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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 (Chinese Application CN202010366795.3 filed on April 30th, 2020).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on October 28th, 2022 and July 31st, 2024 were filed before the mailing date of the First Action on the Merits (mailed April 10th, 2025). The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant amended claims 1, 6, 8, 12 – 15, and 18 beyond formalities and 112(b) Rejections in unanticipated ways (e.g. removing “Morton code” from the claims as the dependent claims were not fully incorporated into the independent claims).
Applicant cancelled claims 2 – 3, 9 – 10, 16 – 17, and 19 – 20.
The pending claims are 1, 4 – 8, 11 – 15, and 18 [Page 11 lines 1 – 11].
Examiner Note: Equations are not counted in the line counts provided.
Applicant amended the Drawings to address Examiner’s Drawing Objections [Page 11 lines 12 – 19]. The Examiner notes the replacements for “Yes” and “No” are not made as described and thus the Objection is maintained [Page 15 lines 22 – 27].
Applicant amended the claims to address Examiner’s 112 Rejections [Page 11 line 20 – Page 13 line 10]. The Examiner reconsiders the 112 Rejections in view of the amended claims.
Applicant's arguments filed January 20th, 2026 [Page 12 line 15 – Page 13 line 10] have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant attempts to cite the Morton code as the claimed “position information” arguing the “greater” comparison is thus definite to one of ordinary skill in the art [Page 12 line 15 – Page 13 line 10]; however such an interpretation is exemplary in view of Paragraph 190 of the Specification and further the claims do not recite the use of a Morton code. Thus as the comparison lacks metes and bounds of what is compared, the “greater” comparison claimed is Indefinite as other embodiments / representations may exist and such a comparison is not clearly provided in the Specification.
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., the use of a Morton code for “position information” when several other methods of signaling position information were present) 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).
While the Applicant’s points may be understood, the Examiner respectfully disagrees; thus the Rejection has been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 8, 15, and 18 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.
First, the Applicant recites the references against the claims [Page 13 lines 11 – 19].
Second, the Applicant recites features of amended independent claim 1 and contends claim features are not rendered obvious by the cited references [Page 13 line 20 – Page 24 line 29].
Third, the Applicant contends Hur is silent in using a preset search time in the bitstream as in amended independent claim 1 [Page 14 line 30 – Page 15 line 7]. The Examiner notes in Hur at least Paragraphs 99, 322, and 461 – 469 ranges for searches may be signaled / set in searching position information in NNS algorithms and Morton codes may be used. The Examiner then relies on Mammou and Hur 900 for additional syntax and search constraints to readily render obvious the claim limitation.
Fourth, the Applicant contends Mammou Paragraph 392 – 408 and 497 – 520 do not render obvious features claimed [Page 15 lines 8 – 24]. The Examiner notes however Mammou teaches trimmed / limited search ranges for the preset times claimed which is an obvious variant in view of at least Specification Paragraphs 153 – 154 and the newly cited reference.
Fifth, the Applicant contends Hur 900 in at least the cited sections does not teach the claimed preset search times [Page 15 line 25 – Page 16 line 10]. Similarly to Mammou, when considering Hur 900 as a whole, syntax for limited search regions are taught as an obvious variant of the preset search time in view of at least Specification Paragraphs 153 – 154 and the newly cited reference.
Sixth, the Applicant concludes claim 1 is allowable, the other amended independent claims are similarly Allowable [Page 16 lines 11 – 19], and the dependent claims are similarly allowable [Page 16 lines 20 – 24].
While the Applicant’s points may be understood, the Examiner respectfully disagrees; however, in view of the amended claims the Examiner amends the Rejection. In view of the amended claims, in the sole interest to expedite prosecution, the Examiner adds a new reference to render obvious a signaled limited search is an obvious variant of the claimed preset search time.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, the claimed “greater” has Indefinite metes and bounds as the “position information” is not claimed in a way to provide definite metes and bounds as to how such a comparison is conducted. Further the Specification lacks any details as to how the comparison should be conducted and thus further renders the claim Indefinite.
Regarding claim 11, see claim 4 which recites the same / similar limitation and thus is similarly Rejected.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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, 4 – 5, 7 – 8, 11 – 13, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hur, et al. (US PG PUB 2021/0105504 A1 referred to as “Hur” throughout in which citations will come from the US PG PUB in lieu of enabling US Provisional Applications), and further in view of Mammou, et al. (US PG PUB 2021/0103780 A1 referred to as “Mammou” throughout in which citations will come from the US PG PUB in lieu of enabling US Provisional Applications), Hur, et al. (US PG PUB 2025/0030900 A1 referred to as “Hur ‘900” in which citations will come from the US PG PUB in lieu of enabling US Provisional Application 62/962,139), and Hur, et al. (US Patent #11,601,488 B2 referred to as “Hur 488” throughout).
Regarding claim 1, see claim 15 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 8, see claim 18 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 11, see claim 4 which is the encoding method performing the same / similar steps as the claimed decoding method.
Regarding claim 12, see claim 5 which is the encoding method performing the same / similar steps as the claimed decoding method.
Regarding claim 13, see claim 7 which is the encoding apparatus performing the same / similar steps as the claimed decoding apparatus regarding the “parsing …” limitation when additionally considering at least Hur in at least Figures 1 – 2, 16, 27, and 31 – 32 as well as Paragraphs 64 – 66, 225 – 231,and 239 – 241 renders obvious operations in encoding may be used in decoding. Regarding the “shifting the position information …” limitation see the citations for the “obtain corresponding first parent nodes …” limitation as the right shift is performed by the signaled preset number of bits as claimed and additionally considering at least Hur in at least Figures 1 – 2, 16, 27, and 31 – 32 as well as Paragraphs 64 – 66, 225 – 231,and 239 – 241 renders obvious operations in encoding may be used in decoding.
Regarding claim 18, see claim 15 which is the encoding apparatus performing the same / similar steps as the claimed decoding apparatus. Additionally Hur in at least Figures 1 – 2, 16, 27, and 31 – 32 as well as Paragraphs 64 – 66, 225 – 231,and 239 – 241 renders obvious operations in encoding may be used in decoding.
Regarding claim 15, Hur teaches nearest neighbor algorithms processing point cloud data in searching for nearest neighbors traversing octrees and level of details with bit shift considerations in traversing octrees / levels of detail. Mammou teaches additional nearest neighbor considerations for point cloud coding / decoding with modifications to the search including bit shift operations and considerations relationships to the points being processed. Hur ‘900 teaches using Morton codes to identify search regions for nodes including parent nodes in nearest neighbor searches to clarify and combine teachings of Hur and Mammou and teaches limited search range syntax. Hur ‘488 teaches the obvious variants of limiting search times by limiting the search range in performing NNS (Nearest Neighbor search).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hur to incorporate the search and bit shift considerations as taught by Mammou and the understanding of the bit shifting of Morton codes to establish search regions for points (including parent nodes) as taught by Hur ‘900 including limiting search region syntax which Hur ‘488 teaches as an obvious variant of setting search times. The combination teaches
a memory and a processor [Hur Paragraphs 573 – 579 (processor and memory implementation that execute software to implement methods / steps))], wherein,
the memory is configured to store a computer program executable on the processor [Hur Paragraphs 573 – 579 (processor and memory implementation that execute software to implement methods / steps))]; and
the processor is configured to [See above limitations for citations of the claimed “processor”]:
acquire position information of point cloud data to be searched [Hur Figures 1 – 2 and 9 - 10 (see at least reference characters 11003, 40000, and 40005) as well as Paragraphs 88 – 90 and 158 – 161 (position information determined / geometry of points considered and used to construct octree) and 97 – 100 (searching for nearest neighbor points based on tree / Morton code), 332, 362 – 364 and 460 – 461 (searching based on neighboring points / position sets as the position information (Paragraph 461 which is additionally combinable with the position sets of Mammou Paragraph 394))];
perform slicing on the point cloud data according to the position information of point cloud data to be searched and a first distance threshold to obtain current layer data [Hur Figures 29 – 30 as well as Paragraphs 102 and 500 (LOD determination and refinement of the layers / LOD) in combination with Mammou Figures 10 – 13 (subfigures included and see the refinement layer determinations in Figure 10) as well as Paragraphs 179 – 202 (generating a current level of detail / LOD in which refinement layers are determined), 476 – 478 and 540 – 544 (modifications to the LOD / refinement layer using distance thresholds)];
obtain corresponding first parent nodes according to the current layer data in the point cloud data and a first preset number of bits, wherein bits indicating position information of prediction data corresponding to the current layer data in the point cloud data are shifted right by the first preset number of bits [Hur Figures 16 – 17 and 29 – 30 as well as Paragraphs 255 (bit shift operation – similar to Paragraphs 498 – 499 to traverse tree / search for neighboring points), 270 – 273 (parent node determination), 326 – 335 (parent node determined in a current layer / LOD / refinement layer), and 486 – 507 (algorithm for NNS / nearest neighbor sear with bit shift (see also Paragraph 99 for NNS and 498 – 499 (see the shift in bits to change nodes / levels to modify by the teachings of Mammou)); Mammou Figures 7 (parent node / cell shown and used in nearest neighbor search), 10 – 12 and 19 (subfigures included) as well as Paragraphs 540 – 544 (see the shift by n0+1 bit rendering obvious the ‘present number of bits” claimed which claim be used to modify the right bit shifts taught by Hur); Alternatively Hur ‘900 Figures 15 – 19 and 21 – 24 as well as Paragraphs 225 – 232 and 235 – 239 (registration of nearest neighbors and coding the points and signaling parameters with the Morton codes and shift consideration), 249 – 252 and 260 – 264 (traversal of nearest neighbors and the preset shift of h-1-1 times (the preset number of searches) from the current layer)];
determine, according to position information of the current layer data [See next limitation for citation], a neighbour area in the first parent nodes [See next limitation for citation], determine a nearest neighbour point of the current layer data in the neighbour area [Hur Figures 16 – 18, 27, and 29 – 30 as well as Paragraphs 94 – 99 (NNS / Nearest neighbor search with tree traversal), 289 – 298 (using Morton codes / ranges to set bounds for grouping points / searching for nearest neighbor), 331 – 338 (finding nearest neighbors on a LOD / current layer), 422 – 426 (range / limit to number of points for nearest neighbor), and 495 – 505 (combine with Paragraphs 469 – 479, 514, and 526 with Morton code ranges for where to conduct the NNS further combinable with the range considerations in Mammou Figures 4 and 6 (subfigures included) as well as Paragraphs 104 – 106 (search range may be user defined) and 480 – 482 (see at least “SR1” and “SR2” for the neighbor area))], when the neighbour area is determined [See previous limitation for citations and additionally Hur ‘900 Figures 15 – 19 and 21 – 24 as well as Paragraphs 225 – 232 and 235 – 239 (registration of nearest neighbors and coding the points and signaling parameters with the Morton codes and shift consideration), 249 – 252 and 260 – 264 (traversal of nearest neighbors and the preset shift of h-1-1 times (the preset number of searches) from the current layer), and 365 – 374 (shifted values when within the neighborhood to search for points)],
and when the neighbour area is not determined, determine a search point of the current layer data according to a second node [See next limitation for citation], and perform search in a first preset search range corresponding to the search point to determine the nearest neighbour point [See next limitation for citation], wherein the second node is prediction data corresponding to the current layer data in the point cloud data [Hur Figures 16 – 18 and 29 – 30 as well as Paragraphs 94 – 99, 250 – 255 (table with code and the teaching of shifting Morton codes / ranges considered by a set number of bits), 322, 360 – 365 (search region considerations in the given LOD / layer); Mammou Figures 4 and 6 (subfigures included), 12 – 13 (subfigures included and cube divisions for searching with modifications ), and 19 – 20 as well as Paragraphs 5 – 6 (points considered outside of trimmed search range), 283 – 296 (looking for neighbors including those outside the search range with modifications suggested in Hur Paragraphs 254 – 256 (Morton code adjusted / shifted when outside of a range of search)), 482 (rendering obvious search ranges defined – modified in NNS modifications later proposed) and 488 – 498 (modifications to NNS to view in combination with Paragraphs 526 – 544 (no neighbors found (combinable with Hur ‘900 Paragraphs 125 – 130 and the search range is expanded by n0 + 1 bit shifted in the Morton code / coordinate value (Paragraph 544) with the sequence of distances rendering obvious the preset search ranges)],
wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine, in the first parent nodes, a current parent node to which a current point in the current layer data belongs [Hur Figures 16 – 18 and 29 – 30 (traversing the tree from parent node to another parent node (non-leaf nodes)) as well as Paragraphs 94 – 99 (NNS ) 251 – 256 (higher node / related node or node from tree traversal), 403 – 408 (selection of points in current layer based on parent nodes), and 487 – 493 (order of node to traverse / finding neighbors of the current nodes in combination with Paragraphs 497 – 505 (algorithm / table included))];
determine a neighbour parent node neighbour to the current parent node [Hur Figures 16 – 18 and 29 – 30 (traversing the tree from parent node to another parent node (non-leaf nodes)) as well as Paragraphs 94 – 99 (NNS algorithm for current / neighboring regions to search) 251 – 256 (higher node / related node or node from tree traversal), 403 – 408 (selection of points in current layer based on parent nodes), and 487 – 493 (order of node to traverse / finding neighbors of the current nodes in combination with Paragraphs 497 – 505 (algorithm / table included))];
determine position information of neighbour parent nodes according to a preset lookup table, the current parent node and the position information of the current layer data [Mammou Figures 4 and 6 (subfigures included), 12 – 13 (octree to traverse / search for nearest neighbor), 18 – 19 as well as Paragraphs 505 – 520 (see the LUT based on Morton codes of the LOD being searched similarly Hur ‘900 Paragraphs 110 – 116)]; and
determine an area corresponding to the position information of the neighbour parent nodes as the neighbour area [Hur Figures 16 – 18 and 29 – 30 (traversing the tree from parent node to another parent node (non-leaf nodes)) as well as Paragraphs 487 – 493 (order of node to traverse / finding neighbors of the current nodes in combination with Paragraphs 497 – 505 (algorithm / table included)); Mammou Figures 4 and 6 (subfigures included), 12 – 13 (octree to traverse / search for nearest neighbor), 18 – 19 as well as Paragraphs 505 – 520 (see the LUT based on Morton codes of the LOD being searched with area / Morton code considered to find corresponding area / region in the tree traversal and similarly Paragraphs 225 – 232, 249 – 252, and 260 – 264 (Morton Codes to establish search region / area for finding nodes and position information); Hur ‘900 Figures 16 – 19 as well as Paragraphs 225 – 232 and 250 – 252 (region / area established for the search with the shift operation based on LOD to set area / times to search), and 260 – 264 (see the “h” term in the “h-1-1” expression for the area corresponding to position information)], and
wherein the processor is further configured to:
traverse, in the neighbour area, points corresponding to the position information of the neighbour parent nodes according to preset search times to obtain a candidate neighbour [Mammou Figures 15 – 19 as well as Paragraphs 392 – 408 (traversal of nearest neighbors in an octree), 473 – 484 (various techniques / methods to trim the search space for the NNS / reduction of candidates including using properties of Morton codes), 497 – 520 and 525 – 539 (traversing of the Morton codes in a nearest neighbor search with further enhancements to trim the search space); Hur ‘900 Figures 14 – 17 and 21 – 24 (see at least the “nearest_neighbour_search_range” (Figures 22 – 23) syntax element signaled in the bitstream) as well as Paragraphs 86 – 88 (traversal of a Morton code), 243 – 246 and 252 – 255 (reduced / trimmed search range signaled traversing the Morton ordered points), 266 – 273 (benefits of reducing NNS range), and 315 (syntax including search range to use); Hur ‘488 Figures 18 and 22 – 25 (see at least the “NN_Range” syntax elements) as well as Column 37 line 55 – Column 38 line 67 (determinations of the search range to signal) and Column 39 lines 3 – 45 (limiting the search range affects time for processing thus rendering obvious the preset / limited range as a preset time) and Column 43 lines 14 – 59 (maximum range / thresholds used to limit the signaled search range)];
determine, from the candidate neighbour, the nearest neighbour point corresponding to the current point in the current layer data [Mammou Figures 16 – 19 as well as Paragraphs 392 – 408 (traversal of nearest neighbors in an octree to the current point / nearest point to current) and 497 – 520 (traversing of the Morton codes in a nearest neighbor search to determine current point); Hur ‘900 Figures 14 – 17 and 21 – 24 as well as Paragraphs 227 – 232 and 250 – 252 (candidate group / points searched for neighboring point / parent node) and 262 – 264 (neighbor set / candidate set for search signaled))]; and
signal the preset search times in a bitstream [Hur ‘900 Figures 14 – 17 and 21 – 24 (see at least the “nearest_neighbour_search_range” (Figures 22 – 23) syntax element signaled in the bitstream) as well as Paragraphs 232 and 315 – 321 (signaling values in a bitstream), 250 – 255 and 260 – 273 (benefits of reducing NNS range as an obvious variant / alternative to the parameters of Mammou); Mammou Figures 16 – 19 as well as Paragraphs 105 – 107, 408 – 414 (user defined attribute values / parameters set by a user), 473 – 486 (various techniques / methods to trim the search space for the NNS / reduction of candidates including using properties of Morton codes), 497 – 520 (in particular Paragraph 499) and 525 – 539 (traversing of the Morton codes in a nearest neighbor search with further enhancements to trim the search space); Hur ‘488 Figures 18 and 22 – 25 (see at least the “NN_Range” syntax elements – combinable with Hur ‘900 and Mammou) as well as Column 37 line 55 – Column 38 line 67 (determinations of the search range to signal) and Column 39 lines 3 – 45 (limiting the search range affects time for processing thus rendering obvious the preset / limited range as a preset time) and Column 43 lines 14 – 59 (maximum range / thresholds used to limit the signaled search range)].
The motivation to combine Mammou with Hur is to combine features in the same / similar field of invention of compression / decompression of point cloud data [Mammou Paragraphs 2 – 3] in order to improve the search range of the nearest neighbor in sparse trees [Mammou Paragraphs 5 – 6, 37, and 315 – 318 where the Examiner observes at least KSR Rationales (D) or (F) are also applicable].
The motivation to combine Hur ‘900 with Mammou and Hur is to combine features in the same / similar field of invention of processing point cloud data [Hur ‘900 Paragraphs 4 – 5] in order to improve transmission (encoding / decoding) efficiency of point cloud data [Hur ‘900 Paragraphs 6 – 9 where the Examiner observes at least KSR Rationales (D) or (F) are also applicable].
The motivation to combine Hur ‘488 with Hur ‘900, Mammou, and Hur is to combine features in the same / related field of invention of processing point cloud data [Hur ‘488 Column 1 lines 16 – 30] in order to improve processing time / reduce computation time necessary to search in a NNS [Hur ‘448 Column 38 line 1 – Column 39 line 37 where the Examiner observes at least KSR Rationales (D) or (F) are also applicable].
This is the motivation to combine Hur, Mammou, Hur ‘900, and Hur ‘488 which will be used throughout the Rejection.
Regarding claim 4, Hur teaches nearest neighbor algorithms processing point cloud data in searching for nearest neighbors traversing octrees and level of details with bit shift considerations in traversing octrees / levels of detail. Mammou teaches additional nearest neighbor considerations for point cloud coding / decoding with modifications to the search including bit shift operations and considerations relationships to the points being processed. Hur ‘900 teaches using Morton codes to identify search regions for nodes including parent nodes in nearest neighbor searches to clarify and combine teachings of Hur and Mammou and teaches limited search range syntax. Hur ‘488 teaches the obvious variants of limiting search times by limiting the search range in performing NNS (Nearest Neighbor search).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hur to incorporate the search and bit shift considerations as taught by Mammou and the understanding of the bit shifting of Morton codes to establish search regions for points (including parent nodes) as taught by Hur ‘900 including limiting search region syntax which Hur ‘488 teaches as an obvious variant of setting search times. The combination teaches
determining, from the second node, first position information greater than current position information of a current point of the current layer data [Mammou Figures 4, 6, 8, and 10 (subfigures included) as well as Paragraphs 106 – 110 (positions compared for being in the area / current layer), 120 – 123, and 206 – 213 (distance threshold / comparison on distance information in which limits / checks on points considered are performed to generate the current layer / LOD), and Paragraphs 498 – 520 (comparing information / positions and Morton codes to traverse trees / determine nearest neighbors and as an alternative “greater” see Paragraphs 508 – 509)]; and
setting a point corresponding to the first position information as the search point [Mammou and Paragraphs 498 – 520 (comparing information / positions and Morton codes to traverse trees / determine nearest neighbors and finding next node to search from corresponding to the search point)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Hur, Mammou, Hur ‘900, and Hur ‘488.
Regarding claim 5, Hur teaches nearest neighbor algorithms processing point cloud data in searching for nearest neighbors traversing octrees and level of details with bit shift considerations in traversing octrees / levels of detail. Mammou teaches additional nearest neighbor considerations for point cloud coding / decoding with modifications to the search including bit shift operations and considerations relationships to the points being processed. Hur ‘900 teaches using Morton codes to identify search regions for nodes including parent nodes in nearest neighbor searches to clarify and combine teachings of Hur and Mammou and teaches limited search range syntax. Hur ‘488 teaches the obvious variants of limiting search times by limiting the search range in performing NNS (Nearest Neighbor search).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hur to incorporate the search and bit shift considerations as taught by Mammou and the understanding of the bit shifting of Morton codes to establish search regions for points (including parent nodes) as taught by Hur ‘900 including limiting search region syntax which Hur ‘488 teaches as an obvious variant of setting search times. The combination teaches
determining, according to the position information of point cloud data to be searched, a corresponding point [Mammou Figures 4, 6, (subfigures included), 8 (see at least reference characters 852, 854, and 856) 10 – 13, and 18 – 19 as well as Paragraphs 498 – 520 (comparing information / positions and Morton codes to traverse trees / determine nearest neighbors and finding next node to search from corresponding to the search point)]; and
determining a point in the corresponding point whose distance from a currently processed current point in the point cloud data being greater than the first distance threshold and less than or equal to a second distance threshold to obtain the current layer data, wherein the first distance threshold is less than the second distance threshold [Mammou Figures 4, 6, (subfigures included), 8 (see at least reference characters 852, 854, and 856) 10 – 13, and 18 – 19 as well as Paragraphs 417 – 420 (threshold for checking distances of points traversed / compared), 473 – 480 (distance threshold checks for guess / candidate points), and 525 – 544 (see the threshold distances used at least in Paragraph 40 in which the sequence of distances will render obvious larger thana first and smaller than a second before the bit shifting in Paragraph 544 further suggested in Paragraphs 162 – 169 (points being within distance thresholds during traversal / search of nearest neighbors)); Hur ‘900 Figures 16 – 18 as well as Paragraphs 239 – 242 and 249 – 261 (see the comparison of the Morton codes greater than other Morton codes as a distance threshold)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Hur, Mammou, Hur ‘900, and Hur ‘488.
Regarding claim 7, Hur teaches nearest neighbor algorithms processing point cloud data in searching for nearest neighbors traversing octrees and level of details with bit shift considerations in traversing octrees / levels of detail. Mammou teaches additional nearest neighbor considerations for point cloud coding / decoding with modifications to the search including bit shift operations and considerations relationships to the points being processed. Hur ‘900 teaches using Morton codes to identify search regions for nodes including parent nodes in nearest neighbor searches to clarify and combine teachings of Hur and Mammou and teaches limited search range syntax. Hur ‘488 teaches the obvious variants of limiting search times by limiting the search range in performing NNS (Nearest Neighbor search).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hur to incorporate the search and bit shift considerations as taught by Mammou and the understanding of the bit shifting of Morton codes to establish search regions for points (including parent nodes) as taught by Hur ‘900 including limiting search region syntax which Hur ‘488 teaches as an obvious variant of setting search times. The combination teaches
signaling the first preset number of bits in a bitstream [Hur Paragraphs 250 – 255 (see bit shifts included rendering obvious preset number of bits shifted); Mammou Paragraphs 105 – 107 and 408 – 414 (user defined attribute values / parameters set by a user), 486, 499, and 540 – 544 (for example the “n0” parameter in view of other Mammou citations would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to signal where Hur ‘900 Paragraphs 250 – 252 and 260 – 264 (see the “h” term in the “h-1-1” expression for the amount of shift would be an obvious alternative to the parameters of Mammou and Hur ‘900 Paragraphs 232 and 321 renders obvious signaling the values in a bitstream)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Hur, Mammou, Hur ‘900, and Hur ‘488.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 6 is taken as the representative claim with claim 14 reciting same / similar limitations and thus similarly Allowable. Claim 6 recites a unique combination of features in which the shifting claimed is based on a determination of an average number of points within a determined average threshold but then setting the number of bits to shift (as in the rest of the claim) based on the value determined. Mammou while teaching the averaging threshold considerations, does not fairly render obvious the present number of bits based on the determination of the present average test being met as claimed. Hur ‘488 teaches the averaging considerations and upsampling claimed, but the claim when taken as a whole is considered obvious in view of the combination of cited references.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Park, et al. (US PG PUB 2022/0343548 A1 referred to as “Park” throughout) which has similar teachings as Hur. Mammou, et al. (US PG PUB 2019/0080483 A1 referred to as “Mammou 83” throughout) which is in the same family / related to the cited Mammou reference. Tourapis, et al. (US PG PUB 2020/0021856 A1 referred to as “Tourapis” throughout) teaches the limited search range similar to Mammou and Mammou 83.
References that may raise ODP Issues based on amendments claimed: Yang, et al. (US Patent #12,200,231 B2 referred to as “Yang” throughout).
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 Tyler W Sullivan whose telephone number is (571)270-5684. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at (571)-272-7327. 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.
/TYLER W. SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487