DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Amendments and Remarks received 08/27/2025 in which no claims are cancelled, claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 13, and 14 are amended, and no claims are added as new claims.
Response to Arguments
On page 6 of the Remarks, Applicant requests two prior art listings from the Conclusion Section of the preceding Office Action be cited on Form PTO-892. The Form PTO-892, provided herewith, lists the publications as requested.
On page 6 of the Remarks, Applicant notes that an IDS was provided in order to respond to Examiner’s comments in the “IDS” section of the preceding Office Action. Examiner thanks Applicant, but notes none of the references are other than Applicant’s own work. Is Examiner to take such a submission as an assertion that Applicant’s are unaware of any relevant prior art other than Applicant’s? Examiner finds Applicant’s response is unresponsive. Thus, there is a requirement for information under 37 C.F.R. 1.105. See, infra.
On page 7 of the Remarks, Applicant contends the amendment to change the term, “merge,” to “concatenate,” is supported by the published application at Fig. 13 and paragraphs [0159] and [0160]. Examiner disagrees. A review of those portions of the published application demonstrate that the term, “concatenate,” does not appear, but rather the term, “merge,” is used. Therefore, the original claim term appears to be better supported than the amended term. In any event, the issue raised in the rejection was that the Specification failed to explain what the attributes were or how they could be merged. The paragraphs cited by Applicant to the Office appear to say little about what the rejection found lacking from Applicant’s disclosure.
On pages 7–8 of the Remarks, Applicant contends the amendment to change to predetermined bit length is availing for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Examiner agrees and withdraws the rejection under that rationale. See rejection, infra.
On page 8 of the Remarks, Applicant contends paragraphs [0260]–[0267] of Applicant’s published Specification provides helpful guidance to the skilled artisan and is responsive to various concerns raised in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), especially as it pertains to sub-blocks and attribute information spanning across several sub-blocks. Examiner partially agrees and additionally finds those portions of Applicant’s Specification particularly helpful in identifying potentially allowable subject matter. Specifically, the concept of time stamp data exceeding a compliant bitdepth and the solution being to separate and later concatenate that attribute data to achieve bitdepth compliance intrigues Examiner in terms of allowable subject matter. However, the rejection is not a written description rejection, but rather an enablement rejection. Given the scope of the claims, Applicant’s Specification is deficient in enabling the skilled artisan to practice the full breadth of the claims for the reasons stated in the rejection. Therefore, a more narrowly tailored claim seems be warranted given issues of scope under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). For example, instead of drafting claims to cover all attributes, perhaps the Specification merely covers time stamp data and Applicant can point to applicable sections of the Specification describing how to transform and merge timestamp data across bitdepth-constrained attribute data of sub-blocks. Sitrick v. Dreamworks, LLC, 516 F.3d 993, 999, 85 USPQ2d 1826, ____ (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“The scope of the claims must be less than or equal to the scope of the enablement to ensure that the public knowledge is enriched by the patent specification to a degree at least commensurate with the scope of the claims.”) (quotation omitted). MPEP 2161.01(III). “[T]he description of one method for creating a seamless DWT does not entitle the inventor . . . to claim any and all means for achieving that objective.” LizardTech, 424 F.3d at 1346, 76 USPQ2d at 1733. See MPEP 2161.01. See rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), infra.
On page 8 of the Remarks, Applicant contends that documents submitted on an IDS provide an enabling disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for features related to sub-blocks being components and dimensions and for features related to coefficients and transforms as claimed. Applicant goes on to explain that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand sub-blocks are units of data and units of data are components or dimensions. Attorney arguments and conclusory statements unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997). On this record, Examiner is unpersuaded that Applicant’s response is sufficient to overcome the rejection. As best Examiner can tell, the invention amounts to nothing more than generically claiming that any attribute whose data is longer than a compliant bitdepth should be divided and distributed into smaller chunks of data that are compliant and then reassembled at the decoder. So, are Applicant’s sub-blocks are not sub-voxels of point cloud data, but more abstractly data blocks? Applicant’s paragraph [0118] seems to explain that “dimensions” is being used to describe the different color components in a color space. That is, the RGB color space has a green dimension and a blue dimension and a red dimension. If that is the intent of Applicant, Applicant seems to have decided to use purposefully obfuscating terminology to describe the invention. Indeed, Examiner finds the skilled artisan would be misled by the term, dimension, to describe a color channel or color component. More clarity seems warranted.
In view of the amendments to claims 4 and 13, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been amended to withdraw certain rationales for finding the claims deficient. However, other reasons for the rejections persist. See rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), infra.
On page 9 of the Remarks, Applicant claims an IDS citing documents makes portions of the claimed invention reasonably certain under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). On this record, Examiner is unpersuaded of error. Perhaps Applicant’s forthcoming response to Examiner’s Request for Information under 37 C.F.R. 1.105 will satisfy the concerns raised under the rejection. However, on the current record, the rejection is sustained.
On page 9 of the Remarks, Applicant contends a feature recited in claim 9 “clearly refers to…” Examiner does not find the claim language to require such an interpretation and even with reading Applicant’s argument into the claim, the claim still lacks clarity such that one skilled in the art could not be reasonably certain of the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter.
On pages 10–11 of the Remarks, Applicant contends the teachings of Kuma and Ramasubramonian do not teach or suggest the recited features of the claim, but fails to explain why. A “mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements [are] not found in the prior art” is not persuasive of error. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Other claims are not argued separately. Remarks, 11.
IDS
Examiner’s review of the file yielded no instances of Applicant providing any documents that would be considered “a point cloud compression standard.” Examiner finds that at least listed inventor, Toshiyasu Sugio, is listed as an author on a point cloud compression standard that has not been supplied to the Office in an IDS. This is in violation of 37 CFR 1.56. Examiner reminds Applicant of the duty to disclose information material to patentability and finds point cloud compression standards, especially when referenced in Applicant’s claims, to be of the most material to patentability. Examiner requests Applicant furnish any and all publications relating to any work performed in furtherance of establishing the point cloud compression standard known to Toshiyasu Sugio, or any other named inventor, or Applicant.
37 C.F.R. 1.105 – Request for Information
Applicant and the assignee of this application are required under 37 CFR 1.105 to provide the following information that the examiner has determined is reasonably necessary to the examination of this application. As explained in the preceding Office Action, Applicant’s claims reference “a point cloud compression standard,” yet Applicant has not provided an example of a point cloud standard nor informed the Office how to obtain one. Under the authority of 37 C.F.R. 1.105, Examiner hereby requests at least the following pieces of information. First, is there a submission process and/or a submissions body for the point cloud compression standard. If so, what is the name of the group? Second, please furnish copies of the documents listed as references at the end of the NPL, “m55353,” dated Oct. 2020. That is, please provide the documents having dates of July 2020. Please also furnish all versions of those documents up to January 2022. Please provide a URL or file server for which similar such “Input Documents” are memorialized. Please provide any relevant input documents into this standards committee touching on G-PCC, including but not limited to bit depth or bit length and attribute concatenation as well as sub-blocks. Is Applicant aware of any synonyms used by those submitting input documents or other proposals to the point cloud compression committee for terms used in Applicant’s claims? What process was used by Applicant to submit the “input document” provided in the most recent IDS? Was it uploaded to a website or file server? Does Applicant have an account to access the file server? Is the file server available to the public? Does Applicant consider the correspondence represented by various input documents, the discussion of such documents, and any meetings taking place to consider such input documents or other proposals private and not “publicly available”? If Applicant cannot fully respond to any of the above interrogatories, please fully explain why. This requirement is reasonably necessary for finding prior art, especially in light of the circumstances of this case. As already explained, supra, and also infra, Applicant seems to have knowledge of a standards body accepting proposals for the development of “a point cloud compression standard,” yet Examiner has been unable to locate any websites or file servers available for inspection of the developing standards, the meetings effectuating the development of the standard, nor any documents regarding proposals, which are standard for others standards development committees. And, Applicant has provided none. Therefore, Examiner finds it reasonable to request such information from Applicant in order to aid the Office in finding the prior art it seeks. See MPEP 704.10 et seq.
The above requirements will likely require (1) citations and copies of individual art references; (2) the identification where a whole collection of prior art can be found; and (3) answers to the questions posed, supra. MPEP 704.14(a).
Examiner emphasizes that a complete reply is required and that an incomplete reply could result in abandonment. MPEP 704.12.
The timing fee and certification requirements of 37 CFR 1.97 are waived for those documents submitted in reply to the requirement. This waiver extends only to those documents within the scope of this requirement under 37 CFR 1.105 that are included in the applicant' s first complete communication responding to this requirement. Any supplemental replies subsequent to the first communication responding to this requirement and any information disclosures beyond the scope of this requirement under 37 CFR 1.105 are subject to the fee and certification requirements of 37 CFR 1.97 where appropriate.
The applicant is reminded that the reply to this requirement must be made with candor and good faith under 37 CFR 1.56. Where the applicant does not have or cannot readily obtain an item of required information, a statement that the item is unknown or cannot be readily obtained may be accepted as a complete reply to the requirement for that item.
This requirement is an attachment of the enclosed Office action. A complete reply to the enclosed Office action must include a complete reply to this requirement. The time period for reply to this requirement coincides with the time period for reply to the enclosed Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Specifically, the claims recite attributes that can be merged, but neither the claims nor the Specification explains what the attributes are or how the attributes might be merged. The claims recite sub-blocks, but it is unclear how the sub-blocks are constructed or determined or what they represent and the Specification does not appear to provide any helpful guidance. The claims recite attribute information provided over a plurality of sub-blocks, but does not explain what that means, what kind of attribute data would qualify, or how that data is manipulated to achieve “over” a plurality of sub-blocks and no direction or guidance appears to be given in the Specification. The claims recite sub-blocks are components and dimensions, but the Specification fails to explain how this is possible, what the data represents, how to create the data to achieve the stated status, etc. The claims recite a single coefficient can represent a sub-block and a second sub-block wherein they are different, but the Specification does not say what kind of transform out of the millions of possibilities the claim is referring and thus one cannot, without undue experimentation figure out how to transform sub-blocks to achieve different single coefficients. Whether undue experimentation is needed is not a single, simple factual determination, but rather is a conclusion reached by weighing many factual considerations. In re Wands, 858 F.2d at 737. The Wands factors include: (1) the quantity of experimentation necessary, (2) the amount of direction or guidance presented, (3) the presence or absence of working examples, (4) the nature of the invention, (5) the state of the prior art, (6) the relative skill of those in the art, (7) the
predictability or unpredictability of the art, and (8) the breadth of the claims. In reviewing for lack of enablement, the Wands court elected to consider "all of the factors." Id. at 740. However, it is not necessary to review all the Wands factors to find a disclosure enabling. Rather, the Wands factors "are illustrative, not mandatory" and what is relevant to an enablement determination depends upon the facts of the particular case. See Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm. Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 1213 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Calgene, Inc., 188 F.3d 1362, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 1999) and Warner-Lambert Company v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 418 F.3d 1326, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In addition to the substantial lack of guidance provided by Applicant, Examiner also finds the scope of the claimed features much broader than that which is enabled. For example, the claims are drawn to attributes in general and transforms in general whereas Applicant’s Specification cannot possibly be enabled for every possible point cloud attribute or every possible transform. Sitrick v. Dreamworks, LLC, 516 F.3d 993, 999, 85 USPQ2d 1826, ____ (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“The scope of the claims must be less than or equal to the scope of the enablement to ensure that the public knowledge is enriched by the patent specification to a degree at least commensurate with the scope of the claims.”) (quotation omitted). MPEP 2161.01(III). “[T]he description of one method for creating a seamless DWT does not entitle the inventor . . . to claim any and all means for achieving that objective.” LizardTech, 424 F.3d at 1346, 76 USPQ2d at 1733. See MPEP 2161.01.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Specifically, the claims purport to require compliance with a point cloud compression standard. Applicant has provided no information to the Office regarding the referenced point cloud compression standard, especially as it relates to the predetermined lengths (e.g. original claims 1 and 2) or components and dimensions (e.g. original claim 5). Examiner’s review of the file yielded no instances of Applicant providing any documents that would be considered “a point cloud compression standard.” Examiner finds that at least listed inventor, Toshiyasu Sugio, is listed as an author on a point cloud compression standard that has not been supplied to the Office in an IDS.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Specifically, representative claim 4 recites the plurality of sub-blocks have a same length, but same length as what? Because it is unclear to the skilled artisan, one cannot be reasonably certain of the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter in violation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Specifically, representative claim 5 recites that a plurality of sub-blocks are components or dimensions of attribute information. To the skilled artisan, this does not make sense such that one cannot be reasonably certain of the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter. How can a plurality of sub-blocks be components or dimensions of attribute information? This is especially confusing when reading representative claim 5 in view of representative claim 6, wherein claim 6 states there is a correspondence relationship between the plurality of sub-blocks and the components or dimensions. A plurality of sub-blocks cannot both have a correspondence with something and be that something. Furthermore, as demonstrated by at least claims 5 and 6, but more broadly applicable to the entire claim set and Specification, this application for patent is unreasonably obfuscating and fails to amount to a reasonable description of a technological advancement over the prior art. Thus, the skilled artisan cannot be reasonably certain of what Applicant purports to have invented.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Specifically, representative claim 9 recites information is included before being partitioned, but it is unclear what is being partitioned. It is also unclear whether it is the including that is before partitioning or the transforming that is before the partitioning. Because the skilled artisan cannot be reasonably certain, the claims are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 of this title, 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 1–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuma (US 2022/0245863 A1) and Ramasubramonian (US 2021/0209811 A1).
Examiner finds geometric point cloud compression (G-PCC) utilizes octree partitioning wherein a root node includes a cube of all the points in the point cloud and the root node is continuously divided into eight sub-cubes until there is only one point (i.e. voxel) in any one sub-cube. The voxel is essentially a three-dimensional pixel and is also termed in the art a sub-block.
Regarding claim 1, the combination of Kuma and Ramasubramonian teaches or suggests a three-dimensional data decoding method comprising: obtaining control information indicating that first attribute information of a three-dimensional point and second attribute information of the three-dimensional point are to be concatenated (Kuma, ¶ 0143: teaches the merging of attribute information for geometric point cloud compression (G-PCC); Kuma, ¶ 0147: teaches the corresponding control information for signaling whether hierarchical attribute merging is enabled); and decoding the first attribute information and the second attribute information according to the control information (Kuma, ¶ 0147: teaches the control information is transmitted to a decoding side), wherein the first attribute information and the second attribute information each have a predetermined bit length compliant with a point cloud compression standard (Ramasubramonian, ¶ 0079: teaches attribute quantization in G-PCC supports various bitdepths wherein quantization allows attribute information to fit within a given bitdepth to achieve a certain precision).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Kuma, with those of Ramasubramonian, because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice geometric point cloud compression would be led to their relevant teachings and because Ramasubramonian is merely explaining that bitdepth is constrained in any practical coding system such that attribute information would likewise be constrained to fall within a certain bit length using Ramasubramonian’s teachings of quantizing the attribute values to match a bitdepth. This rationale applies to all combinations of Kuma and Ramasubramonian used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kuma and Ramasubramonian teaches or suggests a three-dimensional data decoding method comprising: obtaining control information indicating that attribute information of a three-dimensional point stored in a block is stored in a plurality of sub-blocks in the block (Examiner notes Applicant’s sub-blocks are synonymous with the prior art’s octree voxels and hierarchization; Kuma, e.g. ¶ 0070: teaches attribute data can be hierarchized like octree geometry data; Kuma, ¶ 0143: teaches the merging of attribute information, i.e. over a plurality of sub-blocks, for geometric point cloud compression (G-PCC); Kuma, ¶ 0147: teaches the corresponding control information for signaling whether hierarchical attribute merging over a plurality of sub-blocks is enabled), each of the plurality of sub-blocks having a predetermined bit length compliant with the point cloud compression standard (Ramasubramonian, ¶ 0079: teaches attribute quantization in G-PCC supports various bitdepths wherein quantization allows attribute information to fit within a given bitdepth to achieve a certain precision); and decoding the attribute information according to the control information (Kuma, ¶ 0147: teaches the control information is transmitted to a decoding side).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kuma and Ramasubramonian teaches or suggests the three-dimensional data decoding method according to claim 2, wherein the attribute information that is provided over the plurality of sub-blocks indicates one item of information (Examiner notes that while there may be many attributes, a single attribute typically conveys just one item of information; Ramasubramonian, ¶ 0018: teaches an attribute represents a single characteristic of a point).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kuma and Ramasubramonian teaches or suggests the three-dimensional data decoding method according to claim 2, wherein the plurality of sub-blocks have a same bit length (Examiner notes Applicant’s sub-blocks are synonymous with the prior art’s octree voxels and hierarchization; Ramasubramonian, ¶¶ 0019 and 0079: teaches attribute quantization in G-PCC supports various bitdepths wherein quantization allows attribute information to fit within a given bitdepth to achieve a certain precision; In view of the teachings of Ramasubramonian and the level of skill in the art, Examiner finds it would have been obvious to have sub-blocks of a block all have the same bit depth rather than randomly differing bit depths for sub-units of a unit within a standardization; Such constraints are obvious and have been employed throughout standardization schemes in this art).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kuma and Ramasubramonian teaches or suggests the three-dimensional data decoding method according to claim 2, wherein the plurality of sub-blocks are components of the attribute information or dimensions of the attribute information, the components and the dimensions being compliant with the point cloud compression standard (Ramasubramonian, ¶¶ 0195 and 0205: teaches attributes may have one or more components or dimensions; Examiner notes Applicant’s sub-blocks are synonymous with the prior art’s octree voxels and hierarchization; Kuma, e.g. ¶ 0070: teaches attribute data can be hierarchized like octree geometry data; Kuma, ¶ 0143: teaches the merging of attribute information, i.e. over a plurality of sub-blocks, for geometric point cloud compression (G-PCC); Kuma, ¶ 0147: teaches the corresponding control information for signaling whether hierarchical attribute merging over a plurality of sub-blocks is enabled).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kuma and Ramasubramonian teaches or suggests the three-dimensional data decoding method according to claim 5, wherein the control information includes information indicating a correspondence relationship between the plurality of sub-blocks and the components or the dimensions (Ramasubramonian, ¶¶ 0195 and 0205: teaches attributes may have one or more components or dimensions; Examiner notes Applicant’s sub-blocks are synonymous with the prior art’s octree voxels and hierarchization; Kuma, e.g. ¶ 0070: teaches attribute data can be hierarchized like octree geometry data; Kuma, ¶ 0143: teaches the merging of attribute information, i.e. over a plurality of sub-blocks, for geometric point cloud compression (G-PCC); Kuma, ¶ 0147: teaches the corresponding control information for signaling whether hierarchical attribute merging over a plurality of sub-blocks is enabled).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kuma and Ramasubramonian teaches or suggests the three-dimensional data decoding method according to claim 2, wherein the control information includes transform information on transforming of the attribute information that is provided over the plurality of sub-blocks (Kuma, ¶ 0196: teaches control information includes transform information such as coefficients and quantization parameters; Ramasubramonian, ¶ 0019: teaches transforms applied to attributes wherein the transforms are controlled by signaling coefficients representing the attributes; Ramasubramonian, ¶ 0053: teaches several transforms for coding attributes including RAHT, Predicting Transform, and Lifting Transform and suggests the option of which to choose can be signaled as control information; see also Ramasubramonian, ¶¶ 0065–0066: describing LOD, RAHT, predicting transform, and frequency node coding along three dimensions yielding low and high frequency coefficients).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kuma and Ramasubramonian teaches or suggests the three-dimensional data decoding method according to claim 7, wherein the transform information includes a first coefficient to be applied to a first sub-block among the plurality of sub-blocks and a second coefficient to be applied to a second sub-block among the plurality of sub-blocks, and the first coefficient and the second coefficient are different from each other (Kuma, ¶ 0195: teaches a weight value for attributes; Ramasubramonian, ¶ 0065: teaches the weight coefficients for each node (i.e. sub-block) can be different).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Kuma and Ramasubramonian teaches or suggests the three-dimensional data decoding method according to claim 7, wherein the control information includes additional transform information on transforming of the attribute information before being partitioned ().
Claim 10 lists the same elements as claim 1, but is drawn to the corresponding encoding method rather than the decoding method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 11 lists the same elements as claim 2, but is drawn to the corresponding encoding method rather than the decoding method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 2 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 12 lists the same elements as claim 3, but is drawn to the corresponding encoding method rather than the decoding method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 3 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 13 lists the same elements as claim 4, but is drawn to the corresponding encoding method rather than the decoding method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 4 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 14 lists the same elements as claim 5, but is drawn to the corresponding encoding method rather than the decoding method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 5 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 15 lists the same elements as claim 6, but is drawn to the corresponding encoding method rather than the decoding method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 6 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 16 lists the same elements as claim 7, but is drawn to the corresponding encoding method rather than the decoding method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 7 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 17 lists the same elements as claim 8, but is drawn to the corresponding encoding method rather than the decoding method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 8 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 18 lists the same elements as claim 9, but is drawn to the corresponding encoding method rather than the decoding method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 9 applies to the instant claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schwarz (US 2023/0119830 A1) teaches that for G-PCC, there are three attribute coding methods, including Region Adaptive Hierarchical Transform (RAHT), Predicting Transform, and Lifting Transform wherein any method of coding attribute data can be chosen (e.g. ¶ 0080) and teaches attribute merging (e.g. ¶ 0077).
Li (S 2023/0196625 A1) teaches (1) attributes are merged in RAHT, which generates high- and low-frequency coefficients; and (2) a lifting transform based on Level of Detail (LOD) layers and prediction (e.g. ¶ 0003).
Kuma (US 2022/0245863 A1) teaches control information for enabling hierarchical coding of attribute information (e.g. ¶¶ 0104–0105 and ¶ 0148), teaches merging attribute information in a hierarchical structure (e.g. ¶ 0143 and Figs. 8–10), and teaches blocks and sub-block (e.g. Fig. 7).
Tourapis (US 2021/0099701 A1) teaches blocks and sub-blocks wherein full sub-blocks and non-full sub-blocks are coded differently and wherein if all the sub-blocks are full, the block may be indicated as full (e.g. ¶ 0553).
Chou (US 2017/0347122 A1) teaches a point or voxel can be visualized and termed a sub-block (¶ 0102).
Zhang (US 2024/0404118 A1) teaches that point cloud compression using stores position information as floating point 32 or 64 bits and attribute data can be 24 bits for RGB data (¶ 0011), and further teaches that G-PCC continuously splits a point cloud using an octree structure into sub-cubes until there is only one point in a cube (¶ 0014).
Oh (US 2023/0386088 A1) teaches bit-depth control according to LOD layering (¶ 0268), teaches transmitting a geometry bitstream and an attribute bitstream separately (¶ 0273), and teaches attribute dimension and attribute bitdepth information (¶¶ 0463–0464).
Ramasubramonian (US 2021/0329298 A1) teaches attribute bitdepth for first and second (remaining) components/dimensions being set according to an SPS level setting (e.g. ¶¶ 0170–0173).
Ray (US 2021/0211734 A1) teaches attribute bitdepth and dimensions set using syntax elements (e.g. ¶¶ 0080–0086).
Li (US 2023/0196625 A1) teaches LOD and RAHT and merging (e.g. ¶ 0003).
Ramasubramonian (US 2021/0407144 A1) teaches time attribute coding (e.g. ¶ 0085).
Ramasubramonian (US 2021/0329298 A1) teaches multiple bitdepths for primary and secondary attribute components (e.g. ¶ 0004).
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 extension fee 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 Michael J Hess whose telephone number is (571)270-7933. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00am-5:30pm.
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 571-273-8933.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL J HESS/Examiner, Art Unit 2481