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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 2/14/2024. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “dividing a binary bit” in claim 33 is used by the claim to mean “the number at the bit level representation is divided into the individual bits to represent a color” while the accepted meaning is that a binary bit cannot be divided further and are the fundamental basis of data coding in computers. As per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit a bit is either a 0 or a 1 and cannot be divided into smaller units of information. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Martin et al. (US20160205397, hereinafter “Martin”)
Claim 1. (Original) Martin teaches A sink device ([0057] “client devices such as tablets, mobile phones, set top boxes, monitors, display screens and the like.” Is understood to be the same as the claimed sink device in light of instant specifications [0051]) comprising:
processing circuitry ([0041] “HDMI capture card in this context refers to a circuit board… inserted in a computer” a computer is a processing circuitry) configured to, receive a test video from a source device, ([0081] “distributes the video to the Set-Top Box 110”) the test video ([0060] “Test videos”) including a plurality of frames ([0060] “frames”) and each frame of the plurality of frames including a type pattern ([0060] “Frames can be tagged by any means …Exemplary tags include, but are not limited to, barcodes, time stamps” is understood to be the same as the claimed type pattern in light of instant specifications [0039]) corresponding to a frame number of the respective frame, ([0060] “each frame is numbered and tagged”)
perform a standardization operation on the test video to generate a standardized video, ([0081] “converts the signal into content that can be displayed on a display device” is understood to be the same as the claimed standardized video in light of instant specifications [0057])
scale the standardized video to generate a scaled video, ([0071] “video processing can be performed to compensate for reduced camera resolution vs. screen resolution,” Is understood to be the same as the claimed generate a scaled video in light of instant specifications [0058])
perform an image quality processing operation on the scaled video ([0071] “video processing can be performed to compensate for reduced camera resolution vs. screen resolution” ) to generate a sampling video, ([0071] “The resulting output can be analyzed” And [0060] “The tags allow individual frames to be extracted ” is understood to be the same as the claimed sampling video in light of instant specifications [0060] )
output the sampling video ([0071] “video output”) to a display, the display configured to display the sampling video as a final sampling video, ([0085] “The signal is transmitted … and displayed using the device under test 1212.” Fig. 12 shows the device under test 1212 which is understood to be the same as the claimed display configured to display the sampling video as a final sampling video in light of instant specifications [0077] ) and
detect at least one error generated ([0087] “The Analyzer server 1314 receives a display data signal from the Device under test 1312 and in response analyzes the display data for errors (1510).”) in any one of the source device, the processing circuitry, ([0073] “it is desirable to know when and where errors occur, allowing identification of possible causes of the errors in the client device and/or transmission system and encoding/decoding process.” Is understood to be the same as the claimed processing circuitry) or the display ([0086] “FIG. 13 is a system diagram of a means for testing the accuracy of a display in displaying information”)
based on pixel values of the test video, ([0070] “pixel to pixel quality comparison to the original”) the standardized video, (the video has been standardized in the above steps and therefore the error detection is based on the standardized video)
the scaled video, (the video has been scaled in the above steps and therefore the error detection is based on the scaled video)
the sampling video, (the video has been sampled in the above steps and therefore the error detection is based on the sampling video)
and the final sampling video and desired pixel values ([0071] “The resulting output can be analyzed using pixel-to-pixel analysis to determine how close the output matches the original. Pixel-to-pixel quality is determined by comparing output values directly against the reference or original video.”) corresponding to the type pattern included in each of the plurality of frames. ([0060] “Frames can be tagged by any means …Exemplary tags include, but are not limited to, barcodes, time stamps” is understood to be the same as the claimed type pattern in light of instant specifications [0039])
Claim 2. (Original) Martin teaches The sink device of claim 1, wherein each frame includes at least one type pattern corresponding to the frame number, ([0060] “each frame is numbered and tagged”) the at least one type pattern being at least one of a binary type pattern ([0060]“frame-parallel analog/digital signals” is understood to be the same as the claimed binary type pattern in light of instant specifications [0098]) and a color type pattern. ([0060] “barcodes” is understood by the examiner to be a color type pattern as it is a pattern of black and white)
Claim 3. (Original) Martin teaches The sink device of claim 2, wherein each frame further includes integrity information ([0063] “each frame may be tagged with a multi-frequency audio barcode with a plurality of tones.”) corresponding to the frame number. ([0063] “Such blocking may be repeated at smaller increments, allowing for successive narrowing of synchronization errors to a particular frame… allowing for reduction in aliasing issues and compensating for different quality”)
Claim 4. (Original) Martin teaches The sink device of claim 2, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
determine whether the frame numbers of the plurality of frames are sequentially output ([0083] “analyzes the playback performance for timing of frame delivery, skipped frames, glitches, frame jitter, frame judder, frame skips and frame tears (1004).”) based on pixel values ([0083] “performs a pixel-to-pixel quality comparison”) corresponding to the type pattern of the respective frame number; ([0060] “each frame is numbered and tagged”) and
detect a frame output order error based on results of the determining. ([0083] “timing of frame delivery, skipped frames, glitches, frame jitter, frame judder, frame skips and frame tears (1004).” are understood by the examiner to be output order errors which are determined)
Claim 5. (Original) Martin teaches The sink device of claim 1, wherein the frame number ([0060] “each frame is numbered”) is a bit value identifying the respective frame in the plurality of frames; ([0060] “frame-parallel analog/digital signals” is understood by the examiner to be the same as a bit value identifying the frame because all digital signals are made up of bit values) and
the type pattern for each frame is displayed in color ([0060] “exemplary tags include…barcodes” and [0062] “a barcode may be pasted on each frame” barcodes are known to be displayed in two colors, black and white) with at least two pixels corresponding to the bit value of the respective frame. ([0060] “The tags allow individual frames to be extracted”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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.
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.
Claims 6-10, 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. (US20160205397, hereinafter “Martin”) and in view of Valdez et al (US20130259139, hereinafter “Valdez”)
Claim 6. (Original) Martin teaches The sink device of claim 5, wherein each frame of the test video includes a pattern displayed in a first sub- region within the frame, ([0062] “the tag is drawn on the side.” side is understood to be the same as the claimed first sub-region within the frame )
Martin does not explicitly teach the binary pattern representing the bit value of the frame number using two different colors.
Valdez teaches the binary pattern ([0022] “In some color patterns, four colors may be used: black (or the absence of color), red…” utilizing only black and red is understood to be a binary pattern) representing the bit value (Table 1 shows black has the numerical value of 0 and red has the numerical value of 1 which are binary bits) of the frame number ([0020] “a different color pattern may be present that can be used to determine the frame number of the frame”) using two different colors. ([0040] “Each of these colors may be linked with a particular numerical value, such as in Table 1” Table 1 shows black has the numerical value of 0 and red has the numerical value of 1)
It would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martin to have a binary pattern representing a bit value of a frame number using two different colors as taught by Valdez to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been (Valdez et al [0034] “To reduce the number of potential errors”)
Claim 7. (Original) Martin teaches The sink device of claim 5,
Martin does not explicitly teach wherein each frame of the test video includes a color pattern displayed in a second sub- region within the frame, the color pattern representing the bit value of the frame number using a plurality of colors.
Valdez teaches wherein each frame of the test video ([0039] “frame number of a video frame”) includes a color pattern ([0039] “color pattern 400”) displayed in a second sub- region within the frame, ([0039] “predefined locations that correspond to regions 330 of color pattern 400.”) the color pattern representing the bit value (Table 1 shows the various RGB color numerical values, such as #FF0000 which represents a 24-bit numeric value)
PNG
media_image1.png
121
350
media_image1.png
Greyscale
of the frame number using a plurality of colors. ([0040] “Each of these colors may be linked with a particular numerical value, such as in Table 1. As such, the color pattern may be interpreted as 1031, indicated at callout 420…a video frame containing color pattern 400 may be frame 77 of a series of video frames.”)
PNG
media_image2.png
483
389
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martin to have a color pattern representing the bit value of the frame number as taught by Valdez to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been (Valdez et al [0034] “To reduce the number of potential errors”)
Claim 8. (Original) Martin and Valdez teach The sink device of claim 7, wherein the color pattern includes at least two pixels, ([0039] “rather than using a single pixel, multiple pixels expected to be within a particular color region may be analyzed.”) and each of the at least two pixels of the color pattern have a color level value representing at least two bit values.
(Table 1 shows the various RGB color numerical values, such as #FF0000 which represents a 24-bit numeric value)
PNG
media_image1.png
121
350
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 9. (Original) Martin teaches The sink device of claim 2,
Martin does not explicitly teach wherein the color pattern includes a first channel color and a second channel color, the first channel color and the second channel color having color values based on the frame number.
Valdez teaches wherein the color pattern includes a first channel color and a second channel color, ([0034] “Color pattern 315 has four such regions: 330-1, 330-2, 330-3, and 330-4. Each of these regions may be a particular color”) the first channel color and the second channel color having color values ([0034] “color pattern 315 may use red, blue, green, and black.” And Table 1 shows the various RGB color numerical values, such as #FF0000 which represents a 24-bit numeric value) based on the frame number. ([0037] “color pattern 315 corresponds to a particular frame number”)
It would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martin to have a first channel color and a second channel color having color values based on the frame number as taught by Valdez to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been (Valdez et al [0034] “To reduce the number of potential errors”)
Claim 10. (Original) Martin and Valdez teach The sink device of claim 9, wherein the second channel color is a channel color of a different type from the first channel color. ([0034] “color pattern 315 may use red, blue, green, and black.”)
Claim 27. (Original) Martin teaches An electronic device, the electronic device comprising:
processing circuitry ([0041] “HDMI capture card in this context refers to a circuit board… inserted in a computer” a computer is a processing circuitry ) configured to, receive a test video from an input device, ([0081] “distributes the video to the Set-Top Box 110”) the test video ([0060] “Test videos”) including a plurality of frames; ([0060] “frames”)
process and convert the test video to an intermediate sampling video; ([0060] “The tags allow individual frames to be extracted” is understood to be the same as the claimed intermediate sampling video in light of instant specifications [0060] )
process the intermediate sampled video to a final sampling video and output the final sampling video to a display; ([0085] “The signal is transmitted … and displayed using the device under test 1212.” Fig. 12 shows the device under test 1212 which is understood to be the same as the claimed display configured to display the sampling video as a final sampling video in light of instant specifications [0077] ) and
detect a frame output order error ([0070] “The A/V analysis server may analyze the frames for one or more audio/visual performance metrics that impact end user experience including…frame skip…Such errors include… identification of frames that are not detected during playback”) or a color output error in the processing circuitry or the display based on pixel values ([0071] “The resulting output can be analyzed using pixel-to-pixel analysis to determine how close the output matches the original…for color temperature, brightness, gamma correction and the like”) corresponding to a plurality of frame numbers included in each of the test video, ([0060] “each frame is numbered and tagged”) the intermediate sampling video, (the video has been sampled in the above steps and therefore the error detection is based on the sampling video) and the final sampling video, ([0071] “The resulting output can be analyzed using pixel-to-pixel analysis to determine how close the output matches the original. Pixel-to-pixel quality is determined by comparing output values directly against the reference or original video.”)
each of the videos including a binary pattern ([0060] “frame-parallel analog/digital signals” is understood to be the same as the claimed binary type pattern in light of instant specifications [0098]) and a color pattern, ([0060] “barcodes” is understood by the examiner to be a color type pattern as it is a pattern of black and white)
Martin does not explicitly teach the binary pattern representing the frame number of the respective frame using binary bits, and the color pattern generated based on the binary pattern.
Valdez teaches the binary pattern ([0022] “In some color patterns, four colors may be used: black (or the absence of color), red…” utilizing only black and red is understood to be a binary pattern) representing the frame number ([0020] “a different color pattern may be present that can be used to determine the frame number of the frame”) of the respective frame using binary bits, (Table 1 shows black has the numerical value of 0 and red has the numerical value of 1 which are binary bits) and the color pattern generated based on the binary pattern. ([0040] “Each of these colors may be linked with a particular numerical value, such as in Table 1”)
It would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martin to have a binary pattern representing the frame number using binary bits and the color pattern generated based on the binary pattern as taught by Valdez to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been (Valdez et al [0034] “To reduce the number of potential errors”)
Claim 28. (Original) Martin and Valdez teach The electronic device of claim 27,
Martin teaches wherein the test video includes a first sub-area in each frame, and the binary pattern of the respective frame included in the first sub-area, ([0062] “the tag is drawn on the side.” side is understood to be the same as the claimed first sub-region within the frame )
Martin does not explicitly teach the binary pattern based on two different colors.
Valdez teaches the binary pattern ([0022] “In some color patterns, four colors may be used: black (or the absence of color), red…” utilizing only black and red is understood to be a binary pattern) based on two different colors. ([0040] “Each of these colors may be linked with a particular numerical value, such as in Table 1” Table 1 shows black has the numerical value of 0 and red has the numerical value of 1)
Claim 29. (Original) Martin and Valdez teach The electronic device of claim 28,
Martin does not explicitly teach wherein the test video includes a second sub-area spaced apart from the first sub-area in each frame, the color pattern of the respective frame included in the second sub-area.
Valdez teaches wherein the test video includes a second sub-area (fig. 4 item 330-2) spaced apart from the first sub-area (fig. 4 item 330-1) in each frame, ([0039] “predefined locations that correspond to regions 330 of color pattern 400.”) the color pattern([0039] “color pattern 400”) of the respective frame ([0039] “frame number of a video frame”) included in the second sub-area.
PNG
media_image2.png
483
389
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 30. (Original) Martin and Valdez teach The electronic device of claim 27,
Martin teaches wherein error information ([0060] “barcode may contain an Error Correction Code (ECC)”) associated with the frame number. ([0060] “the frames are numbered and tagged.”)
Martin does not explicitly teach wherein the binary pattern includes the binary bits
Valdez teaches wherein the binary pattern ([0022] “In some color patterns, four colors may be used: black (or the absence of color), red…” utilizing only black and red is understood to be a binary pattern) includes the binary bits (Table 1 shows black has the numerical value of 0 and red has the numerical value of 1 which are binary bits)
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. (US20160205397, hereinafter “Martin”) and in view of Valdez et al (US20130259139, hereinafter “Valdez”) and in view of Spears et al (US20140267780, hereinafter “Spears”)
Claim 11. (Original) Martin and Valdez teach The sink device of claim 9,
Martin and Valdez do not explicitly teach wherein the second channel color has a color value corresponding to a complementary bit value of a bit value of the first channel color.
Spears teaches wherein the second channel color has a color value corresponding to a complementary bit value ([0046] “test pattern rendered in a second, different color space, such as RGB” is understood by the examiner to be the same as the claimed complementary bit value of a bit value of the first channel color in light of instant specifications [0040] ) of a bit value of the first channel color. ([0046] “test pattern utilized in method 200 may comprise a first color space, such as YCbCr” YCBCR are the complement colors of RGB as understood in light of instant specifications [0040])
It would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the proposed combination of Martin and Valdez to have the second color channel complementary to the first color channel as taught by Spears to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been (Spears et al [0019] “to evaluate the quality of video generated and transmitted via HDMI by the gaming device 18.”)
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. (US20160205397, hereinafter “Martin”) and in view of Raman et al (US20050157799, hereinafter “Raman”)
Claim 31. (Original) Martin teaches An electronic device, the electronic device comprising:
processing circuitry ([0041] “HDMI capture card in this context refers to a circuit board… inserted in a computer” a computer is a processing circuitry ) configured to,
receive a test video from an input device, ([0081] “distributes the video to the Set-Top Box 110”) the test video ([0060] “Test videos”) including a plurality of frames, ([0060] “frames”) and each frame of the plurality of frames includes at least one type pattern ([0060] “Frames can be tagged by any means …Exemplary tags include, but are not limited to, barcodes, time stamps” is understood to be the same as the claimed type pattern in light of instant specifications [0039]) corresponding to a frame number for the respective frame; ([0060] “each frame is numbered and tagged”)
process and convert the test video to an intermediate sampling video; ([0060] “The tags allow individual frames to be extracted” is understood to be the same as the claimed intermediate sampling video in light of instant specifications [0060] )
process the intermediate sampled video to a final sampling video and output the final sampling video to a display; ([0085] “The signal is transmitted … and displayed using the device under test 1212.” Fig. 12 shows the device under test 1212 which is understood to be the same as the claimed display configured to display the sampling video as a final sampling video in light of instant specifications [0077] ) and
determine whether an error has occurred ([0087] “The Analyzer server 1314 receives a display data signal from the Device under test 1312 and in response analyzes the display data for errors (1510).”) in the processing circuitry ([0073] “it is desirable to know when and where errors occur, allowing identification of possible causes of the errors in the client device and/or transmission system and encoding/decoding process.” Is understood to be the same as the claimed processing circuitry) or the display ([0086] “FIG. 13 is a system diagram of a means for testing the accuracy of a display in displaying information”)
Martin does not explicitly teach using a weighted model on the test video, the intermediate sampling video, and the final sampling video.
Raman teaches determine whether an error has occurred ([0039] “The error recovery module 535 then detects error location”) using a weighted model ([0022] “the damaged macroblock is estimated by using a weighted linear interpolation of the undamaged macroblocks surrounding the damaged macroblock.”) on the test video, the intermediate sampling video, and the final sampling video. ([0039] “The error recovery module 535 then detects error location based on the outcome of the analysis of the boundaries of the current, preceding, and subsequent video packets.” Raman’s current, preceding and subsequent video packets are understood to be the same as the claimed test video, intermediate sampling video, and final sampling video.)
It would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martin to have determine an error using a weighted model on the various stages of the video as taught by Raman to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been ( Raman et al Abstract “to reduce data loss and improve video quality.”)
Claims 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. (US20160205397, hereinafter “Martin”) and in view of Raman et al (US20050157799, hereinafter “Raman”) and in view of Valdez et al (US20130259139, hereinafter “Valdez”)
Claim 32. (Original) Martin and Raman teach The electronic device of claim 31, wherein the test video includes:
Martin and Raman do not explicitly teach a binary pattern in a first sub-area of the respective frame, the binary pattern corresponding the frame number of the respective frame converted into binary bits, the binary pattern represented in two different colors; and a color pattern in a second sub-area of the respective frame, the color pattern corresponding to the frame number of the respective frame, the color pattern represented using a plurality of colors in a plurality of pixels.
Valdez teaches a binary pattern ([0022] “In some color patterns, four colors may be used: black (or the absence of color), red…” utilizing only black and red is understood to be a binary pattern) in a first sub-area of the respective frame, ([0039] “predefined locations that correspond to regions 330 of color pattern 400.” And fig. 4 item 330-1) the binary pattern corresponding the frame number of the respective frame ([0020] “a different color pattern may be present that can be used to determine the frame number of the frame”) converted into binary bits, (Table 1 shows black has the numerical value of 0 and red has the numerical value of 1 which are binary bits) the binary pattern represented in two different colors; ([0040] “Each of these colors may be linked with a particular numerical value, such as in Table 1” Table 1 shows black has the numerical value of 0 and red has the numerical value of 1) and a color pattern in a second sub-area of the respective frame, ([0039] “predefined locations that correspond to regions 330 of color pattern 400.” and fig. 4 item 330-2) the color pattern corresponding to the frame number of the respective frame, the color pattern represented using a plurality of colors in a plurality of pixels. ([0020] “a different color pattern may be present that can be used to determine the frame number of the frame”)
PNG
media_image2.png
483
389
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the proposed combination of Martin and Raman to have a binary pattern representing the frame number using binary bits and the color pattern generated based on the binary pattern as taught by Valdez to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been (Valdez et al [0034] “To reduce the number of potential errors”)
Claim 33. (Original) Martin and Raman teach The electronic device of claim 31,
Martin and Raman do not explicitly teach wherein each frame of the test video includes a plurality of sub-regions each using respectively different color channels; and each of the different color channels in each of the plurality of sub-regions is a color channel which represents the frame number of the respective frame by dividing a binary bit corresponding to the frame number into at least two bits mapped to each of the sub-regions.
Valdez teaches wherein each frame of the test video includes a plurality of sub-regions each using respectively different color channels; ([0034] “Color pattern 315 has four such regions: 330-1, 330-2, 330-3, and 330-4. Each of these regions may be a particular color”) and each of the different color channels in each of the plurality of sub-regions is a color channel which represents the frame number of the respective frame ([0037] “color pattern 315 corresponds to a particular frame number”)
PNG
media_image2.png
483
389
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the proposed combination of Martin and Raman to have different color channels in each of the sub-regions as taught by Valdez to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been (Valdez et al [0034] “To reduce the number of potential errors”)
Valdez discloses the claimed invention except for dividing a binary bit corresponding to the frame number into at least two bits mapped to each of the sub-regions. Dividing a binary bit is indefinite as it does not have an accepted meaning in the art and the specifications do not redefine it. As per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit a bit is either a 0 or a 1 and cannot be divided into smaller units of information. For purposes of furthering prosecution the examiner interprets “dividing a binary bit” as “dividing a 2 digit number… into at least two bits…”
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to divide the two digit number corresponding to the frame number into at least two bits mapped to each of the sub-regions, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Valdez divides a 4 digit number which represents the frame number into one bit representing each sub-region which can easily be translatable to using a 2 digit number representing two sub-regions instead of four sub-regions as taught in Valdez.
Claims 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. (US20160205397, hereinafter “Martin”) and in view of Raman et al (US20050157799, hereinafter “Raman”) and in view of Valdez et al (US20130259139, hereinafter “Valdez”) and in view of Spears et al (US20140267780, hereinafter “Spears”)
Claim 34. (Original) Martin, Raman and Valdez teach The electronic device of claim 33,
Martin teaches wherein the color pattern of each of the plurality of sub-regions is represented by at least one of a BW channel, ([0060] “barcodes” is understood by the examiner to be a color type pattern as it is a pattern of black and white)
Martin and Raman do not explicitly teach an RGB channel, and a YCBCR channel.
Valdez teaches an RGB channel ([0022] “color pattern is being output in the form of an RGB (Red, Green, Blue) triplet.”)
It would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the proposed combination of Martin and Rama to have an RGB channel as taught by Valdez to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been (Valdez et al [0034] “To reduce the number of potential errors”)
Valdez does not explicitly teach YCBCR channel.
Spears teaches YCBCR channel. ([0046] “color space, such as YCbCr.”)
It would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the proposed combination of Martin, Raman and Valdez to have the YCBCR channel as taught by Spears to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been (Spears et al [0019] “to evaluate the quality of video generated and transmitted via HDMI by the gaming device 18.”)
Claim 35. (Original) Martin, Raman, Valdez and Spears teach The electronic device of claim 34,
Martin and Raman do not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of sub- regions include an RGB color and a complementary RGB color corresponding to the binary bits.
Valdez teaches wherein the plurality of sub- regions include an RGB color ([0022] “color pattern is being output in the form of an RGB (Red, Green, Blue) triplet.”) corresponding to the binary bits.
Valdez does not explicitly teach a complementary RGB color
Spears teaches a complementary RGB color ([0046] “test pattern utilized in method 200 may comprise a first color space, such as YCbCr” YCBCR are the complement colors of RGB as understood in light of instant specifications [0040])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Zhao US20180167630 teaches recovery of video content which is detected as having an error by utilizing watermarks
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OWAIS MEMON whose telephone number is (571)272-2168. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7:00am - 4:00pm) CST.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at (571) 272-3838. 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.
/OWAIS IQBAL MEMON/Examiner, Art Unit 2663