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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1,4-5,8-9,12-14, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hassbring US 20250184500.
Regarding claim 1, Hassbring meets the claim limitations, as follows:
An apparatus comprising: at least one processor [119]; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor [119], cause the apparatus at least to:
defining a display overlay information message comprising metadata for enabling two or more display overlays to be coded in pictures in one or more layers within a bitstream (i.e. S704 overlay image frames determined with IDs. Overlays are toggleable) [69-70; fig. 2,7]; and
signaling, in or along the bitstream, the display overlay information message to a receiver (i.e. metadata added to header of the image which contains the overlay information) [75; fig. 7].
Regarding claim 4, Hassbring meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: signaling first syntax elements to determine which of pictures, subpictures, or constituent rectangles are used for coding the two or more display overlays (i.e. metadata can signal size, ID, and position) [75].
Regarding claim 5, Hassbring meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: defining second syntax elements for identifying a location of each display overlay component in the bitstream and an intended display order of the each display overlay in a target display picture; and signaling, in or along the bitstream, the second syntax elements to the receiver (i.e. metadata can signal size, ID, and position. Metadata is signaled in bitstream) [19,75].
Regarding claim 8, Hassbring meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the two or more display overlays coded in separate layers comprise different frame rates (i.e. For example, it may be advantageous to encode the plurality of image frames into several video streams, encoding of the plurality of image frames into the first plurality of encoded image frames differs from the encoding of the plurality of image frames into the second plurality of encoded image frames in at least one of: encoding quality, frame rate, GOP structure, codec, or resolution.) [95].
Claim 9 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 1 and further below.
Hassbring meets the claim limitations, as follows:
using the two or more decoded display overlays for forming a target display picture by overlaying the two or more decoded display overlays (i.e. fig. 1 shows an image formed using the decoded display overlays) [65; fig. 1].
Claim 12 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 4.
Claim 13 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 4.
Claim 14 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 5.
Claim 18 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 8.
Claim 19 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 1.
Claim 20 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 1 and further below.
Hassbring meets the claim limitations, as follows:
using the two or more decoded display overlays for forming a target display picture by overlaying the two or more decoded display overlays (i.e. fig. 1 shows an image formed using the decoded display overlays) [65; fig. 1].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claim(s) 2,3 6,10,11, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hassbring in view of Subramonian US 20160073155.
Regarding claim 2, Hassbring meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein one or more overlays are displayed in front of one or more overlays (i.e. position data would indicate where on the image the overlay will appear) [7].
Hassbring do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
wherein one or more higher order display overlays are displayed in front of one or more lower order display overlays
However, in the same field of endeavor Subramonian discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
wherein one or more higher order display overlays are displayed in front of one or more lower order display overlays (i.e. alpha value used to blend overlay into background) [47]
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Hassbring with Subramonian to have one or more higher order display overlays are displayed in front of one or more lower order display overlays.
It would be advantageous because “in some implementations, the channel state (or other information) may indicate that a different compression format may advantageously be used.” [40].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Hassbring with Subramonian to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Hassbring do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
wherein when an alpha component is present for a display overlay, the alpha component is applied to a higher order display overlay pixel values, with an existing target display picture as the background, to form new pixel values in a target display picture.
However, in the same field of endeavor Subramonian discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
wherein when an alpha component is present for a display overlay, the alpha component is applied to a higher order display overlay pixel values, with an existing target display picture as the background, to form new pixel values in a target display picture (i.e. alpha used in blending multiple overlaid pixel elements) [47,193].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Hassbring with Subramonian wherein when an alpha component is present for a display overlay, the alpha component is applied to a higher order display overlay pixel values, with an existing target display picture as the background, to form new pixel values in a target display picture.
It would be advantageous because “in some implementations, the channel state (or other information) may indicate that a different compression format may advantageously be used.” [40].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Hassbring with Subramonian to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Regarding claim 6, Hassbring meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: signaling, in or along the bitstream, position of the each display overlay in a target display picture (i.e. metadata can signal size, ID, and position. Metadata is signaled in bitstream) [19,75].
Claim 10 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 2.
Claim 11 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 3.
Claim 15 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 6.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hassbring in view of Hannuksela US 10123027.
Regarding claim 7, Hassbring disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: signaling, in or along the bitstream, a size of the at least one display overlay in a target display picture (i.e. metadata can signal size, ID, and position. Metadata is signaled in bitstream) [19,75].
Hassbring do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: signaling, in or along the bitstream, a resampling ratio for at least one display overlay, wherein the resampling ratio is used by the receiver to derive a size of the at least one display overlay in a target display picture.
However, in the same field of endeavor Hannuksela discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
signaling, in or along the bitstream, a resampling ratio for at least one display overlay, wherein the resampling ratio is used by the receiver to derive a size of the at least one display overlay in a target display picture (i.e. downsampling ratio used.) [29:1-38].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Hassbring with Hannuksela to signal, in or along the bitstream, a resampling ratio for at least one display overlay, wherein the resampling ratio is used by the receiver to derive a size of the at least one display overlay in a target display picture.
It would be advantageous because sampling the video can be used to provide less data when less is needed and more data when able.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Hassbring with Hannuksela to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Claim 16 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 7.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hassbring and Hannuksela in view of Hur US 20190379876.
Regarding claim 17, Hassbring and Hannuksela do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
wherein the size of the at least one display overlay is determined or derived based on one of the following: a picture height and width; a subpicture height and width; or a constituent rectangle height and width
However, in the same field of endeavor Hur discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
wherein the size of the at least one display overlay is determined or derived based on one of the following: a picture height and width; a subpicture height and width; or a constituent rectangle height and width (i.e. width and height of field indicate overlay size) [269].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Hassbring and Hannuksela with Hur wherein the size of the at least one display overlay is determined or derived based on one of the following: a picture height and width; a subpicture height and width; or a constituent rectangle height and width.
It would be advantageous because "[0015] According to the present invention, an overlay may be efficiently provided to the 360 video, and user viewpoint based auxiliary information may be efficiently displayed.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Hassbring and Hannuksela with Hur to obtain the invention as specified in claim 17.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARED T WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-1839. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 - 4:30 Mountain.
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, 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 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.
/Jared Walker/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights