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 .
Claim Status
This Office Action responds to application 18/938819 filed on 11/06/24. Claims 23-32 are pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for a provisional application filed on 12/26/18.
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 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 of this title, 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.
1. Claims 23, 27, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al., US 2012/0140822 A1 (hereinafter Wang) in view of Strom et al., US 2012/0200575 A1 (hereinafter Strom), and further in view of Tian et al., US 2008/0170625 A1 (hereinafter Tian).
As for claim 23, Wang discloses an encoding method comprising: determining whether at least one non-zero coefficient ([0048], e.g., levels, signs) having a value that is not 0 is included in a coefficient tuple ([0048], e.g., coefficient), the coefficient tuple ([0048], e.g., coefficient) comprising one or more dimensions; and encoding ([0048], e.g., coding) the coefficient tuple when the at least one non-zero coefficient is included ([0048], e.g., levels, signs) in the coefficient tuple.
Wang does not explicitly disclose, but Strom teaches a coefficient tuple ([0149], e.g., RGB tuples) of three-dimensional data ([0149], e.g., RGB tuple, note the three dimensional data), in the encoding, when the coefficient tuple comprises multiple dimensions ([0149], e.g., RGB tuple, note the three dimensional data) and a coefficient of at least a dimension among the multiple dimensions has a value that is not 0 ([0149], e.g., compressor, note the encoding of all data is done regardless of non-zero status), values of coefficients of the multiple dimensions are encoded ([0149], e.g., compressor).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Wang and Strom before him/her to modify the video coding using function-based scan order for transform coefficients of Wang with the teaching of pixel block compression and decompression of Strom with a motivation to allow easy, efficient, and/or quick processing of a pixel data by using the property of a tuple data of a pixel.
Wang as modified by Strom does not explicitly teach, but Tian teaches in the encoding, when the coefficient tuple comprises one dimension, a value obtained by subtracting 1 ([0101], e.g., subtracted by 1) from a coefficient of the one dimension is encoded.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Wang, Strom, and Tian before him/her to modify the video coding using function-based scan order for transform coefficients of Wang with the teaching of per block breakpoint determining for hybrid variable length coding of Tian with a motivation to allow a processing of wider range of data by using the reduced number.
As for claim 27, the claim recites a decoding method of the method of claim 23, and is similarly analyzed.
As for claim 31, the claim recites an encoding device of the method of claim 23, and is similarly analyzed.
As for claim 32, the claim recites a decoding device of the method of claim 23, and is similarly analyzed.
2. Claims 24 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Strom, Tian, and further in view of Chou et al., US 2017/0347122 A1 (hereinafter Chou).
As for claim 24, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 23.
Wang as modified by Strom and Tian does not explicitly teach, but Chou teaches wherein the coefficient tuple includes one or more coefficient values corresponding to one or more attribute values of the one or more dimensions constituting attribute information ([0036], e.g., attributes).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Wang, Strom, Tian, and Chou before him/her to modify the video coding using function-based scan order for transform coefficients of Wang with the teaching of scalable point cloud compression with transform, and corresponding decompression of Chou with a motivation to provide a scalable compression of three-dimensional point cloud data as taught by Chou ([0001]) by using the 3D point cloud data compression method.
As for claim 28, the claim recites a decoding method of the method of claim 24, and is similarly analyzed.
3. Claims 25 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Strom, Tian, Chou, and further in view of Koning et al., US 2020/0134835 A1 (hereinafter Koning).
As for claim 25, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 24.
Wang as modified by Strom, Tian, and Chou does not explicitly teach, but Koning teaches wherein when coefficients of all dimensions included in the coefficient tuple are 0, the coefficient tuple is not encoded, and the encoding method further comprises: storing Zero-Run-Length information in a bitstream, the Zero-Run-Length information indicating a total number of consecutive zero coefficient tuples each of which is a coefficient tuple in which coefficients of all dimensions are 0 ([0036], e.g., number).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Wang, Strom, Tian, Chou, and Koning before him/her to modify the video coding using function-based scan order for transform coefficients of Wang with the teaching of image compression of Koning with a motivation to provide an efficiency in bitstream and/or processing of the data by using the well-known run-length coding.
As for claim 29, the claim recites a decoding method of the method of claim 25, and is similarly analyzed.
4. Claims 26 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Strom, Tian, and further in view of Koning.
As for claim 26, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 23.
Wang as modified by Strom and Tian does not explicitly teach, but Koning teaches wherein when coefficients of all dimensions included in the coefficient tuple are 0, the coefficient tuple is not encoded, and the encoding method further comprises: storing Zero-Run-Length information in a bitstream, the Zero-Run-Length information indicating a total number of consecutive zero coefficient tuples each of which is a coefficient tuple in which coefficients of all dimensions are 0 ([0036], e.g., number).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Wang, Strom, Tian, and Koning before him/her to modify the video coding using function-based scan order for transform coefficients of Wang with the teaching of image compression of Koning with a motivation to provide an efficiency in bitstream and/or processing of the data by using the well-known run-length coding.
As for claim 30, the claim recites a decoding method of the method of claim 26, and is similarly analyzed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 3/27/26, have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the citations being used in the current rejection.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
1. US 2003/0108099 discloses picture encoding method and apparatus, picture decoding method and apparatus and furnishing medium.
2. US 2005/0053294 discloses techniques and tools for progressive and interlaced video coding and decoding.
3. US 2006/0126962 discloses methods and systems for reducing blocking artifacts with reduced complexity for spatially-scalable video coding.
Conclusion
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 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 JOSEPH SUH whose telephone number is 571-270-7484. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
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 on 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.
/JOSEPH SUH/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights