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.
Claim 4 is 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 4 recites the limitation "the tile headers" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 11-14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao (US 2024/0233192 A1, referred to herein as “Cao”) in view of Kondrad et al. (US 2025/0104287 A1, referred to herein as “Kondrad”).
Regarding claim 1, Cao discloses: A non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium storing program instructions that, when executed using one or more computing devices, cause the one or more computing devices to (Cao: paragraphs [0030] – [0031], disclosing implementation via computer-readable storage and associated processing devices):
receive a bitstream for a mesh that has been compressed using video-based dynamic mesh compression (Cao: Fig. 3, paragraph [0064], disclosing reception of a bitstream including a base mesh bitstream; paragraphs [0050] – [0055], disclosing that the bitstream has been compressed using dynamic mesh compression), wherein:
the bitstream comprises a base mesh sub-bitstream comprising encoded mesh information for a base mesh (Cao: Fig. 3, paragraphs [0051] and [0066] – [0067], disclosing that the base mesh bitstream including encoded mesh information);
the bitstream comprises an atlas sub-bitstream comprising displacement values for a plurality of vertices to be included at subdivision location of the base mesh in a reconstructed version of the mesh (Cao: Fig. 3, paragraph [0068], disclosing that the bitstream may include a displacement bitstream; Figs. 4 and 13, paragraphs [0071] – [0075] and [0132] – [0147], disclosing that the displacement bitstream information includes displacement values for vertices included in mesh subdivision of the base mesh; paragraphs [0065] and [0178], disclosing atlas information and associated sub-bitstream); and
the atlas sub-bitstream comprises sub-mesh identifiers for identifying respective sets of the displacement values that correspond to respective ones of a plurality of sub-meshes of the mesh (Cao: paragraphs [0065] and [0178], disclosing use of an atlas sub-stream to signal information; paragraphs [0052] and [0084], disclosing signaling of displacement information—e.g., information that identifies displacement vectors associated with the sub-mesh);
…locate displacement vectors corresponding to a given sub-mesh (Cao: paragraph [0083] – [0084], disclosing that displacement vectors may be used to signal displacement information of a subdivided mesh); and
reconstruct the given sub-mesh of the mesh using at least a portion of the base mesh and the displacement values corresponding to the given sub-mesh (Cao: Fig. 15, paragraphs [0154] – [0160], disclosing use of the displacement information and base mesh to reconstruct the mesh).
Cao does not explicitly disclose: parse the atlas sub-bitstream.
However, Kondrad discloses: parse the atlas sub-bitstream (Kondrad: Fig. 1, paragraph [0034]; Fig. 9, paragraphs [0234], disclosing parsing of the atlas bitstream during base-mesh decoding).
At the time the application was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the atlas stream parsing of Kondrad with the teachings of Cao.
One would have been motivated to modify Cao in this manner in order to promote interoperability by permitting volumetric video data to conform to standardized file formats used by coding devices (Kondrad: paragraph [0003]). Additionally, both Cao and Kondrad are directed to the same field of endeavor, namely, compression of video content using base-mesh coding (Cao: paragraph [0033]; Kondrad: [0002]).
Regarding claim 2, Cao and Kondrad disclose: The non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein: the displacement values are signaled in the atlas sub-bitstream using a patch data unit; and the atlas sub-bitstream comprises information indicating relationships between contents of a given patch data unit and a corresponding sub-mesh included in the base mesh sub-bitstream (Kondrad: paragraphs [0050] – [0054], disclosing use of a patch data unit to signal atlas information corresponding to mesh data in the base mesh stream).
The motivation for combining Cao and Kondrad has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 11, Cao and Kondrad disclose: The non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the sub-mesh identifiers further identify respective sets of attribute values that correspond to the respective ones of the plurality of sub-meshes of the mesh, wherein the program instructions, when executed using the one or more computing devices, further cause the one or more computing devices to: parse the atlas sub-bitstream to locate attribute values corresponding to the given sub-mesh; and render the given sub-mesh of the mesh using the attribute values corresponding to the given sub-mesh (Kondrad: Fig. 9, paragraphs [0234], disclosing parsing of the atlas bitstream during base-mesh decoding; Cao: paragraphs [0047] and [0054] – [0055], disclosing decoding of attribute information corresponding to mesh data).
The motivation for combining Cao and Kondrad has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 12, Cao and Kondrad disclose: The non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the base mesh sub-bitstream further comprises sub-mesh identifiers for respective base meshes to be used for the plurality of sub-meshes of the mesh (Cao: paragraph [0042], disclosing coordinates to identify base mesh information).
Regarding claim 13, Cao and Kondrad disclose: The non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the base mesh sub-bitstream or the atlas sub-bitstream comprises mapping information for mapping sub-mesh IDs to sub-mesh indices used in the base mesh sub-bitstream and/or the atlas sub-bitstream (Cao: paragraphs [0042] and [0060], disclosing mapping of base mesh information and associated index positions).
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 11, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 18, Cao and Kondrad disclose: A non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium storing program instructions that, when executed using one or more computing devices, cause the one or more computing devices to (Cao: paragraphs [0030] – [0031], disclosing implementation via computer-readable storage and associated processing devices):
receive three-dimensional visual content to be encoded using video-based dynamic mesh compression (Cao: Fig. 13, paragraphs [0033] and [0133], disclosing that 3D mesh data is received; Kondrad: paragraph [0073], disclosing encapsulation of the video-based dynamic mesh data); and
generate an encoded bitstream (Cao: paragraphs [0050] – [0055], disclosing that a bitstream has been compressed using dynamic mesh compression) comprising:
a base mesh sub-bitstream comprising encoded mesh information for a base mesh (Cao: Fig. 3, paragraphs [0051] and [0066] – [0067], disclosing that the base mesh bitstream including encoded mesh information);
an atlas sub-bitstream comprising displacement values for a plurality of vertices to be included at subdivision location of the base mesh in a reconstructed version of the mesh (Cao: Fig. 3, paragraph [0068], disclosing that the bitstream may include a displacement bitstream; Figs. 4 and 13, paragraphs [0071] – [0075] and [0132] – [0147], disclosing that the displacement bitstream information includes displacement values for vertices included in mesh subdivision of the base mesh; paragraphs [0065] and [0178], disclosing atlas information and associated sub-bitstream),
wherein the atlas sub-bitstream comprises sub-mesh identifiers for identifying respective sets of the displacement values that correspond to respective ones of a plurality of sub-meshes of the mesh (Cao: paragraphs [0065] and [0178], disclosing use of an atlas sub-stream to signal information; paragraphs [0052] and [0084], disclosing signaling of displacement information—e.g., information that identifies displacement vectors associated with the sub-mesh).
The motivation for combining Cao and Kondrad has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 19, Cao and Kondrad disclose: The non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 18, wherein: the atlas sub-bitstream further comprises attribute values for the mesh; and the sub-mesh identifiers further identify respective sets of the attribute values that correspond to the respective ones of the plurality of sub-meshes of the mesh (Kondrad: Fig. 9, paragraphs [0234], disclosing parsing of the atlas bitstream during base-mesh decoding; Cao: paragraphs [0047] and [0054] – [0055], disclosing decoding of attribute information corresponding to mesh data).
The motivation for combining Cao and Kondrad has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 20, Cao and Kondrad disclose: The non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 18, wherein the base mesh sub-bitstream or the atlas sub-bitstream comprises mapping information for mapping sub-mesh IDs to sub-mesh indices used in the base mesh sub-bitstream and/or the atlas sub-bitstream (Cao: paragraphs [0042] and [0060], disclosing mapping of base mesh information and associated index positions).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5-10 and 15-16 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, Cao, either alone or in combination with other prior art of record, does not teach, suggest, or disclose where the atlas sub-bitstream comprises tile identifiers for tiles of video frames signaled in the atlas sub-bitstream, wherein the tile identifiers further comprise patch data unit information for locating respective patches included in the tiles of the video frames; and the tile identifiers comprise tile headers that indicate for respective ones of the tiles respective ones of the sub-meshes that have patches included in the respective ones of the tiles.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Cao, either alone or in combination with other prior art of record, does not teach, suggest, or disclose where for a given sub-mesh, corresponding displacement values are included in patch data units spanning two or more tiles, and the atlas sub-bitstream indicates a set of patch data units spanning the two or more tiles that are to be concatenated to form a concatenated patch data unit that corresponds to a single sub-mesh.
Regarding claims 7, 8 and 9, Cao, either alone or in combination with other prior art of record, does not teach, suggest, or disclose where the sub-mesh identifiers are included in tile headers of the atlas sub-bitstream and/or frame headers of the atlas sub-bitstream.
Regarding claim 10, Cao, either alone or in combination with other prior art of record, does not teach, suggest, or disclose where reconstructing the given sub-mesh of the mesh using the at least a portion of the base mesh and the displacement values corresponding to the given sub-mesh, comprises: selectively rendering the given sub-mesh; and refraining from rendering one or more other sub-meshes of the mesh that are signaled in the base mesh sub-bitstream and the atlas sub-bitstream for the mesh.
Regarding claim 15, Cao, either alone or in combination with other prior art of record, does not teach, suggest, or disclose where said reconstructing the given sub-mesh comprises selectively reconstructing the given sub-mesh, based on the indication, while refraining from reconstructing other ones of the plurality of sub-meshes not indicated for reconstruction.
Regarding claim 16, Cao, either alone or in combination with other prior art of record, does not teach, suggest, or disclose where the atlas sub-bitstream comprises tile identifiers for tiles of video frames signaled in the atlas sub-bitstream; and the tile identifiers comprise tile headers that indicate for respective ones of the tiles respective ones of the sub-meshes that have patches included in the respective ones of the tiles.
Claim 4 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.
Regarding claim 4, Cao, either alone or in combination with other prior art of record, does not teach, suggest, or disclose where respective ones of the tile headers that correspond to tiles with only a single sub-mesh included in the corresponding tiles include a single sub-mesh present flag.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher Braniff whose telephone number is (571)270-5009. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM to 4PM.
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, Thai Tran can be reached at (571) 272-7382. 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.
CHRISTOPHER T. BRANIFF
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2484
/CHRISTOPHER BRANIFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484