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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, Hendry fails to disclose or suggest "obtaining an access unit from a point cloud data bitstream".
Examiner disagrees, Hendry discloses obtain an access unit from a point cloud data bitstream (0085; 0093; 0222; 0236);
Applicants specification says “[0093]An access unit is a media data pertaining to a particular composition time in a media stream.”
The types of information that can be in a point cloud bitstream of Hendry can satisfy this definition and be considered an access unit like the metadata that can include geometry and attribute slices.
Applicant argues, Hendry fails to disclose or suggest "extracting a slice data unit from the access unit, wherein the slice data unit comprises a slice header and a slice payload"
Examiner disagrees, Hendry discloses extract a slice data unit from the access unit, wherein the slice data unit comprises a slice header and a slice payload (0304-7);
The types of information that can be considered an access unit are as the paragraphs are the reference for fig. 32 which shows geometry and attribute slice (headers and data) as part of the payload.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, 11, 13-15, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hendry et al. US 2025/0005804
Hendry discloses:
13. and under similar rationale 1. An apparatus comprising: a processor (0009; 0011); and a memory storing instructions operative (0009; 0011), when executed by the processor, to cause the apparatus to: obtain an access unit from a point cloud data bitstream (0085; 0093; 0222; 0236); extract a slice data unit from the access unit, wherein the slice data unit comprises a slice header and a slice payload (0304-7); determine a slice data unit type for the slice data unit (0304-7); parse the slice header based on the slice data unit type (Fig. 13: 1335; Fig. 18; 0240-1; 0304-7); parse the slice payload based on the slice data unit type (Fig. 13: 1335; attribute and geometry; Fig. 18; 0240-1; 0304-7); and generate point cloud data using the parsed slice payload (Fig. 13: renderer 1360; Fig. 18; 0240-1; 0304-7).
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the slice data unit type is determined to correspond to either geometry data or attribute data (0304-7).
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the slice payload comprises a slice geometry payload (0304-7).
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the slice payload comprises a slice geometry payload with octree occupancy data (Fig. 6; 0119-22).
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the slice payload comprises a slice geometry payload organized on a per-depth level basis (Fig. 27-8 and related text e.g. 0291-2).
7. The method of claim 1, wherein parsing the slice payload comprises splitting the slice payload into two or more sub-slices (0304-7; 0357-60).
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the slice payload comprises a slice attribute payload (0304-7).
11. The method of claim 1, further comprising: obtaining a parameter set from the point cloud data bitstream; extracting a parameter from the parameter set; and configuring a decoder based on the extracted parameter (Figs. 13, 17; 0232-6).
14. A method comprising: obtaining point cloud data (0085; 0093; 0222; 0236); segmenting the point cloud data into one or more data slices (0304-7); performing a slice assembly process for each of the one or more data slices, wherein the slice assembly process performed for a current slice of the one or more data slices comprises: determining a point cloud data type for the current slice (Fig. 13: 1335; Fig. 18; 0240-1; 0304-7); generating a slice header for the current slice based on the point cloud data type (Fig. 13: 1335; Fig. 18; 0240-1; 0304-7); generating a slice payload for the current slice based on the point cloud data type (Fig. 13: renderer 1360; Fig. 18; 0240-1; 0304-7); and assembling the slice header and the slice payload together as a slice data unit for the current slice (Fig. 13: renderer 1360; Fig. 18; 0240-1; 0304-7); and generating an access unit using one or more of the slice data units (Fig. 13: renderer 1360; Fig. 18; 0240-1; 0304-7).
15. The method of claim 14, wherein the slice payload comprises one of a slice geometry payload, a slice geometry payload with octree occupancy, and a slice geometry payload organized on a per-depth level basis (0304-7).
17. The method of claim 14, wherein the slice payload comprises point cloud data for two or more sub-slices (0304-7; 0357-60).
18. The method of claim 14, wherein the slice payload comprises one of slice geometry data and slice attribute data (0304-7).
19. The method of claim 14, further comprising: obtaining a parameter used for configuring a decoder; and generating a parameter set using the obtained parameter (Figs. 13, 17; 0232-6).
20. The method of claim 14, further comprising streaming the access unit via a bitstream (0072).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4, 9-10, 12, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendry in view of Pang et al. US 2025/0373863.
4. The method of claim 3,
Hendry does not explicitly disclose the following, however Pang teaches wherein the slice geometry payload comprises explicit hyperprior data, and wherein the explicit hyperprior data aggregates two or more point cloud features (0062-3; 0069; 0097; 0124-31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order to analyze and utilize the distribution of the feature so as to perform efficient arithmetic coding of the feature (Pang 0086-7)
9. The method of claim 8,
Hendry does not explicitly disclose the following, however Pang teaches wherein the slice attribute payload comprises explicit hyperprior data and wherein the explicit hyperprior data aggregates two or more attributes (0062-3; 0069; 0097; 0124-31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order to analyze and utilize the distribution of the feature so as to perform efficient arithmetic coding of the feature (Pang 0086-7)
10. The method of claim 1,
Hendry does not explicitly disclose the following, however Pang teaches wherein the slice payload comprises a slice attribute payload with octree occupancy data (0304-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order to analyze and utilize the distribution of the feature so as to perform efficient arithmetic coding of the feature (Pang 0086-7)
12. The method of claim 1,
Hendry does not explicitly disclose the following, however Pang teaches wherein generating point cloud data using the parsed slice payload comprises synthesizing hyperprior data using the parsed slice payload (Fig. 10; 0088-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order to analyze and utilize the distribution of the feature so as to perform efficient arithmetic coding of the feature (Pang 0086-7)
16. The method of claim 14,
Hendry does not explicitly disclose the following, however Pang teaches wherein the slice payload comprises explicit hyperprior data, and wherein the explicit hyperprior data aggregates two or more point cloud features (0062-3; 0069; 0097; 0124-31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order to analyze and utilize the distribution of the feature so as to perform efficient arithmetic coding of the feature (Pang 0086-7)
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 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 JOSEPH W BECKER whose telephone number is (571)270-7301. The examiner can normally be reached flexible usually 10-6.
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, Joseph G Ustaris can be reached at 5712727383. 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.
/JOSEPH W BECKER/ Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights