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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, and 10-11 are amended.
Claims 2, 9, and 12-15 are canceled.
Claims 16-26 are new.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-11, and 16-26 are pending.
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 1, 3-8, 10-11, and 16-26 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.
Claim 1, 10, 16 and their respective dependent claims recite the limitation "the point cloud". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1, 10, 16 and their respective dependent claims repeatedly recite the limitations "a sensor index", “a second radius” “a third radius” making it unclear if these are referring to the same or different elements. For example, examiner notes that the claims recite “at least one second radius” and the recite “a second radius” making it unclear if this is the at least one or a new second radius, which is again repeated at every new instance of “a second radius” in their dependent claims. Similarly, many of their dependent claims reintroduce previously recited elements and it is not clear if these are new or the previously recited elements. For example, claim 11 which depends from claim 1 recites “decoding, from a bitstream” but its not clear if this is the bitstream from claim 1.
In claims 1, 3-8, 10-11, and 16-26, the term “sensor index” is unclear. The application does not describe what a sensor index is. While the term could refer to a sensor’s identification code or api, that context does not appear to make sense as the claims recite “at least one sensor” thus in the case of one sensor, one could not compare different sensor indexes as there is only a single sensor.
In claims 1 and similarly 10 recite the term “predictively encode”, however it is unclear what predictively encoding means. While the specification does describe predicting the radius, the application does not describe what the steps of predictively encoding are, nor is it a known term of art, nor is it clear how one would predictively encode or how that would differ from just regular encoding. For the purposes of examining, it’s considered to be encoding.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-11, and 16-26 are rejected based on their inherited deficiencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-11, and 16-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under step 1, claim 1 and 10-11, and 16 belongs to a statutory category.
Under Step 2A prong 1, the claims as a whole are identified as being directed to a judicial exception as claim 1 and similarly 10-11 and 16 recite(s) a method of encoding, into a bitstream, point cloud geometry data sensed by at least one sensor associated with a sensor index, the point cloud geometry data being represented by ordered coarse points occupying some discrete positions of a set of discrete positions of a two-dimensional space, each occupied coarse point is located within the two-dimensional space by a sensor index associated with a sensor that sensed a point of the point cloud associated with the occupied coarse point, and a sample index associated with a sensing time instant at which the point of the point cloud has been sensed, each occupied coarse point is associated with a radius based on a distance of the point of the point cloud from a referential, wherein the method comprises: selecting, for a first occupied coarse point (P1) having a first sensor index (A,) and being associated with a first radius (ri), a selected predicting radius (rpred) from at least one second radius (r2) associated with at least one second occupied coarse point (P2) having a second sensor index (A2) different from the first sensor index (A), and from at least one third radius (r3) associated with at least one third occupied coarse point (P3) having a sensor index (A3) equal to the first sensor index (A); encoding in the bitstream, a data (Ipred) indicating if the selected predicting radius (rpred) is equal to either a second radius (r2) or a third radius (r3); and predictively encoding, in the bitstream, a residual radius (rres) between the first radius (ri) and the selected predicting radius (rpred)” and in claims 11 and 16 “decoding” and “A method of decoding” which are directed to mathematical concepts and/or mental processes per applicant’s specification see for example see pages 14, 17, 24-26. Examiner also notes Per MPEP 2106.05(I) “RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract”)”.
Under Step 2A prong 2, evaluating whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because “a sensor”, and in claims 10 and 11 ‘an apparatus of encoding/decoding’ and in claim 16 “decoding, from a bitstream” are considered to be data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under Step 2B, evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept both individually and in combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “a sensor” and in claims 10 and 11 ‘an apparatus of encoding/decoding’ and in claim 16 “decoding, from a bitstream” are considered to be adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.05(g) (i or ii) and are well-understood, routine, conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d)(i and see prior art of record).
Claims 3-8 and 17-26 are similarly directed to abstract ideas as cited above.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10-11, and 16-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Technologies under Consideration in G-PCC hence forth NPL1, as indicated in the IDS on 3/19/2024.
In claim 1, NPL1 discloses a method of encoding, into a bitstream (Sec. 2.5 “encoded in the bitstream”), point cloud geometry data (Sec. 2.1 “predictive geometry coding of LiDAR acquired point clouds”) sensed by at least one sensor (Sec. 2.1 “sensors”) associated with a sensor index (Sec. 9.1 “sensor index”), the point cloud geometry data being represented by ordered coarse points occupying some discrete positions of a set of discrete positions of a two-dimensional space (Sec. 9.1 “a coarse 2D representation is populated by the acquired point”), each occupied coarse point is located within the two-dimensional space by a sensor index (Sec. 9.1 “sensor index”) associated with a sensor (Sec. 9.1 “sensor”) that sensed a point of the point cloud associated with the occupied coarse point (Sec. 9.1 “a coarse 2D representation is populated by the acquired point”), and a sample index associated (Sec. 2.4 “sample indexed”) with a sensing time instant at which the point of the point cloud has been sensed (Sec. 5.1, Fig. 27 “frame”), each occupied coarse point is associated with a radius based on a distance of the point of the point cloud from a referential (Sec. 5.2 “the radius, azimuth and laserID of the current point are predicted based on a point that is near the collocated azimuth position in the reference frame”), wherein the method comprises: selecting, for a first occupied coarse point (P1) having a first sensor index (A,) and being associated with a first radius (ri) (Sec. 2.5, See Eqn. 1), a selected predicting radius (rpred) (Sec. 2.5 “a selected predictor PRn among a list of possible predictors”) from at least one second radius (r2) associated with at least one second occupied coarse point (P2) having a second sensor index (A2) different from the first sensor index (A) (Sec. 2.5 “1) None” “rmin”), and from at least one third radius (r3) associated with at least one third occupied coarse point (P3) having a sensor index (A3) equal to the first sensor index (A) (Sec. 2.5 “2) delta” “r0”); encoding, in the bitstream, a data (Ipred) indicating if the selected predicting radius (rpred) is equal to either a second radius (r2) or a third radius (r3) (Sec. 2.5 “one predictor index 'n' is encoded in the bitstream”); and predictively encoding, in the bitstream, a residual radius (rres) between the first radius (ri) and the selected predicting radius (rpred) (Sec. 2.5 “The residual (rres, φres, θres) is also encoded in the bitstream”).
In claim 3, NPL1 further discloses wherein the data (Ipred) comprises a binary data indicating if the selected predicting radius (rpred) is either a second radius (r2) or a third radius (rs) (Sec. 5.1, Fig. 28 Inter Flag? Yes/no).
In claim 4, NPL1 discloses all of claim 3. NPL1 further discloses wherein the at least one second radius (r2) form a first list of radiuses (L1={r2}), the at least one third radius (rs) form a second list of radiuses (L2= {r3}) (Sec. 2.5 “a list of possible predictors”), and the binary data indicates if the selected predicting radius (rpred) belongs to either the first or the second list of radiuses (Sec. 5.1, Fig. 28 Inter Flag? Yes/no).
In claim 5, NPL1 discloses all of claim 4. NPL1 further discloses wherein the data (Ipred) further comprises a predictor index (Idx) indicating which radius among the first or the second list of radiuses the selected predicting radius (rpred) is equal to (Sec. 2.5 see 1-4).
In claim 6, NPL1 further discloses wherein the selected predicting radius is selected among a single second radius (r2) and a list (L = {r3}) of at least one third radius (rs) (Sec. 2.5 see 1-4), the data (Ipred) comprises a predictor index (Idx) such that if the predictor index (Idx) is not equal to a predetermined index value (Idxv) then the predictor index (Idx) indicates which radius (rs) among the list the selected predicting radius (rpred) is equal to (Sec. 2.5 see 1-4 examiner notes that if the radius is not rqual to 1 or 2 then it’s the lists in 3 and 4); otherwise the data (Ipred) further comprises a binary data (fHV) indicating if the selected predicting radius (rpred) is equal to either the second radius (r2) or a third radius (rs) indicated by the predetermined index value (Idxv) in the list of radiuses (Sec. 5.1, Fig. 28 Inter Flag? Yes/no).
In claim 7, NPL1 further discloses wherein the at least one second and at least one third radius (r2,rs) form a single list of radiuses (L ={r2,T3}) (), and the data (Ipred) comprises a predictor index indicating which radius among the list of radiuses the selected predicting radius (rpred) is equal to (Sec. 2.5 see 1-2).
In claim 8, NPL1 discloses all of claim 7. NPL1 further discloses NPL1 further discloses wherein the radiuses of the single list of radiuses are ordered from the statistically most selected one to the least selected one (Sec. 7.1 Fig. 31).
In claim 10 NPL1 discloses an apparatus of encoding (predictive geometry encoder), into a bitstream (Sec. 2.5 “encoded in the bitstream”), point cloud geometry data (Sec. 2.1 “predictive geometry coding of LiDAR acquired point clouds”) sensed by at least one sensor (Sec. 2.1 “sensors”) associated with a sensor index (Sec. 9.1 “sensor index”), the point cloud geometry data being represented by ordered coarse points occupying some discrete positions of a set of discrete positions of a two-dimensional space (Sec. 9.1 “a coarse 2D representation is populated by the acquired point”), each occupied coarse point is located within the two-dimensional space by a sensor index (Sec. 9.1 “sensor index”) associated with a sensor (Sec. 9.1 “sensor”) that sensed a point of the point cloud associated with the occupied coarse point (Sec. 9.1 “a coarse 2D representation is populated by the acquired point”), and a sample index (Sec. 2.4 “sample indexed”) associated with a sensing time instant at which the point of the point cloud has been sensed (Sec. 5.1, Fig. 27 “frame”), each occupied coarse point is associated with a radius based on a distance of the point of the point cloud from a referential (Sec. 5.2 “the radius, azimuth and laserID of the current point are predicted based on a point that is near the collocated azimuth position in the reference frame”), wherein the apparatus comprises at least one processor configured to: select, for a first occupied coarse point (P1) having a first sensor index (A1) and being associated with a first radius (ri) (Sec. 2.5, See Eqn. 1), a selected predicting radius (rpred) (Sec. 2.5 “a selected predictor PRn among a list of possible predictors”) from at least one second radius (r2) associated with at least one second occupied coarse point (P2) having a second sensor index (a2) different from the first sensor index (a) (Sec. 2.5 “1) None” “rmin”), and from at least one third radius (rs) associated with at least one third occupied coarse point (Ps) having a sensor index (a3) equal to the first sensor index (A1) (Sec. 2.5 “2) delta” “r0”); encode, in the bitstream, a data (Ipred) indicating if the selected predicting radius (rpred) is equal to either a second radius (r2) or a third radius (rs) (Sec. 2.5 “one predictor index 'n' is encoded in the bitstream”); and predictively encode, in the bitstream, a residual radius (rres) between the first radius (ri) and the selected predicting radius (rpred) (Sec. 2.5 “The residual (rres, φres, θres) is also encoded in the bitstream”).
In claim 11, NPL1 further discloses an apparatus of decoding, from a bitstream, point cloud geometry data sensed by at least one sensor associated with a sensor index (Sec. 9.2 “decoder reconstructs the coarse coordinates of occupied points” Sec. 2.5 “decoder side, the coordinates (rdec, nnnn, qdec) of points are retrieved by doing the reverse process”), the point cloud geometry data being represented by ordered coarse points occupying some discrete positions of a set of discrete positions of a two-dimensional space, each occupied coarse point is located within the two-dimensional space by a sensor index associated with a sensor that sensed a point of the point cloud associated with the occupied coarse point, and a sample index associated with a sensing time instant at which the point of the point cloud has been sensed, each occupied coarse point is associated with a radius based on a distance of the point of the point cloud from a referential, wherein the apparatus comprises at least one processor configured to perform the method of claim 1 (as cited in claim 1 above).
In claim 16 NPL1 discloses a method of decoding (Sec. 9.2 “decoder reconstructs the coarse coordinates of occupied points” Sec. 2.5 “decoder side, the coordinates (rdec, nnnn, qdec) of points are retrieved by doing the reverse process”), from a bitstream (Sec. 2.5 “bitstream”), point cloud geometry data (Sec. 2.1 “predictive geometry coding of LiDAR acquired point clouds”) sensed by at least one sensor (Sec. 2.1 “sensors”) associated with a sensor index (Sec. 9.1 “sensor index”), the point cloud geometry data being represented by ordered coarse points occupying some discrete positions of a set of discrete positions of a two-dimensional space (Sec. 9.1 “a coarse 2D representation is populated by the acquired point”), each occupied coarse point is located within the two-dimensional space by a sensor index (Sec. 9.1 “sensor index”) associated with a sensor (Sec. 9.1 “sensor”) that sensed a point of the point cloud associated with the occupied coarse point (Sec. 9.1 “a coarse 2D representation is populated by the acquired point”), and a sample index (Sec. 2.4 “sample indexed”) associated with a sensing time instant at which the point of the point cloud has been sensed (Sec. 5.1, Fig. 27 “frame”), each occupied coarse point is associated with a radius based on a distance of the point of the point cloud from a referential (Sec. 5.2 “the radius, azimuth and laserID of the current point are predicted based on a point that is near the collocated azimuth position in the reference frame”), wherein the method comprises: decoding, from the bitstream, for a first occupied coarse point (P1) having a first sensor index (A1) (Sec. 2.5, See Eqn. 1), a data (Ipred) indicating if a selected predicting radius (rpred) (Sec. 2.5 “a selected predictor PRn among a list of possible predictors”) is equal to either a second radius (r2) (Sec. 2.5 “1) None” “rmin”) or a third radius (rs) (Sec. 2.5 “2) delta” “r0”), the selected predicting radius (rpred) has been selected from at least one second radius (r2) associated with at least one second occupied coarse point (P2) having a second sensor index ( 2) different of the first sensor index (A.1) (Sec. 2.5 “1) None” “rmin”), and from at least one third radius (rs) associated with at least one third occupied coarse point (Ps) having a sensor index (43) equal to the first sensor index (A1) (Sec. 2.5 “2) delta” “r0”); decoding, from the bitstream, for the first occupied coarse point (P1), a residual radius (rres) (Sec. 2.5 “decoder side, the coordinates (rdec, φdec, θdec) of points are retrieved”); and obtaining a radius (ri), associated with a point of the point cloud for the first occupied coarse point (P1) (Sec. 9.3 “Reconstructed radius and azimuthal angle are obtained by both encoder and decoder, after having decoded”), based on the residual radius (rres) and the selected predicting radius (rpred) obtained from the data (Ipred) (Sec. 2.5 “The residual (rres, φres, θres)” also see Sec. 9.3).
In claim 17, NPL1 further discloses wherein the data (Ipred) comprises a binary data indicating if the selected predicting radius (rpred) is either a second radius (r2) or a third radius (rs) (Sec. 5.1, Fig. 28 Inter Flag? Yes/no).
In claim 18, NPL1 discloses all of claim 17. NPL1 further discloses wherein the at least one second radius (r2) form a first list of radiuses (L1={r2}), the at least one third radius (rs) form a second list of radiuses (L2= {r3}) (Sec. 2.5 “a list of possible predictors”), and the binary data indicates if the selected predicting radius (rpred) belongs to either the first or the second list of radiuses (Sec. 5.1, Fig. 28 Inter Flag? Yes/no).
In claim 19, NPL1 discloses all of claim 18. NPL1 further discloses wherein the data (Ipred) further comprises a predictor index (Idx) indicating which radius among the first or the second list of radiuses the selected predicting radius (rpred) is equal to (Sec. 2.5 see 1-4).
In claim 20, NPL1 further discloses wherein the selected predicting radius is selected among a single second radius (r2) and a list (L = {r3}) of at least one third radius (rs) (Sec. 2.5 see 1-4), the data (Ipred) comprises a predictor index (Idx) such that if the predictor index (Idx) is not equal to a predetermined index value (Idxv) then the predictor index (Idx) indicates which radius (rs) among the list the selected predicting radius (rpred) is equal to (Sec. 2.5 see 1-4 examiner notes that if the radius is not rqual to 1 or 2 then it’s the lists in 3 and 4); otherwise the data (Ipred) further comprises a binary data (fHV) indicating if the selected predicting radius (rpred) is equal to either the second radius (r2) or a third radius (rs) indicated by the predetermined index value (Idxv) in the list of radiuses (Sec. 5.1, Fig. 28 Inter Flag? Yes/no).
In claim 21, NPL1 further discloses wherein the at least one second and at least one third radius (r2,rs) form a single list of radiuses (L ={r2,T3}) (), and the data (Ipred) comprises a predictor index indicating which radius among the list of radiuses the selected predicting radius (rpred) is equal to (Sec. 2.5 see 1-2).
In claim 22, NPL1 discloses all of claim 21. NPL1 further discloses NPL1 further discloses wherein the radiuses of the single list of radiuses are ordered from the statistically most selected one to the least selected one (Sec. 7.1 Fig. 31).
In claim 23, NPL1 discloses all of claim 10. NPL1 further discloses wherein the data (Ipred) comprises a binary data indicating if the selected predicting radius (rpred) is either a second radius (r2) or a third radius (rs) (Sec. 5.1, Fig. 28 Inter Flag? Yes/no).
In claim 24, NPL1 discloses all of claim 23. NPL1 further discloses wherein the at least one second radius (r2) form a first list of radiuses (L1={r2}), the at least one third radius (rs) form a second list of radiuses (L2= {r3}) (Sec. 2.5 “a list of possible predictors”), and the binary data indicates if the selected predicting radius (rpred) belongs to either the first or the second list of radiuses (Sec. 5.1, Fig. 28 Inter Flag? Yes/no).
In claim 25, NPL1 discloses all of claim 24. NPL1 further discloses wherein the data (Ipred) further comprises a predictor index (Idx) indicating which radius among the first or the second list of radiuses the selected predicting radius (rpred) is equal to (Sec. 2.5 see 1-4).
In claim 26, NPL1 further discloses wherein the selected predicting radius is selected among a single second radius (r2) and a list (L = {r3}) of at least one third radius (rs) (Sec. 2.5 see 1-4), the data (Ipred) comprises a predictor index (Idx) such that if the predictor index (Idx) is not equal to a predetermined index value (Idxv) then the predictor index (Idx) indicates which radius (rs) among the list the selected predicting radius (rpred) is equal to (Sec. 2.5 see 1-4 examiner notes that if the radius is not rqual to 1 or 2 then it’s the lists in 3 and 4); otherwise the data (Ipred) further comprises a binary data (fHV) indicating if the selected predicting radius (rpred) is equal to either the second radius (r2) or a third radius (rs) indicated by the predetermined index value (Idxv) in the list of radiuses (Sec. 5.1, Fig. 28 Inter Flag? Yes/no).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 9420290 B2, US 20110175916 A1, US 20050201464 A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON J BECKER whose telephone number is (571)431-0689. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Shelby Turner can be reached at (571) 272-6334. 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.
/B.J.B/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights