DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. This application claims priority to U.S provisional Patent Applications No. 63/440,833, filed on 01/24/2023, and is hereby incorporated by references.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 06/13/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Abstract
4. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. 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. 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. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
The abstract has more than one paragraph and should be rewritten in a single paragraph.
Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
5. 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.
6. 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: a random access metadata generation unit; a storage unit; a random access reproduction control unit; a reproduction processing unit in claims 1 and 19.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101
7. 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, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as not falling within one of the four statutory categories of invention: process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The word “An information” does not automatically imply structure, and thus does not fall within one of the four categories of invention, and therefore does not qualify as a statutory process.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minezawa et al., (US 2016/0330468A1) (hereinafter Minezawa) in view of Mammou et al., (US 2021/0090301A1) (hereinafter Mammou) (cited by IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Minezawa discloses an information processing device (e.g., see abstract: Figs. 1-3) comprising:
a random access metadata generation unit that generates random access
metadata for performing random access on data on a basis of
a current sample that is a sample (e.g., see paragraphs 0468-0469: MPU metadata and a randomly-accessible inter picture); and
a storage unit that stores the random access metadata in a content file
that stores the data (e.g., see paragraphs 0424: a randomly-accessible inter picture and IRAP picture are stored; paragraphs 0468-0470: randomly accessible-inter-picture identification information and information for identifying the position of the reference picture that is used in random access are imparted as information in a media file format for grouping together coded video and audio bitstreams; also see paragraphs 0471-0473: randomly-accessible inter picture is defined as a long-term reference picture stored in a buffer for long-term storage).
Minezawa does not explicitly disclose data mesh, an inter-mesh sample, and the mesh data.
However, Mammou discloses data mesh, an inter-mesh sample, and the mesh data (e.g., see abstract, paragraphs 0006-0008, 0013-0014: sub-mesh, 3D mesh sample; Figs. 13-16, 0516-0522: 3D mesh).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Minezawa to add the teachings of Mammou as above, in order to provide improved compression and decompression of three-dimensional meshes with associated textures or attributes using patch images packed into two-dimensional image frames (see paragraph 0002: Mammou).
Regarding claim 2, Minezawa and Mammou disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Minezawa discloses wherein the random access metadata
includes control information specifying a sample from which decoding is started (e.g., see paragraphs 0468-0469: MPU metadata and a randomly-accessible inter picture; paragraphs 005-007, 011: decoding).
Regarding claim 3, Minezawa and Mammou disclose all the limitations of claim 2, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Minezawa discloses wherein the control information specifies the
sample from which decoding is started by a difference value of a picture order
count (POC) from the current sample (e.g., see paragraphs 0422, 0423, 0460: poc_cnt; paragraph 0478: picture order count (POC).
Regarding claim 4, Minezawa and Mammou disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Minezawa discloses wherein the random access metadata
includes controlinformation specifying a sample that is normally decoded (e.g., see paragraphs 0468-0469: MPU metadata and a randomly-accessible inter picture; paragraphs 005-007, 011: decoding).
Regarding claim 5, Minezawa and Mammou disclose all the limitations of claim 4, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Minezawa discloses wherein the control information specifies
the sample that is normally decoded by a difference value of a picture order count (POC) from the current sample (e.g., see paragraphs 0422, 0423, 0460: poc_cnt; paragraph 0478: picture order count (POC).
Regarding claim 6, Minezawa and Mammou disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Minezawa discloses wherein the random access metadata
includes first control information specifying a sample from which decoding is
started and second control information specifying a sample that is normally decoded (e.g., see paragraphs 0468-0469: MPU metadata and a randomly-accessible inter picture; paragraphs 005-007, 011: decoding).
Regarding claim 7, Minezawa and Mammou disclose all the limitations of claim 6, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Minezawa discloses wherein the first control information specifies
the sample from which decoding is started by a difference value of a picture order count (POC) from the current sample, and the second control information
specifies the sample that is normally decoded by a difference value of the POC
from the current sample (e.g., see paragraphs 0422, 0423, 0460: poc_cnt; paragraph 0478: picture order count (POC).
Regarding claim 8, Minezawa and Mammou disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Minezawa discloses wherein the content file manages
a submesh of the mesh data as a subsample, the random access metadata
generation unit is configured to generate the random access metadata
corresponding to the subsample, and the storage unit is configured to store the random
access metadata corresponding to the subsample in the content file
(e.g., see paragraphs 0468-0469: MPU metadata and a randomly-accessible inter picture; paragraphs 005-007, 011: decoding).
Regarding claim 9, Minezawa and Mammou disclose all the limitations of claim 8, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Minezawa discloses wherein the storage unit is configured
to store the random access metadata in a subsample information box of the
content file (e.g., see paragraphs 0424: a randomly-accessible inter picture and IRAP picture are stored; paragraphs 0468-0470: randomly accessible-inter-picture identification information and information for identifying the position of the reference picture that is used in random access are imparted as information in a media file format for grouping together coded video and audio bitstreams; also see paragraphs 0471-0473: randomly-accessible inter picture is defined as a long-term reference picture stored in a buffer for long-term storage).
Regarding claim 10, Minezawa and Mammou disclose all the limitations of claim 8, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Minezawa discloses wherein the random access metadata
includes information indicating a coding type of the submesh corresponding to
the subsample (e.g., see paragraphs 0468-0469: MPU metadata and a randomly-accessible inter picture; paragraphs 005-007, 011: decoding).
Regarding claim 11, Minezawa and Mammou disclose all the limitations of claim 8, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Minezawa discloses wherein the random access metadata
includes control information specifying a subsample from which decoding is started (e.g., see paragraphs 0468-0469: MPU metadata and a randomly-accessible inter picture; paragraphs 005-007, 011: decoding).
Regarding claim 12, Minezawa and Mammou disclose all the limitations of claim 11, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Minezawa discloses wherein the control information specifies
the subsample from which decoding is started by a difference value of a
picture order count (POC) from a current subsample (e.g., see paragraphs 0422, 0423, 0460: poc_cnt; paragraph 0478: picture order count (POC).
Regarding claim 13, Minezawa and Mammou disclose all the limitations of claim 8, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Minezawa discloses wherein the random access metadata
includes control information specifying a subsample that is normally
decoded (e.g., see paragraphs 0468-0469: MPU metadata and a randomly-accessible inter picture; paragraphs 005-007, 011: decoding).
Regarding claim 14, Minezawa and Mammou disclose all the limitations of claim 13, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Minezawa discloses wherein the control information specifies
the subsample that is normally decoded by a difference value of a
picture order count (POC) from a current subsample (e.g., see paragraphs 0422, 0423, 0460: poc_cnt; paragraph 0478: picture order count (POC).
Regarding claim 15, Minezawa and Mammou disclose all the limitations of claim 8, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Minezawa discloses wherein the random access metadata
includes first control information specifying a subsample from which decoding is
started and second control information specifying a subsample that
is normally decoded (e.g., see paragraphs 0468-0469: MPU metadata and a randomly-accessible inter picture; paragraphs 005-007, 011: decoding).
Regarding claim 16, Minezawa and Mammou disclose all the limitations of claim 15, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Minezawa discloses wherein the first control information
specifies the subsample from which decoding is started by a difference
value of a picture order count (POC) from a current subsample, and
the second control information specifies the subsample that is
normally decoded by a difference value of the POC from the current
subsample (e.g., see paragraphs 0422, 0423, 0460: poc_cnt; paragraph 0478: picture order count (POC).
Regarding claim 17, Minezawa and Mammou disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Minezawa discloses wherein the storage unit is configured to
store the random access metadata in a track that stores the mesh data of the content file (e.g., see paragraphs 0468-0469: MPU metadata and a randomly-accessible inter picture; paragraphs 005-007, 011: decoding).
Regarding claim 18, this claim is an information processing method claim of an information device version as applied to claim 1 above, wherein the method performs the same limitations cited in claim 1, the rejections of which are incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 19, Minezawa discloses an information processing device (e.g., see abstract: Figs. 1-3) comprising:
a random access reproduction control unit that controls random access on a
basis of random access metadata for performing the random access on a basis of a
current sample that is an sample, the random access metadata being
stored in a content file that stores data (e.g., see paragraphs 0468-0469: MPU metadata and a randomly-accessible inter picture); and
a reproduction processing unit that starts reproduction of the data
by the random access (e.g., see paragraphs 0424: a randomly-accessible inter picture and IRAP picture are stored; paragraphs 0468-0470: randomly accessible-inter-picture identification information and information for identifying the position of the reference picture that is used in random access are imparted as information in a media file format for grouping together coded video and audio bitstreams; also see paragraphs 0471-0473: randomly-accessible inter picture is defined as a long-term reference picture stored in a buffer for long-term storage).
Minezawa does not explicitly disclose an inter-mesh sample and the mesh data.
However, Mammou discloses an inter-mesh sample and the mesh data (e.g., see abstract, paragraphs 0006-0008, 0013-0014: sub-mesh, 3D mesh sample; Figs. 13-16, 0516-0522: 3D mesh).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Minezawa to add the teachings of Mammou as above, in order to provide improved compression and decompression of three-dimensional meshes with associated textures or attributes using patch images packed into two-dimensional image frames (see paragraph 0002: Mammou).
Regarding claim 20, this claim is an information processing method claim of an information device version as applied to claim 19 above, wherein the method performs the same limitations cited in claim 19, the rejections of which are incorporated herein.
Conclusion
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ON MUNG whose telephone number is (571) 270-7557 and whose direct fax number is (571) 270-8557. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9am - 6pm (ET).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JAMIE ATALA can be reached on (571)272-7384. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ON S MUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights