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 .
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Presented arguments have been fully considered, but are rendered moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendment(s) initiated by the applicant(s).
102 rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendments to claim 19.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 and 5-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hannuksela US 20200021824 in view of Xu US 20230412842.
Regarding claim 1, Hannuksela meets the claim limitations, as follows:
A method for processing video or image data [77,229,243,273], comprising:
determining to arrange displacement vectors and an attribute map of three-dimensional (3D) visual media data into a single picture for processing by a two-dimensional (2D) video codec (i.e. patches made from volumetric images and texture and depth patches.) [105-110,246-247,269-272,388-391; fig. 4]; and
performing a conversion between visual media data and a bitstream based on the displacement vectors and the attribute map (i.e. region packing info can be encoded as metadata in the bitstream) [85,105-110,206-210, 246-247,269-272,388-391].
Hannuksela do/does not explicitly disclose(s):
wherein the 3d visual media data is dynamic mesh data;
However, in the same field of endeavor Xu discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
wherein the 3d visual media data is dynamic mesh data (i.e. dynamic mesh data used in encoding) [116];
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Hannuksela with Xu to have the 3d visual media data be dynamic mesh data.
It would be advantageous because “[0114] In view of the above, such exemplary V-PCC flow represents advantages with respect to a V-PCC standard including one or more of the described partitioning capabilities for multiple 2D/3D areas, a capability of a compressed domain assembly of coded 2D/3D partitions into a single conformant coded video bitstream, and a bitstream extraction capability of coded 2D/3D of a coded picture into conformant coded bitstreams, where such V-PCC system support is further improved by including container formation for a VVC bitstream to support a mechanism to contain metadata carrying one or more of the above-described metadata.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Hannuksela and Xu to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Hannuksela meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 1, further comprising determining to arrange the displacement vectors and the attribute map in different parts of the single picture, and indicating location information or size information for each of the different parts in the bitstream (i.e. patches made from volumetric images and texture and depth patches. These form an image and relevant geometric data is included) [110,199,246-247,269-272; fig. 4].
Regarding claim 3, Hannuksela meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 2, further comprising indicating the location information or the size information in a sequence parameter set (SPS), a picture parameter set (PPS), a video parameter set (VPS), a picture header, or a slice header of the bitstream (i.e. syntax may indicate location information) [148-151,382-387] or deriving the location information or the size information from information in a sequence parameter set (SPS), a picture parameter set (PPS), a video parameter set (VPS), a picture header, or a slice header of the bitstream (i.e. picture dimension may be derived) [148-151,382-387,396].
Regarding claim 5, Hannuksela meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 1, further comprising aligning the displacement vectors and the attribute map to a single bitdepth prior to determining to arrange the displacement vectors and the attribute map into the single picture (i.e. bit depth used to manipulate the data to match. This can be pre-defined) [105-110,126,246-247,388-391,531-537].
Regarding claim 6, Hannuksela meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 5, further comprising aligning a bitdepth of the displacement vectors to the attribute map so that the displacement vectors and the attribute map are aligned to the single bitdepth (i.e. bit depth used to manipulate the data to align. Bit depth can be aligned for the entire bitstream) [105-110,126,246-247,388-391,531-537].
Regarding claim 7, Hannuksela meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 5, further comprising aligning a bitdepth of the attribute map to the displacement vectors so that the displacement vectors and the attribute map are aligned to the single bitdepth (i.e. bit depth used to manipulate the data to align. Bit depth can be aligned for the entire bitstream) [105-110,126,246-247,388-391,531-537].
Regarding claim 8, Hannuksela meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 5, further comprising aligning a first portion of data with a bitdepth lower than the single bitdepth to a second portion of data with a bitdepth higher than the single bitdepth so that the displacement vectors and the attribute map are aligned to the single bitdepth (i.e. bit depth used to manipulate the data to align. Bit depth can be aligned for the entire bitstream) [105-110,126,246-247,388-391,531-537].
Regarding claim 9, Hannuksela meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 1, further comprising aligning the displacement vectors and the attribute map to a single color format prior to determining to arrange the displacement vectors and the attribute map into the single picture (i.e. single color format used in the pictures.) [80-85,105-100,246,247,364].
Regarding claim 10, Hannuksela meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 9, further comprising aligning a color format of the displacement vectors to the attribute map so that the displacement vectors and the attribute map are aligned to the single color format (i.e. single color format used in the pictures.) [80-85,105-100,246,247,364].
Regarding claim 11, Hannuksela meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 9, further comprising aligning a color format of the attribute map to the displacement vectors so that the displacement vectors and the attribute map are aligned to the single color format (i.e. single color format used in the pictures.) [80-85,105-100,246,247,364].
Regarding claim 12, Hannuksela meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 9, further comprising aligning a portion of data with a less color format information to a portion of data with more color format information so that the displacement vectors and the attribute map are aligned to the single color format (i.e. single color format used in the pictures. Color format can be converted to conform to a single color format) [80-85,105-100,246,247,364,367].
Regarding claim 13, Hannuksela meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the visual media data into the bitstream (i.e. encoder can compress bitstream) [71,94].
Regarding claim 14, Hannuksela meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes decoding the visual media data from the bitstream (i.e. decoder can uncompress bitstream) [71,102; fig. 8,9].
Claim 15 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 1 and further below.
Hannuksela meets the claim limitations, as follows:
processor and memory [13]
Claim 16 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 2,5,9.
Claim 17 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 1.
Claim 18 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 2,5,9.
Claim 19 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 1.
Claim 20 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 2,5,9.
Regarding claim 21, Xu meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the dynamic mesh data comprises a base mesh, displacement vectors between a reconstructed base mesh and an original mesh, and the attribute map which is associated with faces of the base mesh (i.e. dynamic mesh data has an input mesh and uses attribute maps to process the mesh data. Displacement vectors used to represent a difference between the current mesh data to its predictor.) [5,6,116,125-126; fig. 20].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARED T WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-1839. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00 - 3:00 Mountain.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached on 571-272-4195. 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.
/Jared Walker/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights