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 Amendment
Applicant previously filed claims 1-15. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, and 12 have been amended. Accordingly, claims 1-15 are pending in the current application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claims 3, 5, 7, 10, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, applicant argues that the various undefined terms are described in the specification in such a manner that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would understand the scope and meaning of the terms”. However examiner respectfully disagrees. All the portions of the specification which allegedly describe the terms in question cited by the applicant also merely cite these terms without explanation of their scope or meaning, and essentially use the terms as generic placeholder labels for ways the sample entry type may be arbitrarily labelled, with no explanation of what each label refers to or means with regard to the sample entry type contained therein. For the purposes of examination these terms are treated as generic placeholder labels for any number of categorization types, and their specific titles are arbitrary and a matter of design choice. Therefore, the rejection under 112 is maintained, and appropriate correction is required.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the specific relationship between sample entry type and the information about multiple temporal tracks”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In this case, since there is no explanation of what the specific sample entry types mean and how they relate to the other information, they are simply arbitrary variable labels and are interpreted to be met by any number of variables or flags.
Applicant argues that Gudumasu et al. fails to teach “the information about multiple temporal level tracks is determined based on a sample entry type of a track.” However, examiner respectfully disagrees. In Paragraph 97, Gudumasu et al. explicitly and unambiguously teaches “The metadata for each track includes a list of sample description entries, each providing the coding or encapsulation format used in the track and the initialization data for processing that format. Each sample is associated with one of the sample description entries of the track. ISO/IEC 14496-12 provides a tool for defining an explicit timeline map for each track. This tool is known as an edit list and is signalled using an EditListBox with the following syntax, where each entry sets forth part of the track time-line by mapping part of the composition timeline or by indicating ‘empty’ time, for example, portions of the presentation timeline that map to no media, also known as an ‘empty’ edit.” Further, in Paragraph 302, Gudumasu et al. teaches “In another embodiment, a G-PCC track of type ‘gpe1’ or ‘gpeg’ may signal the temporal layer identifier(s) of the G-PCC samples present in that track. A GPCCScalabilityInfoBox box may be present in the sample entry to signal the temporal layer identifiers information present in that track. A G-PCC track of type ‘gpe1’ or ‘gpeg’ may signal all the temporal layers present in the data file.” Which EXPLICITLY teaches the same sort of sample entry type and multiple temporal level track relationship as in the current invention.
In light of the above remarks, the rejections are maintained as before
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 3, applicant recites “the specific type is 'gpel', 'gpeg', 'gpcl', or 'gpcg’” with no explanation of what these specific terms or acronyms mean, which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “'gpel', 'gpeg', 'gpcl', or 'gpcg’” are not defined by the claim, and the specification does not explain these terms further, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of examination these terms are treated as generic placeholder labels for any number of categorization types, and their specific titles are arbitrary and a matter of design choice. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 5, applicant recites “the specific type is 'gpel', 'gpeg', 'gpcl', or 'gpcg’” with no explanation of what these specific terms or acronyms mean, which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “'gpel', 'gpeg', 'gpcl', or 'gpcg’” are not defined by the claim, and the specification does not explain these terms further, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of examination these terms are treated as generic placeholder labels for any number of categorization types, and their specific titles are arbitrary and a matter of design choice. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 7, applicant recites “the specific type is 'gpcb' or 'gpeb'” with no explanation of what these specific terms or acronyms mean, which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “'gpcb' or 'gpeb'” are not defined by the claim, and the specification does not explain these terms further, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of examination these terms are treated as generic placeholder labels for any number of categorization types, and their specific titles are arbitrary and a matter of design choice. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 10, applicant recites “the specific type is 'gpcb' or 'gpeb'” with no explanation of what these specific terms or acronyms mean, which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “'gpcb' or 'gpeb'” are not defined by the claim, and the specification does not explain these terms further, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of examination these terms are treated as generic placeholder labels for any number of categorization types, and their specific titles are arbitrary and a matter of design choice. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 12, applicant recites “the specific type is 'gpeb'” with no explanation of what this specific term or acronym means, which renders the claim indefinite. The term “'gpeb'” is not defined by the claim, and the specification does not explain the term further, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of examination this term is treated as a generic placeholder label for any number of categorization types, and the specific title is arbitrary and a matter of design choice. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2, 4, 6, and 9 recite the limitation "it" in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what “it” is referring to. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gudumasu et al. (US 20230281923 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Gudumasu et al. teaches a method performed by a reception device of point cloud data (abstract; Paragraph 32), the method comprising:
obtaining a geometry-based point cloud compression (G-PCC) file including the point cloud data (Paragraph 159); and
reconstructing the point cloud data based on temporal scalability information (Paragraph 159; Paragraphs 278-283),
wherein the temporal scalability information includes information about multiple temporal level tracks for the file, and wherein the information about multiple temporal level tracks is determined based on a sample entry type of a track (Paragraphs 95-97; Paragraphs 99-109; Paragraph 302; Paragraphs 314-317).
Regarding Claim 2, Gudumasu et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein based on the sample entry type being a specific type and a value of the information about multiple temporal level tracks being a first value, it indicates that a single temporal level track is present for a bitstream of the G-PCC file (Paragraphs 95-97; Paragraphs 99-109).
Regarding Claim 3, Gudumasu et al. teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the first value is 0 and the specific type is 'gpel', 'gpeg', 'gpcl', or 'gpcg' (Paragraphs 238-245; Paragraph 302; Paragraphs 314-317).
Regarding Claim 4, Gudumasu et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein based on the sample entry type being a specific type and a value of the information about multiple temporal level tracks being a second value, it indicates that multiple temporal level tracks are present for a bitstream of the G-PCC file (Paragraphs 95-97; Paragraphs 99-109).
Regarding Claim 5, Gudumasu et al. teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the second value is 1 and the specific type is 'gpel', 'gpeg', 'gpcl', or 'gpcg' (Paragraphs 238-245; Paragraph 302; Paragraphs 314-317).
Regarding Claim 6, Gudumasu et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein based on the sample entry type being a specific type and a value of the information about multiple temporal level tracks being a first value, it indicates that a tile track referred to by a tile base track includes samples of all temporal levels (Paragraphs 93-97; Paragraphs 99-109; Paragraphs 115-123; Paragraphs 283-292).
Regarding Claim 7, Gudumasu et al. teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the first value is 0 and the specific type is 'gpcb' or 'gpeb' (Paragraphs 300-303).
Regarding Claim 8, Gudumasu et al. teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the sample entry type which is the specific type indicates that the track is a tile base track (Paragraphs 93-97; Paragraphs 99-109; Paragraphs 115-123; Paragraphs 283-292).
Regarding Claim 9, Gudumasu et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein based on the sample entry type being a specific type and a value of the information about multiple temporal level tracks being a second value, it indicates possibility of a temporal level tile track that does not include samples of all temporal levels (Paragraphs 93-97; Paragraphs 99-109; Paragraphs 115-123; Paragraphs 283-292).
Regarding Claim 10, Gudumasu et al. teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the second value is 1 and the specific type is 'gpcb' or 'gpeb' (Paragraphs 300-303).
Regarding Claim 11, Gudumasu et al. teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the sample entry type which is the specific type indicates that the track is a tile base track (Paragraph 104).
Regarding Claim 12, Gudumasu et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein based on the sample entry type being a specific type and the track referring to two or more temporal level tracks of the same tile, the value of the information about multiple temporal level tracks is a first value, and wherein the first value is 1 and the specific type is 'gpeb' (Paragraphs 93-97; Paragraphs 99-109; Paragraphs 115-123; Paragraphs 238-245; Paragraphs 283-292; Paragraphs 300-303; Paragraph 318).
Method claim 13 is similar to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as cited above. Gudumasu et al. further teaches a method performed by a transmission device of point cloud data (Paragraphs 2-3; Paragraphs 32-34; Paragraphs 46-50; Paragraph 367).
Apparatus claims 14 and 15 are drawn to the methods of claims 1 and 13 above and have similar limitations which are rejected for the same reasons as above. Gudumasu et al. further teaches a reception device of point cloud data, the reception device comprising: a memory; and at least one processor; and a transmission device of point cloud data, the transmission device comprising: a memory; and at least one processor (Paragraphs 32-34; Paragraphs 45-50; Paragraphs 85-88; Paragraph 358; Paragraph 367).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 FARHAN MAHMUD whose telephone number is (571)272-7712. The examiner can normally be reached 10-7.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 5712727383. 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.
/FARHAN MAHMUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights