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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 26, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on January 26, 2026 has been entered.
In view of the amendment to the claims, the amendment of claims 1, 5-9 and 14-18 have been acknowledged. Claims 2-3 and 10-11 have been canceled. New claims 21-24 have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-14 of Remarks, filed January 26, 2026 have been fully considered.
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 12-15 and 23-24 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Dependent claim 12 depends upon independent claim 1 and recites “wherein the geometrically encoded point cloud data is represented by the main tile adaptation set corresponding to the geometry tile base track and one or more tile component adaptation sets corresponding to geometry tile tracks in the DASH MPD description file”. However, each of them does not describe “the DASH MPD description file”. It renders the claim indefinite. Therefore, the claim is rejected under U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Dependent claim 13 is rejected because they depend upon dependent claim 12.
Dependent claim 14 depends upon independent claim 1 and recites “... determining, according to a three-dimensional spatial region identifier descriptor in the DASH MPD description file pre-selection signaling ...”. However, each of them does not describe “the DASH MPD description file”. It renders the claim indefinite. Therefore, the claim is rejected under U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Dependent claim 15 is rejected because they depend upon dependent claim 14.
Dependent claims 12, 14 and 23-24 depend upon independent claim 1 and recite “DASH MPD”. The term “DASH MPD” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. Therefore, the claims are rejected under U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Dependent claim 13 depends upon dependent claim 12, dependent claim 15 depends upon dependent claim 14. They are rejected at least due to their respective dependencies from a rejected claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4-9 and 16-22 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 18 overcome the combination of the previously cited references. More specifically, each claim requires “identifying/identify, from a container file of a geometrically encoded point cloud bit stream of an original point cloud, one geometrically encoded point cloud tile base track and one or more geometrically encoded point cloud tile tracks, wherein the one geometrically encoded point cloud tile base track and one or more geometrically encoded point cloud tile tracks correspond to one or more three-dimensional spatial regions of the original point cloud, wherein the one or more three- dimensional spatial regions comprise three-dimensional spatial region information, the three- dimensional spatial region information comprises static three-dimensional spatial region information and dynamic three-dimensional spatial region information, the static three-dimensional spatial region information and the dynamic three-dimensional spatial region information comprise a spatial region identifier, the spatial region identifier is contained in geometrically encoded point cloud compression data of the geometrically encoded point cloud tile tracks, each spatial region identifier corresponds to one geometrically encoded point cloud tile track; decoding/decode the geometrically encoded point cloud compression data encapsulated in the one or more geometrically encoded point cloud tile tracks, wherein the geometrically encoded point cloud compression data corresponds to partial regions of the one or more three-dimensional spatial regions; and rendering/render a point cloud in the partial three-dimensional spatial regions according to the decoded point cloud data”.
Examiner has completed the additional search. However, the new search results and the prior art references cited in the previous Office Action failed to show the obviousness of the claims as a whole. None of the prior art cited alone or in combination provides the motivation to teach the limitations” recited in claims 1 and 18. Accordingly, claims 1 and 18 are allowed.
Dependent claims 4-9, 16-17 and 19-22 depend from independent claim 1. They are allowed at least due to their respective dependencies from an allowed claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Xilin Guo whose telephone number is (571)272-5786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM-5:30 PM 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, Daniel Hajnik can be reached at 571-272-7642. 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.
/XILIN GUO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2616
Prosecution Insights