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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 13, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claims include the limitation “determining a track reference of type of associated external stream track is allowed to be included in a media track”. The specification does not include a written description of how a track reference of any type, let alone a track reference of type of associated external stream track, is determined to be “allowed” to be included in a media track. At best, the specification discloses “determining a media track includes a track reference type of associated external stream track (aest)” (See, ¶¶0004-0009; fig. 13: step 4702). Determining if a track reference of type associated external stream track (aest) is included in a media track is not the same as determining if a track reference of type associated external stream track (aest) is allowed to be included in a media track. The term “allowed” requires established rules and/or permissions that are checked in order to determine if the object in question is able to do something. In this case, the specification does not delineate what rules and/or permissions are checked in order to determine if a track reference of type associated external stream track (aest) is allowed to be included in a media track.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As it stands, the prior art does not teach the subject matter claimed. Specifically, no prior art was found, alone or in combination, that teaches or fairly suggests processing media data comprising: with a track reference type equal to associated external stream track (‘aest’).
Claims 1, 13, and 16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-12, 14-15 and 17-18 are 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7 of the remarks, filed 03/03/2026, with respect to rejection of claims 1, 13, 16 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges
“Applicant respectfully disagrees. With regard to the limitations of "determining a track reference of type of associated external stream track is allowed to be included in a media track" in claim 1, the original specification describes "In one example, to solve the first problem, the EDRAP sample group and the 'aest' track reference are specified to be applicable to other media type(s), including video, audio, etc." (see Example 1 in Paragraph [0066] of the filed application) and "A track reference of type 'aest' (meaning "associated external stream track") may be included in a media video track" (see First embodiment in Paragraph [0071] of the filed application). It is clear that Example 1 explicitly discloses that the 'aest' track reference is applicable to a media track, and the First embodiment provides a specific implementation of this rule-namely, that a track reference of type 'aest' may be included in a media track. The phrase "may be" clearly conveys the meaning of "is allowed to be." The Applicant notes that the phrase "is allowed to be" describes the same concept as "may be" using language that is limiting for purposes of claim construction.
Based on the example embodiments disclosed in the present application, as discussed above, Applicant respectfully submits that one of ordinary skill in the art could make or use the claimed invention. Accordingly, Applicant submits that the rejections regarding claims 1, 13, 16, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) have been addressed and respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejections.”
This is not persuasive. The fact that a track of a type “aest” may be included in a media track does not address the issue of the written description failing to disclose how it is determined that a track reference of type of “aest” is allowed to be included in a media track. Determining if a track reference of type associated external stream track (aest) is (or may be) included in a media track is not the same as determining if a track reference of type associated external stream track (aest) is allowed to be included in a media track. If it is determined that a track reference of type of “aest” is (or may be) included in a media track, that does not immediately suggest that it is allowed to be included. The term “allowed” requires established rules and/or permissions that are checked in order to determine if the object in question is able to do something. In this case, the specification does not delineate what rules and/or permissions are checked in order to determine if a track reference of type associated external stream track (aest) is allowed to be included in a media track. This rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7 of the remarks, filed 03/03/2026, with respect to rejections of claims 1, 13, 16 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9 of the remarks, filed 03/03/2026, with respect to rejections of claims 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. §102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections are withdrawn.
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 JAMES M ANDERSON II whose telephone number is (571)270-1444. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM-6PM.
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.
/James M Anderson II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights