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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 6, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Antecedent claim 3 recites that the angular coordinates of the coarse point are obtained by both an azimuthal and elevation angle shifting coefficient but claim 5, dependent thereon, zeroes out the azimuthal angle shifting coefficient. As such claim 5 is broader than and in conflict with the claim from which it depends thus creating an untenable clarity problem. Claim 18 suffers from the same problem as claim 3.
Claim 6 has a similar issue as claim 5 in that the sum of the azimuthal shifting coefficients is also set to zero but also zeroes out the sum of the elevation angle shifting coefficients thus placing claim 6 in even more conflict with the claim 3 from which it depends.
Claim 6 has the additional issue in that the sum of these coefficients lack antecedent basis as the antecedent claim only recites one such coefficient such that a there is no antecedent for plural coefficients for the claimed sum; nor does this claim provide a proper context for such sums.
Claim 19 suffers from the same issue as claim 6.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D1 {IS0/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 7, N00167, MPEG 3D Graphics Coding, Technologies under Consideration in G-PCC, July 2021}.
Claim 1
In regards to claim 1, D1 discloses a method of encoding points of a point cloud sensed by at least one sensor associated with a sensor index into a bitstream of encoded point cloud data {see abstract including G-PCC (Geometry based Point Cloud Compression using a low-latency low-complexity coded (LL-CC2) corresponding to the G-PCC disclosed and claimed by the instant invention. See also Figs. 32, 35 illustrating the encoding method that encodes a point cloud into a bitstream of encoded point cloud data. As to sensor index, see below}, wherein the method comprises:
encoding, into the bitstream, an information (I(SP)) representing a sensing path wherein the sensing path is defined in a two-dimensional angular coordinate space comprising an azimuthal coordinate representative of an azimuthal angle representing a sensing angle of a sensor relative to a referential and an elevation coordinate representative of an elevation angle of a sensor relative to a horizontal referential plane {see Abstract, Fig. 33 showing sensing path and Fig. 35 showing encoding. See also section 2 and Figs. 3, 5, 7 and associated text};
the sensing path is used to sense the points of the point cloud according to ordered coarse points representing potential locations of sensed points of the point cloud, each coarse point being defined in the two-dimensional angular coordinate space from one sample index associated with a sensing time instant and one sensor index associated with a sensor {Fig. 34 and pg. 37, lines 1-4 including sample index associated with sensing time instant and sensor index ג associated with a sensor. Further as to coarse points see pg. 36 and pg. 37 including equation in line 9};
the sample index is defined along the sensing path according to a sensing scheme {See pg. 36, lines 1-15 and Fig. 33 including the sensing scheme using phi ג};
for each point (P) of the point cloud},
obtaining one sensing point (Pover (s)) in the two-dimensional angular coordinate space from a sample index (s) associated with a sensing time instant of the point (P) of the point cloud along the sensing path, and the sensing scheme {Fig. 34 left hand side showing sensing points corresponding to Pover(s)};
obtaining one coarse point (Pa (s)) in the two-dimensional angular coordinate space by shifting the sensing point (Pover (s)) in the two-dimensional angular coordinate (Փ, ꝋ) space with shifting values that depend on the sensor index associated with the sensor that sensed the point (P) of the point cloud
{Fig. 34, left hand side showing the sensing points shifted to the coarse positions down on the right-hand side; pgs. 36-37. The shifting depends on the discrete laser probe position angles obtained from the sensor index lambda defined and coded in the bitstream using High Level Syntax data}; and
encoding, into the bitstream, the point (P) of the point cloud relatively to the coarse point (Pג(s)) {Fig. 35, middle block ingesting coarse points and outputting an encoded bit stream, pgs. 37-38}.
Claim 3
In regards to claim 3, D1 discloses wherein angular coordinates (Փ ג ꝋ ג) of the coarse point (P ג(s)) are obtained by shifting angular coordinates of the sensing point (Pover(s)) in the two-dimensional angular coordinate space by an azimuthal angle shifting coefficient (ϛՓ ג) and an elevation angle shifting coefficient (ϛ ꝋ ג), both depending on the sensor index ( ג) {This claim shifts both (phi and theta, azimuth and elevation) based on the laser index (lambda). See pg. 37, line 9 which discloses that the discrete elevation angle depends on lambda (sensor index). Therefore, for a sensed point the shifting to the discrete, coarse position in the theta (elevation) direction also depends on lambda. See also, pg. 36 disclosing that the it is assumed that the azimuthal shift delta Phi is constant “for the same laser” which indicates that the sensor index also influences the azimuthal shift and teaches that for different lasers in a laser array different azimuthal angles maybe be used based on respective sensor indices}.
Claims 5 and 6
In regards to claims 5 and 6, see the 112(b) rejection above in which claims 5 and 6 are apparently and indefinitely broader than claim 1 by claiming a subset of shifting. D1 discloses elevation shifting as discussed above in relation to claim 1.
Claim 9
In regards to claim 9, D1 discloses wherein the sensing path corresponds to a sensing trajectory of a particular sensor ( גref) of reference {see above cites for claim 1 regarding sensor index גand sensing path (trajectory) wherein each senor including Fig. 33 showing sensing path. See also pg. 37 discloses that each “unique” sensor generates a different sensing trajectory that leads to a corresponding geometrical representation of points}.
Claims 2, 10, and 11
The rejection of encoder method claim 1 above applies mutatis mutandis to the corresponding limitations of encoder apparatus claim 10 as well as corresponding decoder method claim 2 and decoder apparatus claim 11. Moreover, the high-level element (processor) of the claimed apparatus and functional disclosure and nature of the invention are disclosed by D1, Fig. 32 illustrating structure. Furthermore, encoding and decoding are conventionally understood as reverse processes of one another and have the same core elements as evidenced by the same claim body language being used by these claims. Further as to decoding, see Fig. 36 decoding method and corresponding disclosure.
Claims 16, 18, 19, and 22
The rejection of encoder method claims 3, 5, 6, and 9 above applies mutatis mutandis to the corresponding limitations of decoder method claims 16, 18, 19, and 22, respectively. Furthermore, encoding and decoding are conventionally understood as reverse processes of one another and have the same core elements as evidenced by the same claim body language being used by these claims. Further as to decoding, see Fig. 36 decoding method and corresponding disclosure.
Claim 13 and 15
In regards to claims 13 and 15, D1 is not relied upon to disclose but Gao teaches a non-transitory storage medium carrying instructions of program code for executing [a G-PCC compression method]. See [0210]-[0244].
Further as to decoding claim 15, encoding and decoding are conventionally understood as reverse processes of one another and have the same core elements as evidenced by the same claim body language being used by these claims. Further as to decoding, see Fig. 36 decoding method and corresponding disclosure.
It 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 to have modified D1’s encoding/decoding method such that it is implemented on a non-transitory storage medium as taught by Gao because such implementations are the highly conventional and routinely adopted in the compression field, because there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
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 4 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 and Gao (US 2020/0394822 A1).
Claim 4
In regards to claim 4, D1 is not relied upon to disclose but Gao teaches wherein the azimuthal angle shifting coefficient (ϛՓ ג), the elevation angle shifting coefficient (ϛ ꝋ ג), or the azimuthal angle shifting coefficient (ϛՓ ג) and the elevation angle shifting coefficient (ϛ ꝋ ג) are encoded or decoded relatively to at least one previously encoded azimuthal angle shifting coefficient (ϛՓ ג1 , ϛՓ ג11) and at least one previously encoded elevation angle shifting coefficient (ϛ ꝋ ג1, ϛ ꝋ ג11) corresponding to at least one other sensor index (ג1 ג 11) {see [0178]-[0179] teaching that delta coding (coding relative to values of another laser}.
It 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 to have modified D1 which already discloses the azimuthal and elevation angle shifting coefficients to delta code these coefficients as taught by Gao because doing so increases compression efficiency as motivated by Gao in [0179], because there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 17
The rejection of encoder method claim 4 above applies mutatis mutandis to the corresponding limitations of decoder method claim 17. Furthermore, encoding and decoding are conventionally understood as reverse processes of one another and have the same core elements as evidenced by the same claim body language being used by these claims. Further as to decoding, see Fig. 36 decoding method and corresponding disclosure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims, 7, 8, 20 and 21 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Although the “shifting” of the sensor point in the angular coordinate space based on sensor index is disclosed by D1, the further shifting of angular coordinates by an offset depending on the sensing delay and a two-dimensional angular velocity of the sensing is neither disclosed or fairly suggested by the prior art of record. Indeed, D1, section 2.2 and 2.4.2 only disclose angular speed (velocity) and no reference was found regarding the sensing delay or combination of sensing delay and angular velocity for the further shifting offset as more fully recited in claim 7 and 20 and their respective antecedent claims.
Claims 8 and 21 are potentially allowable due to their dependence upon claims 7 or 20.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
There are several US patent applications disclosing various angle shifting based on sensor index concepts related to the instant invention including Lasserre (US 2022/0358686 A1), Taquet (US 2022/0398784 A1), Lasserre (US 20220358686 A1) but each of these references is subject to at least a 102(b)(2)(A) because they are grace period disclosures with identical inventorship (LASSERRE; Sebastien and TAQUET; Jonathan) to the instant invention and may also be subject to a 102(b)(2)(C) exception since they are all apparently owned by the same entity Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software, Co., Ltd. Becasue the inventorship was identical in each case it was not necessary to confirm the relative dates of assignment to ensure that “not later than the effective filing data of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person” or to reach out to counsel to confirm obligation to assign. Moreover, each of these applications was checked for double patenting issues and no such issues were found as of the date of this office action but due to the pending status of these applications, this issue will be revisited.
US 20210407143 A1 discloses G-PCC encoder/decoder that employs azimuth angle shifting as per [0187]-[0197]. See also Fig. 8 copied below.
PNG
media_image1.png
444
572
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael R Cammarata whose telephone number is (571)272-0113. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-5pm EST.
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, Matthew Bella can be reached at 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.
/MICHAEL ROBERT CAMMARATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667