Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 18/098,189

THREE-DIMENSIONAL DATA ENCODING METHOD, THREE-DIMENSIONAL DATA DECODING METHOD, THREE-DIMENSIONAL DATA ENCODING DEVICE, AND THREE-DIMENSIONAL DATA DECODING DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jan 18, 2023
Examiner
KIR, ALBERT
Art Unit
2485
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Panasonic Intellectual Property Corporation of America
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allow Rate
332 granted / 498 resolved
+8.7% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+17.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
45 currently pending
Career history
543
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
6.0%
-34.0% vs TC avg
§103
47.0%
+7.0% vs TC avg
§102
24.3%
-15.7% vs TC avg
§112
13.7%
-26.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 498 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is a response to an application filed on 12/10/2025, in which claims 1-13 are pending and ready for examination. Response to Amendment Claims 1, 5, and 10-11 are currently amended. Response to Argument Applicant's arguments filed on 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to claims rejected under 35 USC 103, the Applicant argues, see Pg. 8, that Flynn does not teach processing or decoding a second prediction tree in a second data unit different from a first data unit when the two conditions are true. Examiner cannot concur. As taught in cited paragraph of Flynn, a flag is signaled at the end of each prediction tree to indicate whether the tree is the last tree in a set or whether at least one additional tree follows, wherein the set includes at least the type of a slice, and a picture comprises at least multiple different slices. Thus, when the two conditions are true such that (i) a flag indicates there is no subsequent prediction tree subsequent to a first identification item in the first data unit/slice, (ii) there are different sets/data units, e.g. slices, including at least a second data units, a second unit is being coded. 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, 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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hur (WO 2021246837, English translation document cited) in view of Flynn (“G-PCC: Combined octree-predictive geometry coding”, 1/2020, IDS filed on 06/01/2023). Regarding claim 5, Hur discloses a three-dimensional data decoding method comprising: obtaining, from a bitstream, including one or more data units each including one or more prediction trees and one or more identification information items (Hur; Para. [0243, 245]. A 3-D data coding method/system is used to obtain at least one prediction tree and at least one identification item, also see Para. [0345].); and decoding a first prediction tree of one or more prediction trees included in a first data unit included in the one or more data units (Hur; Para. [0243, 245]. At least one prediction tree of different trees in a data unit is coded to determine 3-D points for a prediction tree, also see Para. [0345, 398-401].). But it does not specifically disclose obtaining a first item of one or more identification information items respectively indicating whether or not there is a subsequent prediction tree in the first data unit; when (i) the first item includes a first identification information item indicating that there is not a subsequent prediction tree subsequent to the first identification information item in the first data unit and (ii) the one or more data units includes a second data unit, decoding a second prediction tree of one or more prediction trees included in the second data unit. However, Flynn teaches obtaining a first item of one or more identification information items respectively indicating whether or not there is a subsequent prediction tree in the first data unit (Flynn; Pg. 2, 1st to 6th Para. One or more signaled flag/identification information is used to indicate whether there is a subsequent/additional tree.); when (i) the first item includes a first identification information item indicating that there is not a subsequent prediction tree subsequent to the first identification information item in the first data unit and (ii) the one or more data units includes a second data unit, decoding a second prediction tree of one or more prediction trees included in the second data unit (Flynn; Pg. 2, 1st to 6th Para. For a signaled flag/identification information item indicating (1) there is not an additional prediction tree subsequent to a signaled flag in a first data set/unit and (2) additional data sets/units include at least a second data set/unit, an additional/second prediction tree is decoded in an additional data set/unit.), wherein the second data unit is different from the first data unit (Flynn; Pg. 2, 1st to 6th Para. A flag is signaled at the end of each prediction tree to indicate whether the tree is the last tree in a set or whether at least one additional tree follows, wherein the set includes at least the type of a slice, and a picture comprises at least multiple different slices. Thus, when the two conditions are true such that (i) a flag indicates there is no subsequent prediction tree subsequent to a first identification item in the first data unit/slice, (ii) there are different sets/data units, e.g. slices, including at least a second data units, a second unit is being coded.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the pertinent before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding system of Flynn to adapt an image processing approach, by incorporating Flynn’s teaching wherein geometric data coding, including prediction tree coding and octree coding, is used to code point cloud data, for the motivation to efficiently perform predictive tree coding and octree coding at the same time (Flynn; Abstract). Regarding claim 6, modified Hur teaches wherein when the data unit includes prediction trees and identification information items, each of the identification information items is stored subsequent to a corresponding one of the prediction trees in the data unit (Flynn; Pg. 2, 1st to 6th Para. For a data unit including prediction trees and identification items, each of identification items is set/stored after a respective prediction tree in a data unit.). Regarding claim 7, modified Flynn teaches wherein the identification information items include the first identification information item and a second identification information item (Flynn; Pg. 2, 1st to 6th Para. Identification items include a first identification item and a second identification item, e.g. a flag of a first value/a second value, or a flag/an index. Hur; Para. [0398-401]. Identification items include a first identification item and a second identification item, e.g. a flag of a first value/a second value, or a flag/an index, also see Para. [0415].), the first identification information item indicates that there is not a subsequent prediction tree subsequent to the first identification information item in the data unit (Flynn; Pg. 2, 1st to 6th Para. Identification items include a first identification item and a second identification item, e.g. a flag of a first value/a second value, or a flag/an index, wherein a first identification item indicates there is not a subsequent tree after the first item. Hur; Para. [0398-401]. Identification items include a first identification item and a second identification item, e.g. a flag of a first value/a second value, or a flag/an index, wherein a first identification item indicates there is not a subsequent tree after the first item, also see Para. [0415].), and the second identification information item indicates that there is a subsequent prediction tree subsequent to the second identification information item in the data unit (Flynn; Pg. 2, 1st to 6th Para. Identification items include a first identification item and a second identification item, e.g. a flag of a first value/a second value, or a flag/an index, wherein a second identification item indicates there is a subsequent tree after the first item. Hur; Para. [0398-401]. Identification items include a first identification item and a second identification item, e.g. a flag of a first value/a second value, or a flag/an index, wherein a second identification item indicates there is a subsequent tree after the first item, also see Para. [0415].). Regarding claim 8, modified Flynn teaches wherein when the data unit includes the prediction trees, the first identification information item, and the second identification information item (Flynn; Pg. 2, 1st to 6th Para. Prediction trees, a first identification item, and a second identification item are included in a data unit. Hur; Para. [0398-401]. Prediction trees, a first identification item, and a second identification item are included in a data unit, also see Para. [0415].), the first identification information item is stored subsequent to a last prediction tree among the prediction trees (Flynn; Pg. 2, 1st to 6th Para. Identification items include a first identification item and a second identification item, e.g. a flag of a first value/a second value, or a flag/an index, wherein a first identification item is set/stored after a last prediction tree. Hur; Para. [0398-401]. Identification items include a first identification item and a second identification item, e.g. a flag of a first value/a second value, or a flag/an index, wherein a first identification item is set/stored after a last prediction tree, also see Para. [0415].), and the second identification information item is stored subsequent to, among the prediction trees, a prediction tree that is not the last prediction tree (Flynn; Pg. 2, 1st to 6th Para. Identification items include a first identification item and a second identification item, e.g. a flag of a first value/a second value, or a flag/an index, wherein a second identification item is set/stored after a non-last prediction tree for a flag taking a second value or an index with subsequent non-last prediction tree. Hur; Para. [0398-401]. Identification items include a first identification item and a second identification item, e.g. a flag of a first value/a second value, or a flag/an index, wherein a second identification item is set/stored after a non-last prediction tree for a flag taking a second value or an index with subsequent non-last prediction tree, also see Para. [0415].). Regarding claim 9, modified Flynn teaches wherein when the first identification information item is decoded, decoding of the data unit is completed (Hur; Para. [0398-401]. For a first identification item, e.g. a flag being a first value, coding of a data unit, e.g. a slice, is completed., also see Para. [0415]. Flynn; Pg. 2, 1st to 6th Para. For a first identification item, e.g. a flag being a first value, coding of a data unit, e.g. a slice, is completed.), and when the second identification information item is decoded, decoding of a prediction tree next to the second identification information item in the data unit is continued (Hur; Para. [0398-401]. For a second identification item, e.g. a flag being a second value or an index, coding of a prediction tree after a second identification item is not completed, also see Para. [0415]. Flynn; Pg. 2, 1st to 6th Para. For a second identification item, e.g. a flag being a second value or an index, coding of a prediction tree after a second identification item is not completed.). Regarding claim 13, modified Flynn teaches at least one of the one or more prediction trees is a tree of prediction tree nodes each representing a position of a corresponding one of one or more three-dimensional points (Flynn; Pg. 2, 1st to 6th Para. At least one of prediction trees is a prediction tree node representing a position of one or more 3D points.). Claims 1-4, 12 are directed to a three-dimensional data encoding method comprising a sequence of processing steps that are in reverse order/symmetric manner with the steps corresponding to the same as claimed in claims 5-9, 13, and are rejected for the same reason of anticipation as outlined above. Claim 10 is directed to a three-dimensional data encoding device comprising: a processor; and memory, wherein using the memory (Flynn; Para. [0160-162]. A 3-D encoding device includes a processor and a memory.), the processor performs a sequence of processing steps that are in reverse order/symmetric manner with the steps corresponding to the same as claimed in claim 5, and is rejected for the same reason of anticipation as outlined above. Claim 11 is directed to a three-dimensional data encoding device comprising: a processor; and memory, wherein using the memory (Flynn; Para. [0160-162]. A 3-D encoding device includes a processor and a memory.), the processor performs a sequence of processing steps corresponding to the same as claimed in claim 5, and is rejected for the same reason of anticipation as outlined above. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gao (US Pub. 20240163451 A1) teaches a video coding system that performs coding point cloud geometry data using azimuthal coding mode. Xu (US Pub. 20240249441 A1) teaches a video coding system that performs point cloud coding. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERT KIR whose telephone number is (571)272-6245. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:00pm. 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, Jay Patel can be reached at (571) 272-2988. 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. /ALBERT KIR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 18, 2023
Application Filed
May 16, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 12, 2024
Response Filed
Oct 03, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Jan 31, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 01, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 20, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jul 28, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 12, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Oct 23, 2025
Interview Requested
Oct 31, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Oct 31, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Nov 12, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 10, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 19, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 16, 2026
Interview Requested
Mar 25, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 25, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Apr 03, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603997
METHOD AND DEVICE FOR ENCODING OR DECODING IMAGE BY MEANS OF BLOCK MAP
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598293
METHOD AND DEVICE FOR ENCODING OR DECODING IMAGE BY MEANS OF BLOCK MAP
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598294
METHOD AND DEVICE FOR ENCODING OR DECODING IMAGE BY MEANS OF BLOCK MAP
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598311
METHOD FOR PROCESSING IMAGE ON BASIS OF INTER-PREDICTION MODE AND APPARATUS THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593029
METHOD AND DEVICE FOR ENCODING OR DECODING IMAGE BY MEANS OF BLOCK MAP
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
67%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+17.5%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 498 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month