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 .
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.
Drawings
Figures 1-4 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
Examiner notes that applicant has indicated that the figures refer to known Prior Art as indicated in the Specification filed 9/18/2024 (herein after “Spec.”; see “Background” section of Spec. ¶¶31 and 40-45).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph [0047] of Applicant’s Spec. filed 9/18/2024 recites “Basically, ray racing…” in line 1, which appears to be a typographical error and should be “ray tracing”.
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 1-11 and 15-23 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim is directed to a method comprising: “positions of rendered points obtained by voxelization of the at least one triangle representing the positions of the points of the point cloud encompassed in the cuboid volume” in lines 11-13. As currently drafted, the limitation is not recited as a method operation, but merely recites a characterization of data. It is unclear as to the intended meaning of the limitation, as it is not performing any method operation step, and as such appears to be stating that a method comprises data. It is unclear as to how data itself is a step or act to be performed. Accordingly, the claim is indefinite (examiner notes that if the purpose is to obtain positions, the claim limitation should be drafted as an operative step, e.g. “obtaining positions of rendered points by voxelization of the at least one triangle representing the positions of the points of the point cloud encompassed in the cuboid volume”)
Claims 3-11, 16, and 19-20 incorporate the method of claim 1 and are therefore indefinite for the same reasons as claim 1 discussed above.
Regarding claim 2, the claim is directed to a method comprising: “positions of rendered points obtained by voxelization of the at least one triangle representing the positions of the points of the point cloud encompassed in the cuboid volume” in lines 10-12. As currently drafted, the limitation is not recited as a method operation, but merely recites a characterization of data. It is unclear as to the intended meaning of the limitation, as it is not performing any method operation step, and as such appears to be stating that a method comprises data. It is unclear as to how data itself is a step or act to be performed. Accordingly, the claim is indefinite.
Claims 17, 18, and 21-23 incorporate the method of claim 2 and are therefore indefinite for the same reasons as claim 2 discussed above.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites “the method comprising […] positions of rendered points obtained by voxelization of the at least one triangle representing the positions of the points of the point cloud encompassed in the cuboid volume” in lines 11-13. As currently drafted, the limitation is not recited as a method operation, but merely recites a characterization of data. Examiner notes that the claim is directed to a non-transitory storage medium which could embody such positions if amended to separate the limitation from the method, but instead the limitation is recited as part of a method. It is unclear as to the intended meaning of the limitation, as it is not performing any method operation step, and as such appears to be stating that a method comprises data. It is unclear as to how data itself is a step or act to be performed. Accordingly, the claim is indefinite.
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites “The method of claim 16” in line 1. Claim 16, however is not a method, but an electronic device. As the claim attempts to incorporate by reference claim 16, it is unclear as to the scope of claim 19 from the attempt to only include a method from a device claim. As such, claim 19 is indefinite.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites “The method of claim 16” in line 1. Claim 16, however is not a method, but an electronic device. As the claim attempts to incorporate by reference claim 16, it is unclear as to the scope of claim 20 from the attempt to only include a method from a device claim. As such, claim 20 is indefinite.
Further regarding claim 20, the claim recites “wherein the residual position is a one-dimensional residual position defined along a line defined form the centroid point and a normal vector.” The claims depends from claim 16, which incorporates claim 1, but does not introduce “a residual position” nor “a centroid point”, and further fails to explain any use or connection to such values. The claim limitation therefore lacks antecedent basis. In addition, there limitation provides no meaningful function or structure to the claimed invention as there is no purpose recited or other use that connects any normal vector or centroid point to any functionality or otherwise. Instead, the claim merely states a mathematical concept in the abstract. Without more, the claim cannot be reasonably interpreted for prosecution. (Examiner notes that if re-drafted to parrot the language of claim 9, which incorporates language of claim 6, the claim would not be rejected as indefinite).
Regarding claim 21, the claim recites “wherein the normal vector is taken parallel to an axis of the three-dimensional coordinate system.” The claims depends from claim 18, which depends from claim 2, neither of which introduces “a normal vector”, nor explains what such a value is for. The claim limitation therefore lacks antecedent basis. In addition, there limitation provides no meaningful function or structure to the claimed invention as there is no purpose recited or other use that connects any normal vector to any functionality or otherwise. Instead, the claim merely states that a calculation is performed in the abstract. Without more, the claim cannot be reasonably interpreted for prosecution. (Examiner notes that if re-drafted to parrot the language of claim 7, which incorporates language of claim 6, the claim would not be rejected as indefinite).
Regarding claim 21, the claim recites “wherein the normal vector is defined as a sum of cross products of vectors, each vector being defined from an ordered vertex and the centroid point.” The claims depends from claim 18, which depends from claim 2, neither of which introduces “a normal vector”, nor explains what such a value is for. The claim limitation therefore lacks antecedent basis. In addition, there limitation provides no meaningful function or structure to the claimed invention as there is no purpose recited or other use that connects any normal vector to any functionality or otherwise. Instead, the claim merely states that a calculation is performed in the abstract. Without more, the claim cannot be reasonably interpreted for prosecution. (Examiner notes that if re-drafted to parrot the language of claim 8, which incorporates language of claim 6, the claim would not be rejected as indefinite).
Regarding claim 23, the claim recites “wherein the one-dimensional residual position is a product of the normal vector by a scalar value.” The claims depends from claim 18, which depends from claim 2, does not introduce “a normal vector” nor “the on-dimensional residual position”, and further fails to explain any use or connection to such values. The claim limitation therefore lacks antecedent basis. In addition, there limitation provides no meaningful function or structure to the claimed invention as there is no purpose recited or other use that connects any normal vector or one-dimensional residual position to any functionality or otherwise. Instead, the claim merely states a mathematical concept in the abstract. Without more, the claim cannot be reasonably interpreted for prosecution. (Examiner notes that if re-drafted to parrot the language of claim 9, which incorporates language of claim 6, the claim would not be rejected as indefinite).
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, 3-11 and 15-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the claim is reproduced below with bracketed paragraph designators added for clarity and emphasis added to the claim language that recites an abstract idea:
1. A method of encoding, into a bitstream, positions of points of a point cloud encompassed in a cuboid volume, the positions being represented in a three-dimensional coordinate system, at least two vertices being located on edges of the cuboid volume, the method comprising:
[(A)] encoding vertex information defining the at least two vertices into the bitstream;
[(B)] determining a point in the cuboid volume from the at least two vertices;
[(C)] constructing at least one triangle from the at least two vertices and the determined point;
[(D)] positions of rendered points obtained by voxelization of the at least one triangle representing the positions of the points of the point cloud encompassed in the cuboid volume.
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, the office is guided by the Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), and Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 75–77). In accordance with that framework, the Office first determines what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the user of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”)
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts determined to patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” (id. At 182 n. 7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267–68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
Step 1: The claimed subject matter fails to fall within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. § 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In particular, the claim is directed to “A method”, but then goes on to state Limitation (D), reciting that the method comprises “positions of rendered points obtained by voxelization of the at least one triangle representing the positions of the points of the point cloud encompassed in the cuboid volume.” As such, the claim appears to be reciting a data construct, as opposed to a series of operations of steps, while also attempting to be a method. Accordingly, the claim fails to fall within one of the four statutory categories. As such, the analysis ends and the claim fails to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101. However, if we assume, for the sake of compact prosecution, that the limitation is merely attempting to categorize a type of data used within a method, we turn to step 2A of the 2019 Guidance.
STEP 2A, PRONG 1: Under step 2A, prong 1, of the 2019 Guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes). MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Regarding limitation (A), the limitation recites “encoding vertex information defining the at least two vertices into the bitstream”, which is merely converting data from one format to another. Encoding and decoding data has been found by the courts to be an abstract concept as either merely a mathematical concept (see e.g. RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322 – “Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract.”, and merely claiming a process of encoding and decoding image data does not improve the functioning of a computer, but instead is merely invoking a computer as a tool, stating, “A process that started with data, added an algorithm, and ended with a new form of data was directed to an abstract idea. Id. In this case, the ’303 patent claims a method whereby a user starts with data, codes that data using “at least one multiplication operation,” and ends with a new form of data. We discern no material difference between the Alice step one analysis in Digitech and the analysis here.”; also see Digitech Image Techs., LLC v Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 111 U.S.P.Q.2d 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2014) – a process of taking two data sets and combining them into a single data set, or “taking existing information … and organizing this information into a new form” recites “an ineligible abstract process of gathering and combining data that does not require input from a physical device”, and further holding that “Without additional limitations, a process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional information is not patent eligible. ‘If a claim is directed essentially to a method of calculating, using a mathematical formula, even if the solution is for a specific purpose, the claimed method is nonstatutory.’”, citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 595 (1978)), or even a mental process (see Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 U.S.P.Q. 673 – “conversion of BCD numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally”). Accordingly, the limitation is an abstract mathematical concept or even mental process.
Limitation (B) recites, “determining a point in the cuboid volume from the at least two vertices” which is either merely a mental process (i.e. looking at a drawing of a cube with vertices and mentally identifying a point within the cube), or at the most is a mathematical calculation in the form of determining a mathematical relationship of points in space based on geometric constructs (e.g. x, y and z limits or interpolation of coordinate data values). Accordingly, the limitation is directed to an abstract concept.
Limitation (C) is directed to “constructing at least one triangle from the at least two vertices and the determined point.” At most this is merely a mathematical operation of connecting lines to points, which can be mathematically represented as line equations between end points, or merely a mathematical arrangement of spatial data, at most with use of pen and paper merely as a tool (i.e. basic geometry). This is also a mental step of merely observing data points and identifying a triangle formed from the arrangement of points. Accordingly, the limitation is directed to an abstract concept.
Regarding limitation (D), the limitation recites, “positions of rendered points obtained by voxelization of the at least one triangle representing the positions of the points of the point cloud encompassed in the cuboid volume.” This limitation is at most merely directed to a data representation, i.e. positions of point data. It does not require rendering or voxelization etc., but is merely stating that positions of rendered points are somehow tied to the method. As a data construct, it is at most merely a mathematical concept of geometric data (i.e. point data within cartesian space, such as a list or set of data values). Alternatively, it is merely a statement of what data is obtained, and therefore merely extra-solution activity which under Step 2A is not enough to make the claim patent eligible.
Further regarding the claim, the preamble states, “A method of encoding, into a bitstream, positions of points of a point cloud encompassed in a cuboid volume, the positions being represented in a three-dimensional coordinate system, at least two vertices being located on edges of the cuboid volume.” The preamble is typically not given patentable weight and is at most reciting a purpose or intended use that does have patentable weight for the claim. The exception is if it gives life, meaning and vitality to the claim (MPEP 2111.02). Even if this is the case, the present claim’s preamble merely recites an abstract concept that is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. In particular, the claim preamble states, “A method of encoding, into a bitstream, positions of points of a point cloud encompassed in a cuboid volume, the positions being represented in a three-dimensional coordinate system, at least two vertices being located on edges of the cuboid volume”. Encoding and decoding data has been found by the courts to be an abstract concept as either merely a mathematical concept (see e.g. RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322 – “Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract.”, and merely claiming a process of encoding and decoding image data does not improve the functioning of a computer, but instead is merely invoking a computer as a tool, stating, “A process that started with data, added an algorithm, and ended with a new form of data was directed to an abstract idea. Id. In this case, the ’303 patent claims a method whereby a user starts with data, codes that data using “at least one multiplication operation,” and ends with a new form of data. We discern no material difference between the Alice step one analysis in Digitech and the analysis here.”; also see Digitech Image Techs., LLC v Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 111 U.S.P.Q.2d 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2014) – a process of taking two data sets and combining them into a single data set, or “taking existing information … and organizing this information into a new form” recites “an ineligible abstract process of gathering and combining data that does not require input from a physical device”, and further holding that “Without additional limitations, a process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional information is not patent eligible. ‘If a claim is directed essentially to a method of calculating, using a mathematical formula, even if the solution is for a specific purpose, the claimed method is nonstatutory.’”, citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 595 (1978)), or even a mental process (see Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 U.S.P.Q. 673 – “conversion of BCD numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally”). The preamble is merely reciting an encoding of data and explaining the particular format, as opposed to any meaningful functionality or improvement to a particular technology itself, and is an abstract mathematical concept or even mental process. Accordingly the claim language is directed to ineligible subject matter.
STEP 2A, PRONG 2: Under step 2A, prong 2, of the 2019 Guidance, we next analyze whether the claim recites additional elements that individually or in combination integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53–55. The 2019 Guidance identifies considerations indicative of whether an additional element or combination of elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, such as an additional element reflecting an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Id. at 55; MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Regarding claim 1, the claim does not include any additional steps other than the abstract concepts themselves. Limitation (D) recites, “positions of rendered points obtained by voxelization of the at least one triangle representing the positions of the points of the point cloud encompassed in the cuboid volume.” The claim limitation is unclear as to what is even intended by the language. If, however, this language were merely directed to an obtaining step. Mere data gathering is not meaningfully significant to render an otherwise abstract concept eligible. See MPEP 2106.05 – “Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).” Merely attaching the limitation to the abstract concepts, therefore, does not result in eligible subject matter.
STEP 2B: Under step 2B of the 2019 Guidance, we next analyze whether the claim adds any specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that, either alone or as an ordered combination, amount to more than “well-understood, routine, conventional” activity in the field. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56; MPEP § 2106.05(d). Without more than a general recitation of the conventional components, the limitations do not add significantly more than the abstract concepts themselves. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52-55; MPEP § 2106.05(d). Furthermore, merely implementing the steps on a computer does not provide any particular technological advance to the operation of the computer or to a particular field of technology, other than the recited abstract ideas themselves.
As such, the claim does not recite additional elements that, either individually or as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception within the meaning of the 2019 Guidance. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52-55; MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Regarding claim 3, the claim depends from claim 1 and further recites “wherein the determined point is a centroid point defined from a mean of the at least two vertices.” The limitation merely recites a mathematical concept which is just adding an additional abstract concept to the claim. As such, the claim 3 is directed to ineligible subject matter for substantially the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the claim depends from claim 1 and further recites “wherein the point is determined by adding a residual position to a centroid point defined form a mean value of the at least two vertices.” The limitation merely recites a mathematical concept which is just adding an additional abstract concept to the claim. As such, the claim is directed to ineligible subject matter for substantially the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “wherein the residual position is signaled in the bitstream,” which appears to be a characterization of data, or at most either merely data transmission, which is post-solution activity and not significantly more than the abstract concept itself (see MPEP 2106.05), or merely an encoding step to bit data, which is merely a mathematical concept (see discussion of encoding data in parent claim), and therefore does not further limit the claim to eligible subject matter. As such, the claim is directed to ineligible subject matter for substantially the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “wherein the residual position is a one-dimensional residual position defined along a line defined from the centroid point and a normal vector”, which is merely a mathematical characterization of data, or at most an abstract mathematical concept. As such, the claim is directed to ineligible subject matter for substantially the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “wherein the normal vector is taken parallel to an axis of the three-dimensional coordinate system”, which at most merely a mathematical characterization of data, or at most an abstract mathematical concept. As such, the claim is directed to ineligible subject matter for substantially the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites “wherein the normal vector is defined as a sum of cross products of vectors, each vector being defined from an ordered vertex and the centroid point”, which is merely a mathematical characterization of data, or at most an abstract mathematical concept. As such, the claim is directed to ineligible subject matter for substantially the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites “wherein the one-dimensional residual position is a product of the normal vector by a scaler value”, which is merely a mathematical characterization of data, or at most an abstract mathematical concept. As such, the claim is directed to ineligible subject matter for substantially the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites “wherein the scalar value is determined from distances of the points of the point cloud encompassed in the cuboid volume with the centroid point”, which is merely a mathematical characterization of data, or at most an abstract mathematical concept. As such, the claim is directed to ineligible subject matter for substantially the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites “wherein the scalar value is signaled in the bitstream,” which appears to be a characterization of data, or at most either merely data transmission, which is post-solution activity and not significantly more than the abstract concept itself (see MPEP 2106.05), or merely an encoding step to bit data, which is merely a mathematical concept (see discussion of encoding data in parent claim), and therefore does not further limit the claim to eligible subject matter. As such, the claim is directed to ineligible subject matter for substantially the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites, “A non-transitory storage medium carrying instructions of program code for executing a method”, where the method is the same method as recited by claim 1 discussed above. As such, the only factor of eligibility that requires analysis is whether the recited “non-transitory storage medium carrying instructions of program code” is significant enough to render the claim eligible subject matter. The claim does not recite anything more meaningful to the user of a computer other than an “apply it” type situation of automating an otherwise abstract concept. Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim, as a whole, amounts to nothing more than generic computer components that perform generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(D)(II). As the claim is merely using a generic computer component to embody an otherwise abstract concept, the claim is ineligible for substantially the same reasons as claim 1 discussed above.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites “An electronic device, comprising: a processor; and a memory for storing instructions executed by the processor; wherein the processor is configured to perform the method of claim 1.” As such, the only factor of eligibility that requires analysis is whether the recited “An electronic device, comprising: a processor; and a memory for storing instructions executed by the processor; wherein the processor is configured to perform the method” is significant enough to render the claim eligible subject matter. The claim does not recite anything more meaningful to the user of a computer other than an “apply it” type situation of automating an otherwise abstract concept. Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim, as a whole, amounts to nothing more than generic computer components that perform generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(D)(II). As the claim is merely using a generic computer component to embody an otherwise abstract concept, the claim is ineligible for substantially the same reasons as claim 1 discussed above.
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites “wherein the residual position is signaled in the bitstream,” which appears to be a characterization of data, or at most either merely data transmission, which is post-solution activity and not significantly more than the abstract concept itself (see MPEP 2106.05), or merely an encoding step to bit data, which is merely a mathematical concept (see discussion of encoding data in parent claim), and therefore does not further limit the claim to eligible subject matter. As such, the claim is directed to ineligible subject matter for substantially the same reasons as set forth above for claim 16.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites “wherein the residual position is a one-dimensional residual position defined along a line defined from the centroid point and a normal vector”, which is merely a mathematical characterization of data, or at most an abstract mathematical concept. As such, the claim is directed to ineligible subject matter for substantially the same reasons as set forth above for claim 16.
Regarding claim 2, the claim is reproduced below with bracketed paragraph designators added for clarity and emphasis added to the claim language that recites an abstract idea:
2. A method of decoding, from a bitstream, positions of points of a point cloud encompassed in a cuboid volume, the positions being represented in a three-dimensional coordinate system, the method comprising:
[(A)] decoding, from the bitstream, vertex information defining at least two vertices located on edges of the cuboid volume;
[(B)] determining a point in the cuboid volume from the at least two vertices;
[(C)] constructing at least one triangle from the at least two vertices and the determined point;
[(D)] positions of rendered points obtained by voxelization of the at least one triangle representing the positions of the points of the point cloud encompassed in the cuboid volume.
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, the office is guided by the Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), and Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 75–77). In accordance with that framework, the Office first determines what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the user of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”)
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts determined to patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” (id. At 182 n. 7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267–68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
Step 1: The claimed subject matter fails to fall within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. § 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In particular, the claim is directed to “A method”, but then goes on to state Limitation (D), reciting that the method comprises “positions of rendered points obtained by voxelization of the at least one triangle representing the positions of the points of the point cloud encompassed in the cuboid volume.” As such, the claim appears to be reciting a data construct, as opposed to a series of operations of steps, while also attempting to be a method. Accordingly, the claim fails to fall within one of the four statutory categories. As such, the analysis ends and the claim fails to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101. However, if we assume, for the sake of compact prosecution, that the limitation is merely attempting to categorize a type of data used within a method, we turn to step 2A of the 2019 Guidance.
STEP 2A, PRONG 1: Under step 2A, prong 1, of the 2019 Guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes). MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Regarding limitation (A), the limitation recites “decoding, from the bitstream, vertex information defining at least two vertices located on edges of the cuboid volume”, which is merely converting data from one format to another. Encoding and decoding data has been found by the courts to be an abstract concept as either merely a mathematical concept (see e.g. RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322 – “Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract.”, and merely claiming a process of encoding and decoding image data does not improve the functioning of a computer, but instead is merely invoking a computer as a tool, stating, “A process that started with data, added an algorithm, and ended with a new form of data was directed to an abstract idea. Id. In this case, the ’303 patent claims a method whereby a user starts with data, codes that data using “at least one multiplication operation,” and ends with a new form of data. We discern no material difference between the Alice step one analysis in Digitech and the analysis here.”; also see Digitech Image Techs., LLC v Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 111 U.S.P.Q.2d 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2014) – a process of taking two data sets and combining them into a single data set, or “taking existing information … and organizing this information into a new form” recites “an ineligible abstract process of gathering and combining data that does not require input from a physical device”, and further holding that “Without additional limitations, a process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional information is not patent eligible. ‘If a claim is directed essentially to a method of calculating, using a mathematical formula, even if the solution is for a specific purpose, the claimed method is nonstatutory.’”, citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 595 (1978)), or even a mental process (see Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 U.S.P.Q. 673 – “conversion of BCD numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally”). Accordingly, the limitation is an abstract mathematical concept or even mental process.
Limitation (B) recites, “determining a point in the cuboid volume from the at least two vertices” which is either merely a mental process (i.e. looking at a drawing of a cube with vertices and mentally identifying a point within the cube), or at the most is a mathematical calculation in the form of determining a mathematical relationship of points in space based on geometric constructs (e.g. x, y and z limits or interpolation of coordinate data values). Accordingly, the limitation is directed to an abstract concept.
Limitation (C) is directed to “constructing at least one triangle from the at least two vertices and the determined point.” At most this is merely a mathematical operation of connecting lines to points, which can be mathematically represented as line equations between end points, or merely a mathematical arrangement of spatial data, at most with use of pen and paper merely as a tool (i.e. basic geometry). This is also a mental step of merely observing data points and identifying a triangle formed from the arrangement of points. Accordingly, the limitation is directed to an abstract concept.
Regarding limitation (D), the limitation recites, “positions of rendered points obtained by voxelization of the at least one triangle representing the positions of the points of the point cloud encompassed in the cuboid volume.” This limitation is at most merely directed to a data representation, i.e. positions of point data. It does not require rendering or voxelization etc., but is merely stating that positions of rendered points are somehow tied to the method. As a data construct, it is at most merely a mathematical concept of geometric data (i.e. point data within cartesian space, such as a list or set of data values). Alternatively, it is merely a statement of what data is obtained, and therefore merely extra-solution activity which under Step 2A is not enough to make the claim patent eligible.
Further regarding the claim, the preamble states, “A method of decoding, from a bitstream, positions of points of a point cloud encompassed in a cuboid volume, the positions being represented in a three-dimensional coordinate system.” The preamble is typically not given patentable weight and is at most reciting a purpose or intended use that does have patentable weight for the claim. The exception is if it gives life, meaning and vitality to the claim (MPEP 2111.02). Even if this is the case, the present claim’s preamble merely recites an abstract concept that is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. In particular, the claim preamble states, “A method of decoding, from a bitstream, positions of points of a point cloud encompassed in a cuboid volume, the positions being represented in a three-dimensional coordinate system”. Encoding and decoding data has been found by the courts to be an abstract concept as either merely a mathematical concept (see e.g. RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322 – “Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract.”, and merely claiming a process of encoding and decoding image data does not improve the functioning of a computer, but instead is merely invoking a computer as a tool, stating, “A process that started with data, added an algorithm, and ended with a new form of data was directed to an abstract idea. Id. In this case, the ’303 patent claims a method whereby a user starts with data, codes that data using “at least one multiplication operation,” and ends with a new form of data. We discern no material difference between the Alice step one analysis in Digitech and the analysis here.”; also see Digitech Image Techs., LLC v Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 111 U.S.P.Q.2d 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2014) – a process of taking two data sets and combining them into a single data set, or “taking existing information … and organizing this information into a new form” recites “an ineligible abstract process of gathering and combining data that does not require input from a physical device”, and further holding that “Without additional limitations, a process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional information is not patent eligible. ‘If a claim is directed essentially to a method of calculating, using a mathematical formula, even if the solution is for a specific purpose, the claimed method is nonstatutory.’”, citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 595 (1978)), or even a mental process (see Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 U.S.P.Q. 673 – “conversion of BCD numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally”). The preamble is merely reciting an decoding of data and explaining the particular format, as opposed to any meaningful functionality or improvement to a particular technology itself, and is an abstract mathematical concept or even mental process. Accordingly the claim language is directed to ineligible subject matter.
STEP 2A, PRONG 2: Under step 2A, prong 2, of the 2019 Guidance, we next analyze whether the claim recites additional elements that individually or in combination integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53–55. The 2019 Guidance identifies considerations indicative of whether an additional element or combination of elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, such as an additional element reflecting an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Id. at 55; MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Regarding claim 2, the claim does not include any additional steps other than the abstract concepts themselves. Limitation (D) recites, “positions of rendered points obtained by voxelization of the at least one triangle representing the positions of the points of the point cloud encompassed in the cuboid volume.” The claim limitation is unclear as to what is even intended by the language. If, however, this language were merely directed to an obtaining step. Mere data gathering is not meaningfully significant to render an otherwise abstract concept eligible. See MPEP 2106.05 – “Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).” Merely attaching the limitation to the abstract concepts, therefore, does not result in eligible subject matter.
STEP 2B: Under step 2B of the 2019 Guidance, we next analyze whether the claim adds any specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that, either alone or as an ordered combination, amount to more than “well-understood, routine, conventional” activity in the field. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56; MPEP § 2106.05(d). Without more than a general recitation of the conventional components, the limitations do not add significantly more than the abstract concepts themselves. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52-55; MPEP § 2106.05(d). Furthermore, merely implementing the steps on a computer does not provide any particular technological advance to the operation of the computer or to a particular field of technology, other than the recited abstract ideas themselves.
As such, the claim does not recite additional elements that, either individually or as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception within the meaning of the 2019 Guidance. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52-55; MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Regarding claim 17, the claim depends from claim 2 and further recites “wherein the determined point is a centroid point defined from a mean of the at least two vertices.” The limitation merely recites a mathematical concept which is just adding an additional abstract concept to the claim. As such, the claim 17 is directed to ineligible subject matter for substantially the same reasons as set forth above for claim 2.
Regarding claim 18, the claim depends from claim 2 and further recites “wherein the point is determined by adding a residual position to a centroid point defined from a mean value of the at least two vertices.” The limitation merely recites a mathematical concept which is just adding an additional abstract concept to the claim. As such, the claim is directed to ineligible subject matter for substantially the same reasons as set forth above for claim 2.
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites “wherein the residual position is signaled in the bitstream,” which appears to be a characterization of data, or at most either merely data gathering, which is pre-solution activity and not significantly more than the abstract concept itself (see MPEP 2106.05), or merely an encoding step to bit data, which is merely a mathematical concept (see discussion of encoding data in parent claim), and therefore does not further limit the claim to eligible subject matter. As such, the claim is directed to ineligible subject matter for substantially the same reasons as set forth above for claim 2.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites “wherein the residual position is a one-dimensional residual position defined along a line defined from the centroid point and a normal vector”, which is merely a mathematical characterization of data, or at most an abstract mathematical concept. As such, the claim is directed to ineligible subject matter for substantially the same reasons as set forth above for claim 2.
Regarding claim 21, the claim recites “wherein the normal vector is taken parallel to an axis of the three-dimensional coordinate system”, which at most merely a mathematical characterization of data, or at most an abstract mathematical concept. As such, the claim is directed to ineligible subject matter for substantially the same reasons as set forth above for claim 2.
Regarding claim 22, the claim recites “wherein the normal vector is defined as a sum of cross products of vectors, each vector being defined from an ordered vertex and the centroid point”, which is merely a mathematical characterization of data, or at most an abstract mathematical concept. As such, the claim is directed to ineligible subject matter for substantially the same reasons as set forth above for claim 2.
Regarding claim 23, the claim recites “wherein the one-dimensional residual position is a product of the normal vector by a scaler value”, which is merely a mathematical characterization of data, or at most an abstract mathematical concept. As such, the claim is directed to ineligible subject matter for substantially the same reasons as set forth above for claim 2.
Admitted Prior Art 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Applicant’s Admitted Prior art (Specification filed 9/18/2024, herein after “Spec. Background) in view of
Kyohei et al. (Kyohei Unno, Kei Kamamura, “m58776, Refinement of Trisoup variable node size extension for improving subjective quality”, KDDI Corp. (KDDI Research, Inc.), 20 January 2022, 12 pages – Applicant provided reference in IDS filed 9/18/2024)
Regarding claim 1, Applicant’s Specification (statement by applicant of previous state of the art / admitted prior art:
A method of encoding, into a bitstream, positions of points of a point cloud encompassed in a cuboid volume, the positions being represented in a three-dimensional coordinate system (Spec. Background, ¶31: TriSoup coding scheme; ¶32: model of geometry of a point cloud; ¶33 point cloud in 3D coordinate system), at least two vertices being located on edges of the cuboid volume, (Spec. Background, ¶33: point cloud in 3D coordinate system represented using NxNxN cuboid volume, using some local model made of a set of triangles, where vertices of triangles are coded along edges of cuboid volumes associated with leaf node of the tree – Fig. 1) the method comprising:
encoding vertex information defining the at least two vertices into the bitstream (Spec. Background, ¶33: vertices of triangles are coded along edges of cuboid volumes; ¶35: coding of vertices located on edges of a cuboid volume requires encoding of vertex information per vertex that comprises a vertex flag indicating if a vertex is present on an edge of the cuboid volume, and if present, the vertex position along the edge; ¶36: vertex position along an edge coded by pushing s bits into bitstream);
Constructing at least one triangle from the at least two vertices (Spec. Background, ¶38: construct at least one triangle from vertices present on edges of cuboid volume);
Positions of rendered points obtained by voxelization of the at least one triangle representing the positions of the points of the point cloud encompassed in the cuboid volume (Spec. Background, ¶49: ray tracing performed on ta triangle of a cuboid volume where any intersection of ray with triangle is then voxelized).
The only limitation not explicitly admitted as prior art by applicant is that the method determines a point in the cuboid volume for the at least two vertices; and constructs at least one triangle from the at least two vertices and the determined point.
Kyohei discloses:
Determining a point in the cuboid volume from the at least two vertices and constructing at least one triangle from the at least two vertices and the determined point (Kyohei, p. 7, figure in step 1 discloses making triangle meshes using normal Trisoup, followed by generating vertices on intersection of meshes and edges in sub cubes as shown, and alternatively using interpolation based on the vertices in larger cuboids, p. 4; p. 10 figure discloses center vertex showing point corresponding to obtained point and used as a vertex for triangle in generated mesh)
Both applicant’s Specification and the teachings of Kyohei are directed to compression of point cloud data using TriSoup compression schemes with voxelization. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the applicant’s invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the prior art technique disclosed by applicant, with the additional point derivation within a voxelized point cloud data set for smoothing mesh data as provided by Kyohei, using known electronic interfacing and programming techniques. The modification results in improved compression of data by allowing for reduction of data size for point clouds by compression, while improving resulting visibility of generated mesh (see e.g. p. 10 of Kyohei disclosing the technique removing visual gaps).
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ISO (IS0/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 7, MPEG 3D Graphics Coding, July 2021, Virtual, pp. 1-151, retrieved from https://www.mpeg.org/structure/coding-of-3d-graphics/)
Regarding claim 1, ISO discloses:
A method of encoding, into a bitstream, positions of points of a point cloud encompassed in a cuboid volume, the positions being represented in a three-dimensional coordinate system, at least two vertices being located on edges of the cuboid volume, (ISO, p. 6. Section 3.1: point cloud is collection of points with x,y,z positions; p. 7, section 3.1.1, lines 1-12: bounding cube for point positions; p. 7, section 3.1.3, last paragraph: “The process of position quantization, duplicate point removal, and assignment of attributes to the remaining points is called voxelization. In other words, voxelization is the process of grouping points together in voxels”; p. 52, Section 3.3, ¶1: triangle mesh; p. 52, Section 3.3.1: geometry repented in each block as surface that intersects each edge of the block at most once, at most 12 intersections) the method comprising:
Encoding vertex information defining the at least two vertices into the bitstream (ISO, pp. 52-53, Section 3.3.2, ¶1: intersections of surface with edges of block, where set of vertices coded including bit vector or segment indicator, and position of vertex along segment, where geometry bitstream becomes a compound bitstream comprising octree, segment indicator and vertex position bitstreams);
Determining a point in the cuboid volume from the at least two vertices (ISO p. 53, Section 3.3.3 Triangle reconstruction, ¶1: vertices on edges of block determine a surface through the block as a non-planar polygon, with coordinates of vertices on edges of block xi -y-i zi and compute the centroid of 1-n vertices on block); and
Constructing at least one triangle from the at least two vertices and the determined point (ISO p. 53, Section 3.3.3 Triangle reconstruction, ¶¶1-2 discloses obtaining centroid based on vertices on edges and finding a scaled variance to determine whether minimum of the scaled variances is achieved, and if so projecting each vertex, where vertices form n-2 triangles);
Positions of rendered points obtained by voxelization of the at least one triangle representing the positions of the points of the point cloud encompassed in the cuboid volume (Examiner notes that this limitation is unclear as to the meaning, as to whether points are rendered, or points just gathered, etc.; for sake of interpretation, the limitation is merely requiring point data; ISO, p. 53, section 3.3.3 Triangle reconstruction discloses the obtaining of coordinates from blocks; pp. 53-54, section 3.3.4 Triangle rasterization discloses checking if each voxel in the bounding box intersects with the triangles).
Regarding claim 3, ISO further discloses;
Wherein the determined point is a centroid point defined from a mean value of the at least two vertices (ISO p. 53, Section 3.3.3 Triangle reconstruction, ¶1: vertices on edges of block determine a surface through the block as a non-planar polygon, with coordinates of vertices on edges of block xi -y-i zi and compute mean the centroid of 1-n vertices on block)
Regarding claim 4, ISO further discloses:
Wherein the point is determined by adding a residual position to a centroid point defined from a mean value of the at least two vertices (ISO p. 53, Section 3.3.3 Triangle reconstruction, ¶1: vertices on edges of block determine a surface through the block as a non-planar polygon, with coordinates of vertices on edges of block xi -y-i zi and compute mean the centroid of 1-n vertices on block and then finding mean-removed coordinates)
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2023/0260163 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses:
A method of decoding, from a bitstream, positions of points of a point cloud encompassed in a cuboid volume, the positions being represented in a three-dimensional coordinate system, (Lee, ¶76: The point cloud video decoder 10006 decodes the bitstream containing the point cloud video data; ¶86 and ¶93: point cloud is set of points in 3D space; ¶¶87-88: point cloud content providing system may perform attribute encoding of encoding attributes and output an attribute bitstream, where geometry bitstream and the attribute bitstream may be multiplexed and output as one bitstream; ¶90: decoding encoded cloud data bitstream including geometry and attribute data; ¶129: voxelization of point cloud – see Fig. 6; ¶157: block with 12 edges, and a vertex present along an edge is detected when there is at least one occupied voxel adjusting to the edge; ¶159: The vertices positioned at the edge of the block determine a surface that passes through the block, where the surface according is a non-planar polygon, where a surface represented by a triangle is reconstructed based on the starting point of the edge, the direction vector of the edge, and the position values of the vertices) the method comprising:
Decoding, from the bitstream, vertex information defining at least two vertices located on edges of the cuboid volume; (Lee, ¶76: The point cloud video decoder 10006 decodes the bitstream containing the point cloud video data; ¶90: decoding encoded cloud data bitstream including geometry and attribute data, to reconstruct the point cloud video based on the positions according to the reconstructed geometry and the decoded attributes; ¶209: The occupancy code-based octree reconstruction processor 13003 performs an operation and/or method the same as or similar to the operation and/or octree generation method of the octree synthesizer 11001, such that when the trisoup geometry encoding is applied, the surface model processor 1302 according to the embodiments may perform trisoup geometry decoding and related geometry reconstruction (for example, triangle reconstruction, up-sampling, voxelization) based on the surface model method, performing an operation the same as or similar to that of the surface approximation synthesizer 11002 and/or the geometry reconstructor 11003) -
Determining a point in the cuboid volume from the at least two vertices (Lee, ¶136: the position of the center of a voxel is set based on the positions of one or more points included in the voxel; ¶159: “The triangle reconstruction process is performed according to Equation 2 by: i) calculating the centroid value of each vertex, ii) subtracting the center value from each vertex value, and iii) estimating the sum of the squares of the values obtained by the subtraction.”); and
Constructing at least one triangle from the at least two vertices and the determined point (Lee, ¶159: “The triangle reconstruction process is performed according to Equation 2 by: i) calculating the centroid value of each vertex, ii) subtracting the center value from each vertex value, and iii) estimating the sum of the squares of the values obtained by the subtraction.”);
Positions of rendered points obtained by voxelization of the at least one triangle representing the positions of the points of the point cloud encompassed in the cuboid volume. (Examiner notes that this limitation is unclear as to the meaning, as to whether points are rendered, or points just gathered, etc.; for sake of interpretation, the limitation is merely requiring point data; Lee, ¶77: rendering renders decoded point cloud video data)
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.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Lee et al. (US 2023/0260163 A1) in view of
ISO (IS0/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 7, MPEG 3D Graphics Coding, July 2021, Virtual, pp. 1-151, retrieved from https://www.mpeg.org/structure/coding-of-3d-graphics/)
Regarding claim 17, the limitations included from claim 2 are rejected based on the same rationale as claim 2 set forth above. Further regarding claim 17, ISO discloses:
Wherein the determined point is a centroid point defined from a mean value of the at least two vertices (ISO p. 53, Section 3.3.3 Triangle reconstruction, ¶1: vertices on edges of block determine a surface through the block as a non-planar polygon, with coordinates of vertices on edges of block xi -y-i zi and compute mean the centroid of 1-n vertices on block)
Both Lee and ISO are directed to compression of point cloud data using TriSoup compression schemes with voxelization. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the applicant’s invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the technique for point cloud compression and decompression of point cloud data using various calculated point data as provided by Lee, by using the calculation of point data as provided by ISO, by using the using known electronic interfacing and programming techniques. The modification merely substitutes one known technique for determining centroid values for TriSoup data compression for another, yielding predictable results of using a known mathematical technique for obtaining the centroid value in place of another known mathematical technique. The substituted technique was known in the art as applicable to the same kind of technique or device for the same use, namely compressing of point cloud data, and would work in a similar manner while substituted, namely for computing the encoded/decoded data of TriSoup compression.
Regarding claim 18, the limitations included from claim 2 are rejected based on the same rationale as claim 2 set forth above. Further regarding claim 18, ISO further discloses:
Wherein the point is determined by adding a residual position to a centroid point defined from a mean value of the at least two vertices (ISO p. 53, Section 3.3.3 Triangle reconstruction, ¶1: vertices on edges of block determine a surface through the block as a non-planar polygon, with coordinates of vertices on edges of block xi -y-i zi and compute mean the centroid of 1-n vertices on block and then finding mean-removed coordinates)
Both Lee and ISO are directed to compression of point cloud data using TriSoup compression schemes with voxelization. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the applicant’s invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the technique for point cloud compression and decompression of point cloud data using various calculated point data as provided by Lee, by using the calculation of point data as provided by ISO, by using the using known electronic interfacing and programming techniques. The modification merely substitutes one known technique for determining point data values for TriSoup data compression for another, yielding predictable results of using a known mathematical technique for obtaining the centroid value in place of another known mathematical technique. The substituted technique was known in the art as applicable to the same kind of technique or device for the same use, namely compressing of point cloud data, and would work in a similar manner while substituted, namely for computing the encoded/decoded data of TriSoup compression.
Claim(s) 7, 15-16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
ISO (IS0/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 7, MPEG 3D Graphics Coding, July 2021, Virtual, pp. 1-151, retrieved from https://www.mpeg.org/structure/coding-of-3d-graphics/) in view of
Lee et al. (US 2023/0260163 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the limitations included from claim 4 are rejected based on the same rationale as claim 4 set forth above. Further regarding claim 5, ISO further discloses the residual position as attribute data (ISO p. 53, Section 3.3.3 Triangle reconstruction, ¶1: vertices on edges of block determine a surface through the block as a non-planar polygon, with coordinates of vertices on edges of block xi -y-i zi and compute mean the centroid of 1-n vertices on block and then finding mean-removed coordinates)
Lee teaches encoding attribute data signaled in the bitstream (Lee, ¶87: point cloud content providing system may perform attribute encoding of encoding attributes and output an attribute bitstream, where geometry bitstream and the attribute bitstream may be multiplexed and output as one bitstream; ¶90: decoding encoded cloud data bitstream including geometry and attribute data, to reconstruct the point cloud video based on the positions according to the reconstructed geometry and the decoded attributes; ¶111: attribute bitstream signaling information)
Both ISO and Lee are directed to compression of point cloud data using TriSoup compression schemes with voxelization. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the applicant’s invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the technique for point cloud compression and decompression using TriSoup voxel encoding as provided by ISO, by using the encoding of attribute data in bitstream for reconstruction as provided by Lee, using known electronic interfacing and programming techniques. The modification results in an improved encoding/decoding technique by allowing for encapsulation of additional data for easier and less computationally intensive reconstruction by encapsulating the data for transfer and use between systems.
Regarding claim 15, the configured method is the same method as claim 1, and as such the configured method steps of claim 15 are rejected based on the same rationale as claim 1 set forth above in view of ISO.
Further regarding claim 15, Lee discloses:
A non-transitory storage medium carrying instructions of program code for executing a method (Lee, ¶418: non-transitory computer readable medium storing executable instructions to implement point cloud data transmission method – See Abstract) Both ISO and Lee are directed to compression of point cloud data using TriSoup compression schemes with voxelization. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the applicant’s invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the technique for point cloud compression and decompression using TriSoup voxel encoding as provided by ISO, by using the computer architecture as provided by Lee, using known electronic interfacing and programming techniques. The modification would have been obvious to try as it chooses from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions for implementing a computer algorithm and/or method on computer architecture using stored software, with a reasonable expectation of success. Furthermore, the modification results in an improved encoding/decoding technique by allowing for encapsulation on computer readable media that allows for easier and less costly distribution and implementation using generic computer components.
Regarding claim 16, the electronic device is configured to perform the method as claim 1, and as such the method operations of claim 16 are rejected based on the same rationale as claim 1 set forth above in view of ISO.
Further regarding claim 16, Lee discloses:
An electronic device, comprising: a processor; and a memory for storing instructions executable by the processor; wherein the processor is configured to perform the method (Lee, ¶122: processors implementing point cloud video encoder; ¶¶412-413 further discloses using processor executing procedures stored in memory for implementation; ¶418: non-transitory computer readable medium storing executable instructions to implement point cloud data transmission method – See Abstract)
Both ISO and Lee are directed to compression of point cloud data using TriSoup compression schemes with voxelization. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the applicant’s invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the technique for point cloud compression and decompression using TriSoup voxel encoding as provided by ISO, by using the computer architecture as provided by Lee, using known electronic interfacing and programming techniques. The modification would have been obvious to try as it chooses from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions for implementing a computer algorithm and/or method on computer architecture using generic computer components, with a reasonable expectation of success. Furthermore, the modification results in an improved encoding/decoding technique by allowing easier and less costly distribution and implementation using generic computer components.
Regarding claim 19, ISO further discloses the residual position as attribute data (ISO p. 53, Section 3.3.3 Triangle reconstruction, ¶1: vertices on edges of block determine a surface through the block as a non-planar polygon, with coordinates of vertices on edges of block xi -y-i zi and compute mean the centroid of 1-n vertices on block and then finding mean-removed coordinates)
Lee teaches encoding attribute data signaled in the bitstream (Lee, ¶87: point cloud content providing system may perform attribute encoding of encoding attributes and output an attribute bitstream, where geometry bitstream and the attribute bitstream may be multiplexed and output as one bitstream; ¶90: decoding encoded cloud data bitstream including geometry and attribute data, to reconstruct the point cloud video based on the positions according to the reconstructed geometry and the decoded attributes; ¶111: attribute bitstream signaling information)
Both ISO and Lee are directed to compression of point cloud data using TriSoup compression schemes with voxelization. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the applicant’s invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the technique for point cloud compression and decompression using TriSoup voxel encoding as provided by ISO, by using the encoding of attribute data in bitstream for reconstruction as provided by Lee, using known electronic interfacing and programming techniques. The modification results in an improved encoding/decoding technique by allowing for encapsulation of additional data for easier and less computationally intensive reconstruction by encapsulating the data for transfer and use between systems.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM A BEUTEL whose telephone number is (571)272-3132. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM (EST).
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, DANIEL HAJNIK can be reached at 571-272-7642. 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.
/WILLIAM A BEUTEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2616
Prosecution Insights