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 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.
Claim(s) 1,2,6,19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by Oh US 20230103016.
Regarding claim 1, Oh meets the claim limitations, as follows:
A method of processing a point cloud file, comprising:
acquiring the point cloud file encapsulating a point cloud bitstream, a data box of the point cloud bitstream comprising a unit type field that indicates a data type from a plurality of data types for at least a data unit in the point cloud bitstream (i.e. V-PCC unit type (vuh_unit_type) indicated in bitstream to show the type of data (e.g., V-PCC parameter set 24002a, occupancy video data 24002b, geometry video data 24002c, atlas data 24002e, and/or attribute video data 24002d, or the like.)) [468, 493-494; table 4];
decapsulating the point cloud file (i.e. point cloud data decapsulated) [422-426; fig. 40]; and
decoding the point cloud file according to the unit type field to obtain point cloud media content, the point cloud media content being obtained from at least the data unit of the data type when the data type is a specified data type of the plurality of data types (i.e. point cloud data decoded according to type of data) [427-431].
Regarding claim 2, Oh meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the data type from the plurality of data types comprises a point cloud attribute slice of an unspecified attribute type or a point cloud attribute slice of a specified attribute type (i.e. attribute slice data and header. Slice ID can indicate slice type) [311-312,363,364,371,374].
Regarding claim 6, Oh meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method according to claim 2, wherein when the data type of the data unit is the point cloud attribute slice of the specified attribute type, a data structure of the data unit that is a point cloud attribute slice comprises a slice data type field, and the slice data type field indicates the specified attribute type (i.e. attribute slice data and header. Slice ID can indicate slice type) [311-312,363,364,371,374].
Claim 19 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 1.
Claim 20 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 1.
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.
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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh in view of Aksu US 20210105492.
Regarding claim 3, Oh do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
wherein: the point cloud file comprises one or more attribute component tracks that encapsulate a plurality of groups of attribute data; when the plurality of groups of attribute data is encapsulated within a single attribute component track, a data type of a data unit in the single attribute component track is a point cloud attribute header or the point cloud attribute slice of the unspecified attribute type; and when the plurality of groups of attribute data is encapsulated within a plurality of attribute component tracks, a data type of a data unit in an attribute component track in the plurality of attribute component tracks is a point cloud attribute header or the point cloud attribute slice of the specified attribute type.
However, in the same field of endeavor Aksu discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
wherein: the point cloud file comprises one or more attribute component tracks that encapsulate a plurality of groups of attribute data (i.e. attribute component video track used.) [247]; when the plurality of groups of attribute data is encapsulated within a single attribute component track, a data type of a data unit in the single attribute component track is a point cloud attribute header or the point cloud attribute slice of the unspecified attribute type (i.e. attribute component video track has header (track fragment header box) [7,160,247]; and when the plurality of groups of attribute data is encapsulated within a plurality of attribute component tracks (i.e. attribute component video track used.) [247], a data type of a data unit in an attribute component track in the plurality of attribute component tracks is a point cloud attribute header or the point cloud attribute slice of the specified attribute type (i.e. V-PCC unit header is an example point cloud attribute header) [435].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Oh with Aksu to have the point cloud file comprises one or more attribute component tracks that encapsulate a plurality of groups of attribute data; when the plurality of groups of attribute data is encapsulated within a single attribute component track, a data type of a data unit in the single attribute component track is a point cloud attribute header or the point cloud attribute slice of the unspecified attribute type; and when the plurality of groups of attribute data is encapsulated within a plurality of attribute component tracks, a data type of a data unit in an attribute component track in the plurality of attribute component tracks is a point cloud attribute header or the point cloud attribute slice of the specified attribute type.
It would be advantageous because “The benefit of this approach has been that it requires little processing at the decoding end to find out how to play the file. However, the major drawback of such system level approach its limitations in the editing, where such relationship signalling need to be updated when tracks are changed.” [232].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Oh with Aksu to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Aksu meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method according to claim 3, wherein: the point cloud file further comprises a geometry component track that encapsulates geometry data [160]; and a data type of a data unit in the geometry component track is at least one of a point cloud sequence header, a point cloud geometry header, a point cloud frame header, or a point cloud geometry slice (i.e. V-PCC unit head has a unit type which can be geometry video data) [160,238-240,328; table 3].
Regarding claim 5, Aksu meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method according to claim 4, wherein the plurality of groups of attribute data and the geometry data are encapsulated within a same point cloud track (i.e. component video tracks may contain encoded attribute, geometry, or occupancy video bitstreams, which are needed for point cloud reconstruction. This means multiple groups of attribute and geometry data is present) [235-238].
Regarding claim 7, Oh meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method according to claim 6, wherein: the data unit comprises at least one of a point cloud attribute slice header or a point cloud attribute data bitstream (i.e. attribute slice data and header. Slice ID can indicate slice type) [311-312,363,364,371,374]; a data structure of the point cloud attribute slice header comprises the slice data type field and a slice identifier field, and the slice identifier field indicates an identifier of the point cloud attribute slice (i.e. attribute slice data and header. Slice ID can indicate slice type) [311-312,363,364,371,374]; and
Oh do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
a data structure of the point cloud attribute data bitstream comprises the slice data type field and a parameter set flag field, and the parameter set flag field indicates a parameter set to use when the point cloud attribute data bitstream is decoded
However, in the same field of endeavor Aksu discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
a data structure of the point cloud attribute data bitstream comprises the slice data type field and a parameter set flag field, and the parameter set flag field indicates a parameter set to use when the point cloud attribute data bitstream is decoded (i.e. SPS has attribute parameter set indicated) [235-237].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Oh with Aksu to have a data structure of the point cloud attribute data bitstream comprises the slice data type field and a parameter set flag field, and the parameter set flag field indicates a parameter set to use when the point cloud attribute data bitstream is decoded.
It would be advantageous because “The benefit of this approach has been that it requires little processing at the decoding end to find out how to play the file. However, the major drawback of such system level approach its limitations in the editing, where such relationship signalling need to be updated when tracks are changed.” [232].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Oh with Aksu to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Regarding claim 12, Aksu meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method according to claim 1, wherein: the point cloud file comprises one or more point cloud tracks that encapsulate the point cloud bitstream (i.e. attribute component video track has header (track fragment header box) [7,8,160,247]; at least a point cloud track in the one or more point cloud tracks comprises a plurality of point cloud samples (i.e. sub samples used in the sequence in the track) [7,160,247]; at least a point cloud sample in the plurality of point cloud samples comprises one or more sub-samples (i.e. sub samples used in the sequence in the track) [7,160,247]; a data box of a sub-sample in the one or more sub-samples comprises a type flag field (i.e. a track level sub-sample description box comprising a plurality of sub-sample entry types for a respective plurality of sub-samples) [8]; and the type flag field indicates a sub data type of the sub-sample (i.e. extending a sub-sample information box to indicate the sub-sample entry index by indicating the order of presence of a sub-sample entry in the related sub-sample description box and further indicating its presence via a version value or setting a flag within said sub-sample information box.) [8].
Regarding claim 13, Aksu meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method according to claim 12, wherein: when a value of the type flag field is a preset first value, the sub data type of the sub- sample is the data type indicated by the unit type field in the data box of the point cloud bitstream (i.e. extending a sub-sample information box to indicate the sub-sample entry index by indicating the order of presence of a sub-sample entry in the related sub-sample description box and further indicating its presence via a version value or setting a flag within said sub-sample information box.) [8]; and when a value of the type flag field is a second value different from the preset first value, the sub data type of the sub-sample is not the data type indicated by the unit type field in the data box of the point cloud bitstream (i.e. indicating its presence via a version value or setting a flag within said sub-sample information box.) [8].
Regarding claim 14, Oh meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method according to claim 13, wherein: when the value of the type flag field is the preset first value, and the data type indicated by the unit type field in the data box of the point cloud bitstream is a type related to a point cloud slice, the data box of the sub-sample further comprises a slice identifier field, and the slice identifier field indicates an identifier of the point cloud slice (i.e. slice_id used to indicate an ID of a slice of point cloud data) [182,339,363-364].
Regarding claim 15, Aksu meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method according to claim 2, wherein when the data type of the data unit in the point cloud bitstream comprises the point cloud attribute slice of the specified attribute type, the data box of the point cloud bitstream further comprises: a set attribute flag field, indicating whether a parameter set to be referenced when the point cloud attribute slice is decoded is a target parameter set in a point cloud attribute header (i.e. flag indicates that samples are synced for track fragment runs) [68].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-11, and 16-18 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARED T WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-1839. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 - 4:30 Mountain.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached on 571-272-4195. 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.
/Jared Walker/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights