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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on March 29, 2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Korean (KR 2024-0043684) application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers (KR -2025-0038361) required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mathematical concept without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) decoding a Gaussian parameter and Gaussian embedding for a first Gaussian; obtaining a variation of the Gaussian parameter for the first Gaussian; reconstructing a second Gaussian by applying the variation and the Gaussian embedding is derived individually for each Gaussian. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the Gaussian is defined in Applicant’s specification paragraph 0038, as a mean vector and a covariance matrix and therefore obtaining and applying a variation to a mean vector and covariance matrix equates to a mathematical concept. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims fails to recite additional elements or limitations that integrate the mathematical concept into a practical application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: Gaussian information decoding unit; Gaussian parameter variation acquisition unit; Gaussian reconstruction unit in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim limitation “Gaussian information decoding unit; Gaussian parameter variation acquisition unit; Gaussian reconstruction unit ” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Applicant specification discloses in paragraph 0033, construction units shown in an embodiment of the present disclosure are independently shown to represent different characteristic functions, it does not mean that each construction unit is composed in a construction unit of separate hardware or one piece of software. In other words, as each construction unit is included by being enumerated as each construction unit for convenience of a description, at least two construction units of each construction unit may be combined to form one construction unit or one construction unit may be subdivided into a plurality of construction units to perform a function; and paragraph 0081, computer program(s) may be written in any form of a programming language including a compiled language or an interpreted language and may be distributed in any form including a stand-alone program or module, a component, a subroutine, or other unit suitable for use in a computing environment. Applicant’s specification fails to disclose or recite the specific hardware that performs each function, as each unit refers to a mathematical function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: multi-view images captured at different timestamps are input; initial Gaussian is generated using Structure from Motion (SfM); Gaussian is generated based on Gaussian parameter.
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.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al., U.S. Patent Publication Number 2026/0089303 A1, view of Mao et al., U.S. Patent Publication Number 2026/0067508 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a method, comprising: a Gaussian parameter and Gaussian embedding for a first Gaussian in a canonical space (paragraph 0028, a canonical 3D Gaussian Splats (3DGS) representation; paragraph 0088, position embedding γ on each coordinate of the 3D Gaussians); obtaining a variation of the Gaussian parameter for the first Gaussian by inputting the Gaussian embedding into a deformation function (paragraph 0088, deformation networks can consist of an MLP, Fθ: (γ(x), γ(t)).fwdarw.(Δx, Δq, As), which applies position embedding γ on each coordinate of the 3D Gaussians and time (or per-frame deformation code) and maps them to their corresponding deviations in position, rotation, and scaling); and reconstructing a second Gaussian at a target timestamp by applying the variation to the Gaussian parameter for the first Gaussian, wherein the Gaussian embedding is derived individually for each Gaussian (paragraph 0115, canonical 3DGS representation 106 can be reconstructed from the freeze time video 208 by learning both the canonical 3DGS representation 106 and the set of per-frame deformations 314 simultaneously).
However it is noted that Lee fails to disclose decoding a Gaussian parameter.
Mao discloses decoding a Gaussian parameter (paragraph 0029, decoder network to obtain the first Gaussian distribution parameter information) in a canonical space (paragraph 0032, Gaussian distribution parameter information in three-dimensional space); (paragraph 0030, first Gaussian distribution parameter information may be scaled) and reconstructing a second Gaussian at a target (paragraph 0031, determining a reconstructed image; paragraph 0032, a target scaling matrix may be determined ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the decoding of the Gaussian parameter in canonical space as disclosed by Mao, in the canonical 3D Gaussian Splats (3DGS) representation as disclosed by Lee, to apply position embedding γ on each coordinate of the 3D Gaussians and time (or per-frame deformation code) and maps them to their corresponding deviations in position, rotation, and scaling as disclosed by Lee.
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses wherein the variation is obtained by further inputting temporal embedding into the deformation function (paragraph 0028, temporal deformations are then learned to align the 3DGS with the reference video; ).
Regarding claim 4, Lee discloses wherein the temporal embedding is expressed as a vector corresponding to at least one frame in a one-dimensional feature grid comprising N frames. (paragraph 0038, first sequence of frames thus corresponds to a temporal sequence of time steps or points in time of the scene).
Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses wherein the temporal embedding is derived for each dynamic state of a scene (paragraph 0037, capturing temporally dynamic aspects of the scene).
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses wherein a device for decoding the image that performs the method of decoding the image comprises a pre-defined network structure, and wherein the pre-defined network structure comprises at least one layer, and the at least one layer has 128 hidden units (paragraph 0088, employing ReLU activations and containing 256-dimensional hidden units, resulting in a 256-dimensional feature vector; ).
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses wherein the temporal embedding is at least one of high-resolution temporal embedding or low-resolution temporal embedding depending on whether the device that performs the method of image is a high-resolution image or a low-resolution image (paragraph 0071, two-stage pixel-space model that first generates a video at a low resolution (e.g., 36×64 pixels), which is then up-sampled to a higher resolution (e.g., 288×512 pixels).
Mao discloses a decoding device (30, video decoder).
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses wherein the high-resolution temporal embedding is obtained for each of N frames, and the low-resolution temporal embedding is obtained only for a frame at a downsampled position among the N frames (paragraph 0071, rendered video frames can be randomly shifted and/or cropped to mitigate aliasing effects, then down-sampled to the low resolution).
Regarding claim 10, it is rejected based upon similar rational as above claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kreis et al., U.S. Patent Publication Number 2025/0182404 A1
Kreis discloses initialize a 3D component of the 4D content model, such as a 3D Gaussian splatting representation, based at least on a prompt for the 4D content. The system can configure motion and/or dynamics for the sequence of frames by evaluating frames rendered from the 4D content model using one or more latent diffusion models (LDMs), including a video LDM. The system can perform operations such as autoregressive generation of frames to create long sequences of content, motion amplification to facilitate realistic, dynamic motion generation, and regularization to facilitate generation of complex dynamics.
Ranjan et al., U.S. Patent Publication Number 20250148678 A1
Ranjan discloses obtaining a three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction of the subject and the scene from the video input. The method includes generating a 3D Gaussian representation of each of the scene and the subject. The method also includes generating a deformed 3D Gaussian representation of the subject by adapting the 3D Gaussian representation of the subject to the 3D reconstruction of the subject. The method includes rendering a visual output comprising an animatable avatar of the subject and the scene using differentiable Gaussian rasterization based at least in part on the deformed 3D Gaussian representation of the subject and the 3D Gaussian representation of the scene.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Motilewa Good-Johnson whose telephone number is (571)272-7658. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6am-2:30pm.
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, Jason Chan can be reached at 571-272-3022. 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.
MOTILEWA . GOOD JOHNSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2616
/MOTILEWA GOOD-JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619
Prosecution Insights