CTNF 18/975,485 CTNF 87190 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 3 recites “a first candidate” and “a second candidate” in line 3. Claim 2 already recited “first candidates” and “second candidates” in line lines 5-6. It is unclear to the Examiner whether the limitation in line 3 of claim 3 is the same or different from the limitation in lines 5-6 of claim 2. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “a three-dimensional point generation method…comprising” performing steps. The claim is directed to a process, which is a statutory category under 35 U.S.C. 101. For Step 2A Prong one, claim 1 recites a “performing” and “specifying” step. The “performing” limitation recites a mathematical concept in the form of a mathematical calculation (e.g. applying a rotation transformation or an inversion transformation) to three-dimensional points. Rotation about an axis and inversion are textbook mathematical operations on coordinates and fall within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. The limitation may also be characterized as a mental process, because a person with pen and paper could perform rotation or inversion of a small number of three-dimensional coordinates on a XYZ coordinate system by hand. The “specifying” limitation recites the further abstract operation of “specifying” one set of data items “associated with” another set of data items. This “specifying” limitation can be performed mentally or via routine mathematical comparison, and falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. For step 2A Prong two, claim 1 recites no additional elements beyond the abstract operations themselves. In particular, the claim does not recite: any hardware, processor, memory, or other computing device for performing operations. For Step 2B, the claim recites no additional elements to evaluate under Step 2B that could provide an inventive concept and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and adds a “lookup table…to specify the one or more third three-dimensional points”. This limitation recites a mental process in that it specifies that the data association of claim 1 is performed by reference to a table associating sets of candidates. Referencing a table to identify an associated entry is an operation that can be performed mentally. Furthermore, the limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The recitation of a “lookup table” introduces only a generic abstract data structure. It does not recite any hardware that stores the table, any technological context that uses the table, or any improvement to computer functionality from the table’s use. The use of lookup tables is well known, routine, and conventional technique in computer science and data processing and therefore does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B. Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and adds “a first candidate associated with a second candidate is specified, the second candidate being similar but not identical to actual points of the one or more second three-dimensional points”. This limitation recites a mental process for comparing data items for similarity and selecting an associated entry based on the comparison. Similarity based matching of data is an operation that a person can perform mentally and falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. Furthermore, the limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Specifying a similarity based matching criterion for the abstract data association operation of claim 2 narrows the abstract idea without combining it to any concrete technological application and therefore does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B. Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and adds “rotating the one or more second three-dimensional points about a Y-axis substantially parallel to a vertical direction in a real world. This limitation merely narrows the abstract mathematical rotation operation of claim 1 by specifying the rotation axis. Specifying a specific axis (e.g. Y-axis) to perform a mathematical rotation does not change the character of the rotation operation as a mathematical concept. Furthermore, the limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there is no recitation of any sensor capturing 3D points, any display rendering points, or any other concrete application tying the recited Y-axis to a particular technological process. Rotation about a Y-axis is well known, routine, and conventional technique in computer graphics and 3D modeling and therefore does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B. Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and adds “performing inverse-conversion on the one or more third three-dimensional points…” This limitation recites a mathematical concept for applying the inverse of a previously applied rotation or inversion to coordinate data. The inverse of a mathematical rotation or inversion is also a mathematical operation. The operation can also be performed mentally on a small number of points and therefore falls within the mental processes grouping. Similar to claims 1 and 4, the limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Performing the inverse of a mathematical operation does not introduce any hardware, technological context, physical transformation, or technological improvement. Inverse geometric transformations are well known, routine, and conventional technique in computer graphics and therefore does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B. Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and adds “estimating one or more fourth three-dimensional points from the one or more second three-dimensional points”. This limitation recites both a mathematical concept and a mental process. Estimating new data values from existing data values can be performed mentally. Furthermore, the limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the mathematical operations does not introduce any hardware, technological context, physical transformation, or technological improvement. Estimating data points from neighboring data points is well known, routine, and conventional technique in computer graphics and 3D modeling and therefore does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B. Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and adds performing another rotation or inversion on another one or more neighboring 3D points and comparing the total number of one or more second 3D points of claim 1 with the total number of one or more fifth 3D points. This limitation recites both a mathematical concept and a mental process. Similar to claims 1 and 5, the additional rotation or inversion on another one or more neighboring 3D points can be performed mentally. Also, the total numbers being different does not introduce a non-abstract idea. Furthermore, the limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the mathematical operations does not introduce any hardware, technological context, physical transformation, or technological improvement. Therefore, the limitation does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B. Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and adds a “first table” and a “second table…to specify the one or more third three-dimensional points, the one or more second three-dimensional points and the one or more converted second three-dimensional points are classified into groups…”. This limitation recites mental processes in the form of classifying data into groups and performing a two tier table based data association. Both classification and table based association are operations that can be performed mentally. Furthermore, the limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the tables and groups are abstract data structures that do not recite any hardware, technological context, physical transformation, or technological improvement. The use of hierarchical or grouped lookup tables is well known, routine, and conventional technique in data processing and therefore does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-4, 6, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borges et al. ( Fractional Super-Resolution of Voxelized Point Clouds ) in view of Lorensen ( Marching Cubes: A High Resolution 3D Surface Construction Algorithm ) . In regards to claim 1, Borges teaches a three-dimensional point generation method [ e.g. method to super-resolve voxelized point clouds downsampled by a fractional factor , see section titled “Abstract” in page 1380] for generating one or more three-dimensional points in a three-dimensional coordinate system [ e.g. the point cloud is a list of points in the 3D space, each with spatial coordinates (x, y, z) , see section titled “Introduction” in page 1380], the three-dimensional point generation method comprising: extracting one or more second three-dimensional points located in a vicinity of a first three-dimensional point [ e.g. 26 voxels adjacent to a center parent voxel , see section titled “Proposed SR Geometry Method” in page 1383]; and specifying one or more third three-dimensional points [ e.g. super-resolved children , see section titled “Proposed SR Geometry Method” in page 1383] associated with the one or more second three-dimensional points [ e.g. associated with the 26 adjacent voxels , see section titled “Proposed SR Geometry Method” in page 1383]. Borges does not explicitly teach performing at least one of rotation or inversion on one or more second three-dimensional points located in a vicinity of a first three-dimensional point to generate one or more converted second three-dimensional points (emphasis added); specifying one or more third three-dimensional points associated with the one or more converted second three-dimensional points (emphasis added). However, Lorensen teaches performing at least one of rotation or inversion [ e.g. Permutation of these 14 basic patterns using complementary and rotational symmetry produces the 256 cases , see section titled “Marching Cubes Algorithm” in pages 349-350] on one or more second three-dimensional points [Fig. 3; e.g. eight vertex points , see section titled “Marching Cubes Algorithm” in pages 349-350] to generate one or more converted second three-dimensional points [ e.g. triangle vertices interpolated along cube edges , see section titled “Marching Cubes Algorithm” in pages 349-350]; specifying one or more third three-dimensional points associated with the one or more converted second three-dimensional points [ e.g. This index serves as a pointer into an edge table that gives all edge intersections for a given cube configuration. The triangle vertices specified by the index correspond to the third three-dimensional points , see section titled “Marching Cubes Algorithm” in pages 349-350]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Borges’ method with the features of performing at least one of rotation or inversion on one or more second three-dimensional points to generate one or more converted second three-dimensional points; specifying one or more third three-dimensional points associated with the one or more converted second three-dimensional points in the same conventional manner as taught by Lorensen because Borges already stated that rotation transformations were left to future work [see section titled “Proposed SR Geometry Method” in page 1383]. Lorensen does not explicitly teach a first three-dimensional point. However, Borges already taught the first three-dimensional point [ e.g. a center parent voxel , see section titled “Proposed SR Geometry Method” in page 1383]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used Borges’ first three-dimensional point with Lorensen’s rotation or inversion because Borges already stated that rotation transformations were left to future work [see section titled “Proposed SR Geometry Method” in page 1383]. In regards to claim 2, Borges teaches the three-dimensional point generation method according to claim 1, wherein in the specifying, a lookup table is referenced in order to specify the one or more third three-dimensional points [ e.g. referencing the LUT to specify the super-resolved children , see section titled “Proposed SR Geometry Method” in page 1383], and the lookup table associates first candidates of the one or more third three-dimensional points with second candidates of the one or more second three-dimensional points [ e.g. We can relate its neighborhood φM(vd2(k)) with its occupied children σ(vd2 (k)). Each LUT is an N f -by-2 array, pairing a neighborhood configuration in the first column with its correspondent child occupancy in the second column , see section titled “Proposed SR Geometry Method” in page 1383]. Borges does not explicitly teach the lookup table associates first candidates of the one or more third three-dimensional points with the one or more converted second three-dimensional points (emphasis added). However, Lorensen teaches the lookup table associates first candidates of the one or more third three-dimensional points [ e.g. the table contains the edges intersected for each case , see section titled “Marching Cubes Algorithm” in pages 349-350] with the one or more converted second three-dimensional points [ e.g. with the 14 patterns produced by applying rotational symmetry and complementary symmetry to the eight bit vertex index , see section titled “Marching Cubes Algorithm” in pages 349-350]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Borges’ method with the features of the lookup table associates first candidates of the one or more third three-dimensional points with the one or more converted second three-dimensional points in the same conventional manner as taught by Lorensen because Borges already stated that rotation transformations were left to future work [see section titled “Proposed SR Geometry Method” in page 1383]. In regards to claim 3, Borges does not explicitly teach the three-dimensional point generation method according to claim 2, wherein a first candidate associated with a second candidate is specified, the second candidate being similar but not identical to actual points of the one or more second three-dimensional points. However, Lorensen teaches the three-dimensional point generation method according to claim 2, wherein a first candidate associated with a second candidate is specified [ e.g. the look up table associates surface-edge intersections producing triangle vertices with the 14 patterns , see section titled “Marching Cubes Algorithm” in pages 349-350], the second candidate being similar but not identical to actual points of the one or more second three-dimensional points [ e.g. the 14 patterns are similar but not identical to the 256 cases which a surface can intersect the cube , see section titled “Marching Cubes Algorithm” in pages 349-350]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Borges’ method with the features of wherein a first candidate associated with a second candidate is specified, the second candidate being similar but not identical to actual points of the one or more second three-dimensional points in the same conventional manner as taught by Lorensen because Borges already stated that rotation transformations were left to future work [see section titled “Proposed SR Geometry Method” in page 1383]. In regards to claim 6, Borges teaches the three-dimensional point generation method according to claim 1, further comprising: estimating one or more fourth three-dimensional points from the one or more second three-dimensional points [ e.g. The nearest-neighbor interpolation (NNI) produces all the possible children V u (k) from the occupied neighboring voxels surrounding the parent node , see sections titled “Point Cloud Resampling” in page 1382 and “Proposed SR Geometry Method” in page 1383]. In regards to claim 9, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 1, but in the form of a three-dimensional point generation device comprising: memory; and circuitry connected to the memory, wherein the circuitry performs the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Borges teaches a three-dimensional point generation device [ e.g. personal computer , see section titled “PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS” in page 1389] comprising: memory [ e.g. 16GB of RAM , see section titled “PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS” in page 1389]; and circuitry [ e.g. CPU , see section titled “PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS” in page 1389] connected to the memory, wherein the circuitry performs the method of claim 1. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 1 is applied . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borges et al. ( Fractional Super-Resolution of Voxelized Point Clouds ) in view of Lorensen ( Marching Cubes: A High Resolution 3D Surface Construction Algorithm ) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. ( Regularization Strategy for Point Cloud via Rigidly Mixed Sample ) . In regards to claim 4, Borges does not explicitly teach the three-dimensional point generation method according to claim 1, wherein the rotation includes rotating the one or more second three-dimensional points about a Y-axis substantially parallel to a vertical direction in a real world. However, Lorensen teaches the three-dimensional point generation method according to claim 1, wherein the rotation includes rotating the one or more second three-dimensional points [ see rejection to claim 1 above ]. Borges as modified by Lorensen does not explicitly teach wherein the rotation includes rotating the one or more second three-dimensional points about a Y-axis substantially parallel to a vertical direction in a real world (emphasis added). However, Lee teaches the three-dimensional point generation method according to claim 1, wherein the rotation includes rotating the one or more three-dimensional points [ e.g. 3D point cloud of the object , see section titled “Experiments” in page 15904] about a Y-axis substantially parallel to a vertical direction in a real world [ e.g. rotating it 30⁰ on its vertical (y) axis , see section titled “Experiments” in page 15904]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Borges’ method and the teachings of Lorensen with the features of wherein the rotation includes rotating the one or more three-dimensional points about a Y-axis substantially parallel to a vertical direction in a real world in the same conventional manner as taught by Lee because Lee provides a method that remarkably improves DNN performances and robustness for shape classification and outperforms existing data augmentation strategies [see section titled “Introduction” in page 15901]. Lee does not explicitly teach the one or more second three-dimensional points (emphasis added). However, Lorensen already taught the one or more second three-dimensional points [Fig. 3; e.g. eight vertex points , see section titled “Marching Cubes Algorithm” in pages 349-350]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Lee’s rotation about a Y-axis substantially parallel to a vertical direction in a real world with Lorensen’s one or more second three-dimensional points because rotation of 3D points is well known and commonly used in the art of computer graphical systems . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 10, 11, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budagavi et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20190139266) in view of Borges et al. ( Fractional Super-Resolution of Voxelized Point Clouds ) and further in view of Lorensen ( Marching Cubes: A High Resolution 3D Surface Construction Algorithm ) . In regards to claim 10, Budagavi teaches a decoding device [ e.g. a decoding device , 0006] comprising: a receiver that receives a bitstream including encoded three-dimensional points [ e.g. communication interface is configured to receive a compressed bitstream including 3-D point cloud , 0006]; and circuitry that is (i) connected to the receiver [ e.g. communication interface and a processor that is operably coupled to the communication interface , 0006] and (ii) decodes the encoded three-dimensional points [ e.g. The processor is configured to decode the compressed bitstream , 0006], wherein the bitstream further [ e.g. The processor is additionally configured to encode the 2-D frames, the first flag, the second flag, and the metadata to generate a compressed bitstream (emphasis added), 0007] includes: first information [ e.g. metadata , 0007] for performing at least one of rotation [ e.g. rotation , 0041]; and second information [ e.g. auxiliary information 562 includes the metadata such as the (i) scale, (ii) offset, (iii) rotation, (iv) point size, (v) point shape, and the like , 0177]. Budagavi does not explicitly teach generate three-dimensional points including a first three-dimensional point and one or more second three-dimensional points located in a vicinity of the first three-dimensional point; performing at least one of rotation or inversion of the one or more second three-dimensional points to generate one or more converted second three-dimensional points; specifying one or more third three-dimensional points associated with the one or more converted second three-dimensional points. However, Borges as modified by Lorensen teaches generate three-dimensional points including a first three-dimensional point and one or more second three-dimensional points located in a vicinity of the first three-dimensional point [ please refer to the rejection of claim 1 ]; performing at least one of rotation or inversion of the one or more second three-dimensional points to generate one or more converted second three-dimensional points [ please refer to the rejection of claim 1 ]; specifying one or more third three-dimensional points associated with the one or more converted second three-dimensional points [ please refer to the rejection of claim 1 ]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Budagavi’s decoding device with the features of generate three-dimensional points including a first three-dimensional point and one or more second three-dimensional points located in a vicinity of the first three-dimensional point; performing at least one of rotation or inversion of the one or more second three-dimensional points to generate one or more converted second three-dimensional points; specifying one or more third three-dimensional points associated with the one or more converted second three-dimensional points in the same conventional manner as taught by Borges and Lorensen because decoding devices are well known and commonly used in the art of point cloud compression systems [0003-0004 of Budagavi]. In regards to claim 11, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 2. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 2 is applied. In regards to claim 17, Budagavi teaches an encoding device [ e.g. an encoding device , 0007] comprising: circuitry that encodes three-dimensional points to generate encoded three-dimensional points [ e.g. The compression engine 768 compresses the normalized 3-D point cloud 762b into an encoded bitstream 770 , 0200]; and a transmitter that is connected to the circuitry and transmits a bitstream that includes the encoded three-dimensional points [ e.g. communication interface is configured to transmit the compressed bitstream , 0007], wherein the bitstream [ e.g. The processor is additionally configured to encode the 2-D frames, the first flag, the second flag, and the metadata to generate a compressed bitstream (emphasis added), 0007] further includes: first information [ e.g. metadata , 0007] for performing at least one of rotation [ e.g. rotation , 0041]; and second information [ e.g. auxiliary information 562 includes the metadata such as the (i) scale, (ii) offset, (iii) rotation, (iv) point size, (v) point shape, and the like , 0177]. Budagavi does not explicitly teach a first three-dimensional point and one or more second three-dimensional points located in a vicinity of the first three-dimensional point to generate encoded three-dimensional points; performing at least one of rotation or inversion of the one or more second three-dimensional points to generate one or more converted second three-dimensional points; specifying one or more third three-dimensional points associated with the one or more converted second three-dimensional points. However, Borges as modified by Lorensen teaches a first three-dimensional point and one or more second three-dimensional points located in a vicinity of the first three-dimensional point to generate encoded three-dimensional points [ please refer to the rejection of claim 1 ]; performing at least one of rotation or inversion of the one or more second three-dimensional points to generate one or more converted second three-dimensional points [ please refer to the rejection of claim 1 ]; specifying one or more third three-dimensional points associated with the one or more converted second three-dimensional points [ please refer to the rejection of claim 1 ]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Budagavi’s decoding device with the features of a first three-dimensional point and one or more second three-dimensional points located in a vicinity of the first three-dimensional point to generate encoded three-dimensional points; performing at least one of rotation or inversion of the one or more second three-dimensional points to generate one or more converted second three-dimensional points; specifying one or more third three-dimensional points associated with the one or more converted second three-dimensional points in the same conventional manner as taught by Borges and Lorensen because decoding devices are well known and commonly used in the art of point cloud compression systems [0003-0004 of Budagavi]. In regards to claim 18, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 10 but in method form. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 10 is applied. In regards to claim 19, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 17 but in method form. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 17 is applied . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budagavi et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20190139266) in view of Borges et al. ( Fractional Super-Resolution of Voxelized Point Clouds ) and further in view of Lorensen ( Marching Cubes: A High Resolution 3D Surface Construction Algorithm ) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Han et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20210209812) . In regards to claim 16, Budagavi as modified by Borges and Lorensen does not explicitly teach the decoding device according to claim 10, wherein the bitstream further includes fourth information indicating a total number of the one or more second three-dimensional points. However, Han teaches the decoding device according to claim 10, wherein the bitstream [ e.g. bitstream , 0168] further includes fourth information indicating a total number of the one or more second three-dimensional points [ e.g. lifting_num_pred_nearest_neighbours specifies the maximum number of nearest neighbors , 0305]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Budagavi’s decoding device and the teachings of Borges and Lorensen with the features of wherein the bitstream further includes fourth information indicating a total number of the one or more second three-dimensional points in the same conventional manner as taught by Han because Han provides a point cloud compression coding having better compression efficiency and appropriate latency on data corresponding to a region that is important to a user [0250]. Allowable Subject Matter 07-43-02 Claims 5, 7, 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 07-43 Also, claims 12-15 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. In regards to claim 5, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the three-dimensional point generation method according to claim 1, further comprising: performing inverse-conversion on the one or more third three-dimensional points to generate one or more converted third three-dimensional points, the inverse-conversion being an inverse-conversion of the at least one of rotation or inversion performed on the one or more second three-dimensional points. In regards to claim 7, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the three-dimensional point generation method according to claim 1, further comprising: performing at least one of rotation or inversion on one or more fifth three-dimensional points located in a vicinity of the first three-dimensional point to generate one or more converted fifth three-dimensional points; and specifying one or more sixth three-dimensional points associated with the one or more converted fifth three-dimensional points, wherein a total number of the one or more fifth three-dimensional points is different from a total number of the one or more second three-dimensional points. In regards to claim 8, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the three-dimensional point generation method according to claim 1, wherein in the specifying, a first table and a second table are referenced in order to specify the one or more third three-dimensional points, the one or more second three-dimensional points and the one or more converted second three-dimensional points are classified into groups, the first table associates first candidates of the one or more third three-dimensional points with the groups, and the second table associates the groups with second candidates of the one or more second three-dimensional points and the one or more converted second three-dimensional points. In regards to claim 12, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the decoding device according to claim 10, wherein the second information includes: lookup tables each of which associate first candidates of the one or more third three-dimensional points with second candidates of the one or more second three-dimensional points and the one or more converted second three-dimensional points; and third information that indicates, for each of regions to which three-dimensional points belong, a lookup table to be used among the lookup tables. In regards to claim 13, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the decoding device according to claim 10, wherein the second information includes: a first lookup table that associates first candidates of the one or more third three-dimensional points with groups; and a second lookup table that associates the groups with second candidates of the one or more second three-dimensional points and the one or more converted second three-dimensional points. In regards to claim 14, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the decoding device according to claim 10, wherein the first information indicates one or more conversion methods that are useable, among conversion methods each including at least one of rotation or inversion. In regards to claim 15, the claim depends on claim 14. Therefore, claim 15 is allowable for at least the same reason as claim 14 if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SHIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5764. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 11:00AM to 7:00PM EST. 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 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. /ANDREW SHIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2612 /Said Broome/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/975,485 Page 2 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/975,485 Page 3 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/975,485 Page 4 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/975,485 Page 5 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/975,485 Page 6 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/975,485 Page 7 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/975,485 Page 8 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/975,485 Page 9 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/975,485 Page 10 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/975,485 Page 11 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/975,485 Page 12 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/975,485 Page 14 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/975,485 Page 15 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/975,485 Page 16 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/975,485 Page 17 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/975,485 Page 18 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/975,485 Page 19 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/975,485 Page 20 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/975,485 Page 21 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/975,485 Page 22 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/975,485 Page 23 Art Unit: 2612
Prosecution Insights