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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 02/10/2025 and 04/07/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-11, 13-15, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim limitation(s) “a packing unit which hierarchizes, a displacement video encoding unit which encodes” invoke(s) 35 U.S.C. 112(f). 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. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding claim 4, claim limitation(s) “a base mesh encoding unit which encodes” invoke(s) 35 U.S.C. 112(f). 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. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding claim 5, claim limitation(s) “a motion vector encoding unit which encodes” invoke(s) 35 U.S.C. 112(f). 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. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding claim 7, claim limitation(s) “a displacement video decoding unit which decodes, an unpacking unit which unpacks, a segmentation unit which segmentalizes, a displacement value application unit which applies” invoke(s) 35 U.S.C. 112(f). 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. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding claim 9, claim limitation(s) “a header decoding unit which decodes” invoke(s) 35 U.S.C. 112(f). 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. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding claim 10, claim limitation(s) “a base mesh decoding unit which decodes” invoke(s) 35 U.S.C. 112(f). 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. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding claim 11, claim limitation(s) “a motion vector generation unit which decodes, a base mesh reconstruction unit which applies” invoke(s) 35 U.S.C. 112(f). 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. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding claim 13, claim limitation(s) “a base mesh vertex displacement value derivation unit which derives, a packing unit which hierarchizes, a displacement video encoding unit which encodes” invoke(s) 35 U.S.C. 112(f). 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. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding claim 14, claim limitation(s) “a base mesh encoding unit which encodes, a base mesh decoding unit which decodes” invoke(s) 35 U.S.C. 112(f). 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. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding claim 17, claim limitation(s) “a displacement video decoding unit which decodes, an unpacking unit which unpacks, a base mesh vertex position application unit which applies, a segmentation unit which segmentalizes, a displacement value application unit which applies” invoke(s) 35 U.S.C. 112(f). 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. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding claim 18, claim limitation(s) “a base mesh decoding unit which decodes” invoke(s) 35 U.S.C. 112(f). 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. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim(s) 2-3, 8, 15, and 19 is/are rejected for their dependence on claim(s) 1, 7, 13, and 17 because they do not contain additional language that would overcome the indefiniteness issue recited with regard to those claims.
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 taught 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 teaches 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-11, 13-15, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), but would be allowable if the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is overcome.
Claim(s) 6, 12, 16, and 20 is/are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 1 contains the limitations regarding hierarchization of displacement values of subdivision points obtained by segmentalizing a base mesh, and the packing of these hierarchized displacement values in a 2D image for each partial area of an object, where a displacement video is encoded with the 2D image set as a frame, and the base mesh is generated from the decimation of an original mesh encoding target constituted of vertices and connections expressing a 3D structure of the object, where the base mesh is coarser than the original mesh, and the displacement values are positional differences between the subdivision points and vertices of the original mesh. At the time of the effective filing date of the application, these limitations had not been fully anticipated and it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine elements of the prior art to meet this limitation. Independent claim(s) 7, 13, and 17 contain(s) allowable subject matter for the same reasons as claim 1. The claim(s) depending on these claim(s) contain allowable subject matter for the reasons concerning these claim(s).
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: independent claim 6 contains the limitations regarding hierarchization of displacement values of subdivision points obtained by segmentalizing a base mesh, and the packing of these hierarchized displacement values in a 2D image for each partial area of an object, where a displacement video is encoded with the 2D image set as a frame, and the base mesh is generated from the decimation of an original mesh encoding target constituted of vertices and connections expressing a 3D structure of the object, where the base mesh is coarser than the original mesh, and the displacement values are positional differences between the subdivision points and vertices of the original mesh. At the time of the effective filing date of the application, these limitations had not been fully anticipated and it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine elements of the prior art to meet this limitation. Independent claim(s) 12, 16, and 20 is/are allowed for the same reasons as claim 6.
The closest prior art, Poya et al. (US 20240273849), Fiser et al. (US 20230110680), Park et al. (US 20220343040), Lambert et al. (US 20220165025), Wissel et al. (US 20210298829), Hoerig et al. (US 20200281568), Inagaki et al. (US 20200005537), Varanasi et al. (US 20190392653), Maisonneuve (US 20160224693), Sumner et al. (US 20150029198), Ahn et al. (US 20120188241), Li et al. (US 20110285715), Graning et al. (US 20090012752) either singularly or in combination fail to anticipate or render obvious the above described limitations. While the prior art teaches mesh segmenting, 2D frames generated from 3D mesh packing, and general displacement measurements against a mesh structure, the prior art does not teach or suggest hierarchization of displacement values of subdivision points obtained by segmentalizing a base mesh, and the packing of these hierarchized displacement values in a 2D image for each partial area of an object, where a displacement video is encoded with the 2D image set as a frame, and the base mesh is generated from the decimation of an original mesh encoding target constituted of vertices and connections expressing a 3D structure of the object, where the base mesh is coarser than the original mesh, and the displacement values are positional differences between the subdivision points and vertices of the original mesh. Therefore, at the time of the effective filing date of the application, these limitations had not been fully anticipated and it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine elements of the prior art to meet this limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew D Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-3527. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30am - 5:30pm 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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at (571) 272-7383. 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.
/MATTHEW DAVID KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights