DETAILED ACTION
This Office action for U.S. Patent Application No. 17/547,616 is responsive to communications filed 29 September 2025, in reply to the Non-Final Rejection of 27 June 2025.
Claims 1, 9–11, 14–17, 29, and 31 are pending.
In the previous Office action, claims 1, 9–11, 14, and 16 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0245050 A1 (“Tourapis”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0134711 A1 (“Hori”) and in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0262819 A (“Tsukagochi”). Claim 15 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Hori, Tsukagochi, and S.S. Gupta, P.P. Banik, & K.D. Kim, “Study on the Log-encoding System for a Camera Image Sensor”, 2019 Int’l Conf. on Info & Comm. Tech. Convergence (ICTC) 1047–49 (Oct. 2019) (“Gupta”). Claims 17 and 29–31 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Hori, Tsukagochi, and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0194675 A1 (“Tocci”).
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically with respect to the argument that Tourapis does not disclose an HDR video camera, the examiner notes that Tourapis is assigned to Apple, Inc., and Figure 14 shows an iPad® tablet computer. Apple was known to incorporate HDR cameras onto their portable devices as of the effective filing date of Tourapis. Z. Hall, “iOS 7 brings high-dynamic-range (HDR) photography to iPad for the first time”, 9to5Mac (24 June 2013) is added to the record. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect a video codec that receives HDR input on a device that uses an integrated video camera to receive HDR input from that integrated video camera. The arguments that Hori and Tsukagochi allegedly fail to teach an HDR camera separately or additionally fail in view of Tourapis.
With respect to the renewed argument that the piecewise linear curves in Hori teach away from the claimed logarithmic gamma correction, the response to this argument given in the 6 September 2024 Non-Final Rejection is restated and incorporated by reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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, 9–11, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0245050 A1 (“Tourapis”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0134711 A1 (“Hori”) and in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0262819 A (“Tsukagochi”).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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, 9–11, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0245050 A1 (“Tourapis”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0134711 A1 (“Hori”) and in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0262819 A (“Tsukagochi”).
Tourapis, directed to an adaptive transfer function for a video codec, teaches with respect to claim 1 a method for image enhancement, the method comprising the steps of
obtaining a live high dynamic range (HDR) video stream (¶ 0065, receiving N-Bit video data for encoding) comprising pixel values with at least 14 bits per color (¶ 0036, N-bit video may be 14-bit or 16 bit) using an HDR video camera (¶¶ 0040–41, image capture device; ¶ 0094–98, 0149–150, camera integrated with device; ¶ 0094, implementation on iPad® tablet computer known at time of filing to use HDR camera)
converting from the 14 bits per color to 8 bits per color using a transfer function (¶ 0067, mapping N-bit video data within the focus range to C-bit video data; ¶ 0058, C-bit data may be 8-bit).
The claimed invention differs from Tourapis in that a user re-defines the transfer-function live. Tourapis does not teach this limitation. However, Hori, directed to a video camera, teaches with respect to claim 14:
wherein a user modulates the transfer function by selecting one curve of a pre-selected set of . . . curves stored on a processing device while the HDR video camera is continuously capturing live video and wherein the HDR video camera implements the transfer function according to the selected curve (¶¶ 0030–35, user uses GUI to adjust gamma curve on-the-fly using look-up tables).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to implement variable transfer curves in the Tourapis system, as taught by Hori, in order to enhance images being captured in variable conditions. Hori ¶ 0003–05.
The claimed invention further differs from Tourapis in that the claimed invention specifies the preselected set of curves are logarithmic curves. Hori, published in 2005, was only able to achieve live changing of simplified piecewise linear curves, not more computationally complex gamma correction curves (¶ 0017). However, Tsukagochi, directed to a video codec, teaches with respect to claim 1:
selecting one curve of a pre-selected set of logarithmic curves (¶¶ 0061, 0072; transfer functions such as BT.709-5, SMPTE 2084, or hybrid log-gamma curve).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective invention to update the Hori live transfer curve selection to be compatible with the various standard continuous transfer curves then available, as taught by Tsukagochi, since it has been held that updating prior art systems to use modern electronics is considered within the ordinary skill in the art. Leapfrog Enterprises v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161–62 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Regarding claim 9, Tourapis in view of Hori and Tsukagochi teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising modulating the transfer function multiple times while the processing device of the HDR video camera is continuously streaming the live video (Tourapis ¶¶ 0136, 0149, application to videoconferencing).
Regarding claim 10, Tourapis in view of Hori and Tsukagochi teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising modulating the transfer function according to logic on the processing device that reads and ambient light level (Tourapis ¶¶ 0115, 150; light sensors collect ambient lighting metrics for use in video and image capture, processing, and display), and
automatically adjusts the transfer function definition according to the light level (Tsukagochi ¶¶ 0055–59, selecting an electro-optical transfer characteristic compatible with the light levels at the transmission space).
Regarding claim 11, Tourapis in view of Hori and Tsukagochi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the transfer function is an optical-electrical function (Tourapis ¶ 0058, mapping N-bit input video data to C-bit data), and the method further comprises
re-defining the transfer function according to user input to allocate a greater range of output pixel values across a range of low-luminance input values (Tsukagochi ¶¶ 0145–146, applying luminance conversion at low-luminance levels).
Regarding claim 14, Tourapis in view of Hori and Tsukagochi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the HDR camera comprises an input/output (I/O) device (Tourapis ¶ 0098, input/output (I/O) subsystem 2106 on device 2100), by which the user may that re-define the transfer function (¶¶ 0073–82, selecting or adjusting the transfer function)
while the HDR video camera is continuously capturing the live HDR video stream (Tourapis ¶¶ 0136, 0149; application to videoconferencing; Hori ¶¶ 0030–35, user uses GUI to adjust gamma curve on-the-fly).
Regarding claim 16, Tourapis in view of Hori and Tsukagochi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the I/O device is a screen on the HDR video camera (Tourapis ¶ 0147, control with touch screen GUI).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tourapis in view of Hori and Tsukagochi, and further in view of S.S. Gupta, P.P. Banik, & K.D. Kim, “Study on the Log-encoding System for a Camera Image Sensor”, 2019 Int’l Conf. on Info. & Comm. Tech. Convergence (ICTC) 1047–49 (Oct. 2019) (“Gupta”).
Claim 15 is directed to a list of pre-selected curves. Tsukagochi teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the pre-selected set of logarithmic curves includes ITU-R BT-709 (¶ 0061, EOTF may include BT709-5), . . . SMPTE ST.2084 (id., SMPTE 2084 transfer function), and a hybrid Log-Gamma curve (¶ 0072, hybrid gamma curve).
Tsukagochi does not mention the S-Log3 curve. However, Gupta, directed to an analysis of the S-Log curves developed by Sony Group Corporation, teaches in §§ III–IV that the S-log curves including the claimed S-log3 curve are useful because they include a “big color gamut” and are good at preserving contrast with a wide range of tones, particularly where both highlight and low-light pixels exist. For this reason, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to use the S-Log3 curve as a transfer curve option.
Claims 17 and 29–31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tourapis in view of Hori and Tsukagochi as in claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0194675 A1 (“Tocci”) 1.
Claim 17 is directed to details of the camera not disclosed by Toruapis. However, Tocci, directed to a beam-splitting camera, teaches with respect to claim 17:
receiving, simultaneously through at least one asymmetric beamsplitter and multiple image sensors that include the image sensor in the HDR video camera (Fig. 1A, beamsplitter 118 directs light to sensors 128, 116, and 134), multiple image inputs that are optically identical except for light level (¶ 0051, beamsplitters form spatially-identical images; ¶ 0012, images are “substantially identical except for their light levels”), and
merging, within a pipeline on the processing device, the multiple image inputs in frame-independent manner to form a real-time HDR video (¶ 0149, combining images to form a single HDR image),
wherein the converting according to the transfer function is performed in a frame-independent manner within the pipeline (id., combining images to form HDR images one at a time).
Regardng claim 29, Tourapis in view of Hori, Tsukagochi, and Tocci teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the processing device comprise a field-programmable gate array (FPGA) or an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) (Tourapis ¶ 0099, ASIC implementation).
Regarding claim 30, Tourapis in view of Hori, Tsukagochi, and Tocci teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the multiple image inputs are pixels (Tocci abstract, pixel-by-pixel operation).
Regarding claim 31, Tourapis in view of Hori, Tsukagochi, and Tocci teaches the method of claim 30, wherein the transfer function decreases the number of bits per pixel as the pixels stream through the pipeline (Tourapis ¶ 0041, sensor pipeline compresses captured images or video; 0081, transfer functions have compression capabilities or characteristics).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following prior art was found using an Artificial Intelligence assisted search using an internal AI tool that uses the classification of the application under the Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) system, as well as from the specification, including the claims and abstract, of the application as contextual information. The documents are ranked from most to least relevant. Where possible, English-language equivalents are given, and redundant results within the same patent families are eliminated. See “New Artificial Intelligence Functionality in PE2E Search”, 1504 OG 359 (15 November 2022), “Automated Search Pilot Program”, 90 F.R. 48,161 (8 October 2025).
US 2022/0166981 A1
US 2017/0085895 A1
US 2017/0006273 A1
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 David N Werner whose telephone number is (571)272-9662. The examiner can normally be reached M--F 7:30--4:00 Central.
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, Dave Czekaj can be reached at 571.272.7327. 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.
/David N Werner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
1 This reference was cited in the 21 July 2023 Information Disclosure Statement, and was cited as a ‘Y’ reference in the International Search Report for corresponding application PCT/US21/62799.