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
This application repeats a substantial portion of prior Application No. 17/927,285 filed 11/22/2022, and adds and claims additional disclosure not presented in the prior application. Since this application names an inventor or inventors named in the prior application, it may constitute a continuation-in-part of the prior application. Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120 and 37 CFR 1.78.
a. The applicant may cancel the limitation. These claim limitations were not disclosed in the parent application.
OR
The applicant may amend the limitation to be in accordance with the specification of the parent application.
b. Should the applicant not cancel the claim limitations or amend the limitations as suggested, then the applicant should convert the application to a continuation in part and the new limitations will receive the current application’s filing date of 06/27/2015.
i. The applicant would be required to file a new oath and declaration.
ii. The claim limitations would be required to be added to the specification without adding any other new matter. The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claims 1-6 recite “generate a geometry of point cloud data….generate an attribute of the point cloud data.” Claims 2 and 5 recite “the geometry is generated based on the predictive tree.” Claim 7 recites “generating a geometry of point cloud data….generating an attribute of the point cloud data.” Claim 7 recites “a computer readable storage medium storing a bitstream generated by….”
The applicant's specification discloses point cloud data which includes geometry and attribute as defined in the parent application (paragraphs 0059, see the published application 2023/0206510). While the parent application’s specification in one paragraph 0208 states the XR/PCC device maybe analyze data got generate position data and attribute data, there are no other description of the generating or the attribute data is based on the geometry, encoded geometry or decoded geometry. The specification describes the step of acquiring the point cloud data and the encoding device encoding the geometry of the point cloud data and encoding the attribute based on the geometry. The specification describes the step of acquiring the point cloud data and the decoding device decoding the geometry of the point cloud data and decoding the attribute data based on the geometry. See Figure 2 and corresponding description. The parent application’s specification discloses a receiver the bitstream which is encapsulated from the network or the storage medium. The parent application’s specification discloses the receiver is in the reception device which then decodes the bitstream (paragraphs 0049-0050). The parent application’s specification discloses the cameras generate point cloud data (paragraph 0069). The parent application’s specification does not provide support for “the geometry is generated based on the predictive tree” in the decoding device or encoding device or respective processes.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6 recites “…..prediction tree….prediction tree…” This appears to be a typographical error Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Figure 2 includes reference numerals 18000, 18001, etc. The description in the specification does not use these reference numerals and instead includes 20000, 20002, etc. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
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. 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.” Id. However, if the claim recites that the computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists and the information or data is not given patentable weight. Id.
Claim 7 is directed to a computer readable storage medium storing a bitstream (i.e. content of information) and the body of the claim recites steps/elements that describe how the bitstream is generated. These 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 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 limitations are afforded very little patentable weight.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 7 sets forth a “computer readable storage medium.” However, the specification as originally filed does not explicitly define the computer readable storage medium by stating that it '. . . includes, but is not limited to' a number of various mediums (Para. 0047, 0049, 0384, 0386). The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable storage media (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is absent an explicit definition or is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 recite “generate a geometry of point cloud data….generate an attribute of the point cloud data.” Claim 7 recites “generating a geometry of point cloud data….generating an attribute of the point cloud data.” Claim 7 recites “a computer readable storage medium storing a bitstream generated by….” Claims 2 and 5 recite “the geometry is generated based on the predictive tree.”
The applicant's specification discloses point cloud data which includes geometry and attribute as defined in the parent application (paragraph 0063, see the published application). While the instant application’s paragraph in one paragraph 0197 states the XR/PCC device maybe analyze data got generate position data and attribute data, there are no other description of the generating or that the attribute data is based on the geometry, encoded geometry or decoded geometry. The specification describes the step of acquiring the point cloud data and the encoding device encoding the geometry of the point cloud data and encoding the attribute based on the geometry. The specification describes the step of acquiring the point cloud data and the decoding device decoding the geometry of the point cloud data and decoding the attribute data based on the geometry. See Figure 2 and corresponding description. The specification discloses cameras generate point cloud data (paragraph 0072-0075). The specification does not provide support for “the geometry is generated based on the predictive tree” in the decoding device or encoding device or respective processes.
The specification discloses a receiver receives the bitstream which is encapsulated from the network or the storage medium. The specification discloses the receiver is in the reception device which then the decoder decodes the bitstream (paragraphs 0052-0053).
To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d 1306, 1319, 66 USPQ2d 1429, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116. However, a showing of possession alone does not cure the lack of a written description. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 969-70, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 2002). For example, it is now well accepted that a satisfactory description may be found in originally-filed claims or any other portion of the originally-filed specification. See In re Koller, 613 F.2d 819, 204 USPQ 702 (CCPA 1980); In re Gardner, 475 F.2d 1389, 177 USPQ 396 (CCPA 1973); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). However, that does not mean that all originally-filed claims have adequate written support. The specification must still be examined to assess whether an originally-filed claim has adequate support in the written disclosure and/or the drawings. See MPEP 2163.03
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.
Claims 1-7 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.
Claims 1-7 recites “generate [ing] a geometry of the point cloud data….generate [ing] an attribute of the point cloud data…” The claim language states the at the geometry and attribute are of the point cloud data. The specification states that the point cloud data is acquired. It is unclear as to how the point cloud data is acquired and generated as the geometry and attribute are of the point cloud.
Claims 4-6 recite the limitation "the encoded geometry” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no step of decoding geometry or recitation of encoded geometry.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the decoded geometry” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no step of decoding geometry or recitation of decoded geometry.
Claim 7 recites “a computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream generated by:….based on the decoded geometry….” The claim language is unclear as the storing section of the limitation occurs prior to the decoding step (as described).
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)(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.
(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.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sugio et al (US 2024/0323438 and hereafter referred to as “Sugio”).
Regarding Claim 7, Sugio discloses a computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream (Page 9, paragraph 0272-0273) generated by: generating a geometry of point cloud data; generating an attribute of the point cloud data based on the decoded geometry, wherein the geometry indicates positions of points of the point cloud data, and wherein the attribute indicates at least one of reflectance and color of the points, wherein the points are predicted based on a predictive tree including nodes of the points, wherein the predictive tree is generated based on azimuth information for the points; and generating a bitstream including the point cloud data and information related to the azimuth information for the predictive tree.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Oh et al (US 2023/0154052 and hereafter referred to as “Oh”).
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding Claim 7, Oh discloses a computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream (Page 2, paragraph 0042, 0044) generated by: generating a geometry of point cloud data; generating an attribute of the point cloud data based on the decoded geometry, wherein the geometry indicates positions of points of the point cloud data, and wherein the attribute indicates at least one of reflectance and color of the points, wherein the points are predicted based on a predictive tree including nodes of the points, wherein the predictive tree is generated based on azimuth information for the points; and generating a bitstream including the point cloud data and information related to the azimuth information for the predictive tree.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4 and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,414 in view of Nakagami et al (US 2022/0262043 and hereafter referred to as “Nakagami”) and Mammou et al (G-PCC codec description v2, January 2019 and hereafter referred to as “Mammou”).
Regarding Claim 1 of the instant application
Corresponds to Claim 7 of 12,250,414
A decoding device, comprising:
a memory; and
at least one processor connected to the memory, wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
acquire a bitstream including point cloud data;
generate a geometry of the point cloud data; and
generate an attribute of the point cloud data based on the geometry,
wherein the geometry indicates positions of points of the point cloud data, and
wherein the attribute indicates at least one of reflectance and color of the points,
wherein the points are predicted based on a predictive tree including nodes of the points, wherein the predictive tree is generated based on azimuth information for the points, wherein the bitstream includes information related to the azimuth information for the predictive tree.
A device for decoding point cloud data, the device comprising:
a receiver configured to receive a bitstream including a geometry and an attribute; and
a decoder configured to decode the geometry based on a predictive tree,
wherein the predictive tree is generated by sorting points of the geometry based on at least one of an azimuth or a Morton order for the points; and
decode an attribute of the point cloud data based on the geometry,
wherein the bitstream further includes method information for representing a method related to the predictive tree, and direction information for representing a direction related to prediction.
The instant application’s “a memory; and at least one processor connected to the memory, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: generate a geometry of the point cloud data; and generate an attribute of the point cloud data based on the geometry” are additional limitations”. Nakagami discloses one or more processors configured to process point cloud data (Page 12, paragraph 0220); and one or more memories coupled with the one or more processors wherein the one or more processors are configured to carry out a processing method (Page 12, paragraph 0220). Mammou discloses generate a geometry of the point cloud data; and generate an attribute of the point cloud data based on the geometry (Figure 1, Page 4, § 3.1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify 12,2249,106 to include the missing limitations as taught by Nakagami and Mammou in order to reduce load for processing point cloud data.
Regarding Claim 4 and 7 which correspond to claim 1 and 7 of 12,250,414 respectively, instant application’s “one or more processors configured to process point cloud data, one or more memories coupled with the one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors are configured to carry out a processing method, computer readable memory storing a bitstream generate an attribute of the point cloud data based on the geometry”” are additional limitations. Nakagami discloses one or more processors configured to process point cloud data (Page 12, paragraph 0220); and one or more memories coupled with the one or more processors wherein the one or more processors are configured to carry out a processing method (Page 12, paragraph 0220). Nakagami discloses a device for processing point cloud data, the device comprising: one or more processors configured to process point cloud data (Page 8, paragraph 0152); and one or more memories coupled with the one or more processors (Page 8, paragraph 0152), wherein the one or more processors are configured to carry out a processing method and a computer readable storage medium acquires a bitstream for retaining/storing (paragraph 0213). Mammou discloses generate a geometry of the point cloud data; and generate an attribute of the point cloud data based on the geometry (Figure 1, Page 4, § 3.1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify 12,250,414 to include the missing limitations as taught by Nakagami and Mammou in order to reduce load for processing point cloud data.
Claims 1, 4 and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,249,106 in view of Mammou.
Regarding Claim 1 of the instant application
Corresponds to Claim 9 of 12,249,106
A decoding device, comprising:
a memory; and
at least one processor connected to the memory, wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
acquire a bitstream including point cloud data;
generate a geometry of the point cloud data; and
generate an attribute of the point cloud data based on the geometry,
wherein the geometry indicates positions of points of the point cloud data, and
wherein the attribute indicates at least one of reflectance and color of the points,
wherein the points are predicted based on a predictive tree including nodes of the points, wherein the predictive tree is generated based on azimuth information for the points, wherein the bitstream includes information related to the azimuth information for the predictive tree.
A device for processing point cloud data, the device comprising:
one or more processors configured to process point cloud data; and one or more memories coupled with the one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
decode a geometry of the point cloud data; and
decode an attribute of the point cloud data based on the decoded geometry,
wherein the geometry indicates positions of points of the point cloud data, and
wherein the attribute indicates at least one of reflectance and color of the points,
wherein the points are predicted based on a predictive tree including nodes of the points, wherein the predictive tree is generated based on azimuth information for the points, wherein a bitstream includes information related to the azimuth information for the predictive tree.
The instant application’s “generate a geometry of the point cloud data; and generate an attribute of the point cloud data based on the geometry” are additional limitations”. Mammou discloses generate a geometry of the point cloud data; and generate an attribute of the point cloud data based on the geometry (Figure 1, Page 4, § 3.1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify 12,250,414 to include the missing limitations as taught by Nakagami and Mammou in order to reduce load for processing point cloud data.
Claim 4 correspond to Claim 1 of 12,249,106
Claims 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,249,106 in view of Nakagami and Mammou.
Regarding Claim 1 of the instant application
Corresponds to Claim 9 of 12,249,106
A computer readable storage medium storing a bitstream generated by:
generate a geometry of the point cloud data; and
generate an attribute of the point cloud data based on the decoded geometry,
wherein the geometry indicates positions of points of the point cloud data, and
wherein the attribute indicates at least one of reflectance and color of the points,
wherein the points are predicted based on a predictive tree including nodes of the points, wherein the predictive tree is generated based on azimuth information for the points, wherein the bitstream includes information related to the azimuth information for the predictive tree.
A device for processing point cloud data, the device comprising:
one or more processors configured to process point cloud data; and one or more memories coupled with the one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
decode a geometry of the point cloud data; and
decode an attribute of the point cloud data based on the decoded geometry,
wherein the geometry indicates positions of points of the point cloud data, and
wherein the attribute indicates at least one of reflectance and color of the points,
wherein the points are predicted based on a predictive tree including nodes of the points, wherein the predictive tree is generated based on azimuth information for the points, wherein a bitstream includes information related to the azimuth information for the predictive tree.
Regarding Claim 7 which correspond to claim 9 of 12,250,414 respectively, instant application’s “computer readable memory storing a bitstream, generate a geometry of point cloud data, generate an attribute of the point cloud data based on the geometry”” are additional limitations. Nakagami discloses a computer readable storage medium acquires a bitstream for retaining/storing (paragraph 0213). Mammou discloses generate a geometry of the point cloud data; and generate an attribute of the point cloud data based on the geometry (Figure 1, Page 4, § 3.1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify 12,250,414 to include the missing limitations as taught by Nakagami and Mammou in order to reduce load for processing point cloud data.
Claims 1, 4 and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 9 of U.S. Application 18/933,598 in view of Nakagami and Mammou.
Regarding Claim 1 of the instant application
Corresponds to Claim 1 of 18/933,598
A decoding device, comprising:
a memory; and
at least one processor connected to the memory, wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
acquire a bitstream including point cloud data;
generate a geometry of the point cloud data; and
generate an attribute of the point cloud data based on the geometry,
wherein the geometry indicates positions of points of the point cloud data, and
wherein the attribute indicates at least one of reflectance and color of the points,
wherein the points are predicted based on a predictive tree including nodes of the points, wherein the predictive tree is generated based on azimuth information for the points, wherein the bitstream includes information related to the azimuth information for the predictive tree.
A decoding method comprising:
decoding geometry data of point cloud data in a bitstream; and
decoding attribute data of the point cloud data,
wherein the decoding the geometry data includes generating a predictive tree based on an azimuth for the geometry data, wherein the bitstream includes type information related to the predictive tree.
The instant application’s “a memory; acquire a bitstream including point cloud data; and at least one processor connected to the memory, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: generate a geometry of the point cloud data; and generate an attribute of the point cloud data based on the geometry, wherein the geometry indicates positions of points of the point cloud data) and wherein the attribute indicates at least one of reflectance and color of the points” are additional limitations”. Nakagami discloses one or more processors configured to process point cloud data (Page 12, paragraph 0220); and one or more memories coupled with the one or more processors wherein the one or more processors are configured to carry out a processing method (Page 12, paragraph 0220), acquire a bitstream including point cloud data; wherein the geometry indicates positions of points of the point cloud data (Page 2, paragraph 0049) and wherein the attribute indicates at least one of reflectance and color of the points (Page 2, paragraph 0049). Mammou discloses generate a geometry of the point cloud data; and generate an attribute of the point cloud data based on the geometry (Figure 1, Page 4, § 3.1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify 18933598 to include the missing limitations as taught by Nakagami and Mammou in order to reduce load for processing point cloud data.
Regarding Claim 4 and 7 which correspond to claim 9 and 1 of 18/933,598 respectively, instant application’s “computer readable memory storing a bitstream generate an attribute of the point cloud data based on the geometry, wherein the geometry indicates positions of points of the point cloud data and wherein the attribute indicates at least one of reflectance and color of the points” are additional limitations. Nakagami discloses one or more processors configured to process point cloud data (Page 12, paragraph 0220); and one or more memories coupled with the one or more processors wherein the one or more processors are configured to carry out a processing method (Page 12, paragraph 0220), wherein the geometry indicates positions of points of the point cloud data (Page 2, paragraph 0049) and wherein the attribute indicates at least one of reflectance and color of the points (Page 2, paragraph 0049). Nakagami discloses a device for processing point cloud data, the device comprising: one or more processors configured to process point cloud data (Page 8, paragraph 0152); and one or more memories coupled with the one or more processors (Page 8, paragraph 0152), wherein the one or more processors are configured to carry out a processing method and a computer readable storage medium acquires a bitstream for retaining/storing (paragraph 0213). Mammou discloses generate a geometry of the point cloud data; and generate an attribute of the point cloud data based on the geometry (Figure 1, Page 4, § 3.1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify 18/933598 to include the missing limitations as taught by Nakagami and Mammou in order to reduce load for processing point cloud data.
Claims 1, 4 and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 and 15 of U.S. Application 11/902,348 in view of Nakagami and Mammou.
Regarding Claim 1 of the instant application
Corresponds to Claim 15 of 11902348
A decoding device, comprising:
a memory; and
at least one processor connected to the memory, wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
acquire a bitstream including point cloud data;
generate a geometry of the point cloud data; and
generate an attribute of the point cloud data based on the geometry,
wherein the geometry indicates positions of points of the point cloud data, and
wherein the attribute indicates at least one of reflectance and color of the points,
wherein the points are predicted based on a predictive tree including nodes of the points, wherein the predictive tree is generated based on azimuth information for the points, wherein the bitstream includes information related to the azimuth information for the predictive tree.
An apparatus for receiving point cloud data, comprising:
a receiver configured to receive a bitstream including point cloud data;
a geometry decoder configured to decode geometry data of the point cloud data, wherein the geometry decoder performs:
predictive geometry decoding the geometry data based on a predictive tree, wherein points of the geometry data are sorted based on a sorting type, wherein the sorting type includes at least one of an azimuth angle order or a radial distance order, and wherein the points are sorted by rounding the at least one of an azimuth or a radius; and
an attribute decoder configured to decode attribute data of the point cloud data.
The instant application’s “a memory; and at least one processor connected to the memory, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: generate a geometry of the point cloud data; and generate an attribute of the point cloud data based on the geometry, wherein the geometry indicates positions of points of the point cloud data) and wherein the attribute indicates at least one of reflectance and color of the points” are additional limitations”. Nakagami discloses one or more processors configured to process point cloud data (Page 12, paragraph 0220); and one or more memories coupled with the one or more processors wherein the one or more processors are configured to carry out a processing method (Page 12, paragraph 0220), wherein the geometry indicates positions of points of the point cloud data (Page 2, paragraph 0049) and wherein the attribute indicates at least one of reflectance and color of the points (Page 2, paragraph 0049). . Mammou discloses generate a geometry of the point cloud data; and generate an attribute of the point cloud data based on the geometry (Figure 1, Page 4, § 3.1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify 11902348 to include the missing limitations as taught by Nakagami and Mammou in order to reduce load for processing point cloud data.
Regarding Claim 4 and 7 which correspond to claim 7 and 15 of 11902348 respectively, instant application’s “computer readable memory storing a bitstream generate an attribute of the point cloud data based on the geometry, wherein the geometry indicates positions of points of the point cloud data and wherein the attribute indicates at least one of reflectance and color of the points” are additional limitations. Nakagami discloses one or more processors configured to process point cloud data (Page 12, paragraph 0220); and one or more memories coupled with the one or more processors wherein the one or more processors are configured to carry out a processing method (Page 12, paragraph 0220), wherein the geometry indicates positions of points of the point cloud data (Page 2, paragraph 0049) and wherein the attribute indicates at least one of reflectance and color of the points (Page 2, paragraph 0049). Nakagami discloses a device for processing point cloud data, the device comprising: one or more processors configured to process point cloud data (Page 8, paragraph 0152); and one or more memories coupled with the one or more processors (Page 8, paragraph 0152), wherein the one or more processors are configured to carry out a processing method and a computer readable storage medium acquires a bitstream for retaining/storing (paragraph 0213). Mammou discloses generate a geometry of the point cloud data; and generate an attribute of the point cloud data based on the geometry (Figure 1, Page 4, § 3.1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify 18/933598 to include the missing limitations as taught by Nakagami and Mammou in order to reduce load for processing point cloud data.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARZANA HOSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5943. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 5:00 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, Christopher 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.
/FARZANA HOSSAIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
February 28, 2026