Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/767,769

METHOD, DEVICE, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR IMPROVING INDEXING, FILTERING, AND REPAIRING OF PORTIONS OF ENCAPSULATED MEDIA DATA

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jul 09, 2024
Examiner
CHEN, CAI Y
Art Unit
2425
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
570 granted / 789 resolved
+14.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+9.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
19 currently pending
Career history
808
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
6.9%
-33.1% vs TC avg
§103
46.7%
+6.7% vs TC avg
§102
26.1%
-13.9% vs TC avg
§112
5.8%
-34.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 789 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-8, 10-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (UK Patent Publication, GB 2516826 A, published on 11/02/2015, hereinafter refers Denoual). Regarding claim 1, Denoual discloses a method of encapsulating media data in a media file, in a processing device, the media data comprising a plurality of samples, the method comprising: generating a first track comprising a media data part storing a first sequence of samples of the plurality of samples, the first track further comprising a metadata part describing the first sequence of samples (Fig. 3, el. 306-1, el. 306-2, Fig. 4, Fig. 10, page 34, lines 1-35, the track header “tKhd” is created to indicated the track sequence, seq_num is to indicate the sequence), generating descriptive metadata describing a dependency between a given sample of the first track and another sample, the generated descriptive metadata being stored in the metadata part of the first track (Fig. 3, el. 306-1, el. 306-2, Fig. 4, Fig. 10, page 34, lines 1-35, tkhd defined from Track_ID 1 – 6 indicated its dependencies), and encapsulating (abstract, each track is encapsulated) the first track in the media file wherein the generated descriptive metadata comprise an offset reference indication for indicating a base sample to be used as reference for an offset identifying the sample the given sample depends on (Fig. 3, el. 322, page 35, lines. 17-23, i.e., horizontal offset or vertical offset). Regarding claim 2, Denoual discloses wherein the offset reference indication indicates whether the offset is computed from the given sample or is computed from a previously identified reference sample (page 35, lines. 17-30). Regarding claim 3, Denoual discloses wherein the generated descriptive metadata comprise an offset to the other sample relative to the given sample (page 35, lines. 17-30). Regarding claim 4, Denoual discloses generating a second track comprising a media data part storing a second sequence of samples of the plurality of samples, the generated descriptive metadata describing a dependency between a given sample of the first track and a sample of the second track (Fig. 3, el. 306-1, el. 306-2, Fig. 4, Fig. 10, page 34, lines 1-35, the track header “tKhd” is created to indicated the track sequence). Regarding claim 5, Denoual discloses wherein the generated descriptive metadata comprise a reference to the second track and an offset to the sample of the second track relative to a sample of the second track temporally corresponding to the given sample (page 35, lines. 17-30). Regarding claim 6, Denoual discloses wherein the generated descriptive metadata describes a group of samples, a sample of the first track that depends on another sample being associated with the described group of samples (Fig. 3, el. 306-1, el. 306-2, Fig. 4, Fig. 10, page 34, lines 1-35). Regarding claim 7, Denoual discloses wherein the generated descriptive metadata further comprises a number of samples, in other tracks on which a given sample of the first track depends (Fig. 3, el. 306-1, el. 306-2, Fig. 4, Fig. 10, page 34, lines 1-35). Regarding claim 8, Denoual discloses wherein the generated descriptive metadata further comprise an indicator indicating that the given sample depends on a same sample a previous sample depends on (Fig. 3, el. 306-1, el. 306-2, Fig. 4, Fig. 10, page 34, lines 1-35, i.e., seq_num). Regarding claim 10, the instant claim is met by the rejection of claim 1. Regarding claim 11, the instant claim is met by the rejection of claim 2. Regarding claim 12, the instant claim is met by the rejection of claim 3. Regarding claim 13, the instant claim is met by the rejection of claim 4. Regarding claim 14, the instant claim is met by the rejection of claim 5. Regarding claim 15, the instant claim is met by the rejection of claim 6. Regarding claim 16, Denoual discloses wherein processing a given sample depending on another sample comprises filtering samples (Fig. 10, Fig. 18). Regarding claim 19, the instant claim is met by the rejection of claim 1. Regarding claim 20, the instant claim is met by the rejection of claim 1. 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 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denoual in view of Wang et al. (US 2015/0110473 A1, hereinafter refers Wang). Regarding claim 9, Denoual discloses all limitation of claim 1, Denoual does not explicitly disclose wherein the media file is an ISOBMFF media file; Wang teaches wherein the media file is an ISOBMFF media file (para. 28); It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention to modify Denoual to include Wang in order for system to satisfy IEEE system standard in ISOBMFF. Regarding claim 18, the instant claim is met by the rejection of claim 9. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denoual in view of Hannuksela (US 2020/0260063 A) Regarding claim 17, Denoual discloses all limitation of claim 1, Denoual does not explicitly disclose wherein processing a given sample depending on another sample comprises repairing a damage or partially lost byte range of the media file; Hannuksela teaches wherein processing a given sample depending on another sample comprises repairing a damage or partially lost byte range of the media file (Fig. 8b, para. 77). It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention to modify Denoual to Hannuksela in order to correct the errors in sample as such presenting a better quality video content. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAI Y CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5679. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM -4:30 PM. 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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at 571-272-7527. 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. /CAI Y CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 09, 2024
Application Filed
Nov 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598349
SIGNATURE RETRIEVAL AND MATCHING FOR MEDIA MONITORING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592978
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MULTICASTING LIVE CONTENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12580741
DATA TRANSMISSION METHOD AND SYSTEM, COMPUTER DEVICE, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12568258
SEAMLESSLY INSERTING A SUPPLEMENTAL CONTENT ITEM INTO A CONTENT ITEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12554882
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SYNTHETIC IDENTITY DETECTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (+9.0%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 789 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month