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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/26/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-3, 5-9, 11-15, 17-20 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 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 indicated by each of the N interchangeable media tracks respectively (e.g. Fig. 25, 26 and Paragraph [0531, 0532]) as associated with a same alternative group identifier that identifies the alternative group (e.g. Paragraph [1062, 1299]), at least by each of the N interchangeable media tracks comprising the same alternative group identifier (e.g. Paragraph [1287]); adding quality indication information directly 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 [0541] shows a sample track structure with quality indication information/V-PCC 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]).
Although Oh discloses the DASH signaling (e.g. Paragraph [0535]) corresponding to the at least one media track (e.g. Fig. 28 and Paragraph [0541] 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 value of the geometric component and the quantization parameter level of the attribute component.
However, Hur teaches at least one of (e.g. Fig. 4 left side is geometric component, Fig. 4 right side is attribute component) a quantization parameter value of a geometric component (e.g. Paragraph [0076] Quantize and remove points) and a quantization parameter level 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.
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 value of the geometric component, quantization parameter level of the 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 value of the geometric component (e.g. Paragraph [0076] Quantize and remove points), quantization parameter level of the 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 value of the geometric component, quantization parameter level of the 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 value of the geometric component (e.g. Paragraph [0076] Quantize and remove points), quantization parameter level of the 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 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 indicated by each of the N interchangeable media tracks respectively (e.g. Fig. 25, 26 and Paragraph [0531, 0532]) as associated with a same alternative group identifier that identifies the alternative group (e.g. Paragraph [1062, 1299]), at least by each of the N interchangeable media tracks comprising the same alternative group identifier (e.g. Paragraph [1287]); adding quality indication information directly 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 [0541] shows a sample track structure with quality indication information/V-PCC 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]).
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 value of the geometric component and the quantization parameter level of the attribute component.
However, Hur teaches at least one of (e.g. Fig. 4 left side is geometric component, Fig. 4 right side is attribute component) a quantization parameter value of a geometric component (e.g. Paragraph [0076] Quantize and remove points) and a quantization parameter level 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.
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]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-15, 17-20 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 05/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that Oh and Hur does not suggest “comprising the same alternative group identifier” or “quality indication information indicating quality of the media track and at least one of a quantization parameter value of a geometric component and a quantization parameter level of an attribute component”. However, Oh in view of Hur discloses “comprising the same alternative group identifier” (e.g. Oh, Paragraph [1287], “The alternative group related information may be applied to one or more V-PCC contents corresponding to this meta data track or to videos/images included in the one or more V-PCC contents.” And Oh, Paragraph [1299] shows alternate group identifier.) or “quality indication information indicating quality of the media track and at least one of a quantization parameter value of a geometric component and a quantization parameter level of an attribute component” (According to claim 2, quality of the media track is related to a parameter comprises at least one of a quantization parameter value of a geometric component and a quantization parameter level of an attribute component; Oh [Paragraph [0545]) discloses a sample track structure with quality indication information which includes geometry component and attribute component; it fails to explicitly disclose the quantization parameter value of the geometric component and the quantization parameter level of the attribute component; and Hur teaches at least one of (e.g. Fig. 4 left side is geometric component, Fig. 4 right side is attribute component) a quantization parameter value of a geometric component (e.g. Paragraph [0076] Quantize and remove points) and a quantization parameter level of an attribute component (e.g. Paragraph [0077] Quantize coefficients). 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.
Therefore, the arguments filed are not persuasive.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights