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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/07/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the cited references do not disclose that the media file comprises a first indication indicating whether a first set of coded video data units representing a target picture-in-picture region in the first video are replaceable by a second set of coded video data units associated with a second video. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Zhu is cited to disclose the above limitation. For example, Zhu discloses PIP information that include layer information that indicates the overlapping relationship among different layers, such as which component video is the master layer video and which component video is the slave layer video. Further, Zue discloses layer information that indicates the overlapping relationship among different layers, such as which component video is the master layer video, and which component video is the slave layer video. For applications that support multiple slave layers, the layer information also includes the overlapping relationship among the slave layers. Position information that indicates the position of each layer when displayed in a picture-in-picture mode. In one embodiment, the position information can be calculated with respect to the master layer component video. In a different embodiment, the position information is with respect to an anchor component video. Size information that indicates the size or resolution of each layer when displayed a picture-in-picture mode. In one instance, the size or resolution of a slave layer video is determined by the size of the region in the master layer video that is intended for displaying the slave layer video. Aspect ratio information that indicates the aspect ratio of each layer when displayed in a picture-in-picture mode. Similarly, in one instance, the aspect ratio of a slave layer video is determined by the aspect ratio of the region in the master layer video that is intended for displaying the slave layer video; see at least paragraphs 0018-0022 and 0029. Furthermore, Zue discloses that the player can alternate the PIP or even turn off PIP; see at least paragraph 0040. Therefore, a PIP region in the video is replaceable.
For at least the above reasons, the present claimed invention is not patentable over the cited reference(s).
Claim 7 has been amended and claims 21-22 have been newly added and rejected under new grounds.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2015/0373348) in view of Zhu (US 2013/0113996).
Regarding claim 1, Wang disclose a method for video processing, comprising:
performing a conversion between a media file of a first video and a bitstream of the first video (encoding video data to generate an encoded video bitstream; see at least paragraphs 0055-0059).
Wang discloses the first set of coded video data units, the first video and the second set of coded video data units associated with a second video; as above, but is not clear about wherein the media file comprises a first indication indicating whether a first set of coded video data units representing a target picture-in-picture region in the first video are replaceable by a second set of coded video data units associated with a second video.
Zhu discloses PIP information that include layer information that indicates the overlapping relationship among different layers, such as which component video is the master layer video and which component video is the slave layer video; see at least paragraphs 0018-0022, 0029 and 0040.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Wang by the teachings of Zhu by having the above limitations so to enable live and dynamic picture-in-picture functionality; see at least the Abstract.
Regarding claim 2, Wang in view of Zhu disclose the method of claim 1, wherein a spatial resolution of the second video being smaller than a spatial resolution of the first video (Zhu; see at least paragraphs 0016-0018, 0026 and 0062).
Regarding claim 3, Wang in view of Zhu disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the first indication comprises a one-bit flag (the PIP information of Zhu; layer_num and the master_layer; see at least Table 1 and paragraphs 0031-0032).
Regarding claim 4, Wang in view of Zhu disclose the method of claim 3, wherein if the flag is a first value, the first set of coded video data units are replaceable by the second set of coded video data units, and
if the flag is a second value, the first set of coded video data units are irreplaceable by the second set of coded video data units (the PIP information of Zhu; layer_num and the master_layer; see at least Table 1 and paragraphs 0031-0032).
Regarding claim 5, Wang in view of Zhu disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the first indication comprises a first track reference indicating a track carrying a bitstream of the second video (the PIP information of Zhu; see at least Table 1 and paragraphs 0031-0032).
Regarding claim 6, Wang in view of Zhu disclose the method of claim 5, wherein if the first track reference is of a first type, the first set of coded video data units are replaceable by the second set of coded video data units (the PIP information of Zhu; see at least Table 1 and paragraphs 0031-0032), and
if the first track reference is of a second type, the first set of coded video data units are irreplaceable by the second set of coded video data units (the PIP information of Zhu; see at least Table 1 and paragraphs 0031-0032).
Regarding claim 7, Wang in view of Zhu disclose the method of claim 6, wherein the first track reference of the first type is a “ppsr” track reference, and the second track reference of the second type is a “ppsn” track reference (the PIP information of Zhu; see at least Table 1 and paragraphs 0031-0032).
Regarding claim 8, Wang in view of Zhu disclose the method of claim 5, wherein a media file of the second video comprises a second indication indicating whether the first set of coded video data units are replaceable by the second set of coded video data units (the indications of Zhu; see at least the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, Wang in view of Zhu disclose the method of claim 8, wherein the second indication comprises a second track reference indicating a track carrying the bitstream of the first video (the PIP information of Zhu; see at least Table 1 and paragraphs 0031-0032).
Regarding claim 10, Wang in view of Zhu disclose the method of claim 9, wherein if the second track reference is of a third type, the first set of coded video data units are replaceable by the second set of coded video data units (the PIP information of Zhu; see at least Table 1 and paragraphs 0031-0032), and
if the second track reference is of a fourth type, the first set of coded video data units are irreplaceable by the second set of coded video data units (the PIP information of Zhu; see at least Table 1 and paragraphs 0031-0032).
Regarding claim 11, Wang in view of Zhu disclose the method of claim 10, wherein the second track reference of the third type is a “ppmr” track reference, and the second track reference of the fourth type is a “ppmn” track reference (the PIP information of Zhu; see at least Table 1 and paragraphs 0031-0032).
Regarding claim 12, Wang in view of Zhu disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the first set of coded video data units comprise a video coding layer network abstraction layer (VCL NAL) unit, and the second set of coded video data units comprise a VCL NAL unit (Wang; see at least paragraphs 0058, 0069, 0077 and 0086).
Regarding claim 13, Wang in view of Zhu disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion comprises generating the media file and storing the bitstream to the media file (the generating and storing of Wang; see at least paragraphs 0055 and 0072-0073).
Regarding claim 14, Wang in view of Zhu disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion comprises parsing the media file to reconstruct the bitstream (the MPEG video coding of Wang; see at least paragraph 0055).
Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 2.
Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 3.
Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 5.
Claim 19 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Claim 20 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Zhu and further in view of Chen (US 2011/0064146).
Regarding claim 21, Wang in view of Zhu disclose the method of claim 1, wherein if the first set of coded video data units are replaceable by the second set of coded video data units, the first set of coded video data units are allowed to be replaced by the second set of coded video data units, but are not clear about the replacement is before the second set of coded video being sent to a decoder for decoding.
Chen discloses similar invention and discloses the above missing limitation; media extractor has to be replaced by the data to which it points before the stream is passed to the video decoder, wherein the media extractor is used to identify and extract samples of another track; see at least paragraphs 0028 and 0083.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Wang in view of Zhu by the teachings of Chen by having the above limitations so to utilize media extractors in a media extractor track that reference two or more non-consecutive NAL units of a separate track; see at least the Abstract.
Regarding claim 22, Wang in view of Zhu and further in view of Chen disclose the method of claim 21, wherein for a picture in the first video, corresponding coded video data units of the second video are all coded video data units in a decoding-time-synchronized sample in a track for the second video (Chen; see at least paragraph 0083).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 YASSIN ALATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5683. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7-4 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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at 571-272-4195. 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.
/YASSIN ALATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights