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 Amendment
Applicant previously filed claims 1-20. Claim 13 has been cancelled, and new claim 21 has been added. Claims 1, 3-12, and 18-20 have been amended. Accordingly, claims 1-12, and 14-21 are pending in the current application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112 rejections, while applicant makes amendments to the applicable claims, the changes do not adequately address the issues of indefiniteness and introduce other issues of indefiniteness. The claims are rejected as discussed below.
Applicant argues that Maze et al. fails to teach “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” and “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”. However examiner respectfully disagrees. Maze et al. in Paragraph 154 explicitly teaches “ParameterSetCorruptedFlag (value 0×00000001): indicates that one or more parameter sets (DCI, VPS, SPS, PPS, APS, OPI) in the associated data are corrupted” In Paragraph 161, Maze et al. explicitly teaches “DiscardableHeaderCorruptedFlag (value 0×00000002) indicates that one or more timed media content data units representing discardable header information in the associated data are corrupted” These clearly and unambiguously teach the claim limitations as filed.
In light of the above remarks, the claims are rejected as before.
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 1-12, and 14-21 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 1-12, and 14-21, these claims throughout recite a “second indication” many other “indications” that are not numbered from the “one or more indications” recited in claim 1. Since independent claims all claim “one or more indications” (emphasis added), and also recite within the same claims that the one or more units comprise a first indication and a second indication, and in dependent claims further claim many unnumbered “indications”. It is unclear if the invention allows for “one or more” or requires at least the two as claimed in the independent claims. With the dependent limitations it is even more 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, claims 1-12, and 14-21 recite the broad recitation “one or more indications”, and also recite “a first indication”, “a second indication”, and in dependent claims further feature unnumbered “indications” all of which are the narrower statement of the range/limitation. It is unclear if the number of indications is capable of being “one or more” or if both of the “first indication” and “second indication” are required. 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Particularly the limitations, “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”, and “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” are phrased in such a way that it is difficult to parse which elements “are corrupted”. This renders these claims indefinite.
Claims 3-12 recite the limitation "the indication" in claim 1. It is unclear whether “the indication” is referring to “the first indication”, “the second indication” or another “indication” presented in the corresponding independent or dependent claims. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
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) 1-12, and 14-21 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, and 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); and
performing a conversion between media data and a media data file based on the first indication (Paragraphs 6-10),
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 (Paragraphs 153-164).
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 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 an 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 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 an 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 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 an 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 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 an 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, and wherein the 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 an 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, when present (Paragraph 136; Paragraphs 153-169).
Regarding Claim 9, Maze et al. teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the 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 indication indicating that one or more reference pictures of slices in the associated data are corrupted, and wherein the 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 an indication indicating that one or more parameter-set-like NAL units needed for decoding slices in the associated data are corrupted, and wherein the 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 an 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 theindication is a non-VCL NAL corrupted flag with a value of 0x00000080 (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 claims, 18 and 21 are drawn to the apparatus corresponding to the method of using the apparatus discussed in claims 1-2 and are 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).
Method claim 20 is drawn to similar limitations as method claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons as above. Maze et al. further discloses a method for storing a media data file of a video (Paragraph 84; Paragraphs 253-263).
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 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
Prosecution Insights