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 .
Specification
The Abstract is objected to because it contains legal phraseology as indicated by the phrase, “[t]his disclosure relates generally […].” Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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.
Claim 20 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is drawn to non-functional descriptive material. The claim recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium for storing a bitstream of a 3D mesh but does not define the functional relationship between the non-transitory computer-readable medium and the bitstream of a 3D mesh. “To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP § 2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing a bitstream in claim 20 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream of a 3D mesh and provides no functional relationship between the non-transitory computer-readable medium and the bitstream. Therefore the bitstream is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III), thus rendering the claim indefinite.
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, 16 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou et al. (US 2017/0347122 A1) (hereinafter Chou) in view of Zhou et al. (US 2010/0231593 A1) (hereinafter Zhou).
Regarding claim 1, Chou discloses a method for decoding a 3D mesh [Paragraph [0080], decompression of point cloud data, as 3D mesh], comprising:
receiving a bitstream containing encoded positions of vertices associated with a plurality of connected mesh components of the 3D mesh [Paragraph [0080]-[0083] & [0102]-[0117], encoded data as bitstream includes geometry data 412 and attribute 414 of occupied points using mesh decompression].
However, Chou does not explicitly disclose generating, based on a reference mode for decoding a current vertex in a current mesh component, a reference position set, the reference position set containing two or more candidate reference positions regardless of the reference mode;
selecting a current reference position from the reference position set according to a reference position index signaled in the bitstream for the current vertex; and
decoding the current vertex to obtain a current position using the current reference position as a predictor.
Laroche teaches of generating, based on a reference mode for decoding a current vertex in a current mesh component, a reference position set, the reference position set containing two or more candidate reference positions regardless of the reference mode; selecting a current reference position from the reference position set according to a reference position index signaled in the bitstream for the current vertex [Paragraph [0108], [0120], Signaling texture coordinate indexes, each vertex of the mesh is approximated with a reference position of the cell to which it belongs, e.g. of the cell center. The integer position is then composed of the three index coordinates of the cell reference position]; and
decoding the current vertex to obtain a current position using the current reference position as a predictor [Paragraph [0098]-[0120], Fig. 3, Decoding geometry data, with vertex positions approximated].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Chou to incorporate and implement the features in Laroche, to improve texture mapping data and encoding of such (Laroche, Paragraphs [0014]-[0021]).
Regarding claim 16, method claim 16 recites limitations similar and reciprocal to the method of decoding as claimed in claim 1. Therefore method claim 16 corresponds to method claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding claim 20, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim 20 recites limitations similar to the method of decoding as claimed in claim 1. Therefore non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim 20 corresponds to method claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-15, 17-19 are 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:
The various claimed limitations mentioned in the claims are not taught or suggested by the prior art taken either singly or in combination, with emphasize that it is each claim, taken as a whole, including the interrelationships and interconnections between various claimed elements make them allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5707. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sa, 12PM - 10 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, 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.
/DANIEL CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487