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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/09/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/02/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 3-12, these claims separately recite a second indication through a tenth indication from the “one or more indications” recited in claim 1. Since each of these dependent claims does not require the others in the series, it is unclear how many indications in total are being claimed. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “one or more indications”, and claims 3-12 separately recite a second indication through a tenth indication which are the narrower statement of the range/limitation. It is unclear if each of these claims also assumes the recitation of the previous indication in the numerical sequence of indications. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "if any" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations preceding the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maze et al. (US 20230370659 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Maze et al. teaches a method for processing media data, comprising:
determining one or more indications for a media unit, wherein the one or more indications comprise a first indication indicating that one or more parameter-set-like network abstraction layer (NAL) units in associated data that are needed for decoding a bitstream are corrupted (Paragraphs 153-158); and
performing a conversion between media data and a media data file based on the first indication (Paragraphs 6-10).
Regarding Claim 2, Maze et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first indication is a first parameter set corrupted flag with a value of 0x00000001 (Paragraphs 153-164).
Regarding Claim 3, Maze et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more indications comprise a second indication indicating that one or more parameter-set-like NAL units in the associated data that are not needed for decoding the bitstream are corrupted, and wherein the second indication is a second parameter set corrupted flag with a value of 0x00000002 (Paragraphs 153-164).
Regarding Claim 4, Maze et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more indications comprise a third indication indicating that one or more supplemental enhancement information (SEI) NAL units in the associated data that contain SEI messages affecting hypothetical reference decoder (HRD) conformance of the bitstream are corrupted, and wherein the third indication is a conformance SEI corrupted flag with a value of 0x00000004 (Paragraphs 153-164).
Regarding Claim 5, Maze et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more indications comprise a fourth indication indicating that one or more supplemental enhancement information (SEI) NAL units in the associated data that contain essential SEI messages not affecting hypothetical reference decoder (HRD) conformance of the bitstream are corrupted, and wherein the fourth indication is an essential SEI corrupted flag with a value of 0x00000008 (Paragraphs 153-164).
Regarding Claim 6, Maze et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more indications comprise a fifth indication indicating that one or more supplemental enhancement information (SEI) NAL units in the associated data that contain non-essential SEI messages not affecting hypothetical reference decoder (HRD) conformance of the bitstream are corrupted, and wherein the fifth indication is a non-essential SEI corrupted flag with a value of 0x00000010 (Paragraphs 153-164).
Regarding Claim 7, Maze et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more indications comprise a sixth indication indicating that one or more NAL unit headers, slice headers, or picture headers of video coding layer (VCL) NAL units in the associated data are corrupted, andwherein the sixth indication is a VCL header corrupted flag with a value of 0x00000020 (Paragraphs 153-164).
Regarding Claim 8, Maze et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more indications comprise a seventh indication indicating that video coding layer (VCL) data of one or more slices in the associated data is corrupted, and wherein the VCL data refers to data in a VCL NAL unit excluding a NAL unit header, a slice header, and a picture header, if any (Paragraph 136; Paragraphs 153-169).
Regarding Claim 9, Maze et al. teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the seventh indication is a VCL data corrupted flag with a value of 0x00000040 (Paragraphs 153-164).
Regarding Claim 10, Maze et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more indications comprise an eighth indication indicating that one or more reference pictures of slices in the associated data are corrupted, and wherein the eighth indication is a reference picture corrupted flag with a value of 0x00000100 (Paragraphs 153-164).
Regarding Claim 11, Maze et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more indications comprise a ninth indication indicating that one or more parameter-set-like NAL units needed for decoding slices in the associated data are corrupted, andwherein the ninth indication is a reference picture decoding parameter set corrupted flag with a value of 0x00000200 (Paragraphs 153-164).
Regarding Claim 12, Maze et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more indications comprise a tenth indication indicating that one or more non-video coding layer (VCL) NAL units in the associated data that are not parameter-set-like NAL units and are not supplemental enhancement information (SEI) NAL units are corrupted, and wherein the tenth indication is a non-VCL NAL corrupted flag with a value of 0x00000080 (Paragraphs 153-164).
Regarding Claim 13, Maze et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more parameter-set-like NAL units refer to parameter set NAL units, decoding capability information (DCI) NAL unit, and operating point information (OPI) NAL units collectively (Paragraphs 153-164).
Regarding Claim 14, Maze et al. teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining a codec specific parameter field of a corrupted sample information entry, wherein the codec specific parameter field indicates codec specific information on corruption (Paragraphs 143-150; Paragraphs 153-164).
Regarding Claim 15, Maze et al. teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the codec specific parameter field with value 0 indicates that no information is available for describing the corruption (Paragraphs 143-150; Paragraphs 153-164).
Regarding Claim 16, Maze et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes generating the media data file from the media data (Paragraphs 6-10).
Regarding Claim 17, Maze et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes parsing the media data from the media data file (Paragraphs 6-10).
Apparatus claim 18 is drawn to the apparatus corresponding to the method of using the apparatus discussed in claim 1, and is therefore rejected for the same reasons as used above. Maze et al. further teaches an apparatus for processing media data comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to perform the method (Paragraphs 253-263).
Non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim 19 is drawn to the method of using the apparatus described in claim 1, and is therefore rejected for the same reasons as used above. Maze et al. further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor to perform the method (Paragraphs 253-263).
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 claims a product by process claim limitation where the product is the media data file and the process is the method steps to generate the media data file. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the media data file (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps.
“To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III).
The memory storing the claimed media data file in claim 20 merely services as a support for the storage of the media data file and provides no functional relationship between the stored media data file and storage medium. Therefore the media data file, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Maze et al. which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream.
Maze et al. discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a media data file (Paragraph 84; Paragraphs 253-263).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARHAN MAHMUD whose telephone number is (571)272-7712. The examiner can normally be reached 10-7.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 5712727383. 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.
/FARHAN MAHMUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483