DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Amendments and Remarks received 05/20/2026 in which claims 2–4, 10–12, 15–17, and 20 are cancelled, claims 1, 6, 9, 14, 19, 21, 24, and 26 are amended, and no claims are added as new claims.
Response to Arguments
Examiner incorporates herein previous Responses to Arguments.
On pages 10–11 of the Remarks, Applicant contends the features added by way of amendment are not taught by the combination of Osermann, Maze, and Samuelsson. Examiner finds the argument moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment. As explained in the rejection, infra, Ostermann’s teachings in Sections 11.5.1 and 11.6.3 explain an order in which the parameter sets, picture unit content (i.e. VCL NAL unit), and non-VCL NAL units are presented in a sample of a track to resolve and access unit, which contains a picture unit. Choi teaches the skilled artisan would interpret the picture unit to include the picture header and the VCL NAL units, not the non-VCL NAL units. And finally, Ostermann and Samuelsson teach, at the end of the sample or following the picture unit, filler data NAL units (i.e. FD_NUT) and the other claimed non-VCL NAL unit types are classified as non-VCL NAL units, such that in combination with the other teachings of Ostermann and Choi, the claimed NAL unit types would be excluded from (see Choi) and following the picture unit in a sample (see Ostermann). Therefore, because the prior art teaches or suggests Applicant’s claimed combination, the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Other claims are not argued separately. Remarks, 11.
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), Samuelsson (US 2022/0353536 A1), and Choi (US 2021/0306647 A1).
Regarding claim 1, the combination of Ostermann, Maze, Samuelsson, and Choi 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 that a sample of a Versatile Video Coding (VVC) track is resolved to a picture unit that contains NAL units, in which, when there is at least one NAL unit in the sample with nal_unit_type equal to EOS_NUT, EOB_NUT, SUFFIX_APS_NUT, SUFFIX_SEI_NUT, FD_NUT, or RSV_NVCL_27, the NAL units in the sample up to and excluding a first of these NAL units are contained in the picture unit (Examiner notes L.2.4 (Annex L) of N19460, provided by Applicant on 12/08/2021, explains that for subpictures of type ‘vvs1’ (dependent subpictures rather than independent subpictures) certain non-VCL NAL units are absent in the samples; This note is made because Applicant is unclear under what scenario the claimed format rule is envisaged to be operating; Ostermann, Section 11.3.3: teaches in the NOTE, that redundant transmission of non-VCL NAL units, like those listed for this claimed feature, can be avoided by leaving them out of the VVC subpicture tracks; Ostermann, Section 11.5.1: explains a Suffix APS NAL Unit must be sent following the last VCL NAL unit of the picture unit (PU); Ostermann, pg. 19: The bottom paragraph teaches EOB and EOS NAL units are “placed after all NAL units”; Ostermann, Section 11.6.3: teaches a specified order for NAL units in a sample of a VVC track that is resolved to an access unit; Ostermann, Section 11.6.3, Note 1: teaches non-VCL NAL units may be optionally contained in a non-VCL track; Ostermann, Section 11.6.3, Note 2: teaches the claimed NAL unit types are last in the ordered list and follow the picture header (which initializes the picture unit); Ostermann, pg. 26, Note 1: teaches APSs may be 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.”; These teachings of Ostermann give a general ordering of how the sample of a track should be organized wherein first, the parameter sets are signaled if the sample is a first sample in a sequence with the same sample entry, next the picture unit is signaled containing VCL NAL units of the picture content, then finally, non-VCL NAL units following the picture unit; Choi, ¶ 0183: explains how the skilled artisan would interpret the picture unit to include the picture header and the VCL NAL units, not the non-VCL NAL units; Ostermann, Section 11.5.1: teaches the canonical order includes, at the end, filler data NAL units (i.e. FD_NUT); Samuelsson, Table 2: teaches the claimed NAL unit types are classified as non-VCL NAL units, such that in combination with the teachings of Ostermann and Choi would teach or suggest that the claimed NAL unit types would be excluded from (see Choi) and following the picture unit in a sample (see Ostermann)).
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.
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, Maze, and Samuelsson, with those of Choi, because all four 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 Choi merely describes what the skilled artisan would interpret the picture unit may include and exclude regarding VCL and non-VCL NAL unit types. 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, Samuelsson, and Choi used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Ostermann, Maze, Samuelsson, and Choi 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, Samuelsson, and Choi teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein the visual media data is processed by 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, Samuelsson, and Choi 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, Samuelsson, and Choi 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).
Hannuksela (US 2017/0347026 A1) teaches an access unit may contain, in addition to VCL NAL units of the coded picture, non-VCL NAL units (¶ 0154).
Wu (US 2021/0176491 A1) teaches both the FD_NUT (filler data) and the reserved NAL unit type (RSV_NVCL_27) (Table 3).
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 extension fee 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 Michael J Hess whose telephone number is (571)270-7933. The examiner can normally be reached 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 571-273-8933.
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/Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights