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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/15/25 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 12/16/24. These drawings are acceptable.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species VII corresponding to claim(s) 1-30 in the reply filed on 1/28/26 is acknowledged.
No claims is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected embodiment, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2023/0412849) in view of Mammou et al. (US 2023/0290063).
Regarding claim 19, Huang discloses a device for encoding dynamic mesh data (see 400 in fig. 4; see 701 in fig. 7; e.g. see ¶ [0103]), the device comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, implemented in circuitry and in communication with the one or more memories (see 2440 in fig. 24), configured to: determine an actual value for a vertex attribute (see 401 in fig. 4; see 701 in fig. 7); determine a prediction value for the vertex attribute (see 404 in fig. 4; see S210 in fig. 10).
Although Huang discloses process the actual value to determine a transformed actual value for the vertex attribute (see 702 in fig. 7 for 401 in fig. 4); process the prediction value to determine a transformed prediction value for the vertex attribute (see 404 in fig. 4); determine a difference between the transformed actual value for the vertex attribute and the transformed prediction value for the vertex attribute to determine a residual value for the vertex attribute (see 407 in fig. 4; e.g. see ¶ [0175]); and signal, in a bitstream comprising the encoded dynamic mesh data, one or more syntax elements indicating the residual value for the vertex attribute (see 408 in fig. 4; see 313 in fig. 3), it is noted that Huang does not provide the particular wherein the process is a transform process.
However, Mammou discloses a mesh encoding wherein the process is a transform process (see 2300 in fig. 23; e.g. see ¶ [0098], [0172]).
Given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Mammou teachings of re-meshing into Huang mesh coding for the benefit to better suit dynamic mesh for coding.
Regarding claim 1, the claim(s) recite a decoding (see 300 in fig. 3) with analogous limitations to claim 19, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claims 2, 11 and 26, the references further disclose wherein: the prediction value comprises a transform domain prediction value (see Mammou 2300 in fig. 23; e.g. see ¶ [0098], [0172]); the residual value comprises a transform domain residual value (see Mammou 2300 in fig. 23; e.g. see ¶ [0098], [0172]); and to determine the reconstructed value for the vertex attribute based on the residual value and the prediction value, the one or more processors are configured to add the transform domain prediction value to the transform domain residual value to determine a transform domain reconstructed value (see Huang 310 in fig. 3) and apply an inverse transform to the transform domain reconstructed value to determine the reconstructed value (see Mammou 1012 in fig. 10).
Regarding claims 3, 12 and 27, the references further disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to apply a transform to the prediction value for the vertex attribute to determine the transform domain prediction value (see Mammou 2300 in fig. 23; e.g. see ¶ [0098], [0172]).
Regarding claims 4, 13, 20 and 28, the references further disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: quantize the transformed actual value for the vertex attribute to determine a quantized transformed actual value (see Mammou ¶ [0099]); quantize the transformed prediction value for the vertex attribute to determine a quantized transformed prediction value (see Mammou 2901 in fig. 29); and wherein to determine the difference between the transformed actual value for the vertex attribute and the transformed prediction value for the vertex attribute, the one more processors are configured to determine a difference between the quantized transformed actual value and the quantized transformed prediction value (see Huang ¶ [0175]; see Mammou 2901 in fig. 29).
Regarding claims 5, 14 and 29, the references further disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: quantize the prediction value for the vertex attribute to determine the quantized prediction value (see Huang ¶ [0175]; see Mammou 2901 in fig. 29).
Regarding claims 6, 15 and 21, Huang further disclose wherein the vertex attribute comprise geometry for a 3D position of a vertex (e.g. see ¶ [0102]).
Regarding claims 7, 16 and 22, Huang further disclose wherein the vertex attribute comprises a coordinate for a texture map (e.g. see ¶ [0102]).
Regarding claims 8, 17 and 23, Huang further disclose wherein the vertex attribute comprise RGB color values (e.g. see ¶ [0091]).
Regarding claims 9, 18 and 24, Huang further disclose wherein the vertex attribute comprises a normal (e.g. see ¶ [0102]).
Regarding claim 10, the claim(s) recite a method with analogous limitations to claim 1, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 25, the claim(s) recite a method with analogous limitations to claim 1, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 30, the claim(s) recite a method with analogous limitations to any of claims 6-9, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1. Kim et al. (US 2025/0117965), discloses mesh compression with displacement information.
2. Zakharchenko et al. (US 2025/0069273), discloses dynamic mesh coding.
3. Tokumo et al. (US 2025/0005803), discloses mesh displacement coding.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD T TORRENTE whose telephone number is (571)270-3702. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 6:45-3:15 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, Jay Patel can be reached at (571) 272-2988. 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.
/RICHARD T TORRENTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485