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 .
Notice to Applicant
This office action is in response to application filed on 02/24/2025. Amended claims and specification, entered on 02/24/2025, are examined in this office action.
Limitations appearing inside of {} are intended to indicate the limitations not taught by said prior art(s)/combinations.
Claims 1-11 are pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 02/24/2025 have been considered./
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 2. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 6 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 3. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1:
point structuring device
point normal vector estimation device
encoding device
Claim 5:
point alignment unit
normal vector derivation unit
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-11 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.
Claim 1 recites “the points” in line 4. Is this referring to the “spherical point cloud” (line 3) or “points of a hexahedron” (line 4)? There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination this limitation is interpreted as referring to “points of a hexahedron”.
Claim 1 “a normal vector of each point” in line 6. It is unclear which point “each point” is referring to.
Claim 1 recites “the set of reference points” in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Consider revising “set a point of each node of the tree structure sequentially as a reference point” (lines 5-6) to “set a point of each node of the tree structure sequentially [[as]] to obtain a set of reference points” (lines 5-6).
Claim 7 is similarly analyzed in lines 6-7.
Claim 1 recites “extract points based on inner product of norm vector of each point and a direction vector”. It is unclear what “each point” is referring to.
Claim 7 recites “the points” in line 5. It is unclear which points is referred to.
Claims 2-10 are rejected as they depend from a rejected claim.
Claim 11 is rejected as it is according to a rejected claim.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Pham” (Pham et al., US 20160027208 A1, as cited in the IDS) in view of “Oh” (Oh et al., US 20230419552 A1), and further in view of “Seo” (Seo et al., US 20210263469 A1, the US patent publication of KR 102277098 B1, cited in the IDS).
Claim 1. (Original) Pham teaches A point cloud compression system for streaming, the point cloud compression system comprising: a point structuring device configured to
{convert a spherical point cloud of a produced content into points of a hexahedron}, and then
to convert the points into points in a tree structure(step S103, a search tree is built in order to index the points of the point cloud; Pham, ¶[0057]);
a point normal vector estimation device configured to set a point of each node of the tree structure sequentially as a reference point (In FIG. 4(b) a search tree is shown with a root node C1 (i.e., reference point) at the highest level which splits into two branches; Pham, ¶[0062]), and
to derive a normal vector of each point based on a defined reference distance (step S507, the point for which the normal is to be calculated is selected. In step S509, a region is constructed around the point … this is a ball region with a fixed radius; Pham, ¶[0140]) and
a computational distance between each of the set reference points and each point of a child node (step S513, the covariance matrix of all points within the region is computed using the stored, zeroth, first and second order moments. In step S515, the normal is then estimated as the third Eigen vector of the covariance matrix; Pham, ¶[0141])
which is a subordinate node of a node comprising each reference point (FIG. 4. In FIG. 4(b) a search tree is shown with a root node C1 at the highest level which splits into two branches. Each of the two branches will terminate in a tree node C2 and C3 respectively. Tree node C2 subdivides further and has descendant leaf nodes C4 and C5. Tree node C3 subdivides further to terminate in three leaf nodes C6, C7 and C8; Pham, ¶[0062]); and
{an encoding device configured to extract points based on an inner product value of {the normal vector of each point a direction vector of a user's field of view acquired by a camera}(S515, the normal is then estimated as the third Eigen vector of the covariance matrix (i.e., inner product value); Pham, ¶[0141]), and
to encode and transmit the extracted points (point cloud compression and visualization; Pham ¶[0042]).
Pham does not explicitly disclose
a point structuring device configured convert a spherical point cloud of a produced content into points of a hexahedron.
an encoding device configured to extract points based on an inner product value of the normal vector of each point a direction vector of a user's field of view acquired by a camera
However, Oh, a similar field of endeavor of processing point clouds content, teaches a point structuring device configured to convert a spherical point cloud of a produced content into points of a hexahedron (The first coordinate system … may include a spherical coordinate system; OH, ¶[0252] … the entire 3D space may be divided into eight spaces according to partition. Each divided space is represented by a cube with six faces; Oh, ¶[0135])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include cube-shaped hexahedron as taught by Oh to the invention of Pham. The motivation to do so would be to provide a partitioning scheme in order to quantize a voxel..
However, Seo, a similar field of endeavor of processing a three-dimensional point cloud from a plurality of viewpoints, teaches an encoding device configured to extract points based on an inner product value of the normal vector of each point a direction vector of a user's field of view acquired by a camera (A scheme of acquiring data in a direction viewed by the user may be selected through an inner product of the direction vector Z′ (the direction vector at the user viewpoint) and the normal vector; Seo, ¶[0071]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include calculating the inner product of the normal and camera view directions as taught by Seo to the combined invention of Pham and Oh. The motivation to do so would be to provide three-dimensional data at the user viewpoint.
Claim 7 is similarly analyzed as analogous claim 1.
Claim 11. (Currently amended) Is similarly analyzed as analogous claim 1. Pham further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium on which the point cloud compression method for streaming of claim 7 is recorded and which is performed by a computer (The processor module 101 can include, for example, one or more processor, memory and mass storage devices, such as disk and/or tape storage elements (not separately shown), which perform processing and storage operations in connection with digital data provided thereto. [0833] The terms "memory", "storage" and "disk storage devices" can encompass any computer readable medium, such as a computer hard disk, computer floppy disk, computer-readable flash drive, computer-readable RAM or ROM element or any other known means of encoding digital information. The term "applications programs", "applications", "programs", "computer program product" or "computer software product" can encompass any computer program product consisting of computer-readable programs instructions encoded and/or stored on a computer readable medium; Pham ¶¶[0832]-[0833]).
Claims 2-6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pham in view of Oh, in view of Seo, and further in view of “Waechter” (Waechter et al., US 20090167763 A1).
Claim 2. (Original) The combination of Pham, Oh, and Seo teaches point cloud compression system of claim 1. Pham further teaches wherein the point normal vector estimation device comprises:
{a point alignment unit configured to set a point of each node of the tree structure sequentially as a reference point},
to output a computational distance between the corresponding reference point and a point of a child node (shortest non-zero distance between any two points of the point cloud is established by exhaustively going through every pair of points ;Pham, ¶[0126]),
to store points where the outputted computational distance is less than or equal to a pre-defined reference distance in a temporary memory (S305, the moments of a property are stored in each node, the moment is calculated based on all nodes descending from the node where the moment of the property is stored; Pham, ¶[0124]; A region round the point is set in step S309 which is a ball centred around the point. In this embodiment, the ball will have a fixed radius; Pham, ¶[0126]), and
to align the points stored in the temporary memory in an ascending order of the computational distance (a processor adapted to arrange the points into a hierarchical search tree, with a lowest level comprising a plurality of leaf nodes, where each leaf node corresponds to a point of the point cloud, the search tree comprising a plurality of hierarchical levels with tree nodes in each of the hierarchical levels; Pham, ¶[0045]); and
a normal vector derivation unit configured to derive a normal vector of the reference point in a direction perpendicular to a plane that is formed with adjacent points obtained as a first point and a second point of the temporary memory for the corresponding reference point, and the corresponding reference point ( step S507, the point for which the normal is to be calculated is selected. In step S509, a region is constructed around the point; Pham, ¶[0140]; Pham is interpreted as teaching the claim limitation because a normal in a region is understood to be a direction perpendicular to the plain formed with adjacent points), and
to store the normal vector in the corresponding reference point of the temporary memory (However, as noted above any geometric property of the points could be used in the same way and the required moments of this property stored in the nodes in order to reduce the computation as explained above; Pham, ¶[0082]).
The combination does not explicitly disclose
a point alignment unit configured to set a point of each node of the tree structure sequentially as a reference point
However, Waechter, a similar field of endeavor of optimizing traversal process that begins at a root node, teaches a point alignment unit configured to set a point of each node of the tree structure sequentially as a reference point (Before calling the construction routine a memory block is allocated in which a root node along with the object references is stored in sequential order (similar to FIG. 27(a)).; Waechter, ¶[0500]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include storing root nodes sequentially to the combined invention of Pham, Oh and Seo. The motivation to do so would be to simplify memory management.
Claim 3. (Original) The combination of Pham, Oh, Seo, and Waechter teaches the point cloud compression system of claim 2,
wherein the point normal vector estimation device further comprises a normal vector optimization unit configured to extract at least three points as adjacent points of the corresponding reference point (In step S517, a check is performed to see if the process has been performed for all points. If not, and there are more points for which an estimate of the normal is required, a new point is selected in step S519 and the process loops back to step S509 where a new region is constructed. In step S521, the estimated normals are outputted; Pham, ¶[0142]),
to average the normal vectors of the extracted points , and then to set the average normal vector as a normal vector of the corresponding reference point (a mean of the normal vectors is computed by storing the zeroth and first order moments of the normals in the tree nodes; Pham ¶[0143]).
Claim 4. (Original) The point cloud compression system of claim 3,
wherein the encoding device is configured to derive an inner product value of the direction vector of the user's field of view acquired through the camera and the normal vector of each point, and to encode and transmit a point where the derived inner product value is positive (an inner product of the direction vector at the user viewpoint and the normal vector may be obtained to select (filter) a mesh where a result value of the inner product is a non-negative number; Seo, ¶[0072]).
Claim 5 is similarly analyzed as substantially similar claim 2.
Claim 6 is similarly analyzed as substantially similar claim 3.
Claim 8 is similarly analyzed as analogous claim 2
Claim 9 is similarly analyzed as analogous claim 3
Claim 10 is similarly analyzed as analogous claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 Notice of References Cited for full citations.
Cao (Chao Cao, Marius Preda, and Titus Zaharia. 2019. 3D Point Cloud Compression: A Survey. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on 3D Web Technology (Web3D '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1145/3329714.3338130) provides a review of point cloud compression techniques.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANDHANA PEDAPATI whose telephone number is 571-272-5325. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-6pm (ET).
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, Chan Park can be reached at 571-272-7409. 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.
/CHANDHANA PEDAPATI/Examiner, Art Unit 2669 /CHAN S PARK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2669
