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 .
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of claim amendments with associated arguments/remarks, received April 06, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending with an amendment to claim 3.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pg 10, filed 04/06/2026, with respect to the objection to claim 3 has been fully considered and, in light of the associated amendment, is persuasive. Therefore, the objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pg 10-19, filed 04/06/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 4, 8, 10, 14, 15, 17 under 35 USC § 102 has been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claims were carefully reevaluated under a broadest reasonable interpretation with updated objections/rejections below.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pg , filed 04/06/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 2-3, 9, 16 under 35 USC § 10 over Gupte et al (US 2015/0364158) in view of Sun (US 2014/0079335) has been fully considered but is not persuasive. As discussed above, arguments against Gupte et al are moot. Regarding Sun, the applicant argues the secondary reference Sun does not teach features of claim 1, which are not relied upon by the secondary reference Sun. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Respectfully, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pg 22, filed 04/06/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 5-7, 11-13, 18-20 under 35 USC § 103 over Gupte et al (US 2015/0364158) in view of Larbier (US 2018/0302627) has been fully considered but is not persuasive. As discussed above, arguments against Gupte et al are moot. Regarding Larbier, the applicant argues the secondary reference Larbier does not teach features of claim 1, which are not relied upon by the secondary reference Larbier. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Respectfully, the argument is not persuasive.
All arguments were addressed.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 8 be found allowable, claim 14 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. Claim 14 body of the claims is directed to “the apparatus according to claim 8” and does not claim any additional limitations to avoid mere duplication. The preamble of claim 14 is not recited in the claim limitations and not given patentable weight. See MPEP § 2111.02. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 8, 15 each recite the limitation “generating processing results for the image by performing a processing on the images of the analysis window”. It is unclear which image is “the image” because claim limitations leading to the generating step include “the image is a first image”, “a plurality of consecutive images” and “at least one image” and therefore leads to an inconclusive determination of which image is “the image” in the processing results generated. Thus, Applicant has failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The applicant is advised to carefully consider dependent claim limitations referring back to “the image” for correct antecedent basis.
Claims 2-7 are rejected based on their dependency to claim 1.
Claims 9-14 are rejected based on their dependency to claim 8.
Claims 16-20 are rejected based on their dependency to claim 15.
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, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al (US 2013/0163868).
Regarding Claim 1, Wang et al teach a method of processing an image of a video sequence including a plurality of images (video 101 is obtained, analyzed and partitioned 102 into multiple scenes or segments; Fig 1, 2 and ¶ [0016]-[0017]), the video sequence being divided into a sequence of consecutive subsets each including one or more consecutive images of the video sequence (the video sequence is partitioned based on static or transient segments (thereby consecutive sequences with each sequence containing multiple video frames); Fig 1-3 and ¶ [0016]-[0017]), the method comprising:
determining, among the consecutive subsets, a current subset that comprises the image (a given segment (current subset) is identified 103, including a starting time point frame of the segment based on luminance; Fig 1-3 and ¶ [0019]-[0024]);
upon determining that the image is a first image of the current subset to be processed, determining an analysis window (described as a plurality of consecutive images, specification pg 2 ln 19-20) corresponding to the current subset (the starting time point frame is followed by a plurality of successive frames with similar average luminance or gradual changes, corresponding to a static or transient segment (a given segment is an analysis window), respectively, and are associated with the given starting time point frame; Fig 1-3 and ¶ [0019]-[0024]),
the analysis window comprising a plurality of consecutive images of the video sequence, and at least one image of the current subset (the segment (analysis window) contains a plurality of successive frames of the video, including the starting time point frame and successive frame to an ending time point frame; Fig 1-3 and ¶ [0019]-[0024]); and
generating processing results for the image by performing a processing on the images of the analysis window (a given segment may be processed (¶ [0025]-[0041]) for tone mapping; Fig 1, 3 and ¶ [0041]).
Regarding Claim 4, Wang et al teach the method according to claim 1 (as described above), further comprising: upon determining that the image is not the first image of the current subset to be processed (a segment contains multiple frames between the starting point frame and ending point frame based on calculated luminance on a frame to frame filtering; Fig 2-4 and ¶ [0017]-[0024]), obtaining the processing results for the image based on processing results for the first image generated by performing the processing on the images of the analysis window (the peaks and bandwidth of each peak gradient curve is calculated and the transient and static positions are determined (including an image identified as not the first image of a given segment), followed by additional image processing including for tone mapping; ¶ [0025]-[0041]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (US 2013/0163868) in view of Sun (US 2014/0079335, cited in Non-Final - 01/05/2026).
Regarding Claim 2, Wang et al teach the method according to claim 1 (as described above).
Wang et al does not teach wherein the generating processing results comprises performing tone-mapping to convert the image from a first dynamic range to a second dynamic range.
Sun is analogous art pertinent to the technological problem addressed in this application and teaches wherein the generating processing results comprises performing tone-mapping to convert the image from a first dynamic range to a second dynamic range (tone mapping is applied to images to convert the image data from a higher dynamic range to a lower dynamic range; Fig 2 and ¶ [0053], [0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to combine the teachings of Wang et al with Sun including wherein the generating processing results comprises performing tone-mapping to convert the image from a first dynamic range to a second dynamic range. By converting image data from a high dynamic range to a lower dynamic range allows for encoding in a format with lower-bit-depth representation, as recognized by Sun (¶ [0053]-[0054]).
Regarding Claim 3, Wang et al in view of Sun teach the method according to claim 2 (as described above), wherein the first dynamic range is the High Dynamic Range (HDR) and the second dynamic range is the Standard Dynamic Range (SDR) (Sun, the images are converted from a higher dynamic range (HDR) to a lower, standard dynamic range (SDR); Fig 2 and ¶ [0053], [0064]).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (US 2013/0163868) in view of Larbier (US 2018/0302627, cited in Non-Final - 01/05/2026).
Regarding Claim 5, Wang et al teach the method according to claim 1 (as described above).
Wang et al does not teach detecting a video event occurring between two consecutive images of the video sequence; and adjusting an analysis window which contains the two consecutive images so that the analysis window no longer contains the two consecutive images.
Larbier is analogous art pertinent to the technological problem addressed in this application and teaches detecting a video event occurring between two consecutive images of the video sequence (temporal sub-sampling can be performed between the consecutive images and a gap may be determined in the sub-sequence; Fig 4b and [0067]-[0072]; and adjusting an analysis window which contains the two consecutive images so that the analysis window no longer contains the two consecutive images (the sub-sequence (analysis window) size may be adjusted as compared to a threshold or the position of the sequence or the type of processing; ¶ [0074]-[0076], [0084]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to combine the teachings of Wang et al with Larbier including detecting a video event occurring between two consecutive images of the video sequence; and adjusting an analysis window which contains the two consecutive images so that the analysis window no longer contains the two consecutive images. By determining the analysis window, the image processing may be improved to correct for analysis error, resulting in improved analysis quality, as recognized by Larbier (¶ [0084]).
Regarding Claim 6, Wang et al teach the method according to claim 1 (as described above).
Wang et al does not teach detecting a video event occurring between two consecutive images of the video sequence; and adjusting a subset which contains the two consecutive images so that the subset no longer contains the two consecutive images.
Larbier is analogous art pertinent to the technological problem addressed in this application and teaches detecting a video event occurring between two consecutive images of the video sequence (temporal sub-sampling can be performed between the consecutive images and a gap may be determined in the sub-sequence; Fig 4b and [0067]-[0072]; and adjusting a subset which contains the two consecutive images so that the subset no longer contains the two consecutive images (the consecutive images selected may be adjusted to acquire accurate noise characteristics of motion pictures; ¶ [0090]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to combine the teachings of Wang et al with Larbier including detecting a video event occurring between two consecutive images of the video sequence; and adjusting a subset which contains the two consecutive images so that the subset no longer contains the two consecutive images. By selecting the sub-sampling of the video sequence, characteristics can be considered to determine homogeneous imaging to accurately profile noise, thereby allowing for improved denoising, as recognized by Larbier (¶ [0089]-0091]).
Regarding Claim 7, Wang et al in view of Larbier teach the method according to claim 6 (as described above), wherein the video event is one of a scene cut, a cross-fade, a flash, and a graphics insertion (Larbier, the video sequence may be consecutive image to identify and avoid events resulting in extreme local variations in luminosity, such as flash; ¶ [0090]).
Claims 8, 10, 14, 15, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (US 2013/0163868) in view of official notice of facts.
Regarding Claim 8, Wang et al teach an apparatus (system; Fig 1, 2 and ¶ [0016]-[0017]) to perform the method identical to claim 1 (as discussed above).
Wang et al does not explicitly disclose a processor; and a memory operatively coupled to the processor.
Official notice is taken as to the fact that it is well known in the art to use a computer apparatus with a memory to store instructions, which instructions are executed on a processor. One or ordinary skill in the art would recognize tone mapping, as described by Wang et al, is performed on a computer with a processor based on instructions stored in a memory as Wang et al teaches computation of pixels within digital image frames applied to video data for tone mapping (¶ [0007], [0033]-[0034], [0041]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for Wang et al to perform the method for tone mapping on a computer apparatus with a memory and processor as recited in claim 8 with limitations according to claim 1 (as described above).
Regarding Claim 10, Wang et al in view of official notice of facts teach the apparatus according to claim 8 (as described above), with further claimed limitations identical to claim 4 (as described above).
Regarding Claim 14, Wang et al teach an apparatus (system; Fig 1, 2 and ¶ [0016]-[0017]) according to claim 8 configured to process images of an input video (as discussed above).
Wang et al does not explicitly disclose a video encoder configured to encode video content as recited in the claim preamble.
Official notice is taken as to the fact that it is well known in the art to use a computer apparatus to serve as a video encoder configured to encode video content. One or ordinary skill in the art would recognize the image data is processed from one format to another (plain meaning for encoding) with the method disclosed by Wang et al to perform tone mapping to convert high dynamic range video content to low dynamic range (Abstract, [0007]). The conversion is performed on a computer with a processor based on instructions stored in a memory as Wang et al teaches computation of pixels within digital image frames applied to video data for tone mapping (¶ [0007], [0033]-[0034], [0041]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for Wang et al to perform the method for tone mapping on a computer apparatus with a memory and processor as recited in claim 8 with limitations according to claim 1 (as described above).
Regarding Claim 15, Wang et al teach an apparatus with instructions (system; Fig 1, 2 and ¶ [0016]-[0017]) to perform the method identical to claim 1 (as discussed above).
Wang et al does not explicitly disclose a non-transitory computer-readable medium, a memory, operatively coupled to the processor to execute the instructions.
Official notice is taken as to the fact that it is well known in the art to use a computer apparatus with a non-transitory computer-readable medium memory to store instructions, which instructions are executed on a processor. One or ordinary skill in the art would recognize tone mapping, as described by Wang et al, is performed on a computer with a processor based on instructions stored in a memory as Wang et al teaches computation of pixels within digital image frames applied to video data for tone mapping (¶ [0007], [0033]-[0034], [0041]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for Wang et al to perform the method for tone mapping on a computer apparatus with a memory and processor as recited in claim 8 with limitations according to claim 1 (as described above).
Regarding Claim 17, Wang et al in view of official notice of facts teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claim 15 (as described above), further claimed identical to claim 4 (as described above).
Claims 9, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (US 2013/0163868) in view of official notice of facts and Sun (US 2014/0079335, cited in Non-Final - 01/05/2026).
Regarding Claim 9, Wang et al in view of official notice of facts teach the apparatus according to claim 8 (as described above), with further claimed limitations identical to claim 2 (as described above).
Regarding Claim 16, Wang et al in view of official notice of facts teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claim 15 (as described above), further claimed identical to claim 2 (as described above).
Claims 11-13, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (US 2013/0163868) in view of official notice of facts and Larbier (US 2018/0302627, cited in Non-Final - 01/05/2026).
Regarding Claim 11, Wang et al in view of official notice of facts teach the apparatus according to claim 8 (as described above), with further claimed limitations identical to claim 5 (as described above).
Regarding Claim 12, Wang et al in view of official notice of facts teach the apparatus according to claim 8 (as described above), with further claimed limitations identical to claim 6 (as described above).
Regarding Claim 13, Wang et al in view of official notice of facts and Larbier teach the apparatus according to claim 12 (as described above), with further claimed limitations identical to claim 7 (as described above).
Regarding Claim 18, Wang et al in view of official notice of facts teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claim 15 (as described above), further claimed identical to claim 5 (as described above).
Regarding Claim 19, Wang et al in view of official notice of facts teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claim 15 (as described above), further claimed identical to claim 6 (as described above).
Regarding Claim 20, Wang et al in view of official notice of facts and Larbier teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claim 19 (as described above), further claimed identical to claim 7 (as described above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Haskell et al (US 2007/0116126, cited in Non-Final - 01/05/2026) teach an encoder to iteratively encode a selected subsample of frames from a video sequence.
Moorthy et al (US 2019/0182493, cited in Non-Final - 01/05/2026) teach a system and method for optimizing encoding of video frames that are selected based on a shoot sequence.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN M BROUGHTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7380. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, John Villecco can be reached at (571) 272-7319. 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.
/KATHLEEN M BROUGHTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights