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 05/18/2026 has been entered. No claims have been added or cancelled. Claims 1, 14, 22, and 23 have been amended. Claims 1-23 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 05/18/2026, with respect to the 102 rejections have been fully considered.
Examiner concurs the amended claim language does not allow the same interpretation previously applied to the Mishaev reference. However, amended claim language is broad enough such that a different interpretation of Mishaev is possible. The rejection below has been revised accordingly. Further, dependent claims now require an additional reference, see the new 103 rejections over the combination of Mishaev and Hayashi below.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed 05/18/2026, with respect to the 103 rejections have been fully considered.
For the reasons listed above, the dependent claims rejection under 103 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)(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, 10, 12-14, 18, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mishaev et al. US 2020/0043220 A1, hereafter Mishaev.
Regarding claim 1, Mishaev discloses a decoding method (decoding system 1820; method) [FIG. 18B; 0241] comprising:
receiving control information (access…texture maps) [0086]; and
decoding (decoders 1834A, 1834B, occupancy map decoder 1832, auxiliary patch-info decoder 1833, unpacking 1829) [FIG. 18B] first attribute information on a first attribute of a three-dimensional point, according to the control information received (pixel color data for each geometric fragment) [0086], the three-dimensional point including the first attribute and a second attribute different from the first attribute (input geometry data) [0086]
wherein the control information received indicates that the first attribute depends on the second attribute (arithmetic operations on the texture data and the input geometry data compute pixel color data for each geometric fragment) [0086].
Regarding claim 5, Mishaev addresses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Mishaev further discloses the first attribute information is contained in a first component different from a second component in which second attribute information on the second attribute is contained (arithmetic operations on the texture data and the input geometry data compute pixel color data for each geometric fragment) [0086].
Regarding claim 10, Mishaev addresses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Mishaev further discloses decoding (decoders 1834A, 1834B, occupancy map decoder 1832, auxiliary patch-info decoder 1833, unpacking 1829) [FIG. 18B] second attribute information on the second attribute (arithmetic operations on the texture data and the input geometry data compute pixel color data for each geometric fragment) [0086].; and
converting (decoders 1834A, 1834B, occupancy map decoder 1832, auxiliary patch-info decoder 1833, unpacking 1829) [FIG. 18B] the first attribute information decoded, based on the second attribute information decoded (arithmetic operations on the texture data and the input geometry data compute pixel color data for each geometric fragment) [0086].
Regarding claim 12, Mishaev addresses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Mishaev further discloses the first attribute and the second attribute are correlated (arithmetic operations on the texture data and the input geometry data compute pixel color data for each geometric fragment) [0086].
Regarding claim 13, Mishaev addresses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Mishaev further discloses in the decoding of the first attribute information, the first attribute information is obtained by decoding encoded data (compressed bitstream 1816, decoders 1834A, 1834B, occupancy map decoder 1832, auxiliary patch-info decoder 1833, unpacking 1829) [FIG. 18B], and the encoded data is generated using the first attribute and the second attribute (arithmetic operations on the texture data and the input geometry data compute pixel color data for each geometric fragment) [0086].
Regarding claim 14, Mishaev discloses an encoding method (encoding system 1800; method) [FIG. 18A; 0241] comprising:
encoding (encoders 1703A) [FIG. 17A] first attribute information on a first attribute of a three-dimensional point (pixel color data for each geometric fragment) [0086], the three-dimensional point including the first attribute and a second attribute different from the first attribute (input geometry data) [0086]; and
transmitting (compressed bitstream 1816) [FIG. 18A], the first attribute information encoded and control information (texture maps) [0086],
wherein the control information indicates that the first attribute depends on the second attribute of the three-dimensional point (arithmetic operations on the texture data and the input geometry data compute pixel color data for each geometric fragment) [0086].
Regarding claim 18, Mishaev addresses all of the features with respect to claim 14 as outlined above.
Mishaev further discloses the first attribute information is contained in a first component different from a second component in which second attribute information on the second attribute is contained (arithmetic operations on the texture data and the input geometry data compute pixel color data for each geometric fragment) [0086].
Claim 22 is drawn to a decoding device adapted to implement the method of claim 1, and are therefore rejected in the same manner as above. However, the claims also recite a processor and a memory, which Mishaev also teaches (processor(s) 102, memory device 120) [FIG. 1].
Claim 23 is drawn to an encoding device adapted to implement the method of claim 14, and are therefore rejected in the same manner as above. However, the claims also recite a processor and a memory, which Mishaev also teaches (processor(s) 102, memory device 120) [FIG. 1].
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.
Claims 2, 8, 11, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishaev in view of Hayashi et al. US 12,452,453 B2, hereafter Hayashi.
Regarding claim 2, Mishaev addresses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
However, Mishaev fails to explicitly disclose discloses the control information indicates that the first attribute information is a difference between the first attribute and the second attribute
Hayashi, in an analogous environment, discloses the control information indicates that the first attribute information is a difference between the first attribute and the second attribute (difference patch corresponds to a difference between the first attribute data and the second attribute data) [claim 1].
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 difference between two attributes, as disclosed by Hayashi, with the invention disclosed by Mishaev, the motivation suppressing increase in amount of code [column 1, lines 18-29].
Regarding claim 8, Mishaev addresses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
However, Mishaev fails to explicitly disclose the first attribute information and the second attribute information indicate a first color and a second color of the three-dimensional point, respectively, and the first color and the second color are each represented by a plurality of dimensions
Hayashi, in an analogous environment, discloses the first attribute information and the second attribute information indicate a first color and a second color of the three-dimensional point, respectively, and the first color and the second color are each represented by a plurality of dimensions (color information, reflectance information; occupancy map; auxiliary patch information) [column 5, line 19; column 6, line 1; column 6, line 25].
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 two colors, as disclosed by Hayashi, with the invention disclosed by Mishaev, the motivation suppressing increase in amount of code [column 1, lines 18-29].
Regarding claim 11, Mishaev addresses all of the features with respect to claim 10 as outlined above.
However, Mishaev fails to explicitly disclose the first attribute information is a difference between the first attribute and the second attribute, and in the converting, the first attribute is reconstructed from the first attribute information and the second attribute information.
Hayashi, in an analogous environment, discloses the first attribute information is a difference between the first attribute and the second attribute, and in the converting, the first attribute is reconstructed from the first attribute information and the second attribute information (difference patch corresponds to a difference between the first attribute data and the second attribute data) [claim 1].
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 difference between two attributes, as disclosed by Hayashi, with the invention disclosed by Mishaev, the motivation suppressing increase in amount of code [column 1, lines 18-29].
Regarding claim 15, Mishaev addresses all of the features with respect to claim 14 as outlined above.
However, Mishaev fails to explicitly discloses the control information indicates that the first attribute information is a difference between the first attribute and the second attribute.
Hayashi, in an analogous environment, discloses the control information indicates that the first attribute information is a difference between the first attribute and the second attribute (difference patch corresponds to a difference between the first attribute data and the second attribute data) [claim 1].
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 difference between two attributes, as disclosed by Hayashi, with the invention disclosed by Mishaev, the motivation suppressing increase in amount of code [column 1, lines 18-29].
Regarding claim 20, Mishaev addresses all of the features with respect to claim 14 as outlined above.
Mishaev fails to explicitly discloses the first attribute information and the second attribute information indicate a first color and a second color of the three-dimensional point, respectively, and the first color and the second color are each represented by a plurality of dimensions.
Hayashi, in an analogous environment, discloses the first attribute information and the second attribute information indicate a first color and a second color of the three-dimensional point, respectively, and the first color and the second color are each represented by a plurality of dimensions (color information, reflectance information; occupancy map; auxiliary patch information) [column 5, line 19; column 6, line 1; column 6, line 25].
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 two colors, as disclosed by Hayashi, with the invention disclosed by Mishaev, the motivation suppressing increase in amount of code [column 1, lines 18-29].
Claims 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishaev in view of Sundberg et al. US 2014/0247264 A1, hereafter Sundberg.
Regarding claim 3, Mishaev addresses all of the features with respect to claim 2 as outlined above.
However, Mishaev fails to disclose or suggest the control information includes at least one of offset information or scales information to be applied to the difference.
Sundberg, in an analogous environment, discloses the control information includes at least one of offset information or scales information to be applied to the difference (scaling the calculated difference with the length of the ray or with said scaling factor) [0088].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a scaling factor for a difference between attributes of a three dimensional point, as disclosed by Sundberg, with the invention disclosed by Mishaev, the motivation being efficiency [0009].
Regarding claim 16, Mishaev addresses all of the features with respect to claim 15 as outlined above.
However, Mishaev fails to disclose or suggest the control information includes at least one of offset information or scales information to be applied to the difference.
Sundberg, in an analogous environment, discloses the control information includes at least one of offset information or scales information to be applied to the difference (scaling the calculated difference with the length of the ray or with said scaling factor) [0088].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a scaling factor for a difference between attributes of a three dimensional point, as disclosed by Sundberg, with the invention disclosed by Mishaev, the motivation being efficiency [0009].
Claims 9 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishaev in view of Oh et al. US 2022/0417557 A1, hereafter Oh.
Regarding claim 9, Mishaev addresses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Mishaev further discloses the first attribute information and the second attribute information indicate a color of the three-dimensional point.
However, Mishaev fails to disclose or suggest the first attribute information and the second attribute information indicate a reflectance of the three-dimensional point, respectively, and a first number of dimensions representing the color is three and a second number of dimensions representing the reflectance is one.
Oh, in an analogous environment, discloses a reflectance of the three-dimensional point, respectively, and a first number of dimensions representing the color is three and a second number of dimensions representing the reflectance is one (an attribute corresponding to color may have three color components (e.g., RGB). An attribute corresponding to reflectance may be a mono-dimensional attribute, and an attribute corresponding to color may be a three-dimensional attribute) [0345].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include three-dimensional color and one-dimensional reflectance as an attribute of a three-dimensional point, as disclosed by Oh, with the invention disclosed by Mishaev, the motivation being providing a high-quality point cloud service [0009].
Regarding claim 21, Mishaev addresses all of the features with respect to claim 14 as outlined above.
Mishaev further discloses the first attribute information and the second attribute information indicate a color of the three-dimensional point.
However, Mishaev fails to disclose or suggest the first attribute information and the second attribute information indicate a reflectance of the three-dimensional point, respectively, and a first number of dimensions representing the color is three and a second number of dimensions representing the reflectance is one.
Oh, in an analogous environment, discloses a reflectance of the three-dimensional point, respectively, and a first number of dimensions representing the color is three and a second number of dimensions representing the reflectance is one (an attribute corresponding to color may have three color components (e.g., RGB). An attribute corresponding to reflectance may be a mono-dimensional attribute, and an attribute corresponding to color may be a three-dimensional attribute) [0345].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include three-dimensional color and one-dimensional reflectance as an attribute of a three-dimensional point, as disclosed by Oh, with the invention disclosed by Mishaev, the motivation being providing a high-quality point cloud service [0009].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4, 6, 7, 17, 19 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 prior art fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the presented prior art, providing offset/scale information separately for each attribute info, having different dimensions, and second component identifiers.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Hur et al. US 2021/0104090 A1 discloses attributes including color and reflectance dependent on a prediction mode of a point.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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
Prosecution Insights