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 .
Applicant’s response to the Non-final Office Action dated 12/03/2025, filed with the office on 03/02/2026, has been entered and made of record.
Response to Amendment
In light of Applicant’s amendment of the claims, the claims are no longer interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
In light of Applicant’s amendment of the claims, the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections of record for have been withdrawn.
In light of Applicant’s amendment of the claims, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of record have been withdrawn.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 9, 13, 14 and 17-20 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on March 2, 2026 with respect to rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been fully considered; but they are not found persuasive. Specifically, in page 13 of its reply, Applicant argues in second paragraph that the techniques described in Applicant’s specification “enable targeted color correction within specific regions of a color space that provides for smooth color transitions and reduces visible artifacts-which is achieved by utilizing an interpolative function that determines adjustment amounts based on distance from a target color” therefore, the claims recite a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The plain meaning of amended claim 1 includes determining an adjustment amount for colors within a subspace, adjust the boundaries of that subspace to reduce visible artifact and correcting color in one or more images. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim language, these limitations cover performance of the limitations in the mind of a person, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) and a mathematical process. That is, a person may perceive any color as the desired color in their mind, and determine an adjustment based on their desired target color. In addition, the broadest reasonable interpretation of adjustment amount includes adding or subtracting a number which falls under mathematical process. The limitations do not provide any technological improvement and therefore, the recited concept falls under the grouping of abstract ideas mental processes and a mathematical processes.
Applicant further argues with respect to rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, specifically, in page 15 of its reply, Applicant argues in first paragraph that Bhaskaran does not teach determining an adjustment amount for colors within the subspace based on a distance between a color and the target color. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language includes adjusting the colors of a subspace (a gamut) based on a target color which was not part of the initial subspace, which means, the subspace has been expanded (adjusted) to include the target color. Bhaskaran teaching this in— ¶0025: “adaptive color enhancement from a source color gamut to a target color gamut generates a resulting image that has an expanded color gamut relative to the unenhanced image”. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
Applicant’s amendment of independent Claims 1, which has altered the scope of the claims of the instant application, has necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this office action with respect to claims of the instant application. Accordingly, in response to Applicant’s arguments that are merely directed to the amended portion of the claims, new analyses have been presented below, which make Applicant’s arguments moot.
Consequently, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claims 1, 9, and 17 respectively recite a method, a system and a method for image color correction. With respect to analysis of independent claims 1, 9 and 17:
Step 1:
With regard to Step 1, the instant claims are directed to a method; a system and a method and therefore, the claim is directed to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One:
With regard to 2A, Prong One, consider independent claim 1, the limitations of “initializing a color mapping model that maps colors, within a subspace”, “determining an adjustment amount for colors within the subspace”, “adjusting at least one parameter defining a boundary of the subspace”5, and “performing color correction on one or more images” as drafted, recite an abstract idea, such as a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind of a person, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) and a mathematical process. That is, a person may perceive any color as the desired target color in their mind and determine an adjustment of color to reach the desired target color, then change the boundary coordinate of the color space to include the target color and perform color correction for reduce an amount of visible artifact in an image. In addition, the broadest reasonable interpretation of adjustment amount includes adding or subtracting a number which falls under mathematical process. The limitations do not provide any technological improvement and therefore, the recited concept falls under the grouping of abstract ideas mental processes and a mathematical processes.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The 2019 PEG defines the phrase “evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception”. Therefore, additional elements, or a combination of additional elements in the claim, are required to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception. In the instant case, the additional elements/limitations in the claims, i.e., one or more processors merely regarded as adding insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception, and do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception as an indication of integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the above-mentioned additional elements/limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; and therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Because the claims fail under Step 2A, the claims are further evaluated under Step 2B. The claims herein do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements/limitations to perform the steps, amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere steps to apply an exception using generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claims 1, 9, and 17 are not patent eligible.
Further, with regard to dependent claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 viewed individually, these additional steps, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations as an abstract idea, and do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 9-11, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhaskaran et al. (US 2014/0002480 A1) in view of Chong et al. (US 2014/0267367 A1) and in further view of Kawaguchi (US 2013/0120431 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bhaskaran teaches, A method comprising: initializing a color mapping model (Bhaskaran, ¶0025: “methods for processing pixels within an image or a frame of video and applying adaptive color enhancement to those pixels based on source and target color gamuts”) that maps colors, within to an adjusted color space; (Bhaskaran, ¶0025: “resulting enhanced image can be mapped from the source color gamut to the target color gamut”) determining an adjustment amount for colors within the subspace based on a distance between a color and the target color; (Bhaskaran, ¶0010: “A gamut bounded saturation value is calculated based on the chrominance value of the pixel, the maximum source chrominance value, and the maximum target chrominance value”) ; (Bhaskaran, ¶0056: “smaller saturation values may be applied to pixels having high (and low) luminance values… This may advantageously reduce the occurrence of the color banding artifacts”) and performing color correction on one or more images using the color mapping model. (Bhaskaran, ¶0010: “The pixel chrominance value is then adjusted based on the gamut bounded saturation value”). However, Bhaskaran does not explicitly teach, a subspace of an input color space localized around a target color and adjusting, based on the determined adjustment amount, at least one parameter defining a boundary of the subspace.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Chong teaches, a subspace of an input color space localized around a target color (Chong, ¶0063: “color 12 once chosen forms the center of the complementary cuboid”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bhaskaran using the teachings of Chong to introduce a color subspace centered around a target color. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of choosing between different shades of a target color for a desired color transformation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Bhaskaran and Chong to obtain the above-described limitations in claim 1. However, the combination of Bhaskaran and Chong does not explicitly teach, adjusting, based on the determined adjustment amount, at least one parameter defining a boundary of the subspace.
In another analogous field of endeavor, Kawaguchi teaches, adjusting, based on the determined adjustment amount, at least one parameter defining a boundary of the subspace. (Kawaguchi, ¶0017: “a correction range calculation unit that calculates a correction range in a predetermined color space on the basis of a positional relationship between source coordinates and destination coordinates in the color space”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bhaskaran in view of Chong using the teachings of Kawaguchi to introduce adjusting the boundaries of a color space. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of including a desired color into the color space for color correction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Bhaskaran, Chong and Kawaguchi to obtain the invention in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Bhaskaran in view of Chong and in further view of Kawaguchi teaches, The method of claim 1, wherein the color mapping model is parameterized by the target color and an adjusted target color. (Bhaskaran, ¶0043: “adjusting a pixel value using gamut bounded saturation based on a source color gamut and a target color gamut”).
Regarding claim 3, Bhaskaran in view of Chong and in further view of Kawaguchi teaches, The method of claim 2, wherein the color mapping model is a cuboid model centered about the target color (Chong, ¶0063: “color 12 once chosen forms the center of the complementary cuboid”) and further parameterized by a first vertex and a second vertex. (Chong, ¶0070: “a cuboid having the dimensions of M units by H units by K units is divided into cells or clusters. Each cluster has a three-coordinate designation”; also see Fig. 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bhaskaran in view of Chong and in further view of Kawaguchi using the additional teachings of Chong to introduce cuboid with designated coordinates. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of locating different shades of a color in a cuboid. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Bhaskaran, Chong and Kawaguchi to obtain the invention in claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, Bhaskaran in view of Chong and in further view of Kawaguchi teaches, The method of claim 2, further comprising: identifying an object associated with a memory color within an image in the original color space; (Kawaguchi, ¶0003: “An object or a background has a specific color such as blue of blue sky or pink of cherry blossoms, with which a person images the object or the background. Those colors are called "memory colors"”) and initializing the color mapping model by setting a color of the object within the image as the target color and a defined color associated with the memory color as the adjusted target color. (Kawaguchi, ¶0005: “dedicated circuit conducts processing for specializing in the memory color correction. More specifically, a specific color to be corrected is set for the dedicated circuit in a coordinate format of a source and a destination in a color space”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bhaskaran in view of Chong and in further view of Kawaguchi using the additional teachings of Kawaguchi to introduce reproducing an image with objects depicted in a memory color. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of rendering objects in user preferred memory colors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Bhaskaran, Chong and Kawaguchi to obtain the invention in claim 5.
Regarding claim 9, it recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps of the method recited in claim 1. Therefore, the recited elements of system claim 9 are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in method claim 1. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to Bhaskaran, Chong and Kawaguchi presented in rejection of claim 1, apply to this claim. Bhaskaran additionally teaches, A system comprising: one or more processors to perform operations (Bhaskaran, ¶0025: “systems and methods for processing pixels within an image or a frame of video and applying adaptive color enhancement”).
Regarding claim 10, it recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps of the method recited in claim 2. Therefore, the recited elements of system claim 10 are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in method claim 2. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to Bhaskaran, Chong and Kawaguchi presented in rejection of claim 1, apply to this claim.
Regarding claim 11, it recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps of the method recited in claim 3. Therefore, the recited elements of system claim 11 are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in method claim 3. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to Bhaskaran, Chong and Kawaguchi presented in rejection of claim 3, apply to this claim.
Regarding claim 13, it recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps of the method recited in claim 5. Therefore, the recited elements of system claim 13 are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in method claim 5. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to Bhaskaran, Chong and Kawaguchi presented in rejection of claim 5, apply to this claim.
Regarding claim 16, Bhaskaran in view of Chong and in further view of Kawaguchi teaches, The system of claim 9, wherein the system is comprised in at least one of: a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a system for performing simulation operations; a system for performing digital twin operations; a system for performing light transport simulation; a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets; a system for presenting one or more of virtual reality content, augmented reality content, or mixed reality content; a system for real-time streaming applications; a system for performing deep learning operations; a system implemented using an edge device; a system implemented using a robot; a system for performing conversational AI operations; a system implementing one or more language models; a system implementing one or more large language models (LLMs); a system for performing one or more generative AI operations; a system for generating synthetic data; a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs); a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources. (Bhaskaran, ¶0029: “Intelligent color remapper 202 may be implemented in an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) and/or a programmable logic device”).
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhaskaran et al. (US 2014/0002480 A1) in view of Chong et al. (US 2014/0267367 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Bhaskaran teaches, A method comprising: identifying a color mapping model (Bhaskaran, ¶0025: “methods for processing pixels within an image or a frame of video and applying adaptive color enhancement to those pixels based on source and target color gamuts”) that maps colors within determining an adjustment amount for colors within the subspace based on a distance between a color and the target color; (Bhaskaran, ¶0010: “A gamut bounded saturation value is calculated based on the chrominance value of the pixel, the maximum source chrominance value, and the maximum target chrominance value”) applying the color mapping model to an input image (Bhaskaran, ¶0030: “Intelligent color remapper 202… Flesh tone processor 210 receives an input YUV pixel and detects flesh tones and corrects the flesh tones”) to adjust, based on the adjustment amount, a value of one or more pixels of the input image that fall within the subspace; (Bhaskaran, ¶0043: “adjusting a pixel value using gamut bounded saturation based on a source color gamut and a target color gamut”) and performing color correction on one or more images using the color mapping model. (Bhaskaran, ¶0010: “The pixel chrominance value is then adjusted based on the gamut bounded saturation value”). However, Bhaskaran does not explicitly teach, a subspace of an input color space localized around a target color.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Chong teaches, a subspace of an input color space localized around a target color (Chong, ¶0063: “color 12 once chosen forms the center of the complementary cuboid”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bhaskaran using the teachings of Chong to introduce a color subspace centered around a target color. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of choosing between different shades of a target color for a desired color transformation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Bhaskaran and Chong to obtain the invention in claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, Bhaskaran in view of Chong teaches, The method of claim 17, wherein the applying the color mapping model to the input image further comprises: determining, for each of one or more pixels of the input image, whether a pixel value falls within the subspace; (Bhaskaran, ¶0006: “In typical adaptive color enhancement schemes, valid color values are calculated for each pixel, i.e. the resulting red, green and blue values of the pixel are within valid range”) and based on a determination that the pixel value falls within the subspace, computing an adjusted pixel value using the color mapping model. (Bhaskaran, ¶0043: “adjusting a pixel value using gamut bounded saturation based on a source color gamut and a target color gamut”).
Regarding claim 19, Bhaskaran in view of Chong teaches, The method of claim 17, wherein the color mapping model is a cuboid model centered about the target color (Chong, ¶0063: “color 12 once chosen forms the center of the complementary cuboid”) and further parameterized by a first vertex and a second vertex. (Chong, ¶0070: “a cuboid having the dimensions of M units by H units by K units is divided into cells or clusters. Each cluster has a three-coordinate designation”; also see Fig. 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bhaskaran in view of Chong using the additional teachings of Chong to introduce cuboid with designated coordinates. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of locating different shades of a color in a cuboid. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Bhaskaran and Chong to obtain the invention in claim 19.
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhaskaran et al. (US 2014/0002480 A1) in view of Chong et al. (US 2014/0267367 A1), in further view of Kawaguchi (US 2013/0120431 A1) and still in further view of Wang et al. (US 2016/0027191 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Bhaskaran in view of Chong and in further view of Kawaguchi teaches, The method of claim 2. However, the combination of Bhaskaran, Chong and Kawaguchi does not explicitly teach, wherein the color mapping model is an ellipsoid model centered about the target color and further parameterized by a first radius, a second radius, and a third radius.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Wang teaches, wherein the color mapping model is an ellipsoid model centered about the target color and further parameterized by a first radius, a second radius, and a third radius. (Wang, ¶0039: “In the three-dimensional space of the YUV, a detection result of the skin color region can be an ellipsoid, the original mean value corresponding to a center of the ellipsoid, and the three elements in the original standard deviation corresponding to three spherical radiuses of the ellipsoid”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bhaskaran in view of Chong and in further view of Kawaguchi using the teachings of Wang to introduce an ellipsoid with spherical radii. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of locating different shades of a color in an ellipsoid. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Bhaskaran, Chong, Kawaguchi and Wang to obtain the invention in claim 4.
Regarding claim 12, it recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps of the method recited in claim 4. Therefore, the recited elements of system claim 12 are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in method claim 4. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to Bhaskaran, Chong, Kawaguchi and Wang presented in rejection of claim 4, apply to this claim.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhaskaran et al. (US 2014/0002480 A1) in view of Chong et al. (US 2014/0267367 A1) in further view of Kawaguchi (US 2013/0120431 A1) and still in further view of Xu et al. (US 2016/0360202 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Bhaskaran in view of Chong and in further view of Kawaguchi teaches, The method of claim 1, further comprising: applying the color mapping model to at least one test image (Bhaskaran, ¶0025: “processing pixels within an image or a frame of video and applying adaptive color enhancement to those pixels based on source and target color gamuts”) to generate at least one adjusted test image; (Bhaskaran, ¶0025: “a resulting enhanced image can be mapped from the source color gamut to the target color gamut”). However, the combination of Bhaskaran, Chong and Kawaguchi does not explicitly teach, determining whether one or more visible artifacts is produced in the at least one adjusted test image; and based on a determination that one or more visible artifact is produced, adjusting at least one parameter of the color mapping model to minimize the amount of visible artifacts produced.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Xu teaches, determining whether one or more visible artifacts is produced in the at least one adjusted test image; (Xu, ¶0023: “reconstructed video is analyzed for artifacts (i.e., artifact detection”) and based on a determination that one or more visible artifact is produced, (Xu, ¶0007: “artifact includes a banding artifact, which may otherwise be visible in displayed video data that has been reconstructed”) adjusting at least one parameter of the color mapping model to minimize the amount of visible artifacts produced. (Xu, ¶0023: “adjustments are made to the reconstructed video to reduce undesirable artifacts”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bhaskaran in view of Chong and in further view of Kawaguchi using the teachings of Xu to introduce detection of visible artifacts. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of reducing the visible artifacts to improve the quality of the reconstructed image. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Bhaskaran, Chong, Kawaguchi and Xu to obtain the invention in claim 6.
