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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Examiner note: Examiner respectfully suggests Applicant telephone Examiner Adams (571-270-3688) prior to filing a response to the instant office action to discuss claim clarifications in a scheduled interview to move the instant application in a Condition for Allowance. Including language directed towards additional use of slice/node relational processing is disclosed in SUGIO et al. (Pub. No: US 2021-0233284) and would not assist towards allowable subject matter.
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 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as not falling within one of the four statutory categories of invention. In regard to said claims which are directed towards a ‘device’, it is noted that the claims and specification are silent as to the capability of said device’s ‘memory’ and ‘processor’ reading entirely on software and as such does not fall into any statutory class of invention. Computer programs claimed as computer listings per se, i.e., the descriptions or expressions of the programs, are not physical “things.” They are neither computer components nor statutory processes, as they are not “acts” to be performed. Such claimed computer programs do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and other claimed elements of a computer which permit the computer program’s functionality to be realized. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d at 1035
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2):
(a) Novelty; Prior Art.— A person shall be entitled to a patent unless: (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.
(b) Exceptions: (2) Disclosures appearing in applications and patents.— A disclosure shall not be prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2) if: (A) the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; (B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such subject matter was effectively filed under subsection (a)(2), been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or (C) the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.
Claims 1, 4-6, 10, 12, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over SUGIO et al. (Pub. No: US 2021-0233284).
As per Claim 1 SUGIO discloses A decoding method for decoding three-dimensional points, the decoding method comprising (in at least Fig. 8 disclosing a 3D decoding device 200 [Abstract] [0149-0155] [0158]):
obtaining, from a bitstream (in at least Fig. 8 3D obtainer module 201 [0217] Figs. 76-79 for bitstream [0088, 0091]), nodes that have an octree structure and are included in a first slice (Figs. 1-8, 57-59, 71-83 – octree structure [0069, 0071] [0152-0153] initialized first slice [1082-1083]);
obtaining, from the bitstream, information for deriving a shape of a first node among the nodes (Figs. 1-8, 57-59 71-83 – geometry pattern shapes for nodes [0825-0826] [0895-0898] [1082-1083]);
and decoding the first node according to the information, wherein the shape is different from a default shape of another node among the nodes (Figs. 1-8, 57-59, 71-83 – shapes for nodes differ – initial default and slice [0825-0826, 0837] [0842-0844] [0861-0862] [0895-0898] decoding of bitstream [1081-1083] – see Fig. 127 3D decoding flowchart [1075]).
As per Claim 4 SUGIO discloses The decoding method according to claim 1, wherein the information indicates a size of the shape (Figs. 1-8, 57-59, 71-83, 120 geometric pattern size differentials [0202-0208] [0262] [0825-0826, 0837] [0842-0844] [0861-0862] [0895-0898]) or positions of both ends of an edge of the first node (either or).
As per Claim 5 SUGIO discloses The decoding method according to claim 1, wherein the information includes adjustment information for adjusting the default shape to the shape (Figs. 1-8, 57-59, 71-83, 120 at least for possible adjustments – default previous state [0202-0208] [0262] [0825-0826, 0837] [0842-0844] [0861-0862] [0895-0898]).
As per Claim 6 SUGIO discloses The decoding method according to claim 1, wherein the decoding is performed according to a compression scheme in which the three-dimensional points approximated with a plane (Figs. 6-7, 53, 71-83 and Fig. 112 for planer 3D and encoded compression [0149-0155] [0158] [0553] [0664, 0672] [1000-1005]) or a curved surface within the first node (either or).
As per Claim 10 SUGIO discloses The decoding method according to claim 1, wherein the first node is provided in contact with a second slice adjacent to the first slice (Figs. 1-8, 57-59, 71-83 – at least one node with plurality adjacent slices as depicted in at least Fig. 2 GOP slices [0014] [0181-0185]).
As per Claim 12 SUGIO discloses The decoding method according to claim 1, wherein a size of the default shape is represented by a power of N, and a size of the shape is different from a size represented by a power of N (Figs. 1-8, 57-59, 71-83, 120 geometric pattern size differentials [0202-0208] [0262] [0825-0826, 0837] [0842-0844] [0861-0862] [0895-0898]) (Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify SUGIO to teach specific factors because Applicant has not disclosed that power of 2 provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant's invention to perform equally well with other variants of factors because performance of said invention is not tied to the factor amount).
As per Claim 18 SUGIO discloses An encoding method for encoding three-dimensional points, the encoding method comprising (in at least Figs. 6-7 disclosing a 3D encoding device 100 [Abstract] [0149-0155] [0158]):
encoding nodes that have an octree structure and are included in a first slice, to generate a bitstream (Figs. 1-8, 57-59, 71-83 – Fig. 83 & Fig. 120 specifically for 3D encoding device 100 [0853-0855] and GOP slices [Abstract] octree [0007-0009] [0013-0014] [0088-0091 [0149-0151]); and storing, in the bitstream, information for deriving a shape of a first node among the nodes (Figs. 1-8, 57-59 71-83 – generate in memory storage of geometry pattern shapes for nodes [0144-0149] [0161, 0168] [0201] [0825-0826] [0895-0898]), wherein the shape is different from a default shape of another node among the nodes (Figs. 1-8, 57-59, 71-83 – shapes for nodes differ – initial default and slice and encoding of bitstream [Abstract] [0009] [0825-0826, 0837] [0842-0844] [0861-0862] [0895-0898]).
As per Claim 19 SUGIO discloses A decoding device that decodes three-dimensional points, the decoding device comprising (in at least Fig. 8 disclosing a 3D decoding device 200 [Abstract] [0149-0155] [0158]):
a processor (Figs. 1-8, 57-59, 71-83 for each of encoding/decoding using the memory [0160] [0681] [0715-0716] [1151-1154]); and memory, wherein using the memory, the processor (Figs. 1-8, 57-59, 71-83 for each of encoding/decoding using the memory [0160] [0681] [0715-0716] [1151-1154]): obtains, from a bitstream, nodes that have an octree structure and are included in a first slice (See said analysis for Claim 1); obtains, from the bitstream, information for deriving a shape of a first node among the nodes (See said analysis for Claim 1); and decodes the first node according to the information, wherein the shape is different from a default shape of another node among the nodes (See said analysis for Claim 1).
As per Claim 20 SUGIO discloses An encoding device that encodes three-dimensional points, the encoding device comprising (in at least Figs. 6-7 disclosing a 3D encoding device 100 [Abstract] [0149-0155] [0158]): a processor (See said analysis for Claim 19); and memory (See said analysis for Claim 19), wherein using the memory, the processor (See said analysis for Claim 19):
encodes nodes that have an octree structure and are included in a first slice, to generate a bitstream (See said analysis for Claim 18); and stores, in the bitstream, information for deriving a shape of a first node among the nodes (See said analysis for Claim 18), wherein the shape is different from a default shape of another node among the nodes (See said analysis for Claim 18).
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 non-obviousness.
Claim 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUGIO et al. (Pub. No: US 2021-0233284) in view of LECOMTE et al. (US Pub. No: 2006-0066625).
As per Claim 2 SUGIO discloses The decoding method according to claim 1, wherein
SUGIO does not disclose but LECOMTE discloses the shape is a rectangular parallelepiped shape, and is not a cubic shape (silent as to cubic [0014] [0052] [0079]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the shape is a rectangular parallelepiped shape, and is not a cubic shape as taught by LECOMTE into the system of SUGIO because of the benefit taught by LECOMTE to include bitstream encoding/decoding systems with advanced capabilities to include specific types of node shape processing whereby SUGIO is directed towards node shape processing and would naturally be enhanced by the related system teachings of LECOMTE.
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUGIO et al. (Pub. No: US 2021-0233284) in view of JIA et al. (US Pub. No: 2022-0417823).
As per Claim 3 SUGIO discloses The decoding method according to claim 1, wherein an end of the first slice (Figs. 1-8, 57-59 71-83 slice GOP [0144-0149] [0161, 0168] [0201] [0825-0826] [0895-0898])
SUGIO does not disclose but JIA discloses slice coincides with an end of the first node among the nodes (Fig. 2A nodes 214 [Abstract] time slices [0015-0017] [0027-0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include slice coincides with an end of the first node among the nodes as taught by JIA into the system of SUGIO because of the benefit taught by JIA to include additional types of configurations for bitstreams processing with node-slice configuration to include relating nodes with time slices which could be pertinent for extending the node-slice processing features of SUGIO.
Claims 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUGIO et al. (Pub. No: US 2021-0233284) in view of HUR (US Pub. No: 2025-0267272).
As per Claim 7 SUGIO discloses The decoding method according to claim 6, wherein
SUGIO does not disclose but HUR discloses the compression scheme is a Triangle-Soup compression scheme (Figs 1-3 [0107]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the compression scheme is a Triangle-Soup compression scheme as taught by HUR into the system of SUGIO because of the benefit taught by HUR to include advanced compression schemes for use in a codec system and would benefit SUGIO which is directed towards codec system processing and would be enhanced by the additional codec compression capabilities.
As per Claim 8 SUGIO discloses The decoding method according to claim 6, wherein the shape is determined within the first node (See said analysis for Claim 1)
SUGIO does not disclose but HUR discloses in order that the plane (Figs 1-3 [0138]) or the curved surface is generated (either or) (The motivation that is applied in Claim 7 applies equally to Claim 8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Reasons for Allowance
Claims 9, 11, 13-17 is/are objected to as being dependent upon the 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.
Claims 9, 11, 13-17 is/are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As per Claim 9 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The decoding method according to claim 8, wherein an edge of the shape has a vertex thereon, and the plane or the curved surface intersects with the edge at the vertex” These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 11 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The decoding method according to claim 10, wherein the information is provided per slice, the information for the second slice is used to derive a shape of a second node among nodes that have the octree structure and are included in the second slice, and the shape of the second node is different from the default shape” These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 13 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The decoding method according to claim 1, wherein the shape of the first node is defined by a first length along a first direction, a second length along a second direction, and a third length along a third direction, the first direction, the second direction, and the third direction being orthogonal to each other, and among the first length, the second length, and the third length, only the first length is different from a default length of the other node, or among the first length, the second length, and the third length, only the first length and the second length are each different from the default length” These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 14 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The decoding method according to claim 1, wherein among the nodes, the first node is provided closest to an origin of the first slice in one direction among a first direction, a second direction, and a third direction, the origin being a reference position in a coordinate system constituted by the first direction, the second direction, and the third direction, the first direction, the second direction, and the third direction being orthogonal to each other” These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 15 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The decoding method according to claim 14, wherein the nodes include a third node that is of a shape different from the default shape, and among the nodes, the third node is provided farthest from the origin in the one direction” These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 16 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The decoding method according to claim 1, wherein when a starting position of the first slice does not coincide with an origin, the bitstream includes the information, and when the starting position of the first slice coincides with the origin, the bitstream does not include the information” These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 17 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The decoding method according to claim 1, wherein when an ending position of the first slice does not coincide with an ending end of the first node, the bitstream includes the information, and when the ending position of the first slice coincides with the ending end of the first node, the bitstream does not include the information” These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
The closest prior art of record SUGIO et al. (Pub. No: US 2021-0233284) for Claims 9, 11, 13-17 does not teach all the elements in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim. SUGIO only discloses an encoding and decoding method for decoding three-dimensional points. The prior art also discloses obtaining, from a bitstream, nodes that have an octree structure and are included in a first slice and obtaining, from the bitstream, information for deriving a shape of a first node among the nodes. The prior art also discloses encoding and decoding first nodes according to the information, wherein the shape is different from a default shape of another node among the nodes.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EILEEN M ADAMS whose telephone number is 571-270-3688. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30am-5:00pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571) 272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4688.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EILEEN M ADAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights