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
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-10 and 13-18 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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) 1-3, 5-7, 9, 10 and 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mammou et al. (“Mammou”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2021/0312670) in view of Mukherjee et al. (“Muk”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2020/0186796).
It is to be noted that the information provided by Mammou is also supported in the provision application of 63/006,608, filed Apr. 7, 2020.
In regards to claim 1, Mammou teaches a three-dimensional data encoding method (See ¶0003) comprising:
generating a prediction tree indicating a relationship among one or more three-dimensional points for use in predictive encoding (See ¶0004-0005 and 0044);
performing predictive encoding on position for the one or more three-dimensional points using the prediction tree (See ¶0073-0083 in view of 0003-0005 wherein a prediction tree is used in predictive encoding for positions of points in a three dimensional point cloud [i.e. coordinates]), wherein each node in the prediction tree specifies the position for one or more three-dimensional points (See ¶0073-0083 in view of 0003-0005) and is coded according to its position in a depth-first traversal order (See ¶0153 wherein the prediction tree is encoded and/or decoded in a predefined order such as through depth first traversal); and
generating a bitstream including encoded data resulting from the predictive encoding (See FIG. 1 and 11 in view of ¶0003-0005) and prediction-tree information generated based on the prediction tree and used for reconstructing the prediction tree (See FIG. 1 and 11 in view of ¶0003-0005 with regards to the encoding portion which transmits a bitstream and uses prediction tree information to create the data),
wherein in the performing, (i) a prediction value in a specific prediction mode is obtained (See ¶0072 and 0082-0083 with regards to prediction mode values and corresponding prediction modes), and
(ii) one or more prediction residuals are calculated for each of the one or more three-dimensional points (See ¶0083-0086 with regards to prediction residuals [and residuals after prediction]),
the one or more prediction residuals each being a difference between a position of the three-dimensional point and the prediction value (See ¶0016 and 0164 wherein a residual is value is that which is the difference between the predicted [estimated] value and the actual value itself for that three dimensional position [coordinate]), and
the generated bitstream includes the prediction-tree information (See FIG. 1 and 11 in view of ¶0003-0005), and the one or more prediction residuals (See ¶0083-0086 in view of FIG. 1 and 11).
Mammou, however, fails to teach the generated bitstream includes a header, the header including a prediction value.
In a similar endeavor Muk teaches the generated bitstream includes a header, the header including a prediction value (See ¶0100 in view of FIG. 7).
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 Muk into Mammou because it allows for proper processing, such as by the decoder, when receiving the bitstream in order to properly and more efficiently reconstruct data from a header such as described in ¶0100 and 0106.
In regards to claim 2, Mammou 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 (See ¶0072-0073 and 0097).
In regards to claim 3, Mammou teaches the three-dimensional data encoding method according to claim 1, wherein a prediction mode value indicating the specific prediction mode is 0 (See ¶0072, wherein as an example the prediction mode value may b 0 which gives a specific prediction mode indication).
In regards to claim 5, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 1 by Mammou in view of Muk wherein the decoding of data is also done along with encoding as seen in at least FIG. 1 and 11.
In regards to claim 6, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 2 by Mammou in view of Muk.
In regards to claim 7, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 3 by Mammou in view of Muk.
In regards to claim 9, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 1 by Mammou in view of Muk wherein the processor and associated memory are taught as seen in ¶0199-0208.
In regards to claim 10, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 5 by Mammou in view of Muk wherein the processor and associated memory are taught as seen in ¶0199-0208.
In regards to claim 13, Mammou 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 ¶0005, 0018 and 0070 wherein each node in the prediction tree represents spatial coordinates of the respective plurality of points of the three-dimensional point cloud).
In regards to claims 14, 15 and 16, the claims are rejected under the same basis as claim 13 by Mammou in view of Muk.
In regards to claim 17, Mammou 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 tree nodes, see ¶0004, 0070-0073 and 0130 wherein various nodes [and their corresponding coordinate/three-dimensional point] are predicted from their corresponding parent/grandparent/etc. [ancestor] node).
In regards to claim 18, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 17 by Mammou in view of Muk.
Claim(s) 4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mammou et al. (“Mammou”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2021/0312670) in view of Mukherjee et al. (“Muk”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2020/0186796) and Mao (U.S. PG Publication No. 2019/0230349).
In regards to claim 4, Mammou 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 at least ¶0003-0005).
Mammou, however, fails to teach wherein the prediction value in the specific prediction mode is a minimum value among positions of the three-dimensional points.
That is, Mammou does indeed teach a prediction mode value of 0 indicating the root node, but fails to explicitly cite this as the minimum value of positions.
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 Mammou 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 Mammou in view of Muk and Mao.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights