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 Objections
Claims 9, 12 and 18 objected to because of the following informalities: Typos.
All instances of “textual” in claims 9 and 18 should read “texture”.
Claim 12, last line “the encoded the connectivity of” should read “the encoded connectivity of”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 11-18 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 11 recites the limitation "and encoded 3d positions" in last two lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This is because it is unclear if a new instance or previous instance of encoded 3d positions is being referred to by this second recitation of “encoded 3D positions”.
Claims 12-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) since they depend on a claim that is rejected under rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Note. Most likely these claims depend on some dependent claim or are missing elements.
In order to fix this issue, dependency should be reviewed and any first instance of an element
should be made clear that it’s a first instance and should be referred to as “a” or “an” instead of
“the”, and if multiple instances exist, further instances should be further distinguished for example by saying “first”, “second”, and/or “third” etc.
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 by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 11-12 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0233282), hereinafter referenced as Kim, in view of Park et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0124601), hereinafter referenced as Park.
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches A method for decoding a 3D mesh, comprising: (paragraph 345 teaches “FIG. 37 illustrates a multi-view image decoding method” and claim 2 teaches “multi-view image decoding method of claim 1, wherein the three-dimensional geometry information indicates a triangular mesh structure representing a three-dimensional space); receiving a compressed bitstream of a portion of the 3D mesh (paragraph 346 teaches “ In the step S3702, three-dimensional geometry information indicating a three-dimensional space… may be obtained from a bitstream”); this bitstream is compressed bitstream received of mesh from fig. 32, step 3702 since that is what is decoded as aforementioned above; reconstructing 2D positions of a set of 2D texture coordinates associated with the portion of the 3D mesh from the compressed bitstream (paragraph 339 teaches “an algorithm for reconstructing texture (UV patch) by using a texture spatial coordinate will be described”); this shows 2D positions would be reconstructed which are of the set of 2D texture coordinates and associated with patch/portion of 3D mesh from the compressed bitstream; and reconstructing, from the compressed bitstream, 3D positions of a set of 3D geometry vertices corresponding to the set of 2D texture coordinates (claim 3 teaches “decoding method… wherein the three-dimensional geometry information comprises at least one of vertex position information indicating three-dimensional positions of vertexes of a triangular mesh” and fig. 37, step 3708 teaches “reconstruct current view image according to three-dimensional space that is constructed according to a texture map of the current view and three-dimensional geometry information”); decoding alongside reconstructing shows the reconstructing is from the compressed bitstream and since the three-dimension space is constructed according to texture map and three-dimensional geometry information, the reconstructing is of the 3D positions of set of 3D geometry vertices corresponding to set of 2D texture coordinates (of texture map) thereof.
However, Kim fails to explicitly teach reconstructing… and based on the 2D positions of the set of 2D texture coordinates as reconstructed.
However, Park teaches reconstructing… and based on the 2D positions of the set of 2D texture coordinates as reconstructed (Park, paragraph 562 teaches “reconstructed two-channel texture coordinate image is generated by a 2D video decoder based on the texture coordinate bitstream as input” and paragraph 563 teaches “vertex texture coordinates may be reconstructed based on the reconstructed texture coordinate image”); this shows the 3d reconstruction based on the aforementioned 2d positions because happens in a step after such (after texture coordinate image reconstructed (which has 2D positions), then vertex coordinates of 3D positions are reconstructed. Park is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of reconstructing based on 2D positions and encoding/decoding using bitstream.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim's invention with the reconstruction and encoding/decoding techniques of Park to improve encoding efficiency. This would be done by reconstructing based off previous information instead of generating from scratch so less hardware usage is needed.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kim and Park teaches further comprising: reconstructing, from the compressed bitstream, connectivity of the set of 3D geometry vertices and connectivity of the set of 2D texture coordinates prior to reconstructing the 2D positions of the set of 2D texture coordinates (Kim, claim 3 teaches “decoding method… connectivity information indicating geometric connection among the vertexes of the triangular mesh” and paragraph 347 teaches “connectivity information indicating geometric connection between the vertexes of the triangular mesh” after step 3702 in paragraph 346); the decoding shows reconstructing here (of the bitstream from parent claim), this would include set of 3D geometry vertices and their corresponding 2D texture coordinates since connectivity information is of the geometric connection among vertexes of triangle mesh and this is prior to reconstructing 2D positions of 2D texture coordinates since comes before step 3708 of fig. 37 and the reconstruction thereof.
Regarding claim 11, Kim teaches An electronic device for encoding a 3D mesh, (paragraph 357 teaches “FIG. 38 illustrates a multi-view image encoding method”, paragraph 370 teaches hardware devices and claim 12 teaches “image encoding method of claim 11, wherein the three-dimensional geometry information indicates a triangular mesh structure representing a three-dimensional space”); comprising a memory for storing instructions and at least one processor in communication with the memory and for executing the instructions to: (paragraph 367 teaches “one or more processors may execute commands implementing each step of FIG. 37 and FIG. 38. In addition, a program product including commands implementing each step of FIG. 37 and FIG. 38 may be stored in a memory device”); receive 3D positions of a set of 3D geometry vertices (claim 13 teaches “wherein the three-dimensional geometry information comprises at least one of vertex position information indicating three-dimensional positions of vertexes of a triangular mesh”); at least one vertex position indicating a set of 3D positions of vertexes shows receiving 3D positions of a set of 3D geometry vertices being received; and corresponding 2D positions of a set of 2D texture coordinates of the 3D mesh (claim 13 teaches “and texture map position information indicating a two-dimensional position corresponding to a vertex of the triangular mesh”); texture map position information indicating 2D position corresponding to vertex shows corresponding 2D positions of set of 2D texture coordinates being received; process the 2D positions to generate encoded 2D positions for the set of 2D texture coordinates (claim 13 teaches “encoding method… texture map position information indicating a two-dimensional position corresponding to a vertex of the triangular mesh”); this shows the 2D positions would be processed to generate encoded 2D positions due to encoding method for the set of 2D texture coordinates; generate encoded 3D positions based on the 3D positions (claim 13 teaches “encoding method… at least one of vertex position information indicating three-dimensional positions of vertexes of a triangular mesh”); this shows the 3D positions generated that are encoded due to encoding method and is done for the 3D positions thus based on such; and include the encoded 2D positions and encoded 3D positions in a bitstream of the 3D mesh (fig. 38, step 3808 teaches “generate bitstream including three-dimensional geometry information”); as aforementioned above the three-dimensional geometry information contains 2d and 3d positions, thus the bitstream here of the 3D mesh that is generated includes the encoded 2d and 3d positions.
However, Kim fails to explicitly teach generate encoded 3D positions based on… and the encoded 2D positions
However, Park explicitly teaches generate encoded 3D positions based on… and the encoded 2D positions (Park, paragraph 354 teaches “encoding 3D dynamic mesh data based on a 2D video encoder”); this shows the 3D data of mesh including 3D positions is encoded and generated based on 2D video encoder which means the encoded 2D positions thereof.
The same motivations used in claim 1 apply here in claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Kim teaches the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: encode connectivity of the 3D geometry vertices and connectivity of the 2D texture coordinates prior to encoding the 2D positions of the set of 2D texture coordinates, wherein the encoded 2D position is further generated based on the encoded connectivity of the 3D geometry vertices or the encoded the connectivity of the 2D texture coordinates (Kim, claim 13 teaches “encoding method… connectivity information indicating geometric connection among the vertexes of the triangular mesh” and paragraph 347 teaches “connectivity information indicating geometric connection between the vertexes of the triangular mesh” after step 3802 in paragraph 358); this would include set of 3D geometry vertices and their corresponding 2D texture coordinates since connectivity information is of the geometric connection among vertexes of triangle mesh and this is prior to encoding 2D positions of 2D texture coordinates since comes before step 3808 of fig. 38 and the encoding thereof, also the encoding (generation of bitstream) is done in step 3808 meaning that the encoded 2D position thereof is generated based on the aforementioned encoded connectivity of 3D geometry vertices. The same motivations used in claim 1 apply here in claim 12.
Regarding claim 19, Kim teaches A method for encoding a 3D mesh, comprising: (claim 12 teaches “image encoding method of claim 11, wherein the three-dimensional geometry information indicates a triangular mesh structure representing a three-dimensional space”) receiving 3D positions of a set of 3D geometry vertices (claim 13 teaches “wherein the three-dimensional geometry information comprises at least one of vertex position information indicating three-dimensional positions of vertexes of a triangular mesh”); at least one vertex position indicating a set of 3D positions of vertexes shows receiving 3D positions of a set of 3D geometry vertices being received; and 2D positions of a set of 2D texture coordinates of a 2D texture mapping of one or more portions of the 3D mesh, (claim 13 teaches “and texture map position information indicating a two-dimensional position corresponding to a vertex of the triangular mesh”); texture map position information indicating 2D position corresponding to vertex shows corresponding 2D positions of set of 2D texture coordinates being received; the set of 3D geometry vertices corresponding to the set of 2D texture coordinates (fig. 4 shows list of vertex information (in 3D of X,Y,Z) corresponding to 2D texture coordinates (of UV)); this alongside the aforementioned correspondences shows the plurality of 3D geometry vertices (set) corresponds to the set of 2D texture coordinates;
However, Kim fails to explicitly teach determining an encoding order and an encoding dependency of the 3D positions and the 2D positions based on a metrics for distance preservation between the 3D positions and the 2D texture mapping for each of the one or more portions of the 3D mesh; and encoding the each of the one or more portions of the 3D mesh according to the encoding order and the encoding dependency.
However, Park explicitly teaches determining an encoding order (Park, paragraph 612 teaches “the order determined by the encoder/decoder may be a z-scan order, or the like”); this shows order of encoding determined; and an encoding dependency of the 3D positions and the 2D positions (Park, paragraph 408 teaches “connection information symbolizer (corresponding to the symbolization process of TFAN, edge breaker, etc.) performs the mapping of some or all vertices or edges to a single symbol depending on the connection relationship” and 585 teaches “encoded/decoded for each vertex in the same order as the connection information”); the connection information acts as a encoding dependency since it corresponds to symbol, and since each vertex is encoded in same order according to it, that means the 3D positions and corresponding 2D positions thereof have the encoding dependency as well; based on a metrics for distance preservation between the 3D positions and the 2D texture mapping for each of the one or more portions of the 3D mesh (Park, paragraph 606 teaches “ depth images may be reconstructed and the depth information may be mapped in the order promised by the encoder/decoder” and paragraph 610 teaches “pack information into an empty region in the depth image in the order determined by the encoder/decoder, and the depth information may be parsed and accessed in the order determined by the encoder/decoder to map the depth information and perform reconstruction”; depth information parsed and accessed to perform reconstruction shows the encoding order and dependency from above occurring based on metrics for distance preservation which would be between the 3D positions and corresponding 2D texture mapping thereof from the aforementioned mesh to ensure consistency; and encoding the each of the one or more portions of the 3D mesh according to the encoding order and the encoding dependency (Park, claim 2 teaches “wherein the encoding of the vertex occupancy map coordinates comprises: encoding the vertex occupancy map coordinates based on an order of the encoding of the connection information”); this would be done for each of the portions of mesh from Kim, and since based on order of encoding of connection information, it is according to encoding order and encoding dependency. The same motivations used in claim 1 apply here in claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Kim and Park teaches further comprising selecting a prediction mechanism when encoding the each of the portions of the 3D mesh according to optimizing a prediction accuracy measure or encoding efficiency (Park, paragraph 104 teaches “point cloud video encoder may perform a series of procedures such as prediction, transformation, quantization, and entropy coding for compression and encoding efficiency” and paragraph 269 teaches “when inter-prediction is applied, the encoder may avoid prediction mismatch between the encoder 15000 and the decoder and improve encoding efficiency”); this shows when selecting prediction mechanism would be according to optimizing encoding efficiency. The same motivations used in claim 1 apply here in claim 20.
Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kim and Park as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0430480), hereinafter referenced as Lee.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kim and Park fails to teach further comprising reconstructing from the compressed bitstream the 2D positions of the set of 2D texture coordinates along with connectivity of the set of 2D texture coordinates in tandem.
However, Lee teaches further comprising reconstructing from the compressed bitstream the 2D positions of the set of 2D texture coordinates along with connectivity of the set of 2D texture coordinates in tandem (Lee, paragraph 5 teaches “mesh includes geometry information such as position coordinates of vertices in the three-dimensional space and connectivity information for polygons between the vertices, and the mesh may use the position coordinates and connectivity information of the vertices to represent a three-dimensional volume for a particular object in the three-dimensional space” and fig. 7 teaches reconstructed mesh vertex and connectivity information as a same step); connectivity information for polygons between vertices shows connectivity of set of 2D texture coordinates, the reconstruction shows aforementioned reconstruction of 2D positions from compressed bitstream, and reconstructed mesh information along with connectivity being in same step shows the two in tandem. Lee is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of connectivity alongside reconstruction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kim and Park with the connectivity in tandem techniques of Lee to increase coding efficiency for three-dimensional meshes and point clouds (Lee, paragraph 8). This would be due to the connectivity alongside the reconstruction.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Kim and Park fails to teach the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to generate the encoded 2D positions of the 2D texture coordinates along with connectivity of the 2D texture coordinates in tandem.
However, Lee teaches the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to generate the encoded 2D positions of the 2D texture coordinates along with connectivity of the 2D texture coordinates in tandem. (Lee, paragraph 5 teaches “mesh includes geometry information such as position coordinates of vertices in the three-dimensional space and connectivity information for polygons between the vertices, and the mesh may use the position coordinates and connectivity information of the vertices to represent a three-dimensional volume for a particular object in the three-dimensional space” and fig. 7 teaches reconstructed mesh vertex and connectivity information as a same step); connectivity information for polygons between vertices shows connectivity of set of 2D texture coordinates, the reconstruction shows reconstruction of 2D positions from compressed bitstream meaning they would have to first be encoded, and reconstructed mesh information along with connectivity being in same step shows the two in tandem (encoding for the reconstruction to occur and the connectivity). Lee is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of connectivity alongside encoding. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kim and Park with the connectivity in tandem techniques of Lee to increase coding efficiency for three-dimensional meshes and point clouds (Lee, paragraph 8). This would be due to the connectivity alongside the encoding to cause reconstruction.
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kim and Park as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Mammou (U.S. Patent No. 11,915,373), hereinafter referenced as Mammou.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kim and Park fails to teach wherein reconstructing from the compressed bitstream the 3D positions of the set of 3D geometry vertices based on the 2D positions of the set of 2D texture coordinates as reconstructed is based on a shape-preserving prediction.
However, Mammou teaches wherein reconstructing from the compressed bitstream the 3D positions of the set of 3D geometry vertices based on the 2D positions of the set of 2D texture coordinates as reconstructed is based on a shape-preserving prediction (Mammou, col. 9, lines 30-36 teach “ mapped between the 3D geometry representation and the 2D texture image and since the texture coordinates map vertices in the 3D geometry representation to pixel coordinates in the 2D texture image, geometric correlations due to the preservation of angles can be used to predict a texture coordinate for a vertex of a triangle in attribute representation”); geometric correlation due to preservation of angles shows that the reconstructing (of 3D positions of set of 3D geometry vertices based on 2D positions of set of 2D texture coordinates) is based on a shape-preserving prediction.
Mammou is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of shape-preservation when reconstructing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kim and Park with the shape-preservation techniques of Mammou to ensure preservation of angles between triangles in the 3D geometric representation and corresponding triangles in the 2D attribute representation enables efficient prediction by leveraging the angle relationships that are persevered (Mammou, col. 2, lines 34-39). This leads to a more efficient system overall.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Kim and Park fails to teach wherein generating the encoded 3D positions based on the 3D positions and the encoded 2D positions is based on a shape-preserving prediction.
However, Mammou teaches wherein generating the encoded 3D positions based on the 3D positions and the encoded 2D positions is based on a shape-preserving prediction (Mammou, col. 9, lines 30-36 teach “ mapped between the 3D geometry representation and the 2D texture image and since the texture coordinates map vertices in the 3D geometry representation to pixel coordinates in the 2D texture image, geometric correlations due to the preservation of angles can be used to predict a texture coordinate for a vertex of a triangle in attribute representation”); geometric correlation due to preservation of angles shows that the encoding and generating (of 3D positions of set of 3D geometry vertices based on 2D positions of set of 2D texture coordinates) is based on a shape-preserving prediction.
Mammou is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of shape-preservation when encoding. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kim and Park with the shape-preservation techniques of Mammou to ensure preservation of angles between triangles in the 3D geometric representation and corresponding triangles in the 2D attribute representation enables efficient prediction by leveraging the angle relationships that are persevered (Mammou, col. 2, lines 34-39). This leads to a more efficient system overall.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kim and Park as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Sugio (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0095214), hereinafter referenced as Sugio, and Tong (CN 104778737 B), hereinafter referenced as Tong.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kim and Park teaches wherein reconstructing from the compressed bitstream the 3D positions of the set of 3D geometry vertices based on the 2D positions of the set of 2D texture coordinates as reconstructed comprises: obtaining reconstructed 3D positions of a first, a second, and a third 3D geometry vertices of the 3D mesh (Kim, paragraph 76 teaches “FIG. 4 is a view showing the structure of a triangular mesh model”, paragraph 77 teaches “a triangular mesh model may be obtained by using a surface reconstruction method”, and fig. 4 shows list of vertex information with three geometry vertices); this shows the reconstructing from the compressed bitstream as aforementioned would include obtaining reconstructed 3D positions of three geometry vertices; obtaining reconstructed 2D positions of a first, a second, a third, and a fourth 2D texture coordinates corresponding to the first, the second, the third, and a fourth 3D geometry vertices, respectively (Kim, fig. 4, “list of vertex information”, last two columns show four rows of 2D positions of texture coordinates); these are reconstructed when viewed alongside the reconstruction of mesh aforementioned in paragraph 77, the four rows indicate a first, a second, a third, and a fourth 2D texture coordinates, and each of these have a corresponding 3D geometry vertex;
However, the combination of Kim and Park fails to teach and deriving a 3D position of the fourth 3D geometry vertex based on the reconstructed 3D positions of the first, the second, and the third geometry vertices and the reconstructed 2D positions of the first, the second, the third, and the fourth 2D texture coordinates.
However, Sugio teaches and deriving a 3D position of the fourth 3D geometry vertex based on the reconstructed 3D positions of the first, the second, and the third geometry vertices (Sugio, paragraph 479 teaches “Coordinate deriver 264 derives the fourth vertex in the three-dimensional mesh using the three vertexes and the plurality of angles and outputs the fourth vertex”); this shows 3D position of fourth 3D geometry vertex would be based on first three geometry vertices. Sugio is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of deriving 3D position of vertex based on previous positions of vertices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kim and Park with the deriving of 3D position techniques of Sugio to ensure accuracy of encoding can be improved (Sugio, paragraph 422). This would be done by basing the fourth position on the first three.
However, the combination of Kim, Park and Sugio fails to teach based on… and the reconstructed 2D positions of the first, the second, the third, and the fourth 2D texture coordinates.
However, Tong teaches based on… and the reconstructed 2D positions of the first, the second, the third, and the fourth 2D texture coordinates (Tong, paragraph 49 teaches “the blade polygon is reconstructed in the GPU to obtain the vertex and topological information of the blade polygon; as shown in Figure
4, specifically: by solving the vector Lup that is perpendicular to the normal Nor and the
tangential Tan on the blade plane, the spatial coordinates of the four vertices of the polygon
are obtained. The texture coordinates of each vertex are automatically generated by the
vertex order”; this shows reconstruction using four positions of 2D texture coordinates thus the above combination would be based on such when viewed in combination. Tong is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of reconstruction using texture coordinates. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kim, Park and Sugio’s invention with the reconstruction techniques of Tong to ensure the realism of rendering, and so this method greatly improves the efficiency of rendering (Tong, paragraph 26). This would be due to the reconstruction based on specific coordinates.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Kim and Park teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to generate the encoded 3D positions of the set of 3D geometry vertices by: determining reconstructed 3D positions of a first, a second, and a third geometry vertices of the 3D mesh; (Kim, paragraph 76 teaches “FIG. 4 is a view showing the structure of a triangular mesh model”, paragraph 77 teaches “a triangular mesh model may be obtained by using a surface reconstruction method”, and fig. 4 shows list of vertex information with three geometry vertices); this shows the reconstructing (and encoding from before it) would include obtaining reconstructed 3D positions of three geometry vertices; determining reconstructed 2D positions of a first, a second, a third, and a fourth 2D texture coordinates corresponding to the first, the second, the third, and a fourth 3D geometry vertices, respectively (Kim, fig. 4, “list of vertex information”, last two columns show four rows of 2D positions of texture coordinates); these are reconstructed when viewed alongside the reconstruction of mesh aforementioned in paragraph 77, the four rows indicate a first, a second, a third, and a fourth 2D texture coordinates, and each of these have a corresponding 3D geometry vertex;
However, the combination of Kim and Park fails to teach and encoding a 3D position of the fourth 3D geometry vertex based on the reconstructed 3D positions of the first, the second, and the third geometry vertices and the reconstructed 2D positions of the first, the second, the third, and the fourth 2D texture coordinates.
However, Sugio teaches and encoding a 3D position of the fourth 3D geometry vertex based on the reconstructed 3D positions of the first, the second, and the third geometry vertices (Sugio, paragraph 479 teaches “Coordinate deriver 264 derives the fourth vertex in the three-dimensional mesh using the three vertexes and the plurality of angles and outputs the fourth vertex”); this shows 3D position of fourth 3D geometry vertex (which is encoded due to positions being encoded in Kim) would be based on first three geometry vertices. Sugio is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of 3D position of vertex based on previous positions of vertices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kim and Park with the 3D position based on previous positions techniques of Sugio to ensure accuracy of encoding can be improved (Sugio, paragraph 422). This would be done by basing the fourth position on the first three.
However, the combination of Kim, Park and Sugio fails to teach based on… and the reconstructed 2D positions of the first, the second, the third, and the fourth 2D texture coordinates.
However, Tong teaches based on… and the reconstructed 2D positions of the first, the second, the third, and the fourth 2D texture coordinates (Tong, paragraph 49 teaches “the blade polygon is reconstructed in the GPU to obtain the vertex and topological information of the blade polygon; as shown in Figure
4, specifically: by solving the vector Lup that is perpendicular to the normal Nor and the
tangential Tan on the blade plane, the spatial coordinates of the four vertices of the polygon
are obtained. The texture coordinates of each vertex are automatically generated by the
vertex order”; this shows reconstruction using four positions of 2D texture coordinates thus the above combination would be based on such when viewed in combination. Tong is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of reconstruction using texture coordinates. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kim, Park and Sugio’s invention with the reconstruction techniques of Tong to ensure the realism of rendering, and so this method greatly improves the efficiency of rendering (Tong, paragraph 26). This would be due to the reconstruction based on specific coordinates.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10 and 16-18 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 6, the closest prior art of (or combination of) Kim, and Mammou teaches wherein deriving the 3D position of the fourth 3D geometry vertex based on the reconstructed 3D positions of the first, the second, and the third geometry vertices and the reconstructed 2D positions of the first, the second, the third, and the fourth 2D texture coordinates comprises: determining weighting factors (Mammou, col. 19, lines 18-21 teaches “determine weighting factors to apply to the three known attribute values to predict the attribute value for the fourth vertex of the parallelogram”); this shows the deriving of fourth vertex and based on aforementioned reconstructed positions of claim 5 above uses determining weighting factors; for generating a weighted sum of the reconstructed 2D positions of the first, the second, and the third 2D texture coordinates (Kim, paragraph 115 teaches “a weighted sum of view dependent texture maps”); this shows weighted sum of texture maps which would have reconstructed 2D positions of the three 2D texture coordinates when viewed in combination.
However, Kim and Mammou fails to teach that optimally predicts the reconstructed 2D position of the fourth 2D texture coordinate; applying the weighting factors to the reconstructed 3D positions of the first, the second, and the third 3D geometry vertices to generate a weighted 3D position sum; and using the weighted 3D position sum as a predictor to obtain the 3D position of the fourth 3D geometry vertex.
Furthermore, no prior art of record either alone or in combination teaches
that optimally predicts the reconstructed 2D position of the fourth 2D texture coordinate; applying the weighting factors to the reconstructed 3D positions of the first, the second, and the third 3D geometry vertices to generate a weighted 3D position sum; and using the weighted 3D position sum as a predictor to obtain the 3D position of the fourth 3D geometry vertex when read in light of the rest of the limitations in claim 6 and the claims to which claim 6 depends and thus claim 6 contains allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 7, the closest prior art of (or combination of) Mammou teaches deriving the 3D position of the fourth 3D geometry vertex based on the reconstructed 3D positions of the first, the second, and the third geometry vertices and the reconstructed 2D positions of the first, the second, the third, and the fourth 2D texture coordinates comprises: deriving a 2D position predictor for the fourth 2D texture coordinate (Mammou, col. 17, lines 53-60 teach “values (A(a), A(b), and A(c) of the three vertices a, b, and c. (105) To predict the attribute A(d) associated with the vertex d, it can be assumed the predictor of A(d)”); this shows in process of deriving 3D position of fourth 3D geometry vertex (and the things it is based on when viewed in combination), a predictor of A(d) is used ;
However, Mammou fails to teach based on the reconstructed 2D positions of the first, the second, and the third 2D texture coordinates using a predefined geometric prediction mechanism; deriving a scaling factor that indicates a prediction accuracy of the 2D position predictor on the reconstructed 2D position of the fourth 2D texture coordinate; deriving an initial 3D position predictor for the fourth 3D geometry vertex based on the reconstructed 3D positions of the first, the second, and the third 3D geometry vertices using the predefined geometric prediction mechanism; applying the scaling factor to the initial 3D position predictor to generate a modified 3D position predictor; and using the modified 3D position predictor to obtain the 3D position of the fourth 3D geometry vertex.
Furthermore, no prior art of record either alone or in combination teaches
based on the reconstructed 2D positions of the first, the second, and the third 2D texture coordinates using a predefined geometric prediction mechanism; deriving a scaling factor that indicates a prediction accuracy of the 2D position predictor on the reconstructed 2D position of the fourth 2D texture coordinate; deriving an initial 3D position predictor for the fourth 3D geometry vertex based on the reconstructed 3D positions of the first, the second, and the third 3D geometry vertices using the predefined geometric prediction mechanism; applying the scaling factor to the initial 3D position predictor to generate a modified 3D position predictor; and using the modified 3D position predictor to obtain the 3D position of the fourth 3D geometry vertex when read in light of the rest of the limitations in claim 7 and the claims to which claim 7 depends and thus claim 7 contains allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art of record either alone or in combination fails to teach
that optimally predicts the reconstructed 2D position of the fourth 2D texture coordinate; applying the weighting factors to the reconstructed 3D positions of the first, the second, and the third 3D geometry vertices to generate a weighted 3D position sum; and using the weighted 3D position sum as a predictor to encode the 3D position of the fourth 3D geometry vertex when read in light of the rest of the limitations in claim 16 and the claims to which claim 16 depends and thus claim 16 contains allowable subject matter. The same reasoning for the indication of allowable subject matter in claim 6 applies here to claim 16
Regarding claim 17, the prior art of record either alone or in combination fails to teach
based on the reconstructed 2D positions of the first, the second, and the third 2D texture coordinates using a predefined geometric prediction mechanism; deriving a scaling factor that indicates a prediction accuracy of the 2D position predictor on the reconstructed 2D position of the fourth 2D texture coordinate; deriving an initial 3D position predictor for the fourth 3D geometry vertex based on the reconstructed 3D positions of the first, the second, and the third 3D geometry vertices using the predefined geometric prediction mechanism; applying the scaling factor to the initial 3D position predictor to generate a modified 3D position predictor; and using the modified 3D position predictor to encode the 3D position of the fourth 3D geometry vertex when read in light of the rest of the limitations in claim 17 and the claims to which claim 17 depends and thus claim 17 contains allowable subject matter. The same reasoning for the indication of allowable subject matter in claim 7 applies here to claim 17.
Claims 8-10 and 18 contain allowable subject matter because they depend on a claim that contains allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kato et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0371087), paragraph 303 teaches “decoding process, the patch reconstruction unit 417 may reconstruct the three-dimensional position information of the boundary vertex…texture arranged on the two-dimensional plane…using the position information derived….vertex information reconstruction unit 418 may reconstruct the three-dimensional position information using the plurality of patches”; this shows decoding process for mesh, reconstructing 3D position information and texture arranged on a 2D plane.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAUMAN U AHMAD whose telephone number is (703)756-5306. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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 (571) 272-7794. 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.
/N.U.A./Examiner, Art Unit 2611
/KEE M TUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights