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 .
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 and 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,273,557. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 and 8 of the current application are anticipated by claims 1 and 4 of the U.S. Patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hur et al. (U.S. 2021/0209813), hereinafter Hur.
Regarding claim 1, Hur discloses a method of transmitting point cloud data, the method comprising:
acquiring point cloud data using a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) system (Hur [0107] and fig. 1, #10001);
encoding the point cloud data (Hur fig. 1, #10002); and
transmitting the encoded point cloud data and signaling information (Hur fig. 1, #10003).
Regarding claim 8, Hur discloses a device for transmitting point cloud data, comprising:
an acquirer configured to acquire point cloud data using a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) system (Hur [0107] and fig. 1, #10001);
an encoder configured to encode the point cloud data (Hur fig. 1, #10002); and
a transmitter configured to transmit the encoded point cloud data and signaling information (Hur fig. 1, #10003).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hur in view of Wang et al. (U.S. 2022/0342044), hereinafter Wang.
Regarding claim 2, Hu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the encoding of the point cloud data comprises:
splitting points in the point cloud data into a road and an object (Hur [0240]); and
encoding geometry information including positions of points spilt into the road and the object and attribute information including one or more attribute values of the points spilt into the road (Hur [0107], [0240] and cover figure, bottom).
Hur does not explicitly disclose compensating for refraction occurring in the point cloud data; and splitting points in the refraction-compensated point cloud data into a road and an object.
However, Wang teaches compensating for refraction occurring in the point cloud data (Wang [0126]);
splitting points in the refraction-compensated point cloud data into a road and an object (Wang [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Hur with the missing limitations as taught by Wang to improve the accuracy of the optical devices and improve overall LiDAR performance (Wang [0004]).
Regarding claim 3, Hur in view of Wang teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the signaling information comprises refraction compensation-related information of the point cloud data (Wang [0120] and [0046]).
The same motivation for claim 2 applies to the missing limitations of claim 3.
Regarding claim 9, Hur in view of Wang teaches the device of claim 8, wherein the encoder comprises:
a refraction compensator configured to compensate for refraction occurring in the point cloud data (Wang [0050] and [0126]);
a road-object splitter configured to split points in the refraction-compensated point cloud data into a road and an object (Wang [0053] and Hur [0240]); and
an encoder configured to encode geometry information including positions of points spilt into the road and the object and to encode attribute information including one or more attribute values of the points spilt into the road (Hur [0107], [0240] and cover figure, bottom).
The same motivation for claim 2 applies to the missing limitations of claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Hur in view of Wang teaches the device of claim 9, wherein the signaling information comprises refraction compensation-related information of the point cloud data (Wang [0120] and [0046]).
The same motivation for claim 2 applies to the missing limitations of claim 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is allowed.
Claims 4-7 and 11-14 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW KWAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7073. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached at (571)272-7331. 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.
/MATTHEW K KWAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights