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 .
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) 2-7, 10-17 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US 2020/0296397).
Regarding claim 2, Wang discloses a method of indicating a region of interest via a point cloud (PC) bitstream of coded PC sequences (see 314 in fig. 3; e.g. see ¶ [0052], [0055]), the method comprising: generating an International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission Base Media File Format (ISOBMFF) container (e.g. see ¶ [0053]); wherein the ISOBMFF container comprises a first track (see 1604 in fig. 16; see 1402 in fig. 14), and the first track comprises a metadata component bitstream of the PC bitstream (e.g. see ¶ [0101], [0113]), wherein the metadata component bitstream includes information that defines a three dimensional (3D) region of interest (ROI) (e.g. see ¶ [0054]), wherein the 3D ROI is defined by at least a set of three Cartesian coordinates which define a point in a 3D space (e.g. see “(x,y,z)” in ¶ [0055]), wherein each of the three Cartesian coordinates is associated with a direction in the 3D space (e.g. see axis in ¶ [0101]), wherein each of the three directions is orthogonal to the other two directions that are associated with the other two coordinates (e.g. see x, y and z axis in ¶ [0101]); and wherein the 3D ROI is further defined by at least a set of three parameters (e.g. see x, y and z axis in ¶ [0101]), wherein each of the three parameters corresponds to a different one of the directions (e.g. see x, y and z axis in ¶ [0101]), and each of the three parameters defines an extension of the 3D ROI in the corresponding direction (e.g. see “maximum size” in ¶ [0101]); and sending the ISOBMFF container (e.g. see ¶ [0044]).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Wang further discloses wherein the set of three Cartesian coordinates comprises an x coordinate, a y coordinate, and a z coordinate (e.g. see x, y and z axis in ¶ [0101]).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Wang further discloses wherein the direction associated with the x coordinate corresponds to an x axis, wherein the direction associated with the y coordinate corresponds to a y axis, and wherein the direction associated with the z coordinate corresponds to a z axis (e.g. see x, y and z axis in ¶ [0101]).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Wang further discloses wherein the 3D ROI is a bounding box (see “3D Bounding Box” in fig. 5).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Wang further discloses wherein the information that defines the 3D ROI includes an indication of a number of 3D ROIs (see 602-606 in fig. 6).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Wang further discloses wherein the ISOBMFF container comprises a second track (e.g. see “restricted video scheme” track in ¶ [0062]), wherein the second track comprises a first video component bitstream of the PC bitstream (e.g. see ¶ [0064]), wherein the first video component bitstream comprises a first set of tiles (e.g. see ¶ [0062]), wherein the first set of tiles comprises at least one patch corresponding to a two dimensional (2D) projection of points within the 3D ROI (e.g. see ¶ [0064]).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Wang further discloses wherein the ISOBMFF container comprises a second track (e.g. see “restricted video scheme” track in ¶ [0062]), wherein the second track comprises a geometry component bitstream of the PC bitstream, an occupancy component bitstream of the PC bitstream, or an attribute component bitstream of the PC bitstream (e.g. see ¶ [0062]).
Regarding claims 11 and 21, Wang further discloses wherein the geometry component bitstream of the PC bitstream, the occupancy component bitstream of the PC bitstream, or the attribute component bitstream of the PC bitstream comprises a set of tiles (e.g. see ¶ [0062]), wherein the set of tiles comprises at least one patch corresponding to a two dimensional (2D) projection of points within the 3D ROI (e.g. see ¶ [0063]).
Regarding claim 12, the claim(s) recite an encoder (see 104 in fig. 1) with analogous limitations to claim 2, 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 8-9 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Baumgartner (US 2017/0228885).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Wang discloses wherein the ISOBMFF container comprises a third track (e.g. see ¶ [0083]), wherein the third track comprises a second video component bitstream (e.g. see ¶ [0083]), wherein the second video component bitstream comprises a second set of tiles (e.g. see ¶ [0062]).
Although Wang discloses wherein the second set of tiles comprises at least one patch corresponding to a 2D projection of points the 3D ROI (e.g. see ¶ [0082]-[0083]), it is noted that Wang does not provide the particular wherein the 2D projection of points outside the 3D ROI.
However, Baumgartner discloses a region of interest coding wherein background and region of interest are coded separately with different resolution (e.g. see ¶ [0026]).
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 Baumgartner teachings of background and region of interest coding into Wang different resolution coding for the benefit of reducing bitrate with lower resolution coding on non-area of interest. Incorporating Baumgartner would result in Wang disclosing wherein the second set of tiles comprises at least one patch corresponding to a 2D projection of points outside (background) the 3D ROI.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, the references further discloses wherein the first set of tiles is encoded with a higher quality or resolution than the second set of tiles (e.g. see Baumgartner ¶ [0026]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/21/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued that reference Wang provisional priority date is not valid because Wang figures 3 and 16 are not in the provisional. Thus, “the teaching of Wang cited by the Examiner were added at the time of filing of the nonprovisional”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argument is on the basis that the Examiner solely rejected the limitations from figures 3 and 16. This is not the case, the Examiner provided figures as a visual aids to help see the big picture of the entire specification, and aware that the figures are not in the non-provisional. That is why some example paragraphs were provided to support the mapping of the limitations because the Figures are explained throughout the specification and the utilized part of the specification is verified by the Examiner that it is reflected in the provisional. Applicant argument did not provide which part of the mapped limitations in the non-provisional specification are not supported in the provisional specification but for the sake of forwarding prosecution, the Examiner will address the argued limitations reflecting mapping of the provisional. Wang discloses a region of interest via a point cloud (PC) bitstream of coded PC sequences (e.g. see non-provisional ¶ [0052], [0055] reflected by provisional point cloud V-PCC in Figure 1 and region of interest bounding boxes of the “desired independent coding units”), and wherein the ISOBMFF container comprises a first track (see non-provisional 1604 in fig. 16; see 1402 in fig. 14 reflected in provisional paragraph below Figure 1 and sections 1 and 2 discussions on region of interest “bounding box” “desired independent coding units” track grouping). Therefore, the Examiner maintains that Wang provisional date is a proper priority date and all limitations are met.
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1. Lee et al. (US 202/00153885), discloses point cloud coding with bounding box.
2. Ricard et al. (US 12,106,526 ), discloses point cloud coding with bounding box.
3. Lim et al. (US 202/00112709), discloses point cloud coding with ISOBMFF.
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 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