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 .
Applicant(s) Response to Official Action
The response filed on 04/28/2026 has been entered and made of record.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Presented arguments have been fully considered but are held unpersuasive. Examiner’s response to the presented arguments follows below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Summary of Arguments:
Regarding claim 1, the Applicant argues Lasserre et al., (US 2021/0218969 A1) do not disclose:
“"determining, by a computing device, vertex information of a colocated first edge, of a first cuboid, wherein the first cuboid is located in a first point cloud associated with content and the second cuboid is located in a second point cloud" at least because Lassere does not determine vertex information of a particular edge, let alone "vertex information of a colocated first edge, of a first cuboid"” [Remarks: Pages 8-9]
“nothing in Lassere indicates that the previously-coded points would be or include "vertex information of a colocated first edge, of a first cuboid."” [Remarks: Page 8]
“The occupancy pattern described in Lassere does not correspond to the vertex information of any particular edge, let alone a "colocated first edge,"” [Remarks: Page 8]
Regarding claim 5, the Applicant argues Lasserre et al., (US 2021/0218969 A1) do not disclose:
“wherein the vertex information of the colocated first edge comprises triangular soup (TriSoup) vertex information comprising one or more of: a presence flag indicating a presence of a vertex on the colocated first edge, or a position of a vertex on the colocated first edge. […] “nothing in Lassere indicates that an occupancy flag that indicates whether a sub-volume contains a point is "a presence flag indicating a presence of a vertex on the colocated first edge"”. [Remarks: Page 9]
Regarding claims 2, 4, 6, 22, and 24, Applicant argues Lasserre in view of Kim et al., (US 2021/0217203 A1) do not disclose:
“As explained above, claims 1 and 21 are allowable over Lassere, and Kim fails to cure the deficiencies of Lassere. Each of claims 2, 4, 6, 22, and 24 depends from one of claims 1 or 21 and is thus allowable at least based on its dependency, as well as for its additional novel features.” [Remarks: Page 9]
Examiner’s Response:
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner contends:
(i.-iii.) In order to elucidate how Lasserre discloses the limitations, here are some additional mappings and explanations:
determining vertex information of a colocated first edge (Lasserre: ¶ [0077] discloses “based on a shared vertex [claimed determining vertex information]” and “based on a shared edge [claimed first edge]” and ¶ [0123] discloses “collocated LPU [claimed colocated]”; therefore, analyzing adjacent node configurations via shared vertices and collocated unit edges discloses determining vertex information of a colocated first edge.).
of a first cuboid (Lasserre: ¶ [0122] discloses “LPUs in this example may be 3D cuboids [claimed of a first cuboid]”.),
associated with a second edge of a second cuboid (Lasserre: ¶ [0077] discloses “shared edge [claimed associated with a second edge] … to include additional adjacent sub-volumes [claimed of a second cuboid]”; therefore, an adjacent sub-volume that shares an edge axiomatically possesses a second edge associated with the first edge.).
wherein the first cuboid is located in a first point cloud associated with content and the second cuboid is located in a second point cloud (Lasserre: ¶ [0090] discloses “points for a sub-volume in the point cloud [claimed and the second cuboid is located in a second point cloud]” are predicted from the points of a previously-coded point cloud [claimed wherein the first cuboid is located in a first point cloud]” and Lasserre: ¶ [0046] discloses “The points are often intended to represent the external surface of one or more objects [claimed associated with content]”.).
Regarding claim 5, the Examiner contends:
Please note, that “triangular soup (TriSoup) vertex information” is not defined within the claims. Further, Lasserre in ¶ [0050] discloses “to further divide a sub-volume may be based on … whether there are any points [includes a vertex] contained in the sub-volume [includes the collocated first edge].”. For additional clarity, here’s an additional illustration of how Lasserre is applied:
Lasserre discloses wherein the vertex information of the colocated first edge comprises triangular soup (TriSoup) vertex information (Lasserre: ¶ [0077] discloses occupancy data) comprising one or more of: a presence flag indicating a presence of a vertex on the colocated first edge, or a position of a vertex on the colocated first edge (Lasserre: ¶ [0050] discloses “an occupancy flag [claimed presence flag] and Lasserre: ¶ [0077] discloses “based on a shared edge [claimed on the colocated first edge] or based on a shared vertex [claimed indicating a presence of a vertex on the colocated first edge]”.). Therefore, an occupancy flag indicating the status of a sub-volume intersecting at a shared vertex along a shared edge functionally anticipated the presence flag limitation.
Regarding claims 2, 4, 6, 22, and 24, the Examiner contends:
The response above regarding claim 1, renders the argument moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 5, 7-8, 21, 25, 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lasserre et al., hereinafter referred to as Lasserre (US 2021/0218969 A1).
As per claim 1, Lasserre discloses a method (Lasserre: Abstract) comprising:
determining, by a computing device (Lasserre: [0148]), vertex information (geometric point information) of a colocated first edge, of a first cuboid, associated with a second edge of a second cuboid, wherein the first cuboid is located in a first point cloud associated with content and the second cuboid is located in a second point cloud (Lasserre: Paras. [0036], [0047], [0090], [0145] disclose using predictive coding for a dynamic point cloud, which is a time-ordered sequence of point clouds [claimed first and second point clouds] and a prediction mode that uses a motion vector V=0, based on the prediction on a co-located sub-volume [claimed cuboid] of a temporally-related point cloud. A co-located sub-volume (the first cuboid in the first point cloud) is associated with the current sub-volume (the second cuboid in the second point cloud) which includes their respective edges also being co-located. Using previously coded points from a second point cloud temporally-related to the point cloud to form predictions and thus, the geometric information of the points within this co-located sub-volume defines the vertex information determined for prediction.); and
coding, using a coder and based on the vertex information of the colocated first edge, vertex information of the second edge (Lasserre: Paras. [0129], [0132], [0134] disclose a predicted occupancy pattern is generated from the prediction, and this predicted pattern is used as the basis, at least in part, for selecting a context for coding the occupancy pattern of the current sub-volume ([0132]). The occupancy pattern represents the geometric (vertex) information of the current sub-volume. Therefore, when using the prediction from the co-located sub-volume ([0145]), the geometric information of the co-located sub-volume (the claimed vertex information of the colocated first edge) is used to select a context for entropy coding the geometric information of the current sub-volume (the claimed vertex information of the second edge) and thus, coding the current vertex information based on the colocated vertex information.).
As per claim 5, Lasserre discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the vertex information of the colocated first edge comprises triangular soup (TriSoup) vertex information comprising one or more of:
a presence flag indicating a presence of a vertex on the colocated first edge, or a position of a vertex on the colocated first edge (Lasserre: Para. [0050] discloses coding occupancy flags that indicate whether a sub-volume contains a point.).
As per claim 7, Lasserre discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
selecting, based on the vertex information of the colocated first edge, a probability model (Lasserre: Paras. [0132], [0134] disclose the context-based entropy coder 300 uses the predicted occupancy pattern as the basis, at least in part, for selecting a context for coding the occupancy pattern (i.e., selecting a context [probability model] for entropy coding based on the result of a prediction). The predicted pattern is derived from the prediction, analogous to the vertex information from the colocated edge.), wherein the coding the vertex information of the second edge comprises coding the vertex information of the second edge using the probability model (Lasserre: Para. [0134] discloses once the context is selected, the bit is “coded using an arithmetic coder,” which is an implementation of coding using the selected probability model.).
As per claim 8, Lasserre discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the coding the vertex information of the second edge is further based on a predicting quality of one or more colocated edges located in the first point cloud and associated with one or more neighboring edges of the second edge (Lasserre: Paras. [0139], [0140], [0142] disclose evaluating the likely prediction quality locally by looking at the quality that was realized for parent nodes and disabling prediction-based context selection if the parent node [neighboring region edge] was poorly predicted (i.e., using prediction quality from a neighboring region to adapt the coding of the current region).).
As per claim 21, Lasserre discloses a computing device (Lasserre: [0148]) comprising:
one or more processors (Lasserre: [0148]); and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the computing device to (Lasserre: [0148]):
determine vertex information (geometric point information) of a colocated first edge, of a first cuboid, associated with a second edge of a second cuboid, wherein the first cuboid is located in a first point cloud associated with content and the second cuboid is located in a second point cloud (Lasserre: Paras. [0036], [0047], [0090], [0145] disclose using predictive coding for a dynamic point cloud, which is a time-ordered sequence of point clouds [claimed first and second point clouds] and a prediction mode that uses a motion vector V=0, based on the prediction on a co-located sub-volume [claimed cuboid] of a temporally-related point cloud. A co-located sub-volume (the first cuboid in the first point cloud) is associated with the current sub-volume (the second cuboid in the second point cloud) which includes their respective edges also being co-located. Using previously coded points from a second point cloud temporally-related to the point cloud to form predictions and thus, the geometric information of the points within this co-located sub-volume defines the vertex information determined for prediction.); and
code, using a coder and based on the vertex information of the colocated first edge, vertex information of the second edge (Lasserre: Paras. [0129], [0132], [0134] disclose a predicted occupancy pattern is generated from the prediction, and this predicted pattern is used as the basis, at least in part, for selecting a context for coding the occupancy pattern of the current sub-volume ([0132]). The occupancy pattern represents the geometric (vertex) information of the current sub-volume. Therefore, when using the prediction from the co-located sub-volume ([0145]), the geometric information of the co-located sub-volume (the claimed vertex information of the colocated first edge) is used to select a context for entropy coding the geometric information of the current sub-volume (the claimed vertex information of the second edge) and thus, coding the current vertex information based on the colocated vertex information.).
As per claim 25, the claim(s) recites analogous limitations to claim(s) 5 above, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
As per claim 27, the claim(s) recites analogous limitations to claim(s) 7 above, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
As per claim 28, the claim(s) recites analogous limitations to claim(s) 8 above, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
As per claim 29, the claim(s) recites analogous limitations to claim(s) 1 and 21 above, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
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 2, 4, 6, 22, 24, 26, 30, 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lasserre in view of Kim et al., hereinafter referred to as Kim (US 2021/0217203 A1).
As per claim 2, Lasserre discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the coding the vertex information of the second edge comprises coding the vertex information of the second edge (Lasserre: Paras. [0129], [0132], [0134], [0145] disclose the coding the vertex information of the second edge comprises coding the vertex information of the second edge.).
However, Lasserre does not explicitly disclose “… coding the vertex information of the second edge based on activation information indicating that a copy code mode is enabled for a region, of the first point cloud, corresponding to the colocated first edge.”.
Further, Kim is in the same field of endeavor and teaches coding the vertex information of the second edge based on activation information indicating that a copy code mode is enabled for a region, of the first point cloud, corresponding to the colocated first edge (Kim: Paras. [0010], [0547]-[0548], [0558] disclose using predicted or copied patches. Further, table 11 shows a patch_prediction_mode flag that is signaled for each patch to indicate if it is a new (intra) patch or a predicted patch. This flag serves as the claimed “activation information” to enable the copy code mode.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Lasserre and Kim before him or her, to modify the point cloud encoding system of Lasserre to include the activation information indicating copy code mode feature as described in Kim. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve compression and prediction efficiency by providing a configuration that permits reducing the number of redundancies that may exist in the cubic projection techniques.
As per claim 4, Lasserre discloses the method of claim 1 (Lasserre: Abstract),
However, Lasserre does not explicitly disclose “… wherein the colocated first edge comprises a same start point as the second edge located in three-dimensional (3D) space and a same end point as the second edge in 3D space.”.
Further, Kim is in the same field of endeavor and teaches wherein the colocated first edge comprises a same start point as the second edge located in three-dimensional (3D) space and a same end point as the second edge in 3D space (Kim: Paras. [0010], [0522] disclose predicting patches having the same projected shape in different 3D frames. When predicting, delta offsets for placement are signaled. A zero-offset prediction implies the patch is in the same 3D location. The same location is equivalent to having the same start and end points.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Lasserre and Kim before him or her, to modify the point cloud encoding system of Lasserre to include the same start and end point feature as described in Kim. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve coding efficiency by providing a configuration that uses prediction techniques that enable an encoder to take advantage of correlations between three-dimensional layers of a point cloud.
As per claim 6, Lasserre discloses the method of claim 1 (Lasserre: Abstract),
However, Lasserre does not explicitly disclose “… further comprising: rendering, based on the coded vertex information, a point cloud frame associated with the content.”.
Further, Kim is in the same field of endeavor and teaches further comprising:
rendering, based on the coded vertex information, a point cloud frame associated with the content (Kim: Para. [0764] discloses after decompression, virtual reality or augmented reality content (which includes the point cloud) may be rendered in real time, for example in a head mounted display.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Lasserre and Kim before him or her, to modify the point cloud encoding system of Lasserre to include the rendering, based on the coded vertex information, a point cloud frame associated with the content feature as described in Kim. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve user experience, by providing a configuration that enables the required coded geometric compressed/decompressed content to be received by VR/AR consumer devices.
As per claim 22, the claim(s) recites analogous limitations to claim(s) 2 above, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
As per claim 24, the claim(s) recites analogous limitations to claim(s) 4 above, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
As per claim 26, the claim(s) recites analogous limitations to claim(s) 6 above, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
As per claim 30, the claim(s) recites analogous limitations to claim(s) 2 above, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
As per claim 32, the claim(s) recites analogous limitations to claim(s) 4 above, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 23, 31 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be viewed in the list of references.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PEET DHILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5647. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 5am-1:30pm.
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, Sath V. Perungavoor can be reached at 571-272-7455. 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.
/PEET DHILLON/Primary Examiner
Art Unit: 2488
Date: 06-06-2026
Prosecution Insights