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 § 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.
In contrast, a claimed computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program is a computer element which defines structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and the rest of the computer which permit the computer program's functionality to be realized, and is thus statutory. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d at 1035.
Claims that recite nothing but the physical characteristics of a form of energy, such as a frequency, voltage, or the strength of a magnetic field, define energy or magnetism, per se, and as such are non-statutory natural phenomena. O'Reilly, 56 U.S. (15 How.) at 112-14. Moreover, it does not appear that a claim reciting a signal encoded with functional descriptive material falls within any of the categories of patentable subject matter set forth in Sec. 101.
… a signal does not fall within one of the four statutory classes of Sec. 101.
… signal claims are ineligible for patent protection because they do not fall within any of the four
statutory classes of Sec. 101.
Claims 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows. Claim 14 is drawn a computer readable storage medium comprising program code executable by processors, however, applicant’s specification (Paragraph 42) defines such medium as encompassing both statutory and non-statutory subject matter. The examiner suggests amending the claim to include a “non-transitory machine readable medium”.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); InreGoodman, 11 F.3d 1046,29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225USPQ645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Omum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In reVogel, 422F.2d 438,164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) maybe used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a non-statutory double
patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claim 1-2, 4-10, 12-16 and 18-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 4 and 6-11 of co-pending Application No. 19/085,875 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because name the same inventive entity
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to combine the teachings of current Application 19/013,855 although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, because they are obvious variations of each other.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 byt he manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao (US 2025/0124655) (Chao Cao) in view of Minoo et al. (US 2017/0085879) (Koohyar Minoo)
Regarding Claim 1, Cao a device for decoding encoded dynamic mesh data, 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 Paragraphs 31-38 and Fig. 1 e.g. video dynamic mesh coding (V-DMC). V-DMC specifies the encoded bitstream syntax and semantics for transmission or storage of a mesh sequence and the decoder operation for reconstructing the mesh sequence from the bitstream], configured to: determine a set of quantized integer coefficient values for displacement vectors of the encoded dynamic mesh data [See abstract and Paragraphs 44-47 and Fig. 9-12 e.g. mesh frame include displacement vector that indicates a displacement from the position of the corresponding vertex in the subdivided mesh to the position of the vertex in the mesh]; inverse quantize the set of quantized integer coefficient values to determine a set of fixed-point dequantized coefficient values [See Paragraphs 79-90, 100-103 and 193-206 e.g. a displacement can be wavelet transformed and be decomposed into and represented as coefficient values or transform coefficients]; determine a set of fixed-point transformed coefficient values based on the set of fixed-point dequantized coefficient values [See Paragraphs, 86-89 103-107 171-187.]; and determine a reconstructed deformed mesh based on the set of reconstructed displacement vectors [See Paragraphs 49-61, 120-128 and 191-206 e.g. reconstructed quantized reference base mesh best approximates base mesh...reconstructed quantized base mesh m′(i) may then be computed by adding the motion field to the positions of vertices in base mesh].
Cao doesn’t explicitly disclose convert the set of fixed-point transformed coefficient values to a set of floating-point transformed coefficient values; inverse transform the set of floating-point transformed coefficient values to determine a set of reconstructed displacement vectors;
However, Minoo discloses convert the set of fixed-point transformed coefficient values to a set of floating-point transformed coefficient values; inverse transform the set of floating-point transformed coefficient values to determine a set of reconstructed displacement vectors [See Paragraphs 37-48 and 68-71 e.g. convert the 10-bit fixed-point samples into floating point samples compatible with EXR file format or into fixed-point samples];
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at time of invention to modify the system disclosed by Cao to add the teachings in Minoo as above, to provide a method that improvs an image captures and the video to appear more natural and closer to real life to the human eye [See Minoo Paragraph 3].
Regarding Claims 2, 10 and 16, Cao discloses wherein to determine the set of fixed-point transformed coefficient values based on the set of fixed-point dequantized coefficient values, the one or more processors are configured to determine that the set of fixed-point transformed coefficient values are equal to the set of fixed-point dequantized coefficient values [See Paragraphs 80-110]
Regarding Claims 3, 11 and 17, Cao discloses wherein to determine the set of fixed-point transformed coefficient values based on the set of fixed-point dequantized coefficient values, the one or more processors are configured to add a set of reference values to the set of fixed-point dequantized coefficient values [See Paragraphs 80-110].
Regarding Claims 4, 12 and 18, Cao discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: store the set of fixed-point transformed coefficient values in a reference buffer [See Paragraphs 36-37, 60 and 80-85].
Regarding Claims 5, 13 and 19, Cao discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine a second set of quantized integer coefficient values; inverse quantize the second set of quantized integer coefficient values to determine a second set of fixed-point dequantized coefficient values; determine a second set of fixed-point transformed coefficient values based on the set of fixed-point dequantized coefficient values and the set of fixed-point transformed coefficient values stored in the reference buffer [See Paragraphs 191-200].
Cao doesn’t explicitly disclose convert the second set of fixed-point transformed coefficient values to a second set of floating-point transformed coefficient values; and inverse transform the second set of floating-point transformed coefficient values to determine a second set of reconstructed displacement vectors.
However, Minoo discloses convert the second set of fixed-point transformed coefficient values to a second set of floating-point transformed coefficient values; and inverse transform the second set of floating-point transformed coefficient values to determine a second set of reconstructed displacement vectors [See Paragraphs 37-48 and 68-71].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at time of invention to modify the system disclosed by Cao to add the teachings in Minoo as above, to provide a method that improvs an image captures and the video to appear more natural and closer to real life to the human eye [See Minoo Paragraph 3].
Regarding Claims 6 and 20, Cao discloses wherein to inverse transform the set of floating-point transformed coefficient values to determine the set of reconstructed displacement vectors, the one or more processors are further configured to apply an inverse wavelet transform to the set of floating-point transformed coefficient values [See Paragraphs 86-91and Figs. 8A-B].
Regarding Claim 7, Cao discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to modify a base mesh based of reconstructed displacement vectors to determine the reconstructed deformed mesh [See Paragraphs 106-110 and 131-139].
Regarding Claim 8, Cao discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to apply decoded attributes to the reconstructed deformed mesh to determine a reconstructed dynamic mesh sequence [See Paragraphs 47-48 and 62-69 e.g. deformed mesh reconstructor which corresponds to deformed mesh reconstructor may determine generate or output).
Regarding Claim 9, the limitations claimed are substantially similar to claim 1 above, therefore the ground for rejecting claim l also applies here.
Regarding Claim 14, the limitations claimed are substantially similar to claim 1 above, therefore the ground for rejecting claim l also applies here.
Regarding Claim 15, the limitations claimed are substantially similar to claim 1 above, therefore the ground for rejecting claim l also applies here.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TSION B OWENS whose telephone number is (571)272-3934. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at 571-272-7327. 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.
/TSION B OWENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487