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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: on lines 2-3, as best understood by the Examiner, “comprises plurality of subgroups” should be “comprises a plurality of subgroups”.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: on line 2, as best understood by the Examiner, “each of the subgroup” should be “each of the subgroups”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-2, 9-11 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flynn et al. (U.S. 2021/0004992), hereinafter Flynn in view of WG 7, MPEG 3D Graphics Coding, serial number 20999, "Technologies under consideration in G-PCC", ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 7 N00230, October 2021, Virtual, hereinafter WG7. WG7 was cited in the Applicant’s IDS dated 1/26/26 and the copy provided by the Applicant is being used for the citations below.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Flynn discloses a device comprising:
a memory (Flynn [0117]); and
at least one processor connected to the memory, the at least one processor configured to (Flynn [0117]):
encode point cloud data (Flynn [0002] and fig. 1).
Flynn does not explicitly disclose generate parameter information for a Fine Granularity Slice(FGS) including a FGS geometry and a FGS attribute; wherein, to encode the point cloud data, the at least one processor is further configured to: encode the FGS geometry including geometry data for one or more levels of a tree including points; and encode the FGS attribute including attribute data for the one or more levels of the tree including the points, and wherein the parameter information includes an identifier for a parent subgroup in the one or more levels.
However, WG7 teaches generate parameter information for a Fine Granularity Slice(FGS) (WG7 p. 42, first full paragraph) including a FGS geometry (WG7 p. 40, first full paragraph) and a FGS attribute (WG7 p. 43);
wherein, to encode the point cloud data, the at least one processor is further configured to:
encode the FGS geometry including geometry data for one or more levels of a tree including points (WG7 p. 39, section 8.1 and p. 40 figure 39 and accompanying description); and
encode the FGS attribute including attribute data for the one or more levels of the tree including the points (WG7 p. 39, section 8.1 and p. 40 figure and accompanying description), and
wherein the parameter information includes an identifier for a parent subgroup in the one or more levels (WG7 p. 44, bottom).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device taught by Flynn with the missing limitations as taught by WG7 to improve coding efficiency as scalable transmission or spatial random access use cases could be supported in an efficient manner (WG7 p. 39, section 8).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of improving coding efficiency.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Flynn in view of WG7 teaches the method of claims 1 and 10,
wherein the FGS is mapped to a subgroup of a layer group (WG7 p. 40, claim 11 recites analogous limitations to claim 2 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Furthermore, claim 11 discloses an inverse of encoding and both Flynn and WG7 disclose encoding and decoding methods (Flynn figs. 1-2 and 14-15 and WG7 pgs. 40 and p. 42)).
The same motivation for claim 1 applies to the missing limitations of claims 2 and 11.
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Flynn in view of WG7 teaches a device comprising:
a memory (Flynn [0118]); and
at least one processor connected to the memory, the at least one processor configured to (Flynn [0118]):
obtain parameter information for a Fine Granularity Slice(FGS) including a FGS geometry and a FGS attribute from a bitstream (WG7 pgs. 42-43); and
decode point cloud data (Flynn [0064], [0002], [0004] and fig. 2 and WG7 p. 40, figure 39 and accompanying description),
wherein, to decode the point cloud data, the at least one processor is further configured to (Flynn [0118], figs. 2 and 15):
decode the FGS geometry including geometry data for one or more levels of a tree including points; and
decode the FGS attribute including attribute data for the one or more levels of the tree including the points, and
wherein the parameter information includes an identifier for a parent subgroup in the one or more levels (claims 10 and 19 recite analogous limitations to claims 1 and 9 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Furthermore, claims 10 and 19 disclose an inverse of encoding and both Flynn and WG7 disclose encoding and decoding methods (Flynn figs. 1-2 and 14-15 and WG7 pgs. 40 and p. 42).
The same motivation for claim 1 applies to the missing limitations of claims 10 and 19.
Claim(s) 3-8 and 12-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flynn in view of WG7 as applied to claims 2 and 11 above, and further in view of Ray et al. (U.S. 2021/0400308), hereinafter Ray.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Flynn discloses the method of claims 2 and 11, wherein the encoding of the point cloud data comprises:
wherein the encoding the FGS geometry includes encoding geometry data for the subgroup based on context information (WG7 pgs. 45, section 8.2, 47, 42 and 44), wherein the encoding the FGS attribute includes encoding attribute data for the subgroup (WG7 pgs. 45, section 8.2, 42 and 43).
The same motivation for claim 1 applies to claims 2 and 11.
Flynn does not explicitly disclose wherein the encoding the FGS attribute includes encoding attribute data for the subgroup based on context information.
However, Ray teaches wherein the encoding the FGS attribute includes encoding attribute data for the subgroup based on context information (Ray [0059] and [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Flynn in view of WG7 with the missing limitations as taught by Ray to improve coding efficiency (Ray [0021]).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of improving coding efficiency.
Claim 12 recites analogous limitations to claim 3 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Furthermore, claim 12 discloses an inverse of encoding and both Flynn and WG7 disclose encoding and decoding methods (Flynn figs. 1-2 and 14-15 and WG7 pgs. 40 and p. 42).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Flynn in view of WG7 and Ray teaches the method of claims 3 and 11,
wherein the FGS geometry is encoded based on context information for a second subgroup, wherein the encoding the FGS geometry comprises: saving context information for the second subgroup (WG7 p. 45, section 8.2, , claim 13 recites analogous limitations to claim 4 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Furthermore, claim 13 discloses an inverse of encoding and both Flynn and WG7 disclose encoding and decoding methods (Flynn figs. 1-2 and 14-15 and WG7 pgs. 40 and p. 42)).
The same motivation for claim 1 applies to the missing limitations of claims 4 and 13.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Flynn in view of WG7 and Ray teaches the method of claims 4 and 13, wherein the second subgroup contains point cloud data belonging to a parent subgroup of the subgroup (Flynn [0089] and fig. 11 and WG7 p. 45, section 8.2, claim 14 recites analogous limitations to claim 5 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Furthermore, claim 14 discloses an inverse of encoding and both Flynn and WG7 disclose encoding and decoding methods (Flynn figs. 1-2 and 14-15 and WG7 pgs. 40 and p. 42)).
The same motivation for claim 1 applies to the missing limitations of claims 5 and 14.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Flynn in view of WG7 and Ray teaches the method of claims 5 and 14, wherein subgroups including the subgroup and the second subgroup are detected by comparing position information about a node with bounding box information about each of the subgroups (Flynn [0041], [0045] and [0050]-[0051] and WG7 p. 40, last 2 paragraphs, claim 15 recites analogous limitations to claim 6 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Furthermore, claim 15 discloses an inverse of encoding and both Flynn and WG7 disclose encoding and decoding methods (Flynn figs. 1-2 and 14-15 and WG7 pgs. 40 and p. 42)).
The same motivation for claim 1 applies to the missing limitations of claims 6 and 15.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Flynn in view of WG7 and Ray teaches the method of claims 6 and 15, wherein a bitstream contains information indicating whether the layer group comprises plurality of subgroups (Flynn [0045] and fig. 1 and WG7 pgs. 43-44, bottom, 39, section 8 and p. 42, claim 11 recites analogous limitations to claim 2 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Furthermore, claim 11 discloses an inverse of encoding and both Flynn and WG7 disclose encoding and decoding methods (Flynn figs. 1-2 and 14-15 and WG7 pgs. 40 and p. 42)).
The same motivation for claim 1 applies to the missing limitations of claims 7 and 17.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Flynn in view of WG7 and Ray teaches the method of claims 7 and 17, wherein the bitstream contains origin information and size information related to a bounding box of the subgroups (WG7 p. 43, bottom and Ray Abstract, [0021], [0033] and [0036], claim 18 recites analogous limitations to claim 8 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Furthermore, claim 18 discloses an inverse of encoding and both Flynn and WG7 disclose encoding and decoding methods (Flynn figs. 1-2 and 14-15 and WG7 pgs. 40 and p. 42)).
The same motivation for claims 1 and 3 applies to the missing limitations of claims 8 and 18.
Regarding claim 16, Flynn in view of WG7 and Ray teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the second subgroup is detected based on the bounding box information about each of the subgroup (WG7 p. 40, last 2 paragraphs and Flynn [0063] and [0038]). Furthermore, claim 16 discloses an inverse of encoding and both Flynn and WG7 disclose encoding and decoding methods (Flynn figs. 1-2 and 14-15 and WG7 pgs. 40 and p. 42)).
The same motivation for claim 1 applies to the missing limitations of claim 16.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner thanks the Applicant for providing a detailed explanation of the support for the filed amendments in the Remarks dated 4/8/26.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/8/26 in regards to the previously presented portions of the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed in regard to the newly amended claims have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current grounds of rejection being used in the current rejection, i.e. WG7 as cited above.
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 MATTHEW KWAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7073. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached at (571)272-7331. 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.
/MATTHEW K KWAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights