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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2 and 5-6 recite the limitation "the time information". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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 1-2,4-5,7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YIP et al. US 20210099754 A1 in view of Park et al. US 20210049828.
Regarding claim 1, YIP provides for acquiring one or more units in which an encoded data generated by encoding three dimensional data is stored ( see [0241], see "From the 3D object, the preprocessor 1020 may output a video frame to be used as an input to a video encoder 1030", in Fig.10) ; and storing the one or more units into a file (Fig. 10, see " [0246] In an embodiment of the disclosure, an ISOBMFF encapsulator 1050 of the transmitting apparatus 1000 may encapsulate the video data and metadata compressed in the video encoder 1030 and the metadata encoder 1040 into a media file. For example, the ISOBMFF encapsulator 1050 may encapsulate the compressed video data and metadata into an ISOBMFF media file."),
wherein the encoded data includes a frame that is three-dimensional frame data and includes a plurality of subframes each of which is sub three-dimensional frame data (see " [0241], see "From the 3D object, the preprocessor 1020 may output a video frame to be used as an input to a video encoder 1030") ,
and encoded data includes first metadata including geometry information for each of the plurality of subframes (see (Fig. 10, see [0246]
see “For example, the ISOBMFF encapsulator 1050 may encapsulate the
compressed video data and metadata into an ISOBMFF media file") . YIP
does not provide for the encoded data includes first metadata including
geometry information for each of the plurality of subframes.
Park teaches the above missing limitation of YIP (see “[0017] In another aspect of the present disclosure, a method for receiving point cloud data may include receiving a bitstream containing geometry data of the point cloud data and attribute data of the point cloud data, and decoding the point cloud data in the bitstream."). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of Park with the system and method of YIP, in order to obtain the claimed invention, via providing geometry data of the point cloud data, a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP2143).
Regarding claim 2, YIP provides for, wherein the encoded data includes common information for the plurality of subframes (see [0085], see "The D.1 layer determines some of segmented MPU or aggregated MPUs to be a payload, attaches an MMTP payload header to the payload, and sends it down to the D.2 layer. The D.2 layer finally completes an MMTP packet by attaching an MMPT header to data received from the D.1 layer, and sends the MMTP packet down to a lower layer, i.e., the transport protocol layer (or transport control protocol (TCP)/user datagram protocol (UDP) layer) 150") and the time information for each of the plurality of subframes is stored in the common information (see "[0101] As described above, the package is processed on an MPU basis, and an asset is a set of one or more MPUs that share the same asset ID. The asset includes encoded media data, such as audio, video, or a web page, and the media data may be timed data or non-timed data").
Regarding claim 4, YIP provides for, wherein the encoded data includes second metadata including time information for each of the plurality of subframes (see "[0101] As described above, the package is processed on an MPU basis, and an asset is a set of one or more MPUs that share the same asset ID. The asset includes encoded media data, such as audio, video, or a web page, and the media data may be timed data or non-timed data").
Regarding claim 5, YIP provides for, wherein the time information is a timestamp for each of the plurality of subframes (see "[0101] As described above, the package is processed on an MPU basis, and an asset is a set of one or more MPUs that share the same asset ID. The asset includes encoded media data, such as audio, video, or a web page, and the media data may be timed data or non-timed data").
Regarding claim 7, YIP provides for, wherein the plurality of subframes include a plurality of three-dimensional frame data (see " [0241], see "From the 3D object, the preprocessor 1020 may output a video frame to be used as an input to a video encoder 1030").
Regarding claim 9, see the rejection of claim 1. It recites similar limitations as claim 1. Hence it is similarly analyzed and rejected.
Regarding claim 10, see the rejection of claim 1. It recites similar limitations as claim 1. Except for “device for storing three-dimensional data, the device comprising: a processor; and memory”, see [0022] of YIP “"at least one memory storing one or more instructions, and at least one processor executing the one or more instructions”. Hence it is similarly analyzed and rejected.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YIP et al. US 20210099754 A1 in view of Park et al. US 20210049828, further in view of Rechner et al. US 20200137347 A1.
YIP as modified by Park does not provide for, wherein the time information indicates a generation time, an encoding time, or a decoding time of the subframes. Rechner teaches the above missing limitations of YIP as modified by Park ( see "[0025] Transcoder 104 can be any transcoding system capable of digital- to-digital conversion from one encoding to another. Transcoder 104 ingests video stream 102 and generates frame-by-frame timestamps, YUV data, RGB (red, green, blue) data, and/or HSL (hue, saturation, lightness) data in video data 106. Video data 106 is input from transcoder 104 to border detector 108"). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of Rechner with the system and method of YIP as modified by Park, in order to obtain the claimed invention, via providing time information for each of the plurality of subframes, a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YIP et al. US 20210099754 A1 in view of Park et al. US 20210049828, further in view of Shahabi et al. US 20140343984 A1.
Regarding claim 8, YIP as modified by park does not provide for, wherein the encoded data includes third metadata including sensor information for acquiring the data of the plurality of subframes. Shahabi teaches the above missing limitation of YIP as modified by Rechner. See [0118] of Shahabi see "Automatic keyword tagging is also per-formed at this stage in parallel to reduce the latency delay at the server. Metadata (captured sensor data, extracted keywords, and results from visual analytics) are stored separately from uploaded media content within the Data Store. Query Processing supports effective searching for video content using the metadata in the database"). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of Shahabi with method and system of YIP as modified by Park, in order to obtain the claimed invention, via providing time information for each of the plurality of subframes, a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143).
Allowable Subject Matter
3. Claim 3 is 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.
Reasons for Allowance
4. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior arts of over YIP et al. US 20210099754 A1 in view of Park et al. US 20210049828, further in view of Shahabi et al. US 20140343984 A1 or Rechner et al. US 20200137347, either alone or combined, failed to teach or suggest the features/limitations of claim 3.
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang US 20240196017 is cited because the reference teaches “The same is often true for texture data, and so on. In PCC Cat 13 WD, the data units of geometry and the general attributes for each AU are interleaved on the level of the entire PCC bitstream (e.g., the same as in PCC Cat2 WD when there is only one group of frames that has the same length as the entire PCC bitstream)”, in [0042].
Zhang US 20210168386, is cited because the reference teaches “[0115] According to some aspects of the disclosure, geometry information and the associated attributes of a point cloud, such as color, reflectance and the like can be separately compressed (e.g., in the Test Model 13 (TMC13) model)”.
Wang US20210112280 is cited because the reference teaches “ [0009] In a third implementation form of the method according to the first or second aspect as such or any preceding implementation form of the first or second aspect, at least one of occupancy information, geometry information, and attribute information are included in the group of frames header parameters”.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALI BAYAT whose telephone number is (571)272-7444. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 M-F. 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, Andrew Bee can be reached at 571-2705183. 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.
/ALI BAYAT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights