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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. After the change of scope of the presently amended claims 1-22, examiner brings forward a new grounds of rejection based on the change in scope of the independent claim. It is the examiner’s position that the arguments presented by the applicants in pages 7-9 of response filed 12/31/25 is also not persuasive. As discussed below, Thomas includes a plurality of ROI video stream that have data associated with it, such as Identifiers, and data to indicate positioning information, change in position of the ROI, etc. , and of course ROI video stream that is to be presented in the position indicated by the ROI information. The system is able to generate the MPD as discussed in Figs. 4 and 6, which includes the main HEVC video file, dictated by an MPD file to allow it to process, among others, ROI video streams to be reproduced together within the HEVC video.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, 10-12, 15 and 17-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Thomas et al. (US 2017/0118540).
Regarding claim 1, Thomas teaches an information processing apparatus (Figs. 1, 2, 4, 9 and 21) comprising:
a generating unit (Figs. 4 and 6, process of generating a stream by a system) configured to generate a playlist (See MPD in Fig. 6) including a network address that is referred to for acquisition of an image, (Fig. 6 and paragraphs 111-113 teaches a URL for acquiring images. Paragraph 181 teaches image frames being associated with video. paragraph 114 teaches that position parameters x,y,w,h wherein the origin of the within the MPD video element is retrieved for playback purposes), and including a plurality of sets each of which includes region information defining a spatial partial region in the image (paragraphs 98-100 and 111-121 teaches region information. As discussed in the paragraphs and visually illustrated in Figs. 1-2, a plurality of ROIs exist and their plurality of data component defining spatial partial regions also exists in the MPD (SMF and ROI MFs), therefore meets the claimed “plurality of sets”), and includes annotation information that is information to be displayed in association with the partial region (Thomas teaches the claimed in paragraphs 98-100 and 111-121 wherein a generating process includes generating the overall video file, by incorporating a plurality of received “ROI” using a ROI stream generator. The ROI stream that’s generated includes the content that is to be displayed at their respective positions, display time and content presentation. Paragraphs 43 and 74 wherein each ROI has a ROI Stream Identifier which comprises data for “ROI positioning information defining the position of said sub-region with the full image region of said HEVC tiled video stream” for the corresponding “ROI stream comprising video data for rendering a first ROI”.).
a sending unit configured to send the playlist generated by the generating unit (paragraph 100 teaches sending the generated ROI stream (with the MPD)).
Regarding claim 2, Thomas teaches the claimed wherein the region information defines a position and a shape of the partial region in the image (at least paragraphs 71 teaches position and shape (paragraph 14 and 78) of the region that is a crop of the entire image/frame).
Regarding claim 3, Thomas teaches the claimed wherein the region information defines the shape of the partial region as one of a point, a rectangle, a circle, an ellipse, a polygon, and a pixel designation region (paragraph 14 and 78 teaches shapes/tiles/etc.).
Regarding claim 4, Thomas teaches the claimed wherein the region information includes the number of parameters corresponding to a shape of the partial region and indicating a position and a size of the partial region (at least paragraphs 71 teaches position and paragraphs 14 and 78 teaches the shape of the region that is a crop of the entire image/frame)).
Regarding claim 5, Thomas teaches the claimed wherein a position and a shape of the partial region in the image are defined by a description of a predetermined format, and a method of interpreting the description in the predetermined format is indicated by a schema (paragraphs 14, 78 and 113-114 states the shape is defined according language format standards for DASH/HEVC and of course based on the coding used to create the MPD/Spatial Manifest file (Fig. 6)).
Regarding claim 6, Thomas teaches the claimed wherein if there are a plurality of partial regions having the same shape, the generating unit generates a playlist including region information obtained by performing a description concerning the partial regions having the same shape using one element as a whole (at least paragraphs 71 teaches position and paragraphs 14 and 78 teaches the shape of the region that is a crop of the entire image/frame). The “same shape” is used for all regions).
Regarding claim 7, Thomas teaches the claimed wherein if a shape of a region is designated on a pixel-by-pixel basis, the region information defines the partial region while reducing a data amount by integrating adjacent pixels (paragraphs 98-100 and 111-121 teaches region information including ROI coordinates which correspond to pixel by pixel basis).
Regarding claim 8, Thomas teaches the claimed wherein the partial region is one of a (examiner notes the alternative language) region indicating an object detected from the image, a region in which a predetermined event is detected by context analysis in the image, and a region designated by a user (paragraph 98 teaches both user selection and automatic object detection and object tracking).
Regarding claim 10, Thomas teaches the claimed wherein the object detected from the image is one of (examiner notes the alternative language) a human, a face, a pupil, an animal, a vehicle, a motorcycle, a number plate, and a lesion portion (paragraph 98 teaches automatic object detection and object tracking, object detection generally includes objects in the images, which meets the above).
Regarding claim 11, Thomas teaches the claimed wherein the annotation information includes one of a text, an image, a video, and speech (paragraphs 98-100 and 111 teaches “ROI video streams”).
Regarding claim 12, Thomas teaches the claimed wherein the annotation information includes a tag indicating that the annotation information has common attribute information (paragraphs 189-195 teaches ROI tags that indicate type of annotation with specific attributes about the timestamp and whether the location of the ROI changes).
Regarding claim 15, Thomas teaches the claimed wherein the image is a composite image generated by combining a plurality of images (Paragraph 181 teaches image frames being associated with video. paragraph 114 teaches that position parameters x,y,w,h wherein the origin of the within the MPD video element is retrieved for playback purposes).
Regarding claim 17, Thomas teaches the claimed wherein the image is an image constituting one of (examiner notes the alternative language) a still image and a moving image, and the partial region is one of a partial region of the still image and a partial region in an image of the moving image which corresponds to not less than one frame (Paragraph 181 teaches image frames being associated with video. paragraph 114 teaches that position parameters x,y,w,h wherein the origin of the within the MPD video element is retrieved for playback purposes. The ROI coordinates are affected across a plurality of frames that makes up the video frames, following it as a detected object moves through the video).
Regarding claim 18, Thomas teaches the claimed wherein the playlist includes a network address to be referred to for acquisition of one of the region information and the annotation information (Paragraph 181 teaches image frames being associated with video. paragraph 114 teaches that position parameters x,y,w,h wherein the origin of the within the MPD video element is retrieved for playback purposes).
Regarding claim 19, Thomas teaches an information processing apparatus (Figs. 1, 2, 4 and 19 teaches a client device usable to playback/reproduce an MPD/manifest files) comprising:
a receiving unit configured to receive a playlist including a network address that is referred to for acquisition of an image, and include a plurality of sets each of which includes region information defining a spatial partial region in the image, and includes annotation information that is information to be displayed in association with the partial region (see claim 1 above, wherein Thomas teaches the playlist in generated by the description in Figs. 4 and 6 and the plurality of sets is met by the plurality of ROI video stream information separate from the main HEVC video stream. Paragraphs 98-100 and 111-121 teaches region information. As discussed in the paragraphs and visually illustrated in Figs. 1-2, a plurality of ROIs exist and their plurality of data component defining spatial partial regions also exists in the MPD (SMF and ROI MFs), therefore meets the claimed “plurality of sets” Thomas teaches the claimed in paragraphs 98-100 and 111-121 wherein a generating process includes generating the overall video file, by incorporating a plurality of received “ROI” using a ROI stream generator. The ROI stream that’s generated includes the content that is to be displayed at their respective positions, display time and content presentation. Paragraphs 43 and 74 wherein each ROI has a ROI Stream Identifier which comprises data for “ROI positioning information defining the position of said sub-region with the full image region of said HEVC tiled video stream” for the corresponding “ROI stream comprising video data for rendering a first ROI”.);
an analyzing unit configured to analyze the received playlist (Fig. 9 and paragraphs 151-155, 911 stream processor receives the MPD/Stream analyzes the ROI stream to process it for playback);
an acquiring unit configured to acquire the image corresponding to the network address based on the analysis result (paragraphs 155, 158 and 164 wherein the image data associated with the ROI is requested and later stream “URL for requesting the ROI segments identified in the SMF”); and
a display unit configured to display the partial region and the annotation information while superimposing the partial region and the annotation information on the image (Thomas: Fig. 9, media player 906 and paragraphs 151-155 teaches display of the ROI with the corresponding image/frame data in the video playback.).
Method claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as apparatus claim 1 above.
Method claim 21 is rejected for the same reasons as apparatus claim 19 above.
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim 22 is rejected for the same reasons as in claims 1 and 18 above.
Regarding claim 23, Thomas teaches the claimed wherein the playlist further includes identifiers for identifying each of the plurality of sets (Thomas teaches the claimed in paragraphs 98-100 and 111-121 wherein a generating process includes generating the overall video file, by incorporating a plurality of received “ROI” using a ROI stream generator. The ROI stream that’s generated includes the content that is to be displayed at their respective positions, display time and content presentation. Paragraphs 43 and 74 wherein each ROI has a ROI Stream Identifier which comprises data for “ROI positioning information defining the position of said sub-region with the full image region of said HEVC tiled video stream” for the corresponding “ROI stream comprising video data for rendering a first ROI”.).
Regarding claim 24, Thomas teaches the claimed further comprising an acquiring unit configured to acquire an image file including image data, first information corresponding to the region information, and second information corresponding to the annotation information (paragraphs 98-100 and 111-121 wherein a generating process includes generating the overall video file, by incorporating a plurality of received “ROI” using a ROI stream generator. The ROI stream that’s generated includes the content that is to be displayed at their respective positions, display time and content presentation. Paragraphs 43 and 74 wherein each ROI has a ROI Stream Identifier which comprises data for “ROI positioning information defining the position of said sub-region with the full image region of said HEVC tiled video stream” for the corresponding “ROI stream comprising video data for rendering a first ROI”. Therefore, the image data is the ROI video itself, the first information is the ROI position information to be reproduced and the annotation data includes the changes to the ROI position, size of ROI, timestamp, ROI tag and other data also including the frame to frame information),
wherein the generating unit (Figs. 4 and 6, process of generating a stream by a system) generates the playlist including the region information defining the spatial partial region in the image corresponding to the image data and the
annotation information, based on the first information and the second information included in the image (paragraphs 98-100 and 111-121 teaches region information. As discussed in the paragraphs and visually illustrated in Figs. 1-2, a plurality of ROIs exist and their plurality of data component defining spatial partial regions also exists in the MPD (SMF and ROI MFs), therefore meets the claimed “plurality of sets”).
Regarding claim 25, Thomas teaches wherein the generating unit generates the playlist including the region information defining the spatial partial region in the image corresponding to the image data and the annotation information, based on the first information and the second information included in the image (paragraphs 98-100 and 111-121 teaches region information. As discussed in the paragraphs and visually illustrated in Figs. 1-2, a plurality of ROIs exist and their plurality of data component defining spatial partial regions also exists in the MPD (SMF and ROI MFs), therefore meets the claimed “plurality of sets”).
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas et al. (US 2017/0118540) in view of Sarachik (US 6,816,628).
Regarding claim 9, While the annotation data is taught by Thomas (as discussed in claim 1 above), fails to teach, but Sarachik teaches the claimed wherein the annotation information includes one of information indicating an object detected from the image and information indicating one of a unit that has specified the region, a type, and an algorithm (see col. 3, line 27 through col. 4, line 10, the information in the annotation also allows for region specification, type of object detected and links for opening a webpage associated with the object).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Sarachik into the system of Thomas because said incorporation allows for the benefit of helping identify or describe the region thereby improving the user experience.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas et al. (US 2017/0118540) in view of Sarachik (US 6,816,628) and further in view of Sodagar (US 2022/0368750).
Regarding claim 13, Thomas teaches the claimed as discussed in claim 1 above and furthermore teaches the service that generates one of the region information and the annotation information by performing one of image analysis and context analysis on the image (as discussed in claim 1 above and in Figs. 4 and 6, which generates the region information and annotation information), however fails to teach, but Sodagar teaches wherein the playlist includes a network address of an analysis service (Sodagar: paragraph 56 and Table 2 teaches wherein a URL for a service that is accessible on the URL is incorporated into the MPD).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Sodagar such that the service of Thomas (which is implemented on a computer/server by the ROI stream generator) is also made available as a service accessible by a URL instead because such an incorporation allows for the benefit of updating the relevant information as needed or to save processing power only on an as needed basis.
Regarding claim 14, Thomas teaches to generate one of the region information and the annotation information (as discussed in claim 1 above and in Figs. 4 and 6, which generates the region information and annotation information) as discussed in claim 13 above and furthermore, Sodagar teaches wherein the playlist includes a parameter provided to the analysis service (Table 2, mediaEntry itself is the parameter used by the service to identify the service). The prior motivation as discussed above is incorporated herein.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas et al. (US 2017/0118540) in view of Sarachik (US 6,816,628).
Regarding claim 16, Thomas teaches the claimed wherein the playlist Media Presentation Description defined by ISO/IEC23009-1 (Thomas teaches ISO format including ISO/IEC23001-6, which is older version of the claims ISO/IEC23009-1), however, isn’t explicit about ISO/IEC23009-1.
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application would have known to incorporate an updated standard/format ISO/IEC23009-1 since ISO/IEC23001-6 is older version of ISO/IEC23009-1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of utilize certain aspects of a particular ISO format into another ISO format since ISO/IEC23009 is built on top of ISO/IEC23001 and also because such an incorporation is a predictable use of known system standards to achieve HTTP adaptive streaming, which was a well-recognized improvement in the field at the time. See MPEP 2143 and KSR rationales.
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 GELEK W TOPGYAL whose telephone number is (571)272-8891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (9:30-6 PST).
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, William Vaughn can be reached at 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 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.
/GELEK W TOPGYAL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights