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 Objections
Claims 24 and 34 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims both end in a comma instead of a period. Appropriate correction is required.
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 (pre-AIA ), 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.
Claim 30 is 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 30 recites the limitation "wherein the two reference points". However, claim 30 depends off of independent claim 21 and claim 21 doesn’t state anything about reference points let alone two reference points. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim, claims a “computer-readable storge media” which can read on a signal per se. One way to overcome the rejection is to include “non-transitory” before the computer-readable storage media. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 21, 23, 25, 26, 31, 33, 35, 36, 39, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishi et al., US 2023/0239491 (Nishi).
Regarding claim 21, Nishi teaches a method of coding point cloud data (encoding three-dimensional data; such as a point cloud) (Abstract and [0004]), the method comprising:
determining two prediction candidates for a current point (wherein the three-dimensional encoding device may select one of the intra prediction and the inter prediction point as the prediction point) (Abstract and [0443]) of a current point cloud frame of the point cloud data (for a point in a point cloud) ([0433] and [0443-0445]);
obtaining at least one inter predictor based on the two prediction candidates (wherein inter prediction can be selected) (Abstract and [0443-0444]); and
coding the current point cloud frame based on the at least one inter predictor for the at least one current point (selecting a point to be encoded using the inter prediction for the three-dimensional data) ([0444]).
Although Nishi does not explicitly state “a current point cloud frame of the point cloud data” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that since Nishi teaches a current point to be encoded by reference to a three-dimensional point included in a second frame (Nishi; [0009]) that the three-dimensional point can be part of a point cloud as seen in Figure2 and paragraph [0014].
Regarding claim 23, Nishi teaches wherein the at least one inter predictor comprises a zero-motion candidate (inter reference point cloud; a method not performing motion compensation by setting the amount of movement to zero) ([0599] and [0625]).
Regarding claim 25, Nishi teaches wherein determining the two prediction candidates (determining between intra and inter prediction) (Abstract) comprises determining a first refence frame (determining a reference frame) ([0676]) including a first prediction candidate of the two prediction candidates (including a first prediction candidate for inter prediction) ([0676]), the first reference frame being a motion compensated reference frame different than the current frame (the current point is encoded by reference to at least one or more of the three-dimensional points included in the second frame, based on motion compensation information associated with the prediction tree, and the bitstream includes the motion compensation information) ([0009]).
Regarding claim 26, Nishi teaches further comprising compensating the first reference frame for motion to generate the motion compensated reference frame (generating a motion compensated frame based on the first frame) ([0009-0010]).
Regarding claim 31, see the rejection made to claim 21 as well as prior art Nishi for a device for processing a point cloud (a three-dimensional data encoding device) ([0002]), the device comprising: one or more memories (memory) ([0125]) configured to store at least a portion of the point cloud (stores three-dimensional points) ([0125]); and one or more processors implemented in circuitry (processor) ([0125]), operably coupled to the one or more memories (wherein the processor uses the memory) ([0125]), for they teach all the limitations within this claim.
Regarding claim 33, see the rejection made to claim 23 as well as prior art Nishi for a device for processing a point cloud (a three-dimensional data encoding device) ([0002]), the device comprising: one or more memories (memory) ([0125]) configured to store at least a portion of the point cloud (stores three-dimensional points) ([0125]); and one or more processors implemented in circuitry (processor) ([0125]), operably coupled to the one or more memories (wherein the processor uses the memory) ([0125]), for they teach all the limitations within this claim.
Regarding claim 35, see the rejection made to claim 25 as well as prior art Nishi for a device for processing a point cloud (a three-dimensional data encoding device) ([0002]), the device comprising: one or more memories (memory) ([0125]) configured to store at least a portion of the point cloud (stores three-dimensional points) ([0125]); and one or more processors implemented in circuitry (processor) ([0125]), operably coupled to the one or more memories (wherein the processor uses the memory) ([0125]), for they teach all the limitations within this claim.
Regarding claim 36, see the rejection made to claim 26 as well as prior art Nishi for a device for processing a point cloud (a three-dimensional data encoding device) ([0002]), the device comprising: one or more memories (memory) ([0125]) configured to store at least a portion of the point cloud (stores three-dimensional points) ([0125]); and one or more processors implemented in circuitry (processor) ([0125]), operably coupled to the one or more memories (wherein the processor uses the memory) ([0125]), for they teach all the limitations within this claim.
Regarding claim 39, Nishi teaches further comprising at least one of a device to generate the point cloud (generating a point cloud) ([0139]) or a display to present imagery based on the point cloud (wherein the presenter displays information or an image based on the sensor information or point cloud data) ([0140]).
Regarding claim 40, see the rejection made to claim 21 as well as Nishi for a computer-readable storage media (computer-readable recording medium) ([0129]) storing instructions that (wherein the memory stores a control program) ([0652]), when executed by one or more processors (executed by a processor) ([0125] and [0652]), cause the one or more processors (causing the processor to encode) ([0125] and [0652]), for they teach all the limitations within this claim.
Claim(s) 24, 29, 30, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishi et al., US 2023/0239491 (Nishi), and further in view of Lee et al., US 2023/0164353 A1 (Lee).
Regarding claim 24, Nishi teaches wherein determining the two prediction candidates (wherein the three-dimensional encoding device may select one of the intra prediction and the inter prediction point as the prediction point) (Abstract and [0443]).
However, Nishi does not explicitly teach comprises determining two prediction candidates having “a two closest azimuths and laser IDs corresponding to a particular value of azimuth and laser ID”.
Lee teaches a point cloud data processing method enables encoding and transmitting point cloud data (Abstract); and wherein determining two prediction candidates (selecting between intra/inter-coding) ([0132]) having a two closest azimuths and laser IDs corresponding to a particular value of azimuth and laser ID (selecting neighboring points that are within a specific position/radius) ([0117-0118]) (wherein the position is based on (azimuth, radius, laserID) as coordinate values) ([0380]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nishi to include the specified coordinate system for finding nearest neighbors since it allows for increasing coding efficiency (lee; [0348]).
Regarding claim 29, Lee teaches wherein coding the current point cloud frame based on the at least one inter predictor (inter prediction on the point cloud data) ([0240]) for the at least one current point (for a current point; prediction units (PUs)) ([0240] and [0313]) comprises predicting one or more of an azimuth, a laser identifier, or a radius of the current point (predicting the coordinates of the point based on azimuth, radius, laserID) ([0380]).
Regarding claim 30, Lee teaches wherein the two reference points belong to a group of reference points within a range of at least one of azimuth angles, laser identifiers (IDs), or radiuses (selecting neighboring points that are within a specific position/radius) ([0117-0118]) (wherein the position is based on (azimuth, radius, laserID) as coordinate values) ([0380]).
Regarding claim 34, see the rejection made to claim 24 as well as prior art Nishi for a device for processing a point cloud (a three-dimensional data encoding device) ([0002]), the device comprising: one or more memories (memory) ([0125]) configured to store at least a portion of the point cloud (stores three-dimensional points) ([0125]); and one or more processors implemented in circuitry (processor) ([0125]), operably coupled to the one or more memories (wherein the processor uses the memory) ([0125]), for they teach all the limitations within this claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22, 27, 28, 32, 37, and 38 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J VANCHY JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1193. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 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, Emily Terrell can be reached at (571) 270-3717. 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.
/MICHAEL J VANCHY JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666 Michael.Vanchy@uspto.gov
