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
Preliminary Amendment, filed 08/28/2025, has been entered.
Claim 15 is cancelled.
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 9 and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Marvie et al. (“Marvie”) [U.S Patent Application Pub. US 2026/0127771 A1]
Regarding claim 1, Marvie meets the claim limitations as follows:
A method of transmitting mesh data, the method comprising: encoding mesh data (i.e. ‘Base Mesh Encoder 235’); and transmitting a bitstream (e.g. ‘Mesh Bistream 275’) containing the mesh data [Fig. 2; para. 0004: ‘The coding of a mesh includes generating a base mesh from the mesh’].
Regarding claim 2, Marvie meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the encoding of the mesh data comprises:
performing decimation (i.e. ‘Mesh Decomposer 220’) [Fig. 2; para. 0039: ‘To generate a base mesh m(i), the decomposer 220 decimates the mesh M(i)’] by generating base mesh data from the mesh data [Fig. 2; para. 0004, 0034-0040: ‘to decompose a received mesh M(i) 205 into a base mesh m(i) 222’; ‘The coding of a mesh includes generating a base mesh from the mesh’];
performing parameterization by generating (i.e. ‘obtaining connectivity data and geometry data’) [Fig. 21; para. 0092] at least one of texture coordinates or connectivity information related to vertices of the base mesh data [Fig. 2; para. 0004, 0034-0040: ‘obtaining connectivity data and geometry data associated with vertices of the base mesh’; ‘mesh data, denoted M, … include connectivity (topology) data, geometry, ’; ‘the texture mapping coordinates Ti ‘];
quantizing at least one of geometry information (i.e. ‘quantized base mesh m’(i)’) [para. 0036-0037, 0040: ‘quantized base mesh m’(i)], the texture coordinates, or normal information (i.e. ‘normal vectors’) related to the base mesh data [para. 0036-0037: ‘a mesh is a representation of a surface, including vertices … associated with three dimensional (3D) location’]; or
encoding a motion vector (i.e. ‘f(i)’) generated based on the base mesh data (i.e. ‘of the quantized base mesh qm(i)’) and a reference base mesh data (i.e. ‘of a reference reconstructed quantized base mesh m′(j)’) for the base mesh data [para. 0043: ‘then encode the adjusted motion vectors’; Eq. 3].
Regarding claim 6, Marvie meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 2, wherein the encoding of the mesh data comprises: subdividing the base mesh data [Fig. 2, 21: ‘2130’; para. 0038, 0048: ‘A mesh subdivision is then generated by subdividing the base mesh m(i)’; ‘generating a subdivided base mesh’]; adjusting positions of vertices of the subdivided base mesh data (i.e. ‘a newly added vertex’) [Fig. 21: ‘Computing displacement data; para. 0035, 0037-0038, 0043, 0063: ‘The new vertices are then displaced to new positions’; ‘introducing additional new vertices’; ‘adjust the motion vectors’; ‘displacing their vertex positions’];
generating a displacement vector (i.e. ‘f(i)’) [para. 0043: Eq. 3] based on the adjusted base mesh data (i.e. ‘of the quantized base mesh qm(i)’) and reconstructed base mesh data (i.e. ‘of a reference reconstructed quantized base mesh m′(j)’);
transforming a coordinate system of the displacement vector [Fig. 6: wavelet transformer 620; para. 0046: ‘Then, a wavelet transform is applied to represent the updated displacement vectors d’(i)’]; and
encoding the displacement vector [Fig. 6; para. 0046-0047: ‘Thus, the mesh encoder 245 encodes the displacement vectors d(i)’], wherein the encoding of the displacement vector comprises: quantizing [Fig. 6: Quantizer 630; para. 0046-0047], packing [Fig. 6: Image Packer 640; para. 0046-0047], and encoding transform coefficients of the displacement vector [Fig. 6: 2D Video Encoder 650’; para. 0046-0047]; or
predicting the transform coefficients of the displacement vector [para. 0043: ‘Pqm(i)’ in Eq. 3] based on transform coefficients of a reference frame (i.e. ‘Pm’(j) ‘) [para. 0043] and encoding transform coefficients including a residual (i.e. ‘f(i)’) [para. 0043: Eq. 3], the residual being generated based on the predicted transform coefficients [para. 0043: ‘compute a motion field f(i)’ in Eq. 3].
Regarding claim 8, the corresponding device in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 1, and is therefore rejected in the same manner. Marvie [Claim 19: ‘An apparatus for encoding mesh data’] meets the claim limitations “a memory; and a processor configured to execute one or more instructions in the memory”.
Regarding claim 9, Marvie meets the claim limitations as follows:
A method of receiving mesh data, the method comprising: receiving a bitstream containing mesh data; and decoding the mesh data [Fig. 2, 3: Base mesh decoder; Mesh Decoder; Abstract; para. 0002, 0035: ‘decoding mesh data’; ‘In addition to base mesh connectivity, base mesh geometry as well as displacement vectors have to be encoded and provided to the decoder’].
Regarding claim 11, Marvie meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 9, wherein the decoding of the mesh data comprises: decoding a displacement vector contained in the bitstream [Fig. 2, 3, 7, 8: Base mesh decoder; Mesh Decoder; Abstract; para. 0002, 0035, 0040: ‘decoding mesh data’; ‘In addition to base mesh connectivity, base mesh geometry as well as displacement vectors have to be encoded and provided to the decoder’],
wherein the decoding of the displacement vector comprises: decoding a video of transform coefficients of the displacement vector , and unpacking, inversely quantizing, and inversely transforming an image of the transform coefficients [Fig. 7, 8. Note: decoding a video of transform coefficients is reverse functionality of encoding. See the rejection of claim 6 limitation “encoding the displacement vector …”]; or
decoding the transform coefficients of the displacement vector [Fig. 7, 8. Note: decoding a video of transform coefficients is reverse functionality of encoding. See the rejection of claim 6 limitation “encoding transform coefficients …” and “predicting the transform coefficients”] and performing prediction based on transform coefficients in a reference frame (i.e. ‘reference quantized base mesh’) [Fig. 7, 8. Note: decoding a video of transform coefficients is reverse functionality of encoding. See the rejection of claim 6 limitation “encoding transform coefficients …” and “predicting the transform coefficients”].
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.
Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marvie in view of Moon et al. (“Moon”) [US 2019/0149836 A1]
Regarding claim 3, Marvie meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 2, wherein the encoding of the motion vector comprises: determining whether to adjust a value of a motion component of the motion vector (i.e. ‘based on neighboring motion vectors’) [para. 0043]; adjusting the value of the motion component based on the determination [para. 0043: ‘adjust the motion vectors’]; and performing arithmetic coding on the value of the motion component [para. 0034, 0043: the displacement vectors are quite compact and suitable for arithmetic encoding’; ‘then encodes the adjusted motion vectors using an entropy coder’].
Marvie does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
wherein the encoding of the motion vector comprises: determining whether to adjust a value of a motion component of the motion vector.
However in the same field of endeavor Moon discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the encoding of the motion vector comprises: determining whether to adjust a value of a motion component of the motion vector [para. 0016, 0024: ‘encoding information represent whether or not to upwardly adjust a precision of the motion vector based on reconstruct pixels adjacent to the current block’].
Marvie and Zoo are combinable because they are from the same field of video compression.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Marvie and Zoo as motivation to adjust motion vector for a precision [Moon: para. 0004, 0024].
Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marvie in view of Mammou et al. (“Mammou”) [US 2023/0290063 A1]
Regarding claim 13, Marvie meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 9.
Marvie does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
The method of claim 9, wherein the bitstream contains at least one of: a count value related to a number of motion components; a number of vertices in a base mesh; a sum of absolute values of motion components in a coding group; a flag indicating whether the motion components are equal to 0; a flag indicating whether the motion components are equal to 1; a value obtained by subtracting 2 from each of the absolute values of the motion components; a flag indicating a sign of each of the motion components; a threshold for a number of non-zero motion components in the coding group; or the motion components.
However in the same field of endeavor Mammou discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the bitstream (i.e. ‘the v-mesh bitstream’) [para. 0559-0564] contains at least one of: a count value related to a number of motion components; a number of vertices in a base mesh [para. 0559-0564: ‘’mdu_vertex_count_minus1+1’]; a sum of absolute values of motion components in a coding group; a flag indicating whether the motion components are equal to 0; a flag indicating whether the motion components are equal to 1; a value obtained by subtracting 2 from each of the absolute values of the motion components; a flag indicating a sign of each of the motion components; a threshold for a number of non-zero motion components in the coding group; or the motion components.
Marvie and Mammou are combinable because they are from the same field of video compression.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Marvie and Mammou as motivation to include mesh parameters in the bitstream in accordance with the video standards [Mammou: para. 0002].
Claim 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marvie in view of Moon et al. (“Moon”) [US 11,140,396]
Regarding claim 14, Marvie meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 9.
Marvie does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
The method of claim 9, wherein the bitstream contains at least one of: a value indicating a number of displacement vectors in a level of detail; a value indicating a number of subblocks in the level of detail; a count value related to a number of transform coefficients; a flag indicating whether a non-zero transform coefficient is present in a block; a value indicating a number of transform coefficients in the subblocks; a value indicating whether a non-zero transform coefficient is present in the subblocks; a flag indicating whether the transform components are equal to 0; a flag indicating whether the transform components are equal to 1; a value obtained by subtracting 2 from each of absolute values of the transform coefficients; a flag indicating a sign of the transform coefficients; or a level of the transform coefficients.
However in the same field of endeavor Moon discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the bitstream contains at least one of [Claim 4: ‘generating a bitstream including the encoding information of the transform block’]: a value indicating a number of displacement vectors in a level of detail; a value indicating a number of subblocks in the level of detail; a count value related to a number of transform coefficients; a flag indicating whether a non-zero transform coefficient is present in a block [Claim 4: ‘generating a bitstream including the encoding information of the transform block, wherein the encoding information includes a flag …, the flag indicating whether the current coefficient is a non-zero coefficient’]; a value indicating a number of transform coefficients in the subblocks; a value indicating whether a non-zero transform coefficient is present in the subblocks; a flag indicating whether the transform components are equal to 0; a flag indicating whether the transform components are equal to 1; a value obtained by subtracting 2 from each of absolute values of the transform coefficients; a flag indicating a sign of the transform coefficients; or a level of the transform coefficients.
Marvie and Moon are combinable because they are from the same field of video compression.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Marvie and Moon as motivation to include mesh parameters in the bitstream to improve compression efficiency [Moon: col. 1].
Allowable Subject Matter
Regarding claim 4, it is 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.
Regarding claim 5, it is 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.
Regarding claim 7, it is 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.
Regarding claim 10, it is 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.
Regarding claim 12, it is 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER D LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5382. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Alternate Friday: 10AM-6:30PM.
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, SATH PERUNGAVOOR can be reached on 571-272-7455. 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.
/PETER D LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights