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 Amendment
Applicant's response to the last Office Action, filed on 8/5/2025 has been entered and made of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 11, 16 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 6, 11, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The dependent claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 13, 18 are rejected based on their dependency.
The following claim elements are not described in the original specification; “wherein the parameter set includes parameter set identification information for identifying the parameter set.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 3, 6, 8, 11, 13, 16, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mammou et al. (US 2019/0311501) in view of Zakharchenko et al. (US 2021/0104077).
Regarding claim 1, Mammou teaches a method of transmitting point cloud data, the method comprising: encoding geometry information including positions of points of the point cloud data (see figure 12A, Mammou discusses encoding attribute and spatial information of a point cloud);
encoding attribute information including attribute values of the points of the point cloud data based on the geometry information (see figure 12A, Mammou discusses encoding attribute and spatial information of a point cloud); and
transmitting a bitstream containing the encoded geometry information, the encoded attribute information, and signaling information (see figure 12A, Mammou discusses transmitting the encoded bitstream).
wherein the signaling information includes a parameter set, wherein the parameter set includes parameter set identification information for identifying the parameter set and unique geometry point indication information (see para. 0135, Mammou discusses configuration parameters for the decoder to identify; see para. 0145, Mammou discusses a unique single point included in the lowest level child cell. The Examiner suggest the applicant further define the parameter set and unique point indication information).
Zakharchenko teaches wherein the signaling information includes a unique geometry point indication information (see para. 0082, Zakharchenko discusses unique geometry point indicator flag),
wherein the unique geometry point indication information equal to 1 specifies that the points have unique positions and the unique geometry point indication information equal to 0 specifies that two or more points have a same position (see para. 0082, 0093, Zakharchenko discusses unique geometry point indicator flag using 0 for points with a same position, child node containing at least two points, and 1 for points with unique positions), and
wherein the transmitted geometry information includes information for identifying a number of points represented by a child node when the unique geometry point indication information is set to 0 (see figure 3, figure 5, figure 7, para. 0082, 0087-0097, Zakharchenko discusses transmitted information of child node data).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Mammou with Zakharchenko to derive at the invention of claim 1. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to process point cloud image data.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Mammou in this manner in order to improve processing point cloud data by using unique geometry point indicator flag using 0 for points with a same position and 1 for points with unique positions. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Mammou, while the teaching of Zakharchenko continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of processing point cloud image data by r using unique geometry point indicator flag using 0 for points with the same position and 1 for points with unique positions to efficiently process a large amount of point cloud image data. The Mammou and Zakharchenko systems perform point cloud image processing, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 3, Mammou teaches wherein the encoding of the attribute information comprises: generating levels of detail (LODs) by sorting parts of the points based on a Morton code (see para. 0391, Mammou discusses generating LODs using Morton code to represent multi-dimensional data);
searching for neighbor points for each of the points based on the LODs (see para. 0393, 0403, Mammou discusses nearest neighbor search technique based on LODs); and
compressing the attribute information based on the neighbor points (see figure 12A, para. 0171, 0227, 0231, 0391, Mammou discusses compressing attribute and spatial information of point cloud data based on LOD data containing neighbor points).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 3. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Mammou with Zakharchenko to derive at the invention of claim 3. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to process point cloud image data.
Claim 6 is rejected as applied to claim 1 as pertaining to a corresponding apparatus.
Claim 8 is rejected as applied to claim 3 as pertaining to a corresponding apparatus.
Claim 11 is rejected as applied to claim 1 as pertaining to an obvious decoding variant of the encoding method in claim 1.
Claim 13 is rejected as applied to claim 3 as pertaining to an obvious decoding variant of the encoding method in claim 3.
Claim 16 is rejected as applied to claim 11 as pertaining to a corresponding apparatus.
Claim 18 is rejected as applied to claim 13 as pertaining to a corresponding apparatus.
Claims 2, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mammou et al. (US 2019/0311501) in view of Zakharchenko et al. (US 2021/0104077) in view of Chou et al. (“G-PCC codec description v2”).
Regarding claim 2, Mammou and Zakharchenko do not expressly disclose wherein the encoding of the geometry information further comprises: voxelizing the geometry information. However, Chou teaches wherein the encoding of the geometry information further comprises: voxelizing the geometry information (see figure 1, sections 2, 3.1.3-3.2, Chou discusses points that are voxelized).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Mammou and Zakharchenko with Chou to derive at the invention of claim 2. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to process point cloud image data.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Mammou and Zakharchenko in this manner in order to improve processing point cloud data by reconstructing voxel geometry data. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Mammou and Zakharchenko, while the teaching of Chou continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of processing point cloud image data by reconstructing voxel geometry data to efficiently process a large amount of point cloud image data. The Mammou, Zakharchenko, and Chou systems perform point cloud image processing, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 7 is rejected as applied to claim 2 as pertaining to a corresponding apparatus.
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 KENNY A CESE whose telephone number is (571) 270-1896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 9am – 4pm.
If attempts to reach the primary examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gregory Morse can be reached on (571) 272-3838. 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.
/Kenny A Cese/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663