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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp.11-13, filed October 28, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of independent claim(s) 1, 13, and 20 under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly considered prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In claim 1, the target sorting method comprises at least two sorting methods. The limitations of claims 6-10 refers to the target sorting method as comprising only one sorting method instead of at least two. These limitations broaden the scope of the independent claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mammou et al. (US 2019/0081638) in view of Yang et al. (WO 2022/116118 A1, translation of Description was used).
Regarding claim 1 Mammou discloses a point cloud data decoding method, performed by a computer device, the point cloud data decoding method comprising:
decoding a first code stream of a point cloud, to obtain a residual value of first information of each point in the point cloud, the first information comprising at least one of geometry information and attribute information (decoder receiving encoded geometric information and attribute information for a point cloud – [0033]),
wherein the first code stream of the point cloud is obtained by coding the residual value of the first information of each point in the point cloud based on an arrangement sequence of points in a prediction tree, the prediction tree of the point cloud is obtained by sorting the points in the point cloud according to a target sorting method, and the target sorting method comprises one of a first sorting method, a second sorting method and a third sorting method, the first sorting method being a sorting method based on original coordinate information of the points, the second sorting method being a sorting method based on sizes of codewords corresponding to the points, and the third sorting method being a sorting method based on the sizes of distances between two points (sort the input points according to the Morton codes associated with their coordinates; encode/decode point attributes according to the Morton order; for each point i, look for the h nearest neighbors (n.sub.1, n.sub.2, . . . , n.sub.h) already processed (n.sub.j<i); compute the prediction weights; apply the adaptive scheme in order to adjust the prediction strategy; predict attributes and entropy encode them as described below – [0417-0423]; a prediction evaluator of a decoder may select a starting point of a minimum spanning tree based on an assigned starting point included in a compressed attribute information file – [0109]);
acquiring the first information of a starting point in the prediction tree (a prediction evaluator of a decoder may select a starting point of a minimum spanning tree based on an assigned starting point included in a compressed attribute information file – [0109]); and
sequentially decoding, according to the arrangement sequence of the points of the point cloud in the prediction tree, the points in the point cloud based on the first information of the starting point and the residual value of the first information of each point in the point cloud, to obtain a reconstruction value of the first information of the point cloud (during decoding process reconstructing geometry information and attribute information of the point cloud based on the first information of the starting point and the residual value of the first information of each point in the point cloud – [0150, 0161-0162, 0172, 0314]).
However, fails to explicitly disclose the target sorting method comprises at least two of a first sorting method, a second sorting method and a third sorting method, the first sorting method being a sorting method based on original coordinate information of the points, the second sorting method being a sorting method based on sizes of codewords corresponding to the points, and the third sorting method being a sorting method based on the sizes of distances between two points.
In his disclosure Yang teaches the target sorting method comprises at least two of a first sorting method, a second sorting method and a third sorting method, the first sorting method being a sorting method based on original coordinate information of the points, the second sorting method being a sorting method based on sizes of codewords corresponding to the points, and the third sorting method being a sorting method based on the sizes of distances between two points (performing two sorting methods for point clouds, Morton reordering and Hilbert reordering – p.11).
Examiner’s Note: the Examiner has chosen the first sorting method and the second sorting method as the target sorting method.
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate two sorting methods because such incorporation reduces output code streams and improve encoding and decoding performance (p.1, Summary of Invention).
Regarding claim 2 Mammou discloses the point cloud data decoding method according to claim 1, wherein the sequentially decoding comprises:
determining, for a current point in the point cloud, the reconstruction value of the first information of a previous point of the current point in the prediction tree, the reconstruction value of the first information of the previous point being determined based on the first information of the starting point and the residual value of the first information of the previous point; and obtaining the reconstruction value of the first information of the current point according to the reconstruction value of the first information of the previous point of the current point and the residual value of the first information of the current point (an encoder may assign an attribute value for a starting point of a point cloud to be used to generate a minimum spanning tree. An encoder may predict an attribute value for a next nearest point to the starting point based on the attribute value of the starting point and a distance between the starting point and the next nearest point. The encoder may then determine a difference between the predicted attribute value for the next nearest point and the actual attribute value for the next nearest point included in the non-compressed original point cloud. This difference may be encoded in a compressed attribute information file as an attribute correction value for the next nearest point. The encoder may then repeat a similar process for each point in the evaluation order. To predict the attribute value for subsequent points in the evaluation order, the encoder may identify the K-nearest neighboring points to a particular point being evaluated, wherein the identified K-nearest neighboring points have assigned or predicted attribute values – [0079, 0092, 0109]).
