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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 23, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van et al. (“[G-PCC] [EE13.2-related] [New Proposal] Improved global motion estimation for G-PCC”).
Regarding claim 1, Van discloses a three-dimensional data encoding method comprising: performing motion compensation by correcting position information of one or more first three-dimensional points to be matched to a coordinate system of a current three-dimensional point to be encoded, to generate a first reference point cloud; (Abstract and Section 3.2, paragraph 2, motion compensation of points including object points in a current block a minimum distance above a threshold from points in a reference block are added to an array of points) selecting, from one of the first reference point cloud or a second reference point cloud, a prediction point of the current three-dimensional point (Section 3.2, paragraphs 2-4, estimation of points in the array), the second reference point cloud including the one or more first three-dimensional points including the position information uncorrected; (Section 3.2, road points having zero motion) and encoding position information of the current three-dimensional point by reference to at least part of position information of the prediction point (Section 3.2, paragraph 2-4, encoder for estimating motion of the object points).
Regarding claim 2, Van discloses wherein in the correcting, the position information of the one or more first three-dimensional points is matched to a coordinate system of the current three-dimensional point, based on first information indicating a displacement between a coordinate system of the one or more first three-dimensional points and the coordinate system of the current three-dimensional point (Section 3.2, paragraph 2, distance between points of the current block and points of the reference block).
Regarding claim 4, Van discloses wherein the first information includes at least one of second information about a movement parallel to a horizontal plane or third information about a rotation around a vertical axis (Section 2, paragraph 1, movement of point data based on movement of a vehicle on a horizontal plane of a road).
Regarding claim 6, Van discloses determining whether to perform the correcting; (Section 3.2, paragraph 3, road points are removed from motion estimation) and generating a bitstream including the position information of the current three-dimensional point encoded and fourth information indicating whether to perform the correcting (Section 3.2, paragraph 4, prediction process where road points are predicted suing zero motion while object points are predicted using estimated global motion).
Regarding claim 7, Van discloses wherein when the correcting is not performed, the prediction point is selected from the second reference point cloud (Section 3.2, paragraph 4, the road points are predicted with zero motion).
Regarding claim 9, Van discloses wherein one or more fourth three-dimensional points that are part of the one or more first three-dimensional points are corrected to generate the first reference point cloud (Section 3.2, paragraph 2, estimation of the motion of the object points).
Regarding claim 12, Van discloses a three-dimensional data decoding method comprising: performing motion compensation by correcting position information of one or more first three-dimensional points to be matched to a coordinate system of a current three-dimensional point to be decoded, to generate a first reference point cloud; (Abstract and Section 3.2, paragraph 2, motion compensation of points including object points in a current block a minimum distance above a threshold from points in a reference block are added to an array of points) selecting, from one of the first reference point cloud or a second reference point cloud, a prediction point of the current three-dimensional point (Section 3.2, paragraphs 2-4, estimation of points in the array), the second reference point cloud including the one or more first three-dimensional points including the position information uncorrected; (Section 3.2, road points having zero motion) and decoding position information of the current three-dimensional point by reference to at least part of position information of the prediction point (Section 3.2, paragraph 2-4, encoder for estimating motion of the object points that can be subsequently decoded, Section 4, paragraphs 3-7).
Regarding claim 13, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 2 is applied.
Regarding claim 15, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 4 is applied.
Regarding claim 17, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 6 is applied.
Regarding claim 18, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 7 is applied.
Regarding claim 20, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 9 is applied.
Regarding claim 23, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 1 is applied. Van further discloses a processor; and memory (Section 3.3, a computing device necessary for executing a program for motion estimation which would have a processor and memory to carry out the program’s instructions).
Regarding claim 24, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 12 is applied. Van further discloses a processor; and memory (Section 3.3, a computing device necessary for executing a program for motion estimation which would have a processor and memory to carry out the program’s instructions).
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van et al. (“[G-PCC] [EE13.2-related] [New Proposal] Improved global motion estimation for G-PCC”) in view of Gao et al. (US 2020/0394822 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Van discloses all limitations as discussed in claim 1. Van does not clearly disclose wherein the position information of the one or more three-dimensional points includes a distance component, a horizontal angle component, and an elevation angle component, and in the correcting, at least one of the distance component or the horizontal angle component is corrected. Gao discloses motion compensation for points that have rotation angles, elevation angles, and distances that can be adjusted where rotation angles would be recognized as perpendicular to elevation angles so as to not be vertical in elevation and thus horizontal (Paragraph 0013). Gao’s technique of motion compensation for points that have rotation angles, elevation angles, and distances that can be adjusted would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the motion compensation of points having distances between a current and reference block of Van and the results would have been predictable in the motion compensation of points with distances between a current and reference block that can be adjusted. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 16, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 5 is applied.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 8, 10, 11, 14, 19, 21, and 22 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 and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art does not clearly disclose the three-dimensional data encoding method according to claim 2, wherein in the correcting, the one or more first three-dimensional points are projected onto a coordinate origin of the current three-dimensional point in accordance with the displacement, to derive position information of one or more second three-dimensional points included in the first reference point cloud.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art does not clearly disclose the three-dimensional data encoding method according to claim 6, wherein the one or more first three-dimensional points are included in a first processing unit, and when the correcting is not performed, the prediction point is selected from one of the second reference point cloud or a third reference point cloud, the third reference point cloud being one or more third three-dimensional points that are included in a second processing unit different from the first processing unit and include position information uncorrected.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art does not clearly disclose the three-dimensional data encoding method according to claim 9, wherein the position information of the one or more three-dimensional points includes a distance component, a horizontal angle component, and an elevation angle component, and the one or more fourth three-dimensional points are one or more first three-dimensional points each having an elevation angle component greater than a predetermined value among the one or more first three-dimensional points.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art does not clearly disclose the three-dimensional data encoding method according to claim 9, the one or more fourth three-dimensional points are one or more first three-dimensional points each having a vertical position higher than a predetermined position among the one or more first three-dimensional points.
Regarding claim 14, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 3 is applied.
Regarding claim 19, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 8 is applied.
Regarding claim 21, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 10 is applied.
Regarding claim 22, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 11 is applied.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cho et al. (US 2020/0003886 A1) discloses classifying distance, steering angle, and elevation angle of a target point during motion estimation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHI HOANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3417. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, JASON CHAN can be reached at (571)272-3022. 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.
/PHI HOANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619
Prosecution Insights