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 statements (IDSs) submitted on April 11, 2024 and August 6, 2025 are in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98 and therefore have been considered by the examiner and placed in the file.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The BRI of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification.
The following terms in the claims have been given the following interpretations in light of the specification:
scan pattern type: paras. [385]-[386], the light pattern generated by and detected by the sensor and defined by parameters of the sensor;
scan pattern type information: paras. [384]-[386], information about the scan pattern type;
distribution range: paras. [392]-[400], the range over which a scan pattern is projected by a projector such as a LiDAR device and detected by a sensor such as a LiDAR device;
scan range: paras. [387]-[389] and Fig. 25, the range over which a scan pattern is projected by a projector such as a LiDAR device and detected by a sensor such as the LiDAR device, such as min and max azimuth, elevation and radius of the scan pattern; and
projector: para. [75], a LiDAR and the like.
Should applicant wish different definitions, Applicant should point to the portions of the present disclosure that clearly support a different interpretation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-6 fall into the statutory class of process. Nevertheless, for reasons described below, claims 1-6 recite an abstract idea without significantly more and therefore are directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101.
The USPTO has enumerated groupings of abstract ideas that are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent (See MPEP 2106.04(a)). The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The operations recited in claims 1 are mathematical operations that fall under enumerated grouping 1). In particular, claim 1 recites a mathematical algorithm that encodes point cloud data.
Once it has been determined that a claim under examination recites an abstract idea, the claim must be further analyzed to determine whether any additional elements in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.04(d)). The Supreme Court has distinguished between principles themselves, which are not patent eligible, and the integration of those principles into practical applications, which are patent eligible. See, e.g., Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 80, 84, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1968-69, 1970 (2012).
Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites an abstract idea, the claim as a whole must be evaluated to determine whether it integrates the recited abstract idea into a practical application. To determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application, any additional elements of the claims (i.e., claim elements other than those that constitute the abstract idea) must be evaluated to determine whether they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The only additional elements that are recited in claim 1 other than the abstract idea are acquiring point cloud data and transmitting a bit stream containing the encoded point cloud data. The BRI for acquiring point cloud data is using a device such as a LiDAR device to project a scan pattern onto an object, receive light reflected from the object and generate bits representing the point cloud data and corresponding to the reflected light. In determining whether the additional elements recited in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, a determination must made as to whether or not the additional elements amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception does not amount to the claim reciting significantly more than the abstract idea. Since LiDAR devices are well-understood, routine, conventional devices that perform well-understood, routine, conventional operations previously known to the industry, the acquiring step of claim 1 does not amount to the claim reciting significantly more than the abstract idea.
With regard to the transmitting step, the BRI for transmitting the point cloud data is that any suitable transmission protocol and network can be used for this purpose. Because the transmission protocols and networks are well-understood, routine and conventional protocols and networks for transmitting point cloud data, this additional element/step does not amount to claim 1 reciting significantly more than the mental process. For these reasons, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claims 2-6, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 due to their dependence from claim 1.
Double Patenting
Statutory Double Patenting Rejection
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.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1 of commonly assigned, copending application No. 18/575,653 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented. Under 35 U.S.C. 101, more than one patent may not be issued on the same invention.
The USPTO may not institute a derivation proceeding in the absence of a timely filed petition. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office normally will not institute a derivation proceeding between applications or a patent and an application having common ownership (see 37 CFR 42.411). The applicant should amend or cancel claims such that the reference and the instant application no longer contain claims directed to the same invention.
II. Nonstatutory Double Patenting Rejection
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.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/860,388 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/860,129 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/859,234 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/859,840 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/702,629 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/853,327 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/852,912 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/838,931 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/836,652 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/843,673 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/841,075 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/689,320 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/832,182 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/728,694 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/727,198 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/290,676 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/715,667 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/705,385 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/703,066 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/704,260 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/708,864 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/579,774 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/286,922 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/287,839 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/549,764 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/579,774 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/549,107 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/549,099 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/26,661 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/024,951 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/039,915 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/039,852 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/032,109 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/035,266 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/030,722 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/034,310 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/018,791 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/013,407 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/028,635 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/028,642 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/924,503 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/020,828 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/008,347 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/015,835 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/008,007 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/007,988 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/919,943 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/793140 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/640,695 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/624,067 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/624,489 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/619,907 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/624,071 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/621,042 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/627,358 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/717,409 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/716,654 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/623,114 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/639,812 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/634,130 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/605,972 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/624,706 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/610,072 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/570,045 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/520,342 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/435,646 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/441,146 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/624,071 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/441,989 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/281,482 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/353,544 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference application, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference application because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Pat. No. 11,908,168 (reference patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference patent. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference patent, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference patent because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Pat. No. 11,380,019 (reference patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference patent. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference patent, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference patent because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Pat. No. 11,341,687 (reference patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference patent. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference patent, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference patent because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Pat. No. 11,122,102 (reference patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference patent.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Pat. No. 11,170,556 (reference patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference patent. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference patent, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference patent because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Pat. No. 11,017,591 (reference patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference patent. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference patent, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference patent because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Pat. No. 11,151,742 (reference patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference patent. Although claim 1 of the present application includes an acquiring step that is not recited in claim 1 of the reference patent, this is an inherent step in claim 1 of the reference patent because acquisition necessarily occurs in order for the data to be encoded.
Applicant is reminded of the duty of disclosure under 37 CFR 1.56 and that U.S. patents and patent applications owned by Applicant having claims that are the same as, or that anticipate or render obvious, one or more claims of a pending application that is also owned by Applicant should be brought to the attention of the examiner since they are material to the patentability of the claims being examined.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Publ. Appl. No. 2024/0333972 A1 to Taquet et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Taquet”).
Regarding claim 1, Taquet discloses a point cloud data transmission method (para. [0006]), comprising:
acquiring point cloud data (para. [0040], “[p]oint clouds may be captured by various types of devices like an array of cameras, depth sensors, lasers (light detection and ranging, also known as Lidars)….”);
encoding point cloud data (para. [0006]: “[a]ccording to a first aspect of the present application, there is provided a method of encoding a point cloud into a bitstream of encoded point cloud data captured by a spinning sensors head”); and
transmitting a bitstream including the encoded point cloud data (para. [0116]: “[a]t least one of the aspects generally relates to point cloud encoding and decoding, and at least one other aspect generally relates to transmitting a bitstream generated or encoded.”).
Regarding claim 2, Taquet discloses that encoding the point cloud data comprises projecting the point cloud data, wherein the projecting the point cloud data comprises estimating a distribution range of the point cloud data based on sensor information related to a sensor that has acquired the point cloud data (paras. [0006] and [0054]-[0092], Figs. 1-5, during the encoding of the point cloud data, the distribution range of each point projected by the LiDAR is estimated, or predicted, as corresponding to spherical coordinates that are based on sensor information including the “azimuthal angle representing a capture angle of the sensor of the spinning sensors head that captured the point, an elevation angle relative to an elevation of the sensor that captured the point and a radius depending on a distance of the point from a referential” on the spinning LiDAR head), and wherein the bitstream includes the sensor information (para. [0008], the spherical coordinates representing the azimuthal angle, the elevation and angle and the radius of the spinning sensor to the point being encoded are added to the bitstream: “encoding the spherical coordinates of the current point and adding encoded spherical coordinates of the current point to the bitstream”).
Regarding claim 3, since each point being encoded in Taquet is encoded with the azimuthal angle, the elevation angle and the radius of the spinning LiDAR sensor head, and because these sensor parameters are selected and controlled (para. [0143]) this information represents the scan pattern type because it defines the pattern of light being projected by the spinning LiDAR sensor head.
Regarding claim 4, Taquet discloses that the sensor information further includes flag information as to whether information representing a scan range of the sensor is transmitted (para. [0176], the syntax element “geometry_angular_enabled_flag” is a flag indicating whether spherical coordinates are being used; since the spherical coordinates are based on sensor information such as the azimuth angle, the elevation angle and the radius from a referential on the sensor to the point being encoded, and since those sensor parameters taken together are indicative of scan range, the flag value is indicative of whether information representing scan range is transmitted).
Regarding claim 5, Taquet discloses that the sensor information includes scan range information because the azimuth angle, the elevation angle and the radius from a referential on the sensor to the point being encoded are parameters that together are indicative of scan range. Because the spherical coordinates being encoded and added to the bitstream in Taquet are based on these sensor parameters, it follows that the scan range information represents the scan range as a range of spherical coordinate values according to the specific, spherical coordinate system of Taquet.
Regarding claim 6, as indicated above, Taquet discloses that the sensor includes a LiDAR sensor and the acquiring the point cloud data comprises acquiring the sensor information (para. [0040], “[p]oint clouds may be captured by various types of devices like an array of cameras, depth sensors, lasers (light detection and ranging, also known as Lidars)….”).
Regarding claim 7, this claim recites a combination of the limitations recited in claims 1 and 2. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1 and 2 apply mutatis mutandis to claim 7. Taquet discloses a point cloud data transmission device (Fig. 9, system 300) that performs the encoding (encoder/decoder 330) and transmission (communications interface and channel 350 and 700, respectively) operations recited in claim 7. The acquirer is the spinning head LiDAR shown in Fig. 1-3 of Taquet.
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 3 applies mutatis mutandis to claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Taquet discloses a point cloud data reception method, comprising:
receiving a bitstream including point cloud data; and decoding the point cloud data (para. [0230]: “[v]arious implementations involve decoding. “Decoding”, as used in this application, may encompass all or part of the processes performed, for example, on a received point cloud frame (including possibly a received bitstream which encodes one or more point cloud frames)”),
wherein the decoding the point cloud data comprises projecting the point cloud data, wherein the bitstream includes sensor information related to a sensor that has acquired the point cloud data (paras. [230]-[231]the encoder/decoder 330, Fig. 5, performs the decoding operations to decode the encoded point cloud data acquired by the LiDAR shown in Figs. 1-3 and transmitted in the bitstream; Figs. 6 and 8 depict decoding the encoded point cloud data, paras. [0096]-[0101] and [0168]-[0183]), and
wherein the projecting the point cloud data comprises estimating a distribution range of the point cloud data based on the sensor information (as indicated above, the spinning-head LiDAR performs projecting).
Regarding claims 10-13, the rejection of claims 3-6 apply mutatis mutandis to claims 10-13, respectively.
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 9 applies mutatis mutandis to claim 14. The system 300 shown in Fig. 9 includes the receiver 390 and decoder 330 (paras. [0184]-[0202]). As indicated above, the spinning-head LiDAR shown in Figs. 1-3 comprises the projector (paras. [0054]-[0055]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Publ. Appl. No. 2022/0215596 A1 discloses a method and system for encoding point cloud data based on a sensor model that is modeled based on extrinsic and intrinsic sensor parameters.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J SANTOS whose telephone number is (571)272-2867. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Matt Bella can be reached on (571)272-7778. 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.
/DANIEL J. SANTOS/Examiner, Art Unit 2667
/MATTHEW C BELLA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2667