DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged that application is a National Stage application of PCT PCT/KR2023/005595. Priority to KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 10-2022-0051034 with a priority date of 04/25/2022 is acknowledged under 35 USC 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78.
Copies of certified papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 have been received. Priority is acknowledged under 35 USC 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS(s) dated 06/02/2026, 03/02/2026, and 02/28/2025 has/have been considered and placed in the application file.
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 12 recite “the segmented slices for the subgroups contain information for referencing a context, wherein, based on that the information for referencing the context are absent from the segmented slices”. It is unclear how the same information can be both present and absent.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1, 7-8, and 14 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1, 8, 11, and 17 of copending Application No. 18/689,320 (reference application).
This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-14 rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12/395,679. The conflicting claims are not identical because patented claim(s) 1, 5, 9, and 13 requires the additional elements of “determining whether context continuity is applied to the point cloud data in a data unit, entropy encoding/decoding the point cloud data in the data unit based on context information of a previous data unit based on a determination that the context continuity is applied, and entropy encoding/decoding the point cloud data in the data unit without the context information of the previous data unit based on a determination that the context continuity is not applied, wherein the bitstream further includes signaling information that includes first information for identifying whether the context continuity is applied to the point cloud data in the data unit, second information for identifying the data unit and third information for identifying the previous data unit”, not required by claim 1, 7-8, and 14 of the instant application.
However, the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim(s) 1-14 of this application and claim(s) 1-13 of patent '679 recite common subject matter;
Whereby claim(s) 1-14 of the application, which recites the open ended transitional phrase “comprising”, does not preclude the additional elements recited by claim(s) 1-13 of the patent, and
Whereby the elements of claim(s) 1-14 of the application are fully anticipated by patent claim(s) 1-13, and anticipation is “the ultimate or epitome of obviousness” (In re Kalm, 154 USPQ 10 (CCPA 1967), also In re Dailey, 178 USPQ 293 (CCPA 1973) and In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA 1974)).
Claims 1-14 rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 9-16, and 19-20 of U.S. Patent No. 18/578,095. The conflicting claims are not identical because patented claim(s) 1, 10-11, and 20 requires the additional elements of “wherein the bitstream includes first information specifying a layer group identifier of the geometry, second information specifying a subgroup identifier of the geometry, and third information specifying a reference layer group identifier for a context reference of the geometry.”, not required by claim 1, 7-8, and 14 of the instant application.
However, the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim(s) 1-14 of this application and claim(s) 1-6, 9-16, and 19-20 of patent '095 recite common subject matter;
Whereby claim(s) 1-14 of the application, which recites the open ended transitional phrase “comprising”, does not preclude the additional elements recited by claim(s) 1-6, 9-16, and 19-20 of the patent, and
Whereby the elements of claim(s) 1-14 of the application are fully anticipated by patent claim(s) 1-6, 9-16, and 19-20, and anticipation is “the ultimate or epitome of obviousness” (In re Kalm, 154 USPQ 10 (CCPA 1967), also In re Dailey, 178 USPQ 293 (CCPA 1973) and In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA 1974)).
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-8, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over Chou et al (US 20170347122 A1, hereafter referred to as Chou).
Claim 1
In regards to Claim 1, Chou teaches A method of transmitting point cloud data, the method comprising:
encoding point cloud data (Chou in ¶8 discloses “the encoder is configured to scalably encode the point cloud data with multiple partitions … the encoder is configured to perform various operations, including applying a transform such as a region-adaptive hierarchical transform (“RAHT”) to attributes of occupied points among the multiple points, thereby producing transform coefficients”); and
transmitting a bitstream containing the point cloud data (Chou in ¶56 discloses “point cloud data is encoded and sent from one location to one or more other locations”).
Claim 7
In regards to Claim 7, Chou teaches A device for transmitting point cloud data, comprising:
an encoder configured to encode point cloud data (Chou in ¶8 discloses “the encoder is configured to scalably encode the point cloud data with multiple partitions … the encoder is configured to perform various operations, including applying a transform such as a region-adaptive hierarchical transform (“RAHT”) to attributes of occupied points among the multiple points, thereby producing transform coefficients”); and
a transmitter configured to transmit a bitstream containing the point cloud data (Chou in ¶56 discloses “point cloud data is encoded and sent from one location to one or more other locations”).
Claim 8
In regards to Claim 8, Chou teaches A method of receiving point cloud data, the method comprising:
receiving a bitstream containing point cloud data (Chou in ¶9 discloses “a computer system includes an input buffer, a decoder, and an output buffer. The input buffer is configured to receive, as part of a bitstream, encoded data”); and
decoding the point cloud data (Chou in ¶9 discloses “The decoder is configured to scalably decode at least some of the multiple partitions of the encoded data to reconstruct point cloud data”).
Claim 14
In regards to Claim 14, Chou teaches A device for receiving point cloud data, comprising:
a receiver configured to receive a bitstream containing point cloud data (Chou in ¶9 discloses “a computer system includes an input buffer, a decoder, and an output buffer. The input buffer is configured to receive, as part of a bitstream, encoded data”); and
a decoder configured to decode the point cloud data (Chou in ¶9 discloses “The decoder is configured to scalably decode at least some of the multiple partitions of the encoded data to reconstruct point cloud data”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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(s) 2 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chou et al (US 20170347122 A1, hereafter referred to as Chou) in view of Takahashi et al (US 20220312035 A1, hereafter referred to as Takahashi).
Claim 2
Regarding Claim 2, Chou teaches The method of claim 1.
Chou does not explicitly teach all of wherein the encoding of the point cloud data
comprises: encoding the point cloud data based on a layer-group structure, wherein the layer-group structure comprises one or more subgroups, wherein the subgroups are delivered based on segmented slices.
However, Takahashi teaches wherein the encoding of the point cloud data
comprises:
encoding the point cloud data based on a layer-group structure (Takahashi in Abstract discloses “an encoding unit (121) encodes point cloud data in such a way as to have a phased hierarchical structure”; See also FIG. 33 and ¶211. Under BRI, the contiguous hierarchy depths used for an LoD correspond to the layer-group structure.),
wherein the layer-group structure comprises one or more subgroups (Takahashi in ¶9 discloses a partial slice used as a partial region corresponding to a level of detail (LoD); ¶116-117 discloses forming the partial slice by combining segmented slices corresponding to the necessary depth and that each segmented slice is associated with a particular depth and is a difference region added as LoD/depth increases. Under BRI, each partial region represented within the LoD/layer hierarchy corresponds to a subgroup of the layer-group.),
wherein the subgroups are delivered based on segmented slices (Takahashi in ¶116 discloses dividing each geometry and attribute slice into segmented slices and forming an LoD partial slice from the necessary segmented slices; ¶122 discloses storing the G-PCC bitstream, geometry slices, attribute slices, and partial-slice correspondence information in a G-PCC file and outputting the file to a transmission unit; ¶143-145 discloses defining each layer-corresponding segmented slice as a subsample, creating the G-PCC file containing the bitstream and partial-slice information, and transmitting that file).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chou by incorporating the LoD/depth-specific segmented-slice and partial-region organization that is taught by Takahashi, since both reference are analogous art in the field of scalable point-cloud encoding and bitstream delivery; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since Chou’s hierarchical scalable-partition encoder with Takahashi’s LoD-to-segmented-slice delivery structure yields the predictable result of a point-cloud bitstream whose hierarchy can be delivered and accessed in discrete LoD-specific units, thereby reducing unnecessary transmission and processing when only a selected point-cloud quality or spatial-resolution level is needed.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 9
Regarding Claim 9, Chou teaches The method of claim 8.
Chou does not explicitly teach all of wherein the decoding of the point cloud data
comprises: decoding the point cloud data based on a layer-group structure, wherein the layer-group structure comprises one or more subgroups, wherein the subgroups are delivered based on segmented slices.
However, Takahashi teaches wherein the decoding of the point cloud data
comprises:
decoding the point cloud data based on a layer-group structure (Takahashi in ¶271 discloses “the metadata generation unit extracts information about a number of decoding points to be decoded for each of the layers as an amount of information , the number of decoding points being used as an index”. Under BRI, the LoD/depth hierarchy used for that decoding corresponds to the recited layer-group structure.),
wherein the layer-group structure comprises one or more subgroups (Takahashi in ¶9 discloses a partial slice used as a partial region corresponding to a level of detail (LoD); ¶116-117 discloses forming the partial slice by combining segmented slices corresponding to the necessary depth and that each segmented slice is associated with a particular depth and is a difference region added as LoD/depth increases. Under BRI, each partial region represented within the LoD/layer hierarchy corresponds to a subgroup of the layer-group.),
wherein the subgroups are delivered based on segmented slices (Takahashi in ¶116 discloses dividing each geometry and attribute slice into segmented slices and forming an LoD partial slice from the necessary segmented slices; ¶122 discloses storing the G-PCC bitstream, geometry slices, attribute slices, and partial-slice correspondence information in a G-PCC file and outputting the file to a transmission unit; ¶143-145 discloses defining each layer-corresponding segmented slice as a subsample, creating the G-PCC file containing the bitstream and partial-slice information, and transmitting that file).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chou by incorporating the LoD/depth-specific segmented-slice and decoding that is taught by Takahashi, since both reference are analogous art in the field of scalable point-cloud reception and decoding; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since Chou’s hierarchical scalable-partition decoder with Takahashi’s LoD-to-segmented-slice extraction and decoding yields the predictable result of decoding only the delivered layer/partial-region data required for a selected LoD, thereby reducing decoder processing, memory use, and unnecessary decoding of unused point-cloud detail.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 3, 5-6, 10, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chou et al (US 20170347122 A1, hereafter referred to as Chou), in view of Takahashi et al (US 20220312035 A1, hereafter referred to as Takahashi), further in view of WG et al (WG, M. (2020). G-PCC codec description v9. MPEG-3DG. G-PCC Codec Description v9. ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG7 N0011., hereafter referred to as WG).
Claim 3
Regarding Claim 3, Chou in view of Takahashi teaches The method of claim 2,
wherein the segmented slices for the subgroups contain information for referencing a context (Takahashi in ¶116-117 discloses the hierarchy/depth-specific segmented slices.),
wherein the information for referencing the context indicates at least one of a parent subgroup or a parent layer-group of the subgroups related to the segmented slices (Takahashi in ¶117 discloses segmented slice arranged by successively deeper hierarchy levels, with each later slice representing the difference between a current LoD and the preceding lower LoD; ¶178-180 discloses geometry and attribute layers combined through a particular layer to form an LoD bitstream and partial-slice information mapping those layers to LoD).
Chou in view of Takahashi does not explicitly teach all of wherein the segmented slices for the subgroups contain information for referencing a context, wherein the information for referencing the context indicates at least one of a parent subgroup or a parent layer-group of the subgroups related to the segmented slices wherein the segmented slices are encoded based on the information for referencing the context.
However, WG teaches wherein the segmented slices for the subgroups contain information for referencing a context (WG in Section 3.15.8 discloses writing the continuation flag into the geometry or attribute data-unit header. Under BRI, the continuation flag is information for referencing the saved coding context.),
wherein the information for referencing the context indicates at least one of a parent subgroup or a parent layer-group of the subgroups related to the segmented slices (WG in Section 3.15.8 discloses that the continuation information causes a current slice to use the context table saved from the preceding slice. In the proposed ordered hierarchy, the preceding coarser layer/partial slice is the parent layer-group or parent subgroup of the layer refinement slice),
wherein the segmented slices are encoded based on the information for referencing the context (WG in Section 3.15.8 discloses restoring the saved context-probability table at the beginning of the next slice to continue encoding using the same context probability and writing/reading the continuation flag and loading the previous saved context table at the begging of slice encoding).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chou in view of Takahashi by incorporating the header-signaled entropy-context continuation that is taught by WG, since both reference are analogous art in the field of scalable G-PCC point-cloud slice encoding; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since Chou in view of Takahashi’s hierarchically ordered LoD/segmented-slice encoder with WG’s saved-context continuation yields the predictable result of encoding a later child/refinement slice using the available probability context of its preceding coarser parent slice, thereby avoiding context reinitialization and improving compression performance while retaining LoD-selective delivery.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 5
Regarding Claim 5, Chou in view of Takahashi teaches The method of claim 2, wherein the segmented slices for the subgroups contain information for referencing a context, or wherein, based on that the information for referencing the context is absent from the segmented slices, the segmented slices are encoded based on reference information related to the segmented slices for geometry data of the point cloud data (The Examiner notes claim 5 recites the first and second alternatives with “or”. Takahashi in ¶116-117 discloses LoD/depth-specific segmented slices),.
Chou in view of Takahashi does not explicitly teach all of wherein the segmented slices for the subgroups contain information for referencing a context, or wherein, based on that the information for referencing the context is absent from the segmented slices, the segmented slices are encoded based on reference information related to the segmented slices for geometry data of the point cloud data.
However, WG teaches wherein the segmented slices for the subgroups contain information for referencing a context, or wherein, based on that the information for referencing the context is absent from the segmented slices, the segmented slices are encoded based on reference information related to the segmented slices for geometry data of the point cloud data (WG in Section 3.15.8 discloses an entropy-continuation flag used to restore a saved local-context probability table for the next slice and placing/writing the continuation flag in the geometry or attribute data-unit header. The segmented-slice coding syntax contains information that references the saved entropy context.),.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chou in view of Takahashi by incorporating the entropy-continuation information that is taught by WG, since both reference are analogous art in the field of G-PCC point-cloud slice encoding; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since Chou in view of Takahashi’s segmented scalable-slice framework with WG’s header-signaled saved-context continuation yields the predictable result of carrying usable context-reference information for a subsequent segmented slice, thereby reducing the encoding-performance loss caused by resetting the entropy model at every slice boundary.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 6
Regarding Claim 6, Chou in view of Takahashi teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the encoding of the point cloud data comprises:
encoding geometry data of the point cloud data (Chuo in ¶62 discloses point cloud geometry; ¶68 discloses compressing the geometry data with an octree coder and formatting the compressed geometry data as encoded output); and
encoding attribute data of the point cloud data (Chuo in ¶62, 67-69 discloses transforming, quantizing, and entropy coding attributes of occupied point-cloud points and formatting the coded attribute information as encoded output),
wherein the encoding of the attribute data comprises:
mapping the LoD to a layer-group (Takahashi in ¶112 discloses depth/hierarchical information indicating LoD for each geometry and attribute slice; ¶116 discloses mapping a partial slice formed from the segmented slices of necessary depths to an LoD; ¶178-180 discloses combining geometry or attribute layers through a particular layer to form an LoD bitstream and generating information mapping the layers/partial slice to the LoD),
wherein the attribute data is encoded based on a subgroup for the layer-group (Chuo in ¶339, 341-344 discloses separating attribute-related values into hierarchy/region partitions and separately encoding the attributes or transform coefficients for each partition. Takahashi in ¶116 discloses dividing the attribute slice into segmented slices at each hierarchy depth and mapping the resulting partial-slice region to an LoD; ¶173 discloses identifying partial slices as attribute slices and their attribute type).
Chou in view of Takahashi does not explicitly teach all of wherein the encoding of the attribute data comprises: generating a level of detail (LoD) for the attribute data, wherein an attribute data unit header related to the encoding of the attribute data is generated.
However, WG teaches wherein the encoding of the attribute data comprises:
generating a level of detail (LoD) for the attribute data (WG in Section 3.8.1 discloses an attribute-coding LoD-generation process that deterministically reorganizes points into refinement levels at both the encoder and decoder and generates each LoD as a union of refinement levels).
wherein an attribute data unit header related to the encoding of the attribute data is generated (WG in Section 3.15.8 discloses placing the attribute entropy-continuation flag in an attribute data-unit header and modifying the encoding process to write the continuation-flag parameter in the data-unit-header syntax).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chou in view of Takahashi by incorporating LoD-to-layer/partial-slice mapping that is taught by WG, since both reference are analogous art in the field of scalable G-PCC geometry and attribute coding; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since Chou in view of Takahashi’s segmented scalable-slice framework with WG’s standardized attribute-LoD/header control yields the predictable result of an attribute bitstream organized into selectable LoD-specific coding units with explicit header control, thereby enabling interoperable selective attribute decoding while preserving efficient entropy coding.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 10
Regarding Claim 10, Chou in view of Takahashi teaches The method of claim 9,
wherein the segmented slices for the subgroups contain information for referencing a context (Takahashi in ¶129-134, 148-150 discloses receipt, extraction, and decoding of the LoD/depth-specific segmented/partial-slice groups),
wherein the information for referencing the context indicates at least one of a parent subgroup or a parent layer-group of the subgroups related to the segmented slices (Takahashi in ¶117 discloses segmented slices arranged by successively deeper hierarchy levels and representing differences between adjacent LoDs; ¶178-182 discloses extraction and decoding by ordered geometry/attribute layers mapped to LoD).
Chou in view of Takahashi does not explicitly teach all of wherein the segmented slices for the subgroups contain information for referencing a context, wherein the information for referencing the context indicates at least one of a parent subgroup or a parent layer-group of the subgroups related to the segmented slices, wherein the segmented slices are decoded based on the information for referencing the context.
However, WG teaches wherein the segmented slices for the subgroups contain information for referencing a context (WG in Section 3.15.8 discloses a continuation-flag for local entropy context and expressly requires corresponding decoder-side storage and restoration of the context-probability table, and reading the continuation flag during decoding),
wherein the information for referencing the context indicates at least one of a parent subgroup or a parent layer-group of the subgroups related to the segmented slices (WG in Section 3.15.8 discloses decoder restoration of the context table saved from the preceding slice. In the proposed ordered hierarchy, the preceding coarser layer/partial slice is the parent layer-group or parent subgroup of the later refinement slice),
wherein the segmented slices are decoded based on the information for referencing the context (WG in Section 3.15.8 discloses decoder-side saving of context at the end of slice and restoring it for a new slice, and reading the continuation flag and loading the saved context-probability table at the beginning of slice decoding).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chou in view of Takahashi by incorporating the decoder-side entropy-context continuation that is taught by WG, since both reference are analogous art in the field of scalable G-PCC point-cloud slice decoding; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since Chou in view of Takahashi’s LoD-selective segmented-slice decoder with WG’s restored-context decoding yields the predicable-result of decoding a later child/refinement slice using the available probability context saved from its preceding coarser parent slice, thereby avoiding context reinitialization and improving decoding/compression efficiency while preserving selective LoD reconstruction.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 13
Regarding Claim 13, Chou in view of Takahashi teaches The method of claim 8, wherein the decoding of the point cloud data comprises:
decoding geometry data of the point cloud data (Chuo in ¶89 discloses receiving and decompressing the compressed point-cloud geometry data with an octree decoder); and
decoding attribute data of the point cloud data (Chuo in ¶87, 90-91 discloses entropy decoding and inverse transforming coded attribute information to reconstruct point-cloud attributes),
wherein the decoding of the attribute data comprises:
mapping the LoD to a layer-group (Takahashi in ¶112 discloses depth/hierarchical information indicating LoD for each attribute slice; ¶116 discloses correspondence between an LoD and a partial slice formed from segmented slices at necessary depths; ¶178-182 discloses attribute layers combined through a particular layer to form an LoD bitstream and partial-slice information used to select the layers corresponding to the desired LoD),
wherein the attribute data is decoded based on a subgroup for the layer-group (Chuo in ¶353-357 discloses selectively decoding attribute-related partition values and aggregating decoded partition values to reconstruct point-cloud data. Takahashi in ¶129-134 discloses extracting LoD-specific partial-slice groups and decoding the attribute partial-slice group; ¶149-150 discloses extracting and decoding the attribute-bitstream partial-slice group for a selected LoD).
Chou in view of Takahashi does not explicitly teach all of generating a level of detail (LoD) for the attribute data.
However, WG teaches wherein the decoding of the attribute data comprises:
generating a level of detail (LoD) for the attribute data (WG in ¶3.8.1 discloses an attribute-coding LoD-generation process that is deterministic, operates at both the encoder and decoder, and generates LoDs from refinement levels).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chou in view of Takahashi by incorporating decoder-side-attribute-LoD generation that is taught by WG, since both reference are analogous art in the field of scalable G-PCC geometry and attribute decoding; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since Chou in view of Takahashi’s segmented scalable-slice framework with WG’s deterministic decoder-side LoD-generation yields the predictable result of reconstructing only the attribute subgroup data associated with a selected LoD layer-group, thereby reducing unnecessary decoding and providing scalable point-cloud reconstruction matched to the requested quality level.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 11 contain subject matter that is allowable over the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103; Claims 4 and 11 remain rejected under nonstatutory/statutory double patenting.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN P CASCAIS whose telephone number is (703) 756-5576. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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, Mr. O'Neal Mistry can be reached on (313) 446-4912. 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.
/J.P.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2674
/ONEAL R MISTRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2674
Date: 7/28/2026
Prosecution Insights