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 .
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)(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, 3-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gao et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0252610), referred herein as Gao.
Regarding claim 1, Gao teaches a method comprising:
determining, by one or more devices, a first triangle that corresponds to a portion of a point cloud (figs 10 and 13, first triangle 440; paragraph 98);
based on an inverse relation with a value representing one or more edge lengths of the first triangle, determining a parameter (paragraph 76; paragraph 108, lines 1-6; paragraph 112; the value representing the first triangle edge, and the halo parameter; regarding the inverse relation: paragraph 35; paragraph 81, the last 3 lines; paragraph 95; paragraphs 117 and 118; the length is described as N=2s=8, and the parameter is fractional, such as 1/8, which are inversely proportional to one another; additionally, as explained in Gao, in order for the expansion to be effective, the expansion of the triangle should not be too small, and in order to not adversely affect the quality, the expansion of the triangle should not be too large – thus this requires an inversely proportional relationship, such that as the triangle gets bigger, the halo parameter should get smaller, and when the triangle is smaller, the halo parameter should get bigger, so as to keep the expansion within the desired range);
determining one or more points associated with a second triangle, wherein the second triangle corresponds to the first triangle having one or more vertices extended outwards, based on the parameter, with respect to the first triangle (figs 13, 14, and 15, second triangle 470 or 480; paragraphs 110 and 112; paragraphs 114 and 115; the second triangle vertices are extended outward with respect to the first triangle, based on the halo parameter); and
determining at least one voxel, of a set of voxels representing the portion of the point cloud, by voxelizing the one or more points (fig 16; paragraph 99, lines 1-4; paragraph 116).
Regarding claim 3, Gao teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the determining the parameter further comprises determining that the parameter is less than or equal to a maximal halo value (paragraphs 117 and 118).
Regarding claim 4, Gao teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the determining the parameter further comprises: determining the parameter based on a second value representative of a distance between one or more edges of the first triangle and one or more corresponding edges of the second triangle (figs 14, 15, and 16; paragraphs 110 and 112; paragraphs 115 and 117; the parameter is “based on” the desired distance / size increase from, for example, the bottom edge of triangle 440 in figure 14, to the bottom edge of triangle 470 in figure 14).
Regarding claim 5, Gao teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the determining the parameter further comprises: determining the parameter based on a second value associated with a quantization value of vertices of the first triangle (paragraphs 95, 97, and 98; paragraphs 114 and 119; the parameter is “based on” quantization values of the first triangle).
Regarding claim 6, Gao teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the determining the parameter further comprises: determining the parameter based on a second value associated with a sampling value of the first triangle (paragraphs 92, 98, and 99; paragraphs 114 and 119; the parameter is “based on” sampling values of the first triangle).
Regarding claim 7, Gao teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the value represents at least two edge lengths of the first triangle (figs 14 and 15, all three edges of triangle 440; paragraph 108, lines 1-6; paragraphs 110 and 112).
Regarding claim 8, Gao teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the value is determined based on one or more of: one or more edge lengths of the first triangle; an area of the first triangle; a size of a cuboid associated with the first triangle; a length of the cuboid; or a quantity of iterations of recursively splitting triangles in the cuboid (paragraphs 73 and 76; paragraphs 94 and 95; paragraph 108, lines 1-6; the value is “based on” first triangle edge lengths, a size of the cuboid associated with the first triangle, iterations of recursively splitting triangles, etc.).
Regarding claim 9, Gao teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: rendering, based on the at least one voxel, a point cloud frame associated with the portion of the point cloud (paragraphs 91 and 92).
Regarding claim 10, Gao teaches a method comprising:
determining, by one or more devices, a first triangle that corresponds to a portion of a point cloud (figs 10 and 13, first triangle 440; paragraph 98);
based on an inverse relation with a value representing one or more characteristics of the first triangle, determining a parameter (paragraph 76; paragraph 108, lines 1-6; paragraph 112; the value representing the first triangle edge, and the halo parameter; regarding the inverse relation: paragraph 35; paragraph 81, the last 3 lines; paragraph 95; paragraphs 117 and 118; the length is described as N=2s=8, and the parameter is fractional, such as 1/8, which are inversely proportional to one another; additionally, as explained in Gao, in order for the expansion to be effective, the expansion of the triangle should not be too small, and in order to not adversely affect the quality, the expansion of the triangle should not be too large – thus this requires an inversely proportional relationship, such that as the triangle gets bigger, the halo parameter should get smaller, and when the triangle is smaller, the halo parameter should get bigger, so as to keep the expansion within the desired range);
determining a second triangle that corresponds to the first triangle having one or more vertices extended outwards based on the parameter, with respect to the first triangle, and determining, based on the second triangle, one or more points associated with the portion of the point cloud (figs 13, 14, and 15, second triangle 470 or 480; paragraphs 110 and 112; paragraphs 114 and 115; the second triangle vertices are extended outward with respect to the first triangle, based on the halo parameter);
determining at least one voxel, of a set of voxels representing the portion of the point cloud, by voxelizing the one or more points (fig 16; paragraph 99, lines 1-4; paragraph 116); and
rendering, based on the at least one voxel, a point cloud frame associated with the portion of the point cloud (paragraphs 91 and 92).
Regarding claim 11, Gao teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the size of the first triangle comprise one or more of: one or more edge lengths of the first triangle; an area of the first triangle; a size of a cuboid associated with the first triangle; or a quantization value of vertices of the first triangle (paragraph 76; paragraphs 94, 95, and 97; paragraph 108, lines 1-6; paragraph 112; the characteristics comprise edge lengths of the first triangle, a size of the cuboid associated with the first triangle, quantization of vertices of the first triangle, etc.).
Regarding claim 13, the limitations of this claim substantially correspond to the limitations of claim 4; thus they are rejected on similar grounds.
Regarding claim 14, the limitations of this claim substantially correspond to the limitations of claim 5; thus they are rejected on similar grounds.
Regarding claim 15, the limitations of this claim substantially correspond to the limitations of claim 8; thus they are rejected on similar grounds.
Regarding claim 16, Gao teaches a method comprising:
determining, by one or more devices, a first triangle that corresponds to a first portion of a point cloud (figs 10 and 13, first triangle 440; paragraph 98);
determining a third triangle that corresponds to a second portion of the point cloud (figs 10 and 13, triangle 440, paragraph 98, as applied to a different [third] triangle in other octree leaf nodes, all of which are similarly processed; see, for example, figs 3, 5, and 7, set of triangles 245; paragraphs 70-72; paragraph 77, lines 1-5; paragraphs 78 and 82; each of the triangles will be processed and expanded using a respective halo parameter – thus first triangles will be the basis for second triangles [as previously described], third triangles will be the basis for fourth triangles, and so on);
based on an inverse relation with a first value representing one or more characteristics of the first triangle, determining a first parameter (paragraph 76; paragraph 108, lines 1-6; paragraph 112; the value representing the first triangle edge, and its associated halo parameter; regarding the inverse relation: paragraph 35; paragraph 81, the last 3 lines; paragraph 95; paragraphs 117 and 118; the length is described as N=2s=8, and the parameter is fractional, such as 1/8, which are inversely proportional to one another; additionally, as explained in Gao, in order for the expansion to be effective, the expansion of the triangle should not be too small, and in order to not adversely affect the quality, the expansion of the triangle should not be too large – thus this requires an inversely proportional relationship, such that as the triangle gets bigger, the halo parameter should get smaller, and when the triangle is smaller, the halo parameter should get bigger, so as to keep the expansion within the desired range);
based on an inverse relation with a second value representing one or more characteristics of the third triangle, determining a second parameter (paragraph 76, paragraph 108, lines 1-6, paragraph 112, as applied to the third triangle described above; the value representing the third triangle edge, and its associated halo parameter; please see the additional explanation above regarding the third triangle; regarding the inverse relation: paragraph 35; paragraph 81, the last 3 lines; paragraph 95; paragraphs 117 and 118; the length is described as N=2s=8, and the parameter is fractional, such as 1/8, which are inversely proportional to one another; additionally, as explained in Gao, in order for the expansion to be effective, the expansion of the triangle should not be too small, and in order to not adversely affect the quality, the expansion of the triangle should not be too large – thus this requires an inversely proportional relationship, such that as the triangle gets bigger, the halo parameter should get smaller, and when the triangle is smaller, the halo parameter should get bigger, so as to keep the expansion within the desired range);
determining one or more first points associated with a second triangle, wherein the second triangle corresponds to the first triangle having one or more vertices extended outwards, based on the first parameter, with respect to the first triangle (figs 13, 14, and 15, second triangle 470 or 480; paragraphs 110 and 112; paragraphs 114 and 115; the second triangle vertices are extended outward with respect to the first triangle, based on its halo parameter); and
determining one or more second points associated with a fourth triangle, wherein the fourth triangle corresponds to the third triangle having one or more vertices extended outwards, based on the second parameter, with respect to the third triangle, wherein the first parameter has a different value from the second parameter (figs 13, 14, and 15, fourth triangle 470 or 480, paragraphs 110 and 112, paragraphs 114 and 115, as applied to the third triangle described above; the fourth triangle vertices are extended outward with respect to the third triangle, based on its halo parameter; please see the additional explanation above regarding the third triangle).
Regarding claim 17, Gao teaches the method of claim 16, further comprising: determining at least one first voxel, of a set of voxels representing the first portion of the point cloud, by voxelizing the one or more first points (fig 16; paragraph 99, lines 1-4; paragraph 116); and determining at least one second voxel, of a set of voxels representing the second portion of the point cloud, by voxelizing the one or more second points (fig 1, paragraph 99, lines 1-4, paragraph 116, as applied to the processing of the third triangle to create the fourth triangle, and subsequent voxelization; please see the additional explanation above regarding the third triangle).
Regarding claim 18, Gao teaches the method of claim 16, further comprising: rendering, based on the one or more first points and the one or more second points, a point cloud frame, wherein the point cloud frame is associated with the first portion and the second portion of the point cloud (paragraphs 91 and 92).
Regarding claim 19, Gao teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the first triangle and the third triangle are TriSoup triangles (paragraphs 76, 98, and 110).
Regarding claim 20, Gao teaches the method of claim 16, further comprising: voxelizing the one or more first points or the one or more second points, by ray tracing or rasterization (paragraphs 91, 92, and 110).
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 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao, in view of Ito et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0209677), referred herein as Ito.
Regarding claim 22, Gao teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: setting the parameter to be the maximum halo value possible (paragraphs 34 and 35; paragraphs 89 and 110; paragraph 117). Gao does not explicitly teach the method comprising, based on the parameter being greater than a maximum value, setting the parameter to be the maximum value.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Ito teaches a Trisoup voxelization method in point cloud coding comprising extending points of a triangle based on a parameter to determine voxels (figs 7 and 11-13; paragraph 66; paragraphs 79 and 80; paragraph 84), and further comprising, based on the parameter being greater than a maximum value, setting the parameter to be the maximum value (paragraphs 93 and 94; paragraphs 97, 99, and 101).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the parameter maximum of Ito with the halo parameter of Gao because this can help increase the accuracy of the Trisoup processing such that it more closely reproduces the original point cloud (see, for example, Ito, paragraphs 8 and 45).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is 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:
Regarding claim 21, the prior art teaches the method of claim 1, and further teaches determining the parameter based on quantization value of vertices of the first triangle, among other features. However, in the context of claims 1 and 21 as a whole, the prior art does not appear to teach the method of claim 1, wherein the determining the parameter is further based on a second value associated with a quantity of dropped position bits associated with quantization of vertices of the first triangle. The subject matter of claim 21 is therefore allowable.
Response to Arguments
On pages 8 and 9 of the Applicant’s Remarks, with respect to the 102 rejection of claim 1, the Applicant argues that 1) the language in the Office Action with respect to the inverse proportion relationship is “the Office’s and not found in Gao” and then recited Gao paragraphs 117 and 118, and states that paragraph 117 of Gao “discusses if halo parameter ε is ‘too small, the halo is very small and has almost no effect’ and if the halo parameter ε is ‘too large, the halo becomes big and the overall accuracy of the TriSoup model is impacted.’ Gao does not…define how the halo parameter ε can be determined to be ‘too small’ or ‘too large’” and 2) the halo parameters in Gao of 1/4 and 1/8 are constant values, and a fraction that is constant is still constant, “without any dependence on a size of a triangle, let alone specifically an inverse relation.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with these arguments.
Regarding the first argument, it is respectfully submitted that, contrary to the Applicant’s assertion, the language provided in the Office Action is pulled directly from Gao, paragraph 117. Indeed, Applicant’s quotation and description of what Gao discusses in paragraph 117 is precisely what the Office Action reproduced. The statement from the Office Action (quoted in Applicant’s Remarks) then continues explaining the impact of this concept in Gao’s disclosure (in paragraph 117 and in the context of the other cited sections) – in particular, that since the halo parameter, in part, determines the expansion of the triangle, in order to stay within the bounds of the desired expansion size, the halo parameter must get smaller as a triangle gets bigger, and vice versa. Finally, it is noted that this was just one additional interpretation of the broad term “inverse relation” provided in the Office Action; Gao’s further explicit disclosure of this term is also provided, which will be further discussed below.
Regarding the second argument, it is respectfully submitted that whether a value is constant is immaterial to whether it has an “inverse relation” with another value. For example, constant or not, a value of 1/4 has an “inverse relation” with a value of 4. As just one example of Gao’s teaching of this broad term, and as explained in the Office Action, Gao explicitly teaches an edge length of N=2s=8, and selection of a halo parameter equal to 1/8. These two values are explicitly and mathematically inversely proportional to one another, and thus have “an inverse relation with” one another. Additionally, Gao does not disclose that the halo parameter never changes – rather, it is selected to achieve the best result, based on the needs of the TriSoup processing (much like Applicant’s halo parameter), and may depend on, among other things, the weight of the triangle, the size of the volume (the size of the volume defining the length of the edges), and so on. Thus, while the numbers may each be “a constant” they are not themselves “constant.” Finally, it is noted that Applicant’s specification does not further define what is meant by an “inverse relation” beyond simply stating that the parameter may be inversely proportional to the value that is representative of the one or more edge lengths. Such a relation is explicitly described in Gao, as discussed above, and any potential difference between Applicant’s and Gao’s inverse relation is not currently represented in the claims.
Accordingly, the Examiner respectfully submits that Gao teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
On page 9 of the Applicant's Remarks, the Applicant argues that the remaining independent claims are not taught by the prior art for reasons similar to those discussed in regard to claim 1, and that the dependent claims are not taught by the prior art, insomuch as they depend from claims that are not taught by the prior art. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with these arguments, for the reasons discussed above.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ray (U.S. Patent No. 11,657,543); Trisoup syntax signaling for geometry-based point cloud compression.
Ray (WO 2021/207510); Method for processing point cloud data, involves setting variable based on total of counting, and processing data based on variable.
Pham van (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0210466); Global motion estimation using road and ground object labels for geometry-based point cloud compression.
Unno (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0224508); Point cloud decoding device, point cloud decoding method, and program.
Martemianov (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0306646); Adaptive filtering of occupancy map for dynamic mesh compression.
Wan (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0237705); Methods for level partition of point cloud, and decoder.
Greiner (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0418288); Path collision avoidance.
Yu (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0349038); Method of encoding point cloud data, method of decoding point cloud data, point cloud decoder.
Yu (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0225680); System and method for geometry point cloud coding.
Zhu (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0087176); Point cloud decoding method and apparatus, point cloud encoding method and apparatus, computer device, computer-readable storage medium.
Taquet (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0200817); Model selection for coding point cloud geometry.
Taquet (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0234024); Approximation for recoloring of point clouds.
Sun (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0337924); Encoding method, decoding method, bitstream, encoder, decoder and storage medium.
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 DAVID T WELCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5364. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:30-5:30 EST, and alternate Fridays, 9:00-2:30 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, Xiao Wu can be reached at 571-272-7761. 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.
DAVID T. WELCH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2613
/DAVID T WELCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613