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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/1/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/1/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of Gao and Ramasubramonian (“Ram”) does not explicitly teach converting cartesian coordinate for reconstructed geometry data from the encoded geometry data to angular coordinate.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Gao teaches in some embodiments, point cloud with Lidar raw data information can be compressed using 3D polar coordinate system. In some examples, the final point cloud (e.g., constructed based on Lidar raw data, calibration and motion compensation) and the original Lidar raw data information are available. The final point cloud can be directly compressed in 3D polar coordinate system. In an example that the final point cloud is represented in Cartesian coordinate, the final point cloud can be converted into 3D polar coordinate system. For example, a point in a point cloud can be represented as polar coordinate (d, rp, θ) and attribute (i) where d denotes the distance and i denotes the intensity. [0184].
To compress the point cloud in 3D polar coordinate system, four major steps can be performed. In a first step, the Cartesian coordinate {x.sub.k, y.sub.k, z.sub.k} can be converted to polar coordinate (θ.sub.k, φ.sub.k, d.sub.k) for k=1, . . . , K. In a second step, the polar coordinate (θ.sub.k, φ.sub.k, d.sub.k) is quantized to integer with predefined precision by multiplying by a predefined scalar and taking rounding operations, for k=1, . . . , K. In a third step, {(θ.sub.k, φ.sub.k)} can be compressed using quadtree. In some examples, this step can be performed similarly to the concept of octree for point cloud compression. Specifically, in an example, the point P.sub.min={(θ.sub.min, φ.sub.min)} where θ.sub.min<=θ.sub.k, φ.sub.min<=φ.sub.k for k=1, . . . , N can be found. Then, {(θ.sub.k, φ.sub.k)} can be shifted by moving the point P.sub.min to the origin to obtain {(θ′.sub.k, φ′.sub.k)} where θ′.sub.k=θ.sub.k−θ.sub.min, φ′.sub.k=φ.sub.k−φ.sub.min for k=1, . . . , K. Further, the bounding box in {(θ′.sub.k, φ′.sub.k)} can be found. For example, θ′.sub.max and φ′.sub.max can be determined where θ′.sub.max>=θ′.sub.k, φ′.sub.max<=φ′.sub.k for k=1, . . . , N. The bound box includes the four points {(0,0), (0, φ′.sub.max), (θ′.sub.max, 0), (θ′.sub.max, φ′.sub.max)}. In some examples, for simplicity, a square bound box is chosen {(0,0), (0, b.sub.max), (b.sub.max, 0), (b.sub.max, b.sub.max)} where b.sub.max>=θ′.sub.max, b.sub.max>=θ′.sub.max is often chosen as 2 to integer power. Further, the bound box is partitioned into 4 quadrants. If there is at least one point in a quadrant, the corresponding occupancy flag is 1, otherwise the occupancy flag is 0, thus 4-bit occupancy code can be obtained after one partition. The occupied quadrants can be further partitioned until unit square where each side is 1 is reached. The 4-bit occupancy code can be encoded using binary or non-binary arithmetic code with context adaptation. It is noted that in a unit square, multiple points with same coordinate may exist. I some embodiments, the information of all the points in the unit square can be merged for one point. In an example, the distance values and attribute values are respectively averaged to form the distance and attribute of the merged point. In some examples, when a quadrant contains a small number of points, e.g., 2, the partition can be stopped and the coordinate information of these points can be coded. For simplicity, this mode is referred to as direct mode. In an embodiment, a flag at frame level or sequence level is used to indicate whether direct mode is allowed. At a leaf node of the quad-tree partition, a flag is used in indicate whether direct mode is on. In some examples, the flag can be omitted by introducing a condition when the direct mode may be chosen and only under that condition. The condition is often chosen based on neighbor node occupancy situation. In a fourth step, the distance {d.sub.k} and attribute information {i.sub.k} can be compressed. In some examples, prediction from neighboring points in {(θ.sub.k, φ.sub.k)} plane can be chosen and only the differences of the distance value and attribute value to their corresponding predictor are encoded. In some examples, a 2D region adaptive hierarchical transform (RAHT) can be used to encode the distance information and the attribute information. [0191] – [0198].
Applicant argues that the combination of Gao and Ramasubramonian (“Ram”) does not explicitly teach information for representing a horizontal offset for each of the set of beams.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Ram teaches when the location of a point is coded using the azimuthal coding mode, the G-PCC encoder may determine a context based on an azimuthal sampling location of a laser beam within a node. The G-PCC encoder may apply CABAC using the determined context to encode a syntax element indicating an azimuthal offset of the point. Use of the angular and azimuthal modes may deliver higher coding efficiency in some circumstances because information about how the laser beam intersects a node may improve the selection of contexts for encoding syntax elements indicating vertical and azimuthal offsets. Improved selection of contexts may result in greater compression in the CABAC encoding process. Some examples of the developing G-PCC standard provide for syntax elements related to angular and azimuthal modes. These syntax elements include syntax elements indicating laser angles for individual laser beams (or laser angle deltas between adjacent laser angles) and syntax elements indicating numbers of probes in an azimuth direction, e.g., during a full rotation of a laser beam or in another range of angles of the laser beam (e.g., less than or more than a full rotation). This disclosure describes techniques that may improve coding efficiency of such syntax elements. In particular, this disclosure describes techniques for encoding and decoding syntax elements that indicate laser angles in a sorted order. In this way, decoder side sorting may be avoided and certain coding tools that use laser angles may be performed more quickly. [0024] – [0026]. See also [0079] – [0089].
Applicant argues that the combination of Gao and Ramasubramonian (“Ram”) does not explicitly teach information for representing a number of steps per rotation of the each of the set of beams.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Ram teaches when the location of a point is coded using the azimuthal coding mode, the G-PCC encoder may determine a context based on an azimuthal sampling location of a laser beam within a node. The G-PCC encoder may apply CABAC using the determined context to encode a syntax element indicating an azimuthal offset of the point. Use of the angular and azimuthal modes may deliver higher coding efficiency in some circumstances because information about how the laser beam intersects a node may improve the selection of contexts for encoding syntax elements indicating vertical and azimuthal offsets. Improved selection of contexts may result in greater compression in the CABAC encoding process. Some examples of the developing G-PCC standard provide for syntax elements related to angular and azimuthal modes. These syntax elements include syntax elements indicating laser angles for individual laser beams (or laser angle deltas between adjacent laser angles) and syntax elements indicating numbers of probes in an azimuth direction, e.g., during a full rotation of a laser beam or in another range of angles of the laser beam (e.g., less than or more than a full rotation). This disclosure describes techniques that may improve coding efficiency of such syntax elements. In particular, this disclosure describes techniques for encoding and decoding syntax elements that indicate laser angles in a sorted order. In this way, decoder side sorting may be avoided and certain coding tools that use laser angles may be performed more quickly. [0024] – [0026].
laser_numphi_perturn[i] for i in the range 0 . . . number_lasers_minus1, specify the number of probe in the azimuth direction for one full rotation of the i-th laser. When not present, laser_numphi_perturn[i] is inferred to be 0. [0079] – [0089].
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-9, 12, 14, 16, 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. (US 2020/0394822 A1) in view of Ramasubramonian et al. (US 2021/0409778 A1) (hereinafter “Ram”).
Consider claim 1, Gao teaches a method of encoding point cloud data ([0045]), the method comprising: acquiring point cloud data based on a set of beams ([0048], [0118] – [0122]); encoding a geometry data of the point cloud data ([0041], [0052] – [0057], [0200] – [0204]); converting cartesian coordinate for reconstructed geometry data from the encoded geometry data to angular coordinate ([0184], [0191] – [0198]); encoding an attribute data of the point cloud data ([0057] – [0062]), wherein the encoded geometry data and the encoded attribute data are included in a bitstream ([0052] – [0064]).
However, Gao does not explicitly teach information for representing a horizontal offset for each of the set of beams, and information for representing a number of steps per rotation of the each of the set of beams.
Ram teaches information for representing a horizontal offset for each of the set of beams (when the location of a point is coded using the azimuthal coding mode, the G-PCC encoder may determine a context based on an azimuthal sampling location of a laser beam within a node. The G-PCC encoder may apply CABAC using the determined context to encode a syntax element indicating an azimuthal offset of the point. Use of the angular and azimuthal modes may deliver higher coding efficiency in some circumstances because information about how the laser beam intersects a node may improve the selection of contexts for encoding syntax elements indicating vertical and azimuthal offsets. Improved selection of contexts may result in greater compression in the CABAC encoding process. Some examples of the developing G-PCC standard provide for syntax elements related to angular and azimuthal modes. These syntax elements include syntax elements indicating laser angles for individual laser beams (or laser angle deltas between adjacent laser angles) and syntax elements indicating numbers of probes in an azimuth direction, e.g., during a full rotation of a laser beam or in another range of angles of the laser beam (e.g., less than or more than a full rotation). This disclosure describes techniques that may improve coding efficiency of such syntax elements. In particular, this disclosure describes techniques for encoding and decoding syntax elements that indicate laser angles in a sorted order. In this way, decoder side sorting may be avoided and certain coding tools that use laser angles may be performed more quickly. [0024] – [0026]. See also [0079] – [0089] and Table 1), and information for representing a number of steps per rotation of the each of the set of beams (when the location of a point is coded using the azimuthal coding mode, the G-PCC encoder may determine a context based on an azimuthal sampling location of a laser beam within a node. The G-PCC encoder may apply CABAC using the determined context to encode a syntax element indicating an azimuthal offset of the point. Use of the angular and azimuthal modes may deliver higher coding efficiency in some circumstances because information about how the laser beam intersects a node may improve the selection of contexts for encoding syntax elements indicating vertical and azimuthal offsets. Improved selection of contexts may result in greater compression in the CABAC encoding process. Some examples of the developing G-PCC standard provide for syntax elements related to angular and azimuthal modes. These syntax elements include syntax elements indicating laser angles for individual laser beams (or laser angle deltas between adjacent laser angles) and syntax elements indicating numbers of probes in an azimuth direction, e.g., during a full rotation of a laser beam or in another range of angles of the laser beam (e.g., less than or more than a full rotation). This disclosure describes techniques that may improve coding efficiency of such syntax elements. In particular, this disclosure describes techniques for encoding and decoding syntax elements that indicate laser angles in a sorted order. In this way, decoder side sorting may be avoided and certain coding tools that use laser angles may be performed more quickly. [0024] – [0026].
laser_numphi_perturn[i] for i in the range 0 . . . number_lasers_minus1, specify the number of probe in the azimuth direction for one full rotation of the i-th laser. When not present, laser_numphi_perturn[i] is inferred to be 0. [0079] – [0089]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique of including information for representing a horizontal offset for each of the set of beams because such incorporation would improve the selection of contexts that may result in greater compression in the CABAC encoding process. [0025].
Consider claim 2, Gao teaches projecting a point of the point cloud data based on the angular coordinates ([0052] – [0057], [0184], [0191] – [0198]).
Consider claim 3, Gao teaches wherein the projecting the point of the point cloud data includes: adjusting the azimuthal angle of the point ([0191] – [0198]), wherein the adjustment comprises: adjusting the azimuthal angle of the point based on azimuthal angles of the each of the set of beams ([0191] – [0198]).
Consider claim 7, claim 7 recites the device for encoding point cloud data, the device comprising: a memory ([0108] and [0224]); at least one processor connected to the memory ([0108] and [0224]), the at least one processor configured to: performs the method recited in claim 1 (see rejection for claim 1).
Consider claim 8, claim 8 recites the device that performs the method recited in claim 2. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider claim 9, claim 9 recites the device that performs the method recited in claim 3. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider claim 12, Gao teaches a method of receiving point cloud data, the method comprising: decoding a geometry of point cloud data in a bitstream (Fig. 4; [0065] – [0074], [0205] – [0209]), wherein the geometry data is coded based on a set of beams ([0048], [0118] – [0122]); converting cartesian coordinate for reconstructed geometry data from the encoded geometry data to angular coordinate ([0184], [0191] – [0198]); and decoding attribute data of the point cloud data in the bitstream (Fig. 4; [0065] – [0074]).
However, Gao does not explicitly teach information for representing a horizontal offset for each of the set of beams, and information for representing a number of steps per rotation of the each of the set of beams.
Ram teaches information for representing a horizontal offset for each of the set of beams (when the location of a point is coded using the azimuthal coding mode, the G-PCC encoder may determine a context based on an azimuthal sampling location of a laser beam within a node. The G-PCC encoder may apply CABAC using the determined context to encode a syntax element indicating an azimuthal offset of the point. Use of the angular and azimuthal modes may deliver higher coding efficiency in some circumstances because information about how the laser beam intersects a node may improve the selection of contexts for encoding syntax elements indicating vertical and azimuthal offsets. Improved selection of contexts may result in greater compression in the CABAC encoding process. Some examples of the developing G-PCC standard provide for syntax elements related to angular and azimuthal modes. These syntax elements include syntax elements indicating laser angles for individual laser beams (or laser angle deltas between adjacent laser angles) and syntax elements indicating numbers of probes in an azimuth direction, e.g., during a full rotation of a laser beam or in another range of angles of the laser beam (e.g., less than or more than a full rotation). This disclosure describes techniques that may improve coding efficiency of such syntax elements. In particular, this disclosure describes techniques for encoding and decoding syntax elements that indicate laser angles in a sorted order. In this way, decoder side sorting may be avoided and certain coding tools that use laser angles may be performed more quickly. [0024] – [0026]. See also [0079] – [0089] and Table 1), and information for representing a number of steps per rotation of the each of the set of beams (when the location of a point is coded using the azimuthal coding mode, the G-PCC encoder may determine a context based on an azimuthal sampling location of a laser beam within a node. The G-PCC encoder may apply CABAC using the determined context to encode a syntax element indicating an azimuthal offset of the point. Use of the angular and azimuthal modes may deliver higher coding efficiency in some circumstances because information about how the laser beam intersects a node may improve the selection of contexts for encoding syntax elements indicating vertical and azimuthal offsets. Improved selection of contexts may result in greater compression in the CABAC encoding process. Some examples of the developing G-PCC standard provide for syntax elements related to angular and azimuthal modes. These syntax elements include syntax elements indicating laser angles for individual laser beams (or laser angle deltas between adjacent laser angles) and syntax elements indicating numbers of probes in an azimuth direction, e.g., during a full rotation of a laser beam or in another range of angles of the laser beam (e.g., less than or more than a full rotation). This disclosure describes techniques that may improve coding efficiency of such syntax elements. In particular, this disclosure describes techniques for encoding and decoding syntax elements that indicate laser angles in a sorted order. In this way, decoder side sorting may be avoided and certain coding tools that use laser angles may be performed more quickly. [0024] – [0026].
laser_numphi_perturn[i] for i in the range 0 . . . number_lasers_minus1, specify the number of probe in the azimuth direction for one full rotation of the i-th laser. When not present, laser_numphi_perturn[i] is inferred to be 0. [0079] – [0089]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique of including information for representing a horizontal offset for each of the set of beams because such incorporation would improve the selection of contexts that may result in greater compression in the CABAC encoding process. [0025].
Consider claim 14, Gao teaches projecting a point of the point cloud data based on the angular coordinates ([0052] – [0057], [0184], [0191] – [0198]).
Consider claim 16, Gao teaches the projection comprises: adjusting the azimuthal angle of the point based on azimuthal angles of the each of the set of beams ([0191] – [0198]).
Consider claim 19, claim 19 recites the device for decoding point cloud data, the device comprising: a memory ([0108] and [0224]); at least one processor connected to the memory ([0108] and [0224]), the at least one processor configured to performs the method recited in claim 12 (see rejection for claim 12).
Consider claim 20, Gao teaches the device, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: projecting a point of the point cloud data based on the angular coordinates ([0052] – [0057], [0184], [0191] – [0198]).
Consider claim 21, claim 21 recites the device that performs the method recited in claim 16. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 5-6, 10-11, 17-18, 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. (US 2020/0394822 A1) in view of Ramasubramonian et al. (US 2021/0409778 A1) (hereinafter “Ram”) and Taquet et al. (US 2022/0398784 A1).
Consider claim 5, Gao teaches all the limitations in claim 3 but does not explicitly teach the adjustment comprises: adjusting the azimuthal angle of the point to an azimuthal angle of the laser having a value closest to the azimuthal angle of the point.
Taquet teaches the adjustment comprises: adjusting the azimuthal angle of the point to an azimuthal angle of a beam of the set of beams having a value closest to the azimuthal angle of the point ([0040] – [0041], [0160], [0173] – [0183], [0213] – [0217], [0236] – [0239], [0265] – [0276]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique of adjusting the azimuthal angle of the point to an azimuthal angle of the laser having a value closest to the azimuthal angle of the point because such incorporation would improve the compression of information representative of the occupancy of a current node. [0174].
Consider claim 6, Taquet teaches the adjustment comprises: based on the azimuthal angle of the point being greater than an average of k−1-th and k-th azimuthal angles of a beam of the set of beams and less than an average of k-th and k+1-th azimuthal angles of the beam, adjusting the azimuthal angle of the point to the k-th azimuthal angle of the beam ([0040] – [0041], [0173] – [0183], [0185] – [0205], [0213] – [0217], [0236] – [0239], [0248] – [0261], [0265] – [0276]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique of adjusting the azimuthal angle of the point to an azimuthal angle of the laser having a value closest to the azimuthal angle of the point because such incorporation would improve the compression of information representative of the occupancy of a current node. [0174].
Consider claim 10, claim 10 recites the device that performs the method recited in claim 5. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider claim 11, claim 11 recites the device that performs the method recited in claim 6. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider claim 17, Taquet teaches the projecting the point of the point cloud data comprises: adjusting the azimuthal angle of the point to an azimuthal angle of a beam of the set of beams having a value closest to the azimuthal angle of the point ([0040] – [0041], [0160], [0173] – [0183], [0213] – [0217], [0236] – [0239], [0265] – [0276]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique of adjusting the azimuthal angle of the point to an azimuthal angle of the laser having a value closest to the azimuthal angle of the point because such incorporation would improve the compression of information representative of the occupancy of a current node. [0174].
Consider claim 18, Taquet teaches the projection comprises: based on the azimuthal angle of the point being greater than an average of k−1-th and k-th azimuthal angles of a beam of the set of beams and less than an average of k-th and k+1-th azimuthal angles of the beam, adjusting the azimuthal angle of the point to the k-th azimuthal angle of the beam ([0040] – [0041], [0173] – [0183], [0185] – [0205], [0213] – [0217], [0236] – [0239], [0248] – [0261], [0265] – [0276]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique of adjusting the azimuthal angle of the point to an azimuthal angle of the laser having a value closest to the azimuthal angle of the point because such incorporation would improve the compression of information representative of the occupancy of a current node. [0174].
Consider claim 22, claim 22 recites the device that performs the method recited in claim 17. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider claim 23, claim 23 recites the device that performs the method recited in claim 18. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAT CHI CHIO whose telephone number is (571)272-9563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-5pm.
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, JAMIE J ATALA can be reached at 571-272-7384. 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.
/TAT C CHIO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486