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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/11/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is 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.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schreiner et al. (Pub No US 2024/0284000 – claiming priority to provisional application 63/297,473 filed on Jan 7th, 2022) in view of Misra et al. (Pub No US 2019/0115009). Hereinafter, referenced as Schreiner and Misra, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Schreiner discloses a method for video processing, comprising:
performing a conversion between a bitstream of a video and a media file of the video (Page 26 figures 1A-B; video data converters),
wherein the media file comprises a group of labels comprising a first label (e.g. label_id), a first indication in a first data structure for the first label (Pages 48-49; e.g. label box), and the first indication indicates whether the first label contains a summary label for the group of labels (Pages 48-49; is_group_label syntax specifies if the label contains a summary or title).
While Schreiner discloses that it is known to incorporate the first label (Pages 48-49; is_group_label syntax (8)), it is noted that Schreiner is silent to explicitly disclose that the first label is coded with a single bit.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Misra discloses that the first label is coded with a single bit (Paragraphs [0093]-[0097]; a bitstream ISOBMFF file may include a 1-bit Boolean flag, 1 or 0, indicating whether a text label is present for presentation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schreiner by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Misra, for the predictable result of implementing a flag in binary form, wherein the number of bits constituting this “flag” is arbitrary, and may be one bit or a plurality of bits (Katsumata et al. (Pub No US 2023/0308661) – paragraph [0215]).
Regarding claim 2, Schreiner and Misra disclose the method of claim 1; moreover, Schreiner discloses that the first data structure is a label box (Pages 48-49; e.g. label box), and the first indication is an is_group_label field (Pages 48-49; is_group_label syntax specifies a summary or title of all labels with the same label-_id).
Regarding claim 3, Schreiner and Misra disclose the method of claim 1; moreover, Schreiner discloses that the group of labels have the same identifier (e.g. label-_id), and the summary label comprises a summary or a title of all of the group of labels (Pages 48-49; is_group_label syntax specifies a summary or title of all labels with the same label-_id).
Regarding claim 7, Schreiner and Misra disclose the method of claim 1; moreover, Schreiner discloses that a requirement specifying that a second indication (e.g. track_in_movie flag) in a second data structure in a track has a predetermined value is not imposed on at least one track in the media file, the second indication (e.g. track_in_movie flag) indicates whether the corresponding track represents a direct part of a presentation of the media file, the second data structure specifies characteristics of the corresponding track, and the at least one track does not contribute to a preselection for the media file (Page 46; tracks not containing all required media components for at least one preselection shall have the track_in_movie flag set to '0' in their Track Header Boxes. This prevents players not understanding the Preselection Box from playing the track resulting in an incomplete experience).
Regarding claim 8, Schreiner and Misra disclose the method of claim 7; moreover, Schreiner discloses that the second indication is a track_in_movie flag (Page 46; e.g. track_in_movie flag), the second data structure is a track header box, and the predetermined value is 0 (Page 46; tracks not containing all required media components for at least one preselection shall have the track_in_movie flag set to '0' in their Track Header Boxes).
Regarding claim 9, Schreiner and Misra disclose the method of claim 7; moreover, Schreiner discloses that the at least one track does not contain a track group type box with a track group type field equal to 'pres' (Pages 12 lines 10-20 and page 46; TrackGroupTypeBox with track group type equal to 'pres' indicates that this track contributes to a preselection. Wherein track group type field boxes may be equal to “pre” or a specific value, e.g. 3).
Regarding claim 10, Schreiner and Misra disclose the method of claim 7; moreover, Schreiner discloses that a track group type box with a track group type field equal to 'pres' is a preselection group box (Page 46; TrackGroupTypeBox with track group type equal to 'pres' indicates that this track contributes to a preselection).
Regarding claim 11, Schreiner and Misra disclose the method of claim 10; moreover, Schreiner discloses that the media file comprises a set of target tracks, each of the set of target tracks contains the preselection group box (Page 46; TrackGroupTypeBox with track group type equal to 'pres' indicates that this track contributes to a preselection) and lacks one or more required media components for at least one preselection for the media file (e.g. unselected language, commentator, etc.), and the second indication in the second data structure in each of the set of target tracks has the predetermined value (Page 54 line 22 – page 55 line 8; targeting tracks to specific audiences, e.g. presented language, preselect commentator, preselected reproduction environment, etc.).
Regarding claim 12, Schreiner and Misra disclose the method of claim 1; moreover, Schreiner discloses that the media file is of an international organization for standardization (ISO) base media file format (Page 3 lines 1-26).
Regarding claim 13, Schreiner and Misra disclose the method of claim 1; moreover, Schreiner discloses that the conversion comprises generating the media file and storing the bitstream to the media file (Page 29 lines 4-28 figure 4A; e.g. ISOBMFF file).
Regarding claim 14, Schreiner and Misra disclose the method of claim 1; moreover, Schreiner discloses that the conversion comprises parsing the media file to reconstruct the bitstream (Page 29 lines 4-28 figure 4A; parsing the stream to generate output stream).
Regarding claim 15, Schreiner and Misra disclose all the limitations of claim 15; therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, Schreiner and Misra disclose all the limitations of claim 16; therefore, claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claims 2, 3 or 4.
Regarding claim 17, Schreiner and Misra disclose all the limitations of claim 17; therefore, claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, Schreiner and Misra disclose all the limitations of claim 18; therefore, claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claims 2, 3 or 4.
Regarding claim 19, Schreiner and Misra disclose all the limitations of claim 19; therefore, claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, Schreiner and Misra disclose all the limitations of claim 20; therefore, claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claims 2, 3 or 4.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schreiner and Misra in view of Design Choice.
Regarding claim 4, Schreiner and Misra disclose the method of claim 1; moreover, Schreiner discloses that a predetermined number of bits are reserved (Page 48; e.g. unsigned int(7) reserved).
While Schreiner discloses that it is known to incorporate a 7 bit reserve for future use, it is noted that Schreiner and Misra are silent to explicitly disclose that a predetermined number of bits immediately following the single bit are reserved.
Nevertheless, the examiner notes that it is an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to set a predetermined number of reserved bits immediately following the single bit.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schreiner and Misra, since it would have been a matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art, as the claims do not disclose that placing the reserve bits before or after solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, as such it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the reserved bits place before or after.
Regarding claim 5, Schreiner and Misra disclose the method of claim 1; moreover, Schreiner discloses that a predetermined number of bits are reserved (Page 48; e.g. unsigned int(7) reserved).
While Schreiner discloses that it is known to incorporate a 7 bit reserve for future use, it is noted that Schreiner and Misra are silent to explicitly disclose that a predetermined number of bits immediately preceding the single bit are reserved.
Nevertheless, the examiner notes that it is an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to set a predetermined number of reserved bits immediately preceding the single bit.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schreiner and Misra, since it would have been a matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art, as the claims do not disclose that placing the reserve bits before or after solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, as such it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the reserved bits place before or after.
Regarding claim 6, Schreiner and Misra discloses the method of claim 4; moreover, Schreiner discloses that the predetermined number is 7 (Page 48; e.g. unsigned int(7) reserved).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUNIOR O MENDOZA whose telephone number is (571)270-3573. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am-6pm EST..
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.
JUNIOR O. MENDOZA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2424
/JUNIOR O MENDOZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights