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 . 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. There are a total of 20 claims and claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 01/03/2025, 07/01/2025, 11/19/2025 and 03/06/2026 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 20 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.
Claim 5 recites “the method of claim 4, wherein the first coding cost comprises one of the following:”, however, claim 4, upon which claim 5 is dependent, has “the first coding cost” in an “or” limitation. So if “the first coding cost” limitation is not executed in claim 4 because of or-ing, then claim 5 becomes indefinite.
Claim 20 recites “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a point cloud sequence which is generated by a method”. Claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory storage medium storing a bitstream of a point cloud sequence wherein clauses that appear to describe how the bitstream is generated. These elements or steps are not performed by an intended computer, and the bitstream is not a form of programming that causes functions to be performed by an intended computer. This shows that the computer-readable medium merely serves as support for storing the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the steps/elements that describe the generation of the bitstream and intended computer system. Therefore, those claim elements are not given patentable weight. Patentable weight is given to data stored on a computer-readable medium when there exists a functional relationship between the data and its associated substrate. See MPEP 2111.05 III. For example, if a claim is drawn to a computer-readable medium containing programming, a functional relationship exists if the programming “performs some function with respect to the computer with which it is associated.” However, if the claim recites that the computer-readable medium merely serves as a storage for information or data that is not meant for being executed, no functional relationship exists and the information or data is not given patentable weight. The Examiner suggests that the claim be amended so that it is directed to a functional relationship. For example, in this particular case, the claim should instead be recited as “A method of storing a bitstream of a point cloud sequence into a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the bitstream is generated by a method performed by an apparatus for point cloud coding, comprising:”, followed by the functional steps to generate and store the bitstream into a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-20 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tourapis et al. (WO 2021/062279 A1) (Disclosed in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Tourapis et al. teach a method for point cloud coding (Abstract), comprising:
obtaining, for a conversion between a current point cloud (PC) sample of a point cloud sequence and a bitstream of the point cloud sequence (Fig. 2 shows conversion of a point cloud sequence (reference numeral 202) into an encoded bitstream (reference numeral 226)), target information regarding whether an attribute inter prediction is enabled for the current PC sample ([0048]; It teaches that the encoder may utilize an inter-prediction process to encode spatial and/or attribute information for additional frames (e.g. target frames) that have a temporal relationship with the reference frame), the target information being determined based on at least one of rate information or distortion information associated with coding at least one target PC sample with the attribute inter prediction ([0064]; [0072]; It teaches that the rate distortion optimization procedures may also take into account attribute distortion), wherein the at least one target PC sample comprises at least one of: the current PC sample ([0144]; It teaches that the attribute correction values are determined for the one or more predicted attribute values for the point currently being evaluated, which means the current PC sample), or at least one PC sample of the point cloud sequence coded before the current PC sample; and
performing the conversion based on the target information ([0100]; Fig. 2, reference numeral 226 shows the final step of the conversion process where the residual attribute values that allow a decoder to determine via an inter-prediction process attribute values at the target frame based on the reference frame).
Regarding claim 2, Tourapis et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein the target information is determined at an encoder ([0100]; Fig. 2, reference numeral 226) and wherein obtaining the target information comprises:
obtaining the target information from the bitstream (As shown in Fig. 2, reference numeral 226, the target attribute values based on the target frame are included in the encoded bitstream), or
wherein obtaining the target information comprises: determining the target information based on at least one of the rate information or the distortion information ([0064]; [0072]; It teaches that the rate distortion optimization procedures may also take into account attribute distortion), or
wherein performing the conversion comprises:
obtaining, from the bitstream, a second indication indicating whether an inter prediction is applied to the current PC sample;
determining, based on the target information and the second indication, whether the attribute inter prediction is applied to the current PC sample; and
performing the conversion based on the determination.
Regarding claim 3, Tourapis et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein the target information is determined based on a geometry motion associated with the current PC sample ([0154]; It teaches that geometry information (also referred to herein as “spatial information”) may be used to efficiently predict attribute information. See [0156]) and at least one of the rate information or the distortion information ([0064]; [0072]; It teaches that the rate distortion optimization procedures may also take into account attribute distortion).
Regarding claim 4, Tourapis et al. teach the method of claim 3, wherein the geometry motion comprises at least one of the following: information used for performing a motion compensation on a reference PC sample for the current PC sample ([0062]-[0063]; it teaches that the motion compensation functions estimate motion of the respective segments from the reference frame to the target frame), or motion information between the reference PC sample and the current PC sample, or
wherein if the geometry motion is less than at least one threshold and a first coding cost is less than a second coding cost, the attribute inter prediction is determined to be enabled for the current PC sample, wherein the first coding cost is associated with coding the at least one target PC sample with the attribute inter prediction, and the second coding cost is associated with coding the at least one target PC sample with an attribute intra prediction.
Regarding claim 5, Tourapis et al. teach the method of claim 4, wherein the first coding cost comprises one of the following:
the rate information,
the distortion information, or
cost information determined based on the rate information and distortion information ([0096]; It teaches that the encoder compares the distortion improvements that would result from further segmentation to the compression costs that would result from further segmentation and performs a rate distortion optimization (RDO) calculation) (EXAMINER’S NOTE: Since the Examiner did not use the “first coding cost” limitation from claim 4, the rejection of claim 5 is redundant/irrelevant/unnecessary).
Regarding claim 6, Tourapis et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein the rate information indicates an amount of resource used for a coding result obtained by performing a coding process on the at least one target PC sample with the attribute inter prediction ([0069]-[0070]; It teaches that a single RDO (rate distortion optimization) process may take into account both segment size and segment motion transform function selections, wherein, each octant (the point cloud may be segmented into octants of an octree) may be encoded as an eight-bit word. Here the word size is the amount of resource).
Regarding claim 7, Tourapis et al. teach the method of claim 6, wherein the rate information comprises at least one of the following:
a size of the coding result,
a value determined based on the size ([0069]; It teaches that a single RDO (rate distortion optimization) process may take into account both segment size and segment motion transform function selections, wherein, each octant (the point cloud may be segmented into octants of an octree) may be encoded as an eight-bit word), or
an estimation of the size.
Regarding claim 8, Tourapis et al. teach the method of claim 6, further comprising:
determining the rate information based on a number of bits comprised in the coding result ([0069]; It teaches that a single RDO (rate distortion optimization) process may take into account both segment size and segment motion transform function selections, wherein, each octant (the point cloud may be segmented into octants of an octree) may be encoded as an eight-bit word), or
determining the rate information by using a rate estimation function, the rate estimation function providing an approximation of the coding process.
Regarding claim 9, Tourapis et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein the distortion information indicates a distortion between attribute values of points of the at least one target PC sample and reconstructed attribute values of the points (Fig. 1C, reference numeral 156; [0077]; it teaches determination of attribute correction, which is the attribute distortion), the reconstructed attribute values being determined based on a coding result, the coding result being obtained by performing a coding process on the at least one target PC sample with the attribute inter prediction ([0056]; it teaches that an inter-prediction techniques may be used to predict attribute values of subsequent frames or preceding frames that have a temporal relationship with the reference frame).
Regarding claim 10, Tourapis et al. teach the method of claim 9, wherein the distortion information comprises at least one of the following: a difference between the attribute values and the reconstructed attribute values, a value determined based on the difference (Fig. 1C, reference numeral 156; [0077]; it teaches determination of attribute correction, which is the attribute distortion), or
an estimation of the difference, or wherein the method further comprises: determining distortion results for respective points of the at least one target PC sample based on the coding result, a distortion result of a point indicating a distortion between an attribute value of the point and a reconstructed attribute value of the point; and determining the distortion information based on the distortion results, or
wherein the method further comprises: determining the distortion information by using a distortion estimation function, the distortion estimation function providing an approximation of the coding process.
Regarding claim 11, Tourapis et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein the target information is determined by:
determining cost information based on the rate information and the distortion information ([0096]; It teaches that the encoder compares the distortion improvements that would result from further segmentation to the compression costs that would result from further segmentation and performs a rate distortion optimization (RDO) calculation); and
determining the target information based on the cost information (Fig. 2; [0096]-[0098]; It teaches that RDO cost analysis is used to determine further segmentation of the frames and the encoder predicts attribute values at the target frame using the motion compensated points determined at 220 and determines residual attribute values (e.g. attribute correction values) by comparing the predicted attribute values to the actual attribute values of the dynamic point cloud at the target moment in time (e.g. target frame)).
Regarding claim 12, Tourapis et al. teach the method of claim 11, wherein the cost information is determined at an encoder (Abstract; it describes the invention as a system comprises an encoder configured to compress attribute information for a dynamic point cloud), or
wherein determining the cost information comprises: determining a linear combination of the rate information and the distortion information as the cost information.
Regarding claim 13, Tourapis et al. teach the method of claim 11, wherein if a cost indicated by the cost information is less than a cost indicated by further cost information associated with coding the at least one target PC sample with an attribute intra prediction, the attribute inter prediction is determined to be enabled for the current PC sample ([0060]; It teaches that the next version of the point cloud at the next moment in time (e.g. the target frame) may be evaluated based on a rate distortion optimization (RDO) procedure to determine whether to encode the next version of the point cloud at the next moment in time (e.g. the target frame) via intra-prediction or inter-prediction).
Regarding claim 14, Tourapis et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein the target information is determined based on the rate information, or
wherein the target information is determined based on the distortion information ([0064]; [0072]; It teaches that the rate distortion optimization procedures may also take into account attribute distortion).
Regarding claim 15, Tourapis et al. teach the method of claim 14, wherein if an amount of resource indicated by the rate information is less than an amount of resource indicated by further rate information associated with coding the at least one target PC sample with an attribute intra prediction, the attribute inter prediction is determined to be enabled for the current PC sample ([0060]; It teaches that the next version of the point cloud at the next moment in time (e.g. the target frame) may be evaluated based on a rate distortion optimization (RDO) procedure to determine whether to encode the next version of the point cloud at the next moment in time (e.g. the target frame) via intra-prediction or inter-prediction), or
wherein if a distortion indicated by the distortion information is less than a distortion indicated by further distortion information associated with coding the at least one target PC sample with an attribute intra prediction, the attribute inter prediction is determined to be enabled for the current PC sample.
Regarding claim 16, Tourapis et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein a PC sample is one of the following:
a frame ([0048]; Abstract; it teaches that attribute values for the point cloud may be compressed at a reference frame using an intra-prediction process and may be compressed at one or more reference frames using an inter-prediction process that takes advantage of temporal relationships between different frames),
a slice, or
a block.
Regarding claim 17, Tourapis et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the current PC sample into the bitstream (As shown in Fig. 2, reference numeral 226, the target attribute values based on the target frame are included in the encoded bitstream), or
wherein the conversion includes decoding the current PC sample from the bitstream.
Regarding claim 18, Tourapis et al. teach an apparatus for point cloud coding comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor ([0008]; [0198]), cause the processor to perform acts comprising:
obtaining, for a conversion between a current point cloud (PC) sample of a point cloud sequence and a bitstream of the point cloud sequence (Fig. 2 shows conversion of a point cloud sequence (reference numeral 202) into an encoded bitstream (reference numeral 226)), target information regarding whether an attribute inter prediction is enabled for the current PC sample ([0048]; It teaches that the encoder may utilize an inter-prediction process to encode spatial and/or attribute information for additional frames (e.g. target frames) that have a temporal relationship with the reference frame), the target information being determined based on at least one of rate information or distortion information associated with coding at least one target PC sample with the attribute inter prediction ([0064]; [0072]; It teaches that the rate distortion optimization procedures may also take into account attribute distortion), wherein the at least one target PC sample comprises at least one of: the current PC sample ([0144]; It teaches that the attribute correction values are determined for the one or more predicted attribute values for the point currently being evaluated, which means the current PC sample), or at least one PC sample of the point cloud sequence coded before the current PC sample; and
performing the conversion based on the target information ([0100]; Fig. 2, reference numeral 226 shows the final step of the conversion process where the residual attribute values that allow a decoder to determine via an inter-prediction process attribute values at the target frame based on the reference frame).
Regarding claim 19, Tourapis et al. teach a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor to perform acts ([0008]; [0198]) comprising:
obtaining, for a conversion between a current point cloud (PC) sample of a point cloud sequence and a bitstream of the point cloud sequence (Fig. 2 shows conversion of a point cloud sequence (reference numeral 202) into an encoded bitstream (reference numeral 226)), target information regarding whether an attribute inter prediction is enabled for the current PC sample ([0048]; It teaches that the encoder may utilize an inter-prediction process to encode spatial and/or attribute information for additional frames (e.g. target frames) that have a temporal relationship with the reference frame), the target information being determined based on at least one of rate information or distortion information associated with coding at least one target PC sample with the attribute inter prediction ([0064]; [0072]; It teaches that the rate distortion optimization procedures may also take into account attribute distortion), wherein the at least one target PC sample comprises at least one of: the current PC sample ([0144]; It teaches that the attribute correction values are determined for the one or more predicted attribute values for the point currently being evaluated, which means the current PC sample), or at least one PC sample of the point cloud sequence coded before the current PC sample; and
performing the conversion based on the target information ([0100]; Fig. 2, reference numeral 226 shows the final step of the conversion process where the residual attribute values that allow a decoder to determine via an inter-prediction process attribute values at the target frame based on the reference frame).
Regarding claim 20, Tourapis et al. teach a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a point cloud sequence which is generated by a method performed by an apparatus for point cloud coding ([0008]; [0198]), wherein the method comprises:
obtaining target information regarding whether an attribute inter prediction is enabled for a current point cloud (PC) sample of the point cloud sequence ([0048]; It teaches that the encoder may utilize an inter-prediction process to encode spatial and/or attribute information for additional frames (e.g. target frames) that have a temporal relationship with the reference frame), the target information being determined based on at least one of rate information or distortion information associated with coding at least one target PC sample with the attribute inter prediction ([0064]; [0072]; It teaches that the rate distortion optimization procedures may also take into account attribute distortion), wherein the at least one target PC sample comprises at least one of: the current PC sample ([0144]; It teaches that the attribute correction values are determined for the one or more predicted attribute values for the point currently being evaluated, which means the current PC sample), or at least one PC sample of the point cloud sequence coded before the current PC sample; and
generating the bitstream based on the target information ([0100]; Fig. 2, reference numeral 226 shows the final step of the conversion process where the residual attribute values that allow a decoder to determine via an inter-prediction process attribute values at the target frame based on the reference frame).
Claim 20 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (US PGPub 2016/0277762 A1).
Claim 20’s recitation of “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a point cloud sequence which is generated by a method” is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bit stream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps. “To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP §2111.05(1)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 15 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefore, the structure bitstream, whose scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Zhang et al. which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream ([0151]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“POINT CLOUD COMPRESSION USING NON-CUBIC PROJECTIONS AND MASKS” – Tourapis et al., US PGPub 2022/0005228 A1.
“THREE DIMENSIONAL MESH COMPRESSION USING A POINT CLOUD ENCODER” – Mammou et al., WO 2021/062044 A1.
“POINT CLOUD COMPRESSION” – Mammou et al., US PGPub 2019/0087979 A1.
“ATTRIBUTE LAYERS AND SIGNALING IN POINT CLOUD CODING” – Wang et al., US PGPub 2021/0203989 A1.
“Advanced 3D Motion Prediction for Video Based Point Cloud Attributes Compression” – Li et al., 2019 Data Compression Conference (DCC), 2375-0359/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAINUL HASAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0422. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI: 10AM-6PM, Alternate FRIDAYS, EST.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mainul Hasan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights