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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/02/2025 with respect to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 9-10, Applicant argues that,
…
It is seen that, the cited content of Denoual discloses that in the bitstream, the samples that follow the DRAP sample 1201/1202/1203 have no other reference sample that is prior to sample 1201/1202/1203, and the samples following the EDRAP sample 1204/1205/1206 are not referencing any samples in decoding order prior to sample 1204/1205/1206 except sample 1200. That is, Denoual at best discloses a constraint regarding coding order of the DRAP and EDRAP samples. Denoual is completely silent about a starting access unit (SAU) of a stream access point (SAP), let alone "an extended dependent random access point (EDRAP) sample in the MSR comprises an indication of a starting access unit (SAU) of a stream access point (SAP)" as recited in the above feature (1).
As such, the Office Action fails to establish that Denoual discloses the above feature (1). Should the Examiner still hold the view that the cited document(s) disclose the above feature (1), Applicant respectfully requests the Examiner to set forth the relevant content in the cited document(s) in detail.
(original emphases)
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that, at least in [00342] and Fig. 12, Denoual teaches at least an EDRAP sample 1201 has a reference to a sync sample 1200, which is a starting access unit of a stream access point 1201.
For example, in at least [0343], Denoual teaches:
[0343] As a result, a player can decode a stream starting at an EDRAP or at a DRAP sample with the constraint that it first decodes the one or more reference samples needed for correct decoding of the bit-stream starting from this EDRAP or DRAP sample. Thus, random access in a bit-stream can also be done at other samples than sync or partial sync samples provided that the player has indication to retrieve the preceding sync sample or preceding EDRAP or DRAP samples. This indication is the object of the ‘drap’ and ‘edrp’ sample groups.
(emphases added)
As such, in order to access the stream at an SAP 1201, the system would have to reference the sync sample 1200, which is a starting access unit of the stream access point 1201. The EDRAP 1201 has the reference to the sync sample 1200.
Therefore, Denoual clearly teaches “an extended dependent random access point (EDRAP) sample in the MSR comprises an indication of a starting access unit (SAU) of a stream access point (SAP)”.
On page 11, Applicant further argues that,
In addition, in rejecting Claim 1, the Office Action contends that Stockhammer discloses the feature "a presence of the descriptor indicating that a representation in the data set is a main stream representation (MSR)" (referred to as feature (2) hereinafter) as recited in Claim 1. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
The Office Action at Pages 2-3 indicates that "Stockhammer discloses that each adaptation set corresponds to an audio data stream. Thus, the use of the @value attribute set to "main" for audio content indicates to the Player that the Adaptation Set is the preferred audio Adaptation Set, which corresponds to a preferred audio data stream, which corresponds to a main audio stream, the representation of which is the recited main stream representation. In other words, when the audio stream corresponding to the adaptation set indicated by the @value attribute set to "main" is indicated, its representation is the main stream representation."
As acknowledged in the Office Action, in Stockhammer, a value of the @value attribute being equal to "main" indicates that the Adaptation Set is the preferred audio Adaptation Set. In other words, it is a combination of the presence of the attribute "@value" and a specific value of the attribute "a value", i.e., "main", that indicates that the Adaptation Set is the preferred audio Adaptation Set. As such, the presence of the attribute "@value" itself CANNOT indicate that the Adaptation Set is the preferred audio Adaptation Set.
On the contrary, the above feature (2) explicitly specifies that it is the presence of the descriptor that indicates that a representation in the data set is an MSR. In this case, the attribute "@value" in Stockhammer is functionally different from the descriptor in amended Claim 1.
As such, the Office Action fails to establish that Stockhammer discloses the above feature (2). In addition, as acknowledged in the Office Action, Denoual is also silent about the above feature (2).
Therefore, amended Claim 1 is patentable over the cited reference documents, and thus all the other claims are patentable over the cited reference documents.
(original emphases)
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the Office Action clearly states that Stockhammer discloses the descriptor indicating that a representation in the data set is a main stream representation (MSR) is: “urn:mpeg:dash:role:2011, value =“main”, not @value.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 1-3, 5, 8-11, 13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stockhammer (US 2017/0156015 A1 – hereinafter Stockhammer) and Denoual et al. (US 2023/0164371 A1 – hereinafter Denoual).
Regarding claim 1, Stockhammer discloses a method for media streaming, comprising: receiving, at a first device, a metadata file from a second device, the metadata file comprising a description of representation of media content ([0075]; [0086]-[0088]; Fig. 1 – receiving at a client device, a manifest file 66, which is a metadata file comprising a description of representation of media content, from a source device 60 as shown in Fig. 1); and determining whether a main stream representation (MSR) descriptor is present in a data set in the metadata file, a presence of the MSR descriptor indicating that a representation in the data set is a main stream representation (MSR) ([0119]-[0122] – determining a descriptor, e.g. “urn:mpeg:dash:role:2011, value =“main” ” in an adaptation set as further described at least in [0133]-[0138] and Fig. 8, indicating a representation in the data set is a main stream representation); and obtaining the media content based on the determining ([0075]; [0077] – accessing the media content 68 based on the determining from the manifest file).
Stockhammer does not disclose an extended dependent random access point (EDRAP) sample in the MSR comprises an indication of a starting access unit (SAU) of a stream access point (SAP).
Denoual discloses an extended dependent random access point (EDRAP) sample in a stream representation comprises an indication of a starting access unit (SAU) of a stream access point (SAP) (Fig. 12; [0342]-[0343] - an EDRAP sample 1201 has a reference to a sync sample 1200, which is a starting access unit of a stream access point 1201 such that in order to access the stream at an SAP 1201, the system would have to reference the sync sample 1200, which is a starting access unit of the stream access point 1201. The EDRAP 1201 has the reference to the sync sample 1200 – also see “Response to Arguments” above).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Denoual into the method taught by Stockhammer to improve the coding efficiency for random access.
Regarding claim 2, Stockhammer also discloses the MSR descriptor is defined as a data structure with an attribute equal to a uniform resource name (URN) string ([0119]-[0112] – a descriptor in an adaptation set, e.g. “urn:mpeg:dash:role:2011, value =“main” ”).
Regarding claim 3, Stockhammer also discloses the metadata file is a media presentation description (MPD) ([0033]; [0075]; [0086]-[0088]; Fig. 1 – the manifest includes metadata such as MPD), and the data structure is EssentialProperty in the MPD ([0179]-[0180]).
Regarding claim 5, Stockhammer also discloses the data set is an adaptation set ([0119]-[0122]).
Regarding claim 8, see the teachings of Stockhammer and Denoual as discussed in claim 1 above, in which Denoual also discloses the first byte position of the EDRAP sample is an index of the SAU (Fig. 12; [0342]-[0343] – the EDRAP serves as an entry for random access, thus being an index of the SAU).
The motivation for incorporating the teachings of Denoual into the method has been discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, Stockhammer discloses a method for video processing, comprising: determining, at a second device, whether to incorporate an MSR descriptor into a data set in a metadata file (Fig. 1; [0070]-[0071] – determining, at a content preparation device, whether to incorporate a descriptor, e.g. “urn:mpeg:dash:role:2011, value =“main” ” in an adaptation set into a data set in a manifest file to provide to a broadcast device), a presence of the MSR descriptor indicating that a representation in the data set is an MSR ([0119]-[0112] – determining a descriptor, e.g. “urn:mpeg:dash:role:2011, value =“main” ” in an adaptation set as further described at least in [0133]-[0138], indicating a representation in the data set is a main stream representation); generating the metadata file based on the determining, the metadata file comprising a description of representations of media content ([0070]-[0071] – generating the manifest file based on the determining); and transmitting the metadata file to a first device (Fig. 1; [0071] – transmitting the manifest file to client device 40).
Stockhammer does not disclose an extended dependent random access point (EDRAP) sample in the MSR comprises an indication of a starting access unit (SAU) of a stream access point (SAP).
Denoual discloses an extended dependent random access point (EDRAP) sample in a stream representation comprises an indication of a starting access unit (SAU) of a stream access point (SAP) (Fig. 12; [0342]-[0343] - an EDRAP sample 1201 has a reference to a sync sample 1200, which is a starting access unit of a stream access point 1201 such that in order to access the stream at an SAP 1201, the system would have to reference the sync sample 1200, which is a starting access unit of the stream access point 1201. The EDRAP 1201 has the reference to the sync sample 1200 – also see “Response to Arguments” above).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Denoual into the method taught by Stockhammer to improve the coding efficiency for random access.
Claim 10 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 2 above.
Claim 11 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 3 above.
Claim 13 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 5 above.
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 8 above.
Claim 17 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 1 above in view of Stockhammer also disclosing an apparatus for processing video data (Fig. 1 – client device 40) comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to perform the recited acts ([0696]-[0698]).
Claim 18 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 1 above in view of Stockhammer also disclosing a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause the processor to perform the recited acts ([0696]-[0698]).
Claim 19 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 9 above in view of Stockhammer also disclosing an apparatus for processing video data (Fig. 1 – source device 60) comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to perform the recited acts ([0696]-[0698]).
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 9 above in view of Stockhammer also disclosing a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause the processor to perform the recited acts ([0696]-[0698]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7, 12, and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG Q DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1116. The examiner can normally be reached IFT.
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, Thai Q Tran can be reached at 571-272-7382. 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.
/HUNG Q DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484
Prosecution Insights