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 .
Preliminary Remarks
This is a reply to the application filed on 07/08/2025, in which, claims 1-22 remain pending in the present application with claims 1 and 11 being independent claims.
When making claim amendments, the applicant is encouraged to consider the references in their entireties, including those portions that have not been cited by the examiner and their equivalents as they may most broadly and appropriately apply to any particular anticipated claim amendments.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on July 08, 2025 and October 21, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and are being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
For claim 22, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed "a computer program" does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim(s) is/are directed to a signal per se, mere information in the form of data, a contract between two parties, or a human being.
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.
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.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skupin et al. (US 20190174161 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Skupin”) in view of Hannuksela (US 20180376126 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Hannuksela”).
Regarding claim 1, Skupin discloses a method for creating video data for deriving a spatial subset therefrom, wherein the video data is formatted in a file format and comprises:
a set of two or more source tracks (See Skupin, paragraph [0056]: “stream 16 is formatted in a file format and includes a set 30 of one or more source tracks”), each of which comprises coded video data representing a spatial subset of a video (See Skupin, paragraph [0069]: “The pictures 18 may be encoded into the slices 26 of the video data stream 14 even such that each slice 24 has encoded thereinto the no more than one tile 24 independent from any other tile 24 covering a spatially distinct portion of the same picture, i.e. the picture including the respective tile, or any other tile covering a spatially distinct portion from any other picture”); and
gathering information comprising merge information for merging a subset of the set of two or more source tracks in order to generate a subset-specific video data stream (See Skupin, paragraph [0056]: “server 10 is configured such that stream 16 is formatted in a file format and includes a set 30 of one or more source tracks 30 d, 30 e, 30 g and 30 H and a set of 32 of one or more gathering tracks”),
wherein the method comprises:
creating the template and writing it to the gathering information of the formatted video data (See Skupin, paragraph [0100]: “The URL or segment template would also be signaled within the manifest or media presentation description merely once for the gathering representations. The set of corresponding source tracks for the currently retrieved gathering representations could be determined by a client on the basis of the knowledge of the tiles covered by the respective section to which the retrieved gathering representation itself belongs”).
Regarding claim 1, Skupin discloses all the claimed limitations with the exception of wherein the gathering information further comprises a template for a configurable parameter set and/or SEI message, wherein information in the formatted video data indicates one or more values of the parameter set or the SEI message that need to be adapted to generate a parameter set or SEI message specific for the subset-specific video stream.
Hannuksela from the same or similar fields of endeavor discloses wherein the gathering information further comprises a template for a configurable parameter set and/or SEI message (see Hannuksela, paragraph [0133]: “A SEI NAL unit may contain one or more SEI messages, which are not required for the decoding of output pictures but may assist in related processes, such as picture output timing, rendering, error detection, error concealment, and resource reservation”), wherein information in the formatted video data indicates one or more values of the parameter set or the SEI message that need to be adapted to generate a parameter set or SEI message specific for the subset-specific video stream (see Hannuksela, paragraph [0158]: “The movie ‘moov’ box may include one or more tracks, and each track may reside in one corresponding track ‘trak’ box. A track may be one of the many types, including a media track that refers to samples formatted according to a media compression format (and its encapsulation to the ISO base media file format)”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Hannuksela with the teachings as in Skupin. The motivation for doing so would ensure the system to have ability to use the system and method disclosed in Hannuksela to use A SEI NAL unit which contains one or more SEI message to assist in decoding of output pictures and to include one or more tracks in ‘moov’ box wherein each track may reside in one corresponding track ‘trak’ box and a track may be one of the many types including a media track that refers to samples formatted according to a media compression format thus comprising a template for a configurable parameter set and/or SEI message wherein information in the formatted video data indicates one or more values of the parameter set or the SEI message that need to be adapted to generate a parameter set or SEI message specific for the subset-specific video stream in order to format video data so that it provides video data for deriving a spatially variable section of a scene.
Regarding claim 2, the combination teachings of Skupin and Hannuksela as discussed above also disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the formatted video data comprises a gathering track comprising the gathering information (See Skupin, paragraph [0058]: “The set 32 of one or more gathering tracks comprises construction instructions which indicate the aforementioned synthesis of a section-specific video data stream into which pictures merely showing the section of the scene 22 are encoded”).
The motivation for combining the references has been discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, the combination teachings of Skupin and Hannuksela as discussed above also disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the template comprises a coded bitstream of the parameter set or the SEI message including emulation prevention bytes, wherein the one or more values that need to be adapted are filled in the coded bitstream with validly coded placeholder values (see Hannuksela, paragraph [0123]: “A NAL unit may be defined as a syntax structure containing an indication of the type of data to follow and bytes containing that data in the form of an RBSP interspersed as necessary with emulation prevention bytes. A raw byte sequence payload (RBSP) may be defined as a syntax structure containing an integer number of bytes that is encapsulated in a NAL unit. An RBSP is either empty or has the form of a string of data bits containing syntax elements followed by an RBSP stop bit and followed by zero or more subsequent bits equal to 0”).
The motivation for combining the references has been discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, the combination teachings of Skupin and Hannuksela as discussed above also disclose the method according to claim 3, wherein the template further comprises one or more placeholder value indicators for indicating placeholder values that need to be adapted, wherein the one or more placeholder value indicators for indicating the placeholder values comprise an offset and a size of the placeholder values in the template (see Hannuksela, paragraphs [0255]-[0256]: “data_offset is the offset of the first byte within the reference sample to copy. If the extraction starts with the first byte of data in that sample, the offset takes the value 0. data_length is the number of bytes to copy”).
The motivation for combining the references has been discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, the combination teachings of Skupin and Hannuksela as discussed above also disclose the method according to claim 2, wherein the template is comprised in an initialization segment of the gathering track in a sample description box, in a sample entry box, or in a decoder configuration record (see Hannuksela, paragraph [0316]: “the sample entry of a track indicates a set of constraints and the sample format that the track conforms to”), and the merge information comprises media segments comprising references to the coded video data of the sub-set of the set of two or more source tracks (see Hannuksela, paragraph [0263]: “Two or more coded sub-picture sequences 75 are merged 76 into a bitstream 77. The coded sub-picture sequences 75 may have different characteristics, such as picture quality, so as to be used for viewport-dependent delivery. The coded sub-pictures 75 of a time instance are merged vertically into a coded picture of the bitstream 77. Each coded sub-picture 75 in a coded picture forms a coded slice”), wherein one or more of the media segments further comprise: i) a template for a configurable parameter set and/or SEI message (see Hannuksela, paragraph [0336]: “indications or metadata may additionally or alternatively be encoded or included in the video bitstream, for example as SEI message(s) or VUI, and/or decoded in the video bitstream, for example from SEI message(s) or VUI”. Note to the Applicants: The USPTO considers the Applicant’s "one or more" language to be anticipated by any reference containing one of the subsequent corresponding elements), or ii) an indicator for indicating that a parameter set and/or SEI message generated with a template shall be included in the media segments of the generated section-specific video data stream.
The motivation for combining the references has been discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, the combination teachings of Skupin and Hannuksela as discussed above also disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the coded video data comprised by each source track is coded using slices (See Skupin, paragraph [0069]: “the picture 18 could even be coded into slices 26 of the video data stream 14 without interruption of coding interdependencies across tile boundaries”) and the generation of the section-specific video data stream does not require adapting values of slice headers of the slices (See Skupin, paragraph [0068]: “In case of independently coded tiles a corresponding gathering track could nevertheless synthesize the corresponding source tracks to a conforming section-specific video data stream resulting in section specific pictures”).
The motivation for combining the references has been discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7, the combination teachings of Skupin and Hannuksela as discussed above also disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the set of two or more source tracks comprises one or more boxes of the file format (see Hannuksela, paragraph [0156]: “A basic building block in the ISO base media file format is called a box. Each box has a header and a payload”), each comprising additional information for describing syntax elements identifying the characteristics of a source track (see Hannuksela, paragraph [0158]: “The movie ‘moov’ box may include one or more tracks, and each track may reside in one corresponding track ‘trak’ box. A track may be one of the many types, including a media track that refers to samples formatted according to a media compression format (and its encapsulation to the ISO base media file format)”), and wherein the additional information enables the generation of the parameter set or the SEI message specific for the section-specific video stream without having to parse the coded video data (See Skupin, paragraph [0127]: “the client fetches for a certain wanted section the segments of those source track representations which convey slices within the wanted scene section and these segments concurrently convey or include the gathering track associated with the wanted section, which contains the construction instructions to synthesize the section-specific video data stream out of the slices conveyed within the fetched segments”).
The motivation for combining the references has been discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, the combination teachings of Skupin and Hannuksela as discussed above also disclose the method according to claim 7, wherein the coded video data comprised by each source track is coded using slices and the additional information describes syntax elements identifying a slice ID or another information used in the slice headers for identifying the slice structure (See Skupin, paragraph [0062]: “Syntax elements 60 coded into section 56 may, for instance, comprise a flag 60 a indicating whether the respective slice 26 is the first slice of the respective picture coded into the respective data stream 14, and/or a syntax element 60 b indicating a location or slice address of the slice portion of the picture coded into slice”).
The motivation for combining the references has been discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, the combination teachings of Skupin and Hannuksela as discussed above also disclose the method according to claim 7, wherein the additional information further comprises a coded length (See Skupin, paragraph [0061]: “a syntax element 60 may be coded without compression or by use of a variable length code”) and/or coding mode of the respective syntax elements (See Skupin, paragraph [0062]: “Syntax elements coded into the payload section and/or non-syntax-element-wise coded section 58 may be syntax elements such as coding modes”).
The motivation for combining the references has been discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 10, the combination teachings of Skupin and Hannuksela as discussed above also disclose an apparatus for creating video data for deriving a spatial subset therefrom, wherein the video data is formatted in a file format, and wherein the apparatus is adapted to carry out the method of claim 1 (See Skupin, paragraph [0070]: “Using the file format such as the ISO Base Media File Format, it is possible to store side information in the file 16 that allows reading a certain subset of the tiles 24 and produce a conforming (e.g. HEVC) bitstream 52 that can be decoded by any standard conforming decoder 72”).
The motivation for combining the references has been discussed in claim 1 above.
Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claim 1 above. In addition, the combination teachings of Skupin and Hannuksela as discussed above also disclose reading the template from the gathering information of the formatted video data and adapting the one or more values of the parameter set or the SEI message indicated by the template to generate the parameter set or SEI message specific for the subset-specific video stream (See Skupin, paragraph [0127]: “For a certain segment of the resulting reduced section-specific video data stream 52, the client 50 thus has to fetch the corresponding segment of each source track conveying the tiles within the wanted section plus the corresponding segment of the gathering track pertaining to the wanted section. The media presentation description or manifest may comprise an explicit signaling of the mutually distinct URL basis for the gathering representations with describing the characteristics of these gathering representations separately, such as picture size, segment template and so forth”).
Claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claim 2 above.
Claim 13 and 14 are rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claim 3 above.
Claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claim 4 above.
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claim 5 above.
Claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claim 6 above.
Claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claim 7 above.
Claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claim 8 above.
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claim 9 above.
Claim 21 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claim 10 above.
Claim 22 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claim 1 above. In addition, the combination teachings of Skupin and Hannuksela as discussed above also disclose a computer program comprising instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method of claim 1 (See Skupin, paragraph [0193]: “a computer program having a program code for performing one of the methods described herein, when the computer program runs on a computer”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIENRU YANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-6PM EST.
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, THAI TRAN can be reached at 571-272-7382. 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.
NIENRU YANG
Examiner
Art Unit 2484
/NIENRU YANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2484
/THAI Q TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2484
Prosecution Insights