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 .
Comments
Applicant election of claim 1-10 without traverse has been acknowledged. Applicant is advised to cancelled the non-elected claims 11-26.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation 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 broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a clustering processing unit …”, “an encoding processing unit…” in claim 1
“a blocking processing unit” in claim 5;
“a difference generation processing unit” in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites “a clustering processing unit that performs clustering processing of classifying each point of a point cloud representing a three-dimensional object as a set of points into a cluster for each color to convert the point cloud having a normal structure into the point cloud having a cluster structure;” This sentence does not have punctuation. It’s not clear what is the relationship between the bolded part and the rest of the sentence. It’s unclear what the” each color” refers to. Is it referring to one of the “R” “G” “B” colors? If so, the normal structure would be converted to three cluster structure? Proper clarification is required.
Claim 1 also recites “the color information of each point is indicated for each cluster” in the last paragraph. The color of each point of the point cloud has been indicated for each point in a normal structure. The point cloud having a normal structure has been converted to point cloud having a cluster structure. By “the color information of each point is indicated for each cluster”, does it mean the color value in each point in a cluster has the same value? Proper clarification is required.
Claim 10 recites similar limitations, thus is rejected accordingly.
Claims 2-9 are rejected for depending on the rejected claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 1, Kato et al. (US 2022/0075077 A1) teaches:
An information processing device comprising:
a clustering processing unit that performs clustering processing of classifying each point of a point cloud representing a three-dimensional object as a set of points into a cluster ([0363], “The processor 430 generates point cloud data on the basis of the distance measurement data from the distance measurement apparatus(es) 100A specified in step S5170. The processor 430 clusters the data points and extracts a cluster corresponding to the vehicle closest to the position of the vehicle control system 1000 specified in step S5160. Additionally, the processor 430 changes the position of the vehicle control system 1000 to the coordinates at the center of gravity of the extracted cluster.” [0366], “The processor 430 clusters the point cloud data extracted in step S5200. A region where the density of data points around clusters is low and points not included in any cluster are distributed is considered to be a region of displaced data points. For data points included in clusters and displaced data points, the processor 430 determines which vehicle control system 1000 or distance measurement apparatus 100A the data points come from, and extracts the confidence level of the data points. The processor 430 recreates clusters using only data points with a high confidence level. For data points with a low confidence level included in the displaced data points from the original clusters, the processor 430 sets a movement vector so as to maximize the number of data points that overlap with the recreated clusters, and moves the three-dimensional positions to merge the point cloud with the clusters.”) and
an encoding processing unit that encodes the point cloud of the cluster structure generated by the clustering processing, ([0329], “The point cloud data may also be outputted in an encoded or compressed form.”) and
the cluster structure is a data structure in which the position information of each point of the point cloud is classified into the cluster,([0388], “The processor 520 generates tracking data for each cluster recognized as an automobile, a bicycle, or a person from among the clusters of moving bodies recognized in step S6540. The tracking data may be four-dimensional point cloud data combining information about a region that the point cloud of the cluster occupies in three-dimensional space with the information about the precise time read out in step S6520.”)
On the other hand, OH et al. (US 2022/0174317 A1) teaches:
wherein the normal structure is a data structure in which position information and color information of each point of the point cloud are indicated for each point,([0094], “The point cloud content providing system according to the embodiments (for example, the point cloud transmission device 10000 or the point cloud video acquisition unit 10001) may acquire a point cloud video (20000). The point cloud video is represented by a point cloud belonging to a coordinate system for expressing a 3D space. The point cloud video according to the embodiments may include a Ply (Polygon File format or the Stanford Triangle format) file. When the point cloud video has one or more frames, the acquired point cloud video may include one or more Ply files. The Ply files contain point cloud data, such as point geometry and/or attributes. The geometry includes positions of points. The position of each point may be represented by parameters (for example, values of the X, Y, and Z axes) representing a three-dimensional coordinate system (e.g., a coordinate system composed of X, Y and Z axes). The attributes include attributes of points (e.g., information about texture, color (in YCbCr or RGB), reflectance r, transparency, etc. of each point).”)
However, both Kato and Oh do not teach:
for each color to convert the point cloud having a normal structure into the point cloud having a cluster structure;
and the color information of each point is indicated for each cluster.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YANNA WU whose telephone number is (571)270-0725. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:30 ET.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at 5712722330. 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.
/YANNA WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615