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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1, 4, 7, and 8, the Applicant contends that, in Li, k is the index of a coded block bk (e.g., see paragraphs [0018] and [0024]), not a value indicating the total number of available prediction modes. In this regard, while the prediction modes available for selection depend on k, the block index k itself does not indicate the total number of available prediction modes. Specifically, Li discloses that only prediction mode 1 is available for k=1; prediction modes 1 and 2 are available for k=2; prediction modes 1, 2, 3, and 5 are available for k=3; prediction modes 1 through 5 are available for k=4; and six prediction modes are available for k>5 (see paragraph [0018]). Thus, for example, k=3 corresponds to four available prediction modes and k=4 corresponds to five available prediction modes. Accordingly, it is clear that k is not equal to, and does not represent, the total number of available prediction modes. Based on the foregoing, Applicant submits that Li does not disclose, suggest, or render obvious at least the above-noted feature recited in claim 1 of "generating a bitstream including a mode value indicating the prediction mode selected, the prediction residual, and a total value indicating a total number of the plurality of prediction modes." However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While the Examiner concedes that index k is not equal to the total number of available prediction modes, the Examiner maintains that index k does indicate the total number of available prediction modes. Each index k, as noted by the Applicant, corresponds to a particular set of available prediction modes. Thus, the total number of available prediction modes may be deduced by the value of index k.
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 (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 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) 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US 20200137399 A1).
Re claim 1, Li discloses a three-dimensional data encoding method comprising:
calculating a prediction residual which is a difference between information to be encoded and a predicted value corresponding to a prediction mode selected from among a plurality of prediction modes (Li: paragraph [0010], prediction residual); and
generating a bitstream including a mode value indicating the prediction mode selected, the prediction residual, and a total value indicating a total number of the plurality of prediction modes (Li: Fig. 4, prediction mode and residual code stream for each coded block; Fig. 1, section 4, block number k indicates number of allowable modes to select from; paragraph [0027], entropy encoding).
Re claim 2, Li discloses that one prediction mode of the plurality of prediction modes is a mode that uses an average value of a plurality of three-dimensional points to be referred in a prediction process (Li: paragraphs [0054]-[0057]).
Re claim 3, Li discloses that the predicted value is a median or a maximum value of a plurality of three-dimensional points to be referred in a prediction process (Li: paragraph [0047]).
Claim 4 recites the corresponding three-dimensional data decoding method for decoding the data encoded by the three-dimensional data encoding method of claim 1. Encoding and decoding are understood in the art to be inverse operations. Therefore, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable to claim 4. Accordingly, claim 4 has been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 1 above.
Claim 5 has been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 2 above.
Claim 6 has been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 3 above.
Claim 7 recites the corresponding three-dimensional data encoding device for implementing the method of claim 1. Li discloses that the invention belongs to the technical field of point cloud data processing, and relates to a point cloud data compression method (Li: paragraph [0001]). Data processing and compression are understood in the art to be performed within a computing system, wherein computing systems inherently include a processor and memory containing program instructions. Therefore, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable to claim 7. Accordingly, claim 7 has been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 1 above.
Claim 8 recites the corresponding three-dimensional data decoding device for implementing the method of claim 4. Li discloses that the invention belongs to the technical field of point cloud data processing, and relates to a point cloud data compression method (Li: paragraph [0001]). Data processing and compression are understood in the art to be performed within a computing system, wherein computing systems inherently include a processor and memory containing program instructions. Therefore, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 4 are applicable to claim 8. Accordingly, claim 8 has been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 4 above.
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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER G FINDLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1199. 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, Chris Kelley can be reached at (571)272-7331. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER G FINDLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights