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 arguments proffered in the instant Response to Office Action of 2/9/2026 have been considered, but are unpersuasive such that the outstanding rejections are maintained. To wit: the argumentation addresses the Ichigaya and Hunnuksela references individually, and does not consider the combined teachings of the two references. That is to say, Ichigaya fairly discloses or renders obvious the recited features, and Hannuksela shows that tracks as recited is a term commonly used for referring to a grouping of temporally related media data in the art and well known.
Namely, at page 15, it seems to be asserted that Ichigaya does not disclose associated informations, despite immediately providing background that demonstrates Ichigaya discloses enhancement and base bitstreams, which are manifestly associated as overlapping data streams of a common source. Thus the arguments in regard to Ichigaya are rejected.
Further, at page 16, it seems to be argued that the combination of Ichigaya and Hannuksela would result in separate encapsulations of associated bitstreams. This is rejected: Ichigaya discloses associated bitstreams sharing a common coding protocol for transmission, which is an encapsulation, and Hannuksela teaches a track of bitstreams, thus teaching an encapsulation of related data in a common track file. Therefore the outstanding rejections are maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-12 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichigaya (US 2024/0340475) in view of Hannuksela (US 2020/0053392).
Regarding claim 1, Ichigaya discloses an apparatus (shown Figure 1, Transceiver apparatus) comprising: at least one processor; (paragraph 0087, SoC is same) and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed with the at least one processor, cause (paragraph 0086, program in storage for processor execution) the apparatus at least to: obtain a first bitstream, wherein the first bitstream is encoded according to a first coding method; (paragraph 0029, base layer coding) obtain at least one second bitstream, wherein the at least one second bitstream is encoded according to a second coding method; (paragraph 0029 enhancement layer coding) and generate an encapsulated file, wherein samples of the [data] of the encapsulated file comprise the first bitstream, wherein sample auxiliary information of the [data] comprises the at least one second bitstream, (paragraphs 0039/0043, encapsulated file formed by multiplexing first and second coded bitstreams with indicating flags-see also paragraph 0083) wherein the sample auxiliary information is associated with the samples, (again paragraph 0052, base and enhancement layers are related bitstreams from same source) wherein the encapsulated file further comprises, at least: an indication that the first bitstream is encapsulated in the samples of the [data], (paragraph 0047, separate indications of both base and enhancement layers) and an indication that the at least one second bitstream is encapsulated in the sample auxiliary information of the [data]. (paragraph 0035, enhancement layer flag sent in multiplexed stream)
Ichigaya fails to identically disclose wherein the encapsulated file comprises, at least, a track, and the bitstream data is in the track.
However, Hannuksela teaches wherein the encapsulated file comprises, at least, a track, and the bitstream data is in the track. (paragraph 0055, file encapsulates one or more tracks, and the tracks may include multiple compilations of bitstreams)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that a file may contain tracks which may contain varieties of bitstreams because such was well known and commonly used in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application as evinced by Hannuksela. (paragraph 0055)
Regarding independent claims 8 and 10, claims 8 and 10 are method and computer program product claims, respectively, reciting similar features to claim 1 and are therefore also rendered obvious by Ichigaya in view of Hannuksela for reasons similar to claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Ichigaya discloses wherein the first bitstream comprises a base bitstream, (paragraph 0029, base layer bitstream) wherein the at least one second bitstream comprises at least one enhancement bitstream, (paragraph 0029, enhancement layer bitstream) and wherein the second coding method comprises low complexity enhancement video coding. (paragraph 0006, the second enhancement layer may be coded per LCEVC)
Regarding dependent claim 12, claim 12 is a claim reciting features similar to claim 2, and is therefore also disclosed by Ichigaya for reasons similar to claim 2.
Regarding claim 5, Ichigaya discloses wherein the encapsulated file further comprises at least one of: an indication of a configuration for decoding the first bitstream, or an indication of a configuration for decoding the at least one second bitstream. (paragraph 0047, separate indications of both base and enhancement layers)
Regarding dependent claims 9, 15 and 19, claims 9, 15 and 19 recite features similar to claim 5, and are therefore also disclosed by Ichigaya for reasons similar to claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Ichigaya discloses wherein the first coding method is at least partially different from the second coding method. (paragraphs 0029/0047, shown Figure 1, base layer and multiple enhancement layers)
Regarding claim 7, Ichigaya discloses wherein the first coding method and the second coding method comprise different layers of a same coding method. (paragraphs 0029/0047, shown Figure 1, base layer and multiple enhancement layers)
Regarding dependent claims 16 and 17, claims 16 and 17 recite features similar to claims 6 and 7, respectively, and are therefore also disclosed by Ichigaya for reasons similar to claims 6 and 7, respectively.
Regarding claim 11, Ichigaya discloses an apparatus (shown Figure 1, Transceiver apparatus) comprising: at least one processor; (paragraph 0087, SoC is same) and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed with the at least one processor, cause (paragraph 0086, program in storage for processor execution) the apparatus at least to: obtain an encapsulated file, wherein samples of the [data] of the encapsulated file comprise a first bitstream, wherein sample auxiliary information of the track comprises at least one second bitstream, (paragraph 0052, receiver obtains the multiplexed base and enhancement layers with corresponding indications) wherein the sample auxiliary information is associated with the samples, (again paragraph 0052, base and enhancement layers are related bitstreams from same source) wherein the encapsulated file further comprises, at least: an indication that the first bitstream is encapsulated in the samples of the [data], (paragraph 0047, separate indications of both base and enhancement layers) and an indication that the at least one second bitstream is encapsulated in the sample auxiliary information of the [data]; (paragraph 0035, enhancement layer flag sent in multiplexed stream) obtain, from the encapsulated file, the first bitstream, wherein the first bitstream is encoded according to a first coding method; (paragraph 0056, base layer decoded) and obtain, from the encapsulated file, the at least one second bitstream, wherein the second bitstream is encoded according to a second coding method. (paragraph 0056, enhancement layer decoded)
Ichigaya fails to identically disclose wherein the encapsulated file comprises, at least, a track, and the bitstream data is in the track.
However, Hannuksela teaches wherein the encapsulated file comprises, at least, a track, and the bitstream data is in the track. (paragraph 0055, file encapsulates one or more tracks, and the tracks may include multiple compilations of bitstreams)
Same rationale for combining and motivation as for claim 1 above.
Regarding independent claims 18 and 20, claims 18 and 20 are method and computer program product claims, respectively, reciting similar features to claim 11 and are therefore also rendered obvious by Ichigaya in view of Hannuksela for reasons similar to claim 11.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichigaya and Hannuksela in view of Kim (US 2021/0211724).
Regarding claim 3, Ichigaya fails to disclose the recited; however, Kim teaches wherein the first bitstream comprises an atlas bitstream, (paragraph 0514, atlas container for data transmission) wherein the at least one second bitstream comprises at least one of: a base mesh bitstream, a displacement bitstream, or a common atlas, and wherein the second coding method comprises at least one of: video-based dynamic mesh coding, or visual volumetric video-based coding. (paragraph 0005, mesh coding may be used for visual coding in 3D ranges)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that an atlas container could be used for transmission, and that the coding could be mesh coding before the effective filing date of the instant application because both coding mechanisms were well known in the art, memorialized in the V-PCC standard, and commonly used by those of skill in the art before the effective filing date as evinced by Kim, at least in the V-PCC standard. (paragraphs 0514 and paragraph 0005)
Regarding claim 4, Ichigaya fails to disclose the recited; however, Kim teaches wherein the track comprises an atlas track, wherein an atlas sample entry of the atlas track comprises the first bitstream and the at least one second bitstream. (paragraph 0514, atlas transmission container used, as inclusive will include the two bitstreams)
Same rationale for combining and motivation as per claim 3 above.
Regarding dependent claims 13 and 14, claims 13 and 14 recite features similar to claims 3 and 4, respectively, and are therefore also rendered obvious by Kim for reasons similar to claims 3 and 4, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Malamal (US 2016/0232939) directly implicates the claimed invention.
Hannuksela II (US 2015/0304665) directly implicates the claimed invention.
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 CHRISTOPHER KINGSBURY GLOVER whose telephone number is (303)297-4401. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-6 MT.
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, Jay Patel can be reached at 571 272 2988. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER KINGSBURY GLOVER/Examiner, Art Unit 2485
/JAYANTI K PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2485 March 13, 2026