DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Following prior arts are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
J. Kim, J. Im, S. Rhyu and K. Kim, "3D Motion Estimation and Compensation Method for Video-Based Point Cloud Compression," in IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 83538-83547, April 30 2020 (hereinafter Kim)
LU ET AL: "PointINet: Point Cloud Frame Interpolation Network", ARXIV.ORG, CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY, 201 OLIN LIBRARY CORNELL UNIVERSITY ITHACA, NY 14853, 18 December 2020 (2020-12-18) (hereinafter LU)
OH ET AL: "Object-based compression requirement proposal for MIV future work (MIV v2)", 136. MPEG MEETING; 20211011 - 20211015; ONLINE; no. m58028 13 October 2021 (2021-10-13), XP030298700, retrieved from the Internet: URLhttps://dms.mpeg.expert/doc_end_user/documents/ 136_OnLine/wg11/m58028-v3- m58028_RequirementproposalforMIVr3.zip m58028_Requirement proposal for MIV r3.docx [retrieved on 2021-10-13] (hereinafter OH)
US 20200043121 A1 (Boyce)
US 20040190615 A1 (hereinafter Abe)
US 20210217203 A1 (Fig.2C; 3D motion compensation with patch and occupancy map)
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Rejection made under 35 USC § 101 have been withdrawn in view of amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim prior art rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for following reason.
Re: Prior art rejection of independent claims
Applicant argued in substance that the prior art does not teach obtaining a 3D motion information representative of a displacement in a 3D space of points of the at least one volumetric frames, by decoding metadata associated to at least one patch of the patch-atlas based representation of the at least one volumetric frame, because
PNG
media_image1.png
168
666
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees and argues that the argued limitation is claiming “ decoding metadata associated ….”
That is the metadata itself can be each 2D/3D information as long as it contributes to obtaining 3D motion information. Additionally, metadata is a broad term and can be any associative data other than the video/texture data itself. Therefore, any information associated with the image or vectors are also metadata. Page 83544 left column “where s0, r0, and delta_0 are the minimum values for the 3D position of the patch, and u0 and v0 are the minimum values for the 2D position of the patch (as shown in Fig. 9). These are described in the auxiliary patch information”
Also, section II describes these and other metadata.
PNG
media_image2.png
182
348
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive
Re: Prior art rejection of dependent claims
Applicant has presented no additional argument, other than arguments already presented with respect to independent claims. Therefore, the arguments are similarly not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 14, 16, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim.
Regarding Claim 1. Kim teaches a method comprising reconstructing at least one sequence of volumetric frames from a data stream [(Fig.5-7 and Section III A. Architecture, left column last paragraph)] , including: decoding from the data stream a patch-atlas based representation of at least one volumetric frames of the sequence [(Fig.5 “compressed auxiliary patch information” and “compressed occupancy map” see section II)] ,
reconstructing the at least one volumetric frame using the patch-atlas based representation [(Fig.5 “reconstructed point cloud”, the second last step; please note the point cloud frame is volumetric frame {Fig.6 and 7})] .
obtaining a 3D motion information representative of a displacement in a 3D space of points of the at least one volumetric frames [(Fig.5 “compressed vector video” represent the motion as can be seen from “3D Motion search” of Fig.4 and section III; displacement between volumetric frames shown in Fig.7)] , by decoding metadata associated to at least one patch of the patch-atlas based representation of the at least one volumetric frame [(motion/vector information is associated with patch {see page 83544 left column})] , and
displacing points of the at least one volumetric frame to a composition time frame using the 3D motion information, the composition time frame being different from a time of the at least one volumetric frame encoded in the data stream [(Fig.5 the Motion Compensation step displacing “reconstructed point cloud” with the motion information to a frame at different time {Fig.6 point cloud frame f(t), P is displaced compare to I, also see Fig.7})] .
Regarding Claim 16. Kim teaches a method comprising encoding at least one sequence of volumetric frames representative of a three-dimensional (3D) scene, including: obtaining, for at least one volumetric frame of the sequence, a patch-atlas based representation, obtaining a 3D motion information representative of a displacement in a 3D space of de-projected samples of the patch-atlas based representation between two volumetric frames of the sequence, and encoding in a data stream the patch-atlas based representation and the 3D motion information, the 3D motion information being encoded as metadata associated to at least one patch of the patch-atlas based representation of the at least one volumetric frame. [(see analysis of claim 1 and see Kim Fig.4; the motion is displacement in 3D space samples that are not projected or de-projected { see section I. Introduction 3rd para})]
Regarding Claim 6. The method of claim 1, wherein displacing points of the at least one volumetric frame comprises motion-compensating the decoded volumetric frame using the 3D motion information. [(Kim, Fig.5 the Motion Compensation step displacing “reconstructed point cloud” with the motion information to a frame at different time {Fig.6 point cloud frame f(t), P is displaced compare to I, also see Fig.7)] .
Regarding Claim 14. The method of claim 1, wherein the metadata comprises parameters of a motion model determined for the at least one patch based on a 3D motion determined for de-projected samples of the at least one patch. [(see Kim, section III. 3D MOTION ESTIMATION AND COMPENSATION)]
Regarding Claim 22. The method of claim 16, wherein the metadata comprises parameters of a motion model determined for the at least one patch based on a 3D motion determined for de-projected samples of the at least one patch. [(see Kim, section III. 3D MOTION ESTIMATION AND COMPENSATION)]
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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.
Claims 2, 15, 17, 23, 28-30, 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Abe.
Regarding Claim 2. This claim claiming an apparatus to implement the method of claim 1, the apparatus having one or more processor
Kim does not explicitly show such apparatus implemented by one or more processor, such implementation is well known in the art as described by Abe [(Fig. 16-19 and para 161)]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would provide predictable result with no change of their respective functionalities.
Kim in view of Abe additionally teaches with regards to claim 15. The method of claim 1, wherein at least one syntax element indicating a presence of 3D motion information is encoded in the data stream. [(while Kim does not explicitly teach this, Kim shows this is an additional ways in the existing system, see section III and Figs.4-5, therefore this is an intuitive modification; Abe explicitly teaches communicating options through syntax in para 94 )]
Kim in view of Abe additionally teaches with regards to claim 17. An apparatus comprising one or more processors [(Abe para 161, Fig. 16-19)] configured to encode at least one sequence of volumetric frames, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: obtain, for at least one volumetric frame of the sequence, a patch-atlas based representation, obtain a three-dimensional (3D) motion information representative of a displacement in a 3D space of de-projected samples of the patch-atlas based representation between two volumetric frames of the sequence, and encode in a data stream the patch-atlas based representation and the 3D motion information, the 3D motion information being encoded as metadata associated to at least one patch of the patch-atlas based representation of the at least one volumetric frame. [(see analysis of claim 16 above)]
With Regards to Claim 23, 28-29, 33-34. See analyses of claims 14-15 and para 156 of Abe.
Abe additionally teaches with regards to claim 30. A device comprising: an apparatus according to claim 2: and at least one of (i) an antenna configured to receive a signal, the signal including data representative of at least one sequence of volumetric frames, (ii) a band limiter configured to limit the received signal to a band of frequencies that includes the data representative of the at least one sequence of volumetric frames, or (iii) a display configured to display the at least one sequence of volumetric frames. [(Abe Fig.16-19)]
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of LU.
Regarding Claim 3. Kim does not explicitly show displacing points of the at least one volumetric frame is part of a resampling of the at least one sequence of volumetric frames at a frame rate different from the frame rate used at encoding
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, LU teaches displacing points of the at least one volumetric frame is part of a resampling of the at least one sequence of volumetric frames at a frame rate different from the frame rate used at encoding [(LU Abstract lines 2-7; last para of page 2 and first para of page 3; also, in page 3 “Point cloud warping” show use of motion information)]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would provide predictable result with no change of their respective functionalities.
Claims 5, 7, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of OH.
Regarding Claim 5. Kim does not explicitly show sequence of volumetric frames is representative of a three-dimensional (3D) scene comprising at least two objects encoded in separate sub-streams of the data stream
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, OH teaches sequence of volumetric frames is representative of a three-dimensional (3D) scene comprising at least two objects encoded in separate sub-streams of the data stream [(OH section 3, 4th para)] .
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would provide predictable result with no change of their respective functionalities.
Claim 7. The method of claim 5, wherein each one of the at least two objects of the 3D scene is encoded as a sequence of volumetric frames [(Kim, Fig. 6)] .
Claim 9. The method of claim 5, wherein reconstructing the at least one sequence of volumetric frames further includes, for each object of the at least two objects, determining a time frame of the corresponding sub-stream that is closest to the composition time frame, the object of the at least two objects being decoded and reconstructed at the determined time frame. [(OH section 3, Fig.4)] .
Claims 35 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Boyce.
Regarding Claim 35. Kim does not explicitly show the parameters of the motion model define a 6-dimensional motion comprising a three-dimensional translation and 3D rotation for the at least one patch
However, in the same field of endeavor, Boyce teaches parameters of the motion model define a 6-dimensional motion comprising a three-dimensional translation and 3D rotation for the at least one patch [(para 195 and Fig. 15A )]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would provide enhance handling of immersive video [(Boyce para 149-150 )].
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 extension fee 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 Shahan Rahaman whose telephone number is (571)270-1438. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am - 3:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4195. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/SHAHAN UR RAHAMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights