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 31 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the primary reference, Brown, does not disclose “that the alleged “copyright information” is indicated by the alleged “SEI message”. Examiner respectfully disagrees and respectfully submits any data not video data or the like may be considered supplemental. Furthermore, Brown ¶ [0052] discloses copyright owners is content information and ¶ [0027] discloses that content may be signaled in MPEG SEI messages.
Applicant argues Brown does not disclose claims 4, 11, and 18. Examiner respectfully disagrees and respectfully submits each picture may have supplemental information which is applied to that picture alone and another picture would utilize the supplemental information associated with that picture alone.
Applicant argues the copyright year data disclosed by Probst does not disclose “any of a string or an integer indicative of a year of creation of a copyright”. Examiner respectfully disagrees and respectfully submits the copyright year may be considered the year of creation for the specific copyright being referred to.
Applicant argues the motivation to combine “is unconvincing… because (i) it is not clear what “decisions” and “output” are being referenced by the rejection and (ii) the rejection did not advance any reasoning why such “decisions” and “output” would be allegedly improved if such information were in the context of “the at least one first SEI message indicating copyright information of the at least one coded picture” as claimed”. Examiner respectfully disagrees and respectfully submits the more specific information disclosed by Probst allows any determination based on the acquired data to be better aligned with desired outcomes. For example, knowing data has a copyright may stop a process from encoding, but knowing the copyright is expired would allow the process to continue, thus improving output (the display of the data).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Brown et al. (US 2023/0368620 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 8, and 15, Brown discloses an apparatus for performing a method of video decoding via CRM, the apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store computer program code; at least one processor configured to access the computer program code and operate as instructed by the computer program code [Brown: ¶ [0018]: a computer program product on a computer-readable storage medium (e.g., non-transitory) having processor-executable instructions (e.g., computer software) embodied in the storage medium]; the computer program code including: obtaining code configured to cause the at least one processor to obtain video data comprising at least one coded picture [Brown: FIG. 1]; identifying code configured to cause the at least one processor to identify, by a decoder, at least one first supplementary information enhancement (SEI) message [Brown: ¶ [0027]], the at least one first SEI message indicating copyright information of the at least one coded picture [Brown: ¶ [0052]: The one or more policies may comprise policy location information (e.g., a geographic region or other location where a given policy is or is not applicable), an applicability indication (e.g., applicable, not applicable), timing information (e.g., one or more policy start times, one or more policy end times), content information (e.g., one or more content titles, one or more content sources, one or more channels, one or more frequencies, one or more copyright owners]; and decoding code configured to cause the at least one processor to decode, by the decoder, the video data based on the first SEI message [Brown: ¶ [0044]].
Regarding Claims 2, 9, and 16, Brown discloses all the limitations of Claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Brown discloses wherein the copyright information indicates a copyright owner of the at least one coded picture [Brown: ¶ [0052]].
Regarding Claims 4, 11, and 18, Brown discloses all the limitations of Claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Brown discloses wherein the video data comprises at least one other coded picture, and the copyright information indicated by the at least one first SEI message does not apply to the at least one other coded picture [Brown: ¶ [0022]].
Regarding Claims 5, 12, and 19, Brown discloses all the limitations of Claims 4, 11, and 18, respectively, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Brown discloses wherein the at least one other coded picture represents an advertisement spliced between content of the video data [Brown: ¶ [0022], [0025], [0035], and [0065]], and wherein the at least one coded picture represents a picture of the content of the video data [Brown: ¶ [0065]].
Regarding Claims 6, 13, and 20, Brown discloses all the limitations of Claims 5, 12, and 19, respectively, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Brown discloses wherein the video data comprises at least one second SEI message indicating second copyright information of the at least one other coded picture [Brown: ¶ [0027]; and FIG. 4].
Regarding Claims 7 and 14, Brown discloses all the limitations of Claims 6 and 13, respectively, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Brown discloses wherein the second copyright information is different than the copyright information [Brown: ¶ [0027]; and FIG. 4].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 3, 10, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown as applied to claim 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Probst et al. (US 2003/0140034 A1).
Regarding Claims 3, 10, and 17, Brown discloses all the limitations of Claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Brown may not explicitly disclose wherein the copyright information indicates any of a string or an integer indicative of a year of creation of a copyright for the at least one coded picture.
However, Probst discloses wherein the copyright information indicates any of a string or an integer indicative of a year of creation of a copyright for the at least one coded picture [Probst: p. 7: original creation date of film or series (date field)
Original Copyright Year CDATA #IMPLIED
copyright year (date field Film/Series_Version CDATA #IMPLIED].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine all info known regarding a specific media as taught by Probst with the processing of Brown in order to provide more information to base decisions on, improving output.
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 JONATHAN R MESSMORE whose telephone number is (571)272-2773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 EST/EDT.
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, Chris 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.
/JONATHAN R MESSMORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights