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 .
This action is in response to application 19/057,554 filed 2/19/2025.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 3, 8, 11, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trayanov et al., Pub No US 2021/0377330 (hereafter Trayanov) and further in view Denoual et al., Pat No US 10,320,867 (hereafter Denoual) and further in view Stephen Gordon, Pat No US 7,590,059 (hereafter Gordon).
Regarding Claim 1, Trayanov discloses a display apparatus [para.0028: Discloses user devices include computers, mobile phones, tablets, set-top boxes (STBs), game consoles (displays apparatus).], comprising:
a display [para.0009: Discloses DASH multimedia segments are collected and reconstituted for display on the user device; and para.0028: Discloses user devices include computers, mobile phones, tablets, set-top boxes (STBs), game consoles (displays).]; and
at least one processor, connected with the display and configured to execute computer instructions to [para.0039: Discloses processors includes all types of digital processing devices including, without limitation, digital signal processors (DSPs), reduced instruction set computers (RISC), general-purpose (CISC), microprocessors, gate arrays; and para.0190: Discloses processor executing software.] cause the display apparatus to:
wherein the first process comprises demultiplexing the data segment to obtain Elementary Stream, ES, data, and obtaining first metadata information for describing attribute of the data segment according to the encryption data and first ES data [para.0040: Discloses the encoder packetizes the encoded video/audio segments into a packetized elementary stream (PES) and then multiplexed into a MPEG-TS format. Transport Streams and Program Streams are each logically constructed from PES packets; and para.0089: Discloses SRT streams can be encrypted using AES cryptographic algorithms and decrypted at their destination. Thus, a TS/PES structure derived from elementary streams and the encapsulation used transport, obtaining ES data by demultiplexing TS/PES packets reads on demultiplexing a data segment to obtain ES data. Trayanov teaches encryption/decryption of the stream, and inclusion of appended information such as identifiers/timestamps as segment metadata, reads on obtaining metadata describing segment attributes.]; and
decode the ES data via the initialized decoder to obtain decoded ES data [para.0036: Discloses the decoder function reverses the encoding for playback; and para.0041: Discloses MPEG-2 standard protocol, defines the protocol that can be used to encode, multiplex, transmit and de-multiplex and decode video, audio, and data bitstreams. Demultiplexing and decoding the bitstream for playback, reads on decoding the ES data via a decoder to obtain decoded ES data.]; and
display a program image of the target channel on the display according to the decoded ES data [para.0009: Discloses the DASH multimedia segments are collected and reconstituted for display on the user device. This reads on displaying a program image of the target channel according to decoded data.].
Trayanov further discloses data segment and encryption data [para.0008: Discloses data segments; and para.0015: Discloses the SRT packets may be encrypted by an AES 128-bit standard], thereby teaching media data that includes encrypted segment data; a first command from a user [para(s).0185, 0189, 0194, 0195, 0199, 200: Discloses a user interface that allows a user to initiate and configure a streaming session.]; and discloses a target channel [para(s).0032, 0078-0079: Discloses that programs within a transports stream corresponds to television channels, and each program is identified by Service ID and PIDs, thereby teaching a target channel.];
Trayanov does not explicitly disclose in response to a first command from a user, obtain media data of a target channel, wherein the media data comprises an index file and a data segment, and the index file comprises an attribute parameter for describing attribute characteristics of the data segment and encryption data; and based on that the second metadata information is generated before the first metadata information, initialize a decoder according to the second metadata information; (emphasis on what is not taught by Trayanov); That is, Trayanov does not discloses obtaining metadata in the form of a separate initialization file that is used to initiate a decoder prior to decoding the media segment payload. However, in analogous art, Denoual discloses that a media presentation may include an initialization segment file that transmits metadata required to decode associated media segment files (col.10 lines 33-35). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this initialization segment file corresponds to the claimed “index file,” because it is file separate from the media segment that contains metadata used to enable decoding of the associated segment. Denoual further explains that the initialization segment conveys codec configuration information and stream metadata necessary for decoding the media segments. Such codec configuration information corresponds to the claimed “attribute parameters,” because it describes attribute characteristics of the data segment (e.g., codec type, stream parameters) and is used by the decoder prior to decoding the segment payload. Thus, Denoual teaches obtaining metadata separate from the media segment data, where such metadata is used to initialize the decoder before decoding the segment payload. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this initialization metadata corresponds to the claimed “second metadata information,” because it is metadata generated and available prior to decoding the ES data and is used to configure the decoder.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Trayanov with this feature, as taught by Denoual in order to yield predictable result such as ensuring proper decoder configuration prior to decoding encrypted media segments, thereby improving decoding reliability and compatibility across segment-based streaming architectures [Denoual: col.3, lines 65-67].
The combined teachings of Trayanov and Denoual do not explicitly disclose execute a first process and a second process in parallel; and the second process comprises predicting second metadata information for describing attribute of the data segment according to the attribute parameter and the encryption data (emphasis on what is not taught by the combination); However, in analogous art, Gordon discloses parallel processing may be achieved in which an outer-loop CPU processes future header information while an inner-loop CPU processes current macroblock information [col.14 lines 26-30, col.5 lines 1-3]. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the term “predicting” encompasses determining or deriving attribute-describing information in advance based on available header or descriptor information, and does not require statistical estimation or forecasting. Gordons disclose of processing “future header information” in parallel reasonably teaches deriving attribute-related metadata in advance of payload (macroblock) processing, which corresponds to generating second metadata information prior to first metadata information derived from the payload path. Trayanov further discloses encrypted streams (e.g., SRT streams encrypted and decrypted at their destination) [para.0036], thereby providing the claimed encryption context. Denoual teaches initializing/descriptor information (e.g., metadata required to decode media segment files), which reasonably reads on attribute parameters describing characteristics of the data segment. Accordingly, modifying Trayanov and Denoual to incorporate Gordon’s parallel header-processing technique would have yielded a system in which attribute-describing metadata is derived in advance (i.e., predicted) in an encrypted-stream environment, thereby earlier decoder configuration and improved decoding efficiency [Gordon: col.2, lines 25-26]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Trayanov and Denoual with this feature, as taught by Gordon in order to yield predictable result such as providing improved decoding efficiency and reduced processing latency [Gordon: col.2, lines 25-26].
Regarding Claim 3, the combined teachings of Trayanov, Denoual, and Gordon discloses the display apparatus of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute computer instructions to cause the display apparatus to:
predict first attribute information in the second metadata information according to the attribute parameter, wherein the first attribute information is used to describe audio and video attribute information of the data segment [Gordon - col.14 lines 26-30: Discloses the OLCPU may be processing future header information while the ILCPU may be processing current macroblock information; and col.15 lines 1-3: Discloses prediction mode information and, slice type information. Thus, “predicting” encompasses deriving/ascertaining attribute-describing information in advance based on available header/descriptor information. Gordon teaches parallel processing of future header information, and further discloses video attribute/control information (e.g., prediction mode, slice type) derived from headers, which reads on predicting first attribute information describing audio/video attributes.]; and
predict second attribute information in the second metadata information based on the encryption data, wherein the second attribute information is used to describe encryption information of the data segment [Trayanov – para.0089: Discloses SRT streams can be encrypted … and decrypted at their destination; and GORDON - col.14 lines 26-30: Discloses deriving header information in advance. Therefore, Trayanov provides encryption data/context associated with the stream. Under BRI, deriving/identifying encryption-related characteristics from the available stream/context information corresponds to predicting second attribute information describing encryption information. Gordon provides the parallel, advanced-derivation technique for metadata generation.]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 8, the combined teachings of Trayanov, Denoual, and Gordon discloses the display apparatus of claim 1, and Trayanov further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute computer instructions to cause the display apparatus to:
based on that the first metadata information is generated before the second metadata information, initializing the decoder according to the first metadata information and terminating the second process [FIG.4, para.0187: Discloses At 301, within the docker container, the SRT packets received from the remote encoder 100 are converted into MPEG-TS streaming over UDP. The outputs from the SRT listener are then sent to a packager in the docker container. The SRT listener receiving packets and converting them into MPEG-TS streaming (para.0187) corresponds to processing first-available stream information prior to further packaging operations, which reflects initialization based on earlier-generated stream/metadata information.;
decoding the ES data via the initialized decoder to obtain the decoded ES data [para.0187: Disclose in packaging the MPEG-TS streams, the packager takes the streams and creates low latency DASH video and audio segments… Segments can be collected and re-assembled for playout on a user device. The packaging step creating DASH segments and enabling collection and re-assembly for playback (para.0187) reads on decoding ES data vis the initialized decoder.]; and
displaying the program image of the target channel according to the decoded ES data [para.0188: Discloses the web cache system has two main components… the prediction module measures the available bandwidth… and, based on the bandwidth, adjusts the encoder bitrate on the particular stream. Playback on the user device corresponds to displaying the program image according to the decoded ES data. Adjustments based on stream conditions (para.0188) further demonstrate process control based on stream information prior to presentation.].
Regarding Claim 11, Trayanov discloses a method for a display apparatus [para.0009: Discloses DASH multimedia segments are collected and reconstituted for display on the user device (a display apparatus); and para.0028: Discloses user devices include computers, mobile phones, tablets, set-top boxes (STBs), game consoles (displays on display apparatus).], comprising:
wherein the first process comprises demultiplexing the data segment to obtain Elementary Stream, ES, data, and obtaining first metadata information for describing attribute of the data segment according to the encryption data and first ES data [para.0040: Discloses the encoder packetizes the encoded video/audio segments into a packetized elementary stream (PES) and then multiplexed into a MPEG-TS format. Transport Streams and Program Streams are each logically constructed from PES packets; and para.0089: Discloses SRT streams can be encrypted using AES cryptographic algorithms and decrypted at their destination. Thus, a TS/PES structure derived from elementary streams and the encapsulation used transport, obtaining ES data by demultiplexing TS/PES packets reads on demultiplexing a data segment to obtain ES data. Trayanov teaches encryption/decryption of the stream, and inclusion of appended information such as identifiers/timestamps as segment metadata, reads on obtaining metadata describing segment attributes.];
decoding the ES data via the initialized decoder to obtain decoded ES data [para.0036: Discloses the decoder function reverses the encoding for playback; and para.0041: Discloses MPEG-2 standard protocol, defines the protocol that can be used to encode, multiplex, transmit and de-multiplex and decode video, audio, and data bitstreams. Demultiplexing and decoding the bitstream for playback, reads on decoding the ES data via a decoder to obtain decoded ES data.]; and
displaying a program image of the target channel on a display of the display apparatus [para.0009: Discloses DASH multimedia segments are collected and reconstituted for display on the user device; and para.0028: Discloses user devices include computers, mobile phones, tablets, set-top boxes (STBs), game consoles (a display).] according to the decoded ES data [para.0009: Discloses the DASH multimedia segments are collected and reconstituted for display on the user device. This reads on displaying a program image of the target channel according to decoded data.].
Trayanov further discloses data segment and encryption data [para.0008: Discloses data segments; and para.0015: Discloses the SRT packets may be encrypted by an AES 128-bit standard], thereby teaching media data that includes encrypted segment data; a first command from a user [para(s).0185, 0189, 0194, 0195, 0199, 200: Discloses a user interface that allows a user to initiate and configure a streaming session.]; and discloses a target channel [para(s).0032, 0078-0079: Discloses that programs within a transports stream corresponds to television channels, and each program is identified by Service ID and PIDs, thereby teaching a target channel.];
Trayanov does not explicitly disclose in response to a first command from a user, obtaining media data of a target channel, wherein the media data comprises an index file and a data segment, and the index file comprises an attribute parameter for describing attribute characteristics of the data segment and encryption data; and based on that the second metadata information is generated before the first metadata information, initializing a decoder according to the second metadata information; (emphasis on what is not taught by Trayanov); That is, Trayanov does not discloses obtaining metadata in the form of a separate initialization file that is used to initiate a decoder prior to decoding the media segment payload. However, in analogous art, Denoual discloses that a media presentation may include an initialization segment file that transmits metadata required to decode associated media segment files (col.10 lines 33-35). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this initialization segment file corresponds to the claimed “index file,” because it is file separate from the media segment that contains metadata used to enable decoding of the associated segment. Denoual further explains that the initialization segment conveys codec configuration information and stream metadata necessary for decoding the media segments. Such codec configuration information corresponds to the claimed “attribute parameters,” because it describes attribute characteristics of the data segment (e.g., codec type, stream parameters) and is used by the decoder prior to decoding the segment payload. Thus, Denoual teaches obtaining metadata separate from the media segment data, where such metadata is used to initialize the decoder before decoding the segment payload. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this initialization metadata corresponds to the claimed “second metadata information,” because it is metadata generated and available prior to decoding the ES data and is used to configure the decoder.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Trayanov with this feature, as taught by Denoual in order to yield predictable result such as ensuring proper decoder configuration prior to decoding encrypted media segments, thereby improving decoding reliability and compatibility across segment-based streaming architectures [Denoual: col.3, lines 65-67].
The combined teachings of Trayanov and Denoual do not explicitly disclose executing a first process and a second process in parallel; and the second process comprises predicting second metadata information for describing attribute of the data segment according to the attribute parameter and the encryption data (emphasis on what is not taught by the combination); However, in analogous art, Gordon discloses parallel processing may be achieved in which an outer-loop CPU processes future header information while an inner-loop CPU processes current macroblock information [col.14 lines 26-30, col.5 lines 1-3]. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the term “predicting” encompasses determining or deriving attribute-describing information in advance based on available header or descriptor information, and does not require statistical estimation or forecasting. Gordons disclose of processing “future header information” in parallel reasonably teaches deriving attribute-related metadata in advance of payload (macroblock) processing, which corresponds to generating second metadata information prior to first metadata information derived from the payload path. Trayanov further discloses encrypted streams (e.g., SRT streams encrypted and decrypted at their destination) [para.0036], thereby providing the claimed encryption context. Denoual teaches initializing/descriptor information (e.g., metadata required to decode media segment files), which reasonably reads on attribute parameters describing characteristics of the data segment. Accordingly, modifying Trayanov and Denoual to incorporate Gordon’s parallel header-processing technique would have yielded a system in which attribute-describing metadata is derived in advance (i.e., predicted) in an encrypted-stream environment, thereby earlier decoder configuration and improved decoding efficiency [Gordon: col.2, lines 25-26]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Trayanov and Denoual with this feature, as taught by Gordon in order to yield predictable result such as providing improved decoding efficiency and reduced processing latency [Gordon: col.2, lines 25-26].
Regarding Claim 13, the combined teachings of Trayanov, Denoual, and Gordon discloses the method of claim 11, and further discloses further comprising:
predicting first attribute information in the second metadata information according to the attribute parameter, wherein the first attribute information is used to describe audio and video attribute information of the data segment [Gordon - col.14 lines 26-30: Discloses the OLCPU may be processing future header information while the ILCPU may be processing current macroblock information; and col.15 lines 1-3: Discloses prediction mode information and, slice type information. Thus, “predicting” encompasses deriving/ascertaining attribute-describing information in advance based on available header/descriptor information. Gordon teaches parallel processing of future header information, and further discloses video attribute/control information (e.g., prediction mode, slice type) derived from headers, which reads on predicting first attribute information describing audio/video attributes.]; and
predicting second attribute information in the second metadata information based on the encryption data, wherein the second attribute information is used to describe encryption information of the data segment [Trayanov – para.0089: Discloses SRT streams can be encrypted … and decrypted at their destination; and GORDON - col.14 lines 26-30: Discloses deriving header information in advance. Therefore, Trayanov provides encryption data/context associated with the stream. Under BRI, deriving/identifying encryption-related characteristics from the available stream/context information corresponds to predicting second attribute information describing encryption information. Gordon provides the parallel, advanced-derivation technique for metadata generation.]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 11.
Regarding Claim 18, the combined teachings of Trayanov, Denoual, and Gordon discloses the method of claim 11, and Trayanov further discloses further comprising:
based on that the first metadata information is generated before the second metadata information, initializing the decoder according to the first metadata information and terminating the second process [FIG.4, para.0187: Discloses At 301, within the docker container, the SRT packets received from the remote encoder 100 are converted into MPEG-TS streaming over UDP. The outputs from the SRT listener are then sent to a packager in the docker container. The SRT listener receiving packets and converting them into MPEG-TS streaming (para.0187) corresponds to processing first-available stream information prior to further packaging operations, which reflects initialization based on earlier-generated stream/metadata information.;
decoding the ES data via the initialized decoder to obtain the decoded ES data [para.0187: Disclose in packaging the MPEG-TS streams, the packager takes the streams and creates low latency DASH video and audio segments… Segments can be collected and re-assembled for playout on a user device. The packaging step creating DASH segments and enabling collection and re-assembly for playback (para.0187) reads on decoding ES data vis the initialized decoder.]; and
displaying the program image of the target channel according to the decoded ES data [para.0188: Discloses the web cache system has two main components… the prediction module measures the available bandwidth… and, based on the bandwidth, adjusts the encoder bitrate on the particular stream. Playback on the user device corresponds to displaying the program image according to the decoded ES data. Adjustments based on stream conditions (para.0188) further demonstrate process control based on stream information prior to presentation.].
Claims 2, 12, 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trayanov et al., Pub No US 2021/0377330 (hereafter Trayanov) and further in view Denoual et al., Pat No US 10,320,867 (hereafter Denoual) and further in view Stephen Gordon, Pat No US 7,590,059 (hereafter Gordon) and further in view SONG et al., Pub No US 2017/0272691 (hereafter SONG).
Regarding Claim 2 (and 12), the combined teachings of Trayanov, Denoual, and Gordon discloses the display apparatus of claim 1 (and the method of claim 11), the combined teachings do not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute computer instructions to cause the display apparatus to: obtain a radio frequency data stream; parse the radio frequency data stream according to a specified protocol to obtain data in a specified format; and extract the data in the specified format to obtain the media data, wherein in the media data, media data with transport stream interface TSI=O is the index file, and media data with TSI>O is the data segment.
However, in analogous art, SONG discloses the following:
obtain a radio frequency data stream [ABSTRACT: Discloses receiving a broadcast signal.];
parse the radio frequency data stream according to a specified protocol to obtain data in a specified format [para.0105: Discloses ROUTE may transmit data formatted in a DASH segment form, signaling information, and non-timed data such as NRT data, etc. The data may be encapsulated through the UDP and IP layers. Thus, teaching protocol-layer handling (ROUTE over UDP/IP) and that ROUTE carries DASH segment-form data and signaling information. Parsing the received broadcast stream according to these protocols yields data in a specified format.]; and
extract the data in the specified format to obtain the media data [para.0105: Discloses ROUTE may transmit data formatted in a DASH segment form; and para.0113: Discloses it is possible to access a service component corresponding to a desired service using the SLS. Thus, extracting/accessing the transmitted DASH-segment-form data/service components from the parsed protocol layers reasonably reads on extracting data in the specified format to obtain media data.], wherein in the media data, media data with transport stream interface TSI=O is the index file, and media data with TSI>O is the data segment [para.0187-0189: Discloses that SLS fragment (S-TSID) is delivered in an LCT session with TSI=0 and maps DASH representations to TSIs for service components. Under BRI, the TSI=0 sessions carrying acquisition/mapping information reads on the claimed index file, while TSIs corresponding to service components (TSI>0) reads on data segments carrying the media component data.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Trayanov, Denoual, and Gordon with this feature, as taught by SONG in order to yield predictable result such as providing controlled quality of service (QoS) with respect to services or service components by processing data on the basis of service characteristics, thereby providing various broadcast services [SONG: para.0005].
