DETAILED ACTION
The communication is in response to the application received October 06, 2025 wherein claims 1-5 are pending and are examined as follows.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant' s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on October 06, 2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because: In the flowchart shown in FIG. 5, the two branches from step S503 should be labeled, respectively, as YES and NO in accordance with the Applicant’s disclosure.
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.
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
Field of the Invention.
Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities.
Please note the suggested sections listed above that should appear, when applicable, in the Applicant’s specification.
The context index, ctxIdx, is referred to in ¶ [0134] of the Applicant’s specification, yet ctxIdx is absent from the set of mathematical expressions that follow in ¶ [0135]. Note that ctxIdx is shown properly in the equation shown in ¶ [0143].
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1 and 5, it is suggested that “performs determination” be amended to “performs a determination”. Similarly, in claim 4, it is suggested that “performing determination” be amended to “performing a determination”.
In claim 1, 4, and 5, it is unclear why the words “Angular” and “Predictive” are capitalized.
In claim 5, “includes a circuit performs” is grammatically improper.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims set forth the concept of:
performing a determination based on a threshold related to the number of azimuth angle steps … in an Angular mode and an adaptive azimuth angle quantization mode of Predictive geometry coding, and
determining a context to be used for decoding a radius residual based on a result of the determination.
which is a mental process that could be performed in a human mind. Following the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidelines, the claims are analyzed as follows:
STEP 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes. Claim 1 is directed toward a point cloud decoding device. Claim 4 is directed toward a point cloud decoding method. Claim 5 is directed toward “a program stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium which can be understood as constituting a machine or article of manufacture.
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 1 and 4-5 recite:
“perform[ing a] determination based on a threshold related to the number of azimuth angle steps … in an Angular mode and an adaptive azimuth angle quantization mode of Predictive geometry coding, and determin[ing] a context to be used for decoding a radius residual based on a result of the determination”,
which comprises steps of observation, evaluation, and judgement that may be performed in a human mind, or by a human mind with the aid of pen and paper. For instance, a person, can evaluate or compare a given number of azimuth angle steps, as used in an angular mode and/or in an adaptive azimuth angle quantization mode of predictive geometry coding, against a threshold and determine a context that may be used for decoding a radius residual accordingly.
Claim 2 recites setting the threshold to “a value of a threshold related to the number of azimuth angle steps used when decoding the radius residual”, but such a limitation does not materially affect the step from being performed in the human mind, because the evaluation of a given number of azimuth angle steps against a threshold requires that threshold to have some set, quantifiable value.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No: Although the preambles of Claim 1-2 and 4-5 are directed to point cloud decoding, the additional element of being directed to point cloud decoding amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment (i.e. point cloud decoding) in which to apply the judicial exceptions identified above. As such, the additional element cannot integrate the identified judicial exceptions into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 1 and 5 recite a circuit which performs the aforesaid “determination based on a threshold” and “determin[ing] a context”. Claim 2 recites a circuit that “sets, as the threshold, a value of a threshold related to the number of azimuth angle steps”. Claims 1-2 and 5 invoke the additional element of a circuit merely as a tool, or simply adds it after the fact, to perform these processes. As such, the additional element of a circuit does not integrate the identified judicial exceptions into a practical application. Similarly, the invocation of the additional element of “program stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium for causing a computer to function as a point cloud decoding device” fails to integrate the identified judicial exceptions into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Claims 1 and 4-5 set forth steps or functions that ultimately determine a context for decoding a radius residual. However, these claims set forth no additional limitations that describe how, or whether, that determined context is utilized to decode a radius residual or to accomplish point cloud decoding as set forth in the preambles of these claims. The determined context, in other words, is not integrated into the claimed decoding method, device or program stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium. The limitations introduced in claim 2, which merely set the threshold to a value, do not ameliorate these deficiencies. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate the identified judicial exceptions into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No: As discussed above, the additional element, in claims 1-2 and 4-5, of being directed to point cloud decoding fails to amount to significantly more as it amounts to generally linking the use of the identified judicial exceptions to a particular field of use or technological environment (i.e. point cloud decoding). See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
As discussed above, Claims 1-2 and 5 invoke the additional element of a circuit merely as a tool, or simply adds it after the fact, to perform these processes. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components (e.g. a circuit or “program stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium”) after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate the identified judicial exceptions into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As discussed above, claims 1 and 4-5 set forth no additional limitations that describe how, or whether, the context determined according to those claims is utilized to decode a radius residual or to accomplish point cloud decoding as set forth in the preambles of those claims. The determined context, in other words, is not integrated into the claimed decoding method, device or program stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium. The limitations introduced in claim 2, which merely set the threshold to a value, do not ameliorate these deficiencies. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate the identified judicial exceptions into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
In view of the forgoing analysis, the claimed invention set forth in claims 1-2 and 4-5 is directed toward a mental process that could be performed in a human mind without significantly more.
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 1-5 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.
REGARDING CLAIMS 1, 4, and 5, the claims recite:
[performs/performing] determination based on a threshold related to the number of azimuth angle steps and the decoded number of azimuth angle steps
It is unclear how “the number of azimuth angle steps” and “the decoded number of azimuth angle steps” are distinguishable, nor is there any such distinction apparent in the Applicant’s disclosure, particularly with respect to how the number of azimuth angle steps, whether decoded or otherwise, relate to the recited threshold and/or to the determination of the recited context. The Applicant does, on the other hand, disclose “using the decoded predictor index and the decoded number of azimuth angle steps, the tree synthesizing unit 2020 may select one context index that satisfies the condition from among four context indexes ctxIdx by using one threshold related to the number of azimuth angle steps” in ¶ [0134] of the Applicant’s specification. As the Applicant’s disclosure suggests, the decoded number of azimuth angle steps and the number of azimuth angle steps are functionally equivalent. Accordingly, for the purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets “performs determination based on a threshold related to the number of azimuth angle steps and the decoded number of azimuth angle steps”, as “performs determination based on a threshold related to the number of azimuth angle steps”.
REGARDING CLAIMS 2-3, the language of claims 2 and 3 does not clarify the limitations that they inherit from the claim 1. As such, these claims are similarly indefinite.
REGARDING CLAIM 5, claim 5 sets forth:
A program stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium for causing a computer to function as a point cloud decoding device.
The subsequent limitations of claim 5 do not define the function or steps carried out by the claimed program, nor do they make clear how the claimed program causes the recited computer to function as a point cloud decoding device. Moreover, though claim 5 is directed toward a program stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium, the limitations of claim 5, rather than defining functions of a program, address a point cloud device, including its physical components, such as the recited circuit. It is unclear, therefore, whether claim 5 is intended to define a program stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium or a point cloud decoding device. This ambiguity renders the metes and bounds of the claim 5 indefinite.
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.
(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 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by G-PCC Description (ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 7. 2022. “G-PCC 2nd Edition Codec Description. ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/ WG7 Output Document N00314, June 21, 2022).
REGARDING CLAIM 1, G-PCC Description discloses a point cloud decoding device (e.g. a decoder – see, for example, page 13 line 7, noting that a decoder is described in G-PCC Description within the context of encoding and decoding “LiDAR acquired point clouds”. See also G-PCC Description page 3 lines 37-38) comprising a circuit (the Examiner notes that, by definition, the processors and memory used to manufacture decoders are comprised of circuits), wherein the circuit performs:
a determination based on a threshold related to the number of azimuth angle steps and the decoded number of azimuth angle steps in an Angular mode and an adaptive azimuth angle quantization mode of Predictive geometry coding (cf. G-PCC Description pages 3-6 Sections 3.1 and 3.2, page 12 Section 3.5 ¶ 1-4, pages 16-19 Sections 3.6.3, 3.6.4, and 3.6.5. Please note that this limitation will be interpreted as described above in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of this claim. G-PCC Description determines the context index ctxIdx by comparing the “integer number”, qphi, of azimuth angle steps [i.e. elementary azimuthal steps,
∆
φ
] to a threshold 0, which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is related to the number of azimuth angle steps, qphi, insofar as the threshold partitions the azimuth angle steps into two statistically distinct regions for qphi = 0 [for nearby points] and for qphi ≠ 0 [for more distant points]. Such an interpretation is consistent with the Applicant’s disclosure, where the Applicant expressly teaches that “a specific hard-coded value”, including “a specific value such as 0”, may be used a threshold. See, for example, ¶ [0136] of the Applicant’s specification. G-PCC Description also teaches the predictive geometry coding framework of G-PCC using “adaptive azimuth angle quantization” [cf. Section 3.1 and page 13 line 4] and that the predictor list, used in context determination, is derived “[w]hen angular mode is used” [cf. Section 3.5 lines 24-25]), and
determines a context to be used for decoding a radius residual based on a result of the determination (cf. G-PCC Description page 16 Section 3.6.3 ¶ 1 and ¶ 3 and page 19 Section 3.6.5, noting that, “for each bit of radius residual magnitude, the proposed method determines context index ctxIdx by using predictor index i and the integer number qphi of elementary azimuthal step according to” [page 19 Section 3.6.5 lines 16-18] the equation shown on page 19 line 20. The context index is then used to select the context ctx [page 19 lines 22-25].).
REGARDING CLAIM 2, as shown above, G-PCC Description teaches all limitations of claim 1. G-PCC Description further discloses:
setting, as the threshold, a value of a threshold related to the number of azimuth angle steps used when decoding the radius residual (cf. G-PCC Description Figure 14, page 18 lines 41-47, and page 19 Section 3.6.5, noting that the threshold is set to 0. As discussed above, this value is related to the number of azimuth angle steps used when decoding the radius residual. It is noted that the interpretation of “set” used herein, as well as the described relation of the threshold of G-PCC Description to “the number of azimuth angle steps used when decoding the radius residual”, are consistent with the Applicant’s disclosure, which expressly contemplates “a specific hard-coded value”, including “a specific value such as 0”, used as a threshold. See, for example, ¶ [0136] of the Applicant’s specification.).
REGARDING CLAIM 4, note that point cloud decoding device set forth in claim 1 is configured to perform functions that are essentially identical to the method steps recited in claim 4. As such, the rationales provided above in the rejection of claim 1 are applicable to the corresponding limitations of claim 4. Therefore, G-PCC Description anticipates the point cloud decoding method set forth in claim 4, for the same reasons articulated above with respect to claim 1.
REGARDING CLAIM 5, note that the program stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium is recited as causing a computer to function as a point cloud decoding device that is essentially identical to the point cloud decoding device set forth in claim 1. As shown above, the disclosure of G-PCC Description anticipates such a device. Further note that computer program code is shown throughout the disclosure of G-PCC Description – see, for example, G-PCC Description page 6, lines 45-48 and page 9 lines 11-21 – thereby evidencing an implementation of the disclosed decoder as a computer program stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium, as required by claim 5. Accordingly, G-PCC Description anticipates the program stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium set forth in claim 5, for the same reasons articulated above with respect to 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 (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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over G-PCC Description (ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 7. 2022. “G-PCC 2nd Edition Codec Description. ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/ WG7 Output Document N00314, June 21, 2022), in view of Ramasubramonian et al.
(US 2022/0207780 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 3, as shown above, G-PCC Description teaches all limitations of claim 2.
However, G-PCC Description does not expressly teach that the circuit:
decodes the threshold from a bit stream.
In contrast, Ramasubramonian et al., from a similar field of endeavor (i.e. predictive geometry coding in G-PCC) teaches a decoder (cf. G-PCC decoder 300 in Ramasubramonian et al. FIG. 1), that includes:
decoding the threshold from a bit stream (cf. Ramasubramonian et al. ¶ [0034], noting that Ramasubramonian et al. shows G-PCC decoding wherein all encoded information is put onto a bitstream to be decoded at the destination device.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the G-PCC point cloud decoder disclosed by G-PCC Description, to decode a threshold from a bit stream, as taught by Ramasubramonian et al., in order to reduce coding overhead by using inter-frame information when it is likely to produce a better prediction (cf. Ramasubramonian et al. ¶ [0016] and ¶ [0080]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO 892 for additional references.
Lasserre, S. et al. European Patent Application Publication No. EP 4020396 A1. Method And Apparatus Of Entropy Encoding/Decoding Point Cloud Geometry Data Captured By A Spinning Sensors Head. Published June 29, 2022
Relevance: Lasserre et al. discloses entropy coding/decoding of G-PCC geometry data captured via LiDAR wherein a context is selected for entropy coding based on an azimuth-related parameter (e.g. azimuth angle differences). Azimuthal distance
C
j
=
φ
j
-
φ
p
e
n
u
l
t
,
j
, which is coded, or derived from coded information, in the bitstream, takes on integer values which may be reasonably interpreted as a threshold used for context-selection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN SIANGCHIN whose telephone number is (571)270-0982. The examiner can normally be reached M, W-F 10:00am-06:00pm and Tu 09:00am-05:00pm EST.
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, Jamie Atala can be reached at (571) 272-7384. 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.
/K S/
Examiner
Art Unit 2486
/K S/ Examiner, Art Unit 2486
/Justin W Rider/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2486
