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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 4/16/26 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of 12,062,195 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
The applicant regarding the 101 rejection argues:
The rejection is respectfully submitted to be in error as it is conclusory and fails to perform the required two-step subject matter eligibility analysis set forth by the Supreme Court in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014) and Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), as mandated by MPEP § 2106.
The claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea. Instead, it is directed to a specific technical solution to a technical problem rooted in computer networking and computer graphics technology. Specifically, the invention addresses the challenge of transmitting immense volumes of dynamic 3D point cloud data over networks with limited bandwidth, a problem that restricts the practicality of immersive technologies like VR and AR. See, e.g., Specification, 0002 and 0100.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because the claims haven’t been rejected as being an abstract idea, instead they are rejected as being software instructions.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 1, is directed to a method performed by a client comprising the steps of: obtaining, receiving and applying which are nothing more than software instructions. Software instructions are non-statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 2-9 comprise more steps, for example claim 3 comprises the step of applying changes, therefore claims 2-9 have the same problem as claim 1, and are rejected under the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 10 (claim 20 is similar in scope), the prior art doesn’t teach:
obtain a reference point cloud representing a first point cloud in a time sequence of point clouds,
receive, from a server, a series of representations of changes to the reference point cloud, wherein each representation specifies an area of the reference point cloud and a change to be applied to the specified area, each such change comprises at least one of a 3D transformation, a set of points to be added to the reference point cloud, and a set of points to be removed from the reference point cloud, and
successively apply the representations to the reference point cloud to generate a point cloud representing a second point cloud in the time sequence of point clouds.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MAURICE L MCDOWELL, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-3707. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 2pm-10pm.
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, Said A. Broome can be reached at 571-272-2931. 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.
/MAURICE L. MCDOWELL, JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612
Prosecution Insights