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 .
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s current response (dated 09 MARCH 2026), has been entered. The status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09 MARCH 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pages 5-7 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant argues (regarding at least claim 1) that the cited prior art combination of Wang (US 2021/0105313) and Le Floch (US 2016/0029091) does not disclose all the claimed limitations. Specifically, Applicant argues that Wang does not disclose "each representation in the media presentation is associated with another representation in the media presentation." Applicant asserts that because Wang discloses use of the phrase “can be” this does not cover the claimed “is” association. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As was shown in the previous rejection, Wang was cited as disclosing (among other things) each representation in the media presentation is associated with another representation in the media presentation (see Wang; media presentation can be composed of at least first track representation(s) and second track representation(s), wherein these tracks can be grouped, i.e. associated/related; page 11, paragraph 118, and wherein ROI/viewport tracks can also be associated with main video/tracks; page 5, paragraph 74). In interpreting the prior art in relation to the claimed limitations, because the Wang reference does allow for such association, even with the use of “can be” this provides coverage of situations for each present representation to be associated. Wang also notes further in the cited paragraph (i.e. see Wang; page 5, paragraph 74) using a track to “signal that a main 2D video track has a 2D ROI track”, as well as “spatial relationship descriptor to signal the spatial relationship between a main 2D video representation and its associated 2D ROI video representations”, i.e. that each representation(s) are associated.
Applicant also argues that the cited portion of Wang related to grouped/associated tracks does not cover the claimed limitations because if the group data indicates that there is no spatial relationship between one first patch track and the second patch track, such a first patch track and the second patch track are not related to each other. The Examiner again respectfully disagrees. As noted above, Wang discloses (among other things) media presentation can be composed of at least first track representation(s) and second track representation(s), wherein these tracks can be grouped, i.e. associated/related (see Wang; page 11, paragraph 118). That is, while Applicant utilizes a “what if” approach to negate the recitations of Wang, such a situation is not explicitly described in Wang, and a broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited portions of Wang would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to see how Wang’s group information associates each representation. Additionally, Wang also states in the same paragraph (see Wang; page 11, paragraph 118) that the first track, the second track, or both, i.e. each, reference an elementary track, i.e. are each associated with another representation. Therefore, when taking the prior art combination of Ling and Cheng together as a whole, all of these claimed limitations are disclosed.
Applicant also argues (still regarding claim 1) that the secondary prior art of Le Floch does not disclose the claimed MSR and ESR because the structure disclosed in Le Floc is fundamentally different from the claimed MSR/ESR relationship, and the fact that Le Floc does not specifically state/label MSR/ESR. The Examiner again respectfully disagrees. As was shown in the previous rejection Le Floch was cited as disclosing (among other things) a main stream representation (MSR), and an external stream representation (ESR) (see Le Floch; with use of base layer representation, i.e. main stream representation; page 1, paragraph 30, and page 2, paragraph 54, and/or including at least elementary stream(s) from an internal track; page 7, paragraphs 164 and 169, and page 8, paragraph 191, and also with use of enhancement layer representation, i.e. external stream representation; page 1, paragraph 30, and page 2, paragraph 54, and/or including at least elementary stream(s) of external track(s); page 7, paragraphs 159, 164, and 169, and page 8, paragraph 192). That is, Le Floch discloses how main/base representations and/or internal track representations have associated enhancement/external representations and/or external track representations. While Applicant argues about different structures, the currently presented claim limitations do not describe a detailed “structure” as potentially alluded to be Applicant. Additionally, even though the claimed terms MSR/ESR are not explicitly utilized by the prior art, equivalent elements are being utilized in place. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize obvious equivalents that provide a same inventive concept/outcome. Therefore, when taking the prior art combination of Ling and Cheng together as a whole, all of these claimed limitations are disclosed.
Any of Applicant’s additional remarks, not specifically addressed above, are considered moot in view of the Examiner’s above responses and/or the grounds/citations provided in the office action below.
Applicant is suggested to provide more detail as to what they believe constitutes the true invention of the application. This could help distinguish over the prior art of record, alleviate misinterpretation issues, and serve to move prosecution forward on the application in a more expedited manner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5, 7-10, and 12-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 1-15, 17, and 19 of copending Application No. 18/654,975 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current Application’s claims only worded in a slight broader way than their corresponding narrower reference application claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 14-16, 18, and 20 are also provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 1, 9-11, 16, and 20 of copending Application No. 18/654,957 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current Application’s claims only worded in a slight broader way than their corresponding narrower reference application claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 1-11 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al., US 2021/0105313 in view of Le Floch et al., US 2016/0029091.
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a method for media processing, comprising:
performing a conversion between a media file of a media and a media presentation of the media (media content file can be converted for presentation; page 5, paragraphs 77-79), wherein each representation in the media presentation is associated with another representation in the media presentation (media presentation can be composed of at least first track representation(s) and second track representation(s), wherein these tracks can be grouped, i.e. associated/related, and wherein the first track, the second track, or both, i.e. each, reference an elementary track, i.e. are each associated with another representation; page 11, paragraph 118, and wherein ROI/viewport tracks can also be associated with main video/tracks, and/or with track to signal that a main 2D video track has a 2D ROI track, and/or descriptor to signal the spatial relationship between a main 2D video representation and its associated 2D ROI video representations; page 5, paragraph 74).
Wang does not explicitly disclose a main stream representation (MSR), and an external stream representation (ESR).
In a related art, Le Floch does disclose a main stream representation (MSR), and an external stream representation (ESR) (MSR like/type with use of base layer representation, i.e. main stream representation; page 1, paragraph 30, and page 2, paragraph 54, and/or including at least elementary stream(s) from an internal track; page 7, paragraphs 164 and 169, and page 8, paragraph 191, and also with use of ESR like/type with enhancement layer representation, i.e. external stream representation; page 1, paragraph 30, and page 2, paragraph 54, and/or including at least elementary stream(s) of external track(s); page 7, paragraphs 159, 164, and 169, and page 8, paragraph 192).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art of Wang and Le Floch by including representation(s) such as a main stream type representation and an external stream type representation with the already provided representations of Wang in order to provide an improved system and method for video data processing making it possible to display a portion of images of a video stream with a higher quality than the other portions of the images (Le Floch; page 1, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 2, Wang in view of Le Floch discloses determining a first descriptor in a data set in the media presentation, a presence of the first descriptor indicating that a representation in the data set is an MSR (Wang; can determine at least a descriptor, i.e. first, such as a data structure EssentialProperty/SupplementalProperty, wherein this indicates a particular representation; page 18, paragraphs 177-178, and 37A/B, and Le Floch; with at least base layer representation, i.e. main stream representation; page 1, paragraph 30, and page 2, paragraph 54, and/or including at least elementary stream(s) from an internal track; page 7, paragraphs 164 and 169, and page 8, paragraph 191); and
performing the conversion based on the first descriptor (Wang; decoding/conversion, and wherein based on the metadata, including descriptor(s); page 18, paragraph 171, and page 5, paragraphs 77-79, and page 18, paragraphs 177-178).
Regarding claim 3, Wang in view of Le Floch discloses the first descriptor is defined as a data structure with an attribute equal to a uniform resource name (URN) string (Wang; data structure which can include a URN string; page 18, paragraph 178, and page 19, paragraph 184).
Regarding claim 4, Wang in view of Le Floch discloses the media presentation comprises a media presentation description (MPD) (Wang; with at least MPD; page 17, paragraph 168-169, and page 18, paragraph 178), and the data structure is EssentialProperty in the MPD (Wang; including at least EssentialProperty; page 18, paragraphs 178-179).
