DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Following prior arts are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20100226427 A1 (Jung)
US 20150172616 A1 (Ye)
US 20160286225 A1 (Yin)
US 20160360235 A1 (Ramasubramonian)
US 20110090959 A1 (Wiegand)
US 20180220144 A1 (Equivalent document used in PCT opinion)
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Rejection made under 35 USC § 101 have been withdrawn in view of cancellation of the claim.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to prior art rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as can be seen by new analysis presented in the updated/new rejection to account for amended limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-11, 22-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Limitation “the second conversion is performed without any information flowing from the first converter to the second converter” is not supported. For example, Fig. 7 shows data is flowing from 701 to 705 via different modules. Dependent claims inherit this through their dependence without providing any remedy.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 2-11, 22-31 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the second conversion is performed without any information flowing from the first converter to the second converter”. This is contradictory to other part of the claim. The claim as a whole describing data is flowing from first converter to second converter via encoding and decoding operation. For examination purpose it is assume data is flowing from first converter to second converter via at least another operation. Other independent claims have similar issues. Dependent claims inherit this through their dependence without providing any remedy.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 2, 5-6, 8-10, 12, 15-16, 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jung.
Jung teaches, with respect to following claims:
2. A method of encoding a video signal, the method comprising: receiving an input signal, the input signal being at a first bit depth: using a first converter to perform a first conversion by converting the input signal to a second bit depth to produce a converted input signal, the second bit depth being lower than the first bit depth [(Fig. 2 unit 11)] : instructing an encoding of a signal derived from the converted input signal to produce a first encoded data stream at the second bit depth [(Fig. 2 unit 15, Base layer bitstream)] : instructing an decoding of the first encoded data stream to produce a first decoded data stream, the first decoded data stream being at the second bit depth [(Fig. 2 unit 17)]: using a second converter to perform a second conversion by converting a signal derived from the first decoded data stream to the first bit depth to produce a first reconstruction of the input signal [(Fig. 2 unit 17. Unit 19 up-convert to first bit depth {para 53})]:, wherein the second conversion is performed without any information flowing from the first converter to the second converter, and wherein the second converter uses an inverse of the first conversion to perform said second conversion and applies said inverse independently of the first conversion [(Fig.2 the conversions are inverse of each other, data flow via 15 and 17 and 19 is independent of 11)] and encoding a residual data stream as a difference between a signal derived from the first reconstruction of the input signal and the input signal to produce a second encoded data stream at the first bit depth [(Fig.2 unit 21, 23; second layer bitstream and Third layer bitstream)]
5. (New) The method of claim 2, wherein the converted input signal is a standard dynamic range (SDR) signal and input signal, and the first reconstruction of the input signal are high dynamic range (HDR) signals. [(para 53; increase dynamic range of high-definition; 8 bits for standard definition, consistent with applicant’s published specification para 61)]
6. (New) The method of claim 2, wherein the encoding of a signal derived from the converted input signal comprises one of: an AVC/H.264 encoding [(para 29)] : an HEVC encoding: a VP9 encoding: and an AV1 encoding.
8. (New) The method of claim 2, wherein the method further comprises: downsampling a spatial resolution of the input signal prior to the encoding of the signal derived from the converted input signal, such that the encoding of the signal derived from the converted input signal is performed at a first spatial resolution: and upsampling a spatial resolution prior to the encoding of the residual data stream, such that the difference between the signal derived from first reconstruction of the input signal and the input signal is at a second spatial resolution, the second spatial resolution being higher than the first spatial resolution. [(the up and down converters in Fig.2 use different conversions showed in Fig. 5, including resolution conversion {para 55})]
9. (New) The method of claim 2, wherein the method further comprises: tone mapping prior to the encoding of the signal derived from the converted input signal: and inverse tone mapping prior to the encoding of the residual data stream. [(the up and down converters in Fig.2 use different conversions showed in Fig. 5, including tone mapping {para 54})]
10. (New) The method of claim 9, further comprising: deriving a tone map for the tone mapping: and producing tone map metadata for transmission to a decoder [(para 54; tone mapping metadata in Fig.6, para 22)] .
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Yin.
Regarding Claims 3: Jung does not explicitly show encoded data stream comprises ancillary data that includes dynamic metadata for rendering frames of video with the first colour definition on a frame-by-frame basis
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Yin teaches encoded data stream comprises ancillary data that includes dynamic metadata for rendering frames of video with the first colour definition on a frame-by-frame basis [(Yin para 64, updated at picture/frame level {para 65})] .
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would provide predictable result with no change of their respective functionalities.
Regarding Claims 4,: Yin additionally teaches applying temporal downsampling to a signal derived from the converted input signal prior to produce the first encoded data stream at the second bit depth, the temporal downsampling reducing a frame rate of the converted input signal: and applying temporal upsampling to a signal derived from the first decoded data stream prior to production of the first reconstruction of the input signal. [(Yin temporal scalability {up and down sampling} with bitdepth and spatial/resolution scalability, frame rate conversion {para 34, 53})]
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Ramasubramonian.
Regarding Claims 7: Jung does not explicitly show the input signal to a second bit depth comprises converting the input signal from the BT.2020 or BT.2100 colour definition to the BT.709 colour definition and converting the signal derived from the first decoded data stream to the first bit depth comprises converting the signal derived from the first decoded data stream from the BT.709 colour definition to the BT.2020 or BT.2100 colour definition.
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Ramasubramonian teaches the input signal to a second bit depth comprises converting the input signal from the BT.2020 or BT.2100 colour definition to the BT.709 colour definition and converting the signal derived from the first decoded data stream to the first bit depth comprises converting the signal derived from the first decoded data stream from the BT.709 colour definition to the BT.2020 or BT.2100 colour definition.
[(Ramasubramonian para 34)] .
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would provide predictable result with no change of their respective functionalities.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Wiegand.
Regarding Claim 11: Jung teaches the tone mapping comprises dynamic tone mapping [(tone mapping controlled by parameter)]
Jung does not explicitly show the tone map metadata varies based on the frame being processed
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Wiegand teaches the tone map metadata varies based on the frame being processed [(para 39, 65)]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would provide predictable result with no change of their respective functionalities.
Claims 22-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Ye.
Regarding Claims 22, 29. See analysis of claim 1 and note that the up and down converters in Fig.2 use multiple conversions showed in Fig. 5 that includes other conversion in addition to down-sampling and up sampling
However, Jung does not explicitly show color space conversion and inverse conversion performed in addition to down-sampling and up-sampling
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Ye teaches color space conversion and inverse conversion performed in addition to down-sampling and up-sampling [(Fig.5 unit 528 and 522 and para 50; “Through the use of color gamut conversion, the colors in BT.709 space may be translated into the BT.2020 space”)]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would enhanced the system capabilities as it would able to supply displays with different color definition [(Ye para 47)]
Claims 23, 30, 31. The encoder device of claim 22, wherein the first color conversion includes reducing a bit-depth of the input signal, and wherein the second color conversion includes increasing a bit-depth of the first decoded data [(Jung Fig.5 and related discussion)] .
Claim 24. (New) The encoder device of claim 22, wherein: the first encoded data stream provides a rendition of the input signal that is presentable to a user using a different color space than the input signal, and the first encoded data stream provides a rendition of the input signal that is presentable to a user using a different resolution than the input signal [(Jung Fig.5 and related discussion and Ye Fig.5 and related discussion )] .
Claim 25. (New) The encoder device of claim 22, wherein the information that does not flow from the first color converter to the second color converter also includes metadata, such that no metadata flows from the first color converter to the second color converter. [(both Jung Fig.2 and Ye Fig.5 data flowing only via)]
Claim 26. (New) The encoder device of claim 22, wherein the second color converter refrains from performing a prediction of the input signal. [(both Jung Fig.2 and Ye Fig.5 data flowing only via; the converter is not connected to input)]
Claim 27. (New) The encoder device of claim 22, wherein the first color conversion introduces a first signal discrepancy into the first converted data, wherein the second color conversion introduces a second signal discrepancy into the second converted data [(Any digital conversion is capable of introducing discrepancy or error based on scale used, as is evident by Jung Fig.2 unit 21 that is producing finite residual)] .
Claim 28. (New) The encoder device of claim 22, wherein the second encoded data includes residual data, and wherein the residual data is structured to correct the first signal discrepancy and the second signal discrepancy [(Jung Fig.2 unit 23; residual means correction between the input video and up-converted video i.e. output of 19, where the discrepancies has been introduced through different conversions including 11 and 19)]
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 Shahan Rahaman whose telephone number is (571)270-1438. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am - 3:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4195. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/SHAHAN UR RAHAMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426