SHERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
5 June 2026
Prosecution Insights