DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This is an non-final office action in response to communication(s) filed on February 2, 2026.
Claims 3-7, 11, 14-15, 27-28, 30, 32 and 35-37 are cancelled.
Claims 31 and 33 are amended.
Claims 1-2, 12-13, 29, 31 and 33-34 are withdrawn from consideration being directed to non-elected species and/or invention from the response filed on February 2, 2026. Applicant’s election of Group II, and confirmed to be corresponding to claims 8-10 and 16-26 in the reply filed on February 2, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 8-10 and 16-26 are being considered as following.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 5, 2023 and February 2, 2026 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2019/243663 A1 (hereinafter as “Roimela”).
With regard to claim 8, the claim is drawn to a method, comprising decoding a sequence of computer generated holograms (see Roimela, i.e. i.e. in para. 1, 20, fig. 10B, and etc., disclose a method for decoding volumetric video information…), comprising:
decoding from a bitstream, a sequence of multiple plane images representative of the sequence of computer generated holograms (see Roimela, i.e. in fig. 10B, i.e. step 672, respectively, in para. 171, discloses that “[0171 ] In the following, the operation at a decoder side is explained in more detail with reference to the block diagrams of Figures 9b, 13b and the flow diagram of Figure l0b. A decoder 720 receives a bitstream (the block 670 in Figure l0b) and a decoding element 721 decodes 672 the bitstream to reconstruct the encoded information from the bitstream…”; further in para. 176 and etc., disclose that “[0176] In H.264/AVC and HEVC, it is possible to code sample arrays as separate colour planes into the bitstream and respectively decode separately coded colour planes from the bitstream. When separate colour planes are in use, each one of them is separately processed (by the encoder and/or the decoder) as a picture with monochrome sampling…”),
decoding from the bitstream, for at least one layer of a plurality of layers of at least one multiple plane image of the sequence of multiple plane images, an indicator indicating whether the at least one layer has changed with respect to a corresponding layer of a reference multiple plane image of the sequence of multiple plane images (see Roimela, i.e. in para. 205-206 and etc., disclose that “[0205] In H.264/AVC, a coded video sequence is defined to be a sequence of consecutive access units in decoding order from an IDR access unit, inclusive, to the next IDR access unit, exclusive, or to the end of the bitstream, whichever appears earlier. [0206] In HEVC, a coded video sequence (CVS) may be defined, for example, as a sequence of access units that consists, in decoding order, of an IRAP access unit with NoRaslOutputFlag equal to 1, followed by zero or more access units that are not IRAP access units with NoRaslOutputFlag equal to 1 , including all subsequent access units up to but not including any subsequent access unit that is an IRAP access unit with NoRaslOutputFlag equal to 1. An IRAP access unit may be defined as an access unit in which the base layer picture is an IRAP picture. The value of NoRaslOutputFlag is equal to 1 for each IDR picture, each BLA picture, and each IRAP picture that is the first picture in that particular layer in the bitstream in decoding order, is the first IRAP picture that follows an end of sequence NAL unit having the same value of nuh layer id in decoding order. There may be means to provide the value of HandleCraAsBlaFlag to the decoder from an external entity, such as a player or a receiver, which may control the decoder. HandleCraAsBlaFlag may be set to 1 for example by a player that seeks to a new position in a bitstream or tunes into a broadcast and starts decoding and then starts decoding from a CRA picture. When HandleCraAsBlaFlag is equal to 1 for a CRA picture, the CRA picture is handled and decoded as if it were a BLA picture….”),
reconstructing at least one computer generated hologram of the sequence of computer generated holograms from the at least one multiple plane image based on the indicator indicating whether the at least one layer has changed (see Roimela, i.e. in para. 14, 25, 77, fig. 10b, step 676 and etc., disclose that “[0014] Such projection surfaces may be unfolded onto two-dimensional (2D) planes, e.g. resulting in a two-dimensional pixel image. Standard 2D video coding may be applied for each projection to code the pixel information resulting from the texture data. In connection with the texture information, relevant projection geometry information (geometry attributes), comprising e.g. projection or projection surface type, location and orientation of the projection surface in 3D space, and/or size of the projection surface, may be transmitted either in the same bitstream or separately along with the bitstream. At the receiver side, the bitstream may be decoded and volumetric video may be reconstructed from decoded 2D projections and projection geometry information…”).
With regard to claim 9, the claim is drawn to an apparatus for decoding a sequence of computer generated holograms (see Roimela, i.e. i.e. in para. 1, 20, abstract, fig. 10B, and etc., disclose the method, the apparatus for decoding volumetric video information…), the apparatus comprising one or more processors configured for:
decoding from a bitstream, a sequence of multiple plane images representative of the sequence of computer generated holograms (see Roimela, i.e. in fig. 10B, i.e. step 672, respectively, in para. 171, discloses that “[0171 ] In the following, the operation at a decoder side is explained in more detail with reference to the block diagrams of Figures 9b, 13b and the flow diagram of Figure l0b. A decoder 720 receives a bitstream (the block 670 in Figure l0b) and a decoding element 721 decodes 672 the bitstream to reconstruct the encoded information from the bitstream…”; further in para. 176 and etc., disclose that “[0176] In H.264/AVC and HEVC, it is possible to code sample arrays as separate colour planes into the bitstream and respectively decode separately coded colour planes from the bitstream. When separate colour planes are in use, each one of them is separately processed (by the encoder and/or the decoder) as a picture with monochrome sampling…”),
decoding from the bitstream, for at least one layer of the plurality of layers of the at least one multiple plane image, an indicator indicating whether the at least one layer has changed with respect to a corresponding layer of a reference multiple plane image of the sequence of multiple plane images (see Roimela, i.e. in para. 205-206 and etc., disclose that “[0205] In H.264/AVC, a coded video sequence is defined to be a sequence of consecutive access units in decoding order from an IDR access unit, inclusive, to the next IDR access unit, exclusive, or to the end of the bitstream, whichever appears earlier. [0206] In HEVC, a coded video sequence (CVS) may be defined, for example, as a sequence of access units that consists, in decoding order, of an IRAP access unit with NoRaslOutputFlag equal to 1, followed by zero or more access units that are not IRAP access units with NoRaslOutputFlag equal to 1 , including all subsequent access units up to but not including any subsequent access unit that is an IRAP access unit with NoRaslOutputFlag equal to 1. An IRAP access unit may be defined as an access unit in which the base layer picture is an IRAP picture. The value of NoRaslOutputFlag is equal to 1 for each IDR picture, each BLA picture, and each IRAP picture that is the first picture in that particular layer in the bitstream in decoding order, is the first IRAP picture that follows an end of sequence NAL unit having the same value of nuh layer id in decoding order. There may be means to provide the value of HandleCraAsBlaFlag to the decoder from an external entity, such as a player or a receiver, which may control the decoder. HandleCraAsBlaFlag may be set to 1 for example by a player that seeks to a new position in a bitstream or tunes into a broadcast and starts decoding and then starts decoding from a CRA picture. When HandleCraAsBlaFlag is equal to 1 for a CRA picture, the CRA picture is handled and decoded as if it were a BLA picture….”), and
reconstructing at least one computer generated hologram of the sequence of computer generated holograms from the at least one multiple plane image based on the indicator indicating whether the at least one layer has changed (see Roimela, i.e. in para. 14, 25, 77, fig. 10b, step 676 and etc., disclose that “[0014] Such projection surfaces may be unfolded onto two-dimensional (2D) planes, e.g. resulting in a two-dimensional pixel image. Standard 2D video coding may be applied for each projection to code the pixel information resulting from the texture data. In connection with the texture information, relevant projection geometry information (geometry attributes), comprising e.g. projection or projection surface type, location and orientation of the projection surface in 3D space, and/or size of the projection surface, may be transmitted either in the same bitstream or separately along with the bitstream. At the receiver side, the bitstream may be decoded and volumetric video may be reconstructed from decoded 2D projections and projection geometry information…”).
With regard to claim 10, the claim is drawn to the method of claim 8, wherein each layer of the plurality of layers of the at least one multiple plane image is encoded as a set of patches, and wherein the indicator is encoded at a patch level (see Roimela, i.e. in fig. 10a, step 640, in para. 147 and etc., disclose that “[0147] In the following, operation of an encoder in connection with static patches will be described in more detail with reference to the flow diagram of Figure 10a and a patch processing element of Figure 13a, in accordance with an embodiment. It is assumed that the point cloud stream is partitioned into groups of frames (GoF) that are independent of each other, as far as the dynamic content is considered. The encoder processes the point cloud to generate 620 the patches. Then, a comparing element 702 compares 630 the current batch with previous patches and if it detects similarity so that the compared patches are identical or almost identical, the comparing element 702 may generate 640 a similarity indication for the patch packing element 904. The patch packing element 904 may leave the current patch unpacked because there already exists similar patch. If the comparing element 702 determines that the current patch is not similar to earlier patches, the packing element 704 performs the packing 650 of the patch….”; also see fig. 10b, step 676, para. 163 and etc. for additional details).
Allowable Subject Matter
With regard to Claim 16-26, claims 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 and overcoming the corresponding rejections and/or objection (if any) set forth in the Office Action above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regard to claim 16, the closest prior arts of record, Roimela, do not disclose or suggest, among the other limitations, the additional required limitation of “the method of claim 8, wherein reconstructing the at least one computer generated hologram includes obtaining at least one layer of the computer generated hologram wherein: responsive to a determination that a layer of the multiple plane image corresponding to the at least one layer of the computer generated hologram has not changed with respect to a corresponding layer of a reference multiple plane image, the at least one layer of the computer generated hologram is obtained from a corresponding layer of a reference computer generated hologram of the sequence of computer generated holograms, the reference computer generated hologram being previously reconstructed from the reference multiple plane image”. These additional features in combination with all the other features required in the claimed invention, are neither taught nor suggested by Roimela.
With regard to claims 18-19 and 24-26, the claims are depending directly or indirectly from the Claim 16, each encompasses the required limitations recited in the independent claim discussed above.
With regard to claim 20, the closest prior arts of record, Roimela, do not disclose or suggest, among the other limitations, the additional required limitation of “the method of claim 8, wherein reconstructing at least one computer generated hologram comprises obtaining at least one layer of the at least one computer generated hologram, wherein the computer generated hologram comprises a plurality of ordered layers, with a first layer being a layer that is a closest layer among the plurality of layers from a plane of the at least one computer generated hologram and a last layer being a farthest layer among the plurality of layers from a plane of the at least one computer generated hologram, and wherein responsive to a determination that all layers of the multiple plane image corresponding respectively to layers of the computer generated hologram that are between the at least one layer of the computer generated hologram and the last layer of the computer generated hologram, have not changed with respect to corresponding layers of a reference multiple plane image, the at least one layer of the computer generated hologram is obtained from a corresponding layer of a reference computer generated hologram, the reference computer generated hologram being previously reconstructed from the reference multiple plane image”. These additional features in combination with all the other features required in the claimed invention, are neither taught nor suggested by Roimela.
With regard to claim 22-23, the claim is depending directly or indirectly from the Claim 20, each encompasses the required limitations recited in the independent claim discussed above.
With regard to claim 17, the closest prior arts of record, Roimela, do not disclose or suggest, among the other limitations, the additional required limitation of “the apparatus of claim 9, wherein the one or more processors are further configured for reconstructing the at least one computer generated hologram by obtaining at least one layer of the computer generated hologram and responsive to a determination that a layer of the multiple plane image corresponding to the at least one layer of the computer generated hologram has not changed with respect to a corresponding layer of a reference multiple plane image, the at least one layer of the computer generated hologram is obtained from a corresponding layer of a reference computer generated hologram of the sequence of computer generated holograms, the reference computer generated hologram being previously reconstructed from the reference multiple plane image generated holograms, the reference multi- layer computer generated hologram being previously reconstructed from the reference multi-layer image”. These additional features in combination with all the other features required in the claimed invention, are neither taught nor suggested by Roimela.
With regard to claim 21, the closest prior arts of record, Roimela, do not disclose or suggest, among the other limitations, the additional required limitation of “… the apparatus of claim 9, wherein the one or more processors are configured for reconstructing at least one computer generated hologram by obtaining at least one layer of the at least one computer generated hologram, wherein the computer generated hologram comprises a plurality of ordered layers, with a first layer being a layer that is a closest layer among the plurality of layers from a plane of the at least one computer generated hologram and a last layer being a farthest layer among the plurality of layers from a plane of the at least one computer generated hologram, and wherein responsive to a determination that all layers of the multiple plane image corresponding respectively to layers of the computer generated hologram that are between the at least one layer of the computer generated hologram and the last layer of the computer generated hologram, have not changed with respect to corresponding layers of a reference multiple plane image, the at least one layer of the computer generated hologram is obtained from a corresponding layer of a reference computer generated hologram, the reference computer generated hologram being previously reconstructed from the reference multiple plane image”. These additional features in combination with all the other features required in the claimed invention, are neither taught nor suggested by Roimela.
Therefore, claim 16-26 are objected to.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Doyen et al. (U.S. Pat/Pub No. 2025/0039445 A1, Inter Digital CE Patent Holdings) disclose an invention relates to methods and apparatus for encoding/decoding a volumetric content.
The Art Unit (or Workgroup) location of your application in the USPTO has changed. To aid in correlating any papers for this application, all further correspondence regarding this application should be directed to Art Unit 2681.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jacky X. Zheng whose telephone number is (571) 270-1122. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, alt. Friday Off.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Akwasi Sarpong can be reached on (571) 272-3438. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JACKY X ZHENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681