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 filed on 08/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on remarks page 8-9 regarding the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections with respect to claims 1, 18-20 [Regarding Claims 1 and 18-19
In this Office Action, independent claim 1 and amended independent claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite. In particular, the Office Action asserts that it is unclear whether the recited "attribute inter prediction" is performed (i) between points of the current frame, (ii) between blocks of point clouds of the current frame, or (iii) between point clouds of different frames. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, claim language must be interpreted according to its ordinary and customary meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the claims and the Specification. A claim term is not indefinite merely because the term, when considered in isolation from its technical context, might theoretically be assigned multiple meanings. Rather, the question is whether a person of ordinary skill in the art, having read the claim in light of the Specification, would understand the scope of the claim with reasonable certainty.
In the context of the present application, a person of ordinary skill in point-cloud coding would understand "attribute inter prediction" as referring to prediction of an attribute of a point in a current point-cloud frame using information associated with a reference point-cloud frame. This is also consistent with the ordinary technical distinction between "inter prediction" and "intra prediction" in point-cloud coding: inter prediction depends upon data from one or more reference point-cloud frames, whereas intra prediction relies upon data within the same frame or other applicable current processing unit (such as slice or the like).
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that independent claim 1 and amended independent claims 18-19 particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention. Withdrawal and reconsideration of the rejection of independent claim 1 and amended independent claims 18-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are respectfully requested.], examiner respectfully disagrees.
Although the remarks clarify that the inter prediction is between the two frames (i. the current point cloud frame and a reference point cloud frame), the remarks and the rejected claims 1, and 18-19 fall short of identifying/claiming a reference frame which is either a previous/prior frame, a future/following frame or a virtual frame in order to predict an attribute according to inter prediction as recited in the rejected claims 1, 18-19? Therefore, it raises the ambiguity in the claims. Applicant is advised to amend the claims in-order to make the claims definite and remove the ambiguity in the claims. In view of the above, examiner maintains the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections made in the last office action.
Applicant further argues on the remarks pages 10-11 regarding the 35 U.S.C 102(a)(2) rejections [Claims 1-13 and 15-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2023/0291895 (hereinafter "Lee"). Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection.
Independent claim 1 requires, inter alia: "obtaining a predicted attribute value of a current point in the current frame by performing an attribute inter prediction on the current point based on a first coordinate system, geometry information of the current point for geometry coding being represented in a second coordinate system different from the first coordinate system" (referred to as feature (1) hereinafter). Thus, independent claim 1 does not merely recite attribute prediction and the existence of coordinate information. Rather, independent claim 1 requires a specific functional and representational relationship: (i) the attribute inter prediction performed on the current point is based on a first coordinate system; (ii) the geometry information of that current point for geometry coding is represented in a second coordinate system; and (iii) the second coordinate system is different from the first coordinate system.
This understanding is expressly confirmed by the present Specification. For example, paragraph [0294] recites that "a predicted attribute value of a current point in the current frame is obtained by performing an attribute inter prediction on the current point based on a first coordinate system" and that "[g]eometry information of the current point is represented in a second coordinate system different from the first coordinate system." Paragraph [0296] further recites: "the attribute inter prediction is performed based on a coordinate system different from a coordinate system in which the geometry information is represented."
For the predicted attribute value feature, the Office Action cites, among other passages, Lee at paragraphs [0190]-[0194] and [0198]. Lee at paragraph [0190] discloses: "The point cloud video encoder according to the embodiments may generate a predictor for points to perform prediction transform coding based on LOD for setting a predicted attribute (or predicted attribute value) of each point." Lee at paragraph [0191] further discloses that the predicted attribute may be determined from attributes of neighboring points and weights calculated based on distances to those neighboring points. Paragraphs [0193]-[0198] describe a lifting prediction and update process.
However, none of these cited passages recites that the described LOD-based predictor is an attribute inter predictor. These passages do not identify a reference frame, do not recite use of points from another frame, and do not recite any coordinate system different from the coordinate system in which geometry information is represented. The mere generation of a predicted attribute value does not establish that the predicted attribute value is obtained by the particular attribute inter prediction required by independent claim 1.
Lee at paragraph [0180] does not cure this deficiency. Paragraph [0180] concerns entropy encoding of an occupancy code and recites that an encoder may perform "entropy encoding (inter encoding) based on the occupancy code of the previous frame." An occupancy code concerns geometry or occupancy information, rather than the claimed attribute inter prediction used to obtain a predicted attribute value of the current point.
Accordingly, the Office Action improperly treats Lee's disclosure of a predicted attribute value in paragraphs [0190]-[0198] and Lee's separate disclosure of occupancy inter encoding in paragraph [0180] as if Lee disclosed the claimed attribute inter-prediction process. Lee does not recite such a combination.
Lee at paragraph [0273] discloses: "Inter-prediction coding/decoding may be applied to either geometry information or attribute information, or both." Similarly, Lee at paragraph [0446] discloses: "the attribute information inter-predictor 63010 may use information necessary for inter- prediction of the current prediction unit ... to perform inter-prediction on the current prediction unit based on information included in at least one of frames before or after the current frame."
These passages may generally disclose attribute inter prediction. Nevertheless, they do not disclose that the attribute inter prediction is performed on a current point based on a first coordinate system, much less that geometry information of that current point for geometry coding is represented in a different second coordinate system.], examiner respectfully disagrees.
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., These passages do not identify a reference frame, do not recite use of points from another frame, and do not recite any coordinate system different from the coordinate system in which geometry information is represented. The mere generation of a predicted attribute value does not establish that the predicted attribute value is obtained by the particular attribute inter prediction required by independent claim 1.) 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).
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 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, 18, 19 and 21 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. Claims 1, 18, 19 and 21 recites “performing an attribute inter prediction on the current point based on a first coordinate system”. The above recital renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear as to whether “inter prediction” of the current point is performed in between the points of the current frame? Or in between the blocks of point clouds of the current frame? Or the point clouds of different frames? as the limitation “inter” means between the two or in between two? Amendments/clarification are required. Claims 2-17 depends directly or indirectly on claim 1, therefore they are rejected.
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.
Claims 1-13 and 15-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by LEE et al., (US20230291895) hereafter LEE.
1. Regarding claim 1, LEE discloses a method for point cloud coding (figs 1-6, 15-16, 28-29,0032-0033, 38-40, 62, correspond disclosure of the figs and paras, 0011, 0016-0017, 0033, 0041, 0110-0111, 0125, 0143-0145, 0180, 0190-0191, 0198, 0272-0274, 0279-0284, 0288-0293 and 0440 shows and discloses a point cloud video encoder (i.e coding)), comprising:
obtaining, during a conversion (paras 0125-0128, 0139-0145, 0180, 0272-0274 discloses “transform coordinates”) between a current frame of a point cloud sequence and a bitstream of the point cloud sequence (figs 1, 29, 38-40 and paras 0190-0194, 0198, 0272-0274, 0279-0281, 0288-0293 discloses the above limitations of obtaining the bitstream and predicted attribute value by performing attribute inter prediction), a predicted attribute value of a current point in the current frame by performing an attribute inter prediction on the current point based on a first coordinate system (figs 38-40, paras 0180, 0190-0194, 0198,0273, 0440, 0446 shows and discloses attribute inter-prediction on the current point based on the frame and a first coordinate system) geometry information of the current point for geometry coding being represented in a second coordinate system different from the first coordinate system (figs 38-40, paras 0190-0191, 0198,0440, 0446 discloses the above limitations); and
performing the conversion based on the predicted attribute value (paras 0139, 0143-0148, 0153-0157 discloses performing the conversion based on the predicted attribute value).
2. Regarding claim 2, LEE discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first coordinate system or the second coordinate system is one of the following: a spherical coordinate system, a cylindrical coordinate system, a Cartesian coordinate system, or (figs 39- 40 and paras 0125,0145, 0279-0281 shows and discloses wherein the first coordinate system or the second coordinate system is one of the following: a spherical coordinate system, a cylindrical coordinate system, a Cartesian coordinate system, or .
3. Regarding claim 3, LEE discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: converting coordinates comprised in geometry information of the current frame for geometry coding from the second coordinate system to the first coordinate system, or converting coordinates comprised in geometry information of at least one reference frame of the current frame for geometry coding from the second coordinate system to the first coordinate system (figs 1, 23, 39- 40 and paras 0125,0145, 0279-0281 shows and discloses further comprising: converting coordinates comprised in geometry information of the current frame for geometry coding from the second coordinate system to the first coordinate system, or converting coordinates comprised in geometry information of at least one reference frame of the current frame for geometry coding from the second coordinate system to the first coordinate system).
4. Regarding claim 4, LEE discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the conversion of the coordinates is performed after geometry coding, or wherein the conversion of the coordinates is performed before attribute coding (paras 0214,0142-0145 and 0280 discloses wherein the conversion of the coordinates is performed after geometry coding, or wherein the conversion of the coordinates is performed before attribute coding, examiner notes that due to the recital of or only one is required to be met).
5. Regarding claim 5, LEE discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the conversion of the coordinates is performed at an encoder and a decoder (figs 4, 15-16, 10-11, 25 and 28-29, 39-40 shows and discloses wherein the conversion of the coordinates is performed at an encoder and a decoder).
6. Regarding claim 6, LEE discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the coordinates comprised in the geometry information of the current frame are scaled during the conversion of the coordinates or the coordinates comprised in the geometry information of the at least one reference frame are scaled during the conversion of the coordinates (paras 0032-0033,0146 discloses quantizing the geometry information and “a preset quantization scale value” for the one or more points meeting the claim limitations of wherein the coordinates comprised in the geometry information of the current frame are scaled during the conversion of the coordinates or the coordinates comprised in the geometry information of the at least one reference frame are scaled during the conversion of the coordinates, examiner notes that due to the recital of or only one is required to be met).
7. Regarding claim 7, LEE discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the current frame comprises a current point, and the method further comprises: determining, based on at least one frame distance between the current frame and at least one reference frame of the current frame, at least one weight for at least one neighboring point of the current point (paras 0155, 0180-0182 discloses wherein the current frame comprises a current point, and the method further comprises: determining, based on at least one frame distance between the current frame and at least one reference frame (i.e previous frame) of the current frame, at least one weight for at least one neighboring point of the current point (i.e neighbor nodes) meeting the claim limitations).
8. Regarding claim 8, The method of claim 7, wherein the at least one neighboring point comprises at least one nearest neighbor of the current point (paras 0155, 0180-0187 discloses wherein the at least one neighboring point (NNS) comprises at least one nearest neighbor of the current point).
9. Regarding claim 9, LEE discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the at least one neighboring point comprises a first neighboring point in a first reference frame among the at least one reference frame, and a weight for the first neighboring point is dependent on a first frame distance between the current frame and the first reference frame (paras 0155, 0180-0187 discloses wherein the at least one neighboring point comprises a first neighboring point in a first reference frame among the at least one reference frame (previous frame) , and a weight for the first neighboring point is dependent on a first frame distance between the current frame and the first reference frame).
10. Regarding claim 10, LEE discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the at least one neighboring point further comprises a second neighboring point in a second reference frame among the at least one reference frame, the first frame distance is smaller than a second frame distance between the current frame and the second reference frame, and the weight for the first neighboring point is smaller than a weight for the second neighboring point (fig 41 shows average and weighted average of the points, paras 0155, 0180-0187 discloses wherein the at least one neighboring point further comprises a second neighboring point in a second reference frame among the at least one reference frame (i.e previous frame), the first frame distance is smaller than a second frame distance between the current frame and the second reference frame, and the weight for the first neighboring point is smaller than a weight for the second neighboring point).
11. Regarding claim 11, LEE discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the weight for the first neighboring point is determined based on a sum of the first frame distance and an original generated weight for the first neighboring point (fig 41 shows average and weighted average (sum) of the points, paras 0154-0155, 0159 and 0176-0177, 0180-0187 discloses wherein the weight for the first neighboring point is determined based on a sum of the first frame distance and an original generated weight for the first neighboring point).
12. Regarding claim 12, LEE discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a frame distance between the current frame and a further frame of the point cloud sequence is proportional to a distance between the current frame and the further frame in a time stamp order (paras 0154-0155, 0159 and 0176-0177, 0180-0187, 0273 discloses wherein a frame distance between the current frame and a further frame of the point cloud sequence is proportional to a distance between the current frame and the further frame in a time stamp order (i.e according to time)).
13. Regarding claim 13, LEE discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a search range for an attribute intra prediction of the current frame is allowed to be different from a search range for an attribute inter prediction of the current frame (fig 7, paras 0181-0182 and 0229 shows and discloses wherein a search range for an attribute intra prediction of the current frame is allowed to be different from a search range for an attribute inter prediction of the current frame).
14. Regarding claim 15, LEE discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a search range for searching a neighboring point of the current point from points in a level of detail (LOD) different from the current point is allowed to be different from a search range for searching a neighboring point of the current point from points in an LOD same as the current point (paras 0185-0186 and figs 8-9 shows and discloses wherein a search range for searching a neighboring point of the current point from points in a level of detail (LOD) different from the current point is allowed to be different from a search range for searching a neighboring point of the current point from points in an LOD same as the current point).
15. Regarding claim 16, LEE discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the current frame comprises a current point, and a search range for searching a neighboring point of the current point is determined at an encoder or a decoder (para 0155-0159, 0180 discloses wherein the current frame comprises a current point, and a search range for searching a neighboring point of the current point is determined at an encoder or a decoder).
16. Regarding claim 17, LEE discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the current frame into the bitstream, or wherein the conversion includes decoding the current frame from the bitstream (figs 2, 4 and 10 shows and disclose wherein the conversion includes encoding the current frame into the bitstream, or wherein the conversion includes decoding the current frame from the bitstream).
17. Claim 18 is a corresponding apparatus claim of claim 1. Paras 0001, 0876 discloses apparatus embodiment.
18. Claim 19 is a corresponding non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim of claim 1. See the corresponding explanation of claim 1. Paras 0001, 0876 discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing the instructions, executable by the processor to perform acts of claim 19.
19. Regarding claim 21, LEE discloses a method (figs 1-6, 15-16, 25, 28-29,0032-0033, 38-40, 62, correspond disclosure of the figs and paras, 0011, 0016-0017, 0033, 0041, 0110-0111, 0125, 0143-0145, 0180, 0190-0191, 0198, 0272-0274, 0279-0284, 0288-0293 0419,0440 and 0458 shows and discloses a point cloud video encoder (i.e coding) method for storing a bitstream of a video) for storing a bitstream of a video, comprising:
obtaining a predicted attribute value of a current point in a current frame of a point cloud sequence by performing an attribute inter prediction on the current point based on a first coordinate system (figs 38-40, paras 0125-0128, 0139-0145, 0180, 0190-0194, 0198,0272-0274, 0440, 0446 shows and discloses obtaining a predicted attribute value by performing attribute inter-prediction on the current point based on the current frame and a first coordinate system), geometry information of the current point for geometry coding being represented in a second coordinate system different from the first coordinate system (figs 38-40, paras 0190-0191, 0198,0440, 0446 discloses the above limitations);
generating the bitstream based on the predicted attribute value (para 0334 discloses the attribute bitstream corresponding to the predicted attribute value is generated meeting the claim limitations); and
storing the bitstream in a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (fig 25 and para 0419, 0458 shows and discloses storing the bitstream in a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (i.e memory buffer) meeting the above claim limitations).
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited figures, and paragraphs in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in 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 for the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references 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. Examiner has also cited references in PTO892 but not relied on, which are relevant and pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, and may also be reading (anticipatory/obvious) on the claims and claimed limitations. Applicant is advised to consider the references in preparing the response/amendments in-order to expedite the prosecution.
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 JAYESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-1227. The examiner can normally be reached IFW Mon-FRI.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached at 571-270-5183. 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.
/JAYESH A PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
/JAYESH PATEL/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights