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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a non-Final office action in merits. Claims 1-20 are presently pending. Claims 1-6, 16-20, after restriction election, have been elected and considered below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. PCTCN2021141086, filed on 12/24/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/14/2026 and 7/31/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Restriction Election
Applicant elects Species I, namely claims 2-6, with traverse, for further examination. Claims 16-17 have been changed as generic claims in response to applicant’s traverse with respect to claims 16-17. Species III now contains claims 12-15.
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 1-6, 16-20 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.
Claim 1 recites: A method for point cloud coding, comprising:
determining, during a conversion between a current frame of a point cloud sequence and a bitstream of the point cloud sequence, whether a node of the current frame is passed by a single laser beam during the conversion, the node representing a spatial partition of the current frame; and performing the conversion based on the determining.
The claim language is ambiguous and/or unclear in the following aspects:
Claim 1 essentially recites a conversion being performed based on determining whether a single laser being used during conversion. There are more than one possible results from the determining: 1) a single laser beam passed by, 2) more than one laser beam passed by, or 3) no laser beam passed by. However, the claim language does not explain how the conversion mechanism would be affected by or based on different situations determined. For example, conversion type A if a single beam, conversion B if multiple beams, conversion C if no beam, or only performing conversion if a single beam, or any other combinations? Claim 1 therefore renders indefinite.
Claims 18-20 recite similar limitations and are rejected with the same reason. Clams 16-17 depend from claim 1 and are rejected with the same reason. Claims 2-6 (also depend from claim 1), further specify how a single beam passing by a node is defined, but no conversion dependency is recited based on the determining results. They are also rejected with the same reason.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0207780 A1, Ramasubramonian et al. (hereinafter Ramasubramonian) in view of US 2022/0353549 A1, LASSERRE et al. (hereinafter LASSERRE).
As to claim 1, Ramasubramonian discloses a method for point cloud coding, comprising:
determining, during a conversion between a current frame of a point cloud sequence and a bitstream of the point cloud sequence, the node representing a spatial partition of the current frame (Figs 9-11, laser beams pass by a node; pars 0034, 0039, 0041, 0051, 0053, 0059, 0086, 0172-0175); and performing the conversion based on the determining (Figs 1-3; pars 0016, 0022, 0125, 0179, 0253, performing conversion/encoding of current frame of the point cloud sequence with respect to a bitstream).
Ramasubramonian does not expressly disclose determining whether a node of the current frame is passed by a single laser beam during the conversion.
LASSERRE, in the same or similar field of endeavor, further teaches when a single laser beam being passed by a node, the coordinate conversion is performed by incorporating particular elevation angle corresponding to that particular laser beam (Fig 12; pars 0173, 0190-0193. 0204, identifying a particular laser beam being passed by a node) and indicates how conversion mode being identified based on angular information such as elevation angles relative to relative to a location associated with the beam assembly(Fig 28; pars 0032, 0038-0039, 0045, 0052, 0062, 0073, 0093).
Therefore, consider Ramasubramonian and LASSERRE’s teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the filing date of invention to incorporate LASSERRE’s teachings in Ramasubramonian’s method to perform proper conversion upon identifying a particular laser beam passing a node with corresponding elevation angle.
As to claim 3, Ramasubramonian as modified discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining the elevation angle size covered by the node based on at least one elevation angle of at least one key point of the node, wherein the at least one key point comprises a predefined point position of the node (Ramasubramonian: Fig 7; pars 0181-0185, 0190, determining a pivot point or a reference pivot point in the current frame), wherein the predefined point position comprises at least one of: a midpoint position, a vertex position, or an original point position (Ramasubramonian: Fig 6, vertex point; pars 0054, 0064, 0104-0107, points in original coordinates).
7-15. (Withdrawn)
As to claim 16, Ramasubramonian as modified discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the current frame into the bitstream (Ramasubramonian: Figs 2, 4; pars 0004, 0016, 0022, G-PCC coder for predicting current point of a current frame of a point cloud).
As to claim 17, Ramasubramonian as modified discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes decoding the current frame from the bitstream (Ramasubramonian: Figs 1, 3; pars 0003, 0005, 0023-0026, 0179).
As to claim 18, it is an apparatus claim encompassed claim 1. Rejection of claim 1 is therefore incorporated herein.
As to claim 19, it recites a non-transitory CRM storing instructions executed to perform steps of claim 1. Rejection of claim 1 is therefore incorporated herein.
As to claim 20, it recites a non-transitory CRM storing a bitstream of a point cloud sequence generated to perform functions and features of claim 1. Rejection of claim 1 is therefore incorporated herein.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, 5-6 are 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 and overcoming 35 USC 112(b) rejection.
Reasons for Allowance
Prior art of record (Ramasubramonian, LASSERRE) neither discloses alone nor teaches in combination functions and features recited in claims 2 and 4, respectively. Claims 5 and 6 depend from claim 2.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular column, line number, paragraphs and/or figure(s) in the reference(s) as applied to the claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the reference(s) in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUN SHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7927. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30-5:50 PT.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached on 571-272-3382. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/QUN SHEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights