DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 10/14/2024, wherein claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 10/14/2024.The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
1. Claims 1-4, 7-8, and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hur (U.S. 2021/0400103) hereinafter Hur.
Regarding claim 1, Hur discloses a method for point cloud coding, comprising:
determining, for a conversion between a current coding unit of a point cloud sequence and a bitstream of the point cloud sequence, a plurality of points of the current coding unit (Hur [0058]: encoding point cloud video data and output a bitstream containing the encoded point cloud data);
sorting the plurality of points at least based on a sorting parameter; and performing the conversion based on the plurality of sorted points (Hur [0288], [0294]-[0296], [0318]-[0321]: the points can be sorted based on Morton code, which is based on reconstructed geometry, in an ascending order for coding; [0339]-[0347]: pred_geom_tree_sorting_type which indicates different sorting order that can be used for sorting point cloud data. Hence, sorting based on a sorting parameter; [0286]: the applied sorting method may be included in the bitstream as parameter information and delivered to the decoder).
Regarding claim 18, Hur discloses an apparatus for processing point cloud data, comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to:
determine, for a conversion between a current coding unit of a point cloud sequence and a bitstream of the point cloud sequence, a plurality of points of the current coding unit (Hur [0058]: encoding point cloud video data and output a bitstream containing the encoded point cloud data);
sort the plurality of points at least based on a sorting parameter; and perform the conversion based on the plurality of sorted points (Hur [0288], [0294]-[0296], [0318]-[0321]: the points can be sorted based on Morton code, which is based on reconstructed geometry, in an ascending order for coding; [0339]-[0347]: pred_geom_tree_sorting_type which indicates different sorting order that can be used for sorting point cloud data. Hence, sorting based on a sorting parameter; [0286]: the applied sorting method may be included in the bitstream as parameter information and delivered to the decoder).
Regarding claim 19, Hur discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor to:
determine, for a conversion between a current coding unit of a point cloud sequence and a bitstream of the point cloud sequence, a plurality of points of the current coding unit (Hur [0058]: encoding point cloud video data and output a bitstream containing the encoded point cloud data);
sort the plurality of points at least based on a sorting parameter; and perform the conversion based on the plurality of sorted point (Hur [0288], [0294]-[0296], [0318]-[0321]: the points can be sorted based on Morton code, which is based on reconstructed geometry, in an ascending order for coding; [0339]-[0347]: pred_geom_tree_sorting_type which indicates different sorting order that can be used for sorting point cloud data. Hence, sorting based on a sorting parameter; [0286]: the applied sorting method may be included in the bitstream as parameter information and delivered to the decoder).
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites a bit stream generated by a method, the method comprising…, which is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bit stream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps.
“To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 18 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no fictional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefor the structure bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by V. Fauz which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream (¶15).
Hur discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a point cloud sequence which is generated by a method performed by a point cloud processing apparatus, wherein the method comprises: determining a plurality of points of a current coding unit of the point cloud sequence; sorting the plurality of points at least based on a sorting parameter; and generating the bitstream based on the plurality of sorted points (Hur [0045], [0047]).
Regarding claim 2, Hur discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Hur discloses wherein the current coding unit comprises one of: a slice, a tile, or a frame (Hur [0325]-[0330]: the point cloud data can be partitioned in slices or tiles), wherein the plurality of points is sorted based on associated converted code types of the plurality of points, wherein an associated converted code type of a point comprises at least one of: a Morton code, a Hilbert code, or a Gray code (Hur [0288], [0294]-[0296], [0318]-[0321]: the points can be sorted based on Morton code in an ascending order; [0339]-[0347]: pred_geom_tree_sorting_type which indicates different sorting order that can be used for sorting point cloud data).
Regarding claim 3, Hur discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Hur discloses wherein sorting the plurality of points comprises: sorting the plurality of points in an ascending order or a descending order (Hur [0288], [0294]-[0296], [0318]-[0321]: the points can be sorted based on Morton code in an ascending order).
Regarding claim 4, Hur discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Hur discloses wherein sorting the plurality of points comprises: grouping the plurality of points into at least one segment of points; and sorting the at least one segment of points, wherein the plurality of points is grouped into the at least one segment of points based on the sorting parameter (Hur [0212], [0214]: points may be sorted based on grouping; [0232]-[0237], [0284]-[0294]: Points may be grouped based on azimuth, Moton code, radius, elevation,… hence, grouping based on sorting parameter; [0299], [0313], [0358]: group points for sampling based on the octree).
Regarding claim 7, Hur discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Hur discloses wherein the sorting parameter is a predefined value, and the sorting of the plurality of points is disabled (Hur [0339]-[0347]: pred_geom_tree_sorting_type which indicates no sorting when equal to 0, hence sorting is disabled).
Regarding claim 8, Hur discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Hur discloses wherein the sorting parameter is in a bitstream unit in the bitstream, wherein the bitstream unit comprises at least one of: a slice header, an attribute slice header, a geometry slice header, an attribute parameter set (APS), a geometry parameter set (GPS), or a sequence parameter set (SPS) (Hur [0286]: the applied sorting method may be included in the bitstream as parameter information and delivered to the decoder; [0337], [0330]: information related to point sorting can be included in sequence parameter set or geometry header for each slide; [0339]-[0347]: pred_geom_tree_sorting_type which indicates sorting code type, hence sorting parameter, which is included in sequence parameter set as in Fig. 19).
Regarding claim 10, Hur discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Hur discloses wherein the sorting parameter is coded with a predictive coding tool (Hur [0465]-[0466]: predictive geometry coding can be used).
Regarding claim 11, Hur discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Hur discloses determining the sorting parameter based on decoded information, wherein the decoded information is in at least one of: a slice header, an attribute slice header, a geometry slice header, an attribute parameter set (APS), a geometry parameter set (GPS), or a sequence parameter set (SPS) (Hur [0286]: the applied sorting method may be included in the bitstream as parameter information and delivered to the decoder; [0337]-[0347], [0330]: information related to point sorting can be included in sequence parameter set or geometry header for each slide. Pred_geom_tree_sorting_type which indicates sorting code type, hence sorting parameter, which is included in sequence parameter set as in Fig. 19, and which is decoded).
Regarding claim 12, Hur discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Hur discloses wherein an indicator indicative of enabling the sorting parameter is included in a bitstream unit in the bitstream, wherein the bitstream unit comprises at least one of: a slice header, an attribute slice header, a geometry slice header, an attribute parameter set (APS), a geometry parameter set (GPS), or a sequence parameter set (SPS), wherein the indicator is coded with at least one of: a fixed-length coding tool, a unary coding tool, a truncated unary coding tool, or an Exponential Golomb coding tool, or wherein the indicator is coded with a predictive coding tool, or wherein the indicator is coded with at least one context, or wherein the indicator is by-pass coded, or wherein the indicator is a binary value (Hur [0286]: the applied sorting method may be included in the bitstream as parameter information and delivered to the decoder; [0337]-[0347], [0330]: information related to point sorting can be included in sequence parameter set or geometry header for each slide. Pred_geom_tree_sorting_type which indicates sorting code type that is enabled such as sorting in Morton code when has value of 1, hence indicator indicative of enabling the sorting parameter, which is included in sequence parameter set in bitstream as in Fig. 19, and which is decoded).
Regarding claim 13, Hur discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Hur discloses determining an indicator indicative of enabling the sorting parameter at a decoding side associated with the conversion (Hur [0285]-[0286]: the applied sorting method may be included in the bitstream as parameter information and delivered to the decoder; [0337]-[0347], [0330]: information related to point sorting can be included in sequence parameter set or geometry header for each slide. Pred_geom_tree_sorting_type which indicates sorting code type that is enabled such as sorting in Morton code when has value of 1, hence indicator indicative of enabling the sorting parameter, which is included in sequence parameter set in bitstream as in Fig. 19, and which is decoded).
Regarding claim 14, Hur discloses all the limitations of claim 3.
Hur discloses wherein the indicator is a binary value, wherein the indicator is a first binary value, the sorting parameter is disabled, and the sorting of the plurality of points is enabled, or wherein the indicator is a second binary value, and the sorting parameter is enabled (Hur [0339]-[0347]: pred_geom_tree_sorting_type can has value of 1 and which indicates sorting in Morton code order, hence a second binary value and the sorting parameter is enabled).
Regarding claim 15, Hur discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Hur discloses wherein the sorting of the plurality of points is used in at least one of: an attribute coding, a geometry coding, or a further coding process (Hur [0137], [0349]: sorting in predictive geometry coding).
Regarding claim 16, Hur discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Hur discloses wherein the conversion includes encoding the current coding unit into the bitstream (Hur [0281]-[0283], [0326]-[0328], [0336]: encoding coding unit into bitstream).
Regarding claim 17, Hur discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Hur discloses wherein the conversion includes decoding the current coding unit from the bitstream (Hur [0336]-[0347]: decoder for decoding bitstream).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
1. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hur (U.S. 2021/0400103) hereinafter Hur, in view of Sugio et al. (U.S. 2022/0303577) hereinafter Sugio.
Regarding claim 9, Hur discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Hur does not explicitly disclose wherein the sorting parameter is coded with at least one of: a fixed-length coding tool, a unary coding tool, or a truncated unary coding tool.
However, it is well known for one skill in the art to code coding parameter with at least one of: a fixed-length coding tool, a unary coding tool, or a truncated unary coding tool in Sugio (Sugio [0654]: point cloud sorting; [0519], [0502]: truncated unary code can be used to code prediction mode value representation, i.e. coding parameter).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method and system, as disclosed by Petzold and Kuehnle, and further incorporate having the coding parameter is coded with at least one of: a fixed-length coding tool, a unary coding tool, or a truncated unary coding tool, including the sorting parameter, as taught by Sugio, for coding efficiency (Sugio [0007]-[0008], [0569]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
In light of the specification, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior arts of record.
Regarding claim 5, the prior arts of record, taken individually or in combination fail to explicitly teach or render obvious within the context of the claims the feature of grouping the plurality of points into at least one segment of points comprises: adding a target number of points from the plurality of points into a segment of the at least one segment, wherein the target number is associated with the sorting parameter, wherein an association between the target number and the sorting parameter comprises one of: a linear association, a power association, an exponential association, or a piecewise association, or wherein a first number of points in a first segment of the at least one segment is different from a second number of points in a second segment of the at least one segment as cited in claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, the prior arts of record, taken individually or in combination fail to explicitly teach or render obvious within the context of the claims the feature of determining at least one number for the at least one segment based on the sorting parameter, wherein the at least one number is determined by using an association between the at least one number and the sorting parameter, the association comprising one of: a linear association, a power association, an exponential association, or a piecewise association as cited in claim 6.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0626. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00am-6:00pm.
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, Jamie Atala can be reached on 571-272-7384. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KATHLEEN V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486