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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that Han fails to disclose or suggest that “each node in the prediction tree specifies the position for one or more three-dimensional points,” specifically stating that although Han teaches in ¶0346 that “each node and each leaf correspond to a three-dimensional position”, that Han instead merely means that each node and each leaf corresponds to a spatial position, and that the teaching of Han does not mean that each node and leaf specifies the position of a three-dimensional point as would a spatial cell (voxel) which has a defined position in space even if no three-dimensional points are present in that cell.
More particularly, applicant argues that Han in ¶0611 describes that “A leaf including a three-dimensional point is referred to as a valid leaf, and a leaf including no three-dimensional point is referred to as an invalid leaf,” as additionally supported by FIG. 63, and thus this directly supports the explanation that the octree as taught by Han includes nodes (e.g., leaf nodes) that do not include any three-dimensional points.
Finally, applicant argues that Han fails to teach “in the performing, (i) a prediction value in a specific prediction mode is obtained, … and in the generating of the bitstream, the bitstream including a header and the one or more prediction residuals is generated, the head including the prediction value”, as instead Han merely teaches depth information in a header, and fails to disclose or suggest including a prediction value in a specific prediction mode in the header, and that a volume index as described in ¶0547 of Han is an identifier to a volume in a space and is different from a “prediction value” as set forth in claim 1.
However, reading the claims in the broadest reasonable sense, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As described in ¶0529-0531 in view of FIG. 39-40, an octree structure is detailed which describes the corresponding voxel representations across nodes and leaves in a binary sequence representation of the octree, including through visual representation of volume data as seen in FIG. 39. Specifically, ¶0529 describes that this bit sequence representation of the volume represent positional information indicating positions of three-dimensional points included in the volumes, to which the examiner had previously cited in ¶0346 more succinctly, that “More specifically, each node and each leaf corresponds to a three-dimensional position” - ¶0346, giving a rather straight-forward and consistent description of leaves and nodes within a three-dimensional octree representation, with plenty of visual examples shown. Applicant argues that these are different from voxels [spatial cells] stating that voxels can have a defined position in space even if no three-dimensional points are present in that cell, yet ¶0528-0530 of Han states that each leaf [and through extension each node] indeed has voxel information, as an octree is indeed a form of voxel representation of volume data. The examiner maintains that, as taught by Han, each node and leaf specifies positions of a three-dimensional point.
Additionally, with regards to applicant’s claims that Han uses a valid leaf and invalid leaf structure in order to specify that an invalid leaf contains no three-dimensional point as described in ¶0611 and FIG. 63, the examiner notes that this definition and use only applies and only exists to Embodiment 9 of Han’s teachings --- in fact, any sort of “validity” towards leaves exists solely in this embodiment and not to the various examples pointed to by the examiners, especially octree representation of voxel/volume data through the use of leaves and nodes as three-dimensional positions which are repeated throughout the specification of Han. Therefore, the examiner maintains that Han does indeed teach “each node in the prediction tree specifies the position for one or more three-dimensional points” as per currently claimed.
Finally, with regards to applicant arguing that Han merely states including depth information in a header and fails to disclose or suggest including a prediction value in a specific prediction mode in the header, the examiner notes that the claim language itself does not even specify what exactly the prediction value is, how its defined, or even what the “specific prediction mode” even is, and therefore does preclude the use of information such as depth information and other information deemed necessary by Han in ¶0528 and 0535 for making octree representation in the header. In other words, the claim language is so broad that the simple, and also rather broad teaching of Han, is sufficient to teach the limitations as per currently claimed. The examiner recommends amending the claim language to specify how exactly a prediction value of the instant application is different from that of Han, thereby differentiating the language sufficiently in order to overcome such teachings.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “a prediction value is identified using an index”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The examiner further notes that even if this definition was included within the claim language, and index --- by definition --- may merely be “an indicator, sign, or measure of something”, which is sufficiently taught by Han as depth information or other appended information necessary for making the octree representation to a header and the like of a bitstream as described in ¶0528 and 0535.
Therefore the rejection of claim(s) 1 is/are maintained. Regarding arguments pertaining to claim(s) 9 and 10, for reasons similar to those discussed above for claim 1, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Therefore the rejection of claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are maintained. Regarding claim(s) 2-8 and 13-18 the claim(s) is/are dependent upon claim(s) 1, 9 and 10 and are still rejected under the same basis as claim(s) 1, 9 and 10 and the arguments presented above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10 and 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Han et al. (“Han”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2021/0127136).
In regards to claim 1, Han teaches a three-dimensional data encoding method (See ¶0002) comprising:
performing predictive encoding on position for one or more three-dimensional points to generate a prediction tree (See for example ¶0528 with regards to volumes which are encoding units of space comprising three-dimensional data which may also be represented as octree data [which is a three-dimensional prediction tree]), wherein each node in the prediction tree specifies the position for one or more three-dimensional points (See ¶0529-0531 in view of FIG. 39-40 which describes that the bit sequence representation of the volume of an octree represents positional information indicating positions of three-dimensional points included in the volumes, also see ¶0345-0346 in view of FIG. 20-22 which specifically describes that each node and each leaf correspond to a three-dimensional position in a more succinct example) and is coded according to its position in a depth-first traversal order (See ¶0531, 0738, 0740-0741 and 0796 in view of FIG. 40 and 98-99 wherein the tree [such as an octree] may be organized, encoded and even scanned in a depth-first [or depth-prioritized] order); and
generating a bitstream including encoded data resulting from the predictive encoding (See ¶0529 in view of FIG. 37),
wherein in the performing, (i) a prediction value in a specific prediction mode is obtained (See ¶0528-0529 and 0547 in view of FIG. 37 and 38), and
(ii) one or more prediction residuals are calculated for each of the one or more three-dimensional points (See ¶0528-0529),
the one or more prediction residuals each being a difference between a position of the three-dimensional point and the prediction value (See ¶0529), and
in the generating of the bitstream, the bitstream including a header and the one or more prediction residuals is generated, the header including the prediction value (See ¶0528-0529 in view of 0535).
In regards to claim 2, Han teaches the three-dimensional data encoding method according to claim 1, wherein the one or more three-dimensional points include a three-dimensional point set to a root node of the prediction tree including the one or more three-dimensional points (As an Octree [taught in at least ¶0528-0529] is a three-dimensional prediction tree, it too also has root nodes, branches and leaves, this may also be seen in FIG. 40, 63 and 67-68, and described briefly in ¶0662, 0674-0676 and 0728).
In regards to claim 5, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 1 by Han wherein the decoding of data is also done along with encoding as seen in at least ¶0007-0011.
In regards to claim 6, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 2 by Han.
In regards to claim 9, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 1 by Han wherein the processor and associated memory are taught as seen in ¶0181.
In regards to claim 10, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 5 by Han wherein the processor and associated memory are taught as seen in ¶0183.
In regards to claim 13, Han teaches the three-dimensional data encoding method according to claim 1, wherein the position specified by each node in the prediction tree is a single position for the one or more three-dimensional points (See ¶0529-0531 and 0346 as described above, wherein “each node and each leaf correspond to a three-dimensional position,” - ¶0346, thus indicating that each may correspond to a single position as it states “a three-dimensional position”).
In regards to claims 14, 15 and 16, the claims are rejected under the same basis as claim 13 by Han.
In regards to claim 17, Han teaches the three-dimensional data encoding method according to claim 1, wherein the prediction tree indicates a relationship between a reference point for prediction and a three-dimensional point to be encoded among the one or more three-dimensional points (Given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with applicant’s specification, a relationship between a reference point for prediction and three-dimensional point within a tree may be taught as dependency information within an octree representation between nodes and leaves and their corresponding positional information as taught in at least ¶0527-0531 and 0534-0536 in view of FIG. 38-40 and 42-44).
In regards to claim 18, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 17 by Han.
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (“Han”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2021/0127136).
In regards to claim 3, Han fails to explicitly teach the three-dimensional data encoding method according to claim 1, wherein a prediction mode value indicating the specific prediction mode is 0.
That is, Han does not explicitly state that a prediction mode is set to a value of 0. However, as encoded/decoded data is binarized through entropy coders as described in ¶0672, values operate through 1s or 0s, that being said, it is also implicit in coding to have flags or modes being of a value of the first one as a 0, the second as 1, the third as 2, etc., as such although not explicitly described, it is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that such modes as taught by Han may take the form of at least a 0.
Therefore, with such considerations, it is believed that Han implicitly teaches wherein a prediction mode value indicating the specific prediction mode is 0 (See ¶0528-0529 and 0547 in view of FIG. 37 and 38, in further view of ¶0672).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Han’s own teachings because it allows for the design choice of representing a mode through a value of 0, as well as other such values, and ultimately the data may further be binarized when transmitted and received.
In regards to claim 7, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 3 by Han.
Claim(s) 4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (“Han”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2021/0127136) in view of Mao (U.S. PG Publication No. 2019/0230349).
In regards to claim 4, Han teaches the three-dimensional data encoding method according to claim 1, further comprising obtaining a data unit including three dimensional points including the one or more three-dimensional points (See ¶0345-0346 in view of FIG. 20-22 which specifically describes that each node and each leaf of a tree correspond to a three-dimensional position).
Han, however, fails to teach wherein the prediction value in the specific prediction mode is a minimum value among positions of the three-dimensional points.
In a similar endeavor Mao teaches wherein the prediction value in the specific prediction mode is a minimum value among positions of the three-dimensional points (See ¶0004 wherein prediction value used is that which gives a minimum value [cost] among other position values of prediction [residuals] of specific prediction modes, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that such a teaching as taught by Mao and used in encoding in general is also continued for three-dimensional encoding as the purpose of encoding is to minimize cost values in order to increase efficiency which is also described in ¶0262 of Han).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Mao into Han because it leads to improved encoder efficiency through the use of the minimum cost value as described in at least ¶0004.
In regards to claim 8, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 4 by Han in view of Mao.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDEMIO NAVAS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1067. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, ~ 9 AM -6 PM.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 5712727383. 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.
EDEMIO NAVAS JR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2483
/EDEMIO NAVAS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483