Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendment have persuasively overcome the drawing objections, the specification objections, most of the claim objections, the 112(a) rejections, most of the 112(b) rejections and the prior art.
The remaining issues are addressed below.
Claim Objections
Applicant argues:
All three claims fully encompass all technical features of the cited method claims and further add apparatus- or medium-specific limitations, fully complying with MPEP requirements for proper dependency.
Examiner responds:
This does not address the issue in the objection – the different claim categories are the problem, not the technical features.
Applicant argues:
Even if there are literally identical expressions among the claims 1 of the three applications,
they still have substantially distinguishing features.
Examiner responds:
What are those differences?
112b
Applicant argues:
It is neither a required method step to be performed by the encoding method, nor a product-by-function limitation defining the structure of an apparatus.
Examiner responds:
This is not in accordance with US practice.
Applicant argues:
Claim 1 provides a complete and objective definition of the curve SP.
Examiner responds:
There are many different curves that meet the definition from the independent claims. A given set of points may be control points for one curve, but not another. In other words, without knowing precisely where the curve goes, there is not a way to confirm whether or not a set of points are actually control points.
Reciting either how the curve is known or how the control points are determined independently of the curve is expected to help overcome this rejection.
Applicant argues:
The additional limitation of claim 5 and the "sample index" in the parent claim 1 pertain to different technical levels:
Examiner responds:
Applicant’s arguments are based on (improperly) importing limitations from the specification.
101
Applicant argues:
The foregoing steps are not abstract mental processes. These steps are not performed in, nor can they be performed in, the human mind. Rather, these steps involve specific hardware
Examiner responds:
US case law says math (even a lot of math) is a mental process. US case law also says that use of a generic computer (such as a sensor or lidar) are also part of a mental process.
Applicant argues:
a specific and meaningful technical improvement
Examiner responds:
Once the claim is narrowed to overcome the art, this argument could be persuasive. However, the present claims are broad enough to read on AAPA.
Information Disclosure Statement
In the remarks, Applicant states that US 18/687,773 is in the same inventive family as this application. Accordingly, Applicant may wish to submit the references from this application (particularly the Applicant Admitted Prior Art) to US 18/687,773 via an Information Disclosure Statement.
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Specifically, the specification refers to various MPEG standards.
Claim Objections
Claims 10, 13, and 15 reference claims 1 and 17, but do not properly depend from claims 1 or 17 because the instructions/processor configurations can exist without performance of any of the method steps. Here, claims 1 and 17 are methods but claims 10, 13, and 15 are apparatuses (including non-transitory media), and the apparatus claim can be met without necessarily practicing the method. MPEP 608.01(n)(III) addresses the “test for proper dependency.”
MPEP 607(III) states:
Any claim which is in dependent form but which is so worded that it, in fact, is not a proper dependent claim, as for example it does not include every limitation of the claim on which it depends, will be required to be canceled as not being a proper dependent claim; and cancellation of any further claim depending on such a dependent claim will be similarly required. The applicant may thereupon amend the claims to place them in proper dependent form, or may redraft them as independent claims, upon payment of any necessary additional fee.
While, in the interest of compact prosecution, claims 10, 13, and 15 have been examined, claims 10, 13, and 15 are required to be cancelled.
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 1, 3-10, 13, and 15-24 (all claims) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. US 12614314 in view of the prior art as applied below.
Claims 1, 3-10, 13, and 15-24 (all claims) are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent App. No. US 18/687,773 in view of the prior art as applied below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Both the pending claims and the conflicting patent documents are all directed to encoding/decoding point cloud geometry. Therefore, all of the conflicting patent documents are directed to the same problem as the present application. Further, any differences between the present claims and the claims in any of the conflicting patent documents are obvious in view of the prior art as applied below. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the below prior art with any of the conflicting patent documents for implementation details (especially as the patent claims lack implementation details). Based on the findings herein, this is an example of “(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” MPEP 2143.
The conflicting patents share the same set of inventive figures as the present case.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-10, 13, and 15-24 (all claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 9 recite “are sensed,” but it is not clear if this is intended as a required method step or a product by process step. If product by process, what structure is implied? MPEP 2111.05.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 recite “control points,” but this is subjective terminology because there is not an objective definition of which curve is being defined. MPEP 2173.05(b)(IV). In other words, control point is a mathematical term for one of the points needed to define a curve. The claim specifies that the curve in question is represented by a sensing path, but the curve itself lacks an objective definition (and is not communicated). Thus, one can’t know if a given set of points serve as control points for this particular unknown curve.
Claims 5, 6, 21, and 22 recite parameterizing the two-dimensional curve, but it is unclear how these limitations further limit given that the parent claims already reference these parameters.
Dependent and referring claims are likewise rejected.
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, 3-10, 13, and 15-24 (all claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mental process) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1 and 17 (and their dependents) recite a method, and processes satisfy Step 1 of the eligibility test.
Claims 9 and 10 (and their dependents) recite an apparatus, and machines satisfy Step 1 of the eligibility test.
Claims 13 and 15 (and their dependents) recite a non-transitory storage medium, and manufactures satisfy Step 1 of the eligibility test.
Step 2A, prong one: All of the elements of the claims are a mental process because a person can perform the recited math mentally or with pencil and paper. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) explains that use of a generic computer or in a computer environment is still a mental process. In particular, this section begins by citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 US 63 (1972). “The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea.” In Benson the Supreme Court did not separately analyze the computer hardware at issue; the specifics of what hardware was claimed is only included in an appendix to the decision.
Because there are no additional elements, no further analysis is required for Step 2A, prong two or Step 2B.
Narrowing the claims to overcome the prior art is expected to be useful for showing a technical improvement. However, the AAPA (see below) is considered well-understood, routine, conventional in this art, and thus the claims need to distinguish from it.
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.
(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, 3-10, 13, and 15-24 (all claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Applicant Admitted Prior Art. Here, both the background section and the figures labeled “prior art” are Applicant Admitted Prior Art. Though not presently applied, admissions in the detailed description (e.g., that something is “known”) are also considered Applicant Admitted Prior Art.
Examiner Notes
The claims recite various math symbols, but these are not reproduced in the below claim mapping due to OCR conversion challenges. The math symbols are an important part of the claims, and have been considered in the mapping, they are simply not reproduced.
As an additional mapping, Applicant’s invention is shown in Fig. 16. Fig. 16 looks very similar to prior art Fig. 8. It appears the main difference is that Fig. 16 has labeled a “sensing path” (i.e., the line labeled SP in the figure). Applicant’s background explains “G-PCC does use the angular priors to better compress spinning Lidar-sensed sparse geometry data but does not adapt the coding structure to the order of sensing.” (G-PCC is prior art.) This admission shows that the prior art has a sensing path. Further, the claims do not appear to address the distinction regarding to “adapt the coding structure to the order of sensing.”
Therefore, AAPA teaches all of the claims.
1. (Currently amended) A method of encoding points (P) of a point cloud into a bitstream of encoded point cloud data, wherein - the points (P) of the point cloud are sensed by at least one sensor on a sensing path, wherein the sensing path is a two-dimensional curve (SP) defined within in a two-dimensional angular coordinate space comprising an azimuthal coordinate representative of an azimuthal angle representing a sensing angle of a sensor relative to a referential and an elevation coordinate representative of an elevation angle of a sensor relative to a horizontal referential plane; and (AAPA, clean specification, p. 4:
PNG
media_image1.png
140
695
media_image1.png
Greyscale
)
wherein the method comprises:
- encoding, into the bitstream, data representing angular coordinates of control points, wherein control points are used to obtain the two-dimensional curve (SP) by interpolation between said control points; and (AAPA, clean specification, p. 6, middle, “they overall sense a scene following a programmable sensing path depicted by dashed lines on the two-dimensional angular coordinate space” Fig. 5 shows a two dimensional curve. Fig. 5 shows interpolation between control points, see also “following a … path.”)
- obtaining a sample index s relative to a sensing time instant of a point P and one sensor index of a sensor that sensed the point P; (AAPA, clean specification, p. 6, middle, “they overall sense a scene following a programmable sensing path depicted by dashed lines on the two-dimensional angular coordinate space” AAPA’s programmable path teaches the claimed “relative to … .” AAPA’s following teaches the claimed obtaining a sample index.)
- obtaining a sensing point in the two-dimensional angular coordinate space from the sample index s according to a sensing scheme, wherein the sensing scheme provides a sampling of the two-dimensional curve SP at the sensing time instants; (AAPA, Figs. 5-8. Figs. 5-8’s dots teach the claimed sensing points.)
- obtaining a coarse point in the two-dimensional angular coordinate space from the sensing point, the sample index s and the sensor index; (AAPA, clean specification, p. 6, middle, “they overall sense a scene following a programmable sensing path depicted by dashed lines on the two-dimensional angular coordinate space” As best understood from specification p. 7, approx. line 30, a coarse point is defined in the two-dimensional angular space. AAPA teaches this because it is following a path in two-dimensional angular coordinate space.)
- encoding, into the bitstream, the points (P) of the point cloud relative to coarse points. (AAPA, clean specification, p. 6, middle, “they overall sense a scene following a programmable sensing path depicted by dashed lines on the two-dimensional angular coordinate space.” AAPA’s following a path teaches the claimed encoded into the bitstream.)
3. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 1, wherein sensing time instants are regularly spaced along the two-dimensional curve. (AAPA, Figs. 5, 7, and 8. At least some of the points in each are regularly spaced.)
4. (Currently amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the two-dimensional curve comprises a same number of sensing time instants between each pair of consecutive control points, and a sensing time instant corresponds to each control point. (AAPA, Figs. 5, 7, and 8. At least some of the points in each are regularly spaced, and thus teach the claimed same number of sensing time instants between each pair of consecutive control points.)
5. (Previously Presented) The method of 1, wherein the two-dimensional curve is parametrized by associating a sampling index with each control point. (AAPA, clean specification, p. 6, middle, “they overall sense a scene following a programmable sensing path depicted by dashed lines on the two-dimensional angular coordinate space” AAPA’s sensing teaches the claimed sampling and AAPA’s programmable path teaches the claimed parameterization.)
6. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 1, wherein the two-dimensional curve is parametrized by associating a timestamp parameter with each control point, and a sensing time instant is obtained from a previous sensing time instant and a temporal step. (AAPA, clean specification, p. 6, middle, “they overall sense a scene following a programmable sensing path depicted by dashed lines on the two-dimensional angular coordinate space” AAPA’s sensing teaches the claimed sampling and AAPA’s programmable path teaches the claimed parameterization.)
7. (Currently amended) The method of claim 6, wherein multiple temporal steps of different sizes are used to obtain sensing time instants. (AAPA, Figs. 5-8. AAPA’s irregular spacing of points teaches the claimed temporal steps of different sizes.)
8. (Currently amended) The method of claim 5, wherein the sampling indices associated with the control points, or the timestamp parameters associated with the control points and a temporal step or multiple temporal steps of different sizes is/are encoded into the bitstream together with angular coordinates of the control points. (AAPA, Figs. 5-8. AAPA’s irregular spacing of points teaches the claimed temporal steps of different sizes.)
Claims 9, 10, 13, and 15-24 are rejected as per their counterparts.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US12230004B2 – “Method and apparatus for processing a point cloud”
US12477156B2 – “Method for encoding and decoding, encoder, and decoder”
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 DAVID ORANGE whose telephone number is (571)270-1799. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 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, 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.
/DAVID ORANGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights