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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/15/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1, 9, 10, and 13 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1, 10, 11, and 14, respectively, of copending Application No. 18/996,753 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 9, 10, and 13 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1, 7, 8, and 13, respectively, of copending Application No. 18/704,260 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9-11, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mammou et al (US20190087979).
Regarding claim 1, Mammou discloses a method of transmitting point cloud data, the method comprising:
encoding point cloud data (para. [0092], In some embodiments, an encoder, such as encoder 200, converts a 3D point cloud into an image-based representation along with some meta data (e.g., occupancy map and patch info) necessary to convert the compressed point cloud back into a decompressed point cloud); and
transmitting a bitstream containing the point cloud data (para. [0074], the point cloud file may be stored and transmitted more quickly; para. [0088], wherein encoder 104 generates a compressed version of the point cloud (compressed attribute information 112) that is transmitted via network 114 to decoder 116; para. [0141]).
Regarding claim 2, Mammou discloses a method wherein the encoding of the point cloud data comprises:
filtering the point cloud data, wherein the filtering comprises:
generating a two-dimensional image (para. [0006], For example, the patch image corresponding to the patch projected onto a patch plane may depict the points of the point cloud included in the patch in two directions, such as an X and Y direction) related to points of the point cloud data based on a depth of attribute data about the points and position information about the points (para. [0005], The encoder is further configured to, for each patch, generate a patch image comprising the set of points corresponding to the patch projected onto a patch plane and generate another patch image comprising depth information for the set of points corresponding to the patch, wherein the depth information represents depths of the points in a direction perpendicular to the patch plane);
excluding a point based on a vector for the two-dimensional image (para. [0005], the encoder is configured to determine, for the point cloud, a plurality of patches, each corresponding to portions of the point cloud, wherein each patch comprises points with surface normal vectors that deviate from one another less than a threshold amount); and
generating information about a shape of an object of the point cloud data (para. [0097], For example, patch information indicating sizes and shapes of patches determined for the point cloud and packed in an image frame may be generated and/or encoded by an auxiliary patch-information compression module).
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 10, it would be necessary to have a decoder to decode the encoded bit stream of claim 1. See fig. 2B and abstract of Mammou.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 10 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 11 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
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.
Claim(s) 3, 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mammou et al (US20190087979) in view of Chakraborty (US7397473).
Regarding claim 3, Mammou fails to teach a method wherein the encoding of the point cloud data comprises:
partitioning the two-dimensional image using a box for the point cloud data based on the information about the shape of the object and the two-dimensional image;
based on a distribution of the points included in the two-dimensional image, presenting a region containing densely positioned points; and
acquiring a center point of the object and two axes.
However Chakraborty teaches partitioning a two-dimensional image using a box for point cloud data based on information about the shape of an object and the two-dimensional image (col. 5 lines 58-64; col. 10 lines 18-32, Given the point cloud data, a sufficiently fine cubic grid is chosen and centered on the center of mass of the point cloud… However, it is to be noted that the grid cells may be assigned other values representative of the geometry or shape information of the subset of the points from the point cloud contained within the extents of the voxel or grid cell);
based on a distribution of the points included in the two-dimensional image, presenting a region containing densely positioned points (col. 7 lines 46-50, col. 8 lines 9-13); and
acquiring a center point of the object and two axes (col. 8 lines 43-45, col. 9 lines 7-15, col. 10 lines 18-24).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Mammou and Chakraborty as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Chakraborty into the method of Mammou. The motivation to combine Chakraborty and Mammou would be to provide a robust as well as an efficient paradigm to compare shapes (col. 4 lines 54-58 of Chakraborty).
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 12 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mammou et al (US20190087979) and Chakraborty (US7397473) in view of Larsen (US9547838).
Regarding claim 4, the modified method of Mammou teaches a method wherein the encoding of the point cloud data comprises:
filtering depth information (para. [0119], [0122] of Mammou) about a bounding box containing a point based on a first axis of the two axes (para. [0230]-[0231] of Mammou; col. 10 lines 46-50 of Chakraborty); and
generating a constant for a reflection distance related to a plane for the bounding box (para. [0005] of Mammou, wherein the depth information represents depths of the points in a direction perpendicular to the patch plane; para. [0088] of Mammou, a reflectance of the structure at the point).
Mammou fails to teach generating a constant based on a focal length of a coordinate axis. However Larsen teaches generating a constant based on a focal length of a coordinate axis (col. 13 lines 14-20).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Mammou and Chakraborty with Larsen as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Larsen into the method of Mammou and Chakraborty. The motivation to combine Chakraborty, Larsen and Mammou would be to reduce image noise or artifact that affects the quality of visual images due to human error (col. 3 lines 44-48 of Larsen).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mammou et al (US20190087979), Chakraborty (US7397473) and Larsen (US9547838) in view of Larsson et al (US7460940).
Regarding claim 5, the modified method of Mammou fails to teach a method wherein the encoding of the point cloud data comprises:
generating gaze information about a center point of a left eye and a right eye related to the object; and
generating a gaze direction of the object based on a direction vector of a nose of the object and direction vectors of the left eye and the right eye.
However Larsson teaches generating gaze information about a center point of a left eye and a right eye related to an object (col. 6 lines 12-16); and
generating a gaze direction of the object based on a direction vector of a nose of the object and direction vectors of the left eye and the right eye (col. 6 lines 17-20).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Mammou, Chakraborty and Larsen with Larsson as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Larsson into the method of Mammou, Larsen and Chakraborty. The motivation to combine Chakraborty, Larsson, Larsen and Mammou would be to assist a driver in avoiding potentially detrimental situations because of implemented systems that refocus the driver (col. 3 lines 60-64 of Larsson).
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mammou et al (US20190087979) and Chakraborty (US7397473) in view of Stein et al (US10327697).
Regarding claim 6, the modified method of Mammou fails to teach a method wherein the encoding of the point cloud data comprises:
generating reference vectors related to the object based on the two axes;
generating point sources related to the object based on the reference vectors; and
generating vectors for three points based on the point sources.
However Stein teaches generating reference vectors related to an object based on two axes (col. 10 lines 39-42, col. 11 lines 40-42, col. 15 lines 19-24);
generating point sources related to the object based on the reference vectors (col. 12 lines 5-14); and
generating vectors for three points based on the point sources (col. 13 lines 2-10).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Mammou and Chakraborty with Stein as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Stein into the method of Mammou and Chakraborty. The motivation to combine Chakraborty, Stein and Mammou would be to solve technical problems in computer-aided health screening, risk assessment, PHCI, and PPRHA (col. 2 lines 2-6 of Stein).
Regarding claim 7, the modified method of Mammou teaches a method wherein the encoding of the point cloud data comprises:
generating a point reference feature reference based on the vectors for the three points and the reference vectors (col. 12 lines 5-16 of Stein),
wherein the point reference feature reference comprises a head spine feature point (col. 12 lines 19-21 of Stein) and a shoulder feature point (col. 12 lines 7-8 of Stein).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Related Art
Mammou et al (US20190080483) – see figs. 4-6B and 11A-11B, para. [0031], [0065]
Chou et al (US20170347100) – see figs. 5-8, para. [0095]-[0096], [0103]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEON VIET Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1185. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11AM-7PM.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at 571-272-3838. 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.
/LEON VIET Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663