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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment and Argument
Applicant’s amendment and argument with respect to pending claims 1, 4-6, 9-11, 14-16 and 19-20 filed on 01/27/2026 have been fully considered but the argument has been rendered moot in view of a new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the amendment of the pending claims.
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, 4-6, 9-11, 14-16 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over "Information technology-Dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP (DASH)-Part1:Media presentation description and segment formats", FDIS stage, ISO 23009-1:2021(X) ISO/IEC JTC1/SC 29/WG3, June 24, 2021, 336 pages, hereinafter referred to as “ISO 23009” in view of HIRABAYASHI et al. (US 20180109585 A1).
Regarding claim 1, ISO 23009 teaches the following limitations of claim 1:
A method of video processing, comprising: receiving, by a first device, a metadata file from a server (The DASH Client may use metadata provided in the MPD for the selection of media components by communication with the media streaming application. See FIG. 1, Section 4.2; Section 5.2.1, pages 11, 22); and determining, from the metadata file, a list of region identities (IDs) for indicating a first set of coded video data units in each picture of a first video representing a target picture-in-picture region which is replaceable by a second set of coded video units in a second video (when @tag of the Preselection is equal to “PicInPic”, the Picnpic element is present, and the @dataUnitsReplacable attribute is equal to ‘true’, the client may choose to replace the coded video data units representing the target picture-in-picture region in the main video with the corresponding coded video data units of the supplementary video before sending to the video decoder. Table 27: @regionIds- specifies the IDs of the coded video data units representing the target picture-in-picture region, as white space separated list…In the case of VVC, the region IDs are subpicture IDs and coded video data units are VCL NAL units. The VCL NAL units representing the target picture-in-picture region in the main video are those having these subpicture IDs, which are the same as the subpicture IDs in the corresponding VCL NAL units of the supplementary video- See section 5.3.11.6, page 100-101), wherein the list of region IDs is an attribute of an element in a descriptor in the metadata file, and wherein the attribute is a regionlds (See Table 27: Element or Attribute Name: @dataUnitReplacable, @regionIds), the metadata file comprises a picture-in-picture descriptor (See Table 27: Element or Attribute Name:...Picnpic…@dataUnitsReplacable: specifies whether the coded video data units representing the target picture-in-picture region in the main video can be replaced by the corresponding video data units of the supplementary video …@regionIds: specifies the lDs of the coded video data units representing the target picture-in-picture region as a white space separated list). ISO 23009 at page 285 further discloses “The SupplementalProperty and/or EssentialProperty descriptors with @schemeIdUri equal to "urn:mpeg:dash:srd:2014" and"urn:mpeg:dash:srd:dynamic:2016"may be used to provide spatial relationship information associated to the containing Spatial Object.” However, ISO 23009 does not explicitly disclose the picture- in-picture descriptor is defined as a supplementalProperty element with a attribute equal to "urn:mpeg:dash:pinp:2021".
HIRABAYASHI in paragraphs [0197] discloses “information indicating the type (meaning) of thumbnail images may be described in association with the SRDs of the respective thumbnail images. In this case, for example, <SupplementalProperty schemeIdUri=“urn:mpeg:dash:srd-role:2014” value=“pinp”/> is described as the information indicating that the thumbnail images are displayed in a picture-in-picture mode. The moving-image playback terminal now can present the user with characters or icons that the thumbnail images are images displayed in a picture-in-picture mode.”
As such, HIRABAYASHI explicitly teaches signaling picture-in-picture presentation using <SupplementalProperty schemeIdUri=“urn:mpeg:dash:srd-role:2014” value=“pinp”/>.
Claim 1 differs only in that the picture-in-picture identifier expressed as urn:mpeg:dash:pinp:2021". However, it should be noted that both identifiers serve the same purpose of conveying picture-in-picture presentation in DASH via a SupplementalProperty descriptor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ISO 23009 by substituting “urn:mpeg:dash:pinp:2021" for “urn:mpeg:dash:srd-role:2014”, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify ISO 23009 by substituting “urn:mpeg:dash:pinp:2021" for “urn:mpeg:dash:srd-role:2014”, as taught by HIRABAYASHI, to arrive at the claimed invention of “the picture- in-picture descriptor is defined as a supplementalProperty element with a attribute equal to ‘urn:mpeg:dash:pinp:2021’,” in order to convey picture-in-picture presentation in DASH via a SupplementalProperty descriptor.
Regarding claim 4, ISO 23009 teaches the method of claim 1, wherein one region ID in the list of region IDs allows the first set of coded video data units having the region ID in the first video replaced with the second set of coded video unit having the region ID in the second video before decoding the first video (when @tag of the Preselection is equal to “PicInPic”, the Picnpic element is present, and the @dataUnitsReplacable attribute is equal to ‘true’, the client may choose to replace the coded video data units representing the target picture-in-picture region in the main video with the corresponding coded video data units of the supplementary video before sending to the video decoder. Table 27: @regionIds- specifies the IDs of the coded video data units representing the target picture-in-picture region, as white space separated list…In the case of VVC, the region IDs are subpicture IDs and coded video data units are VCL NAL units. The VCL NAL units representing the target picture-in-picture region in the main video are those having these subpicture IDs, which are the same as the subpicture IDs in the corresponding VCL NAL units of the supplementary video- See section 5.3.11.6, page 100-101).
Regarding claim 5, ISO 23009 teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a region ID in the list of region IDs is a subpicture ID, the first set of coded video data units comprise a first set of video coding layer network abstraction layer (VCL NAL) units, and the second set of coded video data units comprise a second set of VCL NAL units (Table 27: @regionIds- specifies the IDs of the coded video data units representing the target picture-in-picture region, as white space separated list…In the case of VVC, the region IDs are subpicture IDs and coded video data units are VCL NAL units. The VCL NAL units representing the target picture-in-picture region in the main video are those having these subpicture IDs, which are the same as the subpicture IDs in the corresponding VCL NAL units of the supplementary video).
Regarding claim 6, ISO 23009 teaches the following limitation of claim 6:
A method of video processing, comprising: determining, at a second device (See FIG. 1, The DASH Client may use metadata provided in the MPD for the selection of media components by communication with the media streaming application. Pages 11, 22), a metadata file, the metadata file comprising a list of region identities (IDs) for indicating a first set of coded video data units in each picture of a first video representing a target picture-in-picture region which is replaceable by a second set of coded video units in a second video (when @tag of the Preselection is equal to “PicInPic”, the Picnpic element is present, and the @dataUnitsReplacable attribute is equal to ‘true’, the client may choose to replace the coded video data units representing the target picture-in-picture region in the main video with the corresponding coded video data units of the supplementary video before sending to the video decoder. Table 27: @regionIds- specifies the IDs of the coded video data units representing the target picture-in-picture region, as white space separated list…In the case of VVC, the region IDs are subpicture IDs and coded video data units are VCL NAL units. The VCL NAL units representing the target picture-in-picture region in the main video are those having these subpicture IDs, which are the same as the subpicture IDs in the corresponding VCL NAL units of the supplementary video- See section 5.3.11.6, page 100-101), wherein the list of region IDs is an attribute of an element in a descriptor in the metadata file, and wherein the attribute is a regionIds (See Table 27: Element or Attribute Name: @dataUnitReplacable, @regionIds), the metadata file comprises a picture-in-picture descriptor (See Table 27: Element or Attribute Name:...Picnpic…@dataUnitsReplacable : specifies whether the coded video data units representing the target picture-in-picture region in the main video can be replaced by the corresponding video data units of the supplementary video …@regionIds: specifies the lDs of the coded video data units representing the target picture-in-picture region as a white space separated list); and transmitting the metadata file to a first device (the DASH access engine receives the Media Presentation Description (MPD), constructs and issues requests and receives Segments or parts of Segments. The DASH Client may use metadata provided in the MPD for the selection of media components by communication with the media streaming application. See FIG. 1, Section 4.2; Section 5.2.1, pages 11, 22). ISO 23009 at page 285 further discloses “The SupplementalProperty and/or EssentialProperty descriptors with @schemeIdUri equal to "urn:mpeg:dash:srd:2014" and"urn:mpeg:dash:srd:dynamic:2016"may be used to provide spatial relationship information associated to the containing Spatial Object.” However, ISO 23009 does not explicitly disclose the picture- in-picture descriptor is defined as a supplementalProperty element with a attribute equal to "urn:mpeg:dash:pinp:2021".
HIRABAYASHI in paragraphs [0197] discloses “information indicating the type (meaning) of thumbnail images may be described in association with the SRDs of the respective thumbnail images. In this case, for example, <SupplementalProperty schemeIdUri=“urn:mpeg:dash:srd-role:2014” value=“pinp”/> is described as the information indicating that the thumbnail images are displayed in a picture-in-picture mode. The moving-image playback terminal now can present the user with characters or icons that the thumbnail images are images displayed in a picture-in-picture mode.”
As such, HIRABAYASHI explicitly teaches signaling picture-in-picture presentation using <SupplementalProperty schemeIdUri=“urn:mpeg:dash:srd-role:2014” value=“pinp”/>.
Claim 1 differs only in that the picture-in-picture identifier expressed as urn:mpeg:dash:pinp:2021". However, it should be noted that both identifiers serve the same purpose of conveying picture-in-picture presentation in DASH via a SupplementalProperty descriptor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ISO 23009 by substituting “urn:mpeg:dash:pinp:2021" for “urn:mpeg:dash:srd-role:2014”, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify ISO 23009 by substituting “urn:mpeg:dash:pinp:2021" for “urn:mpeg:dash:srd-role:2014”, as taught by HIRABAYASHI, to arrive at the claimed invention of “the picture- in-picture descriptor is defined as a supplementalProperty element with a attribute equal to ‘urn:mpeg:dash:pinp:2021’,” in order to convey picture-in-picture presentation in DASH via a SupplementalProperty descriptor.
Regarding claims 9-10, the claims are drawn to a method claim and recite the limitation analogous to claims 4-5, and is rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claims 4-5.
Regarding claim 11, the claims are drawn to an apparatus claim and recite the limitation analogous to claim 1, and is rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claims 14-15, the claims are drawn to an apparatus claim and recite the limitation analogous to claims 4-5, and is rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claims 4-5.
Regarding claim 16, the claims are drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim and recite the limitation analogous to claim 6, and is rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 6.
Regarding claims 19-20, the claims are drawn to an apparatus claim and recite the limitation analogous to claims 4-5, and is rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claims 4-5.
The following is the prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Oh et al. (US 20170171576 A1) describes “an apparatus for transmitting a broadcast signal, an apparatus for receiving a broadcast signal and methods for transmitting and receiving a broadcast signal.” ¶0001
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHNAEL AYNALEM whose telephone number is (571)270-1482. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5:30 PM 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, SATH PERUNGAVOOR can be reached at 571-272-7455. 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.
/NATHNAEL AYNALEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488