Regarding Claim 9 (and 19), the combined teachings of Trayanov, Denoual, and Gordon discloses the display apparatus of claim 1, (and the method of claim 11) the combined teachings do not explicitly disclose wherein the first command is a channel switching command and the first command is received during displaying of a first channel on the display, and the at least one processor is further configured to execute computer instructions to cause the display apparatus to: determine whether the target channel and the first channel belong to a same frequency before executing the first process and the second process in parallel; based on that the target channel and the first channel belong to the same frequency, obtain third metadata information, wherein the third metadata information is metadata information used to initialize the decoder when decoding ES data of the first channel; initialize the decoder using the third metadata information; and based on that the target channel and the first channel belong to different frequencies, execute the first process and the second process in parallel.
However, in analogous art, SONG discloses the following:
wherein the first command is a channel switching command and the first command is received during displaying of a first channel on the display [para.1290: Discloses Http GET message (or request - command), upon changing to a new
channel.], and the at least one processor is further configured to execute computer instructions [para.1292: Discloses a ROUTE processor to execute the HTTP GET request instruction.] to cause the display apparatus to:
determine whether the target channel and the first channel belong to a same frequency before executing the first process and the second process in parallel [Fig.77, para.1405: Discloses “2. Tune current frequency” …”7. New channel” … 10-1 Send signaling… same… 11. New Channel…but different frequency… SONG explicitly distinguishes switching to a new channel where the new channel is the “same… frequency” vs “different frequency.” This reads on determining whether the channels belong to the same frequency.];
based on that the target channel and the first channel belong to the same frequency, obtain third metadata information, wherein the third metadata information is metadata information used to initialize the decoder when decoding ES data of the first channel [Fig.77, para.1405: Discloses “10-1. Send signaling… same… frequency…” When the new channel is on the same frequency, the system sends/signals and continues using existing signaling/metadata associated with the tuned frequency. Thus, the sent signaling corresponds to the third metadata associated with the target channel used to initialize/continue decoding.];
initialize the decoder using the third metadata information [Fig.77, para.1405: Discloses the sent signaling corresponds to the third metadata associated with the target channel used to initialize/continue decoding.]; and
based on that the target channel and the first channel belong to different frequencies, execute the first process and the second process in parallel [Fig.77, para.1405: Discloses New channel… but different frequency…” Note, Gordon taught a first CPO may process future header information while a second CPU may process current … macroblock information (col.14 lines 26-30, col.5 lines 1-3). Switching to a different frequency requires new signaling acquisition/processing. ].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Trayanov, Denoual, and Gordon with this feature, as taught by SONG in order to yield predictable result such as providing control quality of service (QoS) with respect to services or service components by processing data on the basis of service characteristics, thereby providing various broadcast services [SONG: para.0005].
Claims 4, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trayanov et al., Pub No US 2021/0377330 (hereafter Trayanov) and further in view Denoual et al., Pat No US 10,320,867 (hereafter Denoual) and further in view Stephen Gordon, Pat No US 7,590,059 (hereafter Gordon) and further in view Wu et al., Pat No US 8,885,729 (hereafter Wu1).
Regarding Claim 4 (and 14), the combined teachings of Trayanov, Denoual, and Gordon discloses the display apparatus of claim 3 (and the method of claim 13), the combined teachings do not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute computer instructions to cause the display apparatus to: identify a parameter at a specified position in the attribute parameter; and take the parameter at the specified position as the first attribute information in the second metadata information; based on that the attribute parameter is null, take default attribute information as the first attribute information in the second metadata information.
However, in analogous art, Wu1 discloses the following:
identify a parameter at a specified position in the attribute parameter [col.12 lines 46-56: Discloses defined syntax elements within video usability information (VUI) parameters of the bitstream. Under BRI, a syntax element defined within a structured parameter set occupies a specified position within that parameter structure and is identified during parsing.]; and
take the parameter at the specified position as the first attribute information in the second metadata information [col.2 lines 26-36: Discloses the decoder reads VUI parameters and determines buffer and reordering constraints based on the syntax elements. Thus, the decoder reads specific syntax elements from the parameter structure and uses them to determine operational attributes (e.g., buffering and reordering constraints). Under BRI, using the identified syntax element as operational attribute information reads on taking the parameter as first attribute information.];
based on that the attribute parameter is null, take default attribute information as the first attribute information in the second metadata information [col.12 lines 59-61: Discloses if the syntax element is not present, a decoder assigns a default value according to rules specified in the H.264 standard. Thus, Wu1 explicitly discloses that when a syntax element (parameter) is not present (i.e., null/absent), the decoder assigns a default value. This corresponds to taking default attribute information when the attribute parameter is null.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Trayanov, Denoual, and Gordon with this feature, as taught by Wu1 in order to yield predictable result such as providing reduced latency between recording of input pictures and playback of output pictures [Wu1: col.1 lines 60-61].
Claims 5-7 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trayanov et al., Pub No US 2021/0377330 (hereafter Trayanov) and further in view Denoual et al., Pat No US 10,320,867 (hereafter Denoual) and further in view Stephen Gordon, Pat No US 7,590,059 (hereafter Gordon) and further in view Wu et al., Pub No US 2009/0323820 (hereafter Wu2).
Regarding Claim 5 (and 15), the combined teachings of Trayanov, Denoual, and Gordon discloses the display apparatus of claim 1 (and the method of claim 11), the combined teachings do not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute computer instructions to cause the display apparatus to: determine whether the first metadata information is consistent with the second metadata information; based on that the first metadata information and the second metadata information is not consistent, turn off the decoder, and reinitialize the decoder according to the first metadata information; and decode the ES data via the reinitialized decoder to obtain the decoded ES data.
However, in analogous art, Wu2 discloses the following:
determine whether the first metadata information is consistent with the second metadata information [para.0117: Discloses when a decoded picture enters the DPB, depending on the parameters in the input picture, DPB management routines decide which picture(s) to output and which pictures to delete (para.0015). Evaluating pictures parameters to decide output/delete determines consistency of metadata.];
based on that the first metadata information and the second metadata information is not consistent, turn off the decoder, and reinitialize the decoder according to the first metadata information [para.0115: Discloses when the input decoded picture is an instantaneous data refresh ("IDR") picture, all the pictures in the current DPB are output and deleted; and para.0175: Discloses when such errors are detected, the decoder ignores the errors on purpose in order to speed error recovery. Error detection and DPB flush (IDR) constitutes decoder reset/reinitialization.]; and
decode the ES data via the reinitialized decoder to obtain the decoded ES data [para.0118: Discloses the decoder executes the commands in the queue when the conditions (here, the completion of decoding for the initialized pictures) associated with the commands have been completed.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Trayanov, Denoual, and Gordon with this feature, as taught by Wu2 in order to yield predictable result such as providing improved rate-distortion performance [Wu2: para.0003].
Regarding Claim 6 (and 16), the combined teachings of Trayanov, Denoual, Gordon, and Wu2 discloses the display apparatus of claim 5 (and the method of claim 15), and Wu2 further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute computer instructions to cause the display apparatus to:
based on that the first metadata information and the second metadata information is consistent, decode the ES data via the initialized decoder to obtain the decoded ES data [para.0120: Discloses the decoder decodes a picture then checks a queue for picture commands that can be executed. Thus, if no inconsistency blocks execution, decoding proceeds using current decoder state.]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 5 (and 15).
Regarding Claim 7 (and 17), the combined teachings of Trayanov, Denoual, Gordon, and Wu2 discloses the display apparatus of claim 5 (and the method of claim 15), and Wu2 further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute computer instructions to cause the display apparatus to:
obtain first key information from the first metadata information and second key information from the second metadata information [para.0117: Discloses the decoder (e.g., as part of PED) scans ahead in the bit stream, considering certain picture parameters, Thus, picture parameters extracted from stream constitute key metadata elements (plurality).]; and
determine whether the first key information is same as the second key information [para.0120: Discloses the decoder determines whether a command is ready (e.g., if the condition for the command at the head of the queue has been satisfied). Command readiness based on parameter conditions constitutes comparing key information.]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 5 (and 15).
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trayanov et al., Pub No US 2021/0377330 (hereafter Trayanov) and further in view Denoual et al., Pat No US 10,320,867 (hereafter Denoual) and further in view Stephen Gordon, Pat No US 7,590,059 (hereafter Gordon) and further in view Pierre A. Schuberth, Pub No US 2016/0142746 (hereafter Schuberth).
Regarding Claim 10 (and 20), the combined teachings of Trayanov, Denoual, and Gordon discloses the display apparatus of claim 3 (and the method of claim 13), the combined teachings do not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute computer instructions to cause the display apparatus to: based on that the encryption data comprises an encryption tag, determine that the second attribute information is encrypted; and based on the encryption data does not comprise an encryption tag, determine that the second attribute information is not encrypted.
However, in analogous art, Schuberth discloses the following:
based on that the encryption data comprises an encryption tag, determine that the second attribute information is encrypted [para.0061: Discloses a transport scrambling control flag in a header of each transport stream (TS) packet may be set to "11" if the TS packet includes the beginning of an independently coded video frame packet (e.g., an I-frame), to "10" if the TS packet includes other parts of an independently coded video frame packet, and to "00" for all other TS packets. The transport scrambling control flag in the TS header operates as an encryption tag. When set to an encrypted value (e.g., “11”), the stream is treated as encrypted.]; and
based on the encryption data does not comprise an encryption tag, determine that the second attribute information is not encrypted [ABSTRACT: Discloses payloads of transport stream packets including data of independently coded video frame packets may be selectively decrypted without decrypting payloads of transport stream packets not including data of independently coded video frame packets; and para.0050: Discloses a payload of the second transport stream packet may be selectively encrypted without encrypting the headers of the first and second transport stream packets and without encrypting the payload of the first transport stream packet. Schuberth distinguishes packet/headers that are not encrypted/decrypted from those flagged for encryption/decryption. The absence of the encryption tag/flag corresponds to determining content is not encrypted.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Trayanov, Denoual, and Gordon with this feature, as taught by Schuberth in order to yield predictable result such as providing encrypted trick mode capabilities (e.g., fast forward, fast rewind, random access, etc.) with an encrypted transport stream [Schuberth: para.0033].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Phillips et al., (US 2015/0089023) – Discloses managing and effectuating fast channel changes (e.g., user-initiated "channel surfing" requests) in an adaptive streaming environment. The client device is configured to pre-fetch metadata and initialization information for the defined adjacent channels based on bandwidth conditions, buffer conditions, etc. When a channel is changed, the client device is operative to use the pre-fetched data to quickly obtain encoded media content for rendering [para.0004].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADIL OCAK whose telephone number is (571) 272-2774. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached on 571-272-4195. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system; contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADIL OCAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426