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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 3-10 and 20-25 are pending of which claims 1 and 9-10 are in independent form. Claims 1, 3-10 and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Response to Claim Amendments and Arguments
On pages 7-8 of the remarks filed on 07 Mary 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of the claims, Applicant argues the additional elements Examiner indicated were directed towards generic computer components performing generic computer functions integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application and Applicant requests a showing where it would be understood that specification information specifying external data that is outside an HEIF file that is to be associated with an image is a generic computer function.
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner is persuaded by Applicant’s arguments supporting a position that even if the independent claims are found to be directed towards a judicial exception, the additional elements integrate the judicial application into a practical application which amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself, such that the claims are directed towards patent eligible subject matter. Therefore, Examiner has withdrawn the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of the claims.
Applicant’s Argument:
On pages 9-11 of the remarks, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of the claims, Applicant argues Liu fails to teach the claimed calculating a file-specific required capacity of a reserved area…arguing Liu descries a general-purpose buffer for temporary processing of HEIF files and not the reserved area being part of the HEIF structure itself.
Examiner’s Response:
In the Non-Final Rejection dated 07 February 2025, in rejecting the claim limitation reciting, calculating a file-specific required capacity of a reserved area for a high efficiency file format (HEIF) file to be generated…Examiner relied on the Liu reference as follows with emphasis added:
Liu beginning at page 8, text block 8 – page 10, text block 7 of the attached PDF describes Figure 2 and a process of storing an encoded HEIF file and a decoder in a buffer because a buffer is smaller than a disk and accesses data quicker than a disk, and specifically, Liu at page 10 text block 1 of the attached PDF teaches considering file size requirements when loading an HEIF image frame onto a disk which Examiner is interpreting as reading on the claim limitations reciting, regarding calculating a file-specific required capacity size of a reserved area of a High Efficiency Image File Format (HEIF) file to be generated.
Examiner is not relying on the temporary storing of a HEIF file in a buffer to read on the claim limitation, but when the HEIF file is being transferred to disk a file size requirement is calculated.
Applicant’s Argument:
Applicant argues the claim limitations reciting what the reserved area is being reserved for is not taught by the prior art references.
Examiner’s Response:
Malamal Vadakital at paragraphs [0086]-[0087] discloses generating a single HEIF file from a set of images [i.e., external data] with associated metadata [i.e., reserved area] indicating relationships between the said images in the set of images.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 3-10 and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malamal Vadakital et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0052937 (hereinafter “Malamal Vadakital”) in view of Foreign Patent No. CN 109886861 A (hereinafter “Liu”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Malamal Vadakital discloses:
a memory storing instructions; and an electronic processor configure to execute the instructions to perform a set of operations including (Paragraph [0065] discloses similar implementations.)
generating the HEIF file having the reserved area of the (i.e., “apparatus 700 may receive or otherwise obtain media data 720 for generating one or more container files from the media data…” Para. [0225] and “media data is stored using a container file format…the container file format may be specified in different specifications and/or they may use different basic units or elements…the container file format may be based on elements comprising key-length-value triplets, where the…, length indicates the size of the information [i.e., reserved area of the…required capacity] and the value comprises the information itself.” Para. [0068] and “Some media file format standards include…the High Efficiency Image File Format (ISO/IEC 23008-12, which may be abbreviated HEIF)” Para. [0069].)
the reserved area being reserved for storing relationship information related to association of an image stored in the HEIF file with specification information, the specification information specifying external data that is outside the HEIF file and is to be associated with the image (Malamal Vadakital at paragraphs [0086]-[0087] discloses generating a single HEIF file from a set of images [i.e., external data] which are separate from the HEIF file, and storing associated metadata in the HEIF file indicating the relationship between the images in the set of images [i.e., storing relationship information…with specification information]. Specifically, “Computational photography forms a new category of use cases that can benefit from the HEIF. A set of related images can be stored in a single file with associated metadata indicating relationships between different pictures.” Para [0087].)
assigning the specification information to the external data, and writing the relationship information to the reserved area (i.e., “Computational photography forms a new category of use cases that can benefit from the HEIF. A set of related images can be stored in a single file with associated metadata indicating relationships between different pictures.” Para [0087]. Examiner is of the position that generating and storing a HEIF file including image data and relationship data, as cited in Malamal Vadakital above, reads on the claim limitations reciting assigning the specification information and writing the relationship information.)
wherein the reserved area is reserved at a time of generation of the HEIF file and prior to acquisition of the specification information (Malamal Vadakital at paragraphs [0068]-[0069] and [0225] discloses media data including HEIF data in a container file format that includes key-length-value triplets wherein length indicates the size of the information. Examiner is interpreting the container file format of Malamal Vadakital as disclosing a schema and reading on the recited claim limitations.)
While Malamal Vadakital, as cited above discloses using a schema to create a HEIF file, wherein the template specifies a metadata size, Malamal Vadakital does not disclose:
calculating a file-specific required capacity of a reserved area for a high efficiency file format (HEIF) file to be generated.
However, Liu beginning at page 8, text block 8 – page 10, text block 7 of the attached PDF describes Figure 2 and a process of storing an encoded HEIF file and a decoder in a buffer because a buffer is smaller than a disk and accesses data quicker than a disk, and specifically, Liu at page 10 text block 1 of the attached PDF teaches considering file size requirements when loading an HEIF image frame onto a disk which Examiner is interpreting as reading on the claim limitations reciting, regarding calculating a file-specific required capacity size of a reserved area of a High Efficiency Image File Format (HEIF) file to be generated.
Both the Malamal Vadakital reference and the Liu reference, in the sections cited by the Examiner, are in the field of endeavor of storing HEIF files. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the use of a schema to create a HEIF file, wherein the template specifies a metadata size as disclosed in Malamal Vadakital with the consideration of file size requirements when loading a HEIF image frame onto a disk as taught in Liu to facilitate in increased efficiency in processing HEIF files (See Liu at page 9, text blocks 5-6 of the attached PDF).
Regarding dependent claim 3, all of the particulars of claim 1 have been addressed above. Additionally, Malamal Vadakital discloses:
determining the required capacity in accordance with one or more of: a data amount of the specification information; a number of images to be stored in the HEIF file and to be able to be associated with the external data; and a number of pieces of external data that is able to be associated with an image that is stored in the HEIF file (Malamal Vadakital at paragraph [0068] discloses a container file format schema taking into account information size [i.e., required capacity…a data amount of the specification information…].)
Regarding dependent claim 4, all of the particulars of claims 1 and 3 have been addressed above. Additionally, Malamal Vadakital discloses:
determining a number of images to be stored in the HEIF file and to be able to be associated with the external data, in accordance with one or more of: a remaining capacity of a medium that stores the HEIF file; a maximum number of main images being able to be stored in the HEIF file; and evaluation of an image that is stored in the HEIF file (Malamal Vadakital at paragraph [0074] discloses specifying the number of images or tracks in a meta box and reads on the claim limitation reciting a maximum number of main images being able to be stored in the HEIF file…)
Regarding dependent claim 5, all of the particulars of claim 1 have been addressed above. Additionally, Malamal Vadakital discloses:
wherein in the HEIF file, a meta box stores an association information storage box that stores association information associating the image with specification information of the external data, the association information storage box having the reserved area (Malamal Vadakital at paragraph [0084] discloses a meta box storing metadata that is being stored externally.)
Regarding dependent claim 6, all of the particulars of claim 1 have been addressed above. Additionally, Malamal Vadakital discloses:
wherein the HEIF file stores a free box, the free box having the reserved area and being capable of storing any data (Malamal Vadakital at paragraph [0084] discloses storing any no-timed data objects [i.e., capable of storing any data] in a meta box.)
Regarding dependent claim 7, all of the particulars of claim 1 have been addressed above. Additionally, Malamal Vadakital discloses:
wherein in the HEIF file, an mdat box stores, as an item, an area for association information that associates the image with specification information of the external data, the area having the reserved area (Malamal Vadakital at paragraph [0073] discloses storing mdat boxes storing metadata as part of a file.)
Regarding dependent claim 8, all of the particulars of claim 1 have been addressed above. Additionally, Malamal Vadakital discloses:
wherein in the HEIF file, an area of information to serve as the specification information is stored as the reserved area in an mdat box (Malamal Vadakital at paragraph [0073] discloses storing mdat boxes storing metadata as part of a file.)
Regarding independent claim 9, while independent claim 9, a method claim, and independent claim 1, a device claim, are directed towards different statutory classes, they are similar in scope. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 provided above.
Regarding independent claim 10, while independent claim 10, a program claim, and independent claim 1, a device claim, are directed towards different statutory classes, they are similar in scope. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 provided above.
Regarding dependent claim 20, all of the particulars of claim 10 have been addressed above. Additionally, claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3 provided above.
Regarding dependent claim 21, all of the particulars of claims 10 and 21 have been addressed above. Additionally, claim 21 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4 provided above.
Regarding dependent claim 22, all of the particulars of claim 10 have been addressed above. Additionally, claim 22 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5 provided above.
Regarding dependent claim 23, all of the particulars of claim 10 have been addressed above. Additionally, claim 23 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6 provided above.
Regarding dependent claim 24, all of the particulars of claim 10 have been addressed above. Additionally, claim 24 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7 provided above.
Regarding dependent claim 25, all of the particulars of claim 10 have been addressed above. Additionally, claim 25 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 8 provided above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ANTHONY G GEMIGNANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1018. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Amy Ng can be reached at 571-270-1698. 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.
/A.G.G./Examiner, Art Unit 2164
/AMY NG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2164