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 Amendment
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection to claim 41 has been withdrawn in view of current amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p.9-11, filed June 4, 2025, with respect to claims 4-6, 23, 27-28, and 38 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections of claims 4-6, 23, 27-28, and 38 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pp.11-14, filed June 4, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly considered prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8, 20, 25, 27-28, 30, and 40-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shen et al. (US 2024/0297910).
Regarding claim 1 Shen discloses a method of receiving video data, the method comprising:
receiving a packet including a packet header and a payload including at least a portion of a frame of video data, the packet header being separate from the payload (Figure 13 shows an RTP packet that includes a packet header, header extension, and payload – description of Figure 13);
extracting, from the packet header, a video frame identifier for the at least portion of the frame of video data (Figure 15 shows a partition descriptor that may be included in an extended RTP header, the partition descriptor may include a partition ID which may be a unique identifier that identifies a partition within a picture – [0129]); and
processing the payload according to the video frame identifier (create a network packet, filter the network packet, and transmit the filtered media content to the media consumer – Figure 18).
Regarding claim 4 Shen discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the at least portion of the frame comprises a slice of the frame (the disclosed system may provide a spatial partition/tile/slice-based Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) layer – [0034]), and wherein the video frame identifier includes a slice identifier for the slice (Figure 15 shows a partition descriptor that may be included in an extended RTP header, the partition descriptor may include a partition ID which may be a unique identifier that identifies a partition within a picture – [0129]).
Regarding claim 5 Shen discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the at least portion of the frame comprises a tile of the frame (the disclosed system may provide a spatial partition/tile/slice-based Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) layer – [0034]), and wherein the video frame identifier includes a tile identifier for the tile (Figure 15 shows a partition descriptor that may be included in an extended RTP header, the partition descriptor may include a partition ID which may be a unique identifier that identifies a partition within a picture – [0129]).
Regarding claim 6 Shen discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising determining, using the video frame identifier, one or more of a frame type for the frame, a priority for the frame, or dependency information for the frame (the partition descriptor may include a partition ID, which may be a unique identifier that identifies a partition within a picture. The partition descriptor may further include a type, which may be an inter-predicted or intra-predicted partition. The partition descriptor may also include a region identifier, a length of the partition, and a priority level (PRI) – [0129]).
Regarding claim 8 Shen discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising extracting, from the packet header, one or more of a network abstraction layer (NAL) unit type for the at least portion of the frame, a temporal identifier (TID) for the at least portion of the frame, a layer identifier (LID) for the at least portion of the frame, data indicating whether the at least portion of the frame is intra-prediction coded, or data indicating whether the at least portion is discardable (the partition descriptor may include a partition ID, which may be a unique identifier that identifies a partition within a picture. The partition descriptor may further include a type, which may be an inter-predicted or intra-predicted partition. The partition descriptor may also include a region identifier, a length of the partition, and a priority level (PRI) – [0129]).
Regarding claim 20 Shen discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising receiving information indicating whether the portion of the frame is independently coded without prediction from other portions of the frame (the partition descriptor may further include a type, which may be an inter-predicted or intra-predicted partition – [0129]).
Claim 25 corresponds to the device performing the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 25 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 1.
Claim 27 corresponds to the device performing the method of claim 4. Therefore, claim 27 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 4.
Claim 28 corresponds to the device performing the method of claim 6. Therefore, claim 28 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 6.
Claim 30 corresponds to the device performing the method of claim 8. Therefore, claim 30 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 8.
Claim 40 corresponds to the device performing the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 40 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 1.
Claim 41 corresponds to the computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon instructions that, when executed, causes a processor to perform the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 41 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 1.
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, 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(s) 2, 11, 23-24, 26, 33, and 38-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (US 2024/0297910) in view of Hendry et al. (US 2022/0217413).
Regarding claim 2 Shen discloses the method of claim 1. However, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the video frame identifier comprises a picture order count (POC) value.
In his disclosure Hendry teaches video frame identifier comprises a picture order count (POC) value (temporal ID 817 being the same as POC – [0151]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Hendry into the teachings of Shen because such incorporation the coder/decoder in video coding is improved, the improved video coding process offers the user a better user experience when videos are sent, received, and/or viewed (paragraph 120).
Regarding claim 11 Shen discloses the method of claim 1. Shen further discloses to include data representing a priority value for the frame (the partition descriptor may also include a region identifier, a length of the partition, and a priority level (PRI) – [0129]).
However, fails to explicitly disclose processing a picture header for the frame that includes data corresponding to the frame.
In his disclosure Hendry teaches it is known in the art to process a picture header for the frame that includes data corresponding to the frame (Figure 8 shows Picture Header 812 that includes data such as Layer ID and Temporal ID).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Hendry into the teachings of Shen because such incorporation the coder/decoder in video coding is improved, the improved video coding process offers the user a better user experience when videos are sent, received, and/or viewed (paragraph 120).
Regarding claim 23 Shen discloses the method of claim 1. However, fails to explicitly disclose wherein processing the payload comprises: determining that the frame is a gradual decoder refresh (GDR) frame and that the at least portion of the frame is independently coded; and in response to determining that the at least portion of the frame is independently coded, providing the at least portion of the frame to a video decoder.
In his disclosure Hendry teaches wherein processing the payload comprises: determining that the frame is a gradual decoder refresh (GDR) frame and that the at least portion of the frame is independently coded (GDR – [0132, 0134-0137, 0180]); and in response to determining that the at least portion of the frame is independently coded, providing the at least portion of the frame to a video decoder (IDR – [0155, 0180]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Hendry into the teachings of Shen because such incorporation the coder/decoder in video coding is improved, the improved video coding process offers the user a better user experience when videos are sent, received, and/or viewed (paragraph 120).
Regarding claim 24 Shen discloses the method of claim 1. However, fails to explicitly disclose wherein processing the payload comprises: determining that the frame is a gradual decoder refresh (GDR) frame and that the at least portion of the frame is coded relative to a reference frame; determining that the GDR frame is an ordinal first frame retrieved for a bitstream including the video data such that the reference frame has not been retrieved; and in response to the reference frame having not been retrieved, discarding the at least portion of the frame of video data.
In his disclosure Hendry teaches processing the payload comprises: determining that the frame is a gradual decoder refresh (GDR) frame and that the at least portion of the frame is coded relative to a reference frame (GDR – [0132, 0134-0137, 0180]); determining that the GDR frame is an ordinal first frame retrieved for a bitstream including the video data such that the reference frame has not been retrieved (the GDR picture 602 is referred to as a CVS starting (CVSS) picture – [0134]); and in response to the reference frame having not been retrieved, discarding the at least portion of the frame of video data (unavailable reference pictures – [0289-0290]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Hendry into the teachings of Shen because such incorporation the coder/decoder in video coding is improved, the improved video coding process offers the user a better user experience when videos are sent, received, and/or viewed (paragraph 120).
Claim 26 corresponds to the device performing the method of claim 2. Therefore, claim 26 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 2.
Claim 33 corresponds to the device performing the method of claim 11. Therefore, claim 33 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 11.
Claim 38 corresponds to the device performing the method of claim 23. Therefore, claim 38 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 23.
Claim 39 corresponds to the device performing the method of claim 24. Therefore, claim 39 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 24.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (US 2024/0297910) in view of Sablin et al. (US 2018/0077421).
Regarding claim 3 Shen discloses the method of claim 1. However, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the video frame identifier comprises a display frame identifier or a current frame identifier.
In his disclosure Sablin teaches it is known in the art for a video frame identifier to comprise a display frame identifier or a current frame identifier (current_frame_id as frame identifier – [0065, 0181, 0224], Figure 5).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Sablin into the teachings of Shen because such incorporation reduces the overhead and code complexity (par. [0268]).
Claim(s) 7 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (US 2024/0297910) in view of Jiang (US 2021/0211524).
Regarding claim 7 Shen discloses the method of claim 1. However, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least portion of the frame of video data comprises a protocol data unit (PDU) of a PDU Set.
In his disclosure Jiang teaches the at least portion of the frame of video data comprises a protocol data unit (PDU) of a PDU Set (protocol data unit (PDU) packet – abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Jiang into the teachings of Shen because such incorporation reduces the length of the packet header and saves overhead of the packet (para. [0128]).
Claim 29 corresponds to the device performing the method of claim 7. Therefore, claim 29 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 7.
Claim(s) 9-10, 31, and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (US 2024/0297910) in view of Ryu et al. (US 2014/0036999).
Regarding claim 9 Shen discloses the method of claim 1. Shen further discloses including data indicating a priority value for the frame (the partition descriptor may also include a region identifier, a length of the partition, and a priority level (PRI) – [0129]).
However, fails to explicitly disclose processing a network abstraction layer (NAL) unit header of the frame, the NAL unit header including data indicating a priority value for the frame.
In his disclosure Ryu teaches processing a network abstraction layer (NAL) unit header of the frame, the NAL unit header including data indicating a priority value for the frame (the priority of one or more frames may be included in a video header – [0126]; Figures 14A and 14B show headers 1400 and 1412 which may be NAL headers – [0127]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Ryu into the teachings of Shen because such incorporation results in better video quality (para. [0125]).
Regarding claim 10 Shen discloses the method of claim 1. However, fails to explicitly disclose processing an access unit delimiter (AUD) for an access unit corresponding to the frame, the AUD including data representing a priority value for the access unit.
In his disclosure Ryu teaches processing an access unit delimiter (AUD) for an access unit corresponding to the frame, the AUD including data representing a priority value for the access unit (the priority information may be provided in an Access Unit (AU) delimiter – [0141]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Ryu into the teachings of Shen because such incorporation results in better video quality (para. [0125]).
Claim 31 corresponds to the device performing the method of claim 9. Therefore, claim 31 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 9.
Claim 32 corresponds to the device performing the method of claim 10. Therefore, claim 32 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 10.
Claim(s) 12-13 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (US 2024/0297910) in view of Potetsianakis et al. (WO 2022/144184 A1).
Regarding claim 12 Shen discloses the method of claim 1. Shen further discloses a data container data representing a priority value for the at least portion of a frame (the partition descriptor may also include a region identifier, a length of the partition, and a priority level (PRI) – [0129]).
However, fails to explicitly disclose further comprising processing an open bitstream unit (OBU) for the at least portion of the frame, the OBU including data representing data for the at least portion of the frame.
In his disclosure Potetsianakis teaches processing an open bitstream unit (OBU) for the at least portion of the frame, the OBU including data representing data for the at least portion of the frame (carrying video frame data in other data containers such as the open bitstream units (OBUs) in AV1 – p.33, lines 29-31).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Potetsianakis into the teachings of Shen because incorporating frame information in a data container such as an OBU is a well-known technique in the art.
Regarding claim 13 Shen discloses the method of claim 12. However, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the OBU comprises one of a frame header OBU or a metadata OBU.
In his disclosure Potetsianakis teaches the OBU comprises one of a frame header OBU or a metadata OBU (carrying video frame data in other data containers such as the open bitstream units (OBUs) in AV1 – p.33, lines 29-31).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Potetsianakis into the teachings of Shen because incorporating frame information in a data container such as an OBU is a well-known technique in the art.
Claim 34 corresponds to the device performing the method of claim 12. Therefore, claim 34 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 12.
Claim(s) 14-16, and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (US 2024/0297910) in view of Chen et al. (WO 2014/004391 A1).
Regarding claim 14 Shen discloses the method of claim 1. However, fails to explicitly disclose receiving data indicating a picture distance between the frame and a reference frame for the frame.
In his disclosure Chen teaches receiving data indicating a picture distance between the frame and a reference frame for the frame (difference value indicative of a difference between POC MSBs for the long-term reference picture and POC MSBs for a current picture – [0110]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Chen into the teachings of Shen because such incorporation provides improvements for signaling information (paragraph [0006]).
Regarding claim 15 Shen discloses the method of claim 14. However, fails to explicitly disclose wherein receiving the data indicating the picture distance comprises receiving a network abstraction layer (NAL) unit including the data or a supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message including the data.
In his disclosure Chen teaches receiving the data indicating the picture distance comprises receiving a network abstraction layer (NAL) unit including the data or a supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message including the data (a network abstraction layer (NAL) unit header of a NAL unit that encapsulates coded video data for the reference picture – [0109]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Chen into the teachings of Shen because such incorporation provides improvements for signaling information (paragraph [0006]).
Regarding claim 16 Shen discloses the method of claim 14. However, fails to explicitly disclose wherein receiving the data indicating the picture distance between the frame and the reference frame for the frame comprises receiving data indicating picture distances between the frame and each active reference frame.
In his disclosure Chen teaches receiving the data indicating the picture distance between the frame and the reference frame for the frame comprises receiving data indicating picture distances between the frame and each active reference frame (difference value indicative of a difference between POC MSBs for the long-term reference picture and POC MSBs for a current picture – [0110]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Chen into the teachings of Shen because such incorporation provides improvements for signaling information (paragraph [0006]).
Claim 35 corresponds to the device performing the method of claims 14 and 15. Therefore, claim 35 is being rejected on the same basis as claims 14 and 15.
Claim(s) 17-18 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (US 2024/0297910) in view of Wentink et al. (US 2016/0014729).
Regarding claim 17 Shen discloses the method of claim 1. However, fails to explicitly disclose further comprising receiving information indicating whether the portion of the frame of video data can be decoded without other portions of the frame.
In his disclosure Wentink teaches receiving information indicating whether the portion of the frame of video data can be decoded without other portions of the frame (transmitting a physical layer convergence protocol data unit on a wireless medium includes generating a first portion and a second portion of the physical layer convergence protocol data unit, transmitting the first portion at a first data rate, the first portion decodable by a first and second sets of devices, and transmitting the second portion at a second data rate higher than the first data rate, the second portion decodable by the second set of devices – abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Wentink into the teachings of Shen because such incorporation improves network throughput (para. [0070]).
Regarding claim 18 Shen discloses the method of claim 17. However, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the portion of the frame comprises a protocol data unit (PDU), wherein the frame corresponds to a PDU Set including the PDU, and wherein the information indicates whether the PDU can be decoded without other PDUs of the PDU Set.
In his disclosure Wentink teaches wherein the portion of the frame comprises a protocol data unit (PDU), wherein the frame corresponds to a PDU Set including the PDU, and wherein the information indicates whether the PDU can be decoded without other PDUs of the PDU Set (transmitting a physical layer convergence protocol data unit on a wireless medium includes generating a first portion and a second portion of the physical layer convergence protocol data unit, transmitting the first portion at a first data rate, the first portion decodable by a first and second sets of devices, and transmitting the second portion at a second data rate higher than the first data rate, the second portion decodable by the second set of devices – abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Wentink into the teachings of Shen because such incorporation improves network throughput (para. [0070]).
Claim 36 corresponds to the device performing the method of claim 17. Therefore, claim 36 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 17.
Claim(s) 19 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (US 2024/0297910) in view of Wang et al. (US 2013/0107973).
Regarding claim 19 Shen discloses the method of claim 1. However, fails to explicitly disclose further comprising receiving information indicating whether loop filtering is to be performed across one or more boundaries between the portion of the frame and one or more other portions of the frame.
In his disclosure Wang teaches receiving information indicating whether loop filtering is to be performed across one or more boundaries between the portion of the frame and one or more other portions of the frame (signaling whether cross-tile-boundary loop filtering operations are allowed, in addition to whether tile boundaries are to be considered independent for prediction operations – [0037]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Wang into the teachings of Shen because such incorporation improves coding quality (para. [0029]).
Claim 37 corresponds to the device performing the method of claim 19. Therefore, claim 37 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 19.
Claim(s) 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (US 2024/0297910) in view of Hendry et al. (US 2015/0271525).
Regarding claim 21 Shen discloses the method of claim 1. However, fails to explicitly disclose further comprising receiving data indicating that the frame is a discardable frame.
In his disclosure Hendry teaches receiving data indicating that the frame is a discardable frame (the discardable flag field (a field in the slice header) indicating the discardability of the associated picture may be equal to "1," indicating that the associated picture is not discardable without affecting the decodability of another picture – [0155]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Hendry into the teachings of Shen because such incorporation improves operational consistency over conventional coding schemes (paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 22 Shen discloses the method of claim 21. However, fails to explicitly receiving the data indicating that the frame is the discardable frame comprises receiving the frame in a network abstraction layer (NAL) unit, an access unit delimiter, a picture header, a slice header, a supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message, or a frame header open bitstream unit (OBU).
In his disclosure Hendry teaches receiving the data indicating that the frame is the discardable frame comprises receiving the frame in a network abstraction layer (NAL) unit, an access unit delimiter, a picture header, a slice header, a supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message, or a frame header open bitstream unit (OBU) (the discardable flag field (a field in the slice header) indicating the discardability of the associated picture may be equal to "1," indicating that the associated picture is not discardable without affecting the decodability of another picture – [0155]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Hendry into the teachings of Shen because such incorporation improves operational consistency over conventional coding schemes (paragraph [0027]).
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 MARIA E VAZQUEZ COLON whose telephone number is (571)270-1103. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-3:30 PM.
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, CHRISTOPHER S KELLEY can be reached at (571)272-7331. 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.
/MARIA E VAZQUEZ COLON/Examiner, Art Unit 2482