Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/855,121

TRANSMISSION DEVICE FOR POINT CLOUD DATA, METHOD PERFORMED BY TRANSMISSION DEVICE, RECEPTION DEVICE FOR POINT CLOUD DATA, AND METHOD PERFORMED BY RECEPTION DEVICE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Oct 08, 2024
Examiner
LIMA, FABIO S
Art Unit
2486
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
LG Electronics Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
319 granted / 415 resolved
+18.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +15% lift
Without
With
+14.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
447
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.7%
-37.3% vs TC avg
§103
45.8%
+5.8% vs TC avg
§102
19.1%
-20.9% vs TC avg
§112
19.7%
-20.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 415 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. 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. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai et al. (), hereinafter referred to as Bai, in view of N0504 (“Text of ISO/IEC 23090-18 CDAM 1 Support of Temporal Scalability” INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR STANDARDIZATION ORGANISATION INTERNATIONALE DE NORMALISATION ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 03 MPEG SYSTEMS ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 03 N0504 March 2022, Virtual), hereinafter referred to as N0504. Regarding claim 1, Bai discloses method performed in a reception device of point cloud data (Bai, ¶¶[0007] and [0194] disclosing a deceiving unit receiving a video or picture or G-PCC bitstream), the method comprising: obtaining a geometry-based point cloud compression (G-PCC) file including the point cloud data (Bai, ¶[0043] - obtains G-PCC data including geometric data, attribute data, parameter sets, and other metadata required for decoding.); and obtaining a G-PCC temporal scalability group box GPCCTemporalScalabilityGroupBox from a track in the G-PCC file (Bai, ¶[0024] disclosing that the G-PCC scalability is temporal, and [0124], [0149]-[0152] disclosing obtaining a scalability group box at the track level), wherein a sample entry type of the track is one of ‘gpel’, ‘gpeg’, ‘gpcl’ or ‘gpcg’(Bai, ¶¶ [0088], [0099] - One of ‘gpel’, ‘gpeg’, ‘gpcl’, ‘gpcg’, ‘gpea’, ‘gpcl’, ‘gpes’, ‘gpcs’, ‘gpei’, and ‘gpci’ sample entry). Bai does not explicitly disclose wherein the G-PCC temporal scalability group box GPCCTemporalScalabilityGroupfBox is a box including information for grouping temporal level tracks. However, N0504 from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses wherein the G-PCC temporal scalability group box GPCCTemporalScalabilityGroupfBox is a box including information for grouping temporal level tracks (N0504, § X.2 disclosing the GPCCScalabilitylnfoBox including information for grouping temporal level tracks (e.g., multiple_temporal_level_tracks_flag ). It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Bai to add the teachings of N0504 as above, in order to indicate that temporal scalability is supported and provides information about the temporal levels present in that G-PCC tracks. (N0504, § X.2). Regarding claim 2, Bai and N0504 disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Furthermore, Bai discloses the e method of claim 1, wherein the track includes a geometry component (Bai, ¶¶[0032] [0123] ). Regarding claim 3, Bai and N0504 disclose all the limitations of claim 2, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Furthermore, Bai discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the sample entry type of the track is one of ‘gpcl’ or ‘gpcg’(Bai, ¶¶[0088] and [0099] ). Regarding claim 4, Bai and N0504 disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Furthermore, Bai discloses the method of claim 1, wherein based on the track including an attribute component and the sample entry type of the track being ‘gpcl’ or ‘gpcg’, the G-PCC temporal scalability group box is not obtained from the track (Bai, ¶[0101] disclosing the syntax GPCCComponentTypeBox indicates the type of G-PCC component (geometry or attribute); ¶¶ 0088] and [0099] sample entry type of the track being ‘gpcl’ or ‘gpcg; ¶¶ [0149]-[0151] -ScalableGroupBox(cptg) is anchored to the geometric track as the entry point of each level). Regarding claim 5, Bai and N0504 disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Furthermore, Bai discloses the method of claim 1, wherein, based on first tracks included in a same temporal scalability group box being combined, second tracks referred to by the first tracks are combined, the first tracks are tracks including a geometry component, and the second tracks are tracks including an attribute component (Bai, ¶¶[0132]-[0135] disclosing that tracking contributing to the same temporal scalability group box share a common cptg track_group_id and must be retained together) Regarding claim 6, Bai and N0504 disclose all the limitations of claim 5, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Furthermore, Bai discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the first tracks are combined based on the sample entry type of the track being one of ‘gpcl’ or ‘gpcg’ (Bai, ¶¶[0088] and [0099] listing ‘gpcl’ or ‘gpcg’ as mandatory sample entry types for G_PCC tracks and ¶[0124] defining scalable grouping via the cptg group box). Regarding claim 7, this claim is rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to the method (of decoding) of claim 1, since it claims analogous subject matter in the form of a method ( of encoding) for performing the same or equivalent functionality. The examiner notes that it is well-known in the art that video compression involves a complementary pair of systems: a compressor (encoder) and a decompressor (decoder). The encoder converts the source data into a compressed form, occupying a reduced number of bits prior to transmission or storage, while the decoder converts the compressed form back into a representation of the original video data by performing a reciprocal process to that of the encoder, decoding the encoded video data from the bitstream. Regarding claim 8, this claim is rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to the method of claim 1, since it claims analogous subject matter in the form of a device for performing the same or equivalent functionality. Furthermore, Bai discloses reception device of point cloud data, the reception device comprising: a memory; and at least one processor (Bai, ¶[0206]) 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 FABIO S LIMA whose telephone number is (571)270-0625. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 pm. 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, Jamie Atala can be reached on (571) 272-7384. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 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. /FABIO S LIMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 08, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 01, 2026
Response Filed
Jan 29, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604015
METHOD, APPARATUS, AND MEDIUM FOR VIDEO PROCESSING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593038
TEMPORAL PREDICTION OF PARAMETERS IN NON-LINEAR ADAPTIVE LOOP FILTER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12593045
ENTROPY CODING-BASED FEATURE ENCODING/DECODING METHOD AND DEVICE, RECORDING MEDIUM HAVING BITSTREAM STORED THEREIN, AND METHOD FOR TRANSMITTING BITSTREAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12581099
INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12581094
IMAGE SIGNAL ENCODING/DECODING METHOD AND DEVICE THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
77%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+14.8%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 415 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month