Regarding claim 3 Mammou discloses the point cloud data decoding method according to claim 1, wherein the acquiring comprises: determining default first information as the first information of the starting point; or parsing header information of the first code stream to obtain the first information of the starting point; or acquiring the first information of the starting point based on a point cloud division method (dividing a space of a point cloud – [0149]).
Regarding claim 4 Mammou discloses the point cloud data decoding method according to claim 1, wherein the starting point is an origin of a bounding box of the point cloud, or the starting point is a default coordinate point, or the starting point is any vertex of a bounding box of a whole point cloud or a partial point cloud (an encoder may select a first point as a starting point – [0078]).
Regarding claim 5 Mammou discloses the point cloud data decoding method according to claim 1, wherein
when the target sorting method is any one of the first sorting method, the second sorting method and the third sorting method, the prediction tree is obtained by sorting the points in the point cloud according to the any one of the first sorting method, the second sorting method and the third sorting method (the minimum spanning tree generator may then identify points that are adjacent to the starting point. The adjacent points may then be sorted based on respective distances between the respective identified adjacent points and the starting point – [0088]; sort the input points according to the Morton codes associated with their coordinates – [0417]);
when the target sorting method comprises the first sorting method and the third sorting method, the prediction tree is obtained by sorting the points in the point cloud according to the first sorting method to obtain a first order of the point cloud, and further sorting the point cloud in the first order according to the third sorting method; and
when the target sorting method comprises the second sorting method and the third sorting method, the prediction tree is obtained by sorting the points in the point cloud according to the second sorting method to obtain a second order of the point cloud, and further sorting the point cloud in the second order according to the third sorting method.
The Examiner Notes the last two limitations of claim 5 further limit claim 1 alternatives not chosen to be examined/evaluated.
Regarding claim 6 Mammou discloses the point cloud data decoding method according claim 1, wherein when the target sorting method comprises the first sorting method, a first order of the point cloud is an input sequence of the points in the point cloud; or the first order of the point cloud is obtained by sorting the points in the point cloud according to determined priorities of coordinate axes and the original coordinate information of each point in the point cloud (sort the input points according to the Morton codes – [041-0423]).
Claim 7 further limits an alternative limitation from claim 6 that was not elected to be examined/evaluated.
Claim 8 further limits an alternative limitation from claim 6 that was not elected to be examined/evaluated.
Claim 9 further limits an alternative limitation from claim 6 that was not elected to be examined/evaluated.
Claim 10 further limits an alternative limitation from claim 6 that was not elected to be examined/evaluated.
Claim 11 further limits an alternative limitation from claim 6 that was not elected to be examined/evaluated.
Regarding claim 12 Mammou discloses the point cloud data decoding method according to claim 1, wherein the prediction tree is obtained by adjusting the arrangement sequence of the points in the prediction tree based on distances between two adjacent points in the prediction tree (the encoder may select a first point as a starting point and may determine an evaluation order for other ones of the points of the point cloud based on minimum distances from the starting point to a closest neighboring point, and a subsequent minimum distance from the neighboring point to the next closest neighboring point – [0078]; the adjacent points may then be sorted based on respective distances between the respective identified adjacent points and the starting point. The adjacent point that is at the shortest distance from the starting point, may be selected as the next point to be visited – [0088]).
Claim 13 corresponds to the decoding apparatus that performs the decoding method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 13 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 1.
Claim 14 corresponds to the decoding apparatus that performs the decoding method of claim 2. Therefore, claim 14 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 2.
Claim 15 corresponds to the decoding apparatus that performs the decoding method of claim 3. Therefore, claim 15 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 3.
Claim 16 corresponds to the decoding apparatus that performs the decoding method of claim 4. Therefore, claim 16 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 4.
Claim 17 corresponds to the decoding apparatus that performs the decoding method of claim 5. Therefore, claim 17 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 5.
Claim 18 corresponds to the decoding apparatus that performs the decoding method of claim 6. Therefore, claim 18 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 6.
Claim 19 corresponds to the decoding apparatus that performs the decoding method of claim 7. Therefore, claim 19 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 7.
Claim 20 corresponds to the non-transitory computer-readable medium, storing computer code which, when executed by at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to at least perform the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 20 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 1.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA E VAZQUEZ COLON whose telephone number is (571)270-1103. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-3:30 PM.
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, CHRISTOPHER S KELLEY can be reached at (571)272-7331. 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.
/MARIA E VAZQUEZ COLON/Examiner, Art Unit 2482