DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. 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.
3. The terms a plurality of low-resolution connections in claim 2 at line 4, a plurality of high-resolution connections in claim 2 at lines 5-6, a plurality of reconstructed high-resolution vertices in claim 2 at lines 10-11, a plurality of reconstructed high-resolution connections in claim 2 at lines 11-12 are all relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is impossible for a person of ordinary skills in the art to ascertain the metes and bounds of the terms a plurality of low-resolution connections, a plurality of high-resolution connections, a plurality of reconstructed high-resolution vertices, and a plurality of reconstructed high-resolution connections. Since claim 12 recites limitations same as claim 2, claims 2-21 are rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 2-21 are allowed over cited references.\
5. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Claim 2 recites the limitation the reconstructed high-resolution polygon mesh as a plurality of component bitstreams, wherein the plurality of component bitstreams comprises a low-resolution polygon mesh bitstream and at least one residual bitstream representing differences between the high-resolution polygon mesh and the reconstructed high-resolution polygon mesh which is not disclose nor suggested in any the cited references, either singly or in combination.
6. Claim 12 recites limitations similar to those of claim 2 and is allowed over cited references as well.
7. The closest art of record is Dean Lindsay Delamont (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0368616 A1). Delamont discloses transmitting wireframes and 3D models between clients and servers, but Delamont fails to disclose the above cited limitation.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
8. .Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 9/1/2026, with respect to 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The cited reference rejection of claims 2-21 has been withdrawn.
9. However, applicants have still failed to address the 35 USC 112 rejections. As cited above relative terms are still being used in the claims.
sTHIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
CONTACT
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK S CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7993. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8-11:30 and 1:30-6.
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 5712727794. 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.
/FRANK S CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights