DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Amendments and Remarks received 12/02/2025 in which no claims are cancelled, no claims are amended, and no claims are added as new claims.
Response to Arguments
Examiner notes the terminal disclaimer dated 12/02/2025, which obviates the double patenting rejection in view of patent no. 12,100,182.
On pages 6–7 of the Remarks, Applicant contends there is a patentably distinct feature between the present claims and the claims of US Patent 12,243,276. Specifically, Applicant contends the feature of a quantized prediction residual in US Patent 12,243,276 is patentably distinct from the present claims. Examiner disagrees. A quantized prediction residual is an obvious feature that is not the point of novelty of that application. See its prosecution history. Furthermore, the present claims not having such a feature recited means the present application is broader than the reference patent. Narrower subject matter in a reference patent necessarily anticipates broader subject matter in a present application. Regarding the alleged patentably distinct feature of quantized prediction residuals, Lee (US 2021/0295567 A1) was cited in the preceding Office Action and across this patent family for teaching geometric compression of point cloud data. As explained in the preceding Office Action, Lee teaches prediction residuals (¶ 0299). In addition, Lee teaches quantizing the residual information (e.g. ¶ 0304). Therefore, the averred feature of quantized prediction residuals is not a patentably distinct feature in view of the prior art and therefore the presence or absence of such a feature would not overcome an obvious-type double patenting rejection. Accordingly, the double patenting rejection in view of US Patent 12,243,276 is sustained.
On page 8 of the Remarks, Applicant contends there is a patentably distinct feature between the present claims and the claims of US Patent 12,243,276. Specifically, Applicant contends that because the present application is directed to decoding methods and devices while US Patent 12,243,276 is directed only to the corresponding encoding methods and devices, such a distinction represents patentably distinct features between the reference patent and the present claims. Examiner disagrees. Examiner finds the skilled artisan would find reciprocal encoding and decoding methods and devices obvious in view of one another. See e.g. Lee, ¶ 0100, describing “encoding/decoding” in the same breath such that one skilled in the art would find the description of one to substantially subsume a discussion of the other due to their reciprocity.
On pages 8–9 of the Remarks, Applicant contends there is a patentably distinct feature between the present claims and the claims of US Patent 12,243,275. Specifically, Applicant contends the feature of a divisional unit in point cloud data in US Patent 12,243,275 is patentably distinct from the present claims. Examiner disagrees. Dividing or segmenting point cloud data into divisional units is an obvious feature that is not the point of novelty of that application. See its prosecution history. Furthermore, the present claims not having such a feature recited means the present application is broader than the reference patent. Narrower subject matter in a reference patent necessarily anticipates broader subject matter in a present application. Regarding the alleged patentably distinct feature of dividing point cloud data into divisional units, Lee (US 2021/0295567 A1) was cited in the preceding Office Action and across this patent family for teaching geometric compression of point cloud data. Lee teaches dividing point cloud data into divisional units (e.g. ¶¶ 0018, 0181, 0193, 0202, 0351). Therefore, the averred feature of point cloud divisional units is not a patentably distinct feature in view of the prior art and therefore the presence or absence of such a feature would not overcome an obvious-type double patenting rejection. Accordingly, the double patenting rejection in view of US Patent 12,243,275 is sustained.
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 1–14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,243,267 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims represent substantially overlapping subject matter regarding information indicating geometric residual data bit counts and second information indicating the bit count of the first bit count information in the bitstream.
Claims 1–14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,100,182 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims represent substantially overlapping subject matter regarding information indicating geometric residual data bit counts and second information indicating the bit count of the first bit count information in the bitstream.
Claims 1–14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,243,275 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims represent substantially overlapping subject matter regarding information indicating geometric residual data bit counts and second information indicating the bit count of the first bit count information in the bitstream.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1–14 would be allowable if the double patenting rejection is overcome with a terminal disclaimer or persuasive arguments why the double patenting rejection is in error. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Examiner was unable to find a teaching or suggestion in the prior art regarding geometric point cloud compression (e.g. G-PCC) and the signaling of bit count information for residual point cloud data in a bitstream including bit count information indicating a bit count of bit count information as essentially claimed. Close prior art is listed below.
The closest prior art appears to be either (1) patent documents belonging to Applicant; or (2) standardization meeting submissions belonging to Applicant similar to the following: Liang et al., “[G-PCC] CE13.39 report on Bit count coding for predictive coding,” ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 MPEG2020/m54628, June 2020.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Lee (US 2021/0295567 A1) teaches geometry-based point cloud compression (G-PCC) (¶ 0090), coding a generated residual signal (¶ 0299), and a syntax element for indicating a bit count for the x, y, z fields in a header, but appears silent regarding indicating in a bitstream a bit count of the bit count information as claimed.
Tusbakihara (US 2012/0054370 A1) teaches video packetization and including a bit count in the header section of the mdat atom, but appears silent regarding indicating in a bitstream a bit count of the bit count information as claimed (¶ 0032).
Other cited references are Applicant’s own work and was evaluated for double patenting.
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 extension fee 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 Michael J Hess whose telephone number is (571)270-7933. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00am-5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571)272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8933.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL J HESS/Examiner, Art Unit 2481