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 6/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pg. 8-9 of the Remarks the applicant asserts that the candidate predictors of Taquet do not disclose the claimed ‘different geometry representations’ because each of the four predictors represent the point cloud in spherical co-ordinates and hence use the same coding scheme. The examiner disagrees.
The applicant is arguing limitations which are not claimed. Particularly the applicant repeatedly notes that each predictor uses the same spherical co-ordinate system, implying that the claim requires the use of different coordinate systems. However, the claim much more broadly recites ‘different geometry representations’ which is not the same as requiring each model to represent the point cloud using a different co-ordinate system. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In regard to the newly amended claim language requiring different geometry representations geometry is defined as the mathematics that deals with relationships of points, lines angles, surfaces and solids (See attached definition from Mirriam Webster). Hence various models providing different relationships between points in a point cloud are models that provide different geometry representations as each model describes the relationship between the points in in the point cloud in different ways. Taquet provides four such models but notably includes the model in par. 42 which predicts the current node based on a linear relationship with its parent and grand-parent nodes, and the model in par. 44 which predicts the current node based on a linear relationship between its parent, grand-parent and great-grandparent nodes. Each model presents a different relationship between the current node and its parent nodes and thus provides different geometry representations as required by the claims.
If the applicant wishes to limit the claims more narrowly to geometric models using different co-ordinate systems then such limitations should be clearly reflected in the claims.
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) 1-4, 7-8, 10, 12-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Taquet et al (EP 4071719 note publication date of 10/12/2022 which is more than one year prior to the applicants earliest filing date of 12/14/2023).
In regard to claim 1 Taquet discloses a method comprising:
decoding, by a computing device and from a bitstream, model information indicating a model, of a plurality of models that represent, with different geometry representations portions of a point cloud associated with content (Taquet pars 36-45 note prediction index n signaled in the bitstream indicating one of several prediction models used to predict a current node, note each prediction model uses a different geometrical representation to predict the location of the current node, particularly note par. 42 using a linear approximation to geometrically represent the predicted location of the current node using parent and grandparent data, further note par. 44 using a linear approximation to geometrically represent the predicted location of the current node using parent, grandparent and great-grandparent data); and
decoding, from the bitstream and based on the model, geometry information corresponding to the a geometry of the portion of the point cloud that is contained in a sub-volume of the point cloud; and (Taquet Fig. 6 and pars 54-61 note decoding the bitstream using the selected prediction model to reconstruct the node of the point cloud, further note par. 15 each node corresponds to a sub-volume of an occupancy tree representing the point cloud).
causing output of the content (Taquet par. 178 note processor 510 and encoder/decoder 530 process and output data streams for presentation on an output device);
In regard to claim 2 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Taquet discloses that the model is a first model, the method further comprising:
decoding, from the bitstream, model information indicating a second model of the plurality of different models different from the first model, (Taquet pars 36-45, particularly note par. 38 a prediction index ‘n’ indicating a prediction model is signaled for each node of the point cloud, hence first and second models are selected for first and second nodes, or instance the geometric prediction model in par. 42 may be selected for a first node and the geometric prediction model in par. 44 may be selected for a second node); and
decoding, from the bitstream and based on the second model, geometry information corresponding to a geometry of the second portion, of the point cloud, that is contained in a second sub-volume of the point cloud (Taquet Fig. 6 and pars 54-61 note decoding the bitstream using the selected prediction model to reconstruct the point cloud, further note par. 15 each node corresponds to a sub-volume of an occupancy tree representing the point cloud)
In regard to claim 3 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Taquet further discloses that decoding the model information comprises:
decoding, form the bitstream, the model information based on a predictor of the model information (Taquet par. 36-39 note the prediction index n is used to indicate the geometric prediction model, further note pars 54-61 the prediction index is signaled in and decoded from the bitstream).
In regard to claim 4 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Taquet further discloses that the model information comprises a residual value associated with the indication of the model (Taquet pars 36-39 note par. 36 residual spherical coordinates are associated with the selected prediction model), and wherein the decoding the model information comprises:
decoding, form the bitstream, the residual value (Taquet Fig. 5 and pars 36-39 note the residual signaled in the bitstream, also note pars 54-61 decoding the residual value from the bitstream); and
selecting, the model from the plurality of models based on the residual value and a predictor of the model information (Taquet pars 40-45 and 55 note the prediction model is selected using the prediction index value ‘n’ and is used with the residual value to model the geometry of the point cloud).
In regard to claim 7 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Taquet further discloses:
decoding, from the bitstream, volume information indicating the sub-volume (Taquet pars 15-16 note nodes represent a sub-volume of a tree including a 3D location and parent/child relations, further note pars 36-45 each node includes parent, grand-parent, and great-grandparent relation information indicating the sub-volume of the node).
In regard to claim 8 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Taquet further discloses that the sub-volume is one sub-volume from a set of sub-volumes obtained from iteratively partitioning a volume encompassing the point cloud (Taquet pars 15-16 note tree based sub-volume partitioning such as octree partitioning which iteratively partitions a volume into leaf nodes).
Claims 16-17 and 19-20 describe an encoding method relating to the decoding method of claims 1-4 and 7-8 above. Refer to the statements made in regard to claims 1-4 and 7-8 above for the rejection of the common elements of claims 16-17 and 19-20 which will not be repeated here for brevity. In particular regard to claims 16 and 19 Taquet further discloses encoding (Taquet Fig. 5) and selecting a model based on a geometry classification (Taquet par. 40 note prediction model PR0 is used if the current node has no parent node).
In regard to claim 10 Taquet discloses a method comprising:
decoding, by a computing device and from a bitstream, model information indicating respective models for sub-volumes of a point cloud associated with content (Taquet pars. 36-46 note prediction index n signaled in the bitstream) , wherein each of the models is:
used to represent a geometry of a portion of the point cloud contained in a respective sub-volume of the sub-volumes (Taquet pars. 36-39 note the prediction index indicates a prediction model used to determine the geometry of one or more coordinates of a node based on the coordinates of previous nodes); and
selected from a plurality of models that represent, with different geometry representations, portions of the point cloud (Taquet pars 36-45 note prediction index n signaled in the bitstream indicating one of several prediction models used to predict a current node, note each prediction model uses a different geometrical representation to predict the location of the current node, particularly note par. 42 using a linear approximation to geometrically represent the predicted location of the current node using parent and grandparent data, further note par. 44 using a linear approximation to geometrically represent the predicted location of the current node using parent, grandparent and great-grandparent data); and
decoding, from the bitstream and based on the model information, geometry information corresponding to the geometry of the portion of the point cloud (Taquet Fig. 6 and pars 56-62 note decoding the bitstream to generate geometry data using the model information).
In regard to claim 12 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 10 above. Taquet further discloses that the sub-volume is one sub-volume from a set of sub-volumes obtained from iteratively partitioning a volume encompassing the point cloud (Taquet pars 15-16 note tree based sub-volume partitioning such as octree partitioning which iteratively partitions a volume into leaf nodes).
In regard to claim 13 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 10 above. Taquet further discloses that the model information comprises an index of an ordered list of the plurality of models (Taquet pars 38-46 note the prediction index ‘n’ referring to one of prediction models PR0-PR3 which represent the geometry of a portion of the point cloud based on the parent nodes of the current node).
In regard to claim 14 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 10 above. Taquet further discloses that decoding the model information comprises:
decoding, form the bitstream the model information and based on a predictor of the model information (Taquet par. 36-39 note the prediction index n is used to indicate the prediction model, further note pars 54-61 the prediction index is signaled in and decoded from the bitstream).
In regard to claim 15 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 10 above. the model information comprises a predictor of the model information, and for each sub-volume of the sub-volumes, the predictor of the model information is based on one or more of:
at least one model respectively determined for at least one neighboring sub-volume of each sub-volume (Taquet pars 40-46 note the predictor models are selected based on information from neighboring nodes including parent, grandparent and great-grandparent nodes).
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.
Claim(s) 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taquet.
In regard to claims 5-6 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Taquet discloses predictive tree coding as noted in the rejection of claim 1 above. It is noted that Taquet does not explicitly disclose entropy coding of residual values or model information in conjunction with predictive tree coding. However, Taquet discloses using context adaptive entropy coding in association with occupancy tree coding with DCM (Taquet par. 24).
It is therefore considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would recognize the advantage of including context adaptive entropy coding as used in the occupancy tree coding of Taquet to entropy code the residual and model information of the prediction tree bitstream of Taquet in order to gain the expected advantage of improved compression efficiency.
Claim(s) 9, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taquet in view of Oh et al (2022/0159312).
In regard to claims 9, 11 and 18 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claims 1, 10 and 16 above. Taquet further discloses prediction model based on octree geometry (Taquet par. 15 note octree structure). It is noted that Taquet does not disclose a triangle-based geometry. However Oh discloses a point cloud compression method in which a trisoup mode may be used to model point cloud geometry using an approximated surface comprised of triangles (Oh par. 362).
It is therefore considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would recognize the advantage of including a trisoup mode as taught by Oh in the invention of Taquet in order to reconstruct plural points in a region without full voxelization as suggested by Oh (Oh par. 136).
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 JEREMIAH CHARLES HALLENBECK-HUBER whose telephone number is (571)272-5248. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 9 A.M. to 5 P.M.
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, William Vaughn can be reached at (571)272-3922. 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.
/JEREMIAH C HALLENBECK-HUBER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights