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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 4, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art of record Oh et. al. fails to disclose or suggest all of the features recited in amended independent claim 1, and also fails to disclose or suggest the corresponding features recited in amended independent claims 10 and 11. More specifically, Oh et. al. differs in the method of selecting a projection plane, one of a plurality of projecting plane candidates that corresponds to a polygon having a largest calculated area. Furthermore, Applicant argues that Oh et. al. fails to disclose or suggest the features in amended independent claim 6 with respect to classifying each side of a node based on whether or not the side is parallel to any of coordinate axes of three-dimensional coordinates, and selecting, as a selected projection plane, a projection plane candidate from among a plurality of projection plane candidates based on a number of vertices existing on a side classified as being parallel to at least one of the coordinate axes. The amendments necessitated an updated prior art search, and after an updated search, new prior art was found to overcome these limitations in combination with Oh et. al. In particular, Taizo et. al. discloses a method for calculating the area of a polygon, and designates the one with the largest value used in an outer loop (Taizo et. al. [0002]). Furthermore, Oh et. al. does disclose classifying each side of a node based on whether or not the side is parallel to any of coordinate axes of three-dimensional coordinates, and selecting, as a selected projection plane, a projection plane candidate from among a plurality of projection plane candidates based on a number of vertices existing on a side classified as being parallel to at least one of the coordinate axes (Oh et. al. [0253] predication-based geometry information is performed by defining a prediction structure for point cloud data. A prediction mode can thus be a parallelogram prediction based on the point positions of a parent, a grandparent, and a great-grandparent of the corresponding point, which includes a root vertex). As disclosed in Oh et. al., a parallelogram prediction based on the point positions of a parent vertex is indeed classified as being parallel to at least one of the coordinate axes, as is the definition of a parallelogram. Thus, the new prior art of record in combination with Oh et. al. effectively anticipates the features of the amended claims. Therefore, all of the claims 1-11 are still rejected on the basis of prior art found.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et. al. (United States Patent Application Publication US 2023/0360273 A1) in view of Taizo et. al. (Japanese Patent JP H05-81431 A).
Regarding claim 1, Oh et. al. discloses a point cloud decoding device comprising a hardware processor configured to execute processes comprising: defining a polygon on each of a plurality of projection plane candidates by projecting a plurality of vertices existing on sides of a node when the plurality of vertices are projected onto each of a plurality of different projection plane candidate positions; calculating an area of the polygon defined on each of the plurality of projection plane candidates (Oh et. al. Figure 5 which shows the three-dimensional projection plane in x-y-z coordinates, Figure 15 which shows a plurality of vertices as part of a predictive tree structure, Figure 37 which outlines the decision tree based on the reference node detected, [0103] the point cloud video is represented by a point cloud belonging to a coordinate system for expression 3D space. [0108] The point cloud video decoder 10005 may decode the encoded point cloud data and reconstruct the point cloud video based on the positions according to the reconstructed geometry and the decoded attributes. [0123]-[0125] the polygon described is a 3D cubic space with points having an octree structure. [0145] and Figure 6 with the octree structure created by a bounding box defined by two poles.[0153]-[0155] the projection process is performed according to the axis with the minimum value. The vertices positioned at the edge of the block determine a surface that passes through the block. The surface according to the embodiments is a non-planar polygon. Trisoup geometry coding performs triangle reconstruction, up-sampling, and voxelization processes.)
PNG
media_image1.png
478
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
824
766
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Oh et. al. fails to disclose selecting, as a selected projection plane, a projection plane candidate corresponding to the polygon having a largest calculated area from among the plurality of projection plane candidates.
Taizo et. al. teaches selecting, as a selected projection plane, a projection plane candidate corresponding to the polygon having a largest calculated area from among the plurality of projection plane candidates (Taizo et. al. [0002]-[0004]: The area of the polygon to be calculated is calculated, and the one with the largest value is used as the outer loop. From identifying the vertices or nodes of the point cloud plane, this calculation is straightforward.).
PNG
media_image3.png
152
872
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This is important to the claimed invention because the method Oh et. al. uses to calculate the area of the polygon is not used to select the largest polygon. The largest polygon is identified in Taizo et. al. and this allows a method for the computer to quickly analyze the point cloud further. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Oh et. al. and Taizo et. al. so that the polygon with the largest area is selected correctly.
Regarding claim 2, Oh et. al. and Taizo et. al. disclose the point cloud decoding device according to claim 1, and Oh et. al. further discloses wherein the hardware processor calculates the area of the polygon by calculating an area of a triangle including three points of a predetermined origin, a first vertex which is one of the vertices projected onto one of the projection plane candidates, and a second vertex adjacent to the first vertex for all pairs of adjacent vertices (Oh et. al. [0215] the TPS (tile inventory) may include information about each tile (coordinate information and height/size information about a bounding box), [0153]-[0156] [Table 1] Triangles formed from vertices ordered 1,…., n during the triangle reconstruction process using a trisoup-based geometry information).
Regarding claim 3, Oh et. al. and Taizo et. al. disclose the point cloud decoding device according to claim 2, and Oh et. al. further discloses wherein the processes comprise: defining a first vector pointing from the origin to the first vertex and a second vector pointing from the origin to the second vertex, and calculating the area of the triangle by using an outer product of the first vector and the second vector (Oh et. al. [0215] the TPS (tile inventory) may include information about each tile (coordinate information and height/size information about a bounding box), [0155] and Figure 23 shows code that calculates depth of the bounding box, which can be used to calculate the area of the triangles).
PNG
media_image4.png
802
830
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Oh et. al. and Taizo et. al. disclose the point cloud decoding device according to claim 2, and Oh et. al. further discloses wherein the processes comprise sorting the vertices projected onto one of the projection plane candidates in a counterclockwise or clockwise sorting order, and setting two consecutive vertices in the sorting order as the first vertex and the second vertex (Oh et. al. [Table 1] Triangles formed from vertices are ordered).
Regarding claim 5, Oh et. al. and Taizo et. al. disclose the point cloud decoding device according to claim 2, and Oh et. al. further discloses wherein the hardware processor sets a third vertex, which is one of the vertices projected onto one of the projection plane candidates, as the predetermined origin (Oh et. al. [0152]-[0155]).
Regarding claim 10, which recites a point cloud decoding method, which corresponds to the device of claim 1, in which the rejection analysis is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 11, which recites a program stored on a non-transitory computer- readable medium for causing a computer to function as a point cloud decoding device, which corresponds to the device of claim 1, which the rejection analysis is incorporated herein.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Oh et. al. (United States Patent Application Publication US 2023/0360273 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Oh et. al. discloses a point cloud decoding device comprising a hardware processor configured to execute processes comprising: classifying each side of a node based on whether or not the side is parallel to any of coordinate axes of three-dimensional coordinates and selecting, as a selected projection plane, a projection plane candidate from among a plurality of projection plane candidates based on a number of vertices existing on a side classified as being parallel to at least one of the coordinate axes (Oh et. al. [0253] predication-based geometry information is performed by defining a prediction structure for point cloud data. A prediction mode can thus be a parallelogram prediction based on the point positions of a parent, a grandparent, and a great-grandparent of the corresponding point, which includes a root vertex).
Regarding claim 7, Oh et. al. discloses the point cloud decoding device according to claim 6, wherein the hardware processor selects a projection plane candidate defined by degenerating an axis having a largest number of vertices as the selected projection plane (Oh et. al. [0154]-[0155] the minimum value of the sum of the squares of the triangle reconstruction process is estimated, and the project process is performed according to the axis with the minimum value).
Regarding claim 8, Oh et. al. discloses the point cloud decoding device according to claim 6, wherein the processes comprise: calculating a difference value between a maximum value and a minimum value of a coordinate value of each vertex for each coordinate axis of the three- dimensional coordinates, and setting, in a case where there are two or more axes having a minimum value of the difference value among the coordinate axes, a projection plane candidate defined by degenerating an axis having a largest number of vertices on the side classified as being parallel to at least one of the coordinate axes as the selected projection plane (Oh et. al. [0154]-[0155]).
Regarding claim 9, Oh et. al. discloses the point cloud decoding device according to claim 6, wherein the processes comprise: calculating, in a case where there are two or more axes having a largest number of vertices on the side classified as being parallel to at least one of the coordinate axes, a difference value between a maximum value and a minimum value of a coordinate value of each vertex for each coordinate axis of the three-dimensional coordinates, and setting a projection plane candidate defined by degenerating an axis having a minimum value of the difference value among the coordinate axes as the selected projection plane (Oh et. al. [0154]-[0155]).
Conclusion
Response to Amendment
Examiner has carefully considered the amendments to the claims, however after an updated search, prior arts have been found to reject claims 1-11.
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.
/JESSICA YIFANG LIN/
June 25, 2026
/VU LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2668
Prosecution Insights