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 filed 09/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
US 12380605 B2 in claim 2 discloses the converting is based on a center position of a laser head and a relative position of a laser. Inherently, the relative position of the laser includes horizontal offset relative to the position of the laser head (See US 12380605 B2 specification figure 22 and column 38 lines 58-63: The upper part of FIG. 22 shows a structure 2200 of a LiDAR head including a laser module that outputs a laser. As shown in the figure, the position of the laser output from the laser module is expressed as a relative position away from the LiDAR head position by r.sub.L in the horizontal direction and by z.sub.L in the vertical direction).
US 12380605 B2 in claim 10 discloses the signaling information includes information for a conversion of the coordinates related to a position of a laser, wherein the converting the coordinates is based on a center position of a laser head and a relative position of a laser. Inherently the relative position of the laser is signaled in order to convert the coordinates.
US 12380605 B2 in claim 14 discloses the signaling information includes information for a correction of the coordinates related to a position of a laser, wherein the at least one processor configured to convert the coordinates of the points based on a center position of a laser head and a relative position of a laser. Inherently the relative position of the laser is signaled in order to convert the coordinates.
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 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. US 12380605 B2 in view of Ray et al. (US 20220114763 A1).
US 12380605 B2 in claim 2 discloses the converting is based on a center position of a laser head and a relative position of a laser. Inherently, the relative position of the laser includes horizontal offset relative to the position of the laser head (See US 12380605 B2 specification figure 22 and column 38 lines 58-63: The upper part of FIG. 22 shows a structure 2200 of a LiDAR head including a laser module that outputs a laser. As shown in the figure, the position of the laser output from the laser module is expressed as a relative position away from the LiDAR head position by r.sub.L in the horizontal direction and by z.sub.L in the vertical direction).
US 12380605 B2 in claim 10 discloses the signaling information includes information for a conversion of the coordinates related to a position of a laser, wherein the converting the coordinates is based on a center position of a laser head and a relative position of a laser. Inherently the relative position of the laser is signaled in order to convert the coordinates.
US 12380605 B2 in claim 14 discloses the signaling information includes information for a correction of the coordinates related to a position of a laser, wherein the at least one processor configured to convert the coordinates of the points based on a center position of a laser head and a relative position of a laser. Inherently the relative position of the laser is signaled in order to convert the coordinates.
Ray discloses a bitstream including information for an origin related to a laser beam for the point cloud data ([0102] The third syntax element of the point cloud data is indicative of a coordinate of an origin used in processing of angular coding mode; [0103] generate geom_angular_origin_xyz[k] (e.g., third syntax element in above example)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the inventions of (US 12361598 B2, US 12380605 B2, US 12602835 B2) and Ray, to include information for an origin related to a laser beam for the point cloud data, in order to effectively code the point cloud data.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 would be allowed over the prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
G-PCC codec description v8 in view of Ray et al. (US 20220114763 A1) doesn’t teach information for a horizontal offset of the laser beam from the origin is included in the bitstream, and wherein an x coordinate and a y coordinate of the geometry data are compensated based on the information for the horizontal offset.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 XIAOLAN XU whose telephone number is (571)270-7580. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. to Fri. 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, SATH V. PERUNGAVOOR can be reached at (571) 272-7455. 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.
/XIAOLAN XU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights