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
Claims 1-20 filed on 07/08/2025 are pending.
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 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.
(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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7 and 15-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (“Lee”) [U.S Patent Application Pub. 2024/0414372 A1]
Regarding claim 1, Lee meets the claim limitations as follows:
A method for point cloud coding [Figs. 1, 4, 12], comprising:
performing a conversion (i.e. ‘an exemplary point cloud encoder’) [Fig. 1, 4; Abstract, para. 0063] between a current point cloud (PC) sample (e.g. ‘the current point 1501’) of a point cloud sequence (i.e. ‘a plurality of frames’ as a GOF) [Fig. 15, 16; para. 0247-0249] and a bitstream of the point cloud sequence,
wherein a prediction direction (i.e. ‘predictionDirection’) [Fig. 31, 42: an exemplary syntax of a geometry set (geometry_parameter_set); para. 0356, 0421] for a current node in the current PC sample is indicated in the bitstream [Fig. 12; para. 0202: ‘The bitstream … may contain signaling information including …, a geometry parameter set (GPS) for signaling of geometry information coding, …’],
the prediction direction (i.e. ‘predictionDirection’; ‘inter-prediction’) [Figs. 15-30; para. 0241, 0247, 0252, 0445: ‘inter-prediction is performed (4625)’; ‘a predicted frame (P-frame) 1620, and/or a bi-direction frame (B-frame) (not shown)’] corresponds to a reference PC sample (e.g. ‘I-frame 1610’) [Fig. 16] in a plurality of reference PC samples [Fig. 16] for the current PC sample (e.g. ‘P-Frame 1620’) [Fig. 16], and a reference node (i.e. ‘node (or, point)’) [para. 0416] in the reference PC sample (e.g. ‘I-frame 1610’) corresponding to the prediction direction is used to determine a prediction of geometry information of the current node [Fig. 16, 42].
Regarding claim 2, Lee meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the point cloud sequence [Fig. 19, 23, 24, 25 illustrate a method for bi-directional reference for inter-frame prediction] further comprises a first PC sample (e.g., the Frame coded 3rd in the Coding Order and in 2nd display order ) different from the current PC sample (e.g., Current Frame 1930 coded 2nd in the Coding Order and in 4th display order ), and whether a prediction direction (e.g., backward direction) [Fig. 19] for a first node in the first PC sample (e.g., the Frame coded 3rd in the Coding Order and in 2nd display order ) is indicated in the bitstream is determined based on a condition (e.g., backward direction) [Fig. 19. Note: the prediction direction from the Frame in 2nd display order to Frame in 4th display order indicates the Frame in 2nd display order referencing to the future Frame in 4th display order (i.e. backward direction)].
Regarding claim 3, Lee meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 2, wherein the condition comprises whether there is more than one reference PC sample for the first PC sample (i.e. bi-directional reference for inter-frame prediction) [Fig. 19].
Regarding claim 5, Lee meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the bitstream comprises a first indication (e.g. mode 0) indicating the prediction direction for the current node [para. 0356, 0421: mode 0 for forward direction].
Regarding claim 6, Lee meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 5, wherein the first indication equal to a first value (e.g. mode 0) indicates that a first reference PC sample (e.g. ‘1810’) is used for inter prediction of the current node (e.g. ‘1830’) [Fig. 18; para. 0356, 0421: mode 0 for forward direction], and the first indication equal to a second value (e.g. mode 1) indicates that a second reference PC sample (e.g. ‘1820’) is used for inter prediction of the current node (e.g. ‘1830’) [Fig. 18; para. 0356, 0421: mode 0 for backward direction].
Regarding claim 7, Lee meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the current node (e.g. ‘1501’) [Fig. 15] is a node in a predictive tree (i.e. ‘to predict the current point (or node) in the current frame’) for the current PC sample (i.e. ‘the current frame’) [Fig. 15, 16, 17; para. 0248, 0254, 0262-0263, 0274: ‘In the predictive tree structure, …].
Regarding claim 15, Lee meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein a PC sample is one of the following: a frame [Figs. 15-31: ‘frame’], a picture, a slice [Fig. 32: slice], a sub-frame, a sub-picture, a tile, or a segment [para. 0064, 0202, 0203: ‘a point cloud image, frame or picture’; ‘tile level’; ‘slice’].
Regarding claim 16, Lee meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the current PC sample into the bitstream [Fig. 1].
Regarding claim 17, Lee meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes decoding the current PC sample from the bitstream [Fig. 1].
Regarding claim 18, the corresponding apparatus in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 1, and is therefore rejected in the same manner. Lee [Fig. 44, para. 0434, 0498-0500] meets the claim limitation “a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor”.
Regarding claim 19, a corresponding non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected claim 18, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Regarding claim 20, Lee meets the claim limitations as follows:
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a point cloud sequence [Fig. 44, para. 0066, 0068, 0434, 0498-0500: ‘the bitstream is encapsulated … storage medium’]
which is generated by a method performed by an apparatus for point cloud coding, wherein the method comprises [Note: To be given patentable weight, the claimed recording medium and the bitstream (i.e. descriptive material) must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the descriptive material performs some function with respect to the recording medium to which it is associated. See MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable recoding medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists”. MPEP §2111.05(III). Therefore the structure of the bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Claim 20’s recitation of “a bitstream of a point cloud sequence which is generated by a method performed by an apparatus for point cloud coding is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bitstream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the recording medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The claim is anticipated by the reference Lee [Fig. 44, para. 0066, 0068, 0434, 0498-0500: ‘the bitstream is encapsulated … storage medium’] which discloses a processor and memory storing a bitstream ]:
performing a conversion between a current point cloud (PC) sample of the point cloud sequence and the bitstream, wherein a prediction direction for a current node in the current PC sample is indicated in the bitstream, the prediction direction corresponds to a reference PC sample in a plurality of reference PC samples for the current PC sample, and a reference node in the reference PC sample corresponding to the prediction direction is used to determine a prediction of geometry information of the current node.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 8-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Pham et al. (“Pham”) [US 2023/0177739 A1]
Regarding claim 8, Lee meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the point cloud sequence further comprises a second PC sample different from the current PC sample (i.e. a sequence of frames) [Figs. 16-29], and a prediction direction for a second node in the second PC sample is determined [Fig. 16-29 illustrate a second frame with prediction direction (i.e. arrows)] based on occupancy information of a parent node of the second node and occupancy information of each of a plurality of reference nodes for the parent node.
Lee does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
a prediction direction for a second node in the second PC sample is determined based on occupancy information of a parent node of the second node and occupancy information of each of a plurality of reference nodes for the parent node.
However in the same field of endeavor Pham discloses the deficient claim as follows:
a prediction direction for a second node in the second PC sample is determined based on occupancy information of a parent node (i.e. ‘600’) of the second node (i.e. ‘each child node’) [Fig. 6] and occupancy information of each of a plurality of reference nodes (i.e. ‘602’) [Fig. 6] for the parent node [Fig. 6; para. 0087-0089: occupancies of parent node and reference node of parent node to obtain a number of mispredicted siblings.].
Lee and Pham are combinable because they are from the same field of point cloud coding.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Lee and Pham as motivation to include a parameter called ‘occupancyIsPredictable’ for the quality of the inter prediction [Pham: para. 0087].
Regarding claim 9, Lee meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 8, wherein the second node is a node [Fig. 6, 12: a second node in an exemplary octree and occupancy code] in a occupancy tree for spatial partition of the second PC sample [Fig. 6, 12: ‘Octree occupancy code generator 12003’; para. 0121: ‘The occupancy code of the octree is generated to indicate whether each of the eight divided spaces … contains at least one point’; ‘perform intra/inter-coding on the occupancy codes’].
Regarding claim 10, Lee meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 8, wherein the occupancy information of the parent node or the occupancy information of each of the plurality of reference nodes is indicated by an occupancy code [Fig. 6, 12: ‘the occupancy code shown in Fig. 6 is 0010001’; para. 0121: ‘perform intra/inter-coding on the occupancy codes’].
Regarding claim 11, Lee meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 8.
Lee does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The method of claim 8, wherein respective differences between the occupancy information of the parent node and the occupancy information of each of the plurality of reference nodes are determined.
However in the same field of endeavor Pham discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein respective differences (i.e. ‘comparing the occupancy of the parent node with the occupancy of the parent’s reference node’) [Fig. 6; para. 0087-0089] between the occupancy information of the parent node and the occupancy information of each of the plurality of reference nodes are determined.
Lee and Pham are combinable because they are from the same field of point cloud coding.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Lee and Pham as motivation to include a parameter called ‘occupancyIsPredictable’ for the quality of the inter prediction [Pham: para. 0087].
Regarding claim 12, Lee meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 11.
Lee does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The method of claim 11, wherein the prediction direction for the second node is determined based on the respective differences.
However in the same field of endeavor Pham discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the prediction direction (i.e. ‘the inter prediction’) for the second node is determined based on the respective differences [Fig. 6; para. 0086-0089: occupancies of parent node and reference node of parent node to obtain a number of mispredicted siblings.].
Lee and Pham are combinable because they are from the same field of point cloud coding.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Lee and Pham as motivation to include a parameter called ‘occupancyIsPredictable’ for the quality of the inter prediction [Pham: para. 0087].
Regarding claim 13, Lee meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 12.
Lee does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The method of claim 12, wherein the prediction direction for the second node is determined to be a prediction direction that corresponds to one of the plurality of reference nodes corresponding to the smallest difference in the respective differences.
However in the same field of endeavor Pham discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the prediction direction for the second node (i.e. ‘the inter prediction’) is determined to be a prediction direction that corresponds to one of the plurality of reference nodes corresponding to the smallest difference (i.e. ‘numSiblingsMispredicted’) in the respective differences [Fig. 6; para. 0086-0089: occupancies of parent node and reference node of parent node to obtain a number of mispredicted siblings.].
Lee and Pham are combinable because they are from the same field of point cloud coding.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Lee and Pham as motivation to include a parameter called ‘occupancyIsPredictable’ for the quality of the inter prediction [Pham: para. 0087].
Regarding claim 14, Lee meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 11.
Lee does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The method of claim 11, wherein a difference between the occupancy information of the parent node and the occupancy information of a reference node of the parent node is determined based on the number of mismatch occupancy bits.
However in the same field of endeavor Pham discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein a difference between the occupancy information of the parent node and the occupancy information of a reference node of the parent node is determined based on the number of mismatch occupancy bits [Fig. 6; para. 0086-0089: occupancies of parent node and reference node of parent node to obtain a number of mispredicted siblings.].
Lee and Pham are combinable because they are from the same field of point cloud coding.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Lee and Pham as motivation to include a parameter called ‘occupancyIsPredictable’ for the quality of the inter prediction [Pham: para. 0087].
Allowable Subject Matter
Regarding claim 4, it 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER D LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5382. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Alternate Friday: 10AM-6:30PM.
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, SATH PERUNGAVOOR can be reached on 571-272-7455. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PETER D LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights