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 .
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 § 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, 6 – 8,10 – 14, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ray et al (US 2022/0210480, hereafter Ray).
As per claim 1, Ray discloses a method of transmitting point cloud data, the method comprising:
encoding the point cloud data; and transmitting a bitstream including the point cloud data (¶ 183; The G-PCC encoder of vehicle 700 may encode the point cloud to generate bitstreams 708. An output interface of vehicle 700 (e.g., output interface 108 (FIG. 1) may transmit bitstreams 708 to one or more other devices.).
As per claim 2, Ray discloses the method of wherein the encoding the point cloud data includes encoding a geometry and encoding an attribute, wherein the encoding the geometry includes generating a predictive tree using the geometry and encoding the geometry in a coded order according to the predictive tree, and wherein the encoding the attribute includes predicting the attribute based on the predictive tree (¶ 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). For each point, its prediction mode (0, 1, 2, 3), number of child information, primary residual and secondary residual (if angular mode is enabled) is signaled. So, in summary, intra prediction is similar to the predictive geometry coding in its functionality.).
As per claim 6, Ray discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the encoding the attribute further includes rearranging the coded order of the geometry, 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 (¶ 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).).
As per claim 7, Ray discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the predictive tree is generated based on the geometry of a previously processed frame, wherein the bitstream includes information as to whether the attribute is predicted based on the previously processed frame while encoding the attribute (¶ 41; If the G-PCC encoder selects the inter prediction mode for the leaf node, the G-PCC encoder may encode the points in the leaf node relative to a set of points in a reference frame. The reference frame may be a previously coded frame, analogous to a previous frame of a video.).
As per claim 8, Ray discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the bitstream includes information as to whether the predictive tree of the geometry is used while encoding the attribute (¶ 149; G-PCC encoder 200 and/or G-PCC decoder 300 may be configured to perform intra prediction. When the flag value is set to intra, all the points inside the volume are intra-predicted. For this, a “local predictive tree” is generated. So, in summary, intra prediction is similar to the predictive geometry coding in its functionality.).
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 12, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 2 are applicable for claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 6 are applicable for claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 7 are applicable for claim 14.
As per claim 16, Ray 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 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) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ray in view of Zhang et al (US 2021/0248785, hereafter Zhang).
As per claim 3, Ray discloses the method of claim 2.
However, Ray does not explicitly teach 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.
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 Ray in view of Zhang. The advantage is improving point cloud coding.
As per claim 4, Ray discloses the method of claim 3.
However, Ray does not explicitly teach 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.
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 Ray 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE whose telephone number is (571)270-1445. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 4:30 pm.
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, 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