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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TSUKAGOSHI US 20180270512(hereinafter Tsukagoshi) in view of DE HAAN et al. US 20180278985 (hereinafter Dehaan).
Regarding claim 1, Tsukagoshi provides for obtaining a first video signal; detecting, in a region of a first video represented by the first video signal obtained, a first region including a graphic different from a main video( Figures 7 c-1 and 7 c2see ABC with high-luminance in foreground region , see “ [0094] Referring now to FIGS. 7(c-1) and 7(c-2), the subtitle luminance level adjustment in the case of a “dark scene with a high-luminance portion” as type c is described”); calculating a first peak luminance of a second region that is the region of the first video excluding the first region ( see [0094], see “luminance level adjustment is performed to lower the luminance level of the foreground region from the high luminance to an intermediate luminance, and the subtitle is then superimposed on the background image, as shown in FIG. 7(c-2)”.);
performing a tone mapping process on the first video, the tone mapping process decreasing a luminance higher than the first peak luminance; and
outputting a second video signal representing a second video after the tone mapping process ( Fig. 7c-2,[0094], see “luminance level adjustment is performed to lower the luminance level of the foreground region from the high luminance to an intermediate luminance, and the subtitle is then superimposed on the background image, as shown in FIG. 7c-2”).
Tsukagoshi does not provides for a tone mapping process on the first video, the tone mapping process decreasing a luminance higher than the first peak luminance. Dehaan teaches the above missing limitation of Tsukagoshi , see “[0104] The input video image signal 2 is an HDR image signal in the sense that it provides a representation of an HDR signal. The input video image signal 2 may in itself be an image that is intended to be presented on an HDR display, i.e. the color grading/tone mapping may be adapted to be directly rendered on a display with a maximum brightness no less than typically 500 (or 1000) nits.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of Dehaan with the system and method of Tsukagoshi , in order to obtain the claimed invention, via tone mapping may be adapted to be directly rendered on a display with a maximum brightness no less than typically 500 (or 1000) nits, a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable( MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 4, Tsukagoshi does not provides for wherein the tone mapping process does not decrease a luminance lower than or equal to the first peak luminance. Dehaan teaches the above missing limitation of Tsukagoshi see [0104] of Dehaan , see “tone mapping may be adapted to be directly rendered on a display with a maximum brightness no less than typically 500 (or 1000) nits”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of Dehaan with the system and method of Tsukagoshi , in order to obtain the claimed invention, via tone mapping may be adapted to be directly rendered on a display with a maximum brightness no less than typically 500 (or 1000) nits, a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable( MPEP 2143)., a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable( MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 7, see the rejection of claim 1. It recites similar limitations as claim 7. Hence it is similarly analyzed and rejected.
Regarding claim 8, see the rejection of claim 1. It recites similar limitations as claim 7. Except for a computer readable recording medium storing a program ( see [0376] of Dehaan , see “computer program product may be realized as data on a carrier such as e.g. a disk or tape, data present in a memory. Hence it is similarly analyzed and rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
2. Claims 2-3 and 5-6 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.
Reasons for Allowance
3. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior arts of TSUKAGOSHI US 20180270512 in view of KOZUKA et al. US 20190251680, failed to teach or suggest for features/limitations of claims 2-3 and 5-6
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hendry et al. US 20170358064, is cited because the reference teaches “ In this way tone mapping functions can, for example, convert HDR images to standard dynamic range (SDR) images for rendering on a display. Tone mapping addresses the problem of strong contrast reduction from the captured scene's radiance to the display's displayable range while preserving an image's details and color appearance important to appreciate the original scene content”, in [0002].
KOZUKA et al. US 20190251680, is cited because the reference teaches “ [0074] At present, some HDR formats in which dynamic tone mapping can be performed are currently proposed and standardized. An HDR format is an example of a luminance dynamic range format”.
Lyu US 20060158556, is cited because the reference teaches “[0033] The controller 108 can determine whether the text is included in the separated video signal. Preferably, when the text is included in the video signal, the controller 108 can detect a color of the text and a color of a video portion where the text is to be displayed.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALI BAYAT whose telephone number is (571)272-7444. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 M-F. 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, Andrew Bee can be reached at 571-2705183. 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.
/ALI BAYAT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights