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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 01/22/2026 has been entered. No claims have been added, cancelled, or amended. Claims 1-10 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
The drawings were received on 01/12/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6, filed 01/12/2026, with respect to the 102 and 103 rejections have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Examiner cannot concur the cited references fail to disclose or suggest the amended claim language. Applicant asserts, “the cited references fail to disclose or suggest the features of (i) grouping samples referring to a parameter set, and (ii) mapping the grouped samples to the parameter set…Gurumasu fails to disclose or suggest the claimed mapping between the parameter sets and the samples themselves as described in claim 1.” Examiner notes Applicant’s interpretation of the claim language assumes a plurality of claimed samples when the claim language only requires one sample extracted from the claimed “one or more tracks”. Further, the claim language does not define the terms “grouped” or “mapped” and are therefore open to interpretation. Therefore when the claim language is interpreted as extracting one sample from one identified track and obtaining one parameter set referred to by the one extracted sample from the one track, Gurumasu discloses the one sample referring to the parameter set being “grouped” and “mapped” to the parameter set. For these reasons, the 102 and 103 rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gudumasu et al. US 2023/0281923 A1, hereafter Gudumasu.
Regarding claim 1, Gudumasu discloses a method performed in a reception device of point cloud data (method and apparatus include receiving a timed-metadata track identifying point cloud tiles) [abstract], the method comprising:
identifying one or more tracks from the point cloud data (obtain from formatted container timed meta data track with tile identifiers 1204; FIG. 4 illustrates the structure of the data file for the geometry-based point cloud compression (G-PCC); the logical structure of the file is a movie structure that contains a set of time-parallel tracks) [FIG. 12; 0090; 0095]
extracting one or more samples from the tracks (the time structure of the file includes tracks that contain sequences of samples in time; the media stream itself consists of a sequence of samples; extract the identified tile tracks from a G-PCC data file, decoding the identified tile tracks) [0095; 0097; 0358]; and
obtaining a parameter set referred to by at least one of the extracted samples from the tracks (FIG. 5 depicts an example of a structure for a sample…the structure includes parameter set TLV field (if present) 502; extract the identified tile tracks from a G-PCC data file, decoding the identified tile tracks) [0099; 0358],
wherein samples referring to the parameter set are grouped and mapped to the parameter set (under the ‘gpcb’ sample entry, all parameter sets such as described in ISO/IEC 23090-9 may be present in the setupUnit array or in the data file; the parameter set data and tile inventory information may be carried in the base track) [0113; 0114].
Regarding claim 2, Gudumasu addresses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Gudumasu further discloses the parameter set is obtained from a sample or sample entry included in at least one of the tracks (FIG. 5 depicts an example of a structure for a sample…the structure includes parameter set TLV field (if present) 502) [0099].
Regarding claim 3, Gudumasu addresses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Gudumasu further discloses a type of each parameter set included in the grouped samples is identified by a predetermined group type parameter (the tlv_type and associated G-PCC data unit description are shown in Table 2) [0090].
Regarding claim 4, Gudumasu addresses all of the features with respect to claim 3 as outlined above.
Gudumasu further discloses a parameter set type identified by the group type parameter includes a sequence parameter set (SPS), a geometry parameter set (GPS), and an attribute parameter set (APS) (see table 2 for all three group types) [0090].
Regarding claim 7, Gudumasu addresses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Gudumasu further discloses a sample group description box for the grouped samples has sample group entries corresponding to a number of types of parameter sets obtainable from the tracks (sample group description box) [0312].
Regarding claim 9, Gudumasu discloses a reception device of point cloud data (method and apparatus include receiving a timed-metadata track identifying point cloud tiled) [0007], the reception device comprising:
a memory (computer-readable medium) [0367]; and
at least one processor (execution by a computer or processor) [0367], wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
identifying one or more tracks from the point cloud data (obtain from formatted container timed meta data track with tile identifiers 1204; FIG. 4 illustrates the structure of the data file for the geometry-based point cloud compression (G-PCC); the logical structure of the file is a movie structure that contains a set of time-parallel tracks) [FIG. 12; 0090; 0095]
extracting one or more samples from the tracks (the time structure of the file includes tracks that contain sequences of samples in time; the media stream itself consists of a sequence of samples; extract the identified tile tracks from a G-PCC data file, decoding the identified tile tracks) [0095; 0097; 0358]; and
obtaining a parameter set referred to by at least one of the extracted samples from the tracks (FIG. 5 depicts an example of a structure for a sample…the structure includes parameter set TLV field (if present) 502; extract the identified tile tracks from a G-PCC data file, decoding the identified tile tracks) [0099; 0358],
wherein samples referring to the parameter set are grouped and mapped to the parameter set (under the ‘gpcb’ sample entry, all parameter sets such as described in ISO/IEC 23090-9 may be present in the setupUnit array or in the data file; the parameter set data and tile inventory information may be carried in the base track) [0113; 0114].
Regarding claim 10, Gudumasu discloses a method performed in a transmission device of point cloud data (method of generating a point cloud data stream) [0356], the method comprising:
storing a bitstream including the point cloud data in one or more tracks (FIG. 4 illustrates the structure of the data file for the geometry-based point cloud compression (G-PCC); the logical structure of the file is a movie structure that contains a set of time-parallel tracks) [0090; 0095]; and
generating a geometry-based point cloud compression (G-PCC) file based on the tracks, wherein the tracks include one or more samples (FIG. 4 illustrates the structure of the data file for the geometry-based point cloud compression (G-PCC); the logical structure of the file is a movie structure that contains a set of time-parallel tracks. The time structure of the file includes tracks that contain sequences of samples in time; the media stream itself consists of a sequence of samples) [0090; 0095; 0097], and
at least one of the samples includes a parameter set (FIG. 5 depicts an example of a structure for a sample…the structure includes parameter set TLV field (if present) 502) [0099], and
wherein samples referring to the parameter set are grouped and mapped to the parameter set (under the ‘gpcb’ sample entry, all parameter sets such as described in ISO/IEC 23090-9 may be present in the setupUnit array or in the data file; the parameter set data and tile inventory information may be carried in the base track) [0113; 0114].
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gudumasu in view of Hannuksela et al. US 2023/0027058 A1, hereafter Hannuksela.
Regarding claim 5, Gudumasu addresses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
However, Gudumasu fails to explicitly disclose among the extracted samples, all samples that do not include a parameter set or include parameter sets of different types have a group description index equal to 0.
Hannuksela, in an analogous environment, discloses among the extracted samples, all samples that do not include a parameter set or include parameter sets of different types have a group description index equal to 0 (mapping a sample to a sample group description index equal to 0 indicates that the sample is a member of no group of this type) [0173].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the sample group description designation, as disclosed by Hannuksela, with the invention disclosed by Gusumasu the motivation being lower bitrate [0003].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hannuksela et al. US 2024/0040131 A1 discloses tracks and related parameter sets of point cloud data
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 STEFAN GADOMSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5701. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 12-8PM 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, Jay Patel can be reached at 571-272-2988. 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.
STEFAN GADOMSKI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2485
/STEFAN GADOMSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485