UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`15/698,767
`
`09/08/2017
`
`Hiroshi YAHATA
`
`P53365
`
`8788
`
`08/07/2019
`7590
`125331
`Panasonic Intellectual Property Corporation
`of America c/o Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C.
`1950 Roland Clarke Place
`
`Reston, VA 20191
`
`EXAMINER
`
`YANG, NIEN
`
`ART UNIT
`2484
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`08/07/2019
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`gbp atent @ gbp atent.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`0/7709 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`15/698,767
`Examiner
`NIEN RU YANG
`
`Applicant(s)
`YAHATA et al.
`Art Unit
`2484
`
`AIA (FITF) Status
`Yes
`
`- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet wit/7 the correspondence address -
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing
`date of this communication.
`|f NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1). Responsive to communication(s) filed on 18 July 2019.
`[:1 A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a). This action is FINAL.
`
`2b) C] This action is non-final.
`
`3)[:] An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)[:] Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Expat/7e Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`5)
`Claim(s)
`
`1—2 and 4 is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`E] Claim(s)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`Claim(s) 1—2 and 4 is/are rejected.
`
`[:1 Claim(s) _ is/are objected to.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`[j Claim(s)
`9
`* If any claims have been determined aflowabie. you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPeredback@uspto.gov.
`
`Application Papers
`10)[:] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11). The drawing(s) filed on 08 September 2017 is/are: a). accepted or b)D objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12). Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a). All
`
`b)D Some**
`
`C)D None of the:
`
`1.. Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2.[:] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`3:] Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1) C] Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) D Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date_
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) C] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) CI Other-
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20190801
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/698,767
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 2
`
`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
`
`1.
`
`This is a reply to the amendments filed on 07/18/2019, in which, claims 1-2 and 4
`
`have been amended; claim 3 has been cancelled. Claims 1-2 and 4 remain pending in
`
`the present application with claim 1 being independent claim.
`
`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.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`2.
`
`Regarding the nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 1-2 and 4,
`
`Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
`
`On pages 5-6, Applicant argued that, “Applicant submits that the combination of
`
`limitations recited in pending claims 1-2 and 4 would not have been obvious to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in view of claims 1-4 of co-pending
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 15/698,779. For instance, the Official Action has not
`
`provided any rationale as to why a "non- transitory recording medium" directed to the
`
`"article of manufacture" statutory class under 35 U.S.C. §101, as recited in Applicant's
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/698,767
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 3
`
`pending claims 1-2 and 4, would be rendered obvious by a "playback device" directed to
`
`the "apparatus" statutory class under 35 U.S.C. §101, as recited in claims 1-4 of co-
`
`pending U.S. Patent Application No. 15/698,779. Additionally, Applicant submits that
`
`Applicant's "bitrate information of the video stream" limitation in Applicant's claim 1
`
`is
`
`not rendered obvious by the "peak bitrate information of the system stream" feature of
`
`claim of co-pending U.S. Patent Application No. 15/698,779. Furthermore, Applicant
`
`submits that since neither the scope of Applicant's pending claims 1-2 and 4, nor the
`
`scope of pending claims of co-pending U.S. Patent Application No. 15/698,779 have
`
`been finalized, the alleged basis of the "provisional" rejection may not exist at the time
`
`of issue of the resulting patents.”
`
`In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. It should be noted that the tables
`
`provided in double patenting rejection section distinguish the equivalent limitations
`
`between the instant application and that of co-pending U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`15/698,779. Although the claim 1 of the co-pending U.S. Patent Application recites a
`
`playback device in the beginning that reads out and plays content from a recording
`
`medium, all features claimed about a recording medium are similar or equivalent. Thus,
`
`the combination of limitations recited in pending claims 1-2 and 4 would not have been
`
`obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in view of claims 1-2
`
`and 4 of co-pending U.S. Patent Application No. 15/698,779. Additionally, peak bitrate is
`
`the maximum number of bits required for any short-term block of compressed data.
`
`Applicant's "bitrate information of the video stream" limitation in Applicant's claim 1
`
`is
`
`broader than the "peak bitrate information of the system stream" feature of claim 1 of
`
`co-pending U.S. Patent Application No. 15/698,779 and is therefore an obvious variant
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/698,767
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 4
`
`thereof. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patently distinct
`
`from each other because claim 1
`
`is generic to all that is recited in claim 1 of the co-
`
`pending U.S. Patent Application. Furthermore, when claims 1-2 and 4 of the application
`
`are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over
`
`claims 1-2 and 4 of copending Application No. 15/698,779 (application under
`
`examination versus a copending application), it is a provisional double patenting
`
`rejection. A provisional double patenting rejection will be converted to a double
`
`patenting rejection when the copending application applied as the double patenting
`
`reference issues as a patent. Therefore, for at least the explanations discussed above,
`
`the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is maintained.
`
`3.
`
`Regarding the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of claims 1-4, Applicants have cancelled
`
`claim 3, rendering the rejection to claim 3 moot. In addition, Applicants have amended
`
`claims 1-2 and 4 to add the limitation "non-transitory" to the claims, rendering the
`
`rejection moot. Therefore, the outstanding 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of claims 1-4 is
`
`withdrawn.
`
`4.
`
`Applicant's arguments filed on 07/18/2019 with respect to amended claim 1 have
`
`been considered but are not persuasive.
`
`On pages 7-8, Applicant argued that, “Applicant submits that while SHIMIDA
`
`discloses the starting time of the first picture. SHIMADA does not disclose the
`
`“glazback start time information of a picture that is include in the video stream
`
`and is independent/z decodable”, as recited in independent claim 1. (See SHIMADA,
`
`paragraph [0046]. )”
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/698,767
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 5
`
`In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Shimada discloses a playback
`
`method for reproducing a video information stream recorded on a medium. The method
`
`comprising steps of: identifying a start point of playback for a particular video
`
`information stream; locating a position of a particular video information stream by
`
`referring to an access point map wherein said access point map includes PTS
`
`information of particular video information stream and decoding the identified video
`
`information stream. The l-pictures in a stream are conventionally detected with
`
`reference to an EP_Map in which the display time information (PTS: Presentation Time
`
`Stamp) and l-picture positional information (SPN: Source Packet Number) are stored.
`
`Therefore the recording medium can thereby be obtained that enables the rapid
`
`detection, from a small amount of information such as starting time of a picture, of a
`
`particular picture included in a stream (see Shimada, paragraph [0039]: “The
`
`information recorded in an address management file 222 includes the starting
`
`addresses of the access points in the stream stored in the corresponding stream
`
`information file 231, the sizes of the l-pictures set as access points, and the PTS values
`
`of the l-pictures set as access points” and paragraph [0046]: “The PTS (Presentation
`
`Time Stamp) indicating the starting display time of the first picture in the stream
`
`information file 231 corresponding to the address management file”). Therefore,
`
`Shimada meets the claimed limitations and the rejection is maintained.
`
`On pages 9-11, Applicant argued that, “With regard to the newly added limitation
`
`that “the predetermined value is 48,000,000 bits per secon
`
`which was previously
`
`recited in Applicant’s now-cancelled dependent claim 3, the Official Action cites
`
`Applicant’s Figure 5 (provided below) as disclosing this limitation. Contrary to the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/698,767
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 6
`
`assertion in the Official Action (regarding the now-cancelled dependent claim 3),
`
`YAHATA’s Fi ure5and are re h 0074 do notdisclose the claimed redetermined
`
`value to be 48,000,000 bits per second. In distinct contrast, the predetermined value
`
`for the peak bitrate information shown in Figure 5 is 24 Mbps, not 48 Mbps.
`
`Applicant submits that only a 24 Mbps peak bitrate would address the limitations of
`
`Applicant’s amended independent claim 1 that recite:
`
`the size information to be a value indicating a data size based on a first stipulated
`
`data size, in a case where the peak bitrate information indicates a bitrate larger
`
`than a predetermined value, and
`
`the size information to be a value indicating a data size based on a second
`
`
`stipulated data size that is smaller than the first stipulated data size, in a case where
`
`the peak bitrate information indicates a bitrate equal to or smaller than the
`
`predetermined value. (emphasis added).
`
`In other words, YAHATA’s Figure 5 clearly shows that using a predetermined
`
`value of a 48 Mbps peak bit rate fails to address the above-cited limitations of Applicant
`
`amended independent claim 1. Thus, in YAHATAs Figure 5, only a predetermined value
`
`of 24 Mbps is positioned to disclose a bitrate larger (Le, 48 Mbps) than a predetermined
`
`value (Le, 24 Mbps) and a bitrate equal to or smaller (i.e., 1 Mbps) than the
`
`predetermined value (Le, 24 Mbps). Furthermore, YAHATA’s paragraph [0193] teaches
`
`away from using a higher predetermined value by suggesting that lower average bit
`
`rates (Le, 10 Mbps or 15 Mbps) may be alternatively used, and not referring to the
`
`possibility of using a higher average bit rate. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have only considered the possible use of a lower predetermined value, not a higher
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/698,767
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 7
`
`predetermined value, and certainly not 48 Mbps. Therefore, for at least the reasons
`
`discussed above, Applicant respectfully submits that the combination of limitations
`
`recited in amended independent claim 1 would not have been obvious to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in view of YAHATA and SHIMADA.”
`
`In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant agrees that YAHATA
`
`uses 24 Mbps as predetermined value for the peak bitrate information. YAHATA
`
`discloses that 24 Mbps is a fixed transfer rate assigned to a video stream, but YAHATA
`
`exclusively states that the predetermined value, 24 Mbps, is used as an instance, it
`
`does not mean it can be 24 Mbps only. YAHATA clearly states that the l-picture size
`
`depends on characteristics of original images to be compressed, it can be vary but also
`
`can be concentrated within a certain range if the transfer rate assigned to the video
`
`stream is fixed (see Yahata, paragraph [0054]: “The following describes an optimization
`
`performed for further shortening the bit width that represents the l-picture size. The |-
`
`picture size depends on characteristics of original images to be compressed and an
`
`algorithm used for the compression. However, although the sizes of the l-pictures vary
`
`to some extent, it can be concentrated within a certain range if the transfer rate
`
`assigned to the video stream is fixed, to 24 Mbps for instance. FIG. 3 is an
`
`example graph showing occurrence rates of l-pictures of a certain content, by
`
`classifying the l-pictures according to their respective ECC block sizes. Each original
`
`image has a type, such as an image of nature and an animation, and each type has a
`
`different characteristic. The bit rate to be assigned to each type is different as well”).
`
`Therefore, the proposed amendments do not place the case in condition for allowance.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/698,767
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 8
`
`Double Parenting
`
`5.
`
`The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created
`
`doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the
`
`unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent
`
`and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-
`
`type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not
`
`identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the
`
`reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or
`
`would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d
`
`1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d
`
`2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re LongL 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re
`
`Van Omum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438,
`
`164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644
`
`(CCPA 1969).
`
`A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (c) or 1.321
`
`(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory
`
`double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to
`
`be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of
`
`activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
`
`Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a
`
`terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with
`
`37 CFR 3.7300).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/698,767
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 9
`
`6.
`
`Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double
`
`patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 and 4 of copending Application
`
`No. 15/698,779 (hereinafter “’8779”).
`
`Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct
`
`from each other because the instant application claims broader in every aspect than the
`
`patent claim and is therefore an obvious variant thereof.
`
`7.
`
`Regarding claim 1 of this application:
`
`Claim 1 of this a lication
`
`Claim 1 of ‘8779
`
`A recording medium in which are recorded
`a video stream that is encoded video
`information,
`
`A piayback device that reads out and piays
`coriteiit from a recording medium in which
`are recorded a system stream that inciudes
`video stream encoded video information,
`
`mao information, and
`
`mao information, and
`
`bitrate information of the video stream,
`
`peek bitrate information of the system
`stream
`
`wherein the map information includes
`playback start time information of a picture
`that is included in the video stream and is
`indeoendentl decodable,
`
`the map information includes
`playback start time information of a picture
`that is included in the system stream and is
`indeoendentl decodable,
`
`start position information indicating a data
`start oosition of the oicture, and
`
`start position information indicating a data
`start oosition of the oicture, and
`
`size information indicating a data size of a
`section where the picture is recorded,
`based on a predetermined stipulated data
`size,
`
`size information indicating a data size of a
`section where the picture is recorded in the
`system stream, based on a predetermined
`stioulated data size
`
`
`
`wherein the stipulated data size differs in
`accordance with the bitrate information,
`
`and wherein the size information is
`a value indicating a data size based on a
`first stipulated data size, in a case where
`the bitrate information indicates a bitrate
`lar er than a oredetermined value,
`and is
`
`wherein the stipulated data size varies in
`accordance with the peak bitrate
`information,
`
`the size information to be a value indicating
`a data size based on a first stipulated data
`size, in a case where the peak bitrate
`information indicates a bitrate larger than a
`oredetermined value,
`and the size ii‘itermaticc te be
`
`a value indicating a data size based on a
`second stipulated data size that is smaller
`than the first stipulated data size, in a case
`where the bitrate information indicates a
`
`a value indicating a data size based on a
`second stipulated data size that is smaller
`than the first stipulated data size, in a case
`where the eek bitrate information
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/698,767
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 10
`
`
`
`bitrate equal to or smaller than the
`oredetermined value, and
`
`wherein the predetermined value is
`48,000,000 bits oer second.
`
`indicates a bitrate equal to or smaller than
`the oredetermined value.
`
`wherein the predetermined value is
`48,000,000 bits oer second.
`
`It should be noted that the table above distinguishes the equivalent limitations
`
`between the instant application and that of ‘8779. In conclusion, claim 1 of the instant
`
`application is anticipated by claim 1 of ‘8779 in that claim 1 of ‘8779 contains all the
`
`limitations of claim 1 of the instant application. The instant application claim is broader
`
`or equivalent in every aspect than claim 1 of ‘8779 and is therefore an obvious variant
`
`thereof. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patently distinct
`
`from each other because claim 1
`
`is generic to all that is recited in claim 1 of ‘8779. That
`
`is, claim 1 of the instant application is anticipated by claim 1 of ‘8779.
`
`8.
`
`Regarding claim 2 of this application:
`
`Claim 2 of this ao olication
`
`Claim 2 of ‘8779
`
`
`
`The playback device according to Claim 1,
`The recording medium according to Claim
`1, wherein the first stipulated data size is a wherein the first stipulated data size is a
`value allocated every 192 x 1024 x n bytes, value allocated every 192 x 1024 x n bytes,
`wherein n is a natural number.
`wherein n is a natural number
`
`It should be noted that the table above distinguishes the equivalent limitations
`
`between the instant application and that of ‘8779. In conclusion, claim 2 of the instant
`
`application is anticipated by claim 2 of ‘8779 in that claim 2 of ‘8779 contains all the
`
`limitations of claim 2 of the instant application. The instant application claim is broader
`
`or equivalent in every aspect than claim 2 of ‘8779 and is therefore an obvious variant
`
`thereof. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patently distinct
`
`from each other because claim 2 is generic to all that is recited in claim 2 of ‘8779. That
`
`is, claim 2 of the instant application is anticipated by claim 2 of ‘8779.
`
`9.
`
`Regarding claim 4 of this application:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/698,767
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 11
`
`Claim 4 of this ao olication
`
`Claim 4 of ‘8779
`
`
`
`The recording medium according to Claim
`1, wherein the size information is a 3-bit
`lono value.
`
`The playback, device according to Claim 1,
`wherein the size information is a 3-bit long
`value.
`
`It should be noted that the table above distinguishes the equivalent limitations
`
`between the instant application and that of ‘8779. In conclusion, claim 4 of the instant
`
`application is anticipated by claim 4 of ‘8779 in that claim 4 of ‘8779 contains all the
`
`limitations of claim 4 of the instant application. The instant application claim is broader
`
`or equivalent in every aspect than claim 4 of ‘8779 and is therefore an obvious variant
`
`thereof. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patently distinct
`
`from each other because claim 4 is generic to all that is recited in claim 4 of ‘8779. That
`
`is, claim 4 of the instant application is anticipated by claim 4 of ‘8779.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`10.
`
`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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/698,767
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 12
`
`11.
`
`Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
`
`over Yahata et al. (US 20050238326 A1, hereinafter Yahata) in view of Shimada et
`
`al. (US 20110255846 A1, hereinafter Shimada).
`
`Regarding claim 1, Yahata discloses a non-transitory recording medium in which
`
`are recorded
`
`a video stream that is encoded video information (see Yahata, paragraph [0047]:
`
`“The recording medium 100 is used for recording an EP_map thereon in association
`
`with an AVCIip. The AVCIip is a multiplexed transport stream generated by multiplexing
`
`elementary streams, such as a video stream”),
`
`map information (see Yahata, paragraph [0047]: “The recording medium 100 is
`
`used for recording an EP_map thereon in association with an AVCIip”), and
`
`bitrate information of the video stream (see Yahata, paragraph [0056]: “Each
`
`original image has a type, such as an image of nature and an animation, and each type
`
`has a different characteristic. The bit rate to be assigned to each type is different as
`
`well”),
`
`wherein the map information includes
`
`start position information indicating a data start position of the picture (see
`
`Yahata, paragraph [0048]: “The |_start included in each entry of the EP_map
`
`indicates a start position of each |_picture”), and
`
`size information indicating a data size of a section where the picture is
`
`recorded, based on a predetermined stipulated data size (see Yahata, paragraph
`
`[0048]: “Each |_end has a 3-bit value that indicates the size of each |_picture
`
`(001b, 010b). The start position and the size of the |-picture is shown in each
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/698,767
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 13
`
`entry, and therefore it is possible to realize special playbacks”) and (see Yahata,
`
`paragraph [0180]: “It is acceptable to include bit rate information in the Clip
`
`information and determine the meaning of the value of the l_end based on the bit
`
`rate information. For instance, it is possible to predefine l_end table”),
`
`wherein the stipulated data size differs in accordance with the bitrate information
`
`(see Yahata, paragraphs [0054]-[OO56]: “l-picture size to be stored into the EP_map is
`
`recorded in units that are meaningful at the time of reading, such as units of ECG block
`
`sizes... The bit rate to be assigned to each type is different as well. Therefore, the |-
`
`picture sizes on the graph of FIG. 3 showing the occurrence rates are distributed over
`
`different ranges”), and
`
`wherein the size information is
`
`a value indicating a data size based on a first stipulated data size, in a
`
`case where the bitrate information indicates a bitrate larger than a predetermined
`
`value (see Yahata, paragraphs [0159]—[O161]: “a speed rate of the playback
`
`device 300 is assigned to each digit of the 3-bit value representing the l-picture
`
`size... the upper limit of the l-picture size for each speed rate is determined” and
`
`paragraph [0193]: “Instead of the average bit rate, the maximum bit rate may be
`
`used in the same way”), and is
`
`a value indicating a data size based on a second stipulated data size that
`
`is smaller than the first stipulated data size, in a case where the bitrate
`
`information indicates a bitrate equal to or smaller than the predetermined value
`
`(see Yahata, paragraph [0161]: “the upper limit is determined according to a rule
`
`that the larger the speed rate is, the smaller the l-picture is, and the smaller the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/698,767
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 14
`
`speed rate is, the larger the l-picture size is”; and paragraph [0193]: “Instead of
`
`the average bit rate, the maximum bit rate may be used in the same way”), and
`
`wherein the predetermined value is 48,000,000 bits per second (see Yahata,
`
`paragraph [0074]: “FIG. 5 shows the occurrence rates of l-pictures in the case where
`
`the fluctuation band of assigned bit rates is wide. The full line is the same as that shown
`
`in FIG. 3, which represents the occurrence rates when the average bit rate is 24 Mbps.
`
`The broken lines show the occurrence rates when the average bit rate is 1 Mbps and 48
`
`Mbps” 48 Mbps = 48,000,000 bits/second).
`
`Regarding claim 1, Yahata discloses all the claimed limitations with the
`
`exception of wherein the map information includes playback start time information of a
`
`picture that is included in the video stream and is independently decodable.
`
`Shimada from the same or similar fields of endeavor discloses wherein the map
`
`information includes
`
`playback start time information of a picture that is included in the video stream
`
`and is independently decodable (see Shimada, paragraph [0046]: “The PTS
`
`(Presentation Time Stamp) indicating the starting display time of the first picture in the
`
`stream information file 231 corresponding to the address management file”).
`
`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 Shimada with
`
`the teachings as in Yahata. The motivation is to use Shimada’s PTS (Presentation
`
`Time Stamp) defined in EP_Map to indicate a starting playback time of the first picture
`
`in a video stream information file corresponding to an address management file thus
`
`recognizing and managing a playback start time of an identified l-picture in the video
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/698,767
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 15
`
`stream in order to appropriately determined the starting time of playback and to perform
`
`appropriate subtitle display.
`
`Regarding claim 2, the combination teachings of Yahata and Shimada as
`
`discussed above also disclose the non-transitory recording medium according to Claim
`
`1,
`
`wherein the first stipulated data size is a value allocated every 192*1024*n bytes,
`
`wherein n is a natural number (see Yahata, paragraph [0191]: “Although the l-picture
`
`size is represented by the number of the ECC blocks in each embodiment, it may be
`
`represented by... the number of packets included in the transport stream (each packet is
`
`192 bytes in the case of the BD-ROM). Furthermore, the l-picture size may be
`
`represented by units of 192 bytes including Arrival Time Stamp and TS packets, or by
`
`units of 32 Kbytes, which is the least common multiple between 192 bytes and 2
`
`Kbytes”).
`
`The motivation for combining the references has been discussed in claim 1
`
`above.
`
`Regarding claim 4, the combination teachings of Yahata and Shimada as
`
`discussed above also disclose the non-transitory recording medium according to Claim
`
`1,
`
`wherein the size information is a 3-bit long value (see Yahata, paragraph [0144]:
`
`“the l-picture sizes are equally assigned to the 3-bit values”).
`
`The motivation for combining the references has been discussed in claim 1
`
`above.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/698,767
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 16
`
`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
`
`extension fee 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 NIENRU YANG whose telephone number is (571)272-
`
`4212. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 10 AM - 6 PM 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 on 571-272—7382. The fax phone number for
`
`the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-2