DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/19/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
On page 13 of the Remarks, Applicant contends that moving data from the movie level to the file level represents “a completely opposite solution.” This argument is unreasonable in view of the ordinary skill in the art. As explained in the previous Response to Arguments, the prior art expresses a design choice or preference regarding where information should be found so that a consistent standardization framework can use agreed-upon rules. However, such a design choice or preference for one placement of data versus another does not represent some type of technological discovery or nonobvious feature under 35 U.S.C. 103. Indeed, the rejection cites to the teachings of Maze, which explains that data that would be found preferential to place at the movie level can just as easily be placed at the file level and vice versa. Applicant’s insistence that Ostermann’s SubpicCommonGroupBox and SubpicMultipleGroupsBox “can only exist at the movie level and not at the file level” has no evidentiary basis whatsoever. Attorney arguments and conclusory statements unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Why does Applicant assert such a contention, i.e. on what basis? Ostermann does not say it is not possible, only that it is not allowed in terms of compliance to a standard.
On pages 13–14 of the Remarks, Applicant contends that moving the data to the file-level from the movie level provides a non-obvious solution. Examiner is skeptical and requests Applicant provide more description of the problem solved by moving this data. Applicant explains that, “only when the boxes are contained in the file-level MetaBox can the entity_id values of the entity group refer to track IDs” is important, but does not explain why that is a problem requiring a solution. In fact, the statement is just a descriptive statement conveying what the skilled artisan already knows about the scope and hierarchy of file-level boxes (top-level) and movie-level boxes (nested). Should Applicant provide a clearer explanation of this issue, it may overcome a finding of obviousness so long as it also refutes Maze’s teaching that moving information into a different hierarchical level is straightforward to one skilled in this art. Specifically, Examiner found that Maze teaches entity groups specified in the GroupsListBox may be optionally contained in the file level or movie level. How is this teaching of Maze, drawn to entity groups in the GroupsListBox at the file-level not the identical solution proposed by Applicant? See also e.g. Oh (US 2022/0159261 A1) explaining, “Entity groups are indicated in GroupsListBox. The entity groups described in the GroupsListBox of file-level MetaBox refer to tracks or file-level items. The entity groups described in GroupsListBox of movie-level MetaBox refer to movie-level items.” (¶ 0424). See also Hannuksela (US 2022/0150296 A1), para. [0052], teaching entity_id is resolved to a track when a track with track_ID equal to entity_id is present and the GroupsListBox is contained in the file level. Here, Hannuksela seems to be describing as default behavior that which Applicant has asserted in the instant Remarks to be a solution to a problem. Should the rejections, infra, require the teachings of Hannuksela (US 2022/0150296 A1) to sustain a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant is on-notice regarding such teachings and should consider the claims alternatively rejected in view of these teachings.
The rejection relies on what the combination of Ostermann and Maze would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. Ostermann teaches every feature Applicant claims except Ostermann teaches the boxes shall be included in GroupsListBox in the movie-level MetaBox and shall not be contained in the file-level or track-level MetaBoxes. Applicant simply moves Ostermann’s information to the file-level box and calls that an invention. To refute such a contention, Examiner cited to Maze, which explains entity groups specified in the GroupsListBox may be optionally contained in the file level. Such a teaching of Maze, when combined with the level of skill in the art, would teach or suggest to the skilled artisan that movie-level and file-level placement is arbitrary and a mere design choice rather than some technologically significant reason such that information of the GroupsListBox can be included in the movie-level MetaBox or file-level MetaBox. Indeed, there is nothing in the record, either from Applicant or the prior art, supporting a theory that some particular problem or solution is implicated in the placement of this information in one level versus the other level. Applicant emphasized in the Remarks that Ostermann uses the terminology, “shall be contained” and “shall not be contained.” Examiner finds the skilled artisan recognizes that terminology as compliance terminology to adhere to the standard (common in standardization work) rather than some indication of a technological impediment. For all the foregoing reasons, Examiner is not persuaded of error. Thus, the rejection is sustained.
Examiner notes features added by way of amendment are addressed using the further teachings of Samuelsson under new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment. See rejections, infra.
Other claims are not argued separately. Remarks, 14.
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 of this title, 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, 5–9, 13, 14, 18, 19, and 21–26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostermann et al., “Information Technology—Coding of audio-visual objects—Part 15: Carriage of network abstraction layer (NAL) unit structured video in the ISO base media file format—Amendment 2: Carriage of VVC and EVC in ISOBMFF,” N19454, July 2020 (herein “Ostermann”), Maze (US 2021/0409798 A1), and Samuelsson (US 2022/0353536 A1).
Regarding claim 1, the combination of Ostermann, Maze, and Samuelsson teaches or suggests a method of processing video data, comprising: performing a conversion between visual media data and a visual media file that includes one or more tracks that store one or more bitstreams of the visual media data according to a format rule (Ostermann, pgs. 38–39: teaches Subpicture Entity Groups defining level information for VVC subpicture tracks for indicating combinatorial rules); wherein the one or more bitstreams include coded subpictures of the visual media data, and wherein the visual media file includes a base track that references one or more subpicture tracks (Ostermann, Section 11.3.3: teaches, “when a VVC track references VVC subpicture tracks, it is referred to as a VVC base track”), and wherein the format rule specifies that a first box SubpicCommonGroupBox for a first subpicture entity group with a same level contribution (Ostermann, pgs. 38–39: teaches Subpicture Entity Groups defining level information for VVC subpicture tracks wherein SubpicCommonGroupBox indicates combinatorial rules with the same level of contribution) and a second box SubpicMultipleGroupsBox for a second subpicture entity group with different coding properties (Ostermann, pgs. 38–39: teaches Subpicture Entity Groups defining level information for VVC subpicture tracks wherein SubpicMultipleGroupsBox indicates combinatorial rules with different properties) are contained in a GroupsListbox in a file-level Metabox and are not contained in Metaboxes at other levels than the file level (Ostermann, pg. 39: explains the boxes shall be included in the GroupsListBox in the movie-level MetaBox and shall not be contained in the file-level or track-level MetaBoxes; Therefore, Ostermann teaches not containing the information in any other box, but does teach containing the entity groups in the movie level; However, Maze teaches the skilled artisan would not be confined to only considering the entities being placed at the movie level; Maze, e.g. ¶ 0129: teaches entity groups specified in the GroupsListBox may be optionally contained in the file level), and wherein the format rule specifies an order of non-video coding layer (VCL) network abstraction layer (NAL) units in a sample of the base track in reconstructing a video unit from the sample of the base track and samples in the one or more subpicture tracks (Ostermann, Section 11.6.3: teaches a specified order for NAL units in a sample of a VVC track; Ostermann, Section 11.6.3, Note 1: teaches non-VCL NAL units time-aligned in decoding order and ordered according to the ‘spor’ sample group description; Ostermann, pg. 26, Note 1: teaches APSs are included in the VVC non-VCL track; see also Ostermann, Section 11.5.1 (pg. 13): describing the order of parameter sets (i.e. non-VCL NAL units) in a sample; see also Ostermann, bottom of pg. 15, stating, “It is recommended that the arrays be in the order DCI, VPS, SPS, PPS, prefix APS, prefix SEI.”; While Ostermann alone appears to adequately teach specifying a particular order for non-VCL NAL units regardless of picture header presence, the teachings of Samuelsson bolster the teachings of Ostermann by unequivocally explaining that non-VCL NAL unit ordering without regard to picture header was within the level of skill in the art; Samuelsson, ¶ 0633: teaches, “The order of the coded pictures and non-VCL NAL units within a layer access unit or an access unit shall obey the following constraints….” (emphasis added)), and the format rule specifies the order of the non-VCL NAL units regardless of a presence of a picture header NAL unit in the sample (Examiner notes the prior art does not consider the presence of the picture header NAL unit when describing a prescribed order for non-VCL NAL units).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Ostermann, with those of Maze, because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice the art of using containerization for VVC subpictures for omni-directional video transmission would be led to their relevant teachings and because Maze merely expresses what was well-known at the time regarding the option to use entity groups indicated in a GroupListBox in a MetaBox at the file-, or movie-level. Thus, the combination is a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Ostermann and Maze used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Ostermann and Maze, with those of Samuelsson, because all three references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice the art of using containerization for VVC subpictures for omni-directional video transmission would be led to their relevant teachings and because Samuelsson merely expresses what was well-known at the time regarding the option to define order constraints for non-VCL NAL units. Thus, the combination is a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Ostermann, Maze, and Samuelsson used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Ostermann, Maze, and Samuelsson teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein the format rule further specifies to add sample groups to carry information as carried by the subpicture entity groups to support a case where subpicture information is inconsistent through an entire time duration of a track of the one or more tracks (Examiner notes the point of sample groups (SampleToGroupBox and SampleGroupDescriptionBox) is to delineate changing information within a track; Ostermann, pg. 12: teaches that sample groups are used to define changes in samples during a time duration of a track and specifically teaches that when there are changes, e.g. to the positioning or size of a rectangular region, a new SampleGroupDescriptionBox including a RectangularRegionGroupEntry can be included to indicate those inconsistencies within a track; see also Ostermann, pg. 36–38: teaching the Subpicture ID and Subpicture order sample groups which contain information that may be inconsistent throughout the samples of a track container; Finally, Examiner notes the prior art is replete with examples of using sample groups to define viewports for subpicture rendering).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Ostermann, Maze, and Samuelsson teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein the visual media data is processed by a versatile video coding (VVC), and the one or more tracks are VVC tracks (Ostermann, pgs. 38–39: teaches Subpicture Entity Groups defining level information for VVC subpicture tracks for indicating combinatorial rules).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Ostermann, Maze, and Samuelsson teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion comprises generating the visual media file and storing the one or more bitstreams to the visual media file according to the format rule (Ostermann, Title: teaches the document is for carriage of VVC in ISOBMFF; see also Ostermann, pg. 7: explaining the point of VVC and containerization is storage of VVC content).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Ostermann, Maze, and Samuelsson teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion comprises parsing the visual media file according to the format rule to reconstruct the one or more bitstreams (Ostermann, pg. 19: teaches reconstruction of a VVC bitstream; see also Ostermann, pg. 20, Section 11.6.3).
Claim 9 lists the same elements as claim 1, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 13 lists the same elements as claim 5, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 5 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 14 lists the same elements as claim 1, but in CRM form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 18 lists the same elements as claim 5, but in CRM form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 5 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 19 lists the same elements as claim 1, but in storage method form rather than processing method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 21 lists the same elements as claim 6, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 6 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 22 lists the same elements as claim 7, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 7 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 23 lists the same elements as claim 8, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 8 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 24 lists the same elements as claim 6, but in CRM form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 6 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 25 lists the same elements as claim 5, but in storage method form rather than processing method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 5 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 26 lists the same elements as claim 6, but in storage method form rather than processing method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 6 applies to the instant claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Denoual (US 2023/0025332 A1) teaches default dependencies or reconstruction rules that can be set and can be overruled via one or more sample groups wherein static information (i.e. common) and dynamic information are separately considered (e.g. ¶¶ 0103–0105).
Denoual (US 2021/0377581 A1) teaches entity groups may be specified in GroupsListBox of a file-level MetaBox or in GroupsListBox of a movie-level MetaBox (¶ 0181).
Hannuksela (US 2022/0078486 A1) teaches using entity groups for subpictures wherein entity groups can be indicated in GroupsListBox at the file-level MetaBox or movie-level MetaBox (e.g. ¶¶ 0077, 0078, and 0124).
Katsumata (US 2019/0200096 A1) teaches “information changing within the tracks among the various kinds of information regarding images is set in sample units by an approach called sample groups….” (¶ 0493). It further teaches setting only the information changing within tracks using sample groups (¶ 0537).
Denoual (US 2018/0184098 A1) teaches information changing over time in ISOBMFF is achieved by sample groups (¶ 0186).
Ouedraogo (US 2022/0329792 A1) teaches, “the presence of the subpicture identifiers in the Picture Header may make the merging operation more complex. Indeed, when the signaling of the identifiers is made in the Picture Header, it overrides the mapping of the subpicture identifiers that is made in the Parameter Sets NAL units.” And further teaches that to avoid checking whether the picture header modifies the subpicture identifiers mapping, subpictures can be constrained for merging operations by disabling the mapping of the identifiers in the picture header using the ph_subpic_id_signalling_present_flag (¶ 0272).
Deshpande (US 2022/0053207 A1) teaches sub-picture header present flag and determining sub-picture parameters without parsing sub-picture parameters from the sub-picture header (e.g. Claim 18).
Seregin (US 2020/0344473 A1) teaches APS IDs can be present in a picture header or a slice header or both, such that a picture header is optional to convey non-VCL NAL unit information representing APS information (¶ 0092).
Hannuksela (US 2022/0150296 A1), para. [0052], teaching entity_id is resolved to a track when a track with track_ID equal to entity_id is present and the GroupsListBox is contained in the file level.
Oh (US 2022/0159261 A1) explaining, “Entity groups are indicated in GroupsListBox. The entity groups described in the GroupsListBox of file-level MetaBox refer to tracks or file-level items. The entity groups described in GroupsListBox of movie-level MetaBox refer to movie-level items.” (¶ 0424).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael J Hess whose telephone number is (571)270-7933. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 9:00am-5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571)272-3922. 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.
MICHAEL J. HESS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2481
/MICHAEL J HESS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481