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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: on lines 2-3, there appears to be a typo “one of more” when claim 13 uses “one or more”. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 13 and 22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,444,087. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because clams 13 and 22 are anticipated by claims 1 and 7 of the U.S. Patent.
Claims 14-17, 23-26 and 30-31 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 or 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,444,087 in view of Chou et al. (U.S. 2017/0347120), hereinafter Chou. Chou was cited in the Applicant’s IDS dated 11/24/23.
Regarding claim 14, the U.S. Patent discloses the three-dimensional data encoding method according to claim 13. The U.S. Patent does not explicitly disclose wherein the point cloud frame data includes a plurality of point cloud frames including the first point cloud frame, the plurality of point cloud frames being point cloud data having different times.
However Chou teaches, wherein the point cloud frame data includes a plurality of point cloud frames including the first point cloud frame, the plurality of point cloud frames being point cloud data having different times (Chou [0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the U.S. Patent with the missing limitations as taught by Chou to achieve point cloud compression and decompression more easily (Chou [0033]).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of being able to compress and decompress point clouds more efficiently.
Regarding claim 15, the U.S. Patent in view of Chou teaches the three-dimensional data encoding method according to claim 14, wherein the plurality of point cloud frames being point cloud data of a same object and having different times (Chou [0046]).
The same motivation for claim 14 applies to claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, the U.S. Patent in view of Chou teaches the three-dimensional data encoding method according to claim 13, wherein the first point cloud frame data includes geometry information in which a position of each of the plurality of first three-dimensional points included in the first point cloud frame is expressed using a tree in which each node has no more than N children, N being an integer greater than or equal to 2 (Chou [0059] and fig. 19a).
The same motivation for claim 14 applies to claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, the U.S. Patent in view of Chou teaches the three-dimensional data encoding method according to claim 13, wherein the first point cloud frame is generated by frame-combining based on the one of more second point cloud frames (Chou [0046]).
The same motivation for claim 14 applies to claim 17.
Regarding claim 23, the U.S. Patent in view of Chou teaches the three-dimensional data decoding method according to claim 22, wherein the point cloud frame data includes a plurality of point cloud frames including the first point cloud frame, the plurality of point cloud frames being point cloud data having different times (claim 23 recites analogous limitations to claim 14 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Furthermore, claim 23 discloses an inverse of encoding and Chou discloses both encoding and decoding methods (Chou figs. 19a-19b and 20a-20b).
The same motivation for claim 14 applies to claim 23.
Regarding claim 24, the U.S. Patent in view of Chou teaches the three-dimensional data decoding method according to claim 23, wherein the plurality of point cloud frames being point cloud data of a same subject and having different times (claim 24 recites analogous limitations to claim 15 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Furthermore, claim 24 discloses an inverse of encoding and Chou discloses both encoding and decoding methods (Chou figs. 19a-19b and 20a-20b).
The same motivation for claim 14 applies to claim 24.
Regarding claim 25, the U.S. Patent in view of Chou teaches the three-dimensional data decoding method according to claim 22, wherein the encoded first point cloud frame includes geometry information in which a position of each of the plurality of first three-dimensional points included in the first encoded point cloud frame is expressed using a tree in which each node has no more than N children, N being an integer greater than or equal to 2 (claim 25 recites analogous limitations to claim 16 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Furthermore, claim 25 discloses an inverse of encoding and Chou discloses both encoding and decoding methods (Chou figs. 19a-19b and 20a-20b).
The same motivation for claim 14 applies to claim 25.
Regarding claim 26, the U.S. Patent in view of Chou teaches the three-dimensional data decoding method according to claim 22, wherein the first point cloud frame is generated by frame-combining based on the one or more second point cloud frames (claim 26 recites analogous limitations to claim 17 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Furthermore, claim 26 discloses an inverse of encoding and Chou discloses both encoding and decoding methods (Chou figs. 19a-19b and 20a-20b).
Regarding claims 30 and 31, the U.S. Patent does not explicitly disclose a device, comprising: a processor; and memory, wherein, using the memory, the processor.
However, Chou teaches device, comprising: a processor; and memory, wherein, using the memory, the processor (Chou [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the U.S. Patent with the missing limitations as taught by Chou to achieve point cloud compression and decompression more easily (Chou [0033]).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of being able to compress and decompress point clouds more efficiently.
Claims 19 and 27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,444,087 in view of Uhlenbrock et al. (U.S. 2018/0330149), hereinafter Uhlenbrock. Uhlenbrock was cited in the Applicant’s IDS dated 11/24/23.
Regarding claims 19 and 27, the U.S. Patent does not explicitly disclose the following, however, Uhlenbrock teaches the three-dimensional data encoding or decoding method according to claims 13 or 22,
wherein a density of points of the first point cloud frame is bigger than a density of points of each of the one or more second point cloud frames (Uhlenbrock [0024] and fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device taught by the U.S. Patent in view of Chou with the missing limitations as taught by Uhlenbrock to enable monitoring of an the object for deviation from design in real time (Uhlenbrock [0013]).
Claims 20 and 28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,444,087 in view of Chou et al. (U.S. 2017/0347120), hereinafter Chou and further in view of Tourapis et al. (U.S. 2019/0087978), hereinafter Tourapis. Tourapis was cited in the Applicant’s IDS dated 11/24/23.
Regarding claim 20, the U.S. Patent discloses the three-dimensional data encoding method according to claim 13.
The U.S. Patent does not explicitly disclose wherein the first point cloud frame includes geometry information and attribute information, and the encoded data includes encoded data of the geometry information and encoded data of the attribute information.
However, Chou teaches:
wherein the first point cloud frame includes geometry information and attribute information (Chou figs. 19a and 20a), and
wherein the encoded data includes encoded data of the geometry information and encoded data of the attribute information (Chou figs. 19a and 20a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the U.S. Patent with the missing limitations as taught by Chou to achieve point cloud compression and decompression more easily (Chou [0033]).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of being able to compress and decompress point clouds more efficiently.
The U.S. Patent does not explicitly disclose wherein the encoded data includes header information of the geometry information, and header information of the attribute information.
However, Tourapis teaches wherein the first point cloud frame includes geometry information and attribute information (Tourapis [0368]), and
wherein the encoded data includes encoded data of the geometry information, encoded data of the attribute information, header information of the geometry information, and header information of the attribute information (Tourapis [0368]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device taught by the U.S. Patent in view of Chou with the missing limitations as taught by Tourapis to be able to compress and decompress point clouds (Tourapis [0029]).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of being able to compress and decompress point clouds more efficiently.
Regarding claim 28, the U.S. Patent in view of Chou and Tourapis teaches the three-dimensional data decoding method according to claim 22, wherein the first point cloud frame includes geometry information and attribute information, and wherein the decoded data includes decoded data of the geometry information, decoded data of the attribute information, header information of the geometry information, and header information of the attribute information (claim 28 recites analogous limitations to claim 20 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Furthermore, claim 28 discloses an inverse of encoding and Chou discloses both encoding and decoding methods (Chou figs. 19a-19b and 20a-20b).
Claims 21 and 29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,444,087 in view of Chou et al. (U.S. 2017/0347120), hereinafter Chou as applied to claim 14 above and further in view of Lasserre et al. (U.S. 2020/0252647), hereinafter Lasserre.
Regarding claim 21, the U.S. Patent discloses the three-dimensional data encoding method according to claim 13.
The U.S. Patent does not explicitly disclose wherein the bitstream further includes identification information which identifies the point cloud frame data.
However, Lasserre teaches, wherein the bitstream further includes identification information which identifies the point cloud frame data (Lasserre [0193]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device taught by the U.S. Patent with the missing limitations as taught by Lasserre to obtain the data/attributes of the images (Lasserre [0193]).
Regarding claim 29, the U.S. Patent in view of Lasserre teaches the three-dimensional data decoding method according to claim 22, wherein the bitstream further includes identification information which identifies the point cloud frame data (claim 29 recites analogous limitations to claim 21 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Furthermore, claim 29 discloses an inverse of encoding and Chou discloses both encoding and decoding methods (Chou figs. 19a-19b and 20a-20b).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 9-12 of the Applicant’s Remarks, filed 11/24/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 13-17, 19-31 under 112 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of U.S. Patent No. 12,444,087.
The Examiner requested a terminal disclaimer to overcome the issue, but it was denied by the Applicant on 1/29/26.
As the independent claims have been heavily amended, a new primary reference for double patenting has been applied above after further search and consideration of the amended claims with the same citations from the previous rejection being used for the dependent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kammerl et al. (“Real-time compression of point cloud streams”, , ROBOTICS AND AUTOMATION (ICRA), 2012 IEEE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON, IEEE, 14 May 2012) discloses encoding and decoding point cloud streams (p. 782, section VI and fig. 7). Kammerl was cited in the Applicant’s IDS dated 11/24/23.
Gao et al. (U.S. 2020/0145698) teaches “The signaling information parsed and decoded from the bitstream may generally include control information related to frame partitioning.” (Gao [0077])
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 MATTHEW KWAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7073. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached at (571)272-7331. 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.
/MATTHEW K KWAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482