CTNF 19/206,238 CTNF 87622 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(b) 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. Claim(s) 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor the applicant regards as the invention. b. Regarding claim 1, the phrase " may have " renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purpose “ may have” will be assumed. Other independent claims have similar issues. Dependent claims inherit the issue. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-20 are allowed over prior arts. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The primary reason for allowance of independent claim is that the underlined limitations (see below) in the context of other limitations in the claim, considering the claim as a whole, is not anticipated nor is obvious over the prior art of record or prior art found during Examiner’s search. Other Independent Claims are allowable for similar reason. Depended claims are allowable, at least, because of their dependence on the allowable independent claim. 1 . A three-dimensional data encoding method, comprising: encoding each of a plurality of frames, wherein each frame includes three dimensional points: and generating a bitstream including the plurality of encoded frames and first control information that is common for the plurality of encoded frames, wherein the first control information includes a parameter set for a sequence , and the parameter set includes first information indicating whether (i) all three-dimensional points shall have unique positions in each of the plurality of encoded frames or (ii) two or more three dimensional points may have the same position in any of the plurality of encoded frames . While following prior arts have been found to be relevant, they fail to teach the claimed subject matters. "PCC Test Model C13v2", 122. MPEG MEETING: 20180416 - 20180420:SAN DIEGO: (MOTION PICTURE EXPERT GROUPOR ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG1 1), No. n17519 (2018), (hereinafter Mammou) US 20190197739 A1 (hereinafter Sinharoy) US 20140324914 A1 (hereinafter Luo) Mammou teaches, in section 3.2.2, to detect duplicates, the STL set data structure is leveraged Sinharoy teaches duplicate points are identified based on encoded depth information for across two frames {para 157}: Luo teaches, Fig.10, Num_DPCell in the header of the bitstream indicates whether there are duplicate points in a cell/processing unit or not {Num_DPCell =0 means none}: (See para 47-50) Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. 08-34 AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12335491 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are obvious variations of the patented claims . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shahan Rahaman whose telephone number is (571)270-1438. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am - 3:30pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4195. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form. /SHAHAN UR RAHAMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426 Application/Control Number: 19/206,238 Page 2 Art Unit: 2426 Application/Control Number: 19/206,238 Page 4 Art Unit: 2426 Application/Control Number: 19/206,238 Page 5 Art Unit: 2426 Application/Control Number: 19/206,238 Page 6 Art Unit: 2426 Application/Control Number: 19/206,238 Page 7 Art Unit: 2426
Prosecution Insights