DETAILED ACTION
Notice of AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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 of this title, 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.
3. Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jia et al (US Pub: 2013/0294689) and in further view of Deselaers et al (US Pub: 2015/0169204).
Regarding claim 1 (Original), Jia et al teaches: A method for utilizing a gain map to manage edits to different versions of an image, the method comprising, at a computing device: accessing an enhanced image that includes a high dynamic range (HDR) image and the gain map [p0004 (Luminance ratio functions as a gain map.)]; extracting the HDR image and the gain map from the enhanced image [p0076]; generating a standard dynamic range (SDR) image using the HDR image and the gain map [p0029, p0091 (TM based image is SDR image.)]; generating a second gain map by comparing the HDR image against the SDR image or vice- versa [fig. 3A: 306, p0087]; and embedding the second gain map into the HDR image or the SDR image [p0096, p0101].
Jia et al does not disclose receiving modification instruction. In the same field of endeavor, Deselaers et al teaches: receiving and applying first modification instructions against the HDR image [fig. 2].
Jia et al renders both TM base and reconstructed HDR in one process. Because TM base is derived from HDR, when HDR is modified, TM base changes correspondingly. Therefore, given Deselaers et al’s prescription on receiving instruction on adjusting HDR image, the combined teaching of Jia et al and Deselaers et al would have made the following obvious to a skilled in the art: generating second modification instructions based on at least the first modification instructions; applying the second modification instructions to the SDR image.
Regarding claim 2 (New), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Jia et al further teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein embedding the second gain map into the HDR image include storing meta indicative of the second gain map in the HDR image [p0004].
Claim 7 (new) has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 1 and in accordance with Jia et al’s further teaching on: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium configured to store instructions that, when executed by at least one processor included in a computing device, cause the computing device to utilize a gain map to manage edits to different versions of an image, by carrying out steps [p0108].
Regarding claim 8 (new), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 7 has been incorporated herein. Claim 8 has been analyzed and rejected in regard to claim 2.
Claim 14 (new) has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 1 and in accordance with Jia et al’s further teaching on: A computing device configured to utilize a gain map to manage edits to different versions of an image, the computing device comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing device to carry out steps [p0103].
Regarding claim 15 (new), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 14 was incorporated herein. Claim 15 has been analyzed and rejected in regard to claim 2.
4. Claims 3, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jia et al (US Pub: 2013/0294689) and Deselaers et al (US Pub: 2015/0169204); and in further view of Pahalawatta et al (US Pub: 2011/0164113).
Regarding claim 3 (New), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Jia et al in view of Deselaers et al does not specify interleaving a pixel between two pixels. In the same field of endeavor, Pahalawatta et al further teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein embedding the second gain map into the HDR image includes interleaving a given pixel of the second gain map between two pixels of the HDR image [p0020, p0054]. Therefore, given Pahalawatta et al’s prescription on embedding two image data sets into one frame by pixel interleaving, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to use Pahalawatta et al’s interleaving to Jia et al’s pixel luminance ratio data in image raster as a package mechanism to simplify decoding path with improved compatibility.
Regarding claim 9 (new), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 7 has been incorporated herein. Claim 9 has been analyzed and rejected in regard to claim 3.
Regarding claim 16 (new), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 14 was incorporated herein. Claim 16 has been analyzed and rejected in regard to claim 3.
5. Claims 4, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jia et al (US Pub: 2013/0294689) and Deselaers et al (US Pub: 2015/0169204); and in further view of Kainz et al (Nvidia Developer: GPU Gems, September, 2027).
Regarding claim 4 (New), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Jia et al in view of Deselaers et al does not disclose embedding a pixel as an additional channel. In the same field of endeavor, Kainz et al teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein embedding the second gain map into the HDR image includes embedding a particular pixel of the second gain map into a corresponding pixel of the HDR image as an additional channel of the corresponding pixel [26.2.2]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to store gain value as additional channel a the same pixel coordinate for proper alignment and avoiding registration errors.
Regarding claim 10 (new), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 7 was incorporated herein. Claim 10 has been analyzed and rejected in regard to claim 4.
Regarding claim 17 (new), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 14 was incorporated herein. Claim 17 has been analyzed and rejected in regard to claim 4.
6. Claims 5, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jia et al (US Pub: 2013/0294689) and Deselaers et al (US Pub: 2015/0169204); and in further view of Shunock et al (US Pub: 2014/0236720).
Regarding claim 5 (New), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Jia et al in view of Deselaers et al does not disclose applying a markup to an image. In the same field of endeavor, Shunock et al teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein applying the first modification instructions against the HDR image includes applying a markup to the HDR image [abstract]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to apply a markup such as annotation or label to HDR image as editing instruction per design choice.
Regarding claim 11 (new), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 7 was incorporated herein. Claim 11 has been analyzed and rejected in regard to claim 5.
Regarding claim 18 (new), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 14 was incorporated herein. Claim 18 has been analyzed and rejected in regard to claim 5.
7. Claims 6, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jia et al (US Pub: 2013/0294689) and Deselaers et al (US Pub: 2015/0169204); and in further view of Albouze et al (US Pub: 2013/0239051).
Regarding claim 6 (New), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Jia et al in view of Deselaers et al does not disclose applying a filter to an image. In the same field of endeavor, Albouze et al teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein applying the first modification instructions against the HDR image includes applying a filter to the HDR image [p0010]. Therefore, given Albouze et al’s prescription on applying filter to an image, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to instruct filter application to HDR image for effectively controlling the output.
Regarding claim 12 (new), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 7 was incorporated herein. Claim 12 has been analyzed and rejected in regard to claim 6.
Regarding claim 19 (new), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 14 was incorporated herein. Claim 19 has been analyzed and rejected in regard to claim 6.
8. Claims 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jia et al (US Pub: 2013/0294689) and Deselaers et al (US Pub: 2015/0169204); and in further view of Kadu et al (US Pub: 2018/0007356).
Regarding claim 13 (New), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 7 has been incorporated herein. Jia et al in view of Deselaers et al does not adjust instruction based on difference between HDR and SDR. In the same field of endeavor, Kadu et al teaches: The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 7, wherein generating the second modification instructions includes adjusting the first modification instructions based on differences between the HDR image and the SDR image [abstract, p0105]. Therefore, given Kadu et al’s teaching on modified forward reshaping function, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to adjust instruction based on difference between HDR and SDR to generate a new curve to reduce artifacts due to trim process.
Regarding claim 20 (new), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 14 was incorporated herein. Claim 20 has been analyzed and rejected in regard to claim 13.
Contact
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3751. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, Benny Tieu can be reached on 571-272-7490. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Fan Zhang/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2682