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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 19-20 are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p.6-7, filed 09/04/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation of Claims 1-18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation of Claims 1-18 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see p.6-10, filed 09/04/2025, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Li fails to provide any disclosure related to "number information indicating a total number of the prediction trees" wherein the Examiner has not provided any reasoning as to why this feature of the claimed invention is necessarily present in the disclosure of Li and that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art and not just that the certain result or characteristic may occur or be present in the prior art. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Indication of a total number of prediction trees does not mean a total number of trees is output. Applicant's claim is missing an essential step which is the output or generation of the total number of prediction trees to aide in the encoding process and integrating the recited steps into a practical application. Furthermore, Li, Paras. 6 and 91, teaches prediction trees that originate from region tree leaf nodes wherein coding tool information can be used to signal in nodes of the region tree to enable or disable the coding tool for regions corresponding to the nodes wherein a partition unit may be used to further partition each of the region tree leaf nodes using respective prediction trees, i.e., the partitioning unit necessarily processes one prediction tree per region tree leaf node and wherein the enable/disable leaf flag per region tree leaf node could both be used by a person of ordinary skill in the art to count the instances and indicate a total number of prediction trees. Examiner has considered applicants arguments with respect to the new claims 19-20. However, arguments are moot due to the new claim being presented and are therefore being analyzed as presented below. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-10, 12-13, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mammou et al. (US 20210312670 A1 with Effective Filing Date 04/07/2020) in view of Li et al. (US 20170272782 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Mammou teaches "A three-dimensional data encoding method comprising: obtaining three-dimensional points"; (Mammou, Para. 5, teaches a three-dimensional encoding method wherein a plurality of points in a three-dimensional point cloud are received, i.e., obtaining three-dimensional points);
"generating a data unit including one or more prediction trees, using the three-dimensional points"; (Mammou, Para. 5, teaches encoding data including generating a prediction tree having a plurality of nodes with values representing spatial coordinates of a respective one of the plurality of points, i.e., generating a data unit comprising a prediction tree by using the three-dimensional points);
"and generating a bitstream including the data unit and control information"; (Mammou, Paras. 92 and 150, teaches explicitly encoding attribute information and quantization parameters in the bitstream, i.e., generating a bitstream that includes the data unit with the generated prediction tree and associated attribute information as well as control information).
However, Mammou does not explicitly teach "wherein the control information includes tree information about the one or more prediction trees, and the tree information includes number information indicating a total number of prediction trees included in the data unit".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Li teaches "wherein the control information includes tree information about the one or more prediction trees, and the tree information includes number information indicating a total number of prediction trees included in the data unit"; (Li, Paras. 6 and 91, teaches one or more prediction trees that originate from region tree leaf nodes wherein coding tool information can be used to signal in nodes of the region tree to enable or disable the coding tool for regions corresponding to the nodes wherein a partition unit may be used to further partition each of the region tree leaf nodes using respective prediction trees, i.e., control information comprising tree information that would indicate the total number of prediction trees of the one or more prediction trees).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Mammou by including the number of prediction tree information taught by Li. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it improves coding efficiency and quality of video (Li, Paras. 142 and 145, teaches the motivation of combination to be to improve coding efficiency and perceptual quality of the encoded video).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of references of Mammou in view of Li teaches "The three-dimensional data encoding method according to claim 1, wherein the tree information further includes maximum number information indicating a maximum value of a total number of three-dimensional points that a single prediction tree can include"; (Li, Para. 32, teaches the coded bitstream defining the maximum number of times a coding tree unit, CTU, may be split which is also referred to as a maximum CU depth, i.e., tree information indicating maximum number information that is the maximum value of a total number of 3D points that a prediction tree includes).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Mammou and Li references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, applies to claim 2. Thus, the method recited in claim 2 is met by Mammou in view of Li.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of references of Mammou in view of Li teaches "The three-dimensional data encoding method according to claim 1, wherein the tree information further includes one or more position information items each indicating a position of a corresponding one of the one or more prediction trees"; (Mammou, Para. 5, teaches data including spatial coordinates of the 3D points representative of the values of nodes in the prediction tree, i.e., tree information includes position information items indicating a position of a corresponding prediction tree).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of references of Mammou in view of Li teaches "The three-dimensional data encoding method according to claim 4, wherein each of the one or more position information items includes position coordinates of a root node included in the corresponding one of the one or more prediction trees"; (Mammou, FIGs. 2B and 6 and Paras. 18 and 97, teaches a root node being decoded as a first point in the point cloud wherein the decoding process includes determining data including spatial coordinates of the points, i.e., position information items include position coordinates of a root node included in the corresponding prediction tree).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of references of Mammou in view of Li teaches "A three-dimensional data decoding method comprising: obtaining a bitstream including control information and a data unit that includes one or more prediction trees"; (Mammou, Paras. 4-5, 92, and 150, teaches a decoding process wherein encoded prediction trees are decoded to reconstitute the three-dimensional point cloud at a destination, i.e., a three-dimensional data decoding method, wherein attribute information and quantization parameters of the prediction trees are explicitly encoded in the bitstream, i.e., obtaining a bitstream that includes control information and a data unit comprising one or more prediction trees);
"and decoding one of the one or more prediction trees included in the data unit, using the control information, to calculate three-dimensional points constituting the one of the one or more prediction trees"; (Mammou, Paras. 4, 18, 92, and 150, teaches decoding the encoded data which comprises the prediction tree and quantization parameters to determine data regarding the plurality of 3D points, i.e., decoding the prediction tree of the data unit using the control information to calculate 3D points that constitute the prediction tree).
"wherein the control information includes tree information about the one or more prediction trees, and the tree information includes number information indicating a total number of prediction trees included in the data unit"; (Li, Paras. 6 and 91, teaches one or more prediction trees that originate from region tree leaf nodes wherein coding tool information can be used to signal in nodes of the region tree to enable or disable the coding tool for regions corresponding to the nodes wherein a partition unit may be used to further partition each of the region tree leaf nodes using respective prediction trees, i.e., control information comprising tree information that would indicate the total number of prediction trees of the one or more prediction trees).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Mammou and Li references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, applies to claim 9. Thus, the method recited in claim 9 is met by Mammou in view of Li.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of references of Mammou in view of Li teaches "The three-dimensional data decoding method according to claim 9, wherein the tree information further includes maximum number information indicating a maximum value of a total number of three-dimensional points that a single prediction tree can include"; (Li, Para. 32, teaches the coded bitstream defining the maximum number of times a coding tree unit, CTU, may be split which is also referred to as a maximum CU depth, i.e., tree information indicating maximum number information that is the maximum value of a total number of 3D points that a prediction tree includes).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Mammou and Li references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, applies to claim 10. Thus, the method recited in claim 10 is met by Mammou in view of Li.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of references of Mammou in view of Li teaches "The three-dimensional data decoding method according to claim 9, wherein the tree information further includes one or more position information items each indicating a position of a corresponding one of the one or more prediction trees"; (Mammou, Para. 5, teaches data including spatial coordinates of the 3D points representative of the values of nodes in the prediction tree, i.e., tree information includes position information items indicating a position of a corresponding prediction tree).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of references of Mammou in view of Li teaches "The three-dimensional data decoding method according to claim 12, wherein each of the one or more position information items includes position coordinates of a root node included in the corresponding one of the one or more prediction trees"; (Mammou, FIGs. 2B and 6 and Paras. 18 and 97, teaches a root node being decoded as a first point in the point cloud wherein the decoding process includes determining data including spatial coordinates of the points, i.e., position information items include position coordinates of a root node included in the corresponding prediction tree).
Claim 17 recites a system or device with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 1. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Mammou and Li references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Mammou and Li references discloses a processor performing operations using computer-readable media (for example, see Mammou, Paragraph 33).
Claim 18 recites a system or device with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 9. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Mammou and Li references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Mammou and Li references discloses a processor performing operations using computer-readable media (for example, see Mammou, Paragraph 33).
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mammou in view of Li and Ramasubramanian et al. (US 20080304421 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of references of Mammou in view of Li does not explicitly teach "The three-dimensional data encoding method according to claim 1, wherein the tree information further includes one or more identification information items each identifying a corresponding one of the one or more prediction trees".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Ramasubramanian teaches "The three-dimensional data encoding method according to claim 1, wherein the tree information further includes one or more identification information items each identifying a corresponding one of the one or more prediction trees"; (Ramasubramanian, FIG. 12 and Paras. 67-69, teaches a grove of prediction trees receiving new tree identifiers, i.e., tree information including an identification information item which identifies a corresponding prediction tree).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Mammou and Li by including the prediction tree identification information taught by Ramasubramanian. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it improves accuracy (Ramasubramanian, Para. 66, teaches the motivation of combination to be to improve accuracy by using a collection of prediction trees).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of references of Mammou in view of Li and Ramasubramanian teaches "The three-dimensional data decoding method according to claim 9, wherein the tree information further includes one or more identification information items each identifying a corresponding one of the one or more prediction trees"; (Ramasubramanian, FIG. 12 and Paras. 67-69, teaches a grove of prediction trees receiving new tree identifiers, i.e., tree information including an identification information item which identifies a corresponding prediction tree).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Mammou, Li, and Ramasubramanian references presented in the rejection of Claim 3, applies to claim 11. Thus, the method recited in claim 11 is met by Mammou in view of Li and Ramasubramanian.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mammou in view of Li and Lasserre et al. (WO 2021084295 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of references of Mammou in view of Li does not explicitly teach "The three-dimensional data encoding method according to claim 4, wherein each of the one or more position information items includes an origin and a size of a bounding box surrounding a three-dimensional point cloud constituting the corresponding one of the one or more prediction trees".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Lasserre teaches "The three-dimensional data encoding method according to claim 4, wherein each of the one or more position information items includes an origin and a size of a bounding box surrounding a three-dimensional point cloud constituting the corresponding one of the one or more prediction trees"; (Lasserre, FIG. 3 and Paras. 33, 41, 57, teaches defining the three-dimensional volume for the point cloud by using a bounding box wherein coordinate point data is also obtained wherein the volume Is used to build out a tree-structure, i.e., position information includes a bounding box comprising an origin and a size to surround the 3D point cloud that constitutes the prediction tree).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Mammou and Li by including the bounding box position information surrounding the 3D point cloud used for prediction trees taught by Lasserre. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it improves compression of coordinates (Lasserre, Para. 1, teaches the motivation of combination to be to improve compression of coordinates of points in point clouds).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of references of Mammou in view of Li and Lasserre teaches "The three-dimensional data decoding method according to claim 12, wherein each of the one or more position information items includes an origin and a size of a bounding box surrounding a three-dimensional point cloud constituting the corresponding one of the one or more prediction trees"; (Lasserre, FIG. 3 and Paras. 33, 41, 57, teaches defining the three-dimensional volume for the point cloud by using a bounding box wherein coordinate point data is also obtained wherein the volume Is used to build out a tree-structure, i.e., position information includes a bounding box comprising an origin and a size to surround the 3D point cloud that constitutes the prediction tree).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Mammou, Li, and Lasserre references presented in the rejection of Claim 6, applies to claim 14. Thus, the method recited in claim 14 is met by Mammou in view of Li and Lasserre.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mammou in view of Li and Huang et al. (US 20180103268 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of references of Mammou in view of Li teaches "The three-dimensional data encoding method according to claim 1, wherein the tree information further includes one or more data position information items each indicating a position of a corresponding one of the one or more prediction trees" (Mammou, Para. 5, teaches data including spatial coordinates of the 3D points representative of the values of nodes in the prediction tree, i.e., tree information includes position information items indicating a position of a corresponding prediction tree).
However, the combination of references of Mammou in view of Li does not explicitly teach "the position being a position from a top of the data unit in the data unit".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Huang teaches "the position being a position from a top of the data unit in the data unit"; (Huang, Para. 55, teaches a coordinate x0, y0 being used to indicate the location of a top-left sample of a current block split from the parent block for prediction tree location partitioning, i.e., a position being a position from a top of the data unit).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Mammou and Li by including the position data having a top position in the data unit taught by Huang. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it improves performance and efficiency (Huang, Para. 10, teaches the motivation of combination to be to improve performance and overall efficiency).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of references of Mammou in view of Li and Huang teaches "The three-dimensional data decoding method according to claim 9, wherein the tree information further includes one or more data position information items each indicating a position of a corresponding one of the one or more prediction trees"; (Mammou, Para. 5, teaches data including spatial coordinates of the 3D points representative of the values of nodes in the prediction tree, i.e., tree information includes position information items indicating a position of a corresponding prediction tree);
"the position being a position from a top of the data unit in the data unit"; (Huang, Para. 55, teaches a coordinate x0, y0 being used to indicate the location of a top-left sample of a current block split from the parent block for prediction tree location partitioning, i.e., a position being a position from a top of the data unit).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Mammou, Li, and Huang references presented in the rejection of Claim 7, applies to claim 15. Thus, the method recited in claim 15 is met by Mammou in view of Li and Huang.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mammou in view of Li and Ye et al. (US 20100158103 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of references of Mammou in view of Li does not explicitly teach "The three-dimensional data encoding method according to claim 1, wherein the control information is a footer of the data unit".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Ye teaches "The three-dimensional data encoding method according to claim 1, wherein the control information is a footer of the data unit"; (Ye, Para. 34, teaches encoding filter syntax information in a footer element that follows encoded video data, i.e., control information located in a footer of the data unit).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Mammou and Li by including the control information located in the footer of the data taught by Ye. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it improves the ability to encode information (Ye, Para. 34, teaches the motivation of combination to be to improve the ability to encode filter information).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of references of Mammou in view of Li and Ye teaches "The three-dimensional data decoding method according to claim 9, wherein the control information is a footer of the data unit"; (Ye, Para. 34, teaches encoding filter syntax information in a footer element that follows encoded video data, i.e., control information located in a footer of the data unit).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Mammou, Li, and Ye references presented in the rejection of Claim 8, applies to claim 16. Thus, the method recited in claim 16 is met by Mammou in view of Li and Ye.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mammou in view of Li and Yano et al. (US 20220038751 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of references of Mammou in view of Li does not explicitly teach "The three-dimensional data encoding method according to claim 1, wherein the number information is included as a portion of the control information in the control information".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Yano teaches "The three-dimensional data encoding method according to claim 1, wherein the number information is included as a portion of the control information in the control information"; (Yano, Paras. 154 and 293, teaches the decoding control unit controlling the type selection unit on the basis of the header information including number information and causes the type selection unit to extract the portion corresponding to the processing target node from a bitstream and wherein number information is signaled in a frame header, i.e., number information included as a portion of control information in the control information).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Mammou and Li wherein the number information indicates a total number of prediction trees by including the number information being included as a portion of the control information taught by Yano. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it enables various processing orders (Yano, Para. 6, teaches the motivation of combination to be to enable decoding of encoded data of an octree in various processing orders).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of references of Mammou in view of Li and Yano teaches "The three-dimensional data decoding method according to claim 9, wherein the number information is included as a portion of the control information in the control information"; (Yano, Paras. 154 and 293, teaches the decoding control unit controlling the type selection unit on the basis of the header information including number information and causes the type selection unit to extract the portion corresponding to the processing target node from a bitstream and wherein number information is signaled in a frame header, i.e., number information included as a portion of control information in the control information).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Mammou, Li, and Yano references presented in the rejection of Claim 19, applies to claim 20. Thus, the method recited in claim 20 is met by Mammou in view of Li and Yano.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 ANDREW STEVEN BUDISALICH whose telephone number is (703)756-5568. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-5:00pm EST.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached on (571) 272-3382. 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.
/ANDREW S BUDISALICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662