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 .
Claim Interpretation
Nonfunctional Descriptive Material
Claim 20 recites “A non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream”. There are no recitations of a processor or other element-merely a compressed bitstream content (a bitstream of visual media). Under MPEP 2111.05(III), this claim is merely machine-readable media. The Examiner finds that there is no disclosed or claimed functional relationship between the stored bitstream and the medium. Instead, the medium is merely a support or carrier for the bitstream being stored. Therefore, the bitstream stored should not be given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05 applying In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994); and In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As such, claim 20 is subject to a prior art rejection based on any non-transitory computer readable storage medium known before the earliest effective filing date of the present application.
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.
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) 1-2, 6-7, 9, 11-14, 16-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by VISHWANATH et al., (US 2025/0324057).
Regarding claim 1: VISHWANATH teaches a method for processing visual media data, comprising: performing a conversion between visual media data and a bitstream of the visual media data based on region-adaptive hierarchical transform (RAHT) coefficient coding [¶0064 teaches: RAHT unit 314 may perform RAHT coding to determine, based on the inverse quantized attribute values, color values for points of the point cloud. RAHT decoding is done from the top to the bottom of the tree.], wherein a quantization parameter (QP) offset matrix is used in the RAHT coefficient coding to derive a QP offset [¶0022 teaches: implementation of the aspect provides determining a quantization parameter (QP) offset based on the layer of the RAHT coefficient, and modifying the QP offset based on the weight of the RAHT coefficient.] for each alternating current (AC) coefficient for at least one attribute component in a RAHT tree [¶0064 teaches: implementation of the aspect provides applying previously-disclosed offsets to only alternating current (AC) coefficients when direct current (DC) coefficients have been inherited from a previous layer of an octree.].
Regarding claim 2: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 1.
In addition, VISHWANATH teaches wherein the QP offset matrix is a 2×2×2 QP offset matrix [¶0085 teaches: [0086] a flag to indicate a 2×2×2 QP matrix or a matrix of QP offsets for different RAHT coefficients corresponding to the 2×2×2 transformed residual block].
Regarding claim 6: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 1.
In addition, VISHWANATH teaches wherein the QP offset matrix is specified to be used for certain layers in the RAHT tree [¶0039 teaches: aspect provides restricting use of the 2×2×2 QP offset matrix to less than all layers in the octree].
Regarding claim 7: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 1.
In addition, VISHWANATH teaches wherein different QP offset matrices are used for different layers in the RAHT tree [¶0040 teaches: another implementation of the aspect provides using different three dimensional (3D) quantization parameter (QP) matrices for different layers in the octree].
Regarding claim 9: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 1.
In addition, VISHWANATH teaches wherein the QP offset matrix is used for a subset of attribute components [¶0027 teaches: another implementation of the aspect provides dividing the different attribute channels into different sub-groups for the different attribute channels, wherein offsets corresponding to the different sub-groups are different for the different attribute channels.].
Regarding claim 11: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 1.
In addition, VISHWANATH teaches wherein the conversion includes encoding the visual media data into the bitstream [¶0110 teaches: the aspect provides the conversion includes encoding the media data into a bitstream.]
Regarding claim 12: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 1.
In addition, VISHWANATH teaches wherein the conversion includes decoding the visual media data from the bitstream [¶0011 teaches: the aspect provides the conversion includes decoding the media data from a bitstream.].
Regarding claim 13: the claim is merely an apparatus for processing visual media data to carry out the method of claim 1. VISHWANATH teaches an apparatus [A second aspect relates to apparatus for processing media data ¶0112]. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 applies equally to this claim.
Regarding claim 14: the claim is merely an apparatus for processing visual media data to carry out the method of claim 2. VISHWANATH teaches an apparatus [A second aspect relates to apparatus for processing media data ¶0112]. Therefore, the rejection of claim 2 applies equally to this claim.
Regarding claim 16: the claim is merely an apparatus for processing visual media data to carry out the method of claim 6. VISHWANATH teaches an apparatus [A second aspect relates to apparatus for processing media data ¶0112]. Therefore, the rejection of claim 6 applies equally to this claim.
Regarding claim 17: the claim is merely an apparatus for processing visual media data to carry out the method of claim 7. VISHWANATH teaches an apparatus [A second aspect relates to apparatus for processing media data ¶0112]. Therefore, the rejection of claim 7 applies equally to this claim.
Regarding claim 19: the claim is merely a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions to carry out the method of claim 1. VISHWANATH teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions [A third aspect relates to non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a computer program product for use by a video coding device, the computer program product comprising computer executable instructions stored on the non-transitory computer readable medium such that when executed by a processor cause the video coding device to perform the method of any of the preceding aspects. ¶0113]. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 applies equally to this claim.
Claim 20 has been interpreted above as nonfunctional descriptive material under MPEP 2111.05(III) and the case law cited therein because claim 20 recites “[a] non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream of visual media data”. As such, claim 20 is subject to a prior art rejection based on any non-transitory computer readable storage medium known before the earliest effective filing date of the present application. In other words, the proper interpretation of claim 20 is merely a machine-readable media in which the media is merely a support or carrier for the bitstream being stored wherein the bitstream stored and the way such bitstream is generated should not be given patentable weight.
VISHWANATH, which is analogous art, discloses [a] non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream of visual media data [A fourth aspect relates to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a video, ¶0114]. As such, VISHWANATH clearly anticipates [a] non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream of visual media data.
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) 3-5, 8, 10, 15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VISHWANATH in view of RAMASUBRAMONIAN et al., (From IDS: US 2021/0209811).
Regarding claim 3: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 1.
However, it does not appear that VISHWANATH teaches wherein the QP offset matrix is used to derive a quantization step size used in the RAHT coefficient coding.
In a related field of endeavor, RAMASUBRAMONIAN teaches wherein the QP offset matrix is used to derive a quantization step size used in the RAHT coefficient coding [.
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 RAMASUBRAMONIAN’s teaching of a quantization step size into VISHWANATH’s method for processing visual media data for the benefit, as taught by RAMASUBRAMONIAN, of reduced consumption of computational resources, along with increased compressions. [RAMASUBRAMONIAN, Summary].
Regarding claim 4: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 1.
However, it does not appear that VISHWANATH teaches wherein the QP offset matrix is specified at a sequence level, a slice level, or a tile level of the bitstream.
In a related field of endeavor, RAMASUBRAMONIAN teaches wherein the QP offset matrix is specified at a sequence level, a slice level, or a tile level of the bitstream [¶0088 teaches: Within a slice, a QP offset (regionDeltaQp) is signaled].
The motivation to combine is the same as for claim 3. [See teaching above.]
Regarding claim 5: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 1.
However, it does not appear that VISHWANATH teaches wherein the QP offset matrix is based on octree coding.
In a related field of endeavor, RAMASUBRAMONIAN teaches wherein the QP offset matrix is based on octree coding [¶0171 teaches: For instance, geometry arithmetic decoding unit 302, octree synthesis unit 306, surface approximate synthesis unit 310, and/or geometry reconstruction unit 312 may reconstruct the position of the point in the point cloud. Furthermore, G-PCC decoder 300 (e.g., attribute arithmetic decoding unit 304 of decoder 300) may determine a quantized attribute value for the point. G-PCC decoder 300 (e.g., inverse quantization unit 308 of decoder 300) may also derive a QP bit depth offset for the point.].
The motivation to combine is the same as for claim 3. [See teaching above.]
Regarding claim 8: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 1.
However, it does not appear that VISHWANATH teaches wherein the QP offset matrix is based on an index identified for the attribute component.
In a related field of endeavor, RAMASUBRAMONIAN teaches wherein the QP offset matrix is based on an index identified for the attribute component [¶0006 teaches: determine a quantized attribute value (i.e. index) for the point; derive a quantization parameter (QP) bit depth offset for the point].
The motivation to combine is the same as for claim 3. [See teaching above.]
Regarding claim 10: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 1.
However, it does not appear that VISHWANATH teaches wherein the QP offset matrix is used for attribute components identified with different indices.
In a related field of endeavor, RAMASUBRAMONIAN teaches wherein the QP offset matrix is used for attribute components identified with different indices [¶0006 teaches: determine a quantized attribute value (i.e. index) for the point; derive a quantization parameter (QP) bit depth offset for the point].
The motivation to combine is the same as for claim 3. [See teaching above.]
Regarding claim 15: the claim is merely an apparatus for processing visual media data to carry out the method of claim 5. VISHWANATH teaches an apparatus [A second aspect relates to apparatus for processing media data ¶0112]. Therefore, the rejection of claim 5 applies equally to this claim.
Regarding claim 18: the claim is merely an apparatus for processing visual media data to carry out the method of claim 8. VISHWANATH teaches an apparatus [A second aspect relates to apparatus for processing media data ¶0112]. Therefore, the rejection of claim 8 applies equally to this claim.
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, RAMASUBRAMONIAN et al., (US 2021/0329298) teaches a method of decoding a point cloud includes determining a first slice QP value for a first component of an attribute in a slice of point cloud data;
RAY et al., (US 2021/0400308) teaches an apparatus configured for point cloud compression and configured to code a first syntax element indicating a number of bits used to encode one or more second syntax elements, wherein the second syntax element indicates one or more of an offset of a bounding box, an origin point of the bounding box, a size of the bounding box, or a number of unique segments;
LASSERRE et al., (US 2022/0376702) teaches point cloud compression and, in particular to methods and devices for handling tree structures for representing point cloud data;
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; and
OH, (US 2025/0095211) teaches a point cloud data transmission method including encoding point cloud data, transmitting a bitstream including the point cloud data, and an encoder to encode point cloud data then transmit a bitstream including the point cloud data.
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