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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on October 14th, 2024 and April 1st, 2026 has been considered and the listed references were noted.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
18000-18005 in Figure 2
38000-38009 in Figure 5
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
20000-20005 (Referenced in Paragraphs [67]-[75])
40000-40009 (Referenced in Paragraphs [109]-[145])
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because of the following minor informalities:
In Figure 10, all instances "bisteram" should read "bitstream"
In Figure 11,
all instances of "Arithmerix" in 11000 and 11005 should read "Arithmetic"
"attributes birsteam" should read "attribute bitstream"
In Figure 14, "Selg-Driving" in 1420 should read "self-driving"
In Figure 28, "Intput data" should read "Input data"
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor typographical errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors, of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 8, 9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) encoding/decoding point cloud data is data transformation. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite nothing other than the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there is no inventive concept and the generic processor/memory performing generic encoding is well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Claim 1 (process – transmission method)
Step 1: The statutory category is a process. (Yes.)
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claim 1 recites “encoding point cloud data.” Under BRI, encoding point cloud data is a mathematical operation that transforms the data into a compressed form, and it sets forth the abstract idea of encoding/decoding data. This falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"). (Yes.)
Step 2A, Prong 2: The only additional element beyond the abstract idea is "transmitting a bitstream containing the point cloud data," which is insignificant extra-solution activity
(mere data output) and imposes no meaningful limit. MPEP 2106.05(g). The claim recites no particular machine, no transformation, and no improvement to the functioning of a computer or to the field of point cloud coding. The encoding is claimed only at the level of its result. MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c). The exception is not integrated into a practical application. RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Step 2B: Individually and in combination, the additional element is well-understood, routine, and conventional; the specification confirms that encoding point cloud data and
transmitting the resulting bitstream are conventional. Spec. ¶¶ 2, 56, 60; MPEP
2106.05(d), 2106.07(a)(III). The claim merely changes data into another form of data and adds no inventive concept. RecogniCorp, 855 F.3d at 1327-28. Claim 1 is not eligible.
Claim 8 (machine – transmit device)
Step 1: The statutory category is a machine. (Yes.)
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claim 8 recites a processor configured to “encoding point cloud data.” Under BRI, encoding point cloud data is a mathematical operation that transforms the data, setting forth the abstract idea of encoding/decoding data within the mathematical concepts grouping. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017). (Yes.)
Step 2A, Prong 2: The additional elements – a generic "memory" and a "processor
connected to the memory" – are recited at a high level of generality and used merely as
tools to perform the abstract idea; "transmit a bitstream" is insignificant extra-solution
activity. This is no more than applying the exception on a generic computer. MPEP
2106.05(f), (g); RecogniCorp, 855 F.3d at 1326-27 (invoking a computer to apply the
encoding/decoding idea does not confer eligibility). Not integrated.
Step 2B: The memory and processor are generic components performing generic functions, which the specification confirms are conventional. Spec. ¶¶ 107, 199 (generic
processor/memory), ¶¶ 56, 60; MPEP 2106.05(d), 2106.07(a)(III). No inventive concept,
alone or in combination. Claim 8 is not eligible.
Claim 8 (process – receive method)
Step 1: The statutory category is a process. (Yes.)
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claim 9 recites “decoding the point cloud data.” Under BRI, decoding point cloud data is a mathematical operation that transforms the data back to its compressed form, setting forth the abstract idea of encoding/decoding data within the mathematical concepts grouping. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017). (Yes.)
Step 2A, Prong 2: The additional element "receiving a bitstream containing point cloud data" is insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering). MPEP 2106.05(g). The claim recites no particular machine, transformation, or technical improvement; decoding is claimed only at the level of its result. MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c). Not integrated. RecogniCorp, 855 F.3d at 1327.
Step 2B: Receiving a bitstream and decoding point cloud data are well-understood, routine, and conventional. Spec. ¶¶ 2, 60, 73; MPEP 2106.05(d), 2106.07(a)(III). No inventive concept. Claim 9 is not eligible.
Claim 15 (machine – receive device)
Step 1: The statutory category is a machine.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claim 15 recites a processor configured to “decode the point cloud data.” Under BRI, decoding point cloud data is a mathematical operation that transforms the data, setting forth the abstract idea of encoding/decoding data within the mathematical concepts grouping. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Step 2A, Prong 2: The generic memory and processor are used merely as tools to apply the abstract idea, and "receive a bitstream" is insignificant extra-solution activity – applying the exception on a generic computer. MPEP 2106.05(f), (g); RecogniCorp, 855 F.3d at 1326-27. Not integrated.
Step 2B: The memory and processor are generic components performing generic
functions, conventional per Spec. ¶¶ 107, 199, 60; MPEP 2106.05(d), 2106.07(a)(III).
No inventive concept. Claim 15 is not eligible
Optional secondary cite: Realtime Data LLC v. Reduxio Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir.)
(nonprecedential) – affirmed data-compression claims ineligible where no specific
compression method was claimed. Confirm the exact cite/date before relying, since it's
nonprecedential.
NOTE SME example cuts against it. Ex. 48 holds that a signal step reciting "no details of how" merely involves math and does not recite a math concept, and that handling such a signal "is not a process that can be practically performed in a human mind" (so neither math nor mental process). "Encoding point cloud data" is more generic than Ex. 48's stitching step.
Dependent claims 2-7, 10-14
All eligible. Each adds further technical limitations (azimuth/laser-ID prediction, bounding-box extraction/sorting, matching lists, signaling). Claims 6 and 14 recite coordinated difference and motion vector computations (mathematical), but those are integrated into point-cloud inter-prediction, which is a practical application (MPEP §2106.05(a)).
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 4, 6, 12, 13, and 14 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 4 refers to “a list for the reference frame” and “a list for the current frame” but it’s parent claim 3 created only one list “a list for the bounding boxes.” It is unclear whether these are that single list or two additional lists claim 4 requires. Suggested fix: amend claim 3 to recite generating a list of bounding boxes for each of the current frame and the reference frame, and conform claim 4.
Claim 6 refers to “the matched bounding boxes,” but parent claim 4 introduces these as “found bounding boxes,” not “matched.” Because the term changes, it is unclear whether “the matched bounding boxes” are the “found bounding boxes” of claim 4 or a different set. Suggested fix: use on consistent term e.g., “the fond bounding boxes.
Claim 12 has the same problem as claim 4. Claim 12 refers to “a list for the reference frame” and “a list for the current frame,” while parent claim 11 created only a “a list for the bounding boxes.” Their relationship to that single list is unclear. Same suggestion fix.
Claim 13 refers to “the matching list” (three times), but no “matching list” is introduced in its parent claim 11. “A matching list” is first introduced in claim 12, from which claim 13 does not depend. There is no antecedent bases, so it is unclear what is meant. Suggested fix: amend claim 13 to depend from claim 12.
Claim 14 refers to “the list for the reference frame,” “the list for the current frame,” and “the matched bounding boxes,” but parent claim 11 introduced only “a list for the bounding boxes” and “objects” – none of those three terms. There is no antecedent basis for any of them. Suggested fix: amend claim 14 to depend from claim 12 and conform the “matched”/”found” terminology.
Claim Objections
Claim 6, 14, and 15 is/are objected to because of informalities. The examiner recommends the following changes.
Claim 6: “generating motion vector for the dynamic objects” omits an article and leaves the number of vector unclear; it should read “generating a motion vector for each of the dynamic objects.”
Claim 14: same issue discussed in objection of claim 6 – “generating motion vector for the dynamic objects” should read “generating a motion vector for each of the dynamic objects.”
Claim 15: “the processor is configured to: receive a bitstream … and decoding the point cloud data” mixes verb forms: “decoding” should read “decode” to parallel “receive.”
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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, 8, 9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van der Auwera (US 2021/0407143).
Regarding Claim 1, Van der Auwera discloses “A method of transmitting point cloud data, the method comprising: encoding point cloud data” (Van der Auwera, Paragraph [0007], discloses: “…a method for encoding point cloud data …”); and “transmitting a bitstream containing the point cloud data.” (Van der Auwera, Paragraph [0036], discloses “G-PCC encoder 200 may generate one or more bitstreams including encoded point cloud data. Source device 102 may then output the encoded point cloud data via output interface 108 onto computer-readable medium 110 for reception and/or retrieval by, e.g., input interface 122 of destination device 116.”)
Claim 8 recites an apparatus (Device for transmitting point cloud data) with features corresponding to the elements of the method recited in Claim 1. Therefore, the recited features of this claim are mapped to the proposed reference in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding method claim. Finally, Van der Auwera discloses a processor connected to a memory (For example, see Van der Auwera, Paragraph [0005])
Regarding Claim 9 discloses “A method of receiving point cloud data, the method comprising: receiving a bitstream containing point cloud data” (Van der Auwera, Paragraph [0008] discloses “…a method for decoding point cloud data…”; Paragraph [0067] discloses “G-PCC decoder 300 may obtain a geometry bitstream 203 and an attribute bitstream 205.”); and “decoding the point cloud data.” (Van der Auwera, Paragraph [0045], discloses “G-PCC encoder 200 and G-PCC decoder 300 may operate according to a coding standard, such as video point cloud compression (V-PCC) standard or a geometry point cloud compression (G-PCC) standard.”).
Claim 15 recites an apparatus (Device for receiving point cloud data) with features corresponding to the elements of the method recited in Claim 9. Therefore, the recited features of this claim are mapped to the proposed reference in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding method claim. Finally, Van der Auwera discloses a processor connected to a memory (For example, see Van der Auwera, Paragraph [0006]).
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.
18. 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.
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van der Auwera in view of Loi (Inter Prediction for Improved Quantization of Azimuthal Angle in Predictive Geometry Coding).
Regarding Claim 2, Van der Auwera discloses “The method of claim 1, wherein the encoding of the point cloud data comprises:” (Van der Auwera, Paragraphs [0007] and [0036], please refer to the above-described analysis for Claim 1); Loi discloses the following in Section 4.1 and Figure 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
125
606
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
310
635
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It is important to note that Figure 1 is exactly the same as Figure 15 in the disclosure, whereas the claim is further described in detail, and Loi describes the method of predicting the current point in the current frame according to the point in a reference frame. This includes all the elements for searching for the point described in the claim as well, such as the Azimuth and laserID. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the transmission method seen in Van der Auwera with the Loi technique of predicting the current point in the current frame according to the point in a reference frame to result in an improved method. By using the technique for predicting the current point seen in Loi with the transmission method seen in Van der Auwera, one of ordinary skill in the art can effectively encode the point cloud data to establish its unique characteristics in the bitstream before transmitting the bitstream to the reception device. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the Van der Auwera and Loi references to achieve the same transmission method described in Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 10, Van der Auwera discloses “The method of claim 9, wherein the decoding of the point cloud data comprises:” (Van der Auwera, Paragraphs [0008], [0067] and [0045], please refer to the above-described analysis for Claim 9); Loi discloses the following in Section 4.1 and Figure 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
125
606
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
310
635
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As mentioned before in the rejection of Claim 2, Figure 1 near identical to Figure 15 in the disclosure, where Loi describes the method of predicting the current point in the current frame according to the point in a reference frame including searching for the point based on the Azimuth and laserID. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the reception method seen in Van der Auwera with the Loi technique of predicting the current point in the current frame according to the point in a reference frame to result in an improved method. By using the technique for predicting the current point seen in Loi with the transmission method seen in Van der Auwera, one of ordinary skill in the art can effectively decode the point cloud data to understand its unique characteristics and properties as the bitstream is received by the reception device. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the Van der Auwera and Loi references to achieve the same reception method described in Claim 10.
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van der Auwera in view of Wang (US 2021/0201539).
Regarding Claims 3, Van der Auwera discloses “The method of claim 1, wherein the encoding of the point cloud data comprises:” (Van der Auwera, Paragraphs [0007] and [0036], please refer to the above-described analysis for Claim 1) Wang discloses the following in Paragraphs [0082]-[0084] and Figure 5:
PNG
media_image3.png
161
374
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
295
377
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
430
373
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
642
684
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figure 5, from the Loi Reference
As disclosed in the aforementioned paragraphs, it is important to note that Paragraph [0083] describes identifying and extracting objects in a current frame (as seen from it containing a 3D image of people within the frame and its capability for identifying other objects). Paragraph [0082] is important for understanding that the point cloud data is being captured for each object in the frame. Finally, we can see that [0083] and [0084] describes in detail the final two limitations of generating and sorting the bounding boxes, where the coordinates of the bounding boxes are being formed into 3D patches that can be easily sorted into a list in descending order. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the transmission method seen in Van der Auwera with the technique of extracting objects, generating bounding boxes for the objects, and sorting the bounding boxes into a list seen in Loi to have an improved transmission method. Using the method seen in Van de Auwera and the technique of extracting objects and generating and sorting bounding boxes for them, one of ordinary skill in the art can effectively identify objects of interest and determine what specifically needs to be encoded before being transmitted for the reception device for further processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the Van der Auwera and Loi references to achieve the same transmission method as described in Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 7, Van der Auwera discloses “The method of claim 1, wherein the bitstream comprises:” (Van der Auwera, Paragraphs [0007] and [0036], please refer to the above-described analysis for Claim 1) Van der Auwera, Paragraph [0007] discloses: “a method for encoding point cloud data, the method comprising: determining that occupied child nodes of a node form a single plane perpendicular to a first axis of a coordinate system, wherein the first axis is a horizontal axis and the occupied child nodes contain points represented by the point cloud data; determining a horizontal plane position of the node, wherein the horizontal plane position indicates a position of the single plane that is perpendicular to the first axis of the coordinate system”, Paragraph [0003] discloses: “A point cloud is a collection of points in a 3-dimensional space. The points may correspond to points on objects within the 3-dimensional space.”; Paragraph [0007] discloses “Only specific types of nodes are eligible to be encoded using a planar coding mode. In general, a node is eligible to be encoded using a planar coding mode if an estimated density of occupied child nodes of the node is below a specific threshold and a probability of using planar mode is above another threshold. In the following text, a variable eligible_planar_flag indicates whether a node is eligible to be encoded using a planar coding mode.”; In these paragraphs, it is important to note that the nodes are points that exist within the point cloud of an object obtained by a source device (i.e., 3D scanner or LIDAR device, as mentioned in Paragraph [0036]) that observe motion within the objects that they capture. Therefore, the objects obtained in frame of the image were ideally in motion, making the threshold of the nodes from the point cloud data of the object analogous to finding a threshold for dynamic objects);
For “information indicating whether to estimate and compensate for motion vectors based on dynamic objects for the point cloud data”, Wang discloses: “The motion estimation component 221 generates motion vectors, PUs, and TUs by using a rate-distortion analysis as part of a rate distortion optimization process. For example, the motion estimation component 221 may determine multiple reference blocks, multiple motion vectors, etc. for a current block/frame, and may select the reference blocks, motion vectors, etc. having the best rate-distortion characteristics. The best rate-distortion characteristics balance both quality of video reconstruction (e.g., amount of data loss by compression) with coding efficiency (e.g., size of the final encoding)” (Wang, Paragraph [0054]), whereas “moving objects may be represented across multiple frames, for example due to object movement or camera movement. As a particular example, a video may show an automobile that moves across the screen over multiple frames. Motion vectors can be employed to describe such movement”. In terms of “information indicating axes of coordinates for the dynamic objects”, Wang discloses “The point cloud media 500 includes three bounding boxes 502, 504, and 506. Each of the bounding boxes 502, 504, and 506 represents a portion or segment of a 3D image from a current frame. While the bounding boxes 502, 504, and 506 contain a 3D image of a person, other objects may be included in the bounding boxes in practical applications. Each bounding box 502, 504, and 506 includes an x-axis, a y-axis, and z-axis that indicates a number of pixels occupied by the 3D image in the x, y, and z directions, respectively. For example, the x-axis and the y-axis depict about four-hundred pixels (e.g., from about 0-400 pixels) while the z-axis depicts about one-thousand pixels (e.g., from about 0-1000 pixels)” (Wang, Paragraph [0083]). Next, for the limitation “information indicating a number of the dynamic objects”, Wang discloses “As a specific example, a PCC video stream including a large number of shiny objects may include many reflectance streams, such as different dedicated streams for different objects, different streams for even and odd frames, etc. Further, a PCC video stream including only matte objects may omit reflectance streams” (Wang, Paragraph [0050]). Here, the number of objects in the video stream can be observed with obtaining point cloud data for each frame in the video. Lastly, for the final limitations “information indicating a position of the dynamic objects” and “information indicating a motion vector for static objects”, Wang discloses “At step 105, various compression mechanisms are employed to compress the image blocks partitioned at step 103. For example, inter-prediction and/or intra-prediction may be employed. Inter-prediction is designed to take advantage of the fact that objects in a common scene tend to appear in successive frames. Accordingly, a block depicting an object in a reference frame need not be repeatedly described in adjacent frames. Specifically, an object, such as a table, may remain in a constant position over multiple frames. Hence the table is described once and adjacent frames can refer back to the reference frame. Pattern matching mechanisms may be employed to match objects over multiple frames. Further, moving objects may be represented across multiple frames, for example due to object movement or camera movement. As a particular example, a video may show an automobile that moves across the screen over multiple frames. Motion vectors can be employed to describe such movement.” (Wang, Paragraph [0054]). It is important to note that although each of the aforementioned paragraphs from Wang describe the limitations of Claim 7 in detail, Paragraph [0054] describe a key aspect of their invention, where they consider both moving and static objects within the encoding of the point cloud data. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the transmission method seen Van der Auwera with the techniques for identifying parameters in the bitstream seen in Wang to improve the transmission method in the same way, as described in Claim 7.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van der Auwera in view of Wang, and further in view of Zakharchenko (US 2021/0217202) and Miksik (Live Reconstruction of Large-scale Dynamic Outdoor Worlds).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Van der Auwera and Wang discloses “The method of claim 3, wherein the encoding of the point cloud data comprises:” (Van der Auwera, Paragraphs [0007] and [0036]; Wang, Paragraphs [0082]-[0084], please refer to the above-described analysis for Claim 3); “searching, among bounding boxes included in a list for the reference frame, for bounding boxes having similar information to bounding boxes included in a list for the current frame; and generating a matching list including the found bounding boxes, wherein the found bounding boxes are removed from the list for the reference frame”. The combination of Van der Auwera and Wang is not relied on to disclose “searching, among bounding boxes included in a list for the reference frame, for bounding boxes having similar information to bounding boxes included in a list for the current frame; and generating a matching list including the found bounding boxes, wherein the found bounding boxes are removed from the list for the reference frame”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Zakcharenko discloses “During the V-PCC encoding solution, the V-PCC encoder encodes a frame of point cloud media using a three dimensional bounding box. In general, a set of points is iterated and being projected to the bounding box, then patches are segmented based on definition of smoothness continuous surface criteria. Each patch corresponds to a specific and unique index and corresponding 3-D coordinates. Moreover matched patch list exists to ensure that their order in the list is similar and matched patches in this list have same index.” (Zakcharenko, Paragraph [0138]). Here, we should recall from claim 3 that Wang Paragraph [0084] discussed that patches were formed from bounding boxes surrounding various objects within a 3D image, which was done after obtaining them from a reference frame. Therefore, the iteration described in Paragraph [0138] in Zakcharenko can be comparable to searching for similar information among the bounding boxes, because later on in the paragraph is mentioned that the matched patch list is ordered based off of the similar information. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the transmission method seen in the combination of Van der Auwera and Wang and with the technique for searching among bounding boxes included in a list for the reference frame to identify similar information for a list in the current frame to achieve the above-described limitation in Claim 4.
The combination of Van der Auwera, Wang, and Zakcharenko does not explicitly disclose “wherein the found bounding boxes are removed from the list for the reference frame.”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Miksik discloses the following in Section 3.4:
PNG
media_image7.png
675
659
media_image7.png
Greyscale
From this paragraph, the method uses algorithms to get a dedicated set of bounding boxes for the objects of interest, but it does not includes bounding boxes for the object in the image that are not necessary. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the transmission method seen in the combination of Van der Auwera, Wang, and Zakcharenko with the technique of removing the found bounding boxes in the list for the reference frame to result in an improved transmission method for Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Van der Auwera, Wang, Zakcharenko and Miksik disclose “The method of claim 4, wherein the bitstream comprises:” (Van der Auwera, Paragraphs [0007] and [0036]; Wang, Paragraphs [0082]-[0084]; Zakcharenko, Paragraph [0138]; Miksik, Section 3.4, please refer to the above-described analysis for Claim 4); “information indicating whether inter-prediction is performed on the point cloud data based on the objects” (Wang, Paragraph [0054], discloses: “At step 105, various compression mechanisms are employed to compress the image blocks partitioned at step 103. For example, inter-prediction and/or intra-prediction may be employed. Inter-prediction is designed to take advantage of the fact that objects in a common scene tend to appear in successive frames.”; Here, it discusses about inter-prediction on image blocks, but by swapping image blocks with the point cloud data, it would lead to predictable results in the claim); “information indicating a reference point for the matching list” (Zakcharenko, Paragraph [0157], discloses “The packaged patch group 1802 illustrates one or more projected patches, 2-D frames, from a frame of point cloud media, such as the frame of point cloud media 1402. The collection of patches creates a patch tile group, and the patch tile groups are combined in a patch data group for a given frame of point cloud media. Each element of the patch data group, referred to as a “patch,” includes a specific and unique index and corresponds to a unique 3-D bounding box within the 3-D point cloud frame. The packaged patch 1802 can be encoded and subsequently, transmitted. In particular, if the patch in one point cloud frame has a corresponding reference patch in a reference point cloud frame, e.g., a previous frame, an index of the reference patch in the reference patch tile group is transferred in a bit stream.”; This reference point cloud frame is a focal point for the matched patch list described in Paragraph [0084]); “information indicating a matching criterion for the matching list; and information indicating the matching list” (Zakharchenko, Paragraph [0141], discloses: “During the V-PCC, encoding solution, the V-PCC. encoder encodes a frame of point cloud media using a three dimensional bounding box. In general, a set of points is iterated and being projected to the bounding box, then patches are segmented based on definition of smoothness continuous surface criteria. Each patch corresponds to a specific and unique index and corresponding 3-D coordinates. Moreover matched patch list exists to ensure that their order in the list is similar and matched patches in this list have same index.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the techniques concerning the matched list and inter-prediction of point cloud data (if swapped with the image blocks) seen in the combination of Van der Auwera, Wang, Zakharchenko, and Miksik to achieve the same transmission method described in Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Van der Auwera, Wang, Zakharchenko, and Miksik disclose “The method of claim 4, wherein the encoding of the point cloud data comprises:” (Van der Auwera, Paragraphs [0007] and [0036]; Wang, Paragraphs [0082]-[0084]; Zakcharenko, Paragraph [0138]; Miksik, Section 3.4, please refer to the above-described analysis for Claim 4); “classifying dynamic objects based on a difference in at least one of azimuth, radius, or laser ID among the matched bounding boxes from among the bounding boxes included in the list for the reference frame and the bounding boxes included in the list for the current frame” (Miksik, Section 3.5, discloses the following:
PNG
media_image8.png
425
481
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
308
714
media_image9.png
Greyscale
It is important to note that rotation vectors correlate with azimuths, as azimuths are rotations around a vertical axis. Therefore, these paragraphs closely model what is being done in the current limitation when it comes to classifying objects.); and “generating motion vector for the dynamic objects based on a difference in a coordinate value between bounding boxes in the reference frame for the dynamic objects and bounding boxes in the current frame connected to the dynamic objects” (Wang, Paragraph [0065], discloses “The motion estimation component 221 generates motion vectors, PUs, and TUs by using a rate-distortion analysis as part of a rate distortion optimization process. For example, the motion estimation component 221 may determine multiple reference blocks, multiple motion vectors, etc. for a current block/frame, and may select the reference blocks, motion vectors, etc. having the best rate-distortion characteristics. The best rate-distortion characteristics balance both quality of video reconstruction (e.g., amount of data loss by compression) with coding efficiency (e.g., size of the final encoding).”; Here, blocks can be synonymous to bounding boxes, as they represent the object within the image). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the techniques for classifying dynamic objects and generating motion vectors for the dynamic objects based on the difference between the bounding boxes seen in the combination of Van der Auwera, Wang, Zakharchenko, and Miksik to lead to an improved transmission method for Claim 6.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van der Auwera in view of Zakharchenko.
Regarding Claim 11, Van der Auwera discloses “The method of claim 9, wherein the decoding of the point cloud data comprises:” (Van der Auwera, Paragraph [0008], [0067], and [0045], please refer to the above-described analysis for Claim 9); extracting objects from a current frame containing the point cloud data and a reference frame for the current frame based on parameter information in the bitstream; and inter-predicting the point cloud data on a block-by-block basis based on bounding boxes containing the objects and a list for the bounding boxes. Van der Auwera does not explicitly disclose “extracting objects from a current frame containing the point cloud data and a reference frame for the current frame based on parameter information in the bitstream”; and “inter-predicting the point cloud data on a block-by-block basis based on bounding boxes containing the objects and a list for the bounding boxes”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Zakharchenko discloses “FIG. 18 is an example of a system 1800 illustrating packing patches for point cloud media having attribute information. In some implementations, the attribute information can include texture information, depth information, color information, luna, reflectance, and chroma information. The packaged patch group 1802 illustrates one or more projected patches, 2-D frames, from a frame of point cloud media, such as the frame of point cloud media 1402. The collection of patches creates a patch tile group, and the patch tile groups are combined in a patch data group for a given frame of point cloud media. Each element of the patch data group, referred to as a “patch,” includes a specific and unique index and corresponds to a unique 3-D bounding box within the 3-D point cloud frame. The packaged patch 1802 can be encoded and subsequently, transmitted. In particular, if the patch in one point cloud frame has a corresponding reference patch in a reference point cloud frame, e.g., a previous frame, an index of the reference patch in the reference patch tile group is transferred in a bit stream.” (Zakharchenko, Paragraph [0157] and Figure 18).
PNG
media_image10.png
448
521
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Here, we can see that the attributes are being extracted from the point cloud data of the objects before being transmitted into the bitstream. Zakharchenko also discloses that “The encoder is enhanced by reviewing the additional auxiliary information included from the patch data. For a current frame, the auxiliary information is generated from a current 2-D patch and corresponding 3-D point cloud. For the reference frame, the auxiliary information is generated from the previously encoded reference 2-D patch and corresponding 3-D point cloud. The encoder can predict a block location from comparing the auxiliary information from the patch of a current frame, e.g., u0, v0, u1, v1, and d1, to the auxiliary information from the patch of a reference frame, e.g., u0, 0, u1, v1, and d1. The comparison results in a distance between the patches based on their auxiliary information” (Zakharchenko, Paragraph [0176]). Here, we can see that inter-prediction is happening with the point cloud information enclosed in the patches in a block-by-block basis through the encoder predicting the block location from the patch of a current frame. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the reception method seen in Van der Auwera with extraction and inter-predicting techniques found in Zakharchenko to achieve an improved reception method for Claim 11.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Van der Auwera and Zakharchenko discloses “The method of claim 11, wherein the decoding of the point cloud data comprises:” (Van der Auwera, Paragraph [0008], [0067], and [0045]; Zakharchenko, Paragraphs [0157] and [0176]; please refer to the above-described analysis for Claim 11); “based on the parameter information in the bitstream, searching, among bounding boxes included in a list for the reference frame, for bounding boxes having similar information to bounding boxes included in a list for the current frame and generating a matching list including the found bounding boxes” (Zakharchenko, Paragraph [0141], discloses “During the V-PCC, encoding solution, the V-PCC. encoder encodes a frame of point cloud media using a three dimensional bounding box. In general, a set of points is iterated and being projected to the bounding box, then patches are segmented based on definition of smoothness continuous surface criteria. Each patch corresponds to a specific and unique index and corresponding 3-D coordinates. Moreover matched patch list exists to ensure that their order in the list is similar and matched patches in this list have same index.”); or “inter-predicting the point cloud data based on information about a list of bounding boxes based on the parameter information in the bitstream.” (Zakharchenko, Paragraph [0139], discloses: …a frame of the point cloud media is encoded using a video-based point cloud compression (V-PCC) coder.…; Paragraph [0082], discloses “Many schemes are employed in tandem to compress video data during the video coding process. For example, a video sequence is divided into image frames. The image frames are then partitioned into image blocks. The image blocks may then be compressed by inter-prediction (correlation between blocks in different frames) or intra-prediction (correlation between blocks in the same frame).”; Zakharchenko, Paragraph [0083], also discloses: “Inter-prediction is employed when a coding object, such as a coding tree unit (CTU), a coding tree block (CTB), a coding unit (CU), a sub-CU, etc., appears in multiple frames of a video sequence. Rather than coding the same object in each frame, the object is coded in a reference frame and a motion vector (MV) is employed to indicate a motion trajectory of an object. The motion trajectory of an object is the object's movement over time. An MV is a vector that indicates a direction and magnitude of an objects change in position between frames. The object and the MV can be coded in a bitstream and decoded by a decoder.”). Here, the parameters are identified from the point cloud data found in the image frame captured (coding tree unit, coding tree block, coding unit, sub CU, etc), while the blocks serve as bounding boxes for the object, so that data is being interpredicted as it gets transferred into the bitstream. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the techniques of searching for the bounding boxes and generating a matching list as well as the interprediction of the point cloud data to achieve the same method disclosed in Claim 12.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van der Auwera in view of Zakharchenko and further in view of Wang.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Van der Auwera and Zakcharenko and Miksik discloses “The method of claim 11, wherein the bitstream comprises:” (Van der Auwera, Paragraphs [0007] and [0036]; Wang, Paragraphs [0082]-[0084]; Zakcharenko, Paragraph [0138]; Miksik, Section 3.4, please refer to the above-described analysis for Claim 4); (Zakcharenko, Paragraph [0157], discloses “The packaged patch group 1802 illustrates one or more projected patches, 2-D frames, from a frame of point cloud media, such as the frame of point cloud media 1402. The collection of patches creates a patch tile group, and the patch tile groups are combined in a patch data group for a given frame of point cloud media. Each element of the patch data group, referred to as a “patch,” includes a specific and unique index and corresponds to a unique 3-D bounding box within the 3-D point cloud frame. The packaged patch 1802 can be encoded and subsequently, transmitted. In particular, if the patch in one point cloud frame has a corresponding reference patch in a reference point cloud frame, e.g., a previous frame, an index of the reference patch in the reference patch tile group is transferred in a bit stream.”; This reference point cloud frame is a focal point for the matched patch list described in Paragraph [0084]); “information indicating a matching criterion for the matching list; and information indicating the matching list” (Zakharchenko, Paragraph [0141], discloses: “During the V-PCC, encoding solution, the V-PCC. encoder encodes a frame of point cloud media using a three dimensional bounding box. In general, a set of points is iterated and being projected to the bounding box, then patches are segmented based on definition of smoothness continuous surface criteria. Each patch corresponds to a specific and unique index and corresponding 3-D coordinates. Moreover matched patch list exists to ensure that their order in the list is similar and matched patches in this list have same index.”). The combination of Van der Auwera and Zakharchenko does not explicitly disclose “information indicating whether inter-prediction is performed on the point cloud data based on the objects”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Wang discloses “At step 105, various compression mechanisms are employed to compress the image blocks partitioned at step 103. For example, inter-prediction and/or intra-prediction may be employed. Inter-prediction is designed to take advantage of the fact that objects in a common scene tend to appear in successive frames” (Wang, Paragraph [0054]). Here, it discusses about inter-prediction on image blocks, but by swapping image blocks with the point cloud data, it would lead to predictable results in the claim. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the techniques concerning the matched list and inter-prediction of point cloud data (if swapped with the image blocks) to achieve the same transmission method described in Claim 13.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Van der Auwera, Wang, Zakharchenko, and Miksik disclose “The method of claim 11, wherein the encoding of the point cloud data comprises:” (Van der Auwera, Paragraphs [0007] and [0036]; Wang, Paragraphs [0082]-[0084]; Zakcharenko, Paragraph [0138]; Miksik, Section 3.4, please refer to the above-described analysis for Claim 4); “classifying dynamic objects based on a difference in at least one of azimuth, radius, or laser ID among the matched bounding boxes from among the bounding boxes included in the list for the reference frame and the bounding boxes included in the list for the current frame” and “generating motion vector for the dynamic objects based on a difference in a coordinate value between bounding boxes in the reference frame for the dynamic objects and bounding boxes in the current frame connected to the dynamic objects”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Miksik discloses the following in Section 3.5:
PNG
media_image8.png
425
481
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
308
714
media_image9.png
Greyscale
It is important to note that rotation vectors correlate with azimuths, as azimuths are rotations around a vertical axis. Therefore, these paragraphs closely model what is being done in the current limitation when it comes to classifying objects. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the reception method seen in the combination of Van der Auwera and Zakharchenko with the techniques for classifying dynamic objects seen in Miksik achieve the limitation described in for Claim 14.
The combination of Van der Auwera, Zakharchenko, and Miksik does not explicitly disclose “generating motion vector for the dynamic objects based on a difference in a coordinate value between bounding boxes in the reference frame for the dynamic objects and bounding boxes in the current frame connected to the dynamic objects”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Wang discloses “The motion estimation component 221 generates motion vectors, PUs, and TUs by using a rate-distortion analysis as part of a rate distortion optimization process. For example, the motion estimation component 221 may determine multiple reference blocks, multiple motion vectors, etc. for a current block/frame, and may select the reference blocks, motion vectors, etc. having the best rate-distortion characteristics. The best rate-distortion characteristics balance both quality of video reconstruction (e.g., amount of data loss by compression) with coding efficiency (e.g., size of the final encoding).” Here, blocks can be synonymous to bounding boxes, as they represent the object within the image. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the reception method seen in the combination of Van der Auwera, Zakharchenko, and Miksik with the technique of generating motion vectors for the dynamic objects based on the difference between the bounding boxes seen in Wang to achieve the same method described in Claim 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Van der Auwera 2 (US 2021/0326734) teaches techniques for coding of laser angles for angular and azimuthal modes in the Geometry-based Point Cloud Compression (G-PCC) standard, which involved encoding and decoding point cloud data.
Zhang (US 2014/0253681) teaches a video coder that scales a motion vector of a current prediction unit (PU) of a current picture in order to compensate for a temporal distance between a fixed reference picture and a temporal reference picture.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SORIE I KOROMA JR whose telephone number is (571)272-9259. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM-6:00PM; Alternate Fridays Off.
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 at 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 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.
/SORIE I KOROMA JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights