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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Examiner Note
The claims have been evaluated under 35 U.S.C. §101 and are directed to patent eligible subject matter. While the claims appear to involve mental steps/mathematical concepts, the claims are integrated into a practical application because they recite steps/elements directed to a specific improvement such as technology for obtaining a video without discomfort. (See ¶ 6) Accordingly, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea and no rejection under §101 is made.
MPEP 2106.05(a) states:
“After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (patent owner argued that the claimed email filtering system improved technology by shrinking the protection gap and mooting the volume problem, but the court disagreed because the claims themselves did not have any limitations that addressed these issues). That is, the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. However, the claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel").”
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.
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 limitation(s) is/are: color conversion unit, table information creation unit in claims (1, 11).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) 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 Objections
Claims (4-6) are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, the limitation of “3D-LUT” should be defined. In claim 5, the limitation of “3D” should be defined. In claim 6, the limitation of “3D” should also be defined. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) (1-6, 8-11, 13-15, 19-20) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Imai et al. (hereinafter Imai)(US Publication 2009/0278982 A1)
Re claim 1, Imai discloses an information processing device (See fig. 1) comprising a color conversion unit that performs color conversion on video data of a display video displayed on a display (See fig. 1: 11, 12; ¶ 40-41 where it teaches a color image display device and a color converting portion.) and to be imaged by using table information reflecting an inverse characteristic of a characteristic of the display. (See fig. 1; ¶ 97-98 where it teaches degamma conversion portion 12c adds inverse gamma characteristics of the characteristics possessed by the color image displaying portion 13 and outputs the values to the color image displaying portion. The internal processing of the video signal converting portion 12b may be integrated to obtain the RGB values directly from the RGB values, or LUT may be created that includes the characteristics of the gamma converting portion 12a and the degamma conversion portion 12c added to the input/output characteristics of the color converting portion.)
Re claim 2, Imai discloses wherein the video data is video data of a background video to be imaged together with an object, the background video being displayed on the display. (See fig. 1: 10 where it teaches an input video signal. The video signal is comprised of a foreground and a background.)
Re claim 3, Imai discloses wherein the table information reflects an inverse characteristic of a characteristic obtained by combining a characteristic of the display and a characteristic of a camera that images the display video. (See fig. 1; ¶ 59, 98)
Re claim 4, Imai discloses wherein the table information is a 3D-LUT including three axes corresponding to respective colors of three primary colors and storing a conversion value for each three-dimensional grid point. (See fig. 1; ¶ 59, 98)
Re claim 5, Imai discloses wherein the information processing device generates the video data by rendering using a 3D model, and performs color conversion on the video data generated by the color conversion unit. (See fig. 1; ¶ 98)
Re claim 6, Imai discloses wherein the information processing device inputs the video data generated by rendering using a 3D model, and performs color conversion on the video data input by the color conversion unit. (See fig. 1; ¶ 98)
Re claim 8, Imai discloses wherein the color conversion unit performs conditional correspondence conversion for converting the video data into video data under an imaging condition at a time of creating the table information, then performs color conversion based on the table information, and performs inverse conversion of the conditional correspondence conversion after the color conversion. (See fig. 1; ¶ 59, 98)
Re claim 9, Imai discloses wherein the imaging condition is a luminance condition of the display. (See fig. 1; ¶ 97-98)
Re claim 10, Imai discloses wherein the imaging condition is a white balance condition of a camera that images the display video of the display. (See fig. 1; ¶ 97-98)
Re claim 11, Imai discloses an information processing device comprising a table information creation unit that generates table information that is used for color conversion of video data of a display video displayed on a display and to be imaged and reflects an inverse characteristic of a characteristic of the display. (See fig. 1; ¶ 40-41, 97-98 where it teaches degamma conversion portion 12c adds inverse gamma characteristics of the characteristics possessed by the color image displaying portion 13 and outputs the values to the color image displaying portion. The internal processing of the video signal converting portion 12b may be integrated to obtain the RGB values directly from the RGB values, or LUT may be created that includes the characteristics of the gamma converting portion 12a and the degamma conversion portion 12c added to the input/output characteristics of the color converting portion.)
Re claim 13, Imai discloses wherein the table information creation unit creates the table information by using: video data of a table information creation video of a plurality of frames displaying different colors; and video data of a plurality of frames obtained by imaging each frame of the table information creation video with a camera. (See fig. 1; ¶ 40, 59, 98)
Re claim 14, Imai discloses wherein each frame of the table information creation video is a monochrome video, and each frame is a different color video. (See fig. 1; ¶ 98)
Re claim 15, Imai discloses wherein each frame of the table information creation video is a video including a plurality of colors, and each frame is a video of a color different from each other. (See fig. 1; ¶ 98)
Claims (19-20) have been analyzed and rejected w/r to claim 1 above.
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.
Claim(s) (17-18) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai et al (hereinafter Imai)(US Publication 2009/0278982 A1) in view of Keith et al. (hereinafter Keith)(US Patent 5,877,754)
Re claim 17, the reference of Imai fails to teach wherein the information processing device is incorporated in a camera that images a table information creation video displayed on the display.
However, Keith does. (See fig. 3; col. 5, lines 1-9; col. 5, line 47 – col. 6, line 60) In the same field of endeavors, the reference of Keith discloses and fairly suggests wherein the information processing device is incorporated in a camera that images a table information creation video displayed on the display. (Where it teaches displaying the steps for the creation of CLUT tables for color conversion.)
Therefore, taking the combined teachings of Imai & Keith as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to incorporate this feature into the system of Imai, in the manner as claimed and as taught by Keith, for the benefit of reducing the number of computations required to generate CLUT tables. (See col. 6, lines 57-60)
Re claim 18, the reference of Imai fails to teach wherein the table information creation unit creates the table information by using video data input from a camera that images a table information creation video displayed on the display.
However, Keith does. (See fig. 3; col. 5, lines 1-9; col. 5, line 47 – col. 6, line 60) In the same field of endeavors, the reference of Keith discloses and fairly suggests wherein the table information creation unit creates the table information by using video data input from a camera that images a table information creation video displayed on the display. (Where it teaches displaying steps for the creation of CLUT tables for color conversion.)
Therefore, taking the combined teachings of Imai & Keith as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to incorporate this feature into the system of Imai, in the manner as claimed and as taught by Keith, for the benefit of reducing the number of computations required to generate CLUT tables. (See col. 6, lines 57-60)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims (7, 12, 16) are 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 prior art of record fails to teach these limitations.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Novikov et al (US 2023/0061966 A1) disclose an image processing system.
Allard et al (US 11,302,287 B1) disclose color correction in computing systems for color vision deficiency.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEON FLORES whose telephone number is (571)270-1201. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 6pm.
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, HENOK SHIFERAW can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
/LEON FLORES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676 April 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights