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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/06/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites “Th method of claim 15…”. The word “The” appears to be misspelled. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4, 8-13, 15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khodakovsky et al. (US 7098916 B1, hereinafter Khodakovsky) in view of Mammou (US 20220392115 A1).
Concerning claim 1, Khodakovsky teaches a method of mesh decoding (fig. 7), comprising:
receiving a bitstream that includes coded information of a mesh, the mesh including a plurality of vertices (col. 9, ll. 11-22; col. 9, ll. 33-43; fig. 7);
determining whether a current vertex of the plurality of vertices is a pivot vertex based on a priority of the current vertex in the plurality of vertices (fig. 7: 704 & col. 10, ll. 8-14), the current vertex including a plurality of incident faces (fig. 7: 706; col. 10, ll. 15-23), the priority of the current vertex being determined based on a number of unprocessed faces to which the current vertex is incident (col. 10, ll. 8-14, wherein the policy or heuristic rules are explained regarding the encoding process in fig. 3: steps 304-308 & col. 4, ll. 39-58 – The vertices are ordered in the active queue in a manner that is inversely proportional to the “incompleteness” of the vertex); and
reconstructing one or more unvisited incident faces of the plurality of incident faces of the current vertex when the current vertex is determined as the pivot vertex (fig. 7: steps 706-710; col. 10, ll. 16-55). Not explicitly taught is the priority of the current vertex being determined based on a total number of already visited incident faces of the plurality of incident faces of the current vertex.
Mammou, in the same field of endeavor, teaches decoding information regarding a polygon mesh, wherein the priority of the current vertex being determined based on a total number of already visited incident faces of the plurality of incident faces of the current vertex (¶0031; ¶0139: “(i) the number of previously encoded triangles that are incident to that vertex”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Khodakovsky and Mammou in order to determine the traversal order of the vertices. Such a modification is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Concerning claim 2, Khodakovsky further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the current vertex has been visited before the current vertex is determined as the pivot vertex (col. 8, ll. 58-61).
Concerning claim 4, Mammou further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the priority of the current vertex is determined based on a sum of angles of incident corners of the current vertex, each of the incident corners being associated with a respective one of the already visited incident faces (¶0031; ¶0137; ¶0139: “…sum of one or more angles formed by the previously encoded triangles that are incident to that vertex”).
Concerning claim 8, Mammou further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the priority of the current vertex is determined based on a negative of a total number of unprocessed incident faces of the current vertex (¶0031; ¶0139: “(i) the number of previously encoded triangles that are incident to that vertex” is the opposite of the total number of unprocessed triangles).
Concerning claim 9, Mammou further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the priority of the current vertex is determined based on a total number of unprocessed incident faces of the current vertex minus a constant. (¶0031; ¶0139: “(i) the number of previously encoded triangles that are incident to that vertex”. When at least one of the number of previously encoded triangles and the number of unprocessed encoded triangles are known, the other may be determined based on an equation involving a constant that may be the total number of triangles. This could easily be derived by a person having ordinary skill in the art.).
Concerning claim 10, Mammou further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the priority of the current vertex is determined based on a negative of a total number of unprocessed incident face fans of the current vertex (¶0028: three-dimensional models and polygon meshes; ¶0031; ¶0139: “(i) the number of previously encoded triangles that are incident to that vertex”).
Concerning claim 11, Mammou further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the priority of the current vertex is determined based on a total number of unprocessed incident face fans of the current vertex minus a constant (¶0028: three-dimensional models and polygon meshes; ¶0031; ¶0139: “(i) the number of previously encoded triangles that are incident to that vertex”. When at least one of the number of previously encoded triangles and the number of unprocessed encoded triangles are known, the other may be determined based on an equation involving a constant that may be the total number of triangles. This could easily be derived by a person having ordinary skill in the art.).
Claim 12 is the corresponding method of mesh encoding to the method of mesh decoding of claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale because encoding and decoding are inverse operations. Khodakovsky further teaches encoding and decoding processes of polygon meshes (Abstract, col. 1, ll. 12-15).
Claim 13 is the corresponding method of mesh encoding to the method of mesh decoding of claim 2 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 15 is the corresponding method of mesh encoding to the method of mesh decoding of claim 4 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 19 is the corresponding method of mesh encoding to the method of mesh decoding of claim 8 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Concerning claim 20, Khodakovsky teaches a method of processing mesh data (figs. 3 & 7: encoding and decoding processes), the method comprising:
processing a bitstream of the mesh data according to a format rule (figs. 3 & 7; col. 4, ll. 39-58), wherein:
the bitstream includes coded information of a mesh with a plurality of vertices (col. 9, ll. 11-22; col. 9, ll. 33-43; fig. 7); and the format rule specifies that:
whether a current vertex of the plurality of vertices is a pivot vertex is determined based on a priority of the current vertex in the plurality of vertices (fig. 7: 704 & col. 10, ll. 8-14), the current vertex including a plurality of incident faces, the priority of the current vertex being determined based on a number of unprocessed faces to which the current vertex is incident (col. 10, ll. 8-14, wherein the policy or heuristic rules are explained regarding the encoding process in fig. 3: steps 304-308 & col. 4, ll. 39-58 – The vertices are ordered in the active queue in a manner that is inversely proportional to the “incompleteness” of the vertex); and
one or more unvisited incident faces of the plurality of incident faces of the current vertex are processed when the current vertex is determined as the pivot vertex (fig. 7: steps 706-710; col. 10, ll. 16-55). Not explicitly taught is the priority of the current vertex being determined based on a total number of already visited incident faces of the plurality of incident faces of the current vertex.
Mammou, in the same field of endeavor, teaches decoding information regarding a polygon mesh, wherein the priority of the current vertex being determined based on a total number of already visited incident faces of the plurality of incident faces of the current vertex (¶0031; ¶0139: “(i) the number of previously encoded triangles that are incident to that vertex”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Khodakovsky and Mammou in order to determine the traversal order of the vertices. Such a modification is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5-7, 14 and 16-18 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M ANDERSON II whose telephone number is (571)270-1444. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM-6PM.
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, BRIAN PENDLETON can be reached at 571-272-7527. 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.
/James M Anderson II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights