Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/221,992

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

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Jul 14, 2023
Examiner
LIMA, FABIO S
Art Unit
2486
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Panasonic Intellectual Property Corporation of America
OA Round
6 (Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
7-8
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
319 granted / 415 resolved
+18.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +15% lift
Without
With
+14.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
447
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.7%
-37.3% vs TC avg
§103
45.8%
+5.8% vs TC avg
§102
19.1%
-20.9% vs TC avg
§112
19.7%
-20.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 415 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16-36 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 19-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 20190318488 A1), hereinafter referred to as Lim, in view of Wang et al. (US 20210112281 A1), hereinafter referred to as Wang, further, in view of Mammou et al. (US 20190087979 A1), hereinafter referred to as Mammou. Regarding claim 19, Lim discloses method for generating three-dimensional data, comprising (See Abstract - the data structure 400 may represent a portion of a bitstream generated by an encoder and received by a decoder): generating a unit of geometry information (See [0104] - The code indicates the content of embedded data which indicates a PCC header parameter set the content can include information from the stream header as well as information relative to one of the 2D frames (such as the geometry frame 420)); generating a unit of attribute information; (See [0104]- or the texture frame) generating a unit of a first parameters set including first parameters used for encoding the unit of geometry information and (See [0104]- or geometry component); and encoding a unit of a second parameter set including second parameters used for encoding the unit of attribute information (See [0104]- color component). Lim does not explicitly disclose each of the unit of geometry information, the unit of attribute information, the unit of a first parameter set, and the unit of a second parameters set includes information indicating whether data included in the unit is one of the geometry information, the attribute information, the first parameter set, and the second parameter set; corresponding to the unit of geometry information and bitstream includes identification information indicating the unit of the encoded geometry information corresponding to the unit of the encoded attribute information. However, Wang from the same or similar endeavor of point cloud coding discloses each of the unit of geometry information, the unit of attribute information, the unit of a first parameter set, and the unit of a second parameters set includes information indicating whether data included in the unit is one of the geometry information, the attribute information, the first parameter set, and the second parameter set (See [0088]- The data unit 402 includes a payload 406; [0091] – [0094] - The type indicator may be, for example, 5 bits. The type indicator specifies the type of content carried in the payload 406. See also Examiner’s response above). It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Lim to add the teachings of Wang as above, in order to utilize a type indicator in a data unit header (a.k.a., a PCC network access layer (NAL) header) to specify the type of content in the payload of the PCC NAL unit and utilize a group of frames header NAL unit to carry the group of frames header parameters and used to signal the profile and level of each geometry or texture bitstream (Wang, [0044]). Further, Mammou from the same or similar endeavor of point cloud coding discloses generating a unit of attribute information corresponding to the unit of geometry information (¶ [0095] - patch images associated with the geometry/texture/attributes, respectively, of the point cloud at a given patch location; [0365] Such information is then copied at the co-located locations on separate image sequences with each now containing only the geometry information, the texture information, and any other remaining attributes respectively);and bitstream includes identification information indicating the unit of the encoded geometry information corresponding to the unit of the encoded attribute information (¶ [0376] PCCNAL POC. This index can identify each NAL unit and permit grouping of different NAL units based on its value. For example, a geometry and an attribute frame that correspond to the same Point Cloud. See also ¶[0410]). It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Lim and Wang to add the teachings of Mammou as above, in order to reduce time delay and enable parallel decoding (Mammou, [0367]). Regarding claim 20, Lim and Wang disclose all the limitations of claim 19, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Lim does not explicitly disclose the method according to claim 19, wherein the unit of geometry information includes a first header and a first payload. However, Wang from the same or similar endeavor of point cloud coding discloses the method according to claim 19, wherein the unit of geometry information includes a first header (See [0087]-[0089] -a data unit header 404 (is added for each data unit 402 ) and a first payload (See [0088]- The data unit 402 includes a payload 406; See also [0091] – [0094] - The type indicator may be, for example, 5 bits. The type indicator specifies the type of content carried in the payload 406). The motivation for combining Lim and Wang has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above. Regarding claim 21, Lim and Wang disclose all the limitations of claim 20, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Lim does not explicitly disclose the method according to claim 20, wherein the unit of attribute information includes a second header and a second payload However, Wang from the same or similar endeavor of point cloud coding discloses the method according to claim 20, wherein the unit of attribute information includes a second header (See [0087]-[0089] -a data unit header 404 (is added for each data unit 402 ) and a second payload (See [0088]- The data unit 402 includes a payload 406; See also [0091] – [0094] - The type indicator may be, for example, 5 bits. The type indicator specifies the type of content carried in the payload 406). The motivation for combining Lim and Wang has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above. Regarding claim 22, Lim and Wang disclose all the limitations of claim 21, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Lim does not explicitly disclose the method according to claim 21, wherein the unit of a first parameter set includes a third header and a third payload. However, Wang from the same or similar endeavor of point cloud coding discloses the method according to claim 21, wherein the unit of a first parameter set includes a third header (See [0087]-[0089] -a data unit header 404 (is added for each data unit 402 ) and a third payload (See [0088]- The data unit 402 includes a payload 406; See also [0091] – [0094] - The type indicator may be, for example, 5 bits. The type indicator specifies the type of content carried in the payload 406). The motivation for combining Lim and Wang has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above. Regarding claim 23, Lim and Wang disclose all the limitations of claim 20, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Lim does not explicitly disclose the method according to claim 22, wherein the unit of a second parameter set includes a fourth header and a fourth payload. However, Wang from the same or similar endeavor of point cloud coding discloses the method according to claim 22, wherein the unit of a second parameter set includes a fourth header (See [0087]-[0089] -a data unit header 404 (is added for each data unit 402 ) and a fourth payload (See [0088]- The data unit 402 includes a payload 406; See also [0091] – [0094] - The type indicator may be, for example, 5 bits. The type indicator specifies the type of content carried in the payload 406). The motivation for combining Lim and Wang has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above. Regarding claim 24, claim 24 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 19. Examiner notes that it was known in the art that video compression involves a complementary pair of systems, an encoder (e.g., the encoder 410 disclosed by Lim in Fig 4A) and a decoder (e.g., the decoder 450 disclosed by Lim in Fig 4A). The encoder converts the source data (e.g., the 3D point cloud 412 disclosed by Lim in FIG. 4B) into a compressed form (e.g., the container 430 disclosed by Lim in FIG. 4B) occupying a reduced number of bits, prior to transmission or storage, and the decoder converts the compressed form back into a representation of the original video data by performing the reverse function to the encoder. (As illustrated by Lim in FIG. 4C). Regarding claim 25-28, claim 25-28 are rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claims 20-23. Regarding claim 29, claim 29 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 19. Furthermore, Lim discloses a processor; and memory and using the memory, the processor performs the encoding method of claim 19 (See FIG. 2) Regarding claim 30, claim 30 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 24. Furthermore, Lim discloses a processor; and memory and using the memory, the processor performs the encoding method of claim 24 (See FIG. 3) Regarding claim 31, this claim is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 19. Furthermore, Lim discloses the method according to claim 19, wherein the unit of geometry information includes an encoded geometry data (See [0104]). Regarding claim 32, this claim is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 31. Furthermore, Lim discloses the method according to claim 31, wherein the unit of attribute information includes an encoded attribute data (See [0104]). Regarding claim 33, this claim is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 24. Furthermore, Lim discloses the method according to claim 24, wherein the unit of geometry information includes an encoded geometry data (See [0104]). Regarding claim 34, this claim is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 33. Furthermore, Lim discloses the 33, wherein the unit of attribute information includes an encoded attribute data (See [0104]). Regarding claim 35, Lim and Wang disclose all the limitations of claim 19, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Lim does not explicitly disclose the method according to claim 19, further comprising: generating a unit of a third parameter set that is common among a plurality of frames, wherein each of the unit of geometry information, the unit of attribute information, the unit of a first parameter set, the unit of a second parameter set, and the unit of a third parameter set includes information indicating whether data included in the unit is one of the geometry information, the attribute information, the first parameter set, the second parameter set, and the third parameter set. However, Wang from the same or similar endeavor of point cloud coding discloses the method according to claim 19, further comprising: generating a unit of a third parameter set that is common among a plurality of frames(See [0044] - a group of frames header NAL unit to carry the group of frames header parameters. The group of frames header NAL unit may also be used to signal the profile and level of each geometry or texture bitstream - See also Examiner’s response above). wherein each of the unit of geometry information, the unit of attribute information, the unit of a first parameter set, the unit of a second parameter set, and the unit of a third parameter set includes information indicating whether data included in the unit is one of the geometry information, the attribute information, the first parameter set, the second parameter set, and the third parameter set. (See [0091] - each data unit may carry a type indicator (e.g. 5 bits) to specify that the payload contains geometry, texture or other data information. Examiner submits that extending this flexible type indicator system to distinguish the identified “ third parameter set,” in addition to geometry, attribute, first parameter set and second parameter set would be an obvious and predictable variation to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See also Examiner’s response above). The motivation for combining Lim and Wang has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above. Regarding claim 36, claim 36 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 35. Examiner notes that it was known in the art that video compression involves a complementary pair of systems, an encoder (e.g., the encoder 410 disclosed by Lim in Fig 4A) and a decoder (e.g., the decoder 450 disclosed by Lim in Fig 4A). The encoder converts the source data (e.g., the 3D point cloud 412 disclosed by Lim in FIG. 4B) into a compressed form (e.g., the container 430 disclosed by Lim in FIG. 4B) occupying a reduced number of bits, prior to transmission or storage, and the decoder converts the compressed form back into a representation of the original video data by performing the reverse function to the encoder. (As illustrated by Lim in FIG. 4C). Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FABIO S LIMA whose telephone number is (571)270-0625. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 pm. 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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /FABIO S LIMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 14, 2023
Application Filed
Apr 04, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jul 09, 2024
Response Filed
Sep 04, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 04, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 12, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 17, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 25, 2025
Response Filed
Apr 07, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jul 08, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 16, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 21, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 08, 2025
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604015
METHOD, APPARATUS, AND MEDIUM FOR VIDEO PROCESSING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593038
TEMPORAL PREDICTION OF PARAMETERS IN NON-LINEAR ADAPTIVE LOOP FILTER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12593045
ENTROPY CODING-BASED FEATURE ENCODING/DECODING METHOD AND DEVICE, RECORDING MEDIUM HAVING BITSTREAM STORED THEREIN, AND METHOD FOR TRANSMITTING BITSTREAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12581099
INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12581094
IMAGE SIGNAL ENCODING/DECODING METHOD AND DEVICE THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
77%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+14.8%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 415 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