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.
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)(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, 2, 5-8, 11-14, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Oh (US US 2021/0409767 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 13, Oh discloses a packaging method for a point cloud media file (e.g. abstract, Paragraph [0002]), applied to a file packaging device (e.g. Fig. 1), the device comprising a processor (e.g. Paragraph [0120]) and a memory, the memory being configured to store a computer program (e.g. Paragraph [1425, 1433]), and the processor being configured to invoke and run the computer program stored in the memory (e.g. Paragraph [1425, 1433]), to execute the method, and the method comprising: acquiring target point cloud (e.g. Paragraph [0106]); encoding the target point cloud (e.g. Paragraph [0107]) to obtain an alternative group of the target point cloud (e.g. Fig. 25, 26 and Paragraph [0531, 0532]), the alternative group comprising N interchangeable media tracks (e.g. Paragraph [1060-1063], alternate group structure), and N being an integer greater than 1 (e.g. Fig. 25, 26 and Paragraph [0531, 0532]), the N interchangeable media tracks being associated with a same alternative group identifier that identifies the alternative group (e.g. Paragraph [1062, 1299]); adding quality indication information into at least one media track among the N media tracks to obtain a media file of the target point cloud, the quality indication information indicating quality of the media track (e.g. Fig. 28 and Paragraph [0540] shows a sample track structure with quality indication information/parameter set); and packing the media file with dynamic adaptive streaming over hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) (DASH) signaling, the DASH signaling indicating quality information of at least one media track among the N media tracks (e.g. Paragraph [0535]).
Regarding Claims 2, 8, 14, Oh discloses the quality indication information indicates that the quality of the media track is related to a first parameter comprises at least one of (e.g. claim includes alterative form “at least one of”) a coding profile (e.g. Paragraph [0585]), a coding level (e.g. Paragraph [0585]), quantization parameter information of a geometric component, quantization parameter information of an attribute component, a coding algorithm of a geometric component and a coding algorithm of an attribute component (e.g. Paragraph [0582-0583] describes a geometric component and an attribute component; quantization parameter information or coding algorithm is discussed in 35 USC 103 rejection below).
Regarding Claims 5, 17, 19, Oh discloses receiving first request information transmitted by the file unpackaging device, the first request information requesting a target media track; and transmitting the target media track to the file unpackaging device according to the first request information (e.g. Paragraph [1180, 1300]).
Regarding Claims 6, 18, 20, Oh discloses receiving second request information transmitted by the file unpackaging device, the second request information requesting the media file of the target point cloud; and transmitting the media file of the target point cloud to the file unpackaging device according to the second request information (e.g. Fig. 20-22, Paragraph [0472])
Regarding Claim 7, Oh discloses an unpackaging method for a point cloud media file (e.g. abstract, Paragraph [0002]), applied to a file unpackaging device (e.g. Fig. 1), and comprising: receiving dynamic adaptive streaming over hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP)(DASH) signaling transmitted by a file packaging device (e.g. Paragraph [0535]), the DASH signaling indicating quality information of at least one media track among N media tracks of target point cloud (e.g. Fig. 28 and Paragraph [0540] shows a sample track structure with quality indication information/parameter set), the N media tracks being N interchangeable media tracks in an alternative group of the target point cloud (e.g. Paragraph [1060-1063], alternate group structure), the N interchangeable media tracks being associated with a same alternative group identifier that identifies the alternative group (e.g. Paragraph [1062, 1299]), at least one media track among the N media tracks comprising quality indication information, the quality indication information indicating quality of the media track (e.g. Fig. 28 and Paragraph [0540] shows a sample track structure with quality indication information/parameter set), and N being an integer greater than 1 (e.g. Fig. 25, 26 and Paragraph [0531, 0532]).
Regarding Claim 11, Oh discloses transmitting first request information to the file packaging device according to the DASH signaling (e.g. Paragraph [0535]), the first request information requesting a target media track; receiving the target media track transmitted by the file packaging device; and unpackaging and then decoding the target media track (e.g. Paragraph [1180, 1300]).
Regarding Claims 12, Oh discloses transmitting second request information to the file packaging device according to the DASH signaling (e.g. Paragraph [0535]), the second request information requesting a media file of the target point cloud; receiving the media file of the target point cloud transmitted by the file packaging device; determining a to-be-decoded target media track; and unpackaging and then decoding the target media track (e.g. Fig. 20-22, Paragraph [0472]).
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.
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.
Claims 2-4, 8-10, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (US 2021/0409767 A1) in view of Hur (US 2023/0206510 A1).
Regarding Claims 2, 8, 14, although Oh discloses the quality indication information indicates that the quality of the media track is related to a first parameter comprises at least one of (e.g. claim includes alterative form “at least one of”) a coding profile (e.g. Paragraph [0585]), a coding level (e.g. Paragraph [0585]), a geometric component, and an attribute component (e.g. Paragraph [0582-0583] describes a geometric component and an attribute component).
Oh fails to explicitly disclose quantization parameter information of a geometric component, quantization parameter information of an attribute component, a coding algorithm of a geometric component and a coding algorithm of an attribute component.
However, Hur teaches (e.g. Fig. 4 left side is geometric component, Fig. 4 right side is attribute component) quantization parameter information of a geometric component (e.g. Paragraph [0076] Quantize and remove points), quantization parameter information of an attribute component (e.g. Paragraph [0077] Quantize coefficients), a coding algorithm of a geometric component and a coding algorithm of an attribute component (e.g. Paragraph [0233, 0350]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of the invention to incorporate geometric and attribute component as taught as Hur into method/device/CRM of Oh in order to process a large amount of point data efficiently.
Regarding Claims 3, 9, 15, although Oh discloses the quality indication information indicates a second parameter related to the quality of the media track; and the second parameter comprises at least one of (e.g. claim includes alterative form “at least one of”);
Oh fails to explicitly disclose quantization parameter information of a geometric component, quantization parameter information of an attribute component, whether to use a geometric partition during geometric coding, geometric partition information when using the geometric partition in geometric coding, and an algorithm type of attribute coding.
However, Hur teaches (e.g. Fig. 4 left side is geometric component, Fig. 4 right side is attribute component) quantization parameter information of a geometric component (e.g. Paragraph [0076] Quantize and remove points), quantization parameter information of an attribute component (e.g. Paragraph [0077] Quantize coefficients), whether to use a geometric partition during geometric coding, geometric partition information when using the geometric partition in geometric coding (e.g. Fig. 16 and Paragraph [0244]), and an algorithm type of attribute coding (e.g. Paragraph [0498]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of the invention to incorporate geometric and attribute component as taught as Hur into method/device/CRM of Oh in order to process a large amount of point data efficiently.
Regarding Claims 4, 10, 16, although Oh discloses the DASH signaling (e.g. Paragraph [0535]) corresponding to the at least one media track (e.g. Fig. 28 and Paragraph [0540] shows a sample track structure with quality indication information/parameter set) (claim includes alterative form “at least one of”);
Oh fails to explicitly disclose the quantization parameter information of the geometric component and the quantization parameter information of the attribute component.
However, Hur teaches (e.g. Fig. 4 left side is geometric component, Fig. 4 right side is attribute component) quantization parameter information of a geometric component (e.g. Paragraph [0076] Quantize and remove points), quantization parameter information of an attribute component (e.g. Paragraph [0077] Quantize coefficients).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of the invention to incorporate geometric and attribute component as taught as Hur into method/device/CRM of Oh in order to process a large amount of point data efficiently.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 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.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang (US 2021/0203989 A1), discloses attribute layers in point cloud coding;
Vosoughi (US 2020/0280710 A1), discloses point cloud compression.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YULIN SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-1043. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM - 6PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jay Patel can be reached at 571-272-2988. 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.
/YULIN SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485