Patent Application 18050867 - NEAREST NEIGHBOUR SEARCH METHOD ENCODER DECODER - Rejection

Patent Application 18050867 - NEAREST NEIGHBOUR SEARCH METHOD ENCODER DECODER

Title: NEAREST NEIGHBOUR SEARCH METHOD, ENCODER, DECODER AND STORAGE MEDIUM

Application Information

• Invention Title: NEAREST NEIGHBOUR SEARCH METHOD, ENCODER, DECODER AND STORAGE MEDIUM
• Application Number: 18050867
• Submission Date: 2025-04-10T00:00:00.000Z
• Effective Filing Date: 2022-10-28T00:00:00.000Z
• Filing Date: 2022-10-28T00:00:00.000Z
• National Class: 382
• National Sub-Class: 232000
• Examiner Employee Number: 88343
• Art Unit: 2487
• Tech Center: 2400

Rejection Summary

• 102 Rejections: 0
• 103 Rejections: 1

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

• US 0105504🔗
• US 0343548🔗
• US 0103780🔗
• US 0080483🔗

Office Action Text

    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 .

Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 (Chinese Application CN202010366795.3 filed on April 30th, 2020).

Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on October 28th, 2022 and July 31st, 2024 were filed before the mailing date of the First Action on the Merits (this Office Action).  The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.  Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.

Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “No” and “Yes” [Figure 4]; .
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.

The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “S1041”, “S1042”, “S1043”, “S1044”, “S1045”, “S1046”, “S1047”, and “S1048” [Paragraphs 126 – 130 and 146 – 149].  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. 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 abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the Abstract uses legalese language (e.g. use of “first” and “second”) and does not describe the inventive concept in narrative format using a series of brief sentences.  A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc.  In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.

The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.

The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Paragraph 36 line 1, the acronym “G-PCC” is not defined on first use for clarity.
In Paragraph 59 lines 2 – 3, the phrase “lifting or Predicting” in line 3 should read as --lifting and Predicting-- as stated in line 2 for clarity.
In Paragraph 70 last line, the phrase “ponit” should read as -- point-- for clarity.
In Paragraph 119 line 1, the phrase “O( k )” should read as --O(k)-- for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.

Claim Interpretation – Functional Analysis
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 

The following is a quotation of pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.

The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.  The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. 
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A)	the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; 
(B)	the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and 
(C)	the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. 
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. 
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. 
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.

This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” or a generic placeholder but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “first [second] memory configured to …” in claims 15 and 18.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “first [second] processor configured to …” in claims 15 – 20.

The Examiner notes in Specification Paragraphs 180 and 203 while only exemplary embodiments were given for the “memory” and the “processor”, the examples and description did NOT include virtual or non-structural embodiments; thus the Examiner notes one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claimed “memory” and “processor” connotes sufficient structure and do NOT invoke functional analysis under 112(f).

Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may:  (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.

Claim Objections
Claims 1 – 2, 8 – 9, and 15 – 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 15 – 17, the claims recite a “first memory” and “first processor”; however the claims do not encompass additional memories or processors thus the “first” label appears unnecessary and possibly raises Indefinite metes and bounds issues.
Regarding claims 18 – 20, the claims recite a “second memory” and “second processor”; however the claims do not encompass additional memories or processors thus the “second” label appears unnecessary (additionally there’s no “first” memory or processor recited in the claims) and possibly raises Indefinite metes and bounds issues.

Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “shifted to right” should read as --shifted right-- [See lines 7 – 8] for clarity and to minimize issues with antecedent basis.
Regarding claims 8, 15, and 18, see claim 1 which recites the same / similar limitation and thus are similarly Objected.

Regarding claim 16, the claimed “current parent node” is not necessarily distinct from the claimed “first parent node” and thus the limitation (first limitation in the claim) appears to have little to no patentable weight raising Indefinite metes and bounds issues.
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 19, the claims recite the same / similar limitations as dependent claim 16 and thus are similarly Objected.
Appropriate correction is required.

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 – 20 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 1, 8, 15, and 18 recite the limitation "position information" in line 9 [Claim 1 line numbering].  There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Regarding claims 2 – 7, 9 – 14, 16 – 17, and 19 – 20, the dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of their respective independent claims and thus are similarly Rejected.

Regarding claim 1, the claimed “position information bits” has Indefinite metes and bounds as the feature raises Antecedent basis issues with “position information” claimed [see at least lines 2 – 3].  Additionally, the addition of “bits” raises issues of Indefinite metes and bounds regarding the claimed “position information” as no such information was further claimed or its processing / coding / use of code words (e.g. Morton code).
Regarding claims 8, 15, and 18, see claim 1 which recites the same / similar limitation and thus are similarly Rejected.
Regarding claims 2 – 7, 9 – 14, 16 – 17, and 19 – 20, the dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of their respective independent claims and thus are similarly Rejected.

Regarding claim 1, the claimed “not determined” [see line 13 in Claim 1] lack antecedent basis (Indefinite as to which “determining” step is not met).  Thus, the claim recites a “not” limitation (last limitation), but the negative limitation is in the alternative and has Indefinite metes and bounds issues regarding which conditions are not met.
Regarding claims 8, 15, and 18, see claim 1 which recites the same / similar limitation and thus are similarly Rejected.
Regarding claims 2 – 7, 9 – 14, 16 – 17, and 19 – 20, the dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of their respective independent claims and thus are similarly Objected.

Regarding claim 4, the claimed “greater” has Indefinite metes and bounds as the “position information” is not claimed in a way to provide definite metes and bounds as to how such a comparison is conducted.  Further the Specification lacks any details as to how the comparison should be conducted and thus further renders the claim Indefinite.
Regarding claim 11, see claim 4 which recites the same / similar limitation and thus is similarly Rejected.

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.  
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, 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.

Claim(s) 1 – 2, 4 – 5, 7 – 9, 11 – 12, 14 – 16, and 18 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hur, et al. (US PG PUB 2021/0105504 A1 referred to as “Hur” throughout in which citations will come from the US PG PUB in lieu of enabling US Provisional Applications), and further in view of Mammou, et al. (US PG PUB 2021/0103780 A1 referred to as “Mammou” throughout in which citations will come from the US PG PUB in lieu of enabling US Provisional Applications).
	Regarding claim 1, see claim 15 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
	Regarding claim 2, see claim 16 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.

Regarding claim 8, see claim 18 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 9, see claim 19 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 11, see claim 4 which is the encoding method performing the same / similar steps as the claimed decoding method.
Regarding claim 12, see claim 5 which is the encoding method performing the same / similar steps as the claimed decoding method.
Regarding claim 14, see claim 7 which is the encoding method performing the same / similar steps as the claimed decoding method.

Regarding claim 18, see claim 15 which is the encoding apparatus performing the same / similar steps as the claimed decoding apparatus.  Additionally Hur in at least Figures 1 – 2, 16, 27, and 31 – 32 as well as Paragraphs 64 – 66, 225 – 231,and 239 – 241 renders obvious operations in encoding may be used in decoding.
Regarding claim 19, see claim 16 which is the encoding apparatus performing the same / similar steps as the claimed decoding apparatus.
Regarding claim 20, see claim 17 which is the encoding apparatus performing the same / similar steps as the claimed decoding apparatus.

	Regarding claim 15, Hur teaches nearest neighbor algorithms processing point cloud data in searching for nearest neighbors traversing octrees and level of details with bit shift considerations in traversing octrees / levels of detail.  Mammou teaches additional nearest neighbor considerations for point cloud coding / decoding with modifications to the search including bit shift operations and considerations relationships to the points being processed.
	It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hur to incorporate the search and bit shift considerations as taught by Mammou.  The combination teaches
a first memory and a first processor [Hur Paragraphs 573 – 579 (processor and memory implementation that execute software to implement methods / steps))], wherein,
the first memory is configured to store a computer program executable on the first processor [Hur Paragraphs 573 – 579 (processor and memory implementation that execute software to implement methods / steps))]; and
the first processor is configured to [See above limitations for citations of the claimed “processor”
acquire position information of point cloud data to be searched [Hur Figures 1 – 2 and 9 - 10 (see at least reference characters 11003, 40000, and 40005) as well as Paragraphs 88 – 90 and 158 – 161 (position information determined / geometry of points considered and used to construct octree) and 97 – 100 (searching for nearest neighbor points based on tree / Morton code), 332, 362 – 364 and 460 – 461 (searching based on neighboring points / position sets as the position information (Paragraph 461 which is additionally combinable with the position sets of Mammou Paragraph 394))];
perform slicing on the point cloud data according to the position information and a first distance threshold to obtain current layer data [Hur Figures 29 – 30 as well as Paragraphs 102 and 500 (LOD determination and refinement of the layers / LOD) in combination with Mammou Figures 10 – 13 (subfigures included and see the refinement layer determinations in Figure 10) as well as Paragraphs 179 – 202 (generating a current level of detail / LOD in which refinement layers are determined), 476 – 478 and 540 – 544 (modifications to the LOD / refinement layer using distance thresholds)];
obtain a corresponding first parent node according to the current layer data in the point cloud data and a first preset number of bits by which position information bits of prediction data corresponding to the current layer data in the point cloud data are shifted to right [Hur Figures 16 – 17 and 29 – 30 as well as Paragraphs 255 (bit shift operation – similar to Paragraphs 498 – 499 to traverse tree / search for neighboring points), 270 – 273 (parent node determination), 326 – 335 (parent node determined in a current layer / LOD / refinement layer), and 486 – 507 (algorithm for NNS / nearest neighbor sear with bit shift (see also Paragraph 99 for NNS and 498 – 499 (see the shift in bits to change nodes / levels to modify by the teachings of Mammou)); Mammou Figures 7 (parent node / cell shown and used in nearest neighbor search), 10 – 12 and 19 (subfigures included) as well as Paragraphs 540 – 544 (see the shift by n0+1 bit rendering obvious the ‘present number of bits” claimed which claim be used to modify the right bit shifts taught by Hur)];
determine, according to position information of the current layer data [See next limitation for citation], a neighbour area in the first parent node [See next limitation for citation], determine a nearest neighbour point of the current layer data in the neighbour area [Hur Figures 16 – 18, 27, and 29 – 30 as well as Paragraphs 94 – 99 (NNS / Nearest neighbor search with tree traversal), 289 – 298 (using Morton codes / ranges to set bounds for grouping points / searching for nearest neighbor), 331 – 338 (finding nearest neighbors on a LOD / current layer), 422 – 426 (range / limit to number of points for nearest neighbor), and 495 – 505 (combine with Paragraphs 469 – 479, 514, and 526 with Morton code ranges for where to conduct the NNS further combinable with the range considerations in Mammou Figures 4 and 6 (subfigures included) as well as Paragraphs 104 – 106 (search range may be user defined) and 480 – 482 (see at least “SR1” and “SR2” for the neighbor area))], and in response to the neighbour area being not determined, determine a search point of the current layer data according to a second node [See next limitation for citation], and perform search in a first preset search range corresponding to the search point to determine the nearest neighbour point [See next limitation for citation], wherein the second node is prediction data corresponding to the current layer data in the point cloud data [Hur Figures 16 – 18 and 29 – 30 as well as Paragraphs 94 – 99, 250 – 255 (table with code and the teaching of shifting Morton codes / ranges considered by a set number of bits), 322, 360 – 365 (search region considerations in the given LOD / layer); Mammou Figures 4 and 6 (subfigures included), 12 – 13 (subfigures included and cube divisions for searching with modifications ), and 19 – 20 as well as Paragraphs 5 – 6 (points considered outside of trimmed search range), 283 – 296 (looking for neighbors including those outside the search range with modifications suggested in Hur Paragraphs 254 – 256 (Morton code adjusted / shifted when outside of a range of search)), 482 (rendering obvious search ranges defined – modified in NNS modifications later proposed) and 488 – 498 (modifications to NNS to view in combination with Paragraphs 526 – 544 (no neighbors found and the search range is expanded by n0 + 1 bit shifted in the Morton code / coordinate value (Paragraph 544) with the sequence of distances rendering obvious the preset search ranges)].
	The motivation to combine Mammou with Hur is to combine features in the same / similar field of invention of compression / decompression of point cloud data [Mammou Paragraphs 2 – 3] in order to improve the search range of the nearest neighbor in sparse trees [Mammou Paragraphs 5 – 6, 37, and 315 – 318 where the Examiner observes at least KSR Rationales (D) of (F) are also applicable].
	This is the motivation to combine Hur and Mammou which will be used throughout the Rejection.

	Regarding claim 16, Hur teaches nearest neighbor algorithms processing point cloud data in searching for nearest neighbors traversing octrees and level of details with bit shift considerations in traversing octrees / levels of detail.  Mammou teaches additional nearest neighbor considerations for point cloud coding / decoding with modifications to the search including bit shift operations and considerations relationships to the points being processed.
	It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hur to incorporate the search and bit shift considerations as taught by Mammou.  The combination teaches
determine, in the first parent node, a current parent node to which a current point in the current layer data belongs [Hur Figures 16 – 18 and 29 – 30 (traversing the tree from parent node to another parent node (non-leaf nodes)) as well as Paragraphs 94 – 99 (NNS ) 251 – 256 (higher node / related node or node from tree traversal), 403 – 408 (selection of points in current layer based on parent nodes), and 487 – 493 (order of node to traverse / finding neighbors of the current nodes in combination with Paragraphs 497 – 505 (algorithm / table included))];
determine a neighbour parent node neighbour to the current parent node [Hur Figures 16 – 18 and 29 – 30 (traversing the tree from parent node to another parent node (non-leaf nodes)) as well as Paragraphs 94 – 99 (NNS algorithm for current / neighboring regions to search) 251 – 256 (higher node / related node or node from tree traversal), 403 – 408 (selection of points in current layer based on parent nodes), and 487 – 493 (order of node to traverse / finding neighbors of the current nodes in combination with Paragraphs 497 – 505 (algorithm / table included))];
determine position information of neighbour parent nodes according to a preset lookup table, the current parent node and the Morton code of the current layer data [Mammou Figures 4 and 6 (subfigures included), 12 – 13 (octree to traverse / search for nearest neighbor), 18 – 19 as well as Paragraphs 505 – 520 (see the LUT based on Morton codes of the LOD being searched)]; and
determine an area corresponding to the position information of the neighbour parent nodes as the neighbour area [Hur Figures 16 – 18 and 29 – 30 (traversing the tree from parent node to another parent node (non-leaf nodes)) as well as Paragraphs 487 – 493 (order of node to traverse / finding neighbors of the current nodes in combination with Paragraphs 497 – 505 (algorithm / table included)); Mammou Figures 4 and 6 (subfigures included), 12 – 13 (octree to traverse / search for nearest neighbor), 18 – 19 as well as Paragraphs 505 – 520 (see the LUT based on Morton codes of the LOD being searched with area / Morton code considered to find corresponding area / region in the tree traversal)].
	See claim 15 for the motivation to combine Hur and Mammou.

Regarding claim 4, Hur teaches nearest neighbor algorithms processing point cloud data in searching for nearest neighbors traversing octrees and level of details with bit shift considerations in traversing octrees / levels of detail.  Mammou teaches additional nearest neighbor considerations for point cloud coding / decoding with modifications to the search including bit shift operations and considerations relationships to the points being processed.
	It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hur to incorporate the search and bit shift considerations as taught by Mammou.  The combination teaches
determining, from the second node, first position information greater than current position information of a current point of the current layer data [Mammou Figures 4, 6, 8, and 10 (subfigures included) as well as Paragraphs 106 – 110 (positions compared for being in the area / current layer), 120 – 123, and 206 – 213 (distance threshold / comparison on distance information in which limits / checks on points considered are performed to generate the current layer / LOD), and Paragraphs 498 – 520 (comparing information / positions and Morton codes to traverse trees / determine nearest neighbors and as an alternative “greater” see Paragraphs 508 – 509)]; and
setting a point corresponding to the first position information as the search point [Mammou and Paragraphs 498 – 520 (comparing information / positions and Morton codes to traverse trees / determine nearest neighbors and finding next node to search from corresponding to the search point)].
	See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Hur and Mammou.

Regarding claim 5, Hur teaches nearest neighbor algorithms processing point cloud data in searching for nearest neighbors traversing octrees and level of details with bit shift considerations in traversing octrees / levels of detail.  Mammou teaches additional nearest neighbor considerations for point cloud coding / decoding with modifications to the search including bit shift operations and considerations relationships to the points being processed.
	It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hur to incorporate the search and bit shift considerations as taught by Mammou.  The combination teaches
determining, according to the position information, a corresponding point [Mammou Figures 4, 6, (subfigures included), 8 (see at least reference characters 852, 854, and 856) 10 – 13, and 18 – 19 as well as Paragraphs 498 – 520 (comparing information / positions and Morton codes to traverse trees / determine nearest neighbors and finding next node to search from corresponding to the search point)]; and
determining a point in the corresponding point whose distance from a currently processed current point in the point cloud data being greater than the first distance threshold and less than or equal to a second distance threshold to obtain the current layer data, wherein the first distance threshold is less than the second distance threshold [Mammou Figures 4, 6, (subfigures included), 8 (see at least reference characters 852, 854, and 856) 10 – 13, and 18 – 19 as well as Paragraphs 417 – 420 (threshold for checking distances of points traversed / compared), 473 – 480 (distance threshold checks for guess / candidate points), and 525 – 544 (see the threshold distances used at least in Paragraph 40 in which the sequence of distances will render obvious larger thana  first and smaller than a second before the bit shifting in Paragraph 544 further suggested in Paragraphs 162 – 169 (points being within distance thresholds during traversal / search of nearest neighbors))].
	See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Hur and Mammou.

Regarding claim 7, Hur teaches nearest neighbor algorithms processing point cloud data in searching for nearest neighbors traversing octrees and level of details with bit shift considerations in traversing octrees / levels of detail.  Mammou teaches additional nearest neighbor considerations for point cloud coding / decoding with modifications to the search including bit shift operations and considerations relationships to the points being processed.
	It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hur to incorporate the search and bit shift considerations as taught by Mammou.  The combination teaches
signalling the first preset number of bits in a bitstream [Hur Paragraphs 250 – 255 (see bit shifts included rendering obvious preset number of bits shifted); Mammou Paragraphs 105 – 107 and 408 – 414 (user defined attribute values / parameters set by a user), 486, 499, and 540 – 544 (for example the “n0” parameter in view of other Mammou citations would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to signal)].
	See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Hur and Mammou.

Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6, 10, 13, 17, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and Claim Objections as set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.

The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:  Claim 17 is taken as the representative claim with claims 3, 10, and 20 reciting same / similar limitations and thus would be similarly Allowable.  Claim 17 recites using a “present search time” where in view of Specification Paragraph 15 the preset search time is not fairly taught in the prior art as a limitation on the time taken to conduct the nearest neighbor search of point cloud data or traverse the current layer / LOD (level of detail).
Claim 6 is taken as the representative claim with claim 13 reciting same / similar limitations and thus similarly Allowable.  Claim 6 recites a unique combination of features in which the shifting claimed is based on a determination of an average number of points within a determined average threshold but then setting the number of bits to shift (as in the rest of the claim) based on the value determined.  Mammou while teaching the averaging threshold considerations, does not fairly render obvious the present number of bits based on the determination of the present average test being met as claimed.

Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Park, et al. (US PG PUB 2022/0343548 A1 referred to as “Park” throughout) which has similar teachings as Hur.  Mammou, et al. (US PG PUB 2019/0080483 A1 referred to as “Mammou 83” throughout) which is in the same family / related to the cited Mammou reference.
	References that may raise ODP Issues based on amendments claimed: Yang, et al. (US Patent #12,200,231 B2 referred to as “Yang” throughout).

Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tyler W Sullivan whose telephone number is (571)270-5684. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, David Czekaj can be reached on (571)-272-7327. 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.





/TYLER W. SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487