DETAILED ACTION
Notice relating to Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 16 JANUARY 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s current amendment (dated 16 JANUARY 2026), has been entered. The status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1, 3, and 6-14 are currently pending in the application.
Examiner’s Note
It is noted to Applicant that Allowable subject matter has been indicated in related Application 17/255,374. Applicant is suggested to try and incorporate similar Allowable content into the current Application’s claims to try and move prosecution forward to an Allowance. Applicant is also cautioned not to repeat allowable subject matter in a manner that could lead to a double patenting rejection. This is just a note and suggestion by the Examiner, any amendments made by Applicant will be searched thoroughly before a final indication on Allowability is made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new reference(s) and/or citations being used in the current rejection.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 6-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al., US 2018/0376152 in view of Hirabayashi et al., US 2018/0176650 and further in view of Wang, US 2018/0277164 (herein Wang2).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a method for encapsulating encoded timed media data (received video data, i.e. timed data, is encoded and encapsulated; page 4, paragraphs 46 and 50) into a plurality of tracks forming one same group of tracks (at least one group of plurality of tracks; page 3, paragraph 44, and pages 4-5, paragraph 53), said media data corresponding to one or more video sequences (including at least a scene, i.e. at least one sequence; page 4, paragraph 48), the method comprising for the plurality of tracks forming the group of tracks:
providing descriptive information defining the group of tracks and describing the spatial relationship in a composition picture of spatial parts of frames encapsulated in the plurality of tracks (can provide descriptive information about spatial relationships for the group tracks, i.e. regions, locations, etc.; Fig. 4A, and page 7, paragraph 80, and page 5, paragraph 57), wherein said descriptive information is provided in a same data structure comprising descriptive information shared by the plurality of tracks (with use of TrackGroupTypeBox, i.e. same shared data structure; page 7, paragraph 79),
providing, if the region on the sphere covered by the composition picture does not cover the entire sphere, a box which is included in the descriptive information, in a data structure, defining the group of tracks and comprises coverage information of the region (can include descriptive information about portions, i.e. regions, which are not an entire sphere, that would be covered; page 5, paragraphs 56-58, and page 7, paragraph 76, and with at least box for defining the certain parameters; Fig. 4A, and page 7, paragraph 80).
While Wang does disclose reference to an entire sphere (page 4, paragraph 50, and page 5, paragraph 58), as well as the box including the coverage information of the region of the sphere (can include descriptive information about portions, i.e. regions, which are not an entire sphere, that would be covered; page 5, paragraphs 56-58, and page 7, paragraph 76, and with at least box for defining the certain parameters; Fig. 4A, and page 7, paragraph 80), Wang does not explicitly disclose coverage information of a region describing an area, on a sphere, covered by a composition picture of spatial parts of frames encapsulated in a plurality of tracks, and information of the region on the sphere is not provided, if the region on the sphere is the entire sphere.
In a related art, Hirabayashi does disclose coverage information of a region describing an area, on a sphere, covered by a composition picture of spatial parts of frames encapsulated in a plurality of tracks (contains information for describing the area on a sphere which is covered by the part(s)/portions of the tiles/tracks; page 4, paragraphs 72 and 81, and with tile/track region(s) group entry describing the coordinates; page 9, paragraphs 169-171, and page 10, paragraphs 180-184, and again for covering a sphere; pages 3-4, paragraphs 71-72, and Fig. 3), and indication if the region on the sphere is the entire sphere (based on certain indications, particular information is not present, i.e. no region group entry information; page 10, paragraphs 189-190, and can include information for only a single track; page 11, paragraph 200, and wherein based on an encoded stream representing the entire sphere; page 5, paragraph 96).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Wang and Hirabayashi by allowing certain spherical region information to be indicated as included or not included, with the already present information of Wang, in order to provide an improved system and method for shortening decoding time of spherical images by including a setting section that sets continuity information representing continuity of ends of an image compatible with encoded streams (Hirabayashi; page 1, paragraphs 10-12).
Wang in view of Hirabayashi does not explicitly disclose if a certain indication/criteria is met/present, a box which is included in descriptive information, in a data structure, including coverage information, and wherein the box including the coverage information is not provided when a different indication/criteria is met/present.
In a related art, Wang2 does disclose if a certain indication/criteria is met/present, a box which is included in descriptive information, in a data structure, including coverage information, and wherein the box including the coverage information is not provided when a different indication/criteria is met/present (based on particular type which is part of the same data structure, i.e. Track_group_type, which is shared by tracks within that group from Track_group_box; page 15, paragraph 153, and wherein when Track_group_type is particular type, i.e. equal to “subp”, this allows for additional information, i.e. box, to be included which contains coverage information; page 16, paragraphs 156-157, and wherein this additional information, i.e. box, is not included when the Track_group_type is not the “subp” type; pages 15-16, paragraphs 155-157, and Examiner’s Note: It would be obvious to utilize information describing an entire sphere, as noted in Wang and Hirabayashi, and combined with the signaling group types noted in Wang2, to allow for the additional information/box to only be included when the track group type was a certain type, i.e. not the entire sphere, or “subp” as disclosed by Wang2, and not included when the group type was a different type, i.e. the entire sphere, or some other value similar to the different “msrc” disclosed by Wang2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Wang, Hirabayashi, and Wang2 by allowing certain information to be included and excluded from the particular descriptors already disclosed in Wang in view of Hirabayashi, in order to provide an improved method and system for signaling approaches that enable the signaling of the relationship among the sub-picture tracks, the spatial resolution of the full picture, and timed metadata for the entire video content (Wang2; page 1, paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 3, Wang in view of Hirabayashi and Wang2 discloses the data structure is a TrackGroupTypeBox (Wang; with use of TrackGroupTypeBox; page 7, paragraph 79, and Wang2; with data structure, i.e. Track_group_type, which is shared by tracks within that group from Track_group_box; page 15, paragraph 153).
Claim 6, which discloses a method, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 1. The following additional limitations are also disclosed:
capturing one or more video sequences (Wang; with captured video; page 1, paragraph 4, including at least a scene; page 4, paragraph 48); and
generating at least one media file (Wang; generated file for playback and delivery; page 4, paragraph 51).
Claim 7, which discloses a method, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claims 1 and 6. The following additional limitations are also disclosed:
parsing information (Wang; decoding, i.e. parsing, the provided information for composing/compositing the content; page 2, paragraphs 15-18, and based on determined information from the received data, i.e. parsed information; page 10, paragraph 103).
Claim 8, which discloses a device, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claims 1 and 6. The following additional limitations are also disclosed:
a computing device (Wang; with at least computing device; page 11, paragraph 114).
Claim 9, which discloses a device, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claims 1, 6, and 7. The following additional limitations are also disclosed:
a computing device (Wang; with at least computing device; page 11, paragraph 114).
Claim 10, which discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 1. The following additional limitations are also disclosed:
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Wang; with instructions on a computer readable medium, which can be non-transitory; page 11, paragraph 112).
Regarding claim 11, Wang in view of Hirabayashi and Wang2 discloses the descriptive information describes a position and a size of one of the spatial parts of frames (Wang; with a corresponding location/size of at least one of the images; page 5, paragraph 57).
Regarding claim 13, Wang in view of Hirabayashi and Wang2 discloses the descriptive information describes a total size of the plurality of tracks (Wang; describing size of the entire image, i.e. total, which is the composite of all input images; page 7, paragraph 75).
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al., US 2018/0376152 in view of Hirabayashi et al., US 2018/0176650 and Wang, US 2018/0277164 (herein Wang2) and further in view of Wang et al., US 2019/0222822 (herein Wang3).
Regarding claim 12, Wang in view of Hirabayashi and Wang2 discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 6, as well as a file compliant with the omnidirectional media application format (OMAF) is generated as the at least one media file (Wang; with at least use of OMAF; page 7, paragraph 82, and file(s); page 4, paragraphs 48 and 50, and page 7, paragraphs 74-75).
Wang in view of Hirabayashi and Wang2 does not explicitly disclose descriptive information includes a SubPictureRegionBox describing the position and the size of one of a plurality of tracks.
In a related art, Wang3 does disclose omnidirectional media application format (OMAF) (with OMAF; page 4, paragraph 48, and page 5, paragraph 58), and descriptive information includes a SubPictureRegionBox describing the position and the size of one of a plurality of tracks (with at least SubPictureRegionBox(), which contains information on the sizing and positioning; page 9, paragraphs 84-85, and Fig. 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Wang, Hirabayashi, Wang2, and Wang3 by allowing certain fields/boxes to be included with the already present information of Wang in view of Hirabayashi and Wang2, in order to provide an improved system and method for video coding, and particularly to associating, storing and/or signaling virtual reality (VR) attributes and/or metadata, and composition track derivation (Wang3; page 1, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 14, Wang in view of Hirabayashi and Wang2 discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 6, as well as a file compliant with the omnidirectional media application format (OMAF) is generated as the at least one media file (Wang; with at least use of OMAF; page 7, paragraph 82, and file(s); page 4, paragraphs 48 and 50, and page 7, paragraphs 74-75).
Wang in view of Hirabayashi and Wang2 does not explicitly disclose descriptive information includes a SpatialRelationship2DSourceBox describing a total size of a plurality of tracks.
In a related art, Wang3 does disclose omnidirectional media application format (OMAF) (with OMAF; page 4, paragraph 48, and page 5, paragraph 58), and descriptive information includes a SpatialRelationship2DSourceBox describing a total size of a plurality of tracks (with at least TwoDimensionalSpatialRelationship() box, which contains information on size of the area of the tracks, i.e. total size; page 4, paragraph 50, and page 5, paragraph 55, and Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Wang, Hirabayashi, Wang2, and Wang3 by allowing certain fields/boxes to be included with the already present information of Wang in view of Hirabayashi and Wang2, in order to provide an improved system and method for video coding, and particularly to associating, storing and/or signaling virtual reality (VR) attributes and/or metadata, and composition track derivation (Wang3; page 1, paragraph 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANDY A FLYNN whose telephone number is (571)270-5680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 6:00am - 3:00pm ET.
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, BENJAMIN BRUCKART can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/RANDY A FLYNN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424