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 .
Notice to Applicants
This communication is in response to the Application filed on 10/1/2024.
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/16/2024 and 5/22/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,537,978 (i.e., “patent ‘978”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are anticipated.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent Nos. 12,307,729; 12,165,368; 11,328,440; 11,830,212; 11,308,651; 11,823,424; and 11,158,107. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are anticipated.
Please note: Patent ‘978 is used in the example of mapping in the table below. Other patents issued map to pending claim 1 in similar fashion and not repeated herewith.
Current Applicant No., 18/853,327
US Patent 12,537,978
[Claim 1] A method of transmitting point cloud data, the method comprising:
1. A method of encoding point cloud data, the method comprising:
encoding geometry data of the point cloud data;
encoding geometry data of the point cloud data;
encoding attribute data of the point cloud data based on the geometry data; and
encoding attribute data of the point cloud data based on the geometry data; and
transmitting the encoded geometry data, the encoded attribute data, and signaling information.
transmitting the encoded geometry data, the encoded attribute data, and signaling information,
wherein the encoding of the geometry data includes: transforming a coordinate of the geometry data from a first coordinate system to a second coordinate system; and compressing the geometry data by performing prediction based on a reference frame on the second coordinate system, wherein the compressing of the geometry data includes: obtaining radius residual information in the geometry data based on radius information in the geometry data and radius information in the predicted geometry data, and wherein the signaling information includes information related to the radius residual information.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 21 of copending Application No. 17/615,336 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because obvious over each other.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Current Applicant No., 18/853,327
US Patent Application No., 17/615,336
[Claim 1] A method of transmitting point cloud data, the method comprising:
21. A method for processing point cloud data, the method comprising:
encoding geometry data of the point cloud data;
encoding the point cloud data including geometry information and attribute information, wherein the geometry information represents positions of points of the point cloud data and the attribute information represents attributes of the points of the point cloud data, wherein the encoding the point cloud data includes: encoding the geometry information; and
encoding attribute data of the point cloud data based on the geometry data; and
encoding the attribute information based on sampling process for LOD (Level of Detail) generation; and
transmitting the encoded geometry data, the encoded attribute data, and signaling information.
transmitting a bitstream including the encoded point cloud data, wherein the bitstream includes signaling information for the encoded point cloud data, the signaling information includes LOD generation information, the LOD generation information includes:
first information representing whether a distance-based sampling for the LOD generation is applied or not and second information representing whether centroid distance sampling is applied for the LOD generation based on an octree-based sampling or not.
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.
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: “geometry encoder”, “attribute encoder”, “transmitter”, “LOD generator”, “neighbor searcher”, “compressor”, and “geometry grid adaptation part” in claims 8-14.
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 § 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 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)(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, 6-8 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mammou et al. (US 2019/0087979) (hereafter, “Mammou”).
Regarding claim 1, Mammou discloses a method of transmitting point cloud data (view 108 in fig. 1; compressed point cloud information 266 in fig. 2C; paragraphs [0101-0103]), the method comprising: encoding geometry data (inputs to point cloud re-sampling module 252 in fig. 2C) of the point cloud data; encoding (encoder 250 in fig. 2C) attribute data (attribute image generation module 260 in fig. 2C) of the point cloud data based on the geometry data; and transmitting (compressed point cloud information 266 in fig. 2C) the encoded geometry data, the encoded attribute data, and signaling information (image padding module 262 in fig. 2C; paragraph [0513]),
Regarding claims 6-7 Mammou discloses wherein the signaling information comprises information about a bounding box (bounding boxes 314 and 316, Fig. 3C, paragraphs [0159-0160]) acquired based on a distribution of points in a full layer, wherein the information about the bounding box comprises position information and size information related to the bounding box. (see 350 in fig. 3E, paragraphs [0451 and 0513]).
With regard to claim 8, claim 8 is rejected same as claim 1 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 1 are equally applicable to claim 8. Mammou discloses a device and a computer as shown Fig. 1, 2A-2D, etc., and all of the other limitations similar to claim 1 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
With regard to claims 13-14, claims 13-14 are rejected same as claims 6-7 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claims 6-7 are equally applicable to claims 13-14, and all of the other limitations similar to claims 6-7 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-4 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mammou et al. (US 2019/0087979) (hereafter, “Mammou”) in view of Mammou et al. (US 2019/0080483) (hereafter, “Mammou2”).
With regard to claim 2, Mammou discloses the method of transmitting point cloud data of claim 1. However, Mammou does not expressly teach wherein the encoding of the attribute data comprises: generating one or more levels of detail (LoDs) from a layer-based tree structure comprising the geometry data; searching for and selecting, based on at least one of the one or more LoDs, one or more nearest neighbors of a neighbor search target node; and compressing attribute information based on the selected one or more nearest neighbors of the neighbor search target node.
Mammou2 teaches wherein the encoding of the attribute data comprises: generating one or more levels of detail (LoDs) from a layer-based tree structure comprising the geometry data (paragraphs [0152-0159 and 0164-0178]); searching for and selecting, based on at least one of the one or more LoDs, one or more nearest neighbors of a neighbor search target node (paragraphs [0147-0149, 0158, 0194-0195); and compressing attribute information based on the selected one or more nearest neighbors of the neighbor search target node (paragraphs [0152-0159 and 0164-0178]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mammou’s reference to have level of detail and compressing attribute information of Mammou2’s reference. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to use LOD structure to compress attributes associated with a point cloud, as suggested by Mammou2 at paragraphs [0152-0153].
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Mammou2 with Mammou to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
With regard to claim 3, Mammou2 discloses wherein, in the searching for and selecting the one or more nearest neighbors, the at least one of the one or more LODs is a scalable transmitted LoD (paragraphs [0153 and 0193]).
With regard to claim 4, Mammou discloses wherein the encoding of the attribute data comprises: up-sampling a geometry grid down-sampled based on the scalable transmitted LoD to a geometry grid of a full layer based on the signaling information (paragraphs 0274-0278, 0302-0304], Figures 5C-5D, 5H); and searching for and selecting the nearest neighbors in the up-sampled geometry grid (paragraph [0302]).
With regard to claims 9-11, claims 9-11 are rejected same as claims 2-4, respectively, and the arguments similar to that presented above for claims 2-4 are equally applicable to claims 9-11, and all of the other limitations similar to claims 2-4 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The cited art of record fails to teach limitation/feature of “wherein the searching for and selecting the nearest neighbors in the up-sampled geometry grid comprises: searching for the nearest neighbors of the neighbor search target node based on a Morton code order or Euclidean distance”, recited in claim 5 and corresponding claim 12.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yang et al. (US 2022/0329833), discloses a nearest neighbor search method. The method is applicable in a device and comprises: acquiring a Morton code set of point cloud data to be searched; stratifying the point cloud data on the basis of the Morton code set and of a first distance threshold to produce current stratum data; shifting to the right by a first preset digit Morton codes of prediction data other than the stratified data in the point cloud data to produce a corresponding first parent node set; determining, on the basis of Morton codes of the current stratum data, a neighbor area satisfying a criterion in the first parent node set; and determining a nearest neighboring point set of the current stratum data in the neighboring area. Also provided in an exemplary embodiment of the present application are a device and a computer storage medium.
Zhu et al. (US 2025/0045972), discloses point cloud compression with geometric partitioning.
Deng et al. (US 2024/0163459), discloses point cloud compression with geometric partitioning.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEFALI D. GORADIA whose telephone number is (571)272-8958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-6PM, Friday 8AM-12PM.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
SHEFALI D. GORADIA
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2676
/SHEFALI D GORADIA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights