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.
ISO/IEC: "G-PCC 2nd Edition Codec Description", 143. MPEG Meeting, 20230717 - 20230721, Geneva, (Motion Picture Expert Group OR ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11), No. n23041, 4 October 2023 (hereinafter GPCC2)
US 20220207780 A1 (hereinafter RAMASUBRAMONIAN)
US 20230291895 A1 (hereinafter Lee)
US 20240179346 A1 (Fig.21)
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Rejection made under 35 USC § 101 have been withdrawn in view of amendments to the claims.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 prior art rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for following reason.
Re: Prior art rejection in view of GPCC2
Applicant argued in substance that the first processing on reference frame is not taught.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and argues that in section 6.6. it teaches reference frame can be non-motion compensated or performed GMC on it which may also includes resampling/interpolation (last para of section 6.6). Please note this reference frame is further refined (second level processing) before attribute compression (section 7.6)
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive
Re: Prior art rejection in view of LEE
Applicant argued in substance that the 53002 cannot be used as second processor.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and argues that any “second process” is broadly claimed, without any limiting description of the process. Therefore, any process that fits into other limitations of the claim teaches this.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Examiner suggests amending claims to provide further description/substance on the first and/or second processing event it is a description indicated one of few options.
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, 5-6, 8-9, 13-14, 16-17, 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GPCC2.
GPCC2 teaches, with respect to claim 9. A device for encoding point cloud data, the device comprising: one or more memories configured to store the point cloud data: [(Frame memory in Fig.90)] and processing circuitry coupled to the one or more memories [(Fig.90)], wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: apply a first process to a reference point cloud frame to generate a first level processed frame: [(GMC in section 6.6 page 67-68 or coordinate conversion in section 6.5)] apply a second process to the first level processed frame to generate a second level processed frame: [(section 7.6 reference point cloud used in G-PCC(Geometry point cloud compression) is refined for attribute inter prediction)] inter-prediction encode geometry data of points of a current point cloud frame using the first level processed frame: : [(GMC in section 6.6 page 67-68 or coordinate conversion in section 6.5; section 6 is geometry interprediction)] : and inter-prediction encode attribute data of points of the current point cloud frame using the second level processed frame. [(section 7.6 reference point cloud used in G-PCC(Geometry point cloud compression) is refined for attribute inter prediction; section 7 is attribute interprediction)]
GPCC2 teaches, with respect to claim 13. The device of claim 9, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: store the first level processed frame in a buffer, wherein to apply the second process to the first level processed frame to generate the second level processed frame, the processing circuitry is configured to access the first level processed frame from the buffer. [(section 6.7.2; memory buffer for storing GMC reference)]
GPCC2 teaches, with respect to claim 14. The device of claim 9, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: apply a third process to generate information for encoding attribute data of points of the reference point cloud frame: and encode attribute data of the points of the reference point cloud frame using the information. [(section 7.7)]
GPCC2 teaches, with respect to claim 16. The device of claim 9, further comprising one or more LiDAR sensors configured to capture the points of the current point cloud frame. [(GPCC2 LIDAR in section 3.1)]
Regarding Claims 1, 5-6, 17, 21-22 : See analysis of claims 9, 13-14 and note the decoder side the process is simply reverse [(GPCC2 page 16)]
GPCC2 teaches, with respect to claim 8. The device of claim 1, further comprising a display configured to present imagery based on the current point cloud frame [(page 52)] .
Claims 1, 5-6, 8-9, 13-14, 16-17, 21-22 & 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee.
Lee teaches, with respect to claim 9. a device for encoding point cloud data, the device comprising: one or more memories configured to store the point cloud data: [(para 162)] and processing circuitry coupled to the one or more memories [(Fig.162)], wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: apply a first process to a reference point cloud frame to generate a first level processed frame: [(Fig.16; Fig.52008, 52009, 52010 are processed apply to previous frame/reference frame)] apply a second process to the first level processed frame to generate a second level processed frame: [(53002)] inter-prediction encode geometry data of points of a current point cloud frame using the first level processed frame: : [(52014)] : and inter-prediction encode attribute data of points of the current point cloud frame using the second level processed frame. [(53012)]
Lee teaches, with respect to claim 13. The device of claim 9, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: store the first level processed frame in a buffer, wherein to apply the second process to the first level processed frame to generate the second level processed frame, the processing circuitry is configured to access the first level processed frame from the buffer. [(para 307)]
Lee teaches, with respect to claim 14. The device of claim 9, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: apply a third process to generate information for encoding attribute data of points of the reference point cloud frame: and encode attribute data of the points of the reference point cloud frame using the information. [(53014 and para 179-180)]
Lee teaches, with respect to claim 16. The device of claim 9, further comprising one or more LiDAR sensors configured to capture the points of the current point cloud frame. [(para 135)]
Regarding Claims 1, 5-6, 17, 21-22 : See analysis of claims 9, 13-14 and note the decoder side the process is simply reverse [(para 1159)]
Lee teaches, with respect to claims 8, 24. The device of claim 1, further comprising a display configured to present imagery based on the current point cloud frame [(page 116, 162)] .
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.
Claims 2-4, 7, 10-12, 15, 18-20, 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GPCC2 in view of RAMASUBRAMONIAN.
Regarding Claim 10: GPCC2 teaches wherein to apply the first process to the reference point cloud frame to generate the first level processed frame, the processing circuitry is configured to: for each of a plurality of quantized azimuth components and for a laser identification component, store a radius component and an azimuth component for k number of points of the reference point cloud frame associated with the laser identification component, wherein k is greater than or equal to 1 [(GPCC2 page 63)],
GPCC2 does not explicitly show wherein each of the plurality of quantized azimuth components is an index to the table, and wherein the table is at least a portion of the first level processed frame.
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, RAMASUBRAMONIAN teaches wherein each of the plurality of quantized azimuth components is an index to the table, and wherein the table is at least a portion of the first level processed frame. [(RAMASUBRAMONIAN para 263-264)]
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.
GPCC2 in view of RAMASUBRAMONIAN additionally teaches, with respect to claim 11. The device of claim 10, wherein a value of k is signaled. [(RAMASUBRAMONIAN para 145, 244)]
GPCC2 in view of RAMASUBRAMONIAN additionally teaches, with respect to claim 12. The device of claim 9, wherein to apply the second process to the first level processed frame to generate the second level processed frame, the processing circuitry is configured to: for each point in the first level processed frame, apply an offset and a scale to one or more of a radius component, an azimuth component, and a laser identification component to generate the second level processed frame. . [(RAMASUBRAMONIAN para 263-264)]
GPCC2 in view of RAMASUBRAMONIAN additionally teaches, with respect to claim 15. The device of claim 9, wherein the geometry data comprises coordinate data, and wherein the attribute data comprises color data, reflectance data, or both color data and reflectance data. [(GPCC2 LIDAR data {section 3.1} and RAMASUBRAMONIAN para 40, 303)]
Regarding Claims 24 : See analysis of claims 9 and para 18 of RAMASUBRAMONIAN
Regarding Claims 2-4, 7, 18-20, 23, 25-26 : See analysis of claims 9, 13-14
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