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 October 30, 2025, regarding independent claims 1 and 7 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues the combination of the prior art on record US 20205/0008130 (hereinafter “Sparano”) and US 2006/0268841 (hereinafter “Nagaraj”) fails to teach the limitations of independent claims 1 and 7.
In regards to claim 1, the Applicant specifically argues that (1) Nagaraj fails to teach or suggest “wherein length of the data packets are the same” and (2) the combination of Sparano and Nagaraj fails to teach or suggest “wherein each of the plurality of data packets only comprises the identifier and a data subject”.
Regarding the argument that Nagaraj fails to teach or suggest the limitation “wherein length of the data packets are the same” the Examiner disagrees. Nagaraj discloses examples in which the types of packets that may be identified by the header information identifier may include fixed length packets (paragraph 38). In paragraph 52 Nagaraj teaches about application layer packets having fixed length packets.
Regarding the argument that the combination of Sparano and Nagaraj fails to teach or suggest the limitation “wherein each of the plurality of data packets only comprises the identifier and a data subject” the Examiner disagrees. Figure 1 of Sparano shows Transport Stream (TS) 102 that comprises a sequence of fixed-length TS packets 110. Each TS packet has a header which includes one or more data fields; one data field may provide a Packet Identifier (PID). Note each of the TS packets 110 include a header 112 and a payload. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the information besides the identifier is being considered as the data subject.
In regards to claim 7, the Applicant argues Sparano does not teach or suggest the limitations “predicting media content to obtain a plurality of pieces of predicted data; quantizing the plurality of pieces of predicted data to obtain a plurality of syntax elements based on media content”.
The Examiner disagrees, in Sparano’s Figure 7 an encoding system in which residual data is obtained, transformed, quantized and encoded (paragraphs 90-91) is shown. Figure 7 also shows entropy encoders 730-i output multiple substreams. It is noted that in the field of video coding, a person with ordinary skill in the art in video coding would know that (1) in order to obtained a residual signal predicted data must be obtained and (2) during the encoding process a series of syntax are created/obtained that are related to said encoding process. Sparano also discloses that at a decoding device, different packet sub-streams are received and parsed based on packet identifiers and each of the packets of sub-streams comprise a header and a payload (paragraphs 30 and 53). It is also taught that the stream receiver 210 is configured to receive stream data 205 in the form of a container data stream such as a transport stream, similar to Transport Stream 102 in Figure 1 (paragraph 41).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-6, 8, 12, 14, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sparano (US 2025/0008130) in view of Nagaraj et al. (US 2006/0268841).
Regarding claim 1 Sparano discloses a decoding method, comprising:
obtaining a bitstream (stream data 205 in Figure 2A);
obtaining a plurality of data packets based on the bitstream (at a decoding device, different packet sub-streams are received and parsed based on packet identifiers – [0030]; each packet of sub-streams comprises a header and a data payload – [0053]), comprising:
splitting the bitstream into a the plurality of data packets, wherein lengths of the data packets are the same (Figure 1 shows Transport Stream (TS) 102 that comprises a sequence of fixed-length TS packets 110);
sending, based on identifiers of the plurality of data packets, the plurality of data packets to a plurality of entropy decoders for decoding, to obtain a plurality of syntax elements (at a decoding device, different packet sub-streams are received and parsed based on packet identifiers – [0030]), wherein each of the plurality of data packets only comprises the identifier and a data subject (TS 102 comprises a sequence of fixed-length TS packets 110. Each TS packet has a header which includes one or more data fields; one data field may provide a Packet Identifier (PID). Note each of the TS packets 110 include a header 112 and a payload. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the information besides the identifier is being considered as the data subject); and
restoring media content based on the plurality of syntax elements (Display Output Compositor 230 displays decoded video data – Figures 2A and 3).
Examiner’s Note: The priority applications provide support for the rejection above.
However, Sparano is silent on splitting the bitstream into a the plurality of data packets based on a preset split length.
In his disclosure Nagaraj teaches splitting the bitstream into a the plurality of data packets based on a preset split length (packets may be identified by a header information identifier, these packets may include fixed length packets – [0038]; the header information identifier can also identify information for use by a decoder to identify the length, e.g., in bits or bytes, of the various packets – [0039]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Nagaraj into the teachings of Sparano because such incorporation improves error recovery and decoding of the multimedia data (abstract).
Regarding claim 3 Sparano discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the restoring media content based on the plurality of syntax elements comprises: dequantizing the plurality of syntax elements to obtain a plurality of residuals; and predicting and reconstructing the plurality of residuals to restore the media content (Figure 8 shows reconstruction of media content by dequantizing and predicting residuals of the media content).
Regarding claim 5 Sparano discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the data packet comprises a data header and a data subject, and the data header is used to store the identifier of the data packet (Each TS packet has a header and a payload, the header includes a packet identifier PID – [0032]).
Regarding claim 6 Sparano discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein lengths of the plurality of data packets are the same (Transport Stream 102 comprises a sequence of fixed-length 188-byte TS packets – [0032]).
Regarding claim 8 Sparano discloses the method according to claim 7, wherein the interleaving the plurality of substreams into a bitstream comprises:
splitting each of the plurality of substreams into a plurality of data packets; and obtaining the bitstream based on the plurality of data packets (Figure 1 shows Transport Stream (TS) 102 that comprises a sequence of fixed-length TS packets 110; Transport Stream 102 comprises a sequence of fixed-length 188-byte TS packets – [0032]).
However, fails to explicitly disclose splitting each of the plurality of substreams into a plurality of data packets based on a preset split length.
In his disclosure Nagaraj teaches splitting each of the plurality of substreams into a plurality of data packets based on a preset split length (packets may be identified by a header information identifier, these packets may include fixed length packets – [0038]; the header information identifier can also identify information for use by a decoder to identify the length, e.g., in bits or bytes, of the various packets – [0039]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Nagaraj into the teachings of Sparano because such incorporation improves error recovery and decoding of the multimedia data (abstract).
Claim 12 corresponds to the decoding apparatus that performs the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 12 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 1.
Claim 14 corresponds to the decoding apparatus that performs the method of claim 3. Therefore, claim 14 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 3.
Claim 16 corresponds to the decoding apparatus that performs the method of claim 5. Therefore, claim 16 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 5.
Claim 17 corresponds to the decoding apparatus that performs the method of claim 6. Therefore, claim 17 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 6.
Claim(s) 2 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sparano (US 2025/0008130) in view of Gruneberg et al. (US 2019/0098348).
Regarding claim 2 Sparano discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the sending, based on identifiers of the plurality of data packets, the plurality of data packets to a plurality of entropy decoders for decoding, to obtain a plurality of syntax elements comprises:
determining, based on the identifiers of the plurality of data packets, a substream to which each of the plurality of data packets belongs (at a decoding device, different packet sub-streams are received and parsed based on packet identifiers – [0030]; a Packet Identifier (PID) is provided, the PID is used to distinguish different sub-streams within the Transport Stream; the PID may be used to identify different video streams that are multiplexed together into a single stream that forms the Transport Stream – [0032]).
Sparano further discloses sending each data packet of the substream to an entropy decoder to obtain the plurality of syntax elements (Figures 2A, 2C, 3).
However, fails to explicitly disclose sending each data packet to a decoding buffer of the substream to which the data packet belongs; and sending a data packet in each decoding buffer to an entropy decoder corresponding to the buffer for decoding, to obtain the plurality of syntax elements.
In the disclosure Gruneberg teaches sending each data packet to a decoding buffer of the substream to which the data packet belongs; and sending a data packet in each decoding buffer to an entropy decoder corresponding to the buffer for decoding, to obtain the plurality of syntax elements (Figure 4 shows a plurality of transport buffers that receive packets of ES if its PID matches the value that is found in the PMT for a certain ES – [0139]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Gruneberg into the teachings of Sparano because such incorporation improves the broadcast streaming process.
Claim 13 corresponds to the decoding apparatus that performs the method of claim 2. Therefore, claim 13 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 2.
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.
Claim(s) 7, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sparano (US 2025/0008130).
Regarding claim 7 Sparano discloses an encoding method, comprising:
predicting media content to obtain a plurality of pieces of predicted data; quantizing the plurality of pieces of predicted data to obtain a plurality of syntax elements based on media content (Figure 7 shows an encoding system in which residual data is obtained, transformed, quantized and encoded; it is noted that a person with ordinary skill in the art in video coding would know that (1) in order to obtained a residual signal predicted data must be obtained and (2) during the encoding process a series of syntax are created/obtained that are related to said encoding process);
sending the plurality of syntax elements to entropy encoders for encoding, to obtain a plurality of substreams (in Figure 7 entropy encoders 730-I create multiple substreams); and
interleaving the plurality of substreams into a bitstream, wherein the bitstream comprises a plurality of data packets, and the data packet comprises an identifier indicating a substream to which the data packet belongs (at a decoding device, different packet sub-streams are received and parsed based on packet identifiers – [0030]; each packet of sub-streams comprises a header and a data payload – [0053]; the stream receiver 210 is configured to receive stream data 205 in the form of a container data stream such as a transport stream, similar to Transport Stream 102 in Figure 1).
In regards to claim 10, any decoder technology except the parsing/entropy decoding that is present in a decoder also necessarily needs to be present, in substantially identical form in a corresponding encoder. The description of encoder technologies can be abbreviated as they are the inverse of the comprehensively described decoder technologies. Therefore, claim 10 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 5.
In regards to claim 11, any decoder technology except the parsing/entropy decoding that is present in a decoder also necessarily needs to be present, in substantially identical form in a corresponding encoder. The description of encoder technologies can be abbreviated as they are the inverse of the comprehensively described decoder technologies. Therefore, claim 11 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 6.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MARIA E VAZQUEZ COLON whose telephone number is (571)270-1103. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-3:30 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, CHRISTOPHER S KELLEY can be reached at (571)272-7331. 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.
/MARIA E VAZQUEZ COLON/Examiner, Art Unit 2482