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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made that this Application is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 17/709,805, filed March 31, 2022, which is a U.S. continuation application of PCT International Patent Application Number PCT/JP2020/039049 filed on October 16, 2020, claiming the benefit of priority of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Number 62/923016 filed on October 18, 2019.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (“IDS”) filed on 01/08/2025, 12/22/2025 and 04/29/2026 has been reviewed and the listed references have been considered.
Drawings
The 128-page drawings have been considered and placed on record in the file.
Double Patenting
Non-statutory
Claims 1, 2, 5 and 6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of co-pending Application No. 18/895,793 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are broader in every aspect than the claims in the above-listed reference application and are therefore obvious variants thereof.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
For example, the following is a chart comparing claim 1 of the instant application to the claim 7 of the co-pending application number 18/895,793:
Instant application: 19/013,329
U.S. Application No.: 18/895,793
Claim 1: A three-dimensional data decoding method comprising:
obtaining encoded three-dimensional data based on visibility information;
and decoding the encoded three-dimensional data.
Claim 7: A three-dimensional data decoding method comprising:
obtaining a bitstream including encoded three-dimensional points
…selectively decoding the encoded three-dimensional points…
Additionally, claim 2 of the instant application is similar to claim 7 of the co-pending application.
Additionally, claim 5 of the instant application is similar to claim 7 of the co-pending application.
Additionally, claim 6 of the instant application is similar to claim 15 of the co-pending application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claims 1 and 6 respectively recite a method and a device for decoding three-dimensional data. With respect to analysis of independent claims 1 and 6:
Step 1:
With regard to Step 1, the instant claims are directed to a method and a device and therefore, the claims are directed to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One:
With regard to 2A, Prong One, consider independent claim 1, the limitations of “obtaining encoded three-dimensional data based on visibility information” and “decoding the encoded three-dimensional data”5, as drafted, recite an abstract idea, such as a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mathematical concept. Encoding and decoding data is considered basic data manipulation. Converting data from one format to another does not provide an inventive concept.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The 2019 PEG defines the phrase “evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception”. Therefore, additional elements, or a combination of additional elements in the claim, are required to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception. In the instant case, the additional elements/limitations in the claims, i.e., one or more processors merely regarded as adding insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception, and do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception as an indication of integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the above-mentioned additional elements/limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; and therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Because the claims fail under Step 2A, the claims are further evaluated under Step 2B. The claims herein do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements/limitations to perform the steps, amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claims 1 and 6 are not patent eligible.
Further, with regard to dependent claims 2, 3 and 5 viewed individually, these additional steps, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations as an abstract idea, and do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lasserre et al. (US 2019/0108654 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lasserre teaches, A three-dimensional data decoding method comprising: (Lasserre, ¶0010: “a method of decoding a color point cloud from a stream. The method generates a three-dimensional colored point cloud and comprises:”) obtaining encoded three-dimensional data based on visibility information; (Lasserre, ¶0011: “obtaining a first image and a second image. The first and the second images encodes a projection of an original three-dimensional colored point cloud”) and decoding the encoded three-dimensional data. (Lasserre, ¶0007: “At the decoder, the picture and depth images (a video is a sequence of images) are inverse projected to re-generate a colored point cloud”).
Regarding claim 6, Lasserre teaches, A three-dimensional data decoding device comprising: a processor; and memory, wherein using the memory, the processor: (Lassarre, ¶0014: “a device for generating a three-dimensional colored point cloud. The device comprising a memory associated with at least one processor configured to”) obtains encoded three-dimensional data based on visibility information; (Lasserre, ¶0011: “obtaining a first image and a second image. The first and the second images encodes a projection of an original three-dimensional colored point cloud”) and decodes the encoded three-dimensional data. (Lasserre, ¶0007: “At the decoder, the picture and depth images (a video is a sequence of images) are inverse projected to re-generate a colored point cloud”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lasserre et al. (US 2019/0108654 A1) in view of Aminlou et al. (US 2019/0349598 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Lasserre teaches, The three-dimensional data decoding method according to claim 1. However, Lasserre does not explicitly teach wherein the visibility information is specified based on viewpoint information of a sensor.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Aminlou teaches, wherein the visibility information is specified based on viewpoint information of a sensor. (Aminlou, ¶0194: “present a large number of views simultaneously and let the viewers to observe the content from different viewpoints”; and ¶0195: “A view may be defined as a sequence of pictures representing one camera or viewpoint”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lasserre using the teachings of Aminlou to introduce different viewpoints from different cameras. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of capturing more visual information for viewing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts modify Lasserre and Aminlou to obtain the invention in claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Lasserre in view of Aminlou teaches, The three-dimensional data decoding method according to claim 2, wherein the viewpoint information is specified based on a position of the sensor, an orientation of the sensor, or a parameter of the sensor. (Aminlou, ¶0060: “Each camera unit 102 is located at a different location in the multi-camera system and may have a different orientation with respect to other camera units 102”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lasserre in view of Aminlou using the additional teachings of Aminlou to introduce different viewpoints having different locations and orientations. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of capturing wider view or the scene. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts modify Lasserre and Aminlou to obtain the invention in claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, Lasserre in view of Aminlou teaches, The three-dimensional data decoding method according to claim 2, where in the viewpoint information is stored in metadata of the encoded three-dimensional data. (Aminlou, ¶0235: “the fixed rotation angle as well as the camera orientations for captured frames may be included in the encoded bitstream”; ¶0283: “metadata may additionally or alternatively be encoded or included along the bitstream and/or decoded along the bitstream”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lasserre in view of Aminlou using the additional teachings of Aminlou to introduce encoding camera orientation data in the bitstream. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of accurately reconstructing camera orientation in the decoding stage. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts modify Lasserre and Aminlou to obtain the invention in claim 5.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lasserre et al. (US 2019/0108654 A1) in view of Steinke et al. (US 2014/0085314 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Lasserre teaches, The three-dimensional data decoding method according to claim 1. However, Lasserre does not explicitly teach, wherein the visibility information is specified based on frustum culling, and the three-dimensional data decoding method further comprises: selecting a divisional data to be decoded, the divisional data being located at a front of a viewing frustum and being a part of the encoded three-dimensional data.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Steinke teaches, wherein the visibility information is specified based on frustum culling, (Steinke, ¶0173: “the viewport defined by the application running at the encoder side to the optimal coordinate system of the decoder side. The resulting frustum is than rendered as intended by the application”) and the three-dimensional data decoding method further comprises: selecting a divisional data to be decoded, (Steinke, ¶0182: “culling away primitives before processing them in detail and rendering”) the divisional data being located at a front of a viewing frustum and being a part of the encoded three-dimensional data. (Steinke, ¶0186: “The apparatus takes use of the "view-frustum culling" determination resp. testing methods to prioritize vertices located inside the view-frustum as priority 1 factor. Depending on the distance how far outside other vertices are is the priority decreasing. Thus the outside elements are not culled as in previous embodiments”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lasserre using the teachings of Steinke to introduce frustum culling. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of removing unnecessary elements to efficiently decode and render the intended visibility data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts modify Lasserre and Steinke to obtain the invention in claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEHRAZUL ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0489. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8am-5pm.
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, Saini Amandeep can be reached on (571) 272-3382. 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.
/MEHRAZUL ISLAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights