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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 (Korean Application KR-10-2022-0024115 filed February 24th, 2022).
Response to Amendment
Applicant re-filed their previous response filed December 31st, 2025 on March 16th, 2026 including corrections to address the January 16th, 2026 Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment.
The Examiner responds to the papers filed on March 16th, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant amended claims 1, 4 – 7, 9 – 11, and 14 beyond formalities and 112(b) Rejections. The claims also are amended in scope beyond the mere inclusion of one dependent claim.
Applicant cancelled claims 3, 8, and 13.
The pending claims are 1 – 2, 4 – 7, 9 – 12, and 14 – 15 [Page 11 lines 1 – 6].
Applicant comments on the contents of the current filing in response to Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment [Page 11 lines 7 – 12].
Applicant amended the Specification to address Examiner’s Drawing Objections [Page 11 lines 13 – 17]. The Examiner reconsiders the Drawing Objections in view of amendments made.
Applicant amended the Abstract and Specification to address Examiner’s Specification Objections [Page 11 lines 18 – 24]. The Examiner notes no amendments to the Title of the Invention were made so the Objection is maintained. The Examiner reconsiders the other Objections in view of amendments made.
Applicant amended the claims to address Examiner’s Claim Objections [Page 12 lines 1 – 4].
Applicant amended the claims to address Examiner’s 112(b) Rejections [Page 12 lines 5 – 11]. Applicant’s arguments merely state amendments to the claims; thus the Rejections will be reconsidered in view of the amended claims.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
First, the Applicant recites the references against the claims [Page 12 lines 12 – 16].
Second, the Applicant recites amended independent claim 1 without providing Specification support [Page 12 line 17 – Page 13 line 5].
Third, the Applicant broadly contends the reference do not teach features of amended independent claim 1 which were based on previous claim 3 [Page 13 lines 6 – 11]. The Examiner notes Auwera Paragraphs 93 – 97 and 100 – 109 render obvious inter prediction based on Laser ID, radius, and azimuth.
Fourth, the Applicant broadly contends the references do not render obvious the new feature of amended independent claim 1 [Pag 13 lines 12 – 19]. The Examiner notes while Auwera and Nishi may suggest signaling by using information / syntax elements; the Examiner in the sole interest to expedite prosecution in view of the amended claim cites and additional reference against the claims.
Fifth, the Applicant broadly contends the “core mapping list” feature is not taught by the references [Page 13 lines 20 – 26]. However, the Examiner observes that at least Nishi Paragraphs 200 – 207, 209 – 211, and 219 – 224 render obvious storing nodes to lists to be re-used during inter prediction as an obvious variant of the claimed “core mapping list” claimed which is combinable at least with Auwera Paragraph 61 re-using points in inter prediction of point cloud data based on radius / azimuth / laser ID number / laser angle.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Sixth, the Applicant contends the claims are allowable for at least the reasons given [Page 13 lines 27 – 29]. The Examiner disagree for at least the reasons given above.
While the Applicant’s points may be understood, the Examiner respectfully disagrees; however, in the sole interest to expedite prosecution cites a new reference against the amended claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 17th, 2026 was filed before the mailing date of the Final Rejection (this Office Action). The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 7th, 2024 was filed before the mailing date of the First Action on the Merits (mailed October 1st, 2025). The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the Abstract is a single sentence (the amended Abstract is still a single sentence) using legalese language and is not a series of brief sentences in narrative format describing the inventive concept. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 6, the phrase “data further configured to” in lines 9 – 10 should read as --data is further configured to-- for clarity.
Regarding claim 10, the claim was not amended in kind as claim 5 and thus appears as an Improper Dependent claim for the “information indicating a method for the partitioning”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 – 7 and 9 – 11 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 the limitation "the partitioned units" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the unit" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the unit" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the unit" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 6, the claimed “apparatus for encoding point cloud data” has Indefinite metes and bounds as to either the “apparatus” is being functionally claimed or not, however, the preamble ordinarily is not afforded patentable weight thus the patentable weight to afford the preamble is Indefinite. While the claim preamble is Indefinite, the Examiner for purposes of Examination does not afford the preamble patentable weight.
Regarding claims 7 and 9 – 10, the dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of their respective independent claim and thus are similarly Rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 2, 4 – 7, 10 – 12, and 14 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auwera, et al. (WO2023/059987 A1 referred to as “Auwera” throughout in which citations will come from the WIPO document in lieu of enabling US Provisional Applications 63/252,093 and 63/254,472) [First cited in the Office Action mailed October 1st, 2025], and further in view of Nishi, et al. (US PG PUB 2023/0239517 A1 referred to as “Nishi” throughout) and WG7 (“Inter-prediction Exploration Model (Inter-EM) v4.0” referred to as “WG7” throughout) [Cited on Applicant’s February 17th, 2026 IDS as NPL Item #2].
Regarding clam 1, see claim 6 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding clam 2, see claim 7 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding clam 4, see claim 9 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding clam 5, see claim 10 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 12, see claim 7 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method which is the same / similar limitation for citations.
Regarding claim 14, see claim 10 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method which is the same / similar limitation for citations.
Regarding claim 6, Auwera teaches encoding point cloud data repeated / reusing points to generate additional predictors. Nishi teaches using lists to signal repeatable / core points to use for predictive encoding of point could data. WG7 teaches syntax elements to signal various features / aspects during inter prediction of point cloud data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Auwera’s point encoding to include lists with core / reused nodes / points as taught by Nishi and syntax elements for inter prediction as taught by WG7. The combination teaches
a memory [Auwera Figures 1 – 2 (see at least reference characters 112, 102, and 120) as well as Paragraphs 7 (encoder with memory), and 28 – 33 (memory and examples to use with encoders / decoders)]; and
at least one processor connected to the memory [Auwera Figures 1 – 2 (see at least reference characters 200) as well as Paragraphs 28 – 29 (G-PCC encoder), 33 and 38 – 42 (encoder implemented in circuitry / processor based implementations coupled to memories)], wherein the at least one processor configured to
encode the point cloud data including points [Auwera Figures 1 – 2 (see at least reference character 200) as well as Paragraphs 28 – 29 (G-PCC encoder) and 35 – 42 (encoder implemented in processor based implementations to encode point cloud data / G-PCC data)],
wherein a bitstream including the encoded point cloud data further includes signaling information [Auwera Figure 1 (see at least reference characters 108, 122, and 200) as well as Paragraphs 35 – 38 and 42 – 48 (transmit encoded data and physical implementations such as modems and wired embodiments with syntax elements / information in Paragraph 37 – 40 in a bitstream)],
wherein the at least one processor to encode the point cloud data further configured to:
partition the point cloud data into a plurality of units based on at least one of a laser identifier (ID), an azimuth angle, or a radius value of the points [Auwera Figures 2 and 4 (see at least reference characters 210 and 400) and 7 – 9 as well as Paragraphs 44 (partitioning into bounding boxes or octree in Paragraphs 48 and 56), 93 – 97 (inter prediction based on the laserID, radius, or azimuth), and 100 – 109 (improved inter prediction with octree / node / partition considerations or grouping of points for prediction) where Nishi provides additional details of octree partitioning in Nishi Figures 9 – 10 (generation of the octree) as well as Paragraphs 200 – 205 (partitioning into an octree and geometry computations) or 439 and 492 – 497 (grouping of points for prediction trees)],
select one or more core points in each of the units [Auwera Figures 4 – 5 and 7 – 9 (inter prediction with point selection and using a current point for several prediction points – see at least reference characters 700, 710, 702, 900, 910, and 912 (point 900 is an obvious variant of the core point claimed to one of ordinary skill in the art)) as well as Paragraphs 64, 97 – 99 and 104 – 111 (using core points with identical identifying information / duplicating use of a point for inter prediction as the partitioning unit); Nishi Figures 9 – 10 (see at least reference characters 2701 and 2702) as well as Paragraphs 200 – 206 (saving nodes in a partitioning in an octree – combinable with the teachings of Auwera)];
generate a core mapping list for each of the units based on the selected one or more core points in each of the units, wherein the core mapping list includes pairs of an azimuth angle and a radius value of related with the one or more core points of the unit [Nishi Figures 9 – 15 (see at least reference characters 2701 and 2702) as well as Paragraphs 200 – 207 (saving nodes in a partitioning in an octree where the lists save with nodes renders obvious the core mapping list to one of ordinary skill in the art) where the partitions are based on the coordinate space claimed as taught by Auwera Figures 2 and 4 (see at least reference characters 210 and 400) and 7 – 9 (e.g. inter prediction based on the same azimuth) as well as Paragraphs 93 – 97 (inter prediction based on the laserID, radius, or azimuth), 100 – 109 (improved inter prediction with octree / node / partition considerations or grouping of points for prediction), and 115 – 122 (duplicate predictors created / used in which the split is by the same azimuth value / nearest / current Laser ID and the associated radius value in Paragraphs 120 and 122) and 137 (code with azimuth and radius information for the duplicate / core points)], and
inter-predict and compress the point cloud data based on the core mapping list for each of the units [Nishi Figures 9 – 15 (see at least reference characters 2701 and 2702) as well as Paragraphs 200 – 207 (saving nodes in a list (see previous limitation) as attribute information to be predicted / inter predicted in Paragraphs 209 – 111 and 219 – 224); Auwera Figures 7 – 9 (see at least reference characters 800, 806, and 808 inter predicting points) as well as Paragraphs 64 (duplicate points for prediction), 93 – 97 (inter prediction for a point based on list / saved / duplicated information), 115 – 122 and 137 (code for inter prediction / extension for duplicate points in inter prediction)],
wherein the signaling information includes information for indicating which one of the laser ID, the azimuth angle, or the radius value is used to partition [Auwera Figures 7 – 9 as well as Paragraphs 48 and 64 (coding mode information with octree parameters), 113 – 117, 121 – 124, and 135 – 140 (signaling inter prediction is user and various grouping techniques rendering obvious the “mode” or angular mode claimed (e.g. radius or azimuth or laser ID use in Paragraphs 121 – 124)) and information regarding use of copy lists / duplicate points; Nishi Figures 36 – 40 (number of modes and types) and 66 – 75 (see the signaling of the inter prediction mode and octree information) as well as Paragraphs 200 – 206 and 493 – 499 (grouping points and mode to group points by in forming trees); WG7 Sections 5.2 and Pages 13 – 14 (see at least the “—predGeomAzimuthSortPrecision” flag and the table at the top of Page 14 and Page 18 flags such as “—planarCopyModeEnabled”)].
The motivation to combine Nishi with Auwera is to combine features in the same / related field of invention of 3D encoding / decoding or point cloud encoding / decoding [Nishi Paragraphs 2 – 4] in order to improve efficiency of the encoder / decoder [Nishi Paragraphs 6 and 11 where the Examiner observes at least KSR Rationales (D) or (F) are also applicable].
The motivation to combine WG7 with Nishi and Auwera is to combine features in the same / related field of invention of inter prediction for point cloud data (G-PCC) [WG7 Abstract] in order combine known techniques in syntax elements for inter prediction with the teachings and suggestions of Nishi and Auwera [WG7 Abstract and Section 5.2 where the Examiner observes KSR Rationales (B) or (D) are also applicable].
This is the motivation to combine Auwera, Nishi, and WG7 which will be used throughout the Rejection.
Regarding claim 7, Auwera teaches encoding point cloud data repeated / reusing points to generate additional predictors. Nishi teaches using lists to signal repeatable / core points to use for predictive encoding of point could data. WG7 teaches syntax elements to signal various features / aspects during inter prediction of point cloud data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Auwera’s point encoding to include lists with core / reused nodes / points as taught by Nishi and syntax elements for inter prediction as taught by WG7. The combination teaches
wherein the point cloud data is frame-by-frame point cloud data or slice-by-slice point cloud data [Auwera Figure 10 as well as Paragraph 138 (frame based cloud data encoded)].
See claim 6 for the motivation to combine Auwera, Nishi, and WG7.
Regarding claim 9, Auwera teaches encoding point cloud data repeated / reusing points to generate additional predictors. Nishi teaches using lists to signal repeatable / core points to use for predictive encoding of point could data. WG7 teaches syntax elements to signal various features / aspects during inter prediction of point cloud data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Auwera’s point encoding to include lists with core / reused nodes / points as taught by Nishi and syntax elements for inter prediction as taught by WG7. The combination teaches
wherein a number of the one or more core points in each of the units depends on a ratio of a number of points included in each of the units to a total number of points included in the point cloud data [Nishi Figures 9 – 10 and 38 – 44 as well as Paragraphs 200 – 206 and 390 – 395 (density of the point cloud coded renders obvious the feature claimed as one of ordinary skill in the art would be includes to improve the density of the information to compress)].
See claim 6 for the motivation to combine Auwera, Nishi, and WG7.
Regarding claim 10, Auwera teaches encoding point cloud data repeated / reusing points to generate additional predictors. Nishi teaches using lists to signal repeatable / core points to use for predictive encoding of point could data. WG7 teaches syntax elements to signal various features / aspects during inter prediction of point cloud data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Auwera’s point encoding to include lists with core / reused nodes / points as taught by Nishi and syntax elements for inter prediction as taught by WG7. The combination teaches
the signaling information comprises geometry compression-related information [Auwera Paragraphs 39 – 40 (coding modes / geometry information encoded); Nishi Figures 10 – 11, 24 – 28, and 66 – 75 (octree partitioning and signaling the use of inter prediction) as well as Paragraphs 187 – 190 (encoding geometry information) and 200 – 206 (additional geometry information encoded / decoded)], and
wherein the geometry compression-related information comprises at least one of:
information indicating whether the point cloud data is partitioned [Auwera Figures 7 – 9 as well as Paragraphs 48 (coding mode information with octree parameters), 113 – 117, 121 – 124, and 135 – 140 (signaling inter prediction is user and various grouping techniques (e.g. radius use in Paragraphs 121 – 124)); Nishi Figures 66 – 75 (see the signaling of the inter prediction mode and octree information) as well as Paragraphs 200 – 206 and 493 – 499 (grouping points and mode to group points by in forming trees), and 349 – 356 (see signaling of prediction modes and similar syntax associated with the use of reference points / frames / lists)];
information indicating a method for the partitioning [Auwera Figures 7 – 9 as well as Paragraphs 48 and 64 (coding mode information with octree parameters), 113 – 117, 121 – 124, and 135 – 140 (signaling inter prediction is user and various grouping techniques rendering obvious the “mode” or angular mode claimed (e.g. radius or azimuth or laser ID use in Paragraphs 121 – 124)) and information regarding use of copy lists / duplicate points; Nishi Figures 36 – 40 (number of modes and types) and 66 – 75 (see the signaling of the inter prediction mode and octree information) as well as Paragraphs 200 – 206 and 493 – 499 (grouping points and mode to group points by in forming trees); WG7 Sections 5.2 and Pages 13 – 14 (see at least the “—predGeomAzimuthSortPrecision” flag and the table at the top of Page 14 and Page 18 flags such as “—planarCopyModeEnabled”)];
information indicating a number of partitioned units [Auwera Figures 7 – 9 as well as Paragraphs 48 (coding mode information with octree parameters), 113 – 117, 121 – 124, and 135 – 140 (signaling inter prediction is user and various grouping techniques (e.g. radius use in Paragraphs 121 – 124)); Nishi Figures 66 – 75 (see the signaling of the inter prediction mode and octree information) as well as Paragraphs 200 – 206 and 493 – 499 (grouping points and mode to group points by in forming trees where the depth or number of nodes is the number of regions), and 345 – 356 (see signaling of prediction modes and similar syntax associated with the use of reference points / frames / lists including the number of points / nodes / children in the tree or unique / duplicate points used)]; or
information indicating a number of core mapping lists [Auwera Figures 7 – 9 as well as Paragraphs 64 (number of duplicate points), 113 – 117, 121 – 124, and 135 – 140 (signaling inter prediction is user and various grouping techniques (e.g. radius use in Paragraphs 121 – 124)); Nishi Figures 66 – 75 (see the signaling of the inter prediction mode and octree information) as well as Paragraphs 200 – 206 (list generation for reference points / lists / groups to save and refer to for inter prediction in which Paragraphs 345 – 358 teach additional syntax elements to signal for the number of lists / points used) and 493 – 499 (grouping points and mode to group points by in forming trees), and 345 – 356 (see signaling of prediction modes and similar syntax associated with the use of reference points / frames / lists)].
See claim 6 for the motivation to combine Auwera, Nishi, and WG7.
Regarding claim 11, Auwera teaches encoding point cloud data repeated / reusing points to generate additional predictors. Nishi teaches using lists to signal repeatable / core points to use for predictive encoding of point could data. WG7 teaches syntax elements to signal various features / aspects during inter prediction of point cloud data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Auwera’s point encoding to include lists with core / reused nodes / points as taught by Nishi and syntax elements for inter prediction as taught by WG7. The combination teaches
receiving a bitstream including the point cloud data and signaling information [Auwera Figures 1 and 3 (see at least reference characters 122 and 300 (received transmitted encoded information), 203 and 205 (encoded inputs)) and 10 – 11 as well as Paragraphs 32 – 35 and 38 – 42 (transmitting / receiving encoded data and syntax elements (e.g. Paragraphs 28 – 29) with syntax elements / information to decode about the point cloud data (Paragraphs 38 – 42))];
decoding the point cloud data including points based on the signaling information [Auwera Figures 1 and 3 (see at least reference characters 300 (decoder to process encoded data), 316, 203 and 205 (encoded inputs to decode)) and 10 – 11 as well as Paragraphs 31 – 35 and 38 – 42 (decoding encoded data and syntax elements (e.g. Paragraphs 28 – 29) with syntax elements / information to decode about the point cloud data (Paragraphs 38 – 42)), and 57 – 64 and 133 (reconstructing (obvious variant of rendering) the point cloud; Alternative Nishi Figures 4 – 5 as well as Paragraphs 170 – 178 (rendering the point cloud / generating / reconstructing the point cloud) where the citations also render obvious decoding encoded information];
wherein the decoding of the point cloud data comprises:
partitioning the received point cloud data into a plurality of units based on the signaling information, wherein the partition is performed based on at least one of a laser identifier (ID), an azimuth angle, or a radius value of the points [Auwera Figures 2 – 4 (see at least reference characters 210, 306, and 400) as well as Paragraphs 44 (partitioning into bounding boxes or octree in Paragraphs 48 and 56 – 63 (octree built in decoder)), 93 – 97 (inter prediction based on the laserID, radius, or azimuth), and 100 – 109 (improved inter prediction with octree / node / partition considerations or grouping of points for prediction) where Nishi provides additional details of octree partitioning in Nishi Figures 9 – 10 (generation of the octree) as well as Paragraphs 188 – 190 (octree information for decoder to recreate tree / partition through the tree), 200 – 205 (partitioning into an octree and geometry computations) or 439 and 492 – 497 (grouping of points for prediction trees)];
generating a core mapping list for each of the units based on the signaling information, wherein the core mapping list includes pairs of an azimuth angle and a radius value of related with the one or more core points of the unit [Nishi Figures 1 – 4 (encoder / decoder for point cloud data) and 9 – 15 (see at least reference characters 2701 and 2702) as well as Paragraphs 188 – 190 (information for decoder regarding tree / lists to use), 200 – 207 (saving nodes in a partitioning in an octree where the lists save with nodes renders obvious the core mapping list to one of ordinary skill in the art for decoding / encoding) where the partitions are based on the coordinate space claimed as taught by Auwera Figures 2 and 4 (see at least reference characters 210 and 400) and 7 – 9 (e.g. inter prediction based on the same azimuth) as well as Paragraphs 93 – 97 (inter prediction based on the laserID, radius, or azimuth), 100 – 109 (improved inter prediction with octree / node / partition considerations or grouping of points for prediction), and 115 – 122 (duplicate predictors created / used in which the split is by the same azimuth value / nearest / current Laser ID and the associated radius value in Paragraphs 120 and 122) and 137 (code with azimuth and radius information for the duplicate / core points)]; and
inter-predicting and decompressing the point cloud data based on the signaling information and the core mapping list for each of the units [Nishi Figures 9 – 15 (see at least reference characters 2701 and 2702) as well as Paragraphs 200 – 207 (saving nodes in a list (see previous limitation) as attribute information to be predicted / inter predicted in Paragraphs 209 – 111 and 219 – 224 with decompression in Paragraphs 422 – 427 or 804 – 809); Auwera Figures 1, 3 and 7 – 10 (see at least reference characters 800, 806, and 808) as well as Paragraphs 26 (decompressing point cloud data), 64 (duplicate points for prediction), 93 – 97 (inter prediction for a point based on list / saved / duplicated information), 115 – 122 and 137 (code for inter prediction / extension for duplicate points in inter prediction)],
wherein the signaling information includes information for indicating which one of the laser ID, the azimuth angle, or the radius value is used to partition [Auwera Figures 7 – 9 as well as Paragraphs 48 and 64 (coding mode information with octree parameters), 113 – 117, 121 – 124, and 135 – 140 (signaling inter prediction is user and various grouping techniques rendering obvious the “mode” or angular mode claimed (e.g. radius or azimuth or laser ID use in Paragraphs 121 – 124)) and information regarding use of copy lists / duplicate points; Nishi Figures 36 – 40 (number of modes and types) and 66 – 75 (see the signaling of the inter prediction mode and octree information) as well as Paragraphs 200 – 206 and 493 – 499 (grouping points and mode to group points by in forming trees); WG7 Sections 5.2 and Pages 13 – 14 (see at least the “--predGeomAzimuthSortPrecision” flag and the table at the top of Page 14 and Page 18 flags such as “—planarCopyModeEnabled”)].
See claim 6 for the motivation to combine Auwera, Nishi, and WG7 as a system performing the same / similar steps to the claimed method.
Regarding claim 15, Auwera teaches encoding point cloud data repeated / reusing points to generate additional predictors. Nishi teaches using lists to signal repeatable / core points to use for predictive encoding of point could data. WG7 teaches syntax elements to signal various features / aspects during inter prediction of point cloud data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Auwera’s point encoding to include lists with core / reused nodes / points as taught by Nishi and syntax elements for inter prediction as taught by WG7. The combination teaches
wherein the geometry compression-related information is contained in at least one of a sequence parameter set, a geometry parameter set, or a geometry slice header [Nishi Figures 41 – 45, 68 – 69 as well as Paragraphs 422 – 425 (information in the geometry parameter set or sps / sequence parameter set) and 681 – 688 (slice header parameters for geometry data / information)].
See claim 11 for the motivation to combine Auwera, Nishi, and WG7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Flynn (US Patent #11,625,866 B2 referred to as “Flynn” throughout) teaches in Figures 1, 3, 6, and 8 teaches core points in coding / decoding octree information representing point cloud data.
Reference that could raise ODP Issues based on amendments made to the claims include: Hur, et al. (US Patent #11,158,107 B2 referred to as “Hur” throughout).
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 Tyler W Sullivan whose telephone number is (571)270-5684. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at (571)-272-7327. 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.
/TYLER W. SULLIVAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights