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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/5/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 9, “wherein the decoding of the point cloud data…” lacks proper antecedent basis. For the purposes of this examination, claim 9 will be interpreted to depend on claim 8, which recites the decoding.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1, 7, 8, and 13 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1, 10, 11, and 14, respectively, of copending Application No. 18/996,753 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 7, 8, and 13 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1, 9, 10, and 13, respectively, of copending Application No. 18/290676 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 8, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cao et al (US20220108487).
Regarding claim 1, Cao discloses a method of transmitting point cloud data, the method comprising:
encoding point cloud data (200 in fig. 1; para. [0007]); and
transmitting a bitstream containing the point cloud data (para. [0027], source device 102 generates coded data for transmission to destination device 116; para. [0229]).
Regarding claim 2, Cao discloses a method wherein the encoding of the point cloud data comprises:
performing inter-prediction between frames containing the point cloud data (para. [0006], apply, based on the second set of global motion parameters, motion compensation to a reference frame to generate a global motion compensated frame for the current frame), wherein the inter-prediction comprises:
predicting a global motion for the point cloud data based on a prediction unit (para. [0006], identify a first set of global motion parameters…determine, based on the first set of global motion parameters, a second set of global motion parameters to be used for global motion estimation for a current frame); and
partitioning the prediction unit and predicting a local motion for the point cloud data (para. [0109]-[0100], restrict a block size for local motion to be equal to a minimum prediction unit size).
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 8, Cao discloses a method of receiving point cloud data, the method comprising:
receiving a bitstream containing point cloud data (para. [0035], Input interface 122 of destination device 116 receives an encoded bitstream); and
decoding the point cloud data (para. [0021], G-PCC decoder).
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 8 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
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) 3, 5, 9-11, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao et al (US20220108487) in view of Ray et al (WO2022147015A1).
Regarding claim 3, Cao fails to teach a method wherein the encoding of the point cloud data comprises:
generating a predictive tree related to the point cloud data,
wherein the generating of the predictive tree comprises:
searching for a parent node for a point included in a current frame containing the point cloud data from a predictive tree for a reference frame for the current frame and registering the same in the predictive tree,
wherein the parent node for the point included in the current frame is generated based on a number and distance of child nodes from one or more nodes included in the predictive tree for the reference frame,
wherein, based on prediction being performed on the point included in the current frame based on the reference frame, inter reference information is generated.
However Ray teaches generating a predictive tree related to the point cloud data (para. [0088], [0116]),
wherein the generating of the predictive tree comprises:
searching for a parent node for a point included in a current frame containing the point cloud data from a predictive tree for a reference frame for the current frame and registering the same in the predictive tree (fig. 5; para. [0086]-[0087], [0150]),
wherein the parent node for the point included in the current frame is generated based on a number and distance of child nodes from one or more nodes included in the predictive tree for the reference frame (para. [0106]),
wherein, based on prediction being performed on the point included in the current frame based on the reference frame, inter reference information is generated (para. [0119], [0149]).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Cao and Ray as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Ray into the method of Cao. The motivation to combine Ray and Cao would be to enhance inter/intra prediction at the block level for point cloud compression (para. [0003] of Ray).
Regarding claim 5, Cao fails to teach a method wherein the encoding of the point cloud data comprises:
generating a predictive tree for a current frame containing the point cloud data (para. [0088], [0116]);
searching for a parent node for a point included in the current frame based on the predictive tree for the current frame and a predictive tree for a reference frame for the current frame (fig. 5; para. [0086]-[0087], [0150]), wherein the parent node is searched for based on a distance between a node included in the predictive tree for the current frame and a node included in the predictive tree for the reference frame (para. [0106], [0131]); and
based on that the node included in the predictive tree for the reference frame is designated as the parent node, generating a virtual link between the predictive tree for the current frame and the predictive tree for the reference frame and generating inter reference information generated (para. [0119], [0149]).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Cao and Ray as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Ray into the method of Cao. The motivation to combine Ray and Cao would be to enhance inter/intra prediction at the block level for point cloud compression (para. [0003] of Ray).
Regarding claim 9, Cao teaches a method wherein the decoding of the point cloud data comprises:
performing motion compensation on the point cloud data based on parameter information contained in the bitstream (para. [0082]).
Cao fails to teach reconstructing a predictive tree for the point cloud data. However Ray teaches reconstructing a predictive tree for the point cloud data (para. [0088], [0116]).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Cao and Ray as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Ray into the method of Cao. The motivation to combine Ray and Cao would be to enhance inter/intra prediction at the block level for point cloud compression (para. [0003] of Ray).
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 9 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 10 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Claim(s) 6 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao et al (US20220108487) in view of Flynn (US20210217206).
Regarding claim 6, Cao fails to teach a method wherein the bitstream contains information about generating a predictive tree.
However Flynn teaches a bitstream containing information about generating a predictive tree (160 in fig. 1B; claim 1, encode the occupancy symbols and the predictive tree structures in an encoded bit stream for the 3D volumetric content).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Cao and Flynn as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Flynn into the method of Cao. The motivation to combine Flynn and Cao would be to reduce costs and time associated with storing and transmitting large point cloud files (para. [0028] of Flynn).
Regarding claim 12, Cao fails to teach a method wherein the bitstream contains information about generating a predictive tree.
However Flynn teaches a bitstream containing information about generating a predictive tree (160 in fig. 1B; claim 1, encode the occupancy symbols and the predictive tree structures in an encoded bit stream for the 3D volumetric content).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Cao and Flynn as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Flynn into the method of Cao. The motivation to combine Flynn and Cao would be to reduce costs and time associated with storing and transmitting large point cloud files (para. [0028] of Flynn).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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.
Related Art
Lasserre et al (US20220376702) – see para. [0017], [0068]-[0071], [0078]-[0080]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEON VIET Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1185. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11AM-7PM.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at 571-272-3838. 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.
/LEON VIET Q NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663