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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
Examiner maintains the title objection because it does not properly meet USPTO standards of properly informing one of ordinary skill in the art the objective of the patent application.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 10, 11, 13, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al (US 2022/0180567, hereafter Gao) in view of Ray et al (US 2022/0210480, hereafter Ray).
As per claim 1, Gao discloses a method of transmitting encoding point cloud data, the method comprising:
encoding geometry data of a first point cloud frame for point cloud data based on a predictive tree (¶ 95 and 99);
generating a reference frame for attribute coding of a second point cloud frame for the point cloud data based on reconstructed positions of points obtained from the predictive tree (¶ 87);
encoding the attribute data of the second point cloud frame based on a predictor obtained from the reference frame (¶ 85 and 87).
However, Gao does not explicitly teach generating information for specifying that attribute data is coded based on inter-prediction.
In the same field of endeavor, Ray teaches generating information for specifying that attribute data is coded based on inter-prediction (¶ 152 - 156).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Gao in view of Ray. The advantage is an improvement in point cloud coding.
As per claim 6, Gao discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the encoding the attribute data further includes rearranging the coded order of the geometry data, and wherein the rearranging the coded order is performed based on at least one of an azimuth, a radius, an elevation, or a laser ID (laserID) value of the geometry data (¶ 149; For this, a “local predictive tree” is generated. The generation of such tree is non-normative (the points can be traversed in a different order such as with azimuth, Morton, radial or in some other order).).
Regarding claim 10, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 11.
Regarding claim 13, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 6 are applicable for claim 13.
As per claim 16, Gao discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the bitstream includes information as to whether the coded order of the geometry is equally used (¶ 51 and 149).
Regarding claim 18, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 18.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao in view of Ray (hereafter Gao) in further view of Zhang et al (US 2021/0248785, hereafter Zhang).
As per claim 3, Gao discloses the method of claim 1.
However, Gao does not explicitly teach wherein the encoding the attribute data further includes checking the predictive tree, and wherein the predictive tree is changed or is not changed based on the check.
In the same field of endeavor, Zhang teaches wherein the encoding the attribute further includes checking the predictive tree, and wherein the predictive tree is changed or is not changed based on the check (¶ 50; According to an embodiment, the process may include identifying a flag that specifies that the points in the at least one octree node are coded using predictive tree coding; and generating the predictive tree for the points in the at least one octree node, based on identifying the flag).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Gao in view of Zhang. The advantage is improving point cloud coding.
As per claim 4, Gao discloses the method of claim 3.
However, Gao does not explicitly teach wherein the checking the predictive tree further includes: determining whether a predictive value of the attribute data calculated based on the predictive tree is suitable; and changing the predictive tree based on the predictive value being unsuitable.
In the same field of endeavor, Zhang teaches wherein the checking the predictive tree further includes: determining whether a predictive value of the attribute calculated based on the predictive tree is suitable; and changing the predictive tree based on the predictive value being unsuitable (¶ 50, 55, and 56; ¶ 56: In another embodiment, the predictive tree is enabled when the octree partition depth reaches a certain threshold.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Gao in view of Zhang. The advantage is improving point cloud coding.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 5 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
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Czekaj can be reached at 571-272-7327. 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.
/CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights