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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2 January 2024 and 31 October 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ramasubramonian (US 20220207780).
Regarding claim 5, Ramasubramonian teaches:
A three dimensional data decoding device comprising:
A processor (Paragraph 18, one or more processors); and
Memory (Paragraph 19, computer-readable storage medium stores instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors), wherein using the memory, the processor performs at least one of:
A first process including:
Determining a first context (Paragraph 287, point cloud frame) based on first information (Paragraph 285, a pivot point) identifying a first point cloud (Paragraph 287, the point cloud) including a first prediction point (Paragraph 287, the current point) that is referred to for calculating a predicted value of a first three-dimensional point according to inter prediction (Paragraph 287, predict the current point of the point cloud using inter prediction); and
Arithmetic-decoding (Paragraph 56, G-PCC decoder 300 may include a geometry arithmetic decoding unit), using the first context determined, second information identifying the first prediction point (Paragraph 287, G-PCC encoder 200 may determine a pivot point in the current point cloud frame); Note: While Ramasubramonian teaches encoding the second information, the second information must also be decoded by a decoder to be recovered and interpreted. Ramasubramonian also teaches extensively about decoding.
A second process including:
Determining a second context based on at least one of the first information or the second information (Paragraph 287, determine a reference point cloud frame… determine a reference pivot point in the reference point cloud frame based on the pivot point in the current point cloud frame); and
Arithmetic-decoding (Paragraph 56, G-PCC decoder 300 may include a geometry arithmetic decoding unit), using the second context determined, a prediction residual of the first three-dimensional point (Paragraph 287, encode (e.g., in a bitstream) residual data representing differences between parameters (e.g., radius r, azimuth ϕ, and laser index i) of the reference point and parameters of the current point). Note: While Ramasubramonian teaches encoding the residual data, the residual data must also be decoded by a decoder to be recovered and interpreted.
Method claim 1 corresponds to apparatus claim 5. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected for the same reasons as used above.
Apparatus claim 5 corresponds to apparatus claim 6, but claims “arithmetic-encoding” vs “arithmetic-decoding.” Ramasubramonian teaches encoding the second information and encoding the prediction residual. Therefore, claim 6 is rejected for the same reasons as used above.
Claims 1 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sugio (US 20210312669).
Regarding claim 5, Sugio teaches:
A three dimensional data decoding device comprising:
A processor (Paragraph 127, a processor); and
Memory (Paragraph 127, Using the memory, the processor…), wherein using the memory, the processor performs at least one of:
A first process including:
Determining a first context based on first information (Paragraph 493, Inter predictor 1311 encodes (inter predicts) a space (SPC) associated with certain time) identifying a first point cloud including a first prediction point that is referred to for calculating a predicted value of a first three-dimensional point (Paragraph 578, the three-dimensional data decoding device determines (defines) a space (a current node) to be decoded, using header information of a bitstream);
Note: While Sugio teaches encoding the space associated with certain time (context) according to inter prediction, the space must also be decoded by a decoder to be recovered and interpreted. Additionally, time is the context as well as the first information.
Arithmetic-decoding, using the first context determined, second information identifying the first prediction point (Paragraph 578, the three-dimensional data decoding device calculates (obtains) occupancy information of a neighboring reference node of the current node);
A second process including:
Determining a second context based on at least one of the first information or the second information (Paragraph 526, Three-dimensional data encoding device 1300 generates predicted position information (e.g. predicted volume) using position information on three-dimensional points included in three-dimensional reference data (e.g. reference space) associated with a time different from a time associated with current three-dimensional data (e.g. encoding target space)); and
Arithmetic-decoding, using the second context determined, a prediction residual of the first three-dimensional point (Paragraph 626, calculate a predicted value of the attribute information of the three-dimensional point and encode a difference (prediction residual) between the original value of the attribute information and the predicted value; Paragraph 699, arithmetic decoding). Note: While Sugio teaches encoding the residual data, the residual data must also be decoded by a decoder to be recovered and interpreted.
Method claim 1 corresponds to apparatus claim 5. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected for the same reasons as used above.
Apparatus claim 5 corresponds to apparatus claim 6, but claims “arithmetic-encoding” vs “arithmetic-decoding.” Sugio teaches encoding the second information and encoding the prediction residual. Therefore, claim 6 is rejected for the same reasons as used above.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramasubramonian as applied in claims 1 and 5-6 and further in view of Yano (US 20220353492).
Regarding claim 2, Ramasubramonian teaches the three-dimensional data decoding method according to claim 1. While Ramasubramonian fails to disclose the following, Yano teaches:
Wherein the prediction residual is a difference between a position of the first three-dimensional point and a predicted value of the position (Paragraph 10, decodes encoded data encoded using prediction of position information of a point to be processed of a point cloud that represents an object having a three-dimensional shape as a point group, and generates a difference between position information of a prediction point predicted on the basis of position information of a reference point and the position information of the point to be processed).
Yano and Ramasubramonian are both considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of 3D point clouds. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ramasubramonian to incorporate the teachings of Yano and determine a prediction residual which is the difference between a position of a first 3D point and a predicted value of the position. Doing so would increase size efficiency in compressing the point cloud data.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramasubramonian as applied in claims 1 and 5-6 and further in view of Gao (US 20210049790).
Regarding claim 3, Ramasubramonian teaches the three-dimensional data decoding method according to claim 1, further comprising:
Arithmetic-decoding (Paragraph 56, G-PCC decoder 300 may include a geometry arithmetic decoding unit), using the third context determined, the first information provided for the first three-dimensional point (Paragraph 287, G-PCC encoder 200 may determine a pivot point in the current point cloud frame); Note: While Ramasubramonian teaches encoding the first information, the first information must also be decoded by a decoder to be recovered and interpreted.
While Ramasubramonian fails to disclose the following, Gao teaches:
Determining a third context based on first information that identifies a second point cloud and is provided for a second three-dimensional point (Paragraph 5, for each point in a first point cloud, a corresponding point in a second point cloud), the second point cloud including a second prediction point that is referred to in inter prediction of the second three-dimensional point (Paragraph 90, coded and decoded using intra prediction or inter prediction), the second three-dimensional point being located in a surrounding area of the first three-dimensional point (Paragraph 14, the corresponding point in the second point cloud to be a point in the second point cloud that is nearest to the respective point in the first point cloud);
Gao and Ramasubramonian are both considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of 3D point clouds. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ramasubramonian to incorporate the teachings of Gao and determine a third context based on first information that identifies a second point cloud including a second prediction point based on inter prediction and the second 3D point is located in a surrounding area of the first 3D point. Doing so would allow for connecting multiple frames to be compressed efficiently by storing their differences.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramasubramonian as applied in claims 1 and 5-6 and further in view of Tourapis (US 20210099711).
Regarding claim 4, Ramasubramonian teaches the three-dimensional data decoding method according to claim 1. While Ramasubramonian fails to disclose the following, Tourapis teaches:
The first point cloud is one of a third point cloud that has not been motion compensated and a fourth point cloud obtained by performing motion compensation on the third point cloud, and the first information is different depending on whether the first point cloud is the third point cloud or the fourth point cloud (Paragraph 8, motion compensated points at the target moment in time; instructions for determining residual differences between the predicted attribute values of the motion compensated points at the target moment in time and actual attribute values of the points of the point cloud at the target moment in time).
Tourapis and Ramasubramonian are both considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of 3D point clouds. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ramasubramonian to incorporate the teachings of Tourapis and determine differences between a point before and after motion compensation. Doing so would allow estimating locations of the point at different points in time by comparing the locations before and after motion compensation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the claim rejections based on Ramasubramonian, applicants argue that Ramasubramonian fails to disclose using first information to identify a first point cloud. However, [0287] describes “may determine a pivot point in the current point cloud frame (i.e., a current point cloud…” Further, [0181] and [0188] describe “one or more parameters of the pivot point” and “the three coordinates of the pivot point (referred to as radius, azimuth, and laser ID).” The information of the pivot point is used to identify the first point cloud (pivot point). Ramasubramonian also describes the decoding process along with encoding and specifically mentions decoding residuals [0102]. [0124] also describes using a previously decoded frame as a reference frame, which allows determining context. Therefore, Ramasubramonian teaches the limitations of claims 1, 5, and 6.
Regarding the claim rejections based on Sugio, applicants argue that Sugio fails to disclose first information used to determine the first context. Sugio teaches using time to determine the first context. Time is the context as well as the information as described in [0164]-[0166]. Therefore, Sugio teaches the limitation of claims 1, 5, and 6.
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 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 SNIGDHA SINHA whose telephone number is (571)272-6618. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 12pm-8pm.
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, Jason Chan can be reached at 571-272-3022. 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.
/SNIGDHA SINHA/Examiner, Art Unit 2619
/JASON CHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2619