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 .
Claim Interpretation
Claim 12 has been amended to recite structure performing the claimed functions. Accordingly, this claim is no longer interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
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.
Claims 1, 3-9, and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0295020), referred herein as Su, in view of Endo et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0013198), referred herein as Endo, and further in view of Matsuoka et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0074602), referred herein as Matsuoka.
Regarding claim 1, Su teaches an image processing apparatus comprising: one or more processors that execute a program stored in a memory (paragraphs 114 and 115) and thereby function as: an acquisition unit configured to acquire a Perceptual Quantization (PQ) image comprised of a High Dynamic Range (HDR) signal conforming to Perceptual Quantization (PQ), and information relating to a maximum luminance value of the PQ image, which is associated with the PQ image (fig 3B, acquisition unit 318; paragraph 42; paragraph 45, lines 1-19; paragraph 89, lines 1-9);
a conversion unit configured to convert the PQ image into a Hybrid Log Gamma (HLG) image comprised of an HDR signal conforming to Hybrid Log Gamma (HLG), and convert the information relating to the maximum luminance value (fig 3B, conversion unit 320; paragraph 42; paragraph 45, lines 1-19; paragraph 90, lines 1-11); and
an association unit configured to associate the HLG image with the converted information relating to the maximum luminance value (fig 3B, association unit 302/304; paragraph 45, lines 1-19; paragraph 82, lines 5-19; paragraph 90, the last 4 lines),
wherein the conversion unit converts the PQ image into the HLG image and converts the information relating to the maximum luminance by applying a transfer function including an electro-optical transfer function (EOTF) conforming to the PQ (PQ EOTF) and, thereafter, by applying a transfer function conforming to the HLG (HLG OETF) (paragraph 88; paragraph 89, lines 1-16; paragraph 90).
Su does not explicitly teach applying an opto-electronic transfer function (OETF).
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Endo teaches an apparatus for converting PQ image data with HDR signals, and HLG image data (figs 2, 5, and 6; paragraph 60; paragraph 61, lines 6-19; paragraphs 62, 64, and 65), wherein a transfer function is applied, including an opto-electronic transfer function (OETF) conforming to an HLG (paragraphs 65 and 67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the OETF functionality of Endo with the processing of Su because this facilitates a better and broader range of brightness adjustments regardless of a difference in transfer functions, thereby producing higher quality displayed results (see, for example, Endo, paragraphs 7 and 8).
Su in view of Endo teaches storing the PQ image in a data file (Su, paragraphs 66 and 128) and storing related image data in a data file (Endo, paragraph 125, lines 1-19; the motivation is similar to that discussed above). However, Su in view of Endo does not explicitly teach that the maximum luminance value is recorded as metadata in a data file in which the image is stored.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Matsuoka teaches an apparatus for acquiring an PQ image and information related to a maximum luminance value of a PQ image, which is associated with the PQ image (figs 4-6; paragraphs 43 and 46; paragraph 47, lines 1-10), wherein the maximum luminance value is recorded as metadata in a data file in which the PQ image is stored (fig 7, metadata 74 and actual image 75; paragraph 47, the last 6 lines; paragraph 48, lines 1-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the maximum luminance metadata storage of Matsuoka with the image and data storage of Su in view of Endo because this helps to ensure that brightness levels remain accurate and appropriate, regardless of whether the viewing environment is HDR or SDR, thereby improving the quality and flexibility of the image output (see, for example, Matsuoka, paragraphs 7 and 8; paragraph 56).
Regarding claim 3, Su in view of Endo, further in view of Matsuoka teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the transfer function including the PQ EOTF converts the PQ image into a display luminance (Su, paragraph 45, lines 1-19; paragraph 88; paragraph 90, lines 1-11; paragraph 92; Endo, paragraphs 61 and 67; the motivation is similar to that discussed in the rejection of claim 1), and the transfer function including the HLG OETF includes an inverse function of an opto-optical transfer function (OOTF) conforming to the HLG (HLG OOTF-1) that converts the display luminance into a subject luminance, and the HLG OETF (Endo, paragraph 67; paragraph 80, lines 11-22; the motivation is similar to that discussed in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Su in view of Endo, further in view of Matsuoka teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the transfer function including the PQ EOTF includes an inverse function of an HLG OOTF (HLG OOTF-1) that is to be applied after the PQ EOTF (Su, paragraph 78; Endo, paragraphs 65 and 67; paragraph 80, lines 11-22; the motivation is similar to that discussed in the rejection of claim 1), and a system parameter to be applied to the HLG OOTF is configurable by a user (Su, paragraphs 46 and 100; Endo, paragraph 75; paragraph 80, lines 1-13; paragraph 81, lines 1-11; the motivation is similar to that discussed in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, Su in view of Endo, further in view of Matsuoka teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the transfer function including the PQ EOTF includes an inverse function of an HLG OOTF (HLG OOTF-1) that is to be applied after the PQ EOTF (Su, paragraph 78; Endo, paragraphs 65 and 67; paragraph 80, lines 11-22; the motivation is similar to that discussed in the rejection of claim 1), and by applying a plurality of system parameters with different values to the HLG OOTF, the conversion unit generates a plurality of the HLG images from the PQ image, and generates the information relating to the maximum luminance value corresponding to each of the plurality of the HLG images (Endo, paragraphs 65 and 75; paragraph 80, lines 1-13 and the last 12 lines; the motivation is similar to that discussed in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, Su in view of Endo, further in view of Matsuoka teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the association unit records the plurality of the HLG images and the information relating to the maximum luminance value corresponding to each of the plurality of the HLG images in one data file (Endo, paragraph 80, the last 12 lines; paragraph 81, lines 1-11; paragraphs 199 and 200; the motivation is similar to that discussed in the rejection of claim 1; the term “one data file” does not limit this feature to any particular size or location, and thus wherever this information is stored may be considered “one data file” as currently claimed).
Regarding claim 7, Su in view of Endo, further in view of Matsuoka teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the system parameter is a gamma value to be applied when displaying the HLG image, or the maximum luminance value of the HLG image (Su, paragraph 45, lines 1-19; Endo, paragraph 74; paragraph 80, lines 1-13 and the last 12 lines; paragraph 113; the motivation is similar to that discussed in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, Su in view of Endo, further in view of Matsuoka teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the transfer function including the PQ EOTF converts the PQ image into a display luminance, and the transfer function including the HLG OETF is the HLG OETF that is to be applied to the display luminance (Su, paragraph 45, lines 1-19; Endo, paragraphs 65 and 67; the motivation is similar to that discussed in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, Su in view of Endo, further in view of Matsuoka teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the transfer function
including the PQ EOTF converts the PQ image into a display luminance, and the transfer function including the HLG OETF includes an inverse function of an HLG OOTF (HLG OOTF-1) that converts the display luminance into a subject luminance, and the HLG OETF (Su, paragraph 45, lines 1-19; paragraph 90, lines 1-11; Endo, paragraphs 65 and 67; paragraph 80, lines 11-22; the motivation is similar to that discussed in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, the limitations of each of these claims substantially correspond to the limitations of claim 1; thus they are each rejected on similar grounds as claim 1.
Regarding claims 13-19, the limitations of these claims substantially correspond to the limitations of claims 3-9, respectively; thus they are rejected on similar grounds as their corresponding claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 112(f) interpretation have been fully considered, and are persuasive. As noted above, the amendments overcome the 112(f) interpretation, thus the interpretation is no longer applied.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejections have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above. The Examiner agrees that Su in view of Endo does not teach the amendment regarding storing the maximum luminance as metadata in a data file in which the image is stored; however, it is respectfully submitted that Matsuoka teaches this limitation, as discussed in the above prior art rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID T WELCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5364. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:30-5:30 EST, and alternate Fridays, 9:00-2:30 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, Xiao Wu can be reached at 571-272-7761. 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 T. WELCH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2613
/DAVID T WELCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613