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
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, the examiner agrees in part with Applicant’s position that the claims as amended overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101. Applicant argues that independent claim 1 as amended “does not recite a mathematical formula in the abstract, but rather a specific, ordered combination of technical operations for point cloud data compression including octree-based geometry encoding, coordinate conversion from cartesian to angular coordinates for reconstructed geometry, obtaining third coordinates via scale factors, encoding attribute data within a bounding box, and signaling beam count, scale factors, and bounding box parameters in a bitstream.”
The examiner disagrees. The operations of coordinate conversion from cartesian to angular coordinates for reconstructed geometry, obtaining third coordinates via scale factors, encoding attribute data within a bounding box all fall under the “mathematical concept” grouping of abstract ideas. The other operations recited in claim 1 are extra-solution activity that are not indicative of integration of the mathematical concepts into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(g).
However, claim 1, as amended, is directed to a purported improvement in the technological field of point cloud encoding in that the above-quoted combination of operations purportedly improve compression performance and increase data processing speed, as discussed throughout the present specification. Such purported improvements indicate that the claim recites an inventive concept, i.e., significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(a). For these reasons, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is withdrawn.
Regarding the double patenting rejections, the examiner agrees with Applicant that the amendments to the independent claims overcome the rejections. Therefore, the rejections and provisional rejections are withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection of independent claims 1, 7, 9 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Taquet, Applicant argues that the limitations that have been added to the independent claims by the present amendment are not disclosed in Taquet. The examiner agrees that Taquet does not explicitly disclose these limitations, and therefore has been withdrawn the rejection. However, a new ground of rejection is set forth below. Applicant’s arguments regarding differences between Taquet and the amended claims are moot in view of the claim amendments and the withdrawal of the rejection.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The BRI of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification.
The following terms in the claims have been given the following interpretations in light of the specification:
geometry data: para. [065] of the present specification: data indicating the position of a point in the point cloud data;
angular coordinates: paras. [247] and [255] of the present specification, components that include an angular component;
scan pattern type: paras. [385]-[386] of the present specification, the light pattern generated by and detected by the sensor and defined by parameters of the sensor;
scan pattern type information: paras. [384]-[386] of the present specification, information about the scan pattern type;
distribution range: paras. [392]-[400] of the present specification, the range over which a scan pattern is projected by a projector such as a LiDAR device and detected by a sensor such as a LiDAR device;
scan range: paras. [387]-[389] and Fig. 25 of the present disclosure, the range over which a scan pattern is projected by a projector such as a LiDAR device and detected by a sensor such as the LiDAR device, such as min and max azimuth, elevation and radius of the scan pattern; and
projector: para. [75] of the present specification, a LiDAR and the like.
Should applicant believe that different interpretations are warranted, Applicant should point to the portions of the present disclosure that clearly support a different interpretation.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6-10, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publ. Appl. No. 2020/0394822 A1 to Gao et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Gao”).
Regarding claim 1, Gao discloses a point cloud data transmission method (Fig. 1, para. [0045]: “[i]n the FIG. 1 example, the first pair of terminal devices (110) and (120) that perform unidirectional transmission of point cloud data”) comprising:
acquiring point cloud data based on a set of beams (para. [0048] discloses acquiring of point cloud data based on light detection and ranging (LiDAR) systems, which means that the point cloud data is acquired based on a set of LiDAR beams: “[t]he capture subsystem (213) can include a point cloud source (201), for example light detection and ranging (LIDAR) systems”);
encoding geometry data of the point cloud data based on an octree (paras. [0111]-[0116] disclose that the point positions of the point cloud data can be encoded based on an octree);
converting first cartesian coordinates for reconstructed geometry data from the encoded geometry data to second angular coordinates (paras. [0191]-[0192]: “[t]o compress the point cloud in 3D polar coordinate system, four major steps can be performed…In a first step, the Cartesian coordinate {x.sub.k, y.sub.k, z.sub.k} can be converted to polar coordinate (θ.sub.k, φ.sub.k, d.sub.k) for k=1, . . . , K”);
obtaining third coordinates based on the second angular coordinates and scale factors (paras. [0191]-[0193]: “[t]o compress the point cloud in 3D polar coordinate system, four major steps can be performed…In a second step, the polar coordinate (θ.sub.k, φ.sub.k, d.sub.k) is quantized to integer with predefined precision by multiplying by a predefined scalar and taking rounding operations, for k=1, . . . , K”);
encoding attribute data of the point cloud data in a bounding box for the third coordinates (paras. [0195]-[0198] discuss encoding the attribute data in a bounding box for the scaled polar coordinates corresponding to the third coordinates);
generating information for a size of the bounding box and information for an origin for the bounding box (paras. [0195]-[0196] discuss determining the size and origin for the bounding box); and
wherein transmitting a bitstream including the encoded geometry data and the encoded attribute datapoint cloud data are included in a bitstream (para. [0204] discusses the bitstream that carries the encoded geometry and attribute data and para. [0045] discusses transmission of the encoded bitstream. Fig. 3 shows the bitstream comprising encoded geometry data output from video compression block 322 and encoded attribute data output from video compression block 323 being output by MUX 324 and transmitted as a compressed bitstream), and
wherein the bitstream includes information for a number of the beams, information for the scale factors, the information for the size of the bounding box, and the information for the origin for the bounding box (regarding the number of beams, paras. [0168]-[0174] disclose that the bitstream includes metadata that includes N sets of calibration data parameters for an N-ray LiDAR, which constitutes information for “a number of beams”. Regarding information on scale factors and on the size and origin of the bounding box, all of this information is encoded and included in the bitstream to be transmitted, as discussed in paras. [0195]-[0204]).
Regarding claim 3, Gao discloses that the bitstream further includes scan pattern type information, wherein a first value of the scan pattern type information representing a scan pattern of a sensor for the beams (As indicated above in the rejection of claim 1, paras. [0168]-[0174] of Gao disclose that the bitstream includes encoded metadata that includes the elevation and rotation angles and corresponding timing intervals for each of the N rays of the N-ray LiDAR sensor. Para. [0173] discloses that the position and orientation for each LiDAR sensor at each time interval are also obtained. All of this information is included in the bit stream, as shown in Fig. 7, and is indicative of the scan pattern type).
Regarding claim 6, as indicated above in the rejection of claim 1, paras. [0168]-[0174] of Gao disclose that the sensors include LiDAR sensors.
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 applies mutatis mutandis to claim 7. Gao discloses one or more processors for performing the operations recited in claims 1 and 7 and memory (para. [0108]).
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 3 applies mutatis mutandis to claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, to the extent that claim 9 recites limitations that are also recited in claim 1, the rejection of claim 1 applies mutatis mutandis to claim 9. Claim 9 recites a decoding process that is the opposite or inverse of the encoding process recited in claim 1. As is known in the art of encoding and decoding point cloud data, the decoding operations performed on compressed/encoded geometry data to reconstruct the point cloud data are the same as those of the encoding operations. Fig. 4 of Gao shows a block diagram of the decoder 400 that decompresses/decodes the encoded bitstream to reconstruct the point cloud data, as discussed in paras. [0066]-[0074].
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 3 applies mutatis mutandis to claim 10.
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 6 applies mutatis mutandis to claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, the rejections of claims 7 and 9 apply mutatis mutandis to claim 14.
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 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao in view of U.S. Publ. Appl. No. 2023/0162406 A1 to Ramasubramonian et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Ramasubramonian”).
Regarding claim 4, Gao does not explicitly disclose that the bitstream sensor information includes flag information as to whether the information for the size of the bounding box and the information for the origin for the bounding box are transmitted. Ramasubramonian, in the same field of endeavor, discloses including syntax in the encoded point cloud data bitstream that includes flag information as to whether the information for the size of the bounding box and for the origin of the bounding box are transmitted (paras. [0049]-[0050] discuss the syntax included in the bitstream and para. [0121] discusses the flag included in the syntax: “ash_attr_region_qp_delta_present_flag equal to one indicates the ash_attr_region_qp_delta and region bounding box origin and size are present in current ASH. ash_attr_region_qp_delta_present flag equal to zero indicates the ash_attr_region_qp_delta and region bounding box origin and size are not present in current ASH.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present disclosure, to modify the syntax included in the encoded/compressed bitstream of Gao to include a flag that indicates whether the bitstream information being transmitted includes the size of the bounding box and the origin for the bounding box, as taught by Ramasubramonian. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to avoid encoding and decoding bounding box size and origin in cases where it is unnecessary to transmit that information, such as when the size and origin have not changed or can be reused, since doing so would improve compression efficiency and performance by reducing the amount of data that has to be encoded, transmitted and decoded. The modification could have been made by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure with a reasonable expectation of success because making the modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (modifying the syntax to include one or more bits to represent the flag).
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 4 applies mutatis mutandis to claim 11.
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 DANIEL J SANTOS whose telephone number is (571)272-2867. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Matt Bella can be reached on (571)272-7778. 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.
/DANIEL J. SANTOS/Examiner, Art Unit 2667
/MATTHEW C BELLA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights