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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 and 17-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 USC § 101, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 9-16would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 USC § 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to independent claims 1, 9 and 17, which recite decoders and encoders of a polygon mesh, several of the features of these claims were known in the art as evidenced by Vidal et al, “Progressive Compression of Triangle Meshes”, which discloses encoding a polygon mesh by traversing at least a first polygon face to obtain a first connectivity of the first polygon face, the first connectivity of the first polygon face indicating connections of first vertices in the vertices into the first polygon face at pp.8-10, secs. 3.2.1-3.2.2. The term “triangulating” has been interpreted consistent with its usage in the specification-as-filed at par. [0090] and FIG. 7, as “dividing into triangles”. Vidal discloses a first polygon face comprised of a first set of triangles at pp. 4-5, sec. 2.3 and FIG. 2. Vidal does not disclose dividing the polygon fact into triangles; rather, Vidal discloses collapsing and splitting existing triangles. Vidal discloses encoding first geometry information of the first vertices into coded information of the polygon mesh based on the first set of triangles pp. 3-4, secs. 2.1-2.2; p.8, sec. 3.2.
Other prior art considered and hereby made of record includes:
Maglo et al, “Progressive compression of manifold polygon meshes” which discloses a method for the progressive compression of manifold polygon meshes. The input surface is decimated by several traversals that generate successive levels of detail through a specific patch decimation operator which combines vertex removal and local remeshing.
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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
With respect to claims 1-20, the phrase “dual degree connectivity information” in claims 1-20 is used by the claim as a nonce term to refer to information derived from applicant’s algorithm for traversing the vertices of a mesh, see specification-as-filed at pars. [0100]-[0109] and FIGS. 11-12. Ordinarily, “dual” means two, “degree” means intensity, “connectivity” means the ability to connect such that the accepted meaning of the phrase “dual degree connectivity information” is, “information regarding an ability to connect having two distinct intensities.” This does not appear what was intended by applicant. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. For purposes of compact prosecution, and consistent with applicant’s usage of the phrase at par. [0129] of the specification-as-filed, the term “dual-degree connectivity information” has been interpreted as if it had been defined in the present claim as: “indicating connections of the vertices into the polygon faces”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) determining geometry information of a triangulated mesh comprising vertices, which are mathematical concepts. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim is directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements, e.g., “receiving a bitstream”, and as such, these elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations only store and retrieve information (“bitstream”) in memory, and this is a well-understood, routine, conventional computer function as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)
As a courtesy to applicant, it is noted that claims 9-16 are not found to comprise an abstract idea because the final limitation of each claim ties the mathematical concepts of those claims to a practical application; i.e., encoding. Conversely, claims 1-8 and 17-20 do not recite a practical application of the geometry (mathematical concept) determined in their final limitations. If these claims were intended as decoding claims, applicant might consider inserting that in the final limitation; e.g., “decoding information of the polygon mesh by determining first geometry information of the first vertices based on the first set of triangles.” Encoding and decoding are practical applications significantly more than the mathematical concepts of geometry and meshes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID F DUNPHY whose telephone number is (571)270-1230. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 5 pm. 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, Chineyere Wills-Burns can be reached at (571) 272-9752. 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.
/DAVID F DUNPHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2673
Prosecution Insights