DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 20 have been examined and are pending.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0232256 to Wang in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0284000 to Schreiner et al. (hereinafter Schreiner).
Regarding Claim 1, Wang discloses (¶2) generation, storage, and consumption of digital audio video media information in a file format, which further includes:
method for video processing (Wang discloses ¶126 method 900 of video processing) comprising:
performing a conversion between a bitstream of a video and a media file of the video (Wang discloses ¶128 a conversion is performed between a visual media data and a bitstream)
wherein a first data structure in the media file comprises a first indication (Wang discloses a first data structure in the ISO File ¶108-109 and Fig. 4:430, a ‘file type box (ftyp)’ carry data that describes file level data) and at least one second data structure describing a preselection in the media file (Wang discloses a second data structure in the ISO File ¶108-109 and Fig. 4:410, a ‘movie box (moov)’ that contains data which describes an entire movie or carry metadata describing a track of a media presentation) and the first indication is signaled before the at least one second data structure (Wang discloses (in Fig. 4) the first indication i.e. 430 is signaled before the second data structure i.e. 410).
Wang does not explicitly specify the number of non-alternative tracks grouped by a preselection track group for the preselection. However, in an analogous art, Schreiner teaches:
specifies the number (¶188 n_tracks: number of tracks required to form the preselection) of non-alternative tracks grouped by a preselection track group for the preselection (Schreiner teaches (¶34-35 and Fig. 5: S5200) media stream indicative of a preselection which refers to set of single/individual continuous components of the media content (¶154-¶156) such as audio, video, text, etc. that are intended to be consumed jointly. Schreiner teaches fig. 6; ¶210 the determination of the full set of preselections may comprise: determining a set of unique pairs of track group identifiers and track group types, and addressing the preselections by respective track group identifiers)
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine method for video processing, comprising: performing a conversion between a bitstream of a video and a media file of the video, wherein a first data structure in the media file comprises a first indication and at least one second data structure describing a preselection in the media file, and the first indication is signaled before the at least one second data structure, as disclosed by Wang, and specifies the number of non-alternative tracks grouped by a preselection track group for the preselection, as taught by Schreiner, for the purpose of implementing methods, apparatuses and systems for signaling preselections corresponding to media presentations to a user, and the processing thereof (¶2).
Claim 2, Wang and Schreiner disclose all the elements of claim 1. Further they disclose:
second data structure comprises boxes describing the preselection (Wang discloses a second data structure in the ISO File ¶109 and Fig. 4:410, a ‘movie box (moov)’ that contains data which describes an entire movie or carry metadata describing a track of a media presentation)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 1.
Claim 3, Wang and Schreiner disclose all the elements of claim 1. Further they disclose:
value of a second indication in the media file is the same for all tracks contributing to the preselection (Schreiner teaches ¶30 and ¶34 metadata information corresponding to the preselection-related box may comprise track identification information, wherein tracks associated with the one or more track identifiers in the metadata information correspond to a respective media presentation) and the second indication indicates a priority of the preselection (Schreiner teaches ¶187:selection_priority is an integer that declares the priority of the preselection.)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 1.
Claim 4, Wang and Schreiner disclose all the elements of claim 1. Further they disclose:
wherein the second indication is a selection_priority field (Schreiner teaches ¶187:selection_priority is an integer field that declares the priority of the preselection.)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 1.
Claim 5, Wang and Schreiner disclose all the elements of claim 1. Further they disclose:
wherein the first data structure is a Preselection information box (Schreiner teaches ¶43 the preselection-related box is associated with a preselection information box comprising semantic information indicative of the preselection e.g., attributes, characteristics, etc.) or the first indication is a numTracks field (Schreiner teaches ¶188 n_tracks is an integer that declares number of tracks required to form the preselection.)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 1.
Claim 6, Wang and Schreiner disclose all the elements of claim 1. Further they disclose:
wherein a track-level flag (Schreiner ¶230-¶231:track_in_movie flag implies this track contains all required media components for at least one preselection and provides one complete experience) in the media file indicates whether a set of pieces of preselection description information of the preselection are comprised in a track contributing to the preselection (Schreiner teaches ¶22 the merging information comprise a respective merge flag for each track contributing to the preselection, and the merge flag indicate that the respective track is to be merged (or multiplexed) with an adjoining track (e.g., a preceding or a subsequent track) in the track order.)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 1.
Claim 7, Wang and Schreiner disclose all the elements of claim 1. Further they disclose:
wherein if the set of pieces of preselection description information are comprised in the track, a value of the flag is equal to a first predetermined value, and if the set of pieces of preselection description information are absent from the track, the value of the flag is equal to a second predetermined value (Schreiner ¶230-¶231:track_in_movie flag implies this track contains all required media components for at least one preselection and provides one complete experience. The track_in_movie flag is set of value ‘0’ in their Track Header Boxes if the Tracks not containing all required media components and resulting in an incomplete experience. The track_in_movie flag is set of value ‘1’ which implies that this track provides at least one complete experience.)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 1.
Claim 8, Wang and Schreiner disclose all the elements of claim 1. Further they disclose:
wherein the first predetermined value is 1, and the second predetermined value is 0, (Schreiner ¶22 teaches first setting value (e.g., ‘1’) and a second setting value (e.g., ‘0’) of the merge flag indicate that the respective track is to be merged with an adjoining track or the respective track is to be processed separately)
or wherein the set of pieces of preselection description information comprise all pieces of preselection description information of the preselection,
or wherein a value of the flag is equal to a predetermined value for at least one of tracks contributing to the preselection,
or wherein a value of the flag is allowed to be equal to a predetermined value for more than one of tracks contributing to the preselection,
or wherein the preselection description information comprises at least one of the first indication or a selection_priority field (Schreiner ¶187:selection_priority is an integer that declares the priority of the preselection in cases where no other differentiation is possible),
or wherein whether each piece of the preselection description information is comprised in the track is indicated by a respective presence flag,
or wherein whether all pieces of the preselection description information are comprised in the track is indicated by a single presence flag,
or wherein the flag is specified by using a bit in a flags field of a preselection group box in the track,
or wherein the flag is specified by using a bit in a preselection group box in the track, and the bit is not contained in a flags field of the preselection group box.
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 1.
Claim 9, Wang and Schreiner disclose all the elements of claim 1. Further they disclose:
wherein the media file comprises a third indication indicating one of tracks contributing to the preselection to be a base track for the preselection, and all pieces of preselection description information of the preselection are signaled in the base track (Wang discloses ¶67 when associated with an AU, the decoder initialization information (DII) SEI message (i.e. base track) provides information that applies to the entire bitstream. When the DII SEI message associated with an AU of a bitstream and the decoder is initialized according to the profile and the information provided in the DII SEI message, it is expected that no decoder reinitialization is needed for decoding the entire bitstream.)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 1.
Claim 10, Wang and Schreiner disclose all the elements of claim 9. Further they disclose:
wherein all pieces of the preselection description information are only signaled in the base track (Wang discloses ¶64 when the dci_extension( ) syntax structure is present for a bitstream and the decoder is initialized according to the information provided in the DCI NAL unit (i.e. ¶45-¶47: PTL information carried in at least one of the PTL structures in the DCI NAL unit), it is expected that no decoder reinitialization is needed for decoding the entire bitstream.
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 1.
Claim 11, Wang and Schreiner disclose all the elements of claim 9. Further they disclose:
wherein a track-level flag in the media file indicates whether the preselection description information is comprised in a track contributing to the preselection (Schreiner teaches ¶230-¶231:track_in_movie flag implies this track contains all required media components for at least one preselection and provides one complete experience. Schreiner teaches ¶22 the merging information comprise a respective merge flag for each track contributing to the preselection, and the merge flag indicate that the respective track is to be merged (or multiplexed) with an adjoining track (e.g., a preceding or a subsequent track) in the track order) if the preselection description information is comprised in the track, a value of the flag is equal to a first predetermined value, and if the preselection description information is absent from the track, the value of the flag is equal to a second predetermined value (Schreiner teaches ¶230-¶231:track_in_movie flag implies this track contains all required media components for at least one preselection and provides one complete experience. The track_in_movie flag is set of value ‘0’ in their Track Header Boxes if the Tracks not containing all required media components and resulting in an incomplete experience. The track_in_movie flag is set of value ‘1’ which implies that this track provides at least one complete experience.)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 1.
Claim 12, Wang and Schreiner disclose all the elements of claim 11. Further they disclose:
wherein the first predetermined value is 1, and the second predetermined value is 0 (Schreiner teaches ¶230-¶231 the track_in_movie flag is set of value ‘0’ in their Track Header Boxes if the Tracks not containing all required media components and resulting in an incomplete experience. The track_in_movie flag is set of value ‘1’ which implies that this track provides at least one complete experience), or wherein a value of the flag is equal to the first predetermined value for exactly a single track among the tracks contributing to the preselection.
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 1.
Claim 13, Wang and Schreiner disclose all the elements of claim 12. Further they disclose:
wherein the single track is the base track (Wang discloses ¶67 when associated with an AU, the decoder initialization information (DII) SEI message (i.e. base track) provides information that applies to the entire bitstream.
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 1.
Claim 14, Wang and Schreiner disclose all the elements of claim 9. Further they disclose:
wherein a set of pieces of the preselection description information are allowed to be signaled in a track different from the base track (Schreiner ¶22 teaches the second setting value (e.g., ‘0’) of the merge flag indicates that the respective track is to be processed separately e.g., being fed or routed into a separate downstream decoding device).
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 1.
Claim 15, Wang and Schreiner disclose all the elements of claim 1. Further they disclose:
wherein the media file is of an international organization for standardization (ISO) base media file format (Wang discloses (¶30 and Fig. 4) a media file stored in International Organization for Standardization (ISO) base media file format ISOBMFF).
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 1.
Claim 16, Wang and Schreiner disclose all the elements of claim 1. Further they disclose:
wherein the conversion comprises generating the media file and storing the bitstream to the media file (Wang discloses (¶19 and Fig. 5) a bitstream containing encoded visual media data, and performing a conversion between a visual media data and a bitstream based on the decoder initialization information (DII) for a bitstream and storing (¶49) the image content in file format based on ISOBMFF.)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 1.
Claim 17, Wang and Schreiner disclose all the elements of claim 1. Further they disclose:
parsing the media file to reconstruct the bitstream (Wang discloses (¶17-¶18) the conversion comprises generating the bitstream according to the visual media data, and also the conversion comprises parsing the bitstream to obtain the visual media data.)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 1.
Claim 18, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 1. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 1.
Claim 19, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 1. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 1.
Claim 20, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 1. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed on 02/20/2026 with respect to the Claims 1 – 20 have been fully considered and they are not persuasive. Hence, the 35 USC § 103 rejection is maintained.
In response to applicant’s argument, Page 7, “… in Wang, the movie box 410 is NOT comprised in the file type box 430, on the contrary … the first data structure in the media file comprises the at least one second data structure … as such, the Office Action fails to establish that the cited content discloses the above feature,” the Examiner notes that the claim 1 limitation as filed is: first data structure in the media file comprises a first indication, is clearly disclosed by Wang. The media file, i.e. ISOBMFF media file 400, has first data structures, i.e. a plurality of boxes that carry objects and/or data associated with a media content or a media presentation. The first data indication, i.e. a file type box 430, carry data that describes a first indication, i.e. file level data. The Examiner further notes that the claim 1 limitation as filed is: media file comprises … at least one second data structure describing a preselection in the media file, is also clearly disclosed by Wang [Fig. 4 and 0108-0109]. The media file, i.e. ISOBMFF media file 400, has second data structure, i.e. a movie box (moov) 410, which carry data that describes an entire movie or carry metadata, and further describes track-level data, the hints, the audio and video descriptions of the selected media file and its components stored in the media data box 420). The Examiner maintains that Wang discloses features first data structure and second data structure under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, as the file type box and movie box are both data structures within the media file, with the file type box comprising a first indication and preceding the movie box, which describes preselection information. The applicant’s arguments do not overcome the rejection as the claim language encompasses the structures and ordering disclosed in Wang.
In response to applicant’s argument, Page 7, “… the content cited in the Office Action says nothing about the signaling order of these boxes,” the Examiner notes that the argument about the signaling order is not clear. It is not clear what means that the first indication is signaled before the second data structure, in the context of data structure the field first indication comes before the second data structure, and if one or more data structures are signaled after the first indication or all the second data structures are signaled after the first indication. Figure 4 of Wang, while schematic, depicts the file type box 430 to the left of (and thus before) the movie box 410 and media data box 420, reflecting the conventional file structure. Paragraph [0109] confirms that the file type box “may carry data that describes the entire file,” which by convention and industry practice, is placed at the start of the file. Movie-level data (movie box 410) follows the file type box, as is standard in ISOBMFF and as would be implemented by any system conforming to the specification. However, using the broadest reasonable interpretation for claim 1 limitation: the first indication is signaled before the at least one second data structure, the Examiner notes that claim 1 limitation about the sequence of these data structure is disclosed by Wang as in the context of ISOBMFF, “signaling” of a box refers to its placement in the file and the order in which a compliant parser or decoder would encounter it. Since the file type box must precede the movie box for the file to be properly recognized and parsed, Wang discloses, by necessary implication, that the first indication (in the file type box) is signaled before the at least one second data structure (movie box). Accordingly, the Exdaminer maintains that Wang, when read in light of the ISOBMFF standard and the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, discloses that the file type box is signaled before the movie box.
In response to applicant’s argument, Page 8, “… the syntax element n_tracks is stilled comprised in the movie box 410 in Wang RATHER THAN the file type box 430 in Wang,” the Examiner further notes that the claim 1 limitation as filed is: specifies the number of non-alternative tracks grouped by a preselection track group for the preselection, and this limitation is clearly taught by Schreiner, which teaches (¶188) n_tracks as the number of tracks i.e. set of single/individual continuous (or non-alternative) components of the media content (¶154-¶156) such as audio, video, text, etc., required to form the preselection media stream (¶34-35, ¶210 and Fig. 5: S5200 and Fig. 6).
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 HASSAN ABDUR-RAHMAN KHAN whose telephone number is (313)446-6574. The examiner can normally be reached TEAPP - (M-Sa) 9/30/17-9/30/18, 6am-10pm IFP.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Parry can be reached at (571) 272-8328. 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.
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.
/H. A. K./
Examiner, Art Unit 2451
/Chris Parry/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2451