Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: on line 3, the claim ends with the word “comprising” with nothing else following it. As best understood by the Examiner, this is a typo. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
Claims 1, 9, 10 and 19 of this application is patentably indistinct from claims 1, 8, 9 and 15 of Application No. 18/575,694. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1, 9, 10 and 19 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims, 1, 8, 9 and 15 of copending Application No. 18/575,694 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Current Application 18/723,055
Reference Application No. 18/575,694
1. A method of transmitting point cloud data, the method comprising: encoding point cloud data; and transmitting a bitstream containing the point cloud data.
1. A method of transmitting point cloud data, the method comprising: encoding point cloud data; and transmitting a bitstream containing the point cloud data.
The independent claims of the 2 applications are identical to each other.
The same rejection can be made for U.S. Application Nos. 18/578,095, 18/698,199 and 18/727,198 as the independent claims of the U.S. Applications encompass the current application’s independent claims.
The Examiner notes that the language of the independent claim is extremely broad and may, in fact, present a double-patenting issue with many other applications. However, because of the extreme breadth of the claims, a fully comprehensive list could not be obtained in reasonable time.
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, 9, 10 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 11 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,803,986. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 9, 10 and 19 are anticipated by claims 1, 6 11 and 16 of the U.S. Patent.
The same rejection can be made for U.S. Patent Nos. 12,260,600, 12,299,943 and 12,307,726 as the independent claims of the U.S. Patents encompass the current application’s independent claims.
The Examiner notes that the language of the independent claim is extremely broad and may, in fact, present a double-patenting issue with many other issued patents. However, because of the extreme breadth of the claims, a fully comprehensive list could not be obtained in reasonable time.
Claim 1, 9, 10 and 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 11 and 16 of copending Application No. 17/919,836 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current application’s claims are anticipated by the reference application claims.
The same rejection can be made for U.S. Application Nos. 18/025,139, 18/035,266, 18/698,940 and 18/683,430 as the independent claims of the U.S. Applications encompass the current application’s independent claims.
The Examiner notes that the language of the independent claim is extremely broad and may, in fact, present a double-patenting issue with many other applications. However, because of the extreme breadth of the claims, a fully comprehensive list could not be obtained in reasonable time.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
With respect to the filing of such extremely broad independent claims, Applicant is cautioned and is respectfully reminded that it filed an Oath 6/21/2024 stating that it believes itself to be the original inventor or joint inventor of the claimed inventions. Examiner encourages Applicant to amend the claim set to be directed to its particular inventive contribution to the art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9-12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Flynn et al. (U.S. 2021/0004992), hereinafter Flynn.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Flynn discloses a device for transmitting point cloud data, the device comprising:
an encoder configured to encode point cloud data (Flynn [0002] and fig. 1); and
a transmitter configured to transmit a bitstream containing the point cloud data (Flynn [0002] and fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, Flynn discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the encoding of the point cloud data comprises:
generating a tree structure of the point cloud data (Flynn [0028], figs. 3 and 4); and
dividing the point cloud data into a plurality of groups based on layers of the tree structure (Flynn [0028], figs. 3 and 4),
wherein at least one of the groups comprises a plurality of subgroups (Flynn [0028]).
Regarding claim 3, Flynn discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the encoding of the point cloud data comprises:
encoding the point cloud data belonging to the subgroups based on context information (Flynn [0067]-[0068] and fig. 4).
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Flynn discloses a device for receiving point cloud data, the device comprising:
a receiver configured to receive a bitstream containing point cloud data (Flynn [0064], [0002], [0004] and fig. 2); and
a decoder configured to decode the point cloud data (Flynn [0064], [0002], [0004] and fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Flynn discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the decoding of the point cloud data comprises: generating a tree structure of the point cloud data; and dividing the point cloud data into a plurality of groups based on layers of the tree structure, wherein at least one of the groups comprises a plurality of subgroups (claim 11 recites analogous limitations to claim 2 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Furthermore, claim 11 discloses an inverse of encoding and Flynn discloses both encoding and decoding methods (Flynn figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 12, Flynn discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the decoding of the point cloud data comprises: decoding the point cloud data belonging to the subgroups based on context information (claim 12 recites analogous limitations to claim 3 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Furthermore, claim 12 discloses an inverse of encoding and Flynn discloses both encoding and decoding methods (Flynn figs. 1 and 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4-7 and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flynn in view of Chen et al. (U.S. 2007/0230564), hereinafter Chen.
Regarding claim 4, Flynn discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the encoding of the point cloud data comprises:
encoding, based on context information related to a first subgroup, a second subgroup (Flynn [0068]); and
adaptively updating context information related to the second subgroup (Flynn [0061] and [0068]).
Flynn does not explicitly disclose saving context information related to the second subgroup.
However, Chen teaches saving context information related to the second subgroup (Chen [0207]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Flynn’s method with the missing limitations as taught by Chen to decode other macroblocks (Chen [0207]).
Regarding claim 5, Flynn in view of Chen teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the first subgroup contains point cloud data belonging to a parent subgroup of the second subgroup (Flynn [0089] and fig. 11).
Regarding claim 6, Flynn in view of Chen teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the subgroups are detected by comparing position information about a node with bounding box information about the subgroups (Flynn [0041], [0045] and [0050]-[0051]).
Regarding claim 7, Flynn in view of Chen teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the bitstream contains information indicating whether at least one of the groups comprises the plurality of subgroups (Flynn [0045] and fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Flynn in view of Chen teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the decoding of the point cloud data comprises: decoding, based on context information related to a first subgroup, a second subgroup; and saving context information related to the second subgroup (claim 13 recites analogous limitations to claim 4 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Furthermore, claim 13 discloses an inverse of encoding and Flynn discloses both encoding and decoding methods (Flynn figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 14, Flynn in view of Chen teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the first subgroup contains point cloud data belonging to a parent subgroup of the second subgroup (claim 14 recites analogous limitations to claim 5 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Furthermore, claim 14 discloses an inverse of encoding and Flynn discloses both encoding and decoding methods (Flynn figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 15, Flynn in view of Chen teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the subgroups are determined by comparing position information about a node with bounding box information about the subgroups (claim 15 recites analogous limitations to claim 6 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Furthermore, claim 15 discloses an inverse of encoding and Flynn discloses both encoding and decoding methods (Flynn figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 16, Flynn in view of Chen teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the first subgroup is detected based on the bounding box information about the second subgroup (Flynn [0063] and [0038]. Furthermore, claim 16 discloses an inverse of encoding and Flynn discloses both encoding and decoding methods (Flynn figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 17, Flynn in view of Chen teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the bitstream contains information indicating whether at least one of the groups comprises the plurality of subgroups (claim 17 recites analogous limitations to claim 7 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Furthermore, claim 17 discloses an inverse of encoding and Flynn discloses both encoding and decoding methods (Flynn figs. 1 and 2).
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flynn in view of Chen as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Ray et al. (U.S. 2021/0400308), hereinafter Ray.
Regarding claim 8, Flynn in view of Chen teaches the method of claim 7.
Flynn does not explicitly disclose wherein the bitstream contains origin information and size information related to the bounding boxes of the subgroups.
However, Ray teaches, wherein the bitstream contains origin information and size information related to the bounding boxes of the subgroups (Ray Abstract, [0021], [0033] and [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Flynn in view of Chen with the missing limitations as taught by Ray to improve coding efficiency (Ray [0021]).
Regarding claim 18, Flynn in view of Chen and Ray teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the bitstream contains origin information and size information related to the bounding boxes of the subgroups (claim 18 recites analogous limitations to claim 8 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Furthermore, claim 18 discloses an inverse of encoding and Flynn discloses both encoding and decoding methods (Flynn figs. 1 and 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW KWAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7073. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chris Kelley can be reached at (571)272-7331. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW K KWAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482