Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/061,106

MESH DECODING DEVICE, MESH DECODING METHOD, AND PROGRAM

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Feb 24, 2025
Examiner
GADOMSKI, STEFAN J
Art Unit
2485
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Kddi Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
83%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
313 granted / 412 resolved
+18.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +7% lift
Without
With
+7.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
438
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.9%
-34.1% vs TC avg
§103
46.4%
+6.4% vs TC avg
§102
16.7%
-23.3% vs TC avg
§112
22.6%
-17.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 412 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/24/2025 and 02/05/2026 was considered by the examiner. Drawings The drawings were received on 02/24/2025. These drawings are acceptable. Claim Objections Claims 1, 5, and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: Appropriate correction is required. Claim language generates “binarization syntax” two different ways but does not distinguish them for subsequent generation of syntax. 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 1-6 are 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. Claims 1, 5, and 6 recite the limitation "the syntax" and “the syntax x”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Dependent claims 2-4 fall together accordingly. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. “Overview of the Video-based Dynamic Mesh Coding (V-DMC) Standard Work, hereafter Choi, in view of Kirchhoffer et al. “Context-adaptive Binary Arithmetic Coding for Frame-Based Animated Mesh Compression”, hereafter Kirchhoffer, further in view of Marpe et al. “Context-Based Adaptive Binary Arithmetic Coding in the H.264/AVC Video Compression Standard”, hereafter Marpe. Regarding claim 1, Choi discloses a mesh decoding device (decoder) [section II.B.] comprising: a circuit (decoder) [section II.B.] that decodes a displacement bit stream to generate and output a displacement (the decoder can generate the original mesh using only the decimated mesh and the displacement information) [section II.B.], wherein the circuit: generates a transformed coefficient by inversely quantizing a coefficient level value (displacement information is converted into a wavelet transform to a set of wavelet coefficients, which are then quantized…during decoding) [section II.B.]; and generates a displacement by applying an inverse wavelet transform to the transformed coefficient (displacement information is converted into a wavelet transform to a set of wavelet coefficients…the decoder can generate the original mesh…the displacement information is also stored in the form of a wavelet transform, which exhibits a high compression efficiency during the encoding process) [section II.B.]. However, while Choi discloses dynamic mesh decoding involving quantization and wavelet transforms, Choi fails to explicitly disclose generates a binarization syntax by performing arithmetic decoding on the displacement bit stream; generates a binarization syntax by performing bypass arithmetic decoding in which arithmetic decoding is performed while a context value is fixed with respect to the displacement bit stream; generates the syntax by multi-value conversion of the binarization syntax; generates a coefficient level value from the syntax x. Kirchhoffer, in an analogous environment, discloses generates a binarization syntax by performing arithmetic encoding on the displacement bit stream (specific modifications and adaptations that have been worked out to adapt CABAC to the specific requirements of FAMC; first the Binarizer converts a given syntax element into a sequence of binary symbols. Each binary symbol is called a bin and their sequence is called a bin string) [abstract; section 5]; generates a binarization syntax by performing bypass arithmetic encoding in which arithmetic encoding is performed while a context value is fixed with respect to the displacement bit stream (some bins, however, such as those related to sign information for instance are encoded with the low-complexity Bypass Coding Engine without assigning an explicit probability model. These bins are written into the bit-stream with a fixed probability estimate) [section 5]; generates the syntax by multi-value conversion of the binarization syntax (the Context Modeler assigns a so-called context model to each bin of the bin string…each such bin is passed to the Regular Coding Engine, where it is arithmetically encoded using the probability estimate that is generated by the context model) [section 5]; generates a coefficient level value from the syntax x (these bins are written into the bitstream) [section 5]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the CABAC adaptation for mesh compression, as disclosed by Kirchhoffer, with the invention disclosed by Choi, the motivation being higher degree of coding [abstract]. Further while Kirchhoffer discloses CABAC for mesh compression, Marpe arithmetic decoding (whole encoding (and decoding)) [section II]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use arithmetic decoding, as disclosed by Marpe, with the invention disclosed by Choi and Kirchhoffer, combining arithmetic encoding and decoding according to known methods to yield predictable results. Regarding claim 2, Choi, Kirchhoffer, and Marpe address all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Kirchhoffer further discloses decodes the binarization syntax in units of sub-blocks, decodes the binarization syntax in units of sub-blocks, generates the syntax in units of sub-blocks, and generates the coefficient level value in units of sub-blocks (assigns a so-called context model to each bin of the bin string) [section 5]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use sub blocks in the form of context models for bins, as disclosed by Kirchhoffer, with the invention disclosed by Choi and Marpe, the motivation being higher degree of coding [abstract]. Method claim 5 is adapted to implement the instructions of mesh decoding device of claim 1, and is therefore rejected in the same manner as above. Computer readable medium claim 6 is drawn to the instructions of mesh decoding device of claim 1, and is therefore rejected in the same manner as above. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 3 and 4 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. Citation of Pertinent Prior Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Huang et al. US 2023/0177738 A1 discloses dynamic mesh compression and arithmetic coding Zhang et al. US 2023/0014820 A1 discloses dynamic mesh compression and arithmetic coding Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEFAN GADOMSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5701. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 12-8PM EST. 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. STEFAN GADOMSKI Primary Examiner Art Unit 2485 /STEFAN GADOMSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 24, 2025
Application Filed
Mar 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602821
IMAGING DEVICE FOR CALCULATING THREE-DIMENSIONAL POSITION ON THE BASIS OF IMAGE CAPTURED BY VISUAL SENSOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12602771
IN SITU WAFER SEAL CHUCK DEFECTS IDENTIFICATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596035
THERMAL IMAGING CAMERA DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12581104
MULTIVIEW ACQUISITION INFORMATION SUPPLEMENTAL ENHANCEMENT INFORMATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12573019
ELECTROPLATING CHAMBER LEAKAGE PLATING WARNING METHOD AND SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
76%
Grant Probability
83%
With Interview (+7.4%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 412 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month