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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Element 25 in Fig. 2 corresponds to claim 13 which is similar to device claim 9. However, Element 23 of Fig. 2 sets 1 as a lower threshold for the number of children. There are no instances of children found in the claims as filed 7 July 2025, so Fig. 2 does not describe the disclosure. Further the limitation “if a level of the considered node in the node tree is lower than a first threshold” found in claims 1 and 5 does not appear to correspond in any way to Fig. 1 nor Fig. 2. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 Objections
Claims 4, 8, 11-12 and 15-16 are objected to because of the following informalities: the phraseology “sibling of a node is another node having a same parent than the node” should be “sibling of a node is another node having a same parent as , appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-12 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YANG et al., (US 2024/0386617) in view of ZHANG et al., (From IDS: INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATION FOR STADARDISATION/ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 7, m61015, Mainz, October 2022).
Regarding claim 1: YANG teaches a method comprising: obtaining a node tree linking nodes representative of a point cloud [¶0033 teaches: 3) Context modelling, by which context information corresponding to each node of the octree structure can be obtained. FIG. 2 is a schematic diagram of spatial locations of 8 child nodes (i.e., child nodes 0 to 7), which are generated by octree partitioning, relative to their parent node (i.e., a current node). When an 8-bit spatial occupancy code is encoded for the current node, reference information of neighbours in the same layer can be obtained, for example, including occupancy information of neighbouring child nodes in the left, front, and downward directions (such as negative directions of x, y, and z axes in the coordinate system). Exemplarily, for each of child nodes at different locations of the current node, at least one of three coplanar neighbours, three collinear neighbours, or one co-vertex neighbour in the same layer as the child node may be used as a reference node. For a to-be-encoded node, occupancy status of reference nodes in the same layer as the to-be-encoded node may each correspond to one context information.]; and for a considered node of the node tree, predicting an attribute value for the considered node in the node tree is lower than a first threshold [¶0052 teaches: An encoding method is provided in embodiments of the disclosure, in which planar-encoding-mode eligibility corresponding to a node-layer of the tree structure for the geometry information of the point cloud is determined, and whether a node (such as the current node [i.e. considered node]) in the node-layer is encoded using a planar encoding mode is determined according to the planar-encoding-mode eligibility corresponding to the node-layer. In embodiments of the disclosure, by determining planar-encoding-mode eligibility corresponding to a node-layer of the tree structure corresponding to the geometry information of the point cloud, the planar-encoding-mode eligibility does not need to be determined for each node in the tree structure, thereby reducing computation complexity of encoding and also improving encoding gains.] and if the a number of siblings of the considered node is greater than zero [¶0049 teaches: For example, the local occupancy density of the node may be updated according to the number of occupied nodes (numSibling) in a parent node of the node, i.e., the number of occupied nodes among 8 nodes that include the other 7 sibling nodes of the node and the node itself. The specific formula (1) may be as follows.] and if the number of valid neighbor nodes of the considered node is lower than a second threshold [¶0043 teaches: Optionally, during encoding of the attribute information, the point cloud may be sorted according to Morton codes. Further, a geometric spatial relationship is used to search for a nearest neighbour(s) of a to-be-encoded point (also referred to as a to-be-predicted point), and a reconstructed attribute value of the found neighbour(s) is used for interpolation prediction on the to-be-encoded point to obtain a predicted attribute value.].
However, it does not appear that YANG explicitly teaches predicting an attribute value only if a level of the considered node, a number of siblings and a number of valid neighbor nodes is within specified ranges.
In a related field of endeavor, ZHANG teaches if a level of the considered node, a number of siblings and a number of valid neighbor nodes is within specified ranges [See Fig. 1, and 3, Proposed Method teaches: In the proposed decision flow, if NumValidC is equal to q, the attribute prediction id disabled without the examinations of following modules.]
Given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate ZHANG’s teaching of carrying out attribute prediction only if the level, number of siblings and number of neighbors fall within a specific range into YANG’s method for the benefit, as taught by ZHANG, of disabling unnecessary transform domain predictions in RAHT (Region 1 Adaptive Hierarchical Transform). [ZHANG, Abstract]
Regarding claim 2: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 1.
In addition, YANG teaches wherein a neighbor node is valid if a difference between a value of an attribute of the neighbor node and a value of a same attribute of a parent of the considered node is lower than a first percentage or greater than a second percentage [¶0043 teaches: Then, a difference between the real attribute value and the predicted attribute value is calculated to obtain a prediction residual.].
Regarding claim 14: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 1.
In addition, YANG teaches wherein the node tree is an octree [¶0059 teaches: In embodiments of the disclosure, for each slice, the decoder may obtain related information of a tree structure, e.g., an octree structure].
Regarding claim 15: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 1.
In addition, YANG teaches wherein a sibling of a node is another node having a same parent than the node and a neighbour is the parent of the node or a valid sibling of the parent of the node [¶0033 teaches: 3) Context modelling, by which context information corresponding to each node of the octree structure can be obtained. FIG. 2 is a schematic diagram of spatial locations of 8 child nodes (i.e., child nodes 0 to 7), which are generated by octree partitioning, relative to their parent node (i.e., a current node). When an 8-bit spatial occupancy code is encoded for the current node, reference information of neighbours in the same layer can be obtained, for example, including occupancy information of neighbouring child nodes in the left, front, and downward directions (such as negative directions of x, y, and z axes in the coordinate system). Exemplarily, for each of child nodes at different locations of the current node, at least one of three coplanar neighbours, three collinear neighbours, or one co-vertex neighbour in the same layer as the child node may be used as a reference node. For a to-be-encoded node, occupancy status of reference nodes in the same layer as the to-be-encoded node may each correspond to one context information.].
Regarding claim 3: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 1.
In addition, YANG teaches wherein the node tree is an octree [¶0059 teaches: In embodiments of the disclosure, for each slice, the decoder may obtain related information of a tree structure, e.g., an octree structure].
Regarding claim 16: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 3.
In addition, YANG teaches wherein a sibling of a node is another node having a same parent than the node and a neighbour is the parent of the node or a valid sibling of the parent of the node [¶0033 teaches: 3) Context modelling, by which context information corresponding to each node of the octree structure can be obtained. FIG. 2 is a schematic diagram of spatial locations of 8 child nodes (i.e., child nodes 0 to 7), which are generated by octree partitioning, relative to their parent node (i.e., a current node). When an 8-bit spatial occupancy code is encoded for the current node, reference information of neighbours in the same layer can be obtained, for example, including occupancy information of neighbouring child nodes in the left, front, and downward directions (such as negative directions of x, y, and z axes in the coordinate system). Exemplarily, for each of child nodes at different locations of the current node, at least one of three coplanar neighbours, three collinear neighbours, or one co-vertex neighbour in the same layer as the child node may be used as a reference node. For a to-be-encoded node, occupancy status of reference nodes in the same layer as the to-be-encoded node may each correspond to one context information.].
.
Regarding claim 4: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 1.
In addition, YANG teaches wherein a sibling of a node is another node having a same parent than the node and a neighbour is the parent of the node or a valid sibling of the parent of the node [¶0033 teaches: 3) Context modelling, by which context information corresponding to each node of the octree structure can be obtained. FIG. 2 is a schematic diagram of spatial locations of 8 child nodes (i.e., child nodes 0 to 7), which are generated by octree partitioning, relative to their parent node (i.e., a current node). When an 8-bit spatial occupancy code is encoded for the current node, reference information of neighbours in the same layer can be obtained, for example, including occupancy information of neighbouring child nodes in the left, front, and downward directions (such as negative directions of x, y, and z axes in the coordinate system). Exemplarily, for each of child nodes at different locations of the current node, at least one of three coplanar neighbours, three collinear neighbours, or one co-vertex neighbour in the same layer as the child node may be used as a reference node. For a to-be-encoded node, occupancy status of reference nodes in the same layer as the to-be-encoded node may each correspond to one context information.].
Regarding claim 5: the claim is merely a device comprising a memory associated with a processor configured to carry out the method of claim 1. YANG teaches a device [Embodiments of the disclosure relate to the technical field of point cloud coding, and in particular to an encoding method, a decoding method, and a decoder, ¶0002]. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 applies equally to this claim.
Regarding claim 6: the claim is merely a device comprising a memory associated with a processor configured to carry out the method of claim 2. YANG teaches a device [Embodiments of the disclosure relate to the technical field of point cloud coding, and in particular to an encoding method, a decoding method, and a decoder, ¶0002]. Therefore, the rejection of claim 2 applies equally to this claim.
Regarding claim 10: the claim is merely a device comprising a memory associated with a processor configured to carry out the method of claim 14. YANG teaches a device [Embodiments of the disclosure relate to the technical field of point cloud coding, and in particular to an encoding method, a decoding method, and a decoder, ¶0002]. Therefore, the rejection of claim 14 applies equally to this claim.
Regarding claim 11: the claim is merely a device comprising a memory associated with a processor configured to carry out the method of claim 15. YANG teaches a device [Embodiments of the disclosure relate to the technical field of point cloud coding, and in particular to an encoding method, a decoding method, and a decoder, ¶0002]. Therefore, the rejection of claim 15 applies equally to this claim.
Regarding claim 7: the claim is merely a device comprising a memory associated with a processor configured to carry out the method of claim 3. YANG teaches a device [Embodiments of the disclosure relate to the technical field of point cloud coding, and in particular to an encoding method, a decoding method, and a decoder, ¶0002]. Therefore, the rejection of claim 3 applies equally to this claim.
Regarding claim 12: the claim is merely a device comprising a memory associated with a processor configured to carry out the method of claim 16. YANG teaches a device [Embodiments of the disclosure relate to the technical field of point cloud coding, and in particular to an encoding method, a decoding method, and a decoder, ¶0002]. Therefore, the rejection of claim 16 applies equally to this claim.
Regarding claim 8: the claim is merely a device comprising a memory associated with a processor configured to carry out the method of claim 8. YANG teaches a device [Embodiments of the disclosure relate to the technical field of point cloud coding, and in particular to an encoding method, a decoding method, and a decoder, ¶0002]. Therefore, the rejection of claim 8 applies equally to this claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a 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.
Conclusion
Prior art not relied upon: Please refer to the references listed in an attached PTO-892 and that are not relied upon for the claim rejections detailed above. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
In particular, OH et al., (US 2025/0095211) teaches point cloud data transmission methods and device, and point cloud data reception methods and device;
ZHANG et al., (US 2023/0410377) teaches a method for encoding a point cloud to generate a bitstream of compressed point cloud data, the point cloud's geometry being represented by an octree-based structure with a plurality of nodes having parent-child relationships by recursively splitting a volumetric space containing the point cloud into sub-volumes each associated with a node of the octree-based structure;
LASSERRE et al., (US 2022/0376702) teaches methods and devices for tree switching in point cloud compression;
FLYNN et al., (US 2021/0217206) teaches geometry encoding using octrees and predictive trees; and
TOURAPIS et al., (US 2019/0394496) teaches point cloud geometry compression using octrees and binary arithmetic encoding with adaptive look-up tables.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marnie Matt whose telephone number is (303)297-4255. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30-5:00.
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, Jay Patel can be reached at 571-272-2988. 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.
/MARNIE A MATT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights