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 .
This office action is in response to communication fled on 6/17/2026. Claims 1-15 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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) 1, 2, 6- 8, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flynn (US20210217206) in view of Pham Van et al (US20230018907).
Regarding claim 1, Flynn teaches a method comprising:
encoding geometry data of point cloud data (para. [0033], an encoder compresses and encodes spatial information of a point cloud in addition to compressing attribute information for attributes of the points of the point cloud. For example, to compress spatial information a combination predictive tree and octree may be generated where) based on a predictive tree including a predictive tree node for a point (para. [0033], For some nodes instead of encoding additional lower level octree sub-cubes, a predictive tree may be encoded for the node. Alternatively a predictive tree may predict a set of occupied nodes of the predictive tree and points that occupy respective ones of the nodes may further be defined in 3D space by respective octrees corresponding to respective ones of the occupied nodes of the predictive tree. Also see para. [0041]-[0042]);
encoding attribute data of the point cloud data (para. [0009], an encoder that compresses attribute information and/or spatial information of the point cloud); and
wherein the encoded geometry data and the encoded attribute data are included in a bitstream (claim 1, encode the occupancy symbols and the predictive tree structures in an encoded bit stream; para. [0042]), and
wherein prediction data related to the predictive tree is derived (para. [0051]-[0054]; para. [0063], an octree encoding method and a predictive tree encoding method may be combined such that predictive coding is performed to generate one or more predictive trees within (or associated with) one or more octree leaf nodes).
Flynn fails to teach performing a global motion compensation for a reference frame for an inter prediction,
wherein prediction data related to the predictive tree is derived based on frames including the reference frame related to the global motion compensation, and
wherein the bitstream includes information for representing that the inter prediction is used for the point cloud data.
However Pham Van teaches performing a global motion compensation for a reference frame for an inter prediction (para. [0005], In particular, the G-PCC encoder may calculate a global motion vector for a previous (reference) frame relative to a current frame to be encoded, then generate a prediction frame by applying the global motion vector to the previous frame),
wherein prediction data related is derived based on frames including the reference frame related to the global motion compensation (para. [0076], In other examples, arithmetic encoding unit 214 may entropy encode the occupancy data with reference to a previous octree for a previous point cloud, e.g., buffered in memory 228 (which may be referred to as “inter-prediction” of the current point cloud, relative to a reference cloud). Arithmetic encoding unit 214 may perform inter-prediction using local or global motion vectors; para. [0090]), and
wherein the bitstream includes information for representing that the inter prediction is used for the point cloud data (para. [0007], inter prediction data is included in the bitstream for the current node).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Flynn and Pham Van 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 Pham Van into the method of Flynn. The motivation to combine Flynn and Pham Van would be to increase efficiency and reduce the bitrate for the coded point cloud bitstream (para. [0035] of Pham Van).
Regarding claim 2, the modified method of Flynn teaches a method wherein the encoding the geometry data of the point cloud data comprises:
performing inter-prediction between frames containing the point cloud data (para. [0005] of Pham Van).
Regarding claim 6, the modified method of Flynn teaches a method wherein the bitstream contains information about generating a predictive tree (160 in fig. 1B of Flynn; claim 1 of Flynn, encode the occupancy symbols and the predictive tree structures in an encoded bit stream for the 3D volumetric content).
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, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above. It would be necessary to have a decoder which performs the inverse steps of the encoder claimed in claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 8 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 9-11, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flynn (US20210217206) in view of Pham Van et al (US20230018907) in view of Ray et al (WO2022147015A1).
Regarding claim 3, the modified method of Flynn fails to teach a method wherein the encoding the geometry data of the point cloud data comprises:
generating the 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.
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]).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Flynn and Pham Van with 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 Flynn and Pham Van. The motivation to combine Ray, Flynn and Pham Van would be to enhance inter/intra prediction at the block level for point cloud compression (para. [0003] of Ray).
Regarding claim 5, the modified method of Flynn fails to teach a method wherein the encoding the geometry data of the point cloud data comprises:
generating a predictive tree for a current frame containing the point cloud data;
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, 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.
However Ray teaches 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]).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Flynn and Pham Van with 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 Flynn and Pham Van. The motivation to combine Ray, Flynn and Pham Van would be to enhance inter/intra prediction at the block level for point cloud compression (para. [0003] of Ray).
Regarding claim 9, the modified invention of Flynn fails to teach a method wherein the decoding geometry data of the point cloud data comprises:
reconstructing the 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 Flynn and Pham Van with 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 Flynn and Pham Van. The motivation to combine Ray, Flynn and Pham Van 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.
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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 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
Prosecution Insights