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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) was/were submitted on 23 June 2025 and 27 May 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
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 2 and 8-10 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.
Claims 2 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are:
Regarding claim 2, what is done with the coefficient of an upper node once it is calculated? Are the two nodes neighbors temporally or spatially?
Regarding claim 8, what is done with the determination between total number of neighboring nodes and a second threshold?
Regarding claim 9, what is done with the attribute value? Is there a case where the attribute value is not stored in the reference memory? The claim appears to provide alternative options but only one outcome.
Regarding claim 10, how does a current node have multiple depths in an octree?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 9, and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Oh et al. (US 2022/0417557 A1).
Regarding claims 1, and 11-13, Oh discloses a encoding/decoding apparatus performing a method comprising: determining whether one of inter prediction, intra prediction, or no prediction is to be performed on a current node that is included in a current coding unit [Oh: ¶ [0280] An example 2320 in the lower right part of FIG. 23 is a colorized octree indicating attributes matched with an upper node. The point cloud encoder according to the embodiments may select one of the attributes of the child nodes of a node (e.g., the attribute of the first child node among the child nodes sorted in ascending order) in order to define the attribute of the parent node of the leaf node. Since the upper node according to the embodiments has a node position and an actual attribute, the reception device may provide more approximate point cloud content (low-resolution point cloud content) even when scalable decoding is performed]; and performing (i) the one of the inter prediction, the intra prediction, or no prediction determined [Oh: ¶ [0121]: the point cloud content providing system or the point cloud encoder may perform entropy encoding (intra encoding) based on the occupancy code of the current node and the occupancy of neighboring nodes, or perform entropy encoding (inter encoding) based on the occupancy code of the previous frame] and (ii) inverse hierarchical transform processing on the current node to calculate an attribute value of a three-dimensional point that is included in the current coding unit [Oh: ¶ [0056]: the point cloud video decoder 10006 may decode the point cloud video data by performing point cloud decompression coding, which is the inverse process of the point cloud compression], wherein the current node has a coefficient that is generated by hierarchical transform processing by an encoding device, the attribute value is transformed to the coefficient in the hierarchical transform processing [Oh: ¶ [0121]; and ¶ [0280]], and the coefficient is transformed to the attribute value in the inverse hierarchical transform processing [Oh: ¶ [0056]].
Regarding Claim 2, Oh discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Oh discloses wherein the hierarchical transform processing is applied to two coefficients of two nodes that neighbor each other, to calculate a coefficient of an upper node that is located above the two nodes [Oh: ¶ [0279]: In the equation, Attr(xn, yn, yn) denotes the attribute of a child node of the node. W denotes a weight for neighbor nodes, and i, j, and k are parameters used to define the positions of the neighbor nodes with respect to the upper node position (x, y, z). N denotes the number of the neighbor nodes].
Regarding Claim 9, Oh discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Oh discloses wherein in the intra prediction, an attribute value of a parent node of the current node is stored into a reference memory, and the attribute value of the parent node is stored into the reference memory regardless of whether the intra prediction is determined to be performed [Oh: ¶ [0288]: As shown in the example 2400, leaf nodes 2401 have attributes c1, c2, c3, and c4, respectively. The point cloud encoder according to the embodiments matches the position and attribute c1 of the first child node with the parent node 2402 of the leaf nodes 2401. Leaf nodes 2403 have attributes c5, c6, c7, c8, and c9, respectively. Accordingly, the point cloud encoder matches the position and attribute c5 of the first child node with the parent node 2404 of the leaf nodes].
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) 3, 5-7, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Iguchi et al. (Coefficient Inter-prediction for RAHT attribute coding).
Regarding Claim 3, Oh discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Oh may not explicitly disclose wherein when a depth to which the current node belongs in an octree structure is greater than a first threshold value, the intra prediction is determined to be performed, and when the depth is less than or equal to the first threshold value, the inter prediction is determined to be performed.
However, Iguchi discloses wherein when a depth to which the current node belongs in an octree structure is greater than a first threshold value, the intra prediction is determined to be performed, and when the depth is less than or equal to the first threshold value, the inter prediction is determined to be performed [Iguchi: § 1, p. 2: Whether to use Intra or Inter is decided by the octree depth. If the depth of the node is less than the MAXdepth that is set in the encoder, apply Inter, otherwise apply Intra. So the size of the buffer is determined by the value of MAXdepth. MAXdepth is signalled in the APS.].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the process of Oh with the processing of Iguchi in order to provide reduced computational load.
Regarding Claim 5, Oh discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Oh may not explicitly discloses wherein when a depth to which the current node belongs in an octree structure is greater than a first threshold value, the intra prediction is determined to be performed, and when the depth is less than or equal to the first threshold value, one of the inter prediction or the intra prediction is determined to be performed.
However, Iguchi discloses wherein when a depth to which the current node belongs in an octree structure is greater than a first threshold value, the intra prediction is determined to be performed, and when the depth is less than or equal to the first threshold value, one of the inter prediction or the intra prediction is determined to be performed [Iguchi: §1, p. 2].
Regarding Claim 6, Oh discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Oh may not explicitly disclose wherein when a depth to which the current node belongs in an octree structure is greater than a first threshold value, one of the inter prediction or the intra prediction is determined to be performed, and when the depth is less than or equal to the first threshold value, the intra prediction is determined to be performed.
However, Iguchi discloses wherein when a depth to which the current node belongs in an octree structure is greater than a first threshold value, one of the inter prediction or the intra prediction is determined to be performed, and when the depth is less than or equal to the first threshold value, the intra prediction is determined to be performed [Iguchi: §1, p. 2].
Regarding Claim 7, Oh discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Oh may not explicitly disclose wherein the determining is performed based on information that is included in a bitstream.
However, Iguchi discloses wherein the determining is performed based on information that is included in a bitstream [Iguchi: § 1, p. 2].
Regarding Claim 10, Oh discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Oh may not explicitly disclose wherein the determining is performed for each of depths to which the current node belongs.
However, Iguchi discloses wherein the determining is performed for each of depths to which the current node belongs [Iguchi: § 1, p. 2].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oh (US 2022/0351421 A1) (hereinafter referred to as Oh2).
Regarding Claim 8, Oh discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Oh may not explicitly disclose wherein the determining includes comparing a second threshold value and a total number of neighboring nodes of a parent node or a grandparent node of the current node, and calculation of the total number of the neighboring nodes is performed regardless of whether the intra prediction is determined to be performed.
However, Oh2 discloses wherein the determining includes comparing a second threshold value and a total number of neighboring nodes of a parent node or a grandparent node of the current node, and calculation of the total number of the neighboring nodes is performed regardless of whether the intra prediction is determined to be performed [Oh2: ¶ [0455]: When it is determined that direct mode coding is available (32003), it is checked whether the number of neighbor nodes (neighbor points) for the point 32002 is less than or equal to a threshold th. When the number of neighbor nodes (neighbor points) for the point 32002 is less than or equal to the threshold th, the direct mode may be enabled. In addition, x, y, and z coordinate information for position values may be directly coded for each of the one or more points. According to embodiments, the position values may be represented based on a sub-cube for the octree].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the processing of Oh with the processing of Oh2 in order to provide improved computational performance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: While determination of which mode to use based on octree level is well-known, the use of inter prediction when a depth is greater than a first threshold has not been found in the art.
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 JONATHAN R MESSMORE whose telephone number is (571)272-2773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 EST/EDT.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached at 571-272-7331. 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.
/JONATHAN R MESSMORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights