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 .
In amendments dated 05/06/20265, applicants amended claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 15, 16, 18 and 20. Claims 1 – 22 are still pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 - 22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 - 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2018/032279 A1, hereinafter ‘Kang’) in view of Zhang et al. (U.S Provisional Application No. 62/910,387 or/and 62/904,384, referring to U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2022/0303579 A1 for better details and mapping, hereinafter ‘Zhang’).
With respect to claim 1, Kang teaches a method (e.g., a method, ¶0010) of transmitting point cloud data, the method comprising: encoding geometry data in a slice based on a tree (e.g., encoding geometry data in a slice based on a tree structure, ¶0079, ¶0113 with ¶0152); and encoding attribute data in the slice (e.g., encoding slice information, ¶0127), wherein the encoding the geometry data in the slice includes: generating a quantization parameter (e.g., generating a quantization parameter, ¶0103, ¶0122 - ¶0123); generating a slice quantization parameter (e.g., generating a slice header, ¶0087, ¶0343, ¶0349, ¶0352); generating a quantization parameter offset related to a node of the tree based on the slice quantization parameter and the quantization parameter (e.g., generating an offset related to a unit of the tree structure based on slice header and quantization parameter, ¶0096, ¶0118, ¶0133); generating predictive geometry data based on inter prediction (e.g., generating predicted geometry data based on inter prediction, abstract, ¶0129, ¶0236 - ¶0238, ¶0254, ¶0308, Fig. 32); and reconstructing the geometry data based on the scaled residual geometry data and the predictive geometry data (e.g., reconstructing the geometry data based on the scaled/residual geometry data and the predicted geometry data, ¶0024, ¶0130 - ¶0131, ¶0139 - ¶0142, ¶0289); but fails to teach that said encoded geometry data corresponds encoded geometry data in a slice of a point cloud frame for point cloud data based on a tree including a node; and that said attribute data of the point cloud data is encoded based on Levels of Detail (LoD), wherein the geometry data represents data of position of points for the point cloud data; and the aforementioned sequence is performed for the node;
generating predictive geometry data for the node based on a reference frame of the point cloud frame for inter prediction;
generating scaled residual geometry data for the node based on the quantization parameter for the node; the aforementioned sequence is performed for the node.
However, in the same field of endeavor of encoding geometry data and attribute data for point cloud data, Zhang teaches: encoding geometry data in a slice of a point cloud frame for point cloud data based on a tree including a node (e.g., encoding geometry including a slice of a point cloud frame based on a tree, abstract, ¶0017, Fig. 15); encoding attribute data in the slice of the point cloud frame based on LODs (e.g., attributes can be encoded according to LODs, ¶0046 - ¶0052, ¶0057); generating predictive geometry data for the node based on a reference frame on the point cloud frames for inter prediction (e.g., generating an attribute prediction for a current node based on a “reference frame” of the point cloud frame for inter prediction; where the inter prediction is well-known as a video compression technique to reduce file sizes, so; instead of saving every single frame as a brand new image, inter prediction estimate what changes will occurs in a next frame based on previously encoded frames, ¶0039, ¶0094 with ¶0050 - ¶0060, the attribute prediction is generated based on at least a previous frame, point or a best prediction signal candidate; as “reference frame” ¶0054 or ¶0057); and generating scaled residual geometry data for the node based on the quantization parameter for the node (e.g. generating residual for the current node based on quantization for the current node, ¶0052 - ¶0054, ¶0063 - ¶0065, ¶0068).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the method of Kang as taught by Zhang since Zhang suggested within ¶0052 - ¶0054, ¶0063 - ¶0065, ¶0068 that such modification would provide an improvement on implicit geometry partition in order to save more bits when coding occupancy code with implicit geometry partition or to avoid worse compression performance.
With respect to claim 2, Kang in view of Zhang teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the encoded geometry data and the encoded attribute data are included in a bitstream, and wherein the bitstream further includes information representing splitting the node into quantization subnodes, each of which corresponds to a unit of the quantization parameter offset (e.g., the bitstream should contains information in order to divide a unit into sub-units, and related to the offset, ¶0083, ¶088 - ¶0090, ¶0096, ¶0118, ¶0185, ¶0133, ¶0216 - ¶0217).
With respect to claim 3, Kang in view of Zhang teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the encoding the geometry data in the slice further includes: selecting the predictive geometry data by deleting at least one of the predictive geometry data; and generating residual geometry data based on original geometry data and the selected predictive geometry data (e.g., selecting the predicted geometry by putting aside (disregard) at least one of the predicted geometric data; and generating residual geometry based on original geometry and the selected predicted geometry, ¶0011 - ¶0012, ¶180, ¶0185, ¶0309 and ¶0327); and Zhang teaches for the node (e.g., generating only or particular residual geometry data from particular nodes after removing or reducing data, ¶0052 - ¶0054, ¶0061- ¶0065, ¶0068).
With respect to claim 4, Kang in view of Zhang teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the obtaining the scaled residual geometry data includes: obtaining transform coefficients by inverse-quantizing a quantized residual geometry data based on the quantization parameter and obtaining the scaled residual geometry data by inverse-transforming the transform coefficients (e.g., the information on the geometric modification information may include residual geometric modification information or a scaling coefficient, and at the reconstructing the geometric modification information may be performed based on at least one of the residual geometric modification information and the scaling coefficient, and previously stored geometric modification information, ¶0024, ¶0101 - ¶0103); and Zhang teaches for the node (e.g., generating residual geometry data from the current node, ¶0052 - ¶0054, ¶0063 - ¶0065, ¶0068).
With respect to claim 5, Kang in view of Zhang teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the inverse-transforming is performed per a transform unit, and wherein the one or more transform units constitute a quantization unit (e.g., refer to ¶0114).
With respect to claim 6, Kang in view of Zhang teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the encoding the geometry data in the slice further includes: generating predicted occupancy based on predictive geometry data (e.g., generating a first prediction block of a current block by performing inter prediction referencing the geometric modified picture, abstract, ¶0010); generating original occupancy based on original geometry data (e.g., generating original block based on original image, Fig. 15, ¶0195); and generating residual occupancy based on the original occupancy and the predicted occupancy (e.g., generating residual block based on original and prediction block, ¶0128)); and Zhang teaches for the node (e.g., generating residual geometry data from the current node, ¶0052 - ¶0054, ¶0063 - ¶0065, ¶0068).
With respect to claims 7 - 12, these are apparatus claims corresponding to the method claims 1 - 6, respectively. Therefore, these are rejected for the same reasons as the method claim 1-6, respectively.
With respect to claim 13 - 17, these are method claims corresponding to the apparatus claims 1 – 5, respectively. Therefore, this is rejected for the same reasons as the apparatus claims 1 – 5, respectively.
With respect to claims 18 - 19, these are apparatus claims corresponding to the method claims 13 and 14, respectively. Therefore, these are rejected for the same reasons as the method claims 13 and 14, respectively.
With respect to claim 20, it's rejected for the similar reasons as those described in connection with claim 3.
With respect to claims 21 - 22, these are rejected for the similar reasons as those described in connection with claim 16 and 17, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kuma et al. (U.S PG Publication No. 2023/0316582 A1)1
1This reference teaches at a time of encoding various kinds of information such as geometry data (a prediction residual) as shown in the eleventh row (the row of “1-4”) from the top of the table illustrated in FIG. 4, arithmetic encoding may be independently performed for each layer (group layer) as shown in a twelfth row (the row of “1-4-1”) from the top of the table illustrated in FIG. 4. That is, the arithmetic encoding may be performed on the prediction residual or the like after classification into each group layer that is a layer according to a group in the reference structure. By doing in this way, coded data can be decoded for each group layer. For example, when some group layers are deleted and transcoded, transcoding can be performed by only selecting coded data of a group layer that is not deleted (without decoding). As a result, it is possible to suppress an increase in load of the transcoding. Note that, in this case, the layer information is only required to be signaled in a parent node.
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 JUAN M GUILLERMETY whose telephone number is (571)270-3481. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, Benny Q TIEU can be reached at 571-272-7490. 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.
/JUAN M GUILLERMETY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights