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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/13/2024, 03/14/2024, 04/11/2024, and 06/28/2024 were received and the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“Lossy compression module” in claim 5.
“Lossy compression module” in claim 6.
“Image compression module” and “gain compression module” in claim 7.
“Image compression module” and “gain compression module” in claim 8.
“Image compression module” and “gain compression module” in claim 9.
“Combined gain map generation and compression module” in claim 10.
“Lossless compression module” and “lossy compression module” in claim 17.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The above limitations are Computer-Implemented Means-Plus-Function Limitations. MPEP 2181.II.B. states “For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).” Accordingly, the above limitations must be interpreted as the computer structure and the algorithm needed to enable the computer structure to perform the function. The above limitations are interpreted as follows:
“Lossy compression module” in claim 5.
Computer Structure: a processor and memory, see Fig. 3A and [0022] or Fig. 6 and [0052]-[0053].
Algorithm: The specification lacks a description of the algorithm for performing the claimed function.
“Lossy compression module” in claim 6.
Computer Structure: a processor and memory, see Fig. 3A and [0022] or Fig. 6 and [0052]-[0053].
Algorithm: The specification lacks a description of the algorithm for performing the claimed function.
“Image compression module” and “gain compression module” in claim 7.
Computer Structure: a processor and memory, see Fig. 3A and [0022] or Fig. 6 and [0052]-[0053].
Algorithm: The specification lacks a description of the algorithm for performing the claimed function.
“Image compression module” and “gain compression module” in claim 8.
Computer Structure: a processor and memory, see Fig. 3A and [0022] or Fig. 6 and [0052]-[0053].
Algorithm: The specification lacks a description of the algorithm for performing the claimed function.
“Image compression module” and “gain compression module” in claim 9.
Computer Structure: a processor and memory, see Fig. 3A and [0022] or Fig. 6 and [0052]-[0053].
Algorithm: The specification lacks a description of the algorithm for performing the claimed function.
“Combined gain map generation and compression module” in claim 10.
Computer Structure: a processor and memory, see Fig. 3A and [0022] or Fig. 6 and [0052]-[0053].
Algorithm: The specification lacks a description of the algorithm for performing the claimed function.
“Lossless compression module” and “lossy compression module” in claim 17.
Computer Structure: a processor and memory, see Fig. 3A and [0022] or Fig. 6 and [0052]-[0053].
Algorithm: The specification lacks a description of the algorithm for performing the claimed function.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 5-10 and 17 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.
The following claim limitations invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
“Lossy compression module” in claim 5.
“Lossy compression module” in claim 6.
“Image compression module” and “gain compression module” in claim 7.
“Image compression module” and “gain compression module” in claim 8.
“Image compression module” and “gain compression module” in claim 9.
“Combined gain map generation and compression module” in claim 10.
“Lossless compression module” and “lossy compression module” in claim 17.
However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, the specification fails to disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function which is a necessary part of Means-Plus-Function Computer Implemented limitations, see MPEP 2181.II.B.
Regarding claims 5-6, the applicant’s specification states “According to some embodiments, the compressed version of the gain map is generated using a lossy compression module selected for use with gain map compression. According to some embodiments, the compressed version of the image is generated using a lossy compression module selected for use with image compression” [0056]. This does not indicate the algorithm employed by the lossy compression module.
Regarding claims 7-9, the applicant’s specification states “the image compression module 318 uses an image compression algorithm that is optimized for processing images, the gain map compression module 312 uses a gain map compression algorithm that is optimized for processing gain maps 123,” [0039]. This does not indicate the algorithm employed by the image compression module or the gain map compression module.
Regarding claim 10, the applicant’s specification states “generates the compressed version of the image and the compressed version of the gain map by jointly generating the compressed version of the gain map and the compressed version of the image from the SDR image and the HDR image using a combined gain map generation and compression module” [0051]. This does not indicate the algorithm employed by the combined gain map generation and compression module.
Regarding claim 17, the applicant’s specification states “According to some embodiments, the compressed version of the error map is compressed using a lossless compression module; and the compressed version of the gain map is compressed using a lossy compression module” [0063]. This does not indicate the algorithm employed by the lossless compression module or the lossy compression module.
Therefore, claims 5-10 and 17 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 5-10 and 17 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 claims contain 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 5-6, the claim limitation “lossy compression module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding a “lossy compression module”, the specification states that modules of the invention may be performed on a processor and memory, see fig. 3A and [0022] or Fig. 6 and [0052]-[0053], which is understood as a general purpose processor. However, as a component of a general purpose processor, the described structure is not sufficient to perform the claimed function without detailing an algorithm that may be implemented on the processor to perform the function, see MPEP 2181.II.B. The applicant indicates that the “lossy compression module” is used for compression in [0056] but does not provide an algorithm for performing the compression by the module. Therefore, the written description is insufficient to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the algorithm for the “lossy compression module” to be performing down-sampling on the gain map and image respectively to produce versions with reduced size.
Regarding claims 7-9, the claim limitations “image compression module” and “gain compression module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding an “image compression module”, the specification states that modules of the invention may be performed on a processor and memory, see fig. 3A and [0022] or Fig. 6 and [0052]-[0053], which is understood as a general purpose processor. However, as a component of a general purpose processor, the described structure is not sufficient to perform the claimed function without detailing an algorithm that may be implemented on the processor to perform the function, see MPEP 2181.II.B. The applicant indicates that the “image compression module” uses a compression algorithm for compressing the image in [0039] but does not provide the specifics of the algorithm for performing the compression by the module. Therefore, the written description is insufficient to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the algorithm for the “image compression module” to be performing down-sampling on the image to produce a version with reduced size.
Regarding a “gain compression module”, the specification states that modules of the invention may be performed on a processor and memory, see fig. 3A and [0022] or Fig. 6 and [0052]-[0053], which is understood as a general purpose processor. However, as a component of a general purpose processor, the described structure is not sufficient to perform the claimed function without detailing an algorithm that may be implemented on the processor to perform the function, see MPEP 2181.II.B. The applicant indicates that the “gain compression module” uses a compression algorithm for compressing the gain map in [0039] but does not provide the specifics of the algorithm for performing the compression by the module. Therefore, the written description is insufficient to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the algorithm for the “gain compression module” to be performing down-sampling on the gain map to produce a version with reduced size.
Regarding claim 10, the claim limitation “combined gain map generation and compression module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding a “combined gain map generation and compression module”, the specification states that modules of the invention may be performed on a processor and memory, see fig. 3A and [0022] or Fig. 6 and [0052]-[0053], which is understood as a general purpose processor. However, as a component of a general purpose processor, the described structure is not sufficient to perform the claimed function without detailing an algorithm that may be implemented on the processor to perform the function, see MPEP 2181.II.B. The applicant indicates that the “combined gain map generation and compression module” is used for compression in [0051] but does not provide an algorithm for performing the compression by the module. Therefore, the written description is insufficient to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the algorithm for the “combined gain map generation and compression module” to be performing encoding on the gain map and image respectively to produce versions with reduced size.
Regarding claim 17, the claim limitations “lossless compression module” and “lossy compression module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding a “lossless compression module”, the specification states that modules of the invention may be performed on a processor and memory, see fig. 3A and [0022] or Fig. 6 and [0052]-[0053], which is understood as a general purpose processor. However, as a component of a general purpose processor, the described structure is not sufficient to perform the claimed function without detailing an algorithm that may be implemented on the processor to perform the function, see MPEP 2181.II.B. The applicant indicates that the “lossless compression module” is used for compression in [0063] but does not provide an algorithm for performing the compression by the module. Therefore, the written description is insufficient to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the algorithm for the “lossless compression module” to be performing arithmetic coding on the error map to produce a version with reduced size.
Regarding a “lossy compression module”, the specification states that modules of the invention may be performed on a processor and memory, see fig. 3A and [0022] or Fig. 6 and [0052]-[0053], which is understood as a general purpose processor. However, as a component of a general purpose processor, the described structure is not sufficient to perform the claimed function without detailing an algorithm that may be implemented on the processor to perform the function, see MPEP 2181.II.B. The applicant indicates that the “lossy compression module” is used for compression in [0063] but does not provide an algorithm for performing the compression by the module. Therefore, the written description is insufficient to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the algorithm for the “lossy compression module” to be performing down-sampling on the gain map to produce a version with reduced size.
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 (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 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, 5-7, 10-15, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Touze et al. (US 20130083838 A1; hereafter, Touze) in view of Deakin et al. (US 20250285248 A1; hereafter, Deakin).
Regarding claim 1, Touze discloses:
A method for image management, the method comprising, at a computing device ([0035] the invention is realized by a processing device which is understood as a computing device):
generating a compressed version of an image ([0049] the image, LDR content, is downsampled which is understood as compressed) and a compressed version of a gain map ([0049] the gain map, exposure map, is downsampled which is understood as compressed) from a standard dynamic range (SDR) image of a scene and a high dynamic range (HDR) image of the scene ([0048] an LDR image, understood as an SDR image, and an HDR image are compared by division to generate a gain map, i.e. exposure map);
combining the compressed version of the image with the compressed version of the gain map to form a compressed enhanced image ([0049] the compressed image and gain map, i.e. down-sampled LDR and exposure map, are packed into one frame which is understood as combining);
Deakin does not disclose expressly to store the compressed enhanced image in a non-volatile storage medium.
Deakin discloses:
and storing the compressed enhanced image ([0073] the image container, comprised of the LDR image and the recovery map, is stored in a server system) in a non-volatile storage medium ([0053] the server system comprises a storage device for storing databases. [0180] storage devices may be various forms of tangible, non-volatile media).
Touze and Deakin are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of encoding and reconstructing HDR images (Touze, [0011]; Deakin, [0007]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the storage of Deakin with the invention of Touze.
The motivation for doing so would have been that "the image container can be sent to one or more server systems over a network to be made accessible to multiple client devices that can access the server systems" (Deakin, [0073]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Deakin with Touze to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Touze in view of Deakin discloses the subject matter claim 1.
Touze further discloses:
obtaining the compressed enhanced image ([0051] the decoder receives the encoded frame which is understood as the compressed enhance image);
extracting the compressed version of the image and the compressed version of the gain map from the compressed enhanced image ([0051] the compressed frame is split into the compressed image and the compressed gain map);
generating an uncompressed version of the image from the compressed version of the image ([0051] the image is up-sampled which is understood as uncompressed image);
generating an uncompressed version of the gain map from the compressed version of the gain map ([0051] the exposure map, i.e. gain map, is up-sampled which is understood as uncompressed gain map);
and applying the uncompressed version of the gain map to the uncompressed version of the image to generate a second image ([0052] the exposure map and LDR image are used to produce an HDR image) formatted for display by the second computing device ([0052] "the resulting HDR content can source a HDR capable display", therefore it is formatted for display by a device), wherein the second image and the uncompressed version of the image have different dynamic ranges of luminance values ([0052] the image from the compressed enhanced image is LDR and the output image is HDR which have different dynamic ranges of luminance values).
Touze does not disclose expressly a second computing device.
Deakin discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising, at a second computing device ([0118]-[0119] the client device obtains an image container which is understood as the compressed enhanced image. Therefore, the client device is understood as a second computing device):
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the display of the reconstructed image on a second device as taught by Deakin with the invention of Touze.
The motivation for doing so would have been “causing the derived image to be displayed by the display device includes reducing a maximum luminance level of the displayed derived image based on a system setting of a device that causes the derived image to be displayed, wherein the system setting is selected by a user” (Deakin, [0015]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Deakin with Touze to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Touze in view of Deakin discloses the subject matter of claim 2.
Touze further discloses:
The method of claim 2, wherein: the compressed version of the image comprises a compressed version of the SDR image ([0049] the image which is compressed is LDR which is understood as SDR);
and the second image comprises a version of the HDR image ([0052] the second image is an HDR image).
Regarding claim 5, Touze in view of Deakin discloses the subject matter of claim 1.
Touze further discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the compressed version of the gain map is generated using a lossy compression module selected for use with gain map compression ([0049] the exposure map is down-sampled which a lossy compression).
Regarding claim 6, Touze in view of Deakin discloses the subject matter of claim 1.
Touze further discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the compressed version of the image is generated using a lossy compression module selected for use with image compression ([0049] the image is down-sampled which is a lossy compression).
Regarding claim 7, Touze in view of Deakin discloses the subject matter of claim 1.
Touze further discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein generating the compressed version of the image and the compressed version of the gain map comprises: generating the gain map by comparing luminance values of pixels in the HDR image to luminance values of corresponding pixels in the SDR image ([0048] the exposure map is generated by pixel-wise division of the pixels in the HDR image and the LDR image which is understood as a comparison of corresponding pixels);
generating the compressed version of the image by processing the SDR image or the HDR image with an image compression module ([0049] the LDR image is compressed);
and generating the compressed version of the gain map by processing the gain map with a gain compression module ([0049] the exposure map is compressed).
Regarding claim 10, Touze in view of Deakin discloses the subject matter of claim 1.
Touze does not disclose expressly jointly generating the compressed version of the gain map and the compressed version of the image from the SDR image and the HDR image.
Deakin discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein generating the compressed version of the image and the compressed version of the gain map comprises: jointly generating the compressed version of the gain map and the compressed version of the image from the SDR image and the HDR image using a combined gain map generation and compression module ([0056] and Fig. 1, the method 200 which generates a compressed gain map and image from an SDR and HDR image which is performed on a server system 102. As this is performed on a system for this purpose the system may be understood as a combined gain map generation and compression module. See also [0064], encoding is performed which is understood as compression).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the joint generation of the compressed gain map and compressed image by a system with the invention of Touze.
The motivation for doing so would have been that doing so represents choosing from a finite number of predictable solutions with a reasonably expectation of success. The finite number of predictable solutions being: a) generating the compressed gain map and compressed version of the image by separate systems and b) generating the compressed gain map and compressed version of the image by a combined system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to try both options and as both options performs the same process, the dividing feature being performing the process on separate systems or a combined system. As both perform the same process a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success and as combining the process into a single system reduces the complexity of multiple systems it would have been obvious to perform the process on a single system as taught by Deakin.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Deakin with Touze to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, Touze in view of Deakin discloses the subject matter of claim 1.
Touze further discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the compressed version of the gain map is derived from the gain map having a linear resolution in each of two dimensions identical to a linear resolution of the SDR and HDR images ([0048] the exposure map is generated by pixel-wise division of the pixels in the HDR image and the LDR image which is understood to generate an exposure map, i.e. gain map, with a linear resolution in two dimensions that is identical to the SDR and HDR images. In other words, the SDR image, HDR image, and gain map are understood to have the same number of pixels).
Regarding claim 12, Touze in view of Deakin discloses the subject matter of claim 1.
Touze does not disclose expressly that the compressed gain map is derived from the gain map having a linear resolution in at least one dimension that is less that a corresponding linear resolution of the SDR and HDR.
Deakin discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the compressed version of the gain map is derived from the gain map having a linear resolution in at least one dimension that is less than a corresponding linear resolution of the SDR and HDR images ([0064] the recovery element, understood as the gain map, can have any resolution including one that is less than the LDR and HDR images).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the less resolution of the gain map of Deakin with the invention of Touze.
The motivation for doing so would have been that doing so allows the gain map to be stored with less storage space (Deakin shows that would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art by reducing the storage space occupied by a different element, [0093]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Deakin with Touze to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, Touze in view of Deakin discloses the subject matter of claim 1.
Touze further discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein: the compressed version of the gain map is generated using a first compression scheme optimized for gain maps ([0049] the gain map, exposure map, is downsampled which is understood as compressed. As the compression is used for the gain map it is understood to be selected for or optimized for that application);
and the compressed version of the image is generating using a second compression scheme optimized for images ([0049] the LDR image is downsampled which is understood as compressed. As the compression is used for the LDR image it is understood to be selected for or optimized for that application).
Regarding claim 14, Touze in view of Deakin discloses the subject matter of claim 1.
Touze further discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein an offset value based on pixel values of the SDR image and/or pixel values of the HDR image is used by the computing device when generating the gain map ([0048] the exposure map is generated by pixel-wise division of the LDR and HDR images. The value of the division is understood as an offset value based on the pixel values since the division will have a greater magnitude when pixels are more offset from their counterpart in the other image).
Regarding claim 15, Touze in view of Deakin discloses the subject matter of claim 1.
Touze does not disclose expressly that the offset value is selected to optimize storage of the compressed version of the gain map.
Deakin discloses:
The method of claim 14, wherein the offset value is selected by the computing device to optimize storage of the compressed version of the gain map ([0085] when a luminance value is zero it can be redefined to avoid issues in calculation. Avoiding issues in calculation is understood to optimize the storage so that the storage does not bear the burden of code indicating the error).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the selection of an offset value of Deakin with the invention of Touze.
The motivation for doing so would have been that "Since zero is a valid luminance value, Yhdr or Yldr can be zero, leading to potential issues in the equation above or when determining a logarithm as described below" (Deakin, [0085]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Deakin with Touze to obtain the invention as specified in claim 15.
Regarding claim 18, Touze discloses:
generating a compressed version of an image ([0049] the image, LDR content, is downsampled which is understood as compressed) and a compressed version of a gain map ([0049] the gain map, exposure map, is downsampled which is understood as compressed) from a standard dynamic range (SDR) image of a scene and a high dynamic range (HDR) image of the scene ([0048] an LDR image, understood as an SDR image, and an HDR image are compared by division to generate a gain map, i.e. exposure map);
combining the compressed version of the image with the compressed version of the gain map to form a compressed enhanced image ([0049] the compressed image and gain map, i.e. down-sampled LDR and exposure map, are packed into one frame which is understood as combining);
Deakin does not disclose expressly to store the compressed enhanced image in a non-volatile storage medium.
Deakin discloses:
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium configured to store instructions ([0179] a memory, which is described as various non-transitory embodiments, stores instructions for performing the method) when executed by at least one processor included in a computing device ([0179] the instructions are executed by a processor), cause the computing device to implement a method for image management, by carrying out steps that include: storing the compressed enhanced image ([0073] the image container, comprised of the LDR image and the recovery map, is stored in a server system) in a non-volatile storage medium ([0053] the server system comprises a storage device for storing databases. [0180] storage devices may be various forms of tangible, non-volatile media).
Touze and Deakin are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of encoding and reconstructing HDR images (Touze, [0011]; Deakin, [0007]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the storage of Deakin with the invention of Touze.
The motivation for doing so would have been that "the image container can be sent to one or more server systems over a network to be made accessible to multiple client devices that can access the server systems" (Deakin, [0073]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Deakin with Touze to obtain the invention as specified in claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, Touze in view of Deakin discloses the subject matter claim 19.
Touze further discloses:
obtaining the compressed enhanced image ([0051] the decoder receives the encoded frame which is understood as the compressed enhance image);
extracting the compressed version of the image and the compressed version of the gain map from the compressed enhanced image ([0051] the compressed frame is split into the compressed image and the compressed gain map);
generating an uncompressed version of the image from the compressed version of the image ([0051] the image is up-sampled which is understood as uncompressed image);
generating an uncompressed version of the gain map from the compressed version of the gain map ([0051] the exposure map, i.e. gain map, is up-sampled which is understood as uncompressed gain map);
and applying the uncompressed version of the gain map to the uncompressed version of the image to generate a second image ([0052] the exposure map and LDR image are used to produce an HDR image) formatted for display by the second computing device ([0052] "the resulting HDR content can source a HDR capable display", therefore it is formatted for display by a device), wherein the second image and the uncompressed version of the image have different dynamic ranges of luminance values ([0052] the image from the compressed enhanced image is LDR and the output image is HDR which have different dynamic ranges of luminance values).
Touze does not disclose expressly a second computing device.
Deakin discloses:
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 18, wherein the steps further include, by a second computing device ([0118]-[0119] the client device obtains an image container which is understood as the compressed enhanced image. Therefore, the client device is understood as a second computing device):
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the display of the reconstructed image on a second device as taught by Deakin with the invention of Touze.
The motivation for doing so would have been “causing the derived image to be displayed by the display device includes reducing a maximum luminance level of the displayed derived image based on a system setting of a device that causes the derived image to be displayed, wherein the system setting is selected by a user” (Deakin, [0015]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Deakin with Touze to obtain the invention as specified in claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, Touze discloses:
generating a compressed version of an image ([0049] the image, LDR content, is downsampled which is understood as compressed) and a compressed version of a gain map ([0049] the gain map, exposure map, is downsampled which is understood as compressed) from a standard dynamic range (SDR) image of a scene and a high dynamic range (HDR) image of the scene ([0048] an LDR image, understood as an SDR image, and an HDR image are compared by division to generate a gain map, i.e. exposure map);
combining the compressed version of the image with the compressed version of the gain map to form a compressed enhanced image ([0049] the compressed image and gain map, i.e. down-sampled LDR and exposure map, are packed into one frame which is understood as combining);
Deakin does not disclose expressly to store the compressed enhanced image in a non-volatile storage medium.
Deakin discloses:
A computing device configured to manage images, the computing device comprising: at least one processor ([0179] the instructions are executed by a processor);
and at least one memory configured to store instructions ([0179] a memory, which is described as various non-transitory embodiments, stores instructions for performing the method) that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing device to carry out steps that include: storing the compressed enhanced image ([0073] the image container, comprised of the LDR image and the recovery map, is stored in a server system) in a non-volatile storage medium ([0053] the server system comprises a storage device for storing databases. [0180] storage devices may be various forms of tangible, non-volatile media).
Touze and Deakin are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of encoding and reconstructing HDR images (Touze, [0011]; Deakin, [0007]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the storage of Deakin with the invention of Touze.
The motivation for doing so would have been that "the image container can be sent to one or more server systems over a network to be made accessible to multiple client devices that can access the server systems" (Deakin, [0073]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Deakin with Touze to obtain the invention as specified in claim 20.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Touze et al. (US 20130083838 A1; hereafter, Touze) in view of Deakin et al. (US 20250285248 A1; hereafter, Deakin) in further view of "High-Performance Single Layer High Dynamic Range (HDR) System for use in Consumer Electronics devices; Part 2: Enhancements for Perceptual Quantization (PQ) transfer function based High Dynamic Range (HDR) Systems (SL-HDR2)" (as contained in the IDS submitted on 28 June 2024; hereafter, D1).
Regarding claim 4, Touze in view of Deakin discloses the subject matter of claim 2.
Touze in view of Deakin does not disclose expressly that the compressed version of the image comprises the HDR image and that the second image comprises a version of the SDR image.
D1 discloses:
The method of claim 2, wherein: the compressed version of the image comprises a compressed version of the HDR image (pg. 15 fig. 2, the HDR image is compressed at the encoding step therefore, the compressed version comprises a compressed HDR image);
and the second image comprises a version of the SDR image (pg. 15 Fig. 2, the method outputs an SDR image therefore the second image comprises an SDR image).
D1 is combinable with Touze in view of Deakin because it is from the same field of endeavor of determining information from an HDR image for use in creating an optimal picture for a display (D1, pg. 7 para. 4).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the input image being an HDR image and the output image being an SDR image of D1 with the invention of Touze in view of Deakin.
The motivation for doing so would have been to "enable format adaptation to the input video signal of the HDR system and to the targeted system (e.g. a STB, a connected TV, etc.) connected with the HDR system" (D1, pg. 14 section 5 para. 1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to combine D1 with Deakin in view of Touze to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Touze et al. (US 20130083838 A1; hereafter, Touze) in view of Deakin et al. (US 20250285248 A1; hereafter, Deakin) in further view of Agostinelli (EP 3205093 B1, document received with the IDS filed 03/14/2024).
Regarding claim 8, Touze in view of Deakin discloses the subject matter of claim 1.
Touze further discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein generating the compressed version of the image and the compressed version of the gain map comprises: generating the gain map by comparing luminance values of pixels in the HDR image to luminance values of corresponding pixels in the SDR image ([0048] the exposure map is generated by pixel-wise division of the pixels in the HDR image and the LDR image which is understood as a comparison of corresponding pixels);
and generating the compressed version of the gain map by processing the gain map with a gain compression module ([0049] the LDR image is compressed).
Touze in view of Deakin does not disclose to jointly processing the SDR image and the HDR image to generate a compressed image.
Agostinelli discloses:
generating the compressed version of the image by jointly processing the SDR image and the HDR image with an image compression module ([0026] and Fig. 6, the HDR image and the LDR image are both encoded by an encoder 601);
Agostinelli is combinable with Touze in view of Deakin because it is from the same field of endeavor of encoding and decoding HDR images (Agostinelli, [0002]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the joint compression of Agostinelli with the invention of Touze in view of Deakin.
The motivation for doing so would have been that "The present invention provides a method for encoding video and images that allows compression and storage" (Agostinelli, [0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Agostinelli with Touze in view of Deakin to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a sta