DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the response filed February 18, 2026. Claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, 13-14, and 16-18 are pending and are examined.
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 Amendment
The amendments made to original claims 1, 6, 11, and 16 have been fully considered.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments and amendments received February 18, 2026 have been fully considered.
With regard to 35 U.S.C. § 102, Applicant argues that the cited prior art fails to disclose (A) wherein each predictive tree node element includes number information for specifying a number of points represented by a current node, prediction information for specifying that a position of the current node is coded with inter prediction, and residual information related to the current node, wherein the number of point represented by the current node is derived based on flag information and the number information, wherein the flag information specifies duplication point count signaling and (B) wherein the residual information includes first residual information and second residual information, and wherein at least the first residual information or the second residual information includes sign information and magnitude information. This language corresponds to the newly amended language of claims 1, 6, 11, and 16.
With respect to element B, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant admits that Nishi’s paragraph 528 describes first and second residuals and states that such residual may be sent in syntax indicating positive and negative information and absolute value information. This is a clear recitation that it may include both sign information – positive and negative information – and magnitude information – absolute value information. Applicant argues that this does not teach that sign and magnitude information are structure components included in residual information associated with a predictive tree node. However, in this paragraph, Nishi clearly describes that the positive-negative and absolute value information is syntax information representing difference/residual values between predicted geometry information and the actual geometry information of the prediction point. It is made clear in the surrounding paragraphs, that such a residual is associated with a prediction point (e.g., ¶¶523, 527, 532-533).
Ultimately, these have been considered but they are directed to newly amended language, which is addressed below. See the rejection below for how the art of record in view of newly identified art reads on the newly amended language as well as the examiner's interpretation of the cited art in view of the presented claim set.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, 13-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0281882 (“Nishi”), which corresponds to a provisional application filed October 2020 in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0108491 (“Ray”), which corresponds to provisional applications filed in October and November of 2020.
With respect to claim 6, Nishi discloses the invention substantially as claimed, including:
A device for encoding point cloud data (see Abstract, Figs. 1, 5-6, items 4601, 4613, 4630, ¶¶106, 144, 182, describing a point cloud data transmission device), the device comprising:
a geometry encoder configured to encode geometry data of point cloud data based a predictive tree (see citations with respect to element above and ¶¶299-306, 435-439, describing that the encoder serves as a geometry encoder configured to encode geometry data of point cloud data based on a prediction tree, i.e., predictive tree);
an attribute encoder configured to encode attribute data of the point cloud data based on the geometry data (see Figs. 3, 6, item 4632, ¶¶161-164, 170-171, 182-186, describing that the encoder serves as an attribute encoder configured to encode attribute data of the point cloud data based on the geometry data); and
a transmitter configured to transmit the encoded geometry data, the encoded attribute data, and signaling information (see Figs. 5-6, items 4630, 4634, ¶¶189-191, describing an output device/transmitter to transmit the encoded geometry data, attribute data, and additional, i.e., signaling, information),
wherein the encoded geometry data is carried in a geometry data unit (see Fig. 28, 31, 32, item, ¶¶161, 299-302, 305-306, showing and describing that the geometry data may be carried from the root node down to a child node level, i.e., geometry data units),
wherein the encoded geometry data unit includes a predictive tree element (see citations and arguments with respect to element above, showing and describing that the nodes/roots/children/encoded geometry data units are predictive tree elements),
wherein the predictive tree element includes predictive tree node elements on a per-node basis in the predictive tree (see citations and arguments with respect to elements above, describing that the predictive tree element includes predictive tree node elements on a per-node basis in the predictive tree),
wherein each predictive tree node element includes …, prediction information for specifying that a position of the current node is coded with inter prediction, and residual information related to the current node (see Figs. 28, 31, 36, 37, 38, 45, 55, items pred_mode, gps_inter_prediction_enabled_flag, sps_inter_prediction_enabled_flag, intra_pred_flag, residual_value, ¶¶306, 308, 314, 351-358, 403, 408, 411, 435, 471-477, 523-528, describing that the predictive tree node elements include an inter prediction flag/mode, i.e., prediction information for specifying that a position of the current node is coded with inter prediction, and a residual_value related to the current node),
wherein [a] number of points represented by the current node is [] based on flag information… (see citations above, and Fig. 36, ¶¶343, 348, 350, describing that it was known to signal flag information, e.g., unique_point_per_leaf, in the header for the geometry information indicating whether there are duplicated points in the bitstream, i.e., a flag which provides information about the number of points represented by the current node),
wherein the flag information specifies duplication point count signaling (see citations above, describing the use of unique_point_per_leaf, a flag that specifies duplication point signaling).
wherein the residual information includes first residual information and second residual information (see citations with respect to element above, including Fig. 55, ¶¶523, 528, describing that the signaled residual may include both first and second residual information, e.g., 1st_residual_value and 2nd_residual_value), and
wherein at least the first residual information or the second residual information includes sign information and magnitude information (see citations with respect to element above, including ¶528, which describes that the residual information may be signaled using positive and negative information, i.e., sign information, and absolute value information, i.e., magnitude information).
Nishi discloses that points may be unique or duplicated (see Fig. 36, ¶¶343, 348, 350, describing the variable unique_point_per_leaf which indicates whether duplicated points are included in the bitstream). However, Nishi does not explicitly disclose how such a variable impacts the point counts within the bitstream, i.e., it does not disclose wherein each predictive tree node element includes number information for specifying a number of points represented by a current node, … wherein the number of points represented by the current node is derived based on flag information and the number information.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ray provides further detail, disclosing that, in order to provide a point count where duplication is possible, it was known to include in syntax, number information specifying the number of points represented by a current node derived and that this number information may be based on both a duplication point count signaling flag and number information, i.e.:
wherein each predictive tree node element includes number information for specifying a number of points represented by a current node (see ¶¶119 (and table thereafter), 122-124, 128 (and table thereafter), 139 (and table thereafter), describing that the signaled syntax may include number information for specifying a number of points represented by a current node for each predictive tree element, e.g., ptn_point_cnt_gt1_flag and ptn_point_cnt_minus2),…
wherein the number of points represented by the current node is derived based on flag information and the number information (see citations above, describing that it was known for the point count to be based on flag information indicating whether the points are unique, e.g., unique_geometry_points_flag, and number information specifying a number of points represented by the current node, e.g., ptn_point_cnt_gt1_flag and ptn_point_cnt_minus2),
As detailed above, Nishi discloses that points may be duplicated, i.e., have the same geometry information as another point, and that this duplication may be identified by a variable, e.g., unique_point_per_leaf. Nishi does not detail, however, how the presence or absence of such duplication would impact point count. Ray, however, provides such information (see citations above, describing that the presence or absence of such a flag (in Ray named unique_geometry_points_flag), impacts point count information for the tree nodes). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill would have been familiar with point clouds and with the syntax information that may be helpful to predict them. Such a person would have understood that, as evidenced by Ray, the presence or absence of duplication/uniqueness of the points, may potentially impact point count for prediction. Accordingly, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, including a point count syntax for the predictive nodes that is based on both number information and a uniqueness/duplication flag, as taught by Ray, would have represented nothing more than the combination of prior art elements according to predictable results and/or the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a mechanism for including a point count syntax for the predictive nodes that is based on both number information and a uniqueness/duplication flag in the predictive tree node coding system of Nishi as taught by Ray.
With respect to claim 8, Nishi discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Nishi in view of Ray discloses each and every element of independent claim 6. Nishi/Ray additionally discloses:
wherein the geometry encoder further includes an inter prediction unit configured to acquire the residual information by performing the inter prediction based on the predictive tree (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 6 above and Nishi Fig. 48, items 12909, 12910, “first residual signal”, ¶¶435-441, 443-445, describing that the geometry encoder includes an inter predictor, i.e., inter prediction unit, that acquires the residual information by performing inter prediction based on the predictive tree).
With respect to claim 9, Nishi discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Nishi in view of Ray discloses each and every element of dependent claim 8. Nishi/Ray additionally discloses:
wherein the geometry encoder further includes:
an entropy coder configured to entropy-code residual information (see citations and arguments with respect to claims 6 and 8 above and Nishi Fig. 48, item 12911, ¶440, describing that the geometry encoder may include an entropy coder to entropy code the residual information).
With respect to claim 10, Nishi discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Nishi in view of Ray discloses each and every element of independent claim 6. Nishi/Ray additionally discloses:
wherein each predictive tree element includes at least one of information for identifying a reference frame for the inter prediction, motion vector (MV) information acquired through motion estimation, or bounding box size information of the predictor (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 6 above and Nishi ¶¶399, 443-446, describing that each predictive tree element includes information for identifying a reference frame/point cloud for the inter prediction and may include motion vector information).
With respect to claim 16, Nishi discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Nishi in view of Ray discloses each and every element of independent claim 6. Nishi/Ray additionally discloses:
A device for decoding point cloud data (see Nishi Abstract, Figs. 1, 7-8, items 4602, 4624, 4640, ¶¶106, 148-149, 190, describing a device for decoding point cloud data), the device comprising:
a receiver configured to receive geometry data, attribute data, and signaling information (see citations and arguments with respect to transmission element of claim 6 above and preamble above and Nishi Fig. 8, item 4641, ¶¶191-192, describing that the decoder receives geometry data, attribute data, and additional, i.e., signaling, information);
a geometry decoder configured to decode the geometry data in a predictive tree based on the signaling information (see citations with respect to element above and Nishi ¶¶300, 302, 450-454, describing that the decoder serves as a geometry decoder configured to decode geometry data of point cloud data based on a prediction tree, i.e., predictive tree);
an attribute decoder configured to decode the attribute data based on the signaling information and the decoded geometry data (see Figs. 3, 8, item 4643, ¶¶161-164, 170-171, 174, 194-195, describing that the encoder serves as an attribute encoder configured to encode attribute data of the point cloud data based on the geometry data);
wherein the received geometry data is carried in a geometry data unit (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 6 above),
wherein the geometry data unit includes a predictive tree element (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 6 above),
wherein the predictive tree element includes predictive tree node elements on a per-node basis in the predictive tree (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 6 above),
wherein each predictive tree node element includes number information for specifying a number of points represented by a current node, prediction information for specifying that a position of the current node is coded with inter prediction, and residual information related to the current node (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 6 above),
wherein the number of points represented by the current node is derived based on flag information and the number information (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 6 above),
wherein the flag information specifies duplication point count signaling (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 6 above),
wherein the residual information includes first residual information and second residual information (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 6 above), and
wherein at least the first residual information or the second residual information includes sign information and magnitude information (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 6 above).
With respect to claim 17, Nishi discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Nishi in view of Ray discloses each and every element of independent claim 16. Nishi/Ray additionally discloses:
wherein the geometry decoder further includes entropy-decoding the residual information (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 16 above and Nishi Fig. 49, item 12921, ¶¶453, describing that the geometry decoder may include an entropy decoder to decode the input residual information).
With respect to claim 18, Nishi discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Nishi in view Ray discloses each and every element of independent claim 16. Nishi/Ray additionally discloses:
wherein each predictive tree node element further includes at least one of information for identifying a reference frame for the inter prediction, motion vector (MV) information for motion compensation, or bounding box size information of the predictor (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 10 above).
With respect to claim 1, claim 1 recites the elements of claim 6 in method form rather than device form. Accordingly, the disclosure recited with respect to claim 6 also applies to claim 1.
With respect to claim 3, claim 3 recites the elements of claim 8 in method form rather than device form. Accordingly, the disclosure recited with respect to claim 8 also applies to claim 3.
With respect to claim 4, claim 4 recites the elements of claim 9 in method form rather than device form. Accordingly, the disclosure recited with respect to claim 9 also applies to claim 4.
With respect to claim 5, claim 5 recites the elements of claim 10 in method form rather than device form. Accordingly, the disclosure recited with respect to claim 10 also applies to claim 5.
With respect to claim 11, claim 11 recites the elements of claim 16 in method form rather than device form. Accordingly, the disclosure recited with respect to claim 16 also applies to claim 11.
With respect to claim 13, claim 13 recites the elements of claim 17 in method form rather than device form. Accordingly, the disclosure recited with respect to claim 17 also applies to claim 13.
With respect to claim 14, claim 14 recites the elements of claim 18 in method form rather than device form. Accordingly, the disclosure recited with respect to claim 18 also applies to claim 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes “G-PCC Future Enhancements”, 130, MPEG Meeting 20200420-20200424, ALPBACH, (Motion Picture Expert Group or ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11), No. n19328, 21 July 2020, XP030289574, 140 Pages, which shows (e.g., in Sections 6.3, p. 20, 7.3.3.5 pp. 30-31, 7.3.3.8 p. 34, 7.3.3.11 pp. 33-34, 7.4.2.5 pp. 41-42, 7.4.3.5 p. 52, 7.4.3.8 p. 53, 7.4.3.11 pp. 54-55, Table 22 p. 101-102) that it was well known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that node points may be duplicated, requiring encoding of the number of points for each node, and the use of duplication/uniqueness flags to indicate such duplication and calculate number information for geometry node prediction.
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 LINDSAY JANE KILE UHL whose telephone number is (571)270-0337. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM-5:00 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, William Vaughn can be reached on (571)272-3922. 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.
LINDSAY J UHL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2481
/LINDSAY J UHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights