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 09/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 5, Applicant argues that,
Stockhammer at Para. [0119]-[0120] discloses “[e]very audio Adaptation Set shall include at least one Role element using the scheme “urn:mpeg:dash:role:2011” as defined in ISO/IEC 23009-1 [1]. 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 by the Content Provider.”
In Stockhammer, the @value attribute set to “main” for audio content indicates that the Adaptation Set is the preferred audio Adaptation Set by the Content Provider. In other words, the @value attribute set to “main” merely indicates a preferred Adaptation Set, which has nothing do with a main stream representation (MSR). As such, Stockhammer is completely silent about “main stream representation (MSR)”, let alone, “a presence of the descriptor indicating that a representation in the data set is a main stream representation (MSR)” (referred to as feature (1) hereinafter) as recited in Claim 1.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that, at least in [0034], 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.
Further, Stockhammer explicitly states “the @value attribute set to “main” for audio content,” means that the stream of the audio content is a main stream. Thus, any representation of the audio content is the main stream representation.
Applicant’s arguments on page 6 are not persuasive because: (1) the claim does not recite anything regarding “advantageously identifying the MSR more efficiently”, and (2) “advantageously identifying the MSR more efficiently” is by itself an abstract idea.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recited steps are merely steps that can be either performed mentally in mind of a user (the “determining” step) or performed using a device as means without significantly more (the “receiving” step using a device to merely receive a metadata file).
Specifically, claim 1 is directed to a method for video processing, comprising:
receiving, at a first device, a metadata file from a second device through the first display, wherein the first display is aligned with a first eye of a user (this act is simply using a device to receive a metadata file from another device, thus does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself); and
determining a descriptor in a data set in the metadata file, a presence of the descriptor indicating that a representation in the data set is a main stream representation (MSR) (this step is merely ‘reading the metadata file at appropriate field to see if there is the descriptor).
As such, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Additionally, the claim fail to recite any limitations that purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself or effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Viewed as a whole, the claim does not recite any other additional claim element(s) that provide(s) meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Additionally, the claimed invention also fails to recite any specific machine for performing the apparent computational steps, which also weighs against eligibility. Applicant is reminded, however, that generic computer implementation is not the sort of “additional feature” that provides any “practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.” Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U. S., Pp. 11–14.
Claim 2 recites, “the method of claim 1, wherein the descriptor is defined as a data structure with an attribute equal to a uniform resource name (URN) string (this limitation merely specifies the descriptor, thus does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because it does recite any meaningful functions rendered by executing any of the steps of the method).
Claim 3 recites, “method of claim 2, wherein the metadata file is a media presentation description (MPD), and the data structure is EssentialProperty in the MPD” (this limitation merely specifies a type of the metadata file and the characteristics of the data structure of the descriptor, thus does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because it does recite any meaningful functions rendered by executing any of the steps of the method).
Claim 4 recites, “the method of claim 3, wherein the attribute is a schemeldUri attribute, and the URN string is “urn:mpeg:dash:msr:2022”” (this limitation merely specifies attribute data, thus does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because it does recite any meaningful functions rendered by executing any of the steps of the method).
Claim 5 recites, “the method of claim 1, wherein the data set is an adaptation set” (this limitation merely specifies the data set of the descriptor, thus does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because it does recite any meaningful functions rendered by executing any of the steps of the method).
Claim 6 recites, “the method of claim 1, wherein 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)” (this limitation merely specifies characteristics of the stream, thus does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because it does recite any meaningful functions rendered by executing any of the steps of the method).
Claim 7 recites, “the EDRAP sample is provided to a decoder after an external stream representation (ESR) sample associated with the EDRAP sample is provided to the decoder” (this limitation merely relates to characteristics of the stream and associated external stream, thus does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because it does recite any meaningful functions rendered by executing any of the steps of the method).
Claim 8 recites, “the method of claim 6, wherein the first byte position of the EDRAP sample is an index of the SAU” (this limitation merely relates to extra metadata of the stream, thus does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because it does recite any meaningful functions rendered by executing any of the steps of the method).
Claim 9 is directed to a method for video processing, comprising:
determining, at a second device, a descriptor in a data set in a metadata file, a presence of the descriptor indicating that a representation in the data set is an MSR (this step is merely ‘reading the metadata file at appropriate field to see if there is the descriptor, the additional element of “the second device” is simply a means that the user uses to open and read the file, thus does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself); and
transmitting the metadata file to a first device (this act is simply using a device to transmit a metadata file to another device, thus does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself).
As such, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Additionally, the claim fail to recite any limitations that purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself or effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Viewed as a whole, the claim does not recite any other additional claim element(s) that provide(s) meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Additionally, the claimed invention also fails to recite any specific machine for performing the apparent computational steps, which also weighs against eligibility. Applicant is reminded, however, that generic computer implementation is not the sort of “additional feature” that provides any “practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.” Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U. S., Pp. 11–14.
Claims 10-16 are rejected for the same reason as discussed in claims 2-8 respectively above.
Claims 17-20 are rejected for the same reason as discussed in claims 1 and 9 above in view of additional elements recited, i.e. an apparatus for processing video data comprising a processor and a non-transitory …” in claims 17 and 19 and “non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions …” recited in claims 18 and 20 are simply means to perform the abstract idea, thus do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 9-11, 13, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Stockhammer (US 2017/0156015 A1 – hereinafter Stockhammer).
Regarding claim 1, Stockhammer discloses a method for video processing, comprising: receiving, at a first device, a metadata file from a second device ([0075]; [0086]-[0088]; Fig. 1 – receiving at a client device, a manifest file 66, which is a metadata file, from a source device 60 as shown in Fig. 1); and determining a descriptor in a data set in the metadata file, a presence of the 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], indicating a representation in the data set is a main stream representation).
Regarding claim 2, Stockhammer also discloses the 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 9, Stockhammer discloses a method for video processing, comprising: determining, at a second device (Fig. 1 – determining a manifest file at source device 60), a descriptor in a data set in a metadata file, a presence of the 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); and transmitting the metadata file to a first device (Fig. 1; [0071] – transmitting the manifest file to client device 40).
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 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]).
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 6, 8, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stockhammer as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 9-11, 13, and 17-20 above, and further in view of Denoual et al. (US 2023/0164371 A1 – hereinafter Denoual).
Regarding claim 6, see the teachings of Stockhammer as discussed in claim 1 above. However, 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]).
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 8, see the teachings of Stockhammer 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 6 above.
Claim 14 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 6 above.
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 8 above.
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 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