Regarding claim 5, Wang in view of Le Floch discloses the attribute is a schemeIdUri attribute, and the URN string is “urn:mpeg:dash:msr:2022” (Wang; @schemeidUri equal to "urn:mpeg:dash:3dsrd:20xx" and/or "urn:mpeg:dash:3dsrd:dynamic:20xx, wherein the representation is interchangeable/variable and the year is noted with “xx”, indicating that multiple years can be included, such as 2022; page 18, paragraph 177, and page 19, paragraph 184, and Le Floch; with at least base layer representation, i.e. main stream representation; page 1, paragraph 30, and page 2, paragraph 54, and/or including at least elementary stream(s) from an internal track; page 7, paragraphs 164 and 169, and page 8, paragraph 191).
Regarding claim 6, Wang in view of Le Floch discloses the data set is an adaptation set (Wang; can include adaptation set(s); page 17, paragraph 169, and page 18, paragraphs 177-178).
Regarding claim 7, Wang in view of Le Floch discloses determining a second descriptor in a data set in the media presentation, a presence of the second descriptor indicating that a representation in the data set is an ESR (Wang; can determine at least a descriptor, i.e. second, of multiple descriptors, such as a data structure EssentialProperty/SupplementalProperty, wherein this indicates a particular representation; page 18, paragraphs 177-178, and 37A/B, and Le Floch; with at least enhancement layer representation, i.e. external stream representation; page 1, paragraph 30, and page 2, paragraph 54, and/or including at least elementary stream(s) of external track(s); page 7, paragraphs 159, 164, and 169, and page 8, paragraph 192); and
performing the conversion based on the second descriptor (Wang; decoding/conversion, and wherein based on the metadata, including descriptor(s); page 18, paragraph 171, and page 5, paragraphs 77-79, and page 18, paragraphs 177-178).
Regarding claim 8, Wang in view of Le Floch discloses the second descriptor is defined as a data structure with an attribute equal to an URN string (Wang; data structure which can include a URN string; page 18, paragraph 178, and page 19, paragraph 184, and again with multiple descriptors, i.e. including at least a second; Figs 37A/B, and page 18, paragraph 178-179).
Regarding claim 9, Wang in view of Le Floch discloses the media presentation comprises an MPD (Wang; with at least MPD; page 17, paragraph 168-169, and page 18, paragraph 178), and the data structure is EssentialProperty in the MPD (Wang; including at least EssentialProperty; page 18, paragraphs 178-179).
Regarding claim 10, Wang in view of Le Floch discloses the attribute is a schemeIdUri attribute, and the URN string is “urn:mpeg:dash:esr:2022” (Wang; @schemeidUri equal to "urn:mpeg:dash:3dsrd:20xx" and/or "urn:mpeg:dash:3dsrd:dynamic:20xx, wherein the representation is interchangeable/variable and the year is noted with “xx”, indicating that multiple years can be included, such as 2022; page 18, paragraph 177, and page 19, paragraph 184, and Le Floch; with at least enhancement layer representation, i.e. external stream representation; page 1, paragraph 30, and page 2, paragraph 54, and/or including at least elementary stream(s) of external track(s); page 7, paragraphs 159, 164, and 169, and page 8, paragraph 192).
Regarding claim 11, Wang in view of Le Floch discloses the data set is an adaptation set (Wang; can include adaptation set(s); page 17, paragraph 169, and page 18, paragraphs 177-178).
Claim 16, which discloses an apparatus, 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 processor (Wang; including at least a processor; page 2, paragraph 22, and page 21, paragraphs 203-204) and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to perform acts (Wang; with non-transitory medium having processor executable instructions; page 2, paragraph 22, and page 21, paragraph 203, wherein the medium can include memory; page 20, paragraph 201).
Claim 17, which discloses an apparatus, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claims 2 and/or 7.
Claim 18, 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 claims 1 and 16.
Claim 19, 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 claims 2 and/or 7.
Claim 20, which discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claims 1, 16, and 18. The following additional limitations are also disclosed:
storing a media presentation of a media which is generated (Wang; generated/created media presentation(s); page 4, paragraph 70, and page 5, paragraph 75, and page 10, paragraphs 109 and 112, and page 11, paragraph 115, and page 17, paragraph 163, and wherein with the storage of the information as part of storage medium; pages 20-21, paragraph 202).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al., US 2021/0105313 in view of Le Floch et al., US 2016/0029091 and further in view of Hannuksela, US 2020/0053392.
Regarding claim 12, Wang in view of Le Floch discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 1, as well as the MSR is associated with the ESR through information in the MSR (Wang; representations can be associated with the use of at least an @associationID; page 18, paragraphs 171 and 174-175, and Le Floch; with use of base layer representation, i.e. main stream representation; page 1, paragraph 30, and page 2, paragraph 54, and/or including at least elementary stream(s) from an internal track; page 7, paragraphs 164 and 169, and page 8, paragraph 191, and also with use of enhancement layer representation, i.e. external stream representation; page 1, paragraph 30, and page 2, paragraph 54, and/or including at least elementary stream(s) of external track(s); page 7, paragraphs 159, 164, and 169, and page 8, paragraph 192).
Wang in view of Le Floch does not explicitly disclose a set of representation-level attributes.
In a related art, Hannuksela does disclose a set of representation-level attributes (set including associationID and associationType; page 20, paragraph 218).
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, Le Floch, and Hannuksela by allowing specific attributes to be included with the already present associationID attribute(s) of Wang in view of Le Floch, in order to provide an improved system and method for defining representations which provide supplemental or descriptive information for at least one other representation, and enable the encoding/decoding of video information for the storage/transmission of the video information at lower bitrates than might otherwise be needed (Hannuksela; page 1, paragraphs 3-4, and page 20, paragraph 218).
Regarding claim 13, Wang in view of Le Floch and Hannuksela discloses the set of representation-level attributes comprise an associationId attribute and an associationType attribute (Hannuksela; set including associationID and associationType; page 20, paragraph 218).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al., US 2021/0105313 in view of Le Floch et al., US 2016/0029091 and further in view of OH, US 2020/0014905.
Regarding claim 14, Wang in view of Le Floch discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 1, as well as the conversion (Wang; media content file can be converted for presentation; page 5, paragraphs 77-79).
Wang in view of Le Floch does not explicitly disclose conversion comprises packing the media file into a media presentation.
In a related art, OH does disclose conversion comprises packing the media file into a media presentation (conversion by packing the data into a particular presentation; page 3, paragraph 59, and page 6, paragraph 122, and page 15, paragraph 233, and including an MPD; page 6, paragraph 114).
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, Le Floch, and OH by allowing specific packing/unpacking operations to be performed with the already performed media processing of Wang in view of Le Floch, in order to provide an improved system and method for processing video data and for transmitting and receiving signaling information on multiple-viewpoints relating to the video data (OH; page 1, paragraphs 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 15, Wang in view of Le Floch discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 1, as well as the conversion (Wang; media content file can be converted for presentation; page 5, paragraphs 77-79).
Wang in view of Le Floch does not explicitly disclose conversion comprises unpacking a media file from a media presentation.
In a related art, OH does disclose conversion comprises unpacking a media file from a media presentation (conversion by unpacking the packed media from a presentation; page 14, paragraph 227, and page 17, paragraph 259, and page 22, paragraph 348, and again including an MPD; page 6, paragraph 114).
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, Le Floch, and OH by allowing specific packing/unpacking operations to be performed with the already performed media processing of Wang in view of Le Floch, in order to provide an improved system and method for processing video data and for transmitting and receiving signaling information on multiple-viewpoints relating to the video data (OH; page 1, paragraphs 4 and 5).
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 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
Prosecution Insights