Regarding claim 14, it recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps of the method recited in claim 6. Therefore, the recited elements of system claim 14 are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in method claim 6. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to Bhaskaran, Chong kawaguchi and Xu presented in rejection of claim 6, apply to this claim.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhaskaran et al. (US 2014/0002480 A1), in view of Chong et al. (US 2014/0267367 A1), in further view of Kawaguchi (US 2013/0120431 A1), still in further view of Xu et al. (US 2016/0360202 A1) and yet in further view of Rangaprasad et al. (US 2023/0298541 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Bhaskaran in view of Chong and in further view of Kawaguchi and still in further view of Xu teaches, The method of claim 6, wherein the at least one test image comprises at least one synthetically generated image comprising a color ramp associated with the color mapping model, (Xu, ¶0005: “color banding (also called false contour) artifact, which can be particularly noticeable in areas of a video frame used to represent a color gradient”) and wherein the determining whether one or more visible artifacts is produced in the at least one adjusted test images comprises: performing an artifact detection process on the at least one adjusted test image to obtain artifact detection information; and (Xu, ¶0023: “reconstructed video is analyzed for artifacts (i.e., artifact detection”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bhaskaran in view of Chong, in further view of Kawaguchi and still in further view of Xu using the additional teachings of Xu to introduce a color gradient artifact. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of detecting visible artifacts in the areas of color gradient in a reconstructed image. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Bhaskaran, Chong, Kawaguchi, and Xu to obtain the above-described limitations in claim 7. However, the combination of Bhaskaran, Chong, Kawaguchi and Xu does not explicitly teach, comparing the artifact detection information to a visibility threshold to determine whether one or more visible artifacts is produced.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Rangaprasad teaches, comparing the artifact detection information to a visibility threshold to determine whether one or more visible artifacts is produced. (Xu, (Rangaprasad, ¶0060: “match a corresponding portion of the set of color correction values 322 within a performance threshold. For example, the performance threshold is a function of distortion level”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bhaskaran in view of Chong, in further view of Kawaguchi and still in further view of Xu using the teachings of Rangaprasad to introduce a threshold for distortion level. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of detecting distortion in a reconstructed image. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Bhaskaran, Chong, Kawaguchi, Xu and Rangaprasad to obtain the invention in claim 7.
Regarding claim 15, it recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps of the method recited in claim 7. Therefore, the recited elements of system claim 15 are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in method claim 7. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to Bhaskaran, Chong, Kawaguchi and Rangaprasad presented in rejection of claim 7, apply to this claim.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhaskaran et al. (US 2014/0002480 A1), in view of Chong et al. (US 2014/0267367 A1), in further view of Kawaguchi (US 2013/0120431 A1) and still in further view of Marcu et al. (US 2019/0213974 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Bhaskaran in view of Chong and in further view of Kawaguchi teaches, The method of claim 1, further comprising: initializing (Bhaskaran, ¶0043: “adjusting a pixel value using gamut bounded saturation based on a source color gamut and a target color gamut”) to reduce an amount of visible artifacts produced by the color mapping model and the another color mapping model. (Bhaskaran, ¶0056: “smaller saturation values may be applied to pixels having high (and low) luminance values… This may advantageously reduce the occurrence of the color banding artifacts”). However, the combination of Bhaskaran, Chong and Kawaguchi does not explicitly teach, another color mapping model that maps colors, within another subspace of the input color space localized around another target color.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Marcu teaches, another color mapping model that maps colors, within another subspace of the input color space localized around another target color (Marcu, ¶0004: “the target color profile maps a second set of color values to a second color space”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bhaskaran in view of Chong and in further view of Kawaguchi using the teachings of Marcu to introduce a second color space. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of mapping colors into different color spaces for the desired color conversion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Bhaskaran, Chong, Kawaguchi and Marcu to obtain the invention in claim 8.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhaskaran et al. (US 2014/0002480 A1) in view of Chong et al. (US 2014/0267367 A1) and in further view of Wang et al. (US 2016/0027191 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Bhaskaran in view of Chong teaches, The method of claim 17. However, the combination of Bhaskaran and Chong does not explicitly teach, wherein the color mapping model is an ellipsoid model centered about the target color and further parameterized by a first radius, a second radius, and a third radius.
In an analogous In field of endeavor, Wang teaches, wherein the color mapping model is an ellipsoid model centered about the target color and further parameterized by a first radius, a second radius, and a third radius. (Wang, ¶0039: “In the three-dimensional space of the YUV, a detection result of the skin color region can be an ellipsoid, the original mean value corresponding to a center of the ellipsoid, and the three elements in the original standard deviation corresponding to three spherical radiuses of the ellipsoid”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bhaskaran in view of Chong using the teachings of Wang to introduce an ellipsoid with spherical radii. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of locating different shades of a color in a ellipsoid. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Bhaskaran and Chong to obtain the invention in claim 20.
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 MEHRAZUL ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0489. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8am-5pm.
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, Saini Amandeep can be reached on (571) 272-3382. 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.
/MEHRAZUL ISLAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights