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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/16/25 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 1/13/25. These drawings are acceptable.
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 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-7, 10-12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mammou et al. (US 2019/0087979).
Regarding claim 1, Mammou discloses a method of transmitting point cloud data (see 108 in fig. 1; see 266 in fig. 2C), the method comprising: encoding geometry data (see inputs to 252 in fig. 2C) of the point cloud data; encoding (see 250 in fig. 2C) attribute data (see 260 in fig. 2C) of the point cloud data based on the geometry data; and transmitting (see 266 in fig. 2C) the encoded geometry data, the encoded attribute data, and signaling data (see 262 in fig. 2C; e.g. see ¶ [0513]), wherein the encoding of the geometry data comprises: partitioning the geometry data into one or more prediction units based on block size information (e.g. see ¶ [0451], [0513]), wherein the signaling data comprises the block size information (e.g. see ¶ [0451]).
Regarding claims 2, 7 and 12, Mammou further discloses wherein the block size information is represented as coordinates in three dimensions, wherein a value in each of the dimensions is greater than or equal to 0 (see 350 in fig. 3E).
Regarding claims 5, 10 and 15, Mammou discloses wherein the encoding of the geometry data comprises: compressing the geometry data in an inter prediction method by selectively applying motion vectors to each of the partitioned prediction units (see 254 in fig. 2C), wherein the signaling data further comprises information identifying whether the motion vectors are applied to each of the prediction units (see 254 in fig. 2C).
Regarding claim 6, the claim(s) recite a device with analogous limitations to claim 1, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 11, the claim(s) recite a method of receiving point cloud data with analogous limitations to claim 1, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
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.
Claims 3, 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mammou in view of Harville (US 7,003,136).
Regarding claims 3, 8 and 13, although Mammou discloses wherein the partitioning comprises: based on the block size information being {0, 0, height} (see 352-356 in fig. 3E), partitioning the geometry data into one or more prediction units by applying partitioning to the geometry data (see fig. 3E), it is noted that Mammou does not provide the particular wherein the partitioning is elevation-based horizontal partitioning.
However, Harville discloses a point cloud partitioning based on the block size information being {0, 0, height} wherein the partitioning is elevation-based horizontal partitioning (e.g. see Harville C3, L5-10).
Given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Harville teachings of horizontal partition into Mammou partition for the benefit of detecting and tracking people in three dimensional space.
Claims 4, 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mammou in view of Yuan et al. (US 2024/0037800).
Regarding claims 4, 9 and 14, although Mammou discloses wherein the partitioning comprises: based on the block size information being {s, s, s} (e.g. see ¶ [0451], [0513]), partitioning the geometry data into one or more prediction units by applying node-based partitioning to the geometry data (see fig. 3E), it is noted that Mammou does not provide the particular where s is a value greater than 1), and partitioning the geometry data into one or more prediction units by applying octree node-based partitioning to the geometry data.
However, Yuan discloses a point cloud partitioning based on block size information being {s, s, s}, where s is a value greater than 1), and partitioning the geometry data into one or more prediction units by applying octree node-based partitioning to the geometry data (e.g. see ¶ [0050]).
Given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Yuan teachings of octree partition into Mammou partition for the benefit of improving point cloud partition for various cube sizes.
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1. Zhu et al. (US 2025/0045972), discloses point cloud compression with geometric partitioning.
2. Deng et al. (US 2024/0163459), discloses point cloud compression with geometric partitioning.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD T TORRENTE whose telephone number is (571)270-3702. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 6:45-3:15 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 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.
/RICHARD T TORRENTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights