DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to an amendment filed 5/14/2026, wherein claims 3-5, and 7-18 are pending and being examined. 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 5/14/2026 with respect to claims 3-5 and 14-16 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 8-9 of the filed response that Pham Van does not disclose using multiple reference frames for global motion compensation. Specifically, Applicant argues “it is respectfully pointed out that there is no description whatsoever in Pham Van regarding which coordinate system is used to perform the global motion compensation when multiple reference frames are employed. There is a critical difference between the use of a single reference frame as in Pham Van and the use of a plurality of or multiple reference frames as in the presently claimed invention, e.g., "the circuit performs global motion compensation on each of the plurality of reference frames by..." as set forth in claim 3, with claims 17 and 18 reciting similar features. Therefore, Pham Van does not at all disclose or suggest the feature of the present invention as recited in amended independent claims 3, 17 and 18 of "performing global motion compensation on each of the plurality of reference frames by the inter prediction using a global motion vector based on a coordinate system of a processing target frame".” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Although Pham Van's exemplary embodiment refers to applying a global motion vector to one previous point cloud (and therefore one previous reference frame), ¶0084 explicitly states that multiple previous point clouds may be stored in memory and used for the global motion compensation. That is, it is clear that Pham Van only describes motion compensation of a single previous point cloud for convenience but ¶0084 explicitly states the process may be applied to "one or more" (a plurality) of previous point clouds. It is clear from ¶0084-¶0087 that each of the point clouds stored in a decoded frame buffer may have the global motion vector compensation applied thereto.
Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the decoding process of Pham Van is a repetitive/iterative process where a series of frames (point clouds) are sequentially decoded, not just a current point cloud. For example, ¶0037-¶0038 of Pham Van notes that it is a sequential series of multiple frames/point clouds being encoded/decoded, not simply a single current frame/point cloud. The sequential frames/point clouds are processed in a scan order and after a current point cloud is decoded, this formerly "current" frame is considered a previously decoded point cloud that is stored in memory and used as a reference frame for the next point cloud in the series to be decoded. That is, even if purely arguendo the reference cloud (150) shown in Fig.5 with a global motion vector applied thereto (152) is a single reference cloud/frame that is used to decode the current cloud (160), once the current cloud is decoded, the current cloud will become a reference point cloud for the next point cloud to be decoded in the series of frames/point clouds and the global motion compensation process shown in Fig.5 will be applied to the next point cloud such that a second/additional reference cloud will have a global motion vector applied thereto. As this subsequent point cloud is decoded based on a globally compensated reference frame/cloud, which itself was determined/decoded based on a different previous globally compensated reference frame, a person of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate a target frame is decoded/predicted based on multiple reference frames with a global motion vector applied thereto.
For these reasons, the arguments are not persuasive and claims 3-5 and 14-16 are rejected as outlined below.
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.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pham Van et al. (US 2022/0210466) (hereinafter Pham Van).
In regard to claim 3, Pham Van discloses a point cloud decoding device [¶0005; techniques for coding (encoding and decoding) point cloud data] comprising:
a circuit [¶0045; G-PCC encoder 200 and G-PCC decoder 300 each may be implemented as any of a variety of suitable encoder and/or decoder circuitry] that performs inter prediction using a plurality of reference frames during Predictive coding [¶0031; respective point clouds (frames) may be coded relative to each other, e.g., using intra-frame prediction or inter-frame prediction. ¶0076; Geometry arithmetic decoding unit 302 may perform inter-prediction using local or global motion vectors. Fig.5], wherein
the circuit performs global motion compensation on each of the plurality of reference frames by the inter prediction using a global motion vector for a processing target frame [Fig.5, ¶0076-¶0077; Geometry arithmetic decoding unit 302 may form a predicted cloud using the global motion vector from a previous point cloud buffered in memory 324… different global motion vector. ¶0084-¶0087; decode one or more previous point clouds and store the previously decoded point clouds in a decoded frame buffer or history buffer (i.e., a memory of G-PCC decoder 300… PCC decoder 300 may construct predicted cloud 154 by applying global motion vector 152 to each point of reference cloud 150 at respective locations. ¶0037-¶0038; sequential series of “frames”) of the data].
In regard to claim 4, Pham Van discloses the point cloud decoding device according to claim 3. Pham Van further discloses, wherein
the circuit:
performs global motion compensation on a first reference frame using a first global motion vector on the processing target frame [¶0071, ¶0076-¶0077], and
performs global motion compensation on a second reference frame using the first global motion vector and a second global motion vector of the second reference frame for the first reference frame [Fig.5, ¶0076-¶0077, ¶0084-¶0087, ¶0228-¶0231].
In regard to claim 5, Pham Van discloses the point cloud decoding device according to claim 4. Pham Van further discloses, wherein
the circuit:
holds the first global motion vector [¶0071, ¶0076-¶0077] and
reuses the first global motion vector for subsequent processing [Fig.5, ¶0076-¶0077, ¶0084-¶0087, ¶0228-¶0231].
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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pham Van (US 2022/0210466) in view of Cui (US 2023/0171410).
In regard to claim 14, Pham Van discloses the point cloud decoding device according to claim 3. Pham Van does not explicitly disclose, wherein the circuit: allocates indices to predictors belonging to different reference frames based on an order of the reference frames to which the predictors belong, and allocates indices to predictors belonging to a same reference frame based on a parent-child relationship of nodes. However Cui discloses,
the circuit [¶0087]:
allocates indices to predictors belonging to different reference frames based on an order of the reference frames to which the predictors belong [¶0021; previous frame or a subsequent frame of the to-be-coded image frame… reference index may be frame-level relative location information of a matching block acquired from a reference frame set based on the to-be-coded image frame. ¶0053; frame-level index number of a coding macroblock that is closest to the to-be-coded image frame in the time sequence… generation of a reference index, the reference frame may be a forward reference frame or a backward reference frame], and
allocates indices to predictors belonging to a same reference frame based on a parent-child relationship of nodes [¶0056-¶0060; collection of the first reference index, the parent fusion reference index, and the child fusion reference index may be determined as the second reference index].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device disclosed by Pham Van with the index values disclosed by Cui in order to provide more accurate reference frame setting, thereby improving coding performance without increasing complexity [Cui ¶0048, ¶0059, ¶0071-¶0075].
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pham Van (US 2022/0210466) in view of Oh et al. (US 2023/0388557) (hereinafter Oh).
In regard to claim 15, Pham Van discloses the point cloud decoding device according to claim 3. Pham Van does not explicitly disclose, wherein the circuit allocates an index to each of a plurality of predictors based on azimuth angles of the predictors in an Angular mode. However Oh discloses,
the circuit [¶0139] allocates an index to each of a plurality of predictors based on azimuth angles of the predictors in an Angular mode converting an azimuthal angle into an index [¶0390-¶0392; converting an azimuthal angle into an index… azimuthal angle may be approximated with an index. ¶0700, ¶0738].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device disclosed by Pham Van with the index disclosed by Oh in order to provide sampling adjustment for an azimuthal angle in a cylindrical coordinate system, a spherical coordinate system, or a fan-shaped coordinate system [Oh ¶0004-¶0012, ¶0390-¶0392].
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pham Van (US 2022/0210466) in view of Lasserre et al. (US 2024/0185472) (hereinafter Lasserre).
In regard to claim 16, Pham Van discloses the point cloud decoding device according to claim 3. Pham Van does not explicitly disclose, wherein the circuit allocates an index to each of a plurality of predictors based on similarity between a predictor and a parent node of a processing target node. However Lasserre discloses,
the circuit [¶0045] allocates an index to each of a plurality of predictors based on similarity between a predictor and a parent node of a processing target node [¶0191-¶0192; candidate prediction modes by the prediction mode index Isel…. predictor mode index Isel,prec to indicate if a predicted radius depends or not of a parent node of the current point. ¶0032].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device disclosed by Pham Van with the index disclosed by Lasserre in order to provide improved signaling of prediction modes and predicted azimuthal angles for point cloud data [Lasserre ¶0071-¶0075, ¶0191-¶0192, ¶0195].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-13, 17 and 18 are allowed.
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 REBECCA A VOLENTINE whose telephone number is (571)270-7261. 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, Joe Ustaris can be reached at (571)272-7383. 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.
/REBECCA A VOLENTINE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483 June 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights