DETAILED 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 limitation(s) is/are:
“the image summarization unit is arranged to measure luminance aspects” in claim 4.
Claim(s) 1,2,7 and 8,9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BORDES et al. (US 2023/0188713 A1) in view of MERTENS (US 2016/0307602 A1):
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BORDES et al. (US 2023/0188713 A1) in view of MERTENS (US 2016/0307602 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,7 and 8,9 further in view of Mate et al. (US 2012/0229699 A1):
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BORDES et al. (US 2023/0188713 A1) in view of MERTENS (US 2016/0307602 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,7 and 8,9 further in view of KIM et al. (WO 2020/256185 A1) with SEARCH machine translation:
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BORDES et al. (US 2023/0188713 A1) in view of MERTENS (US 2016/0307602 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,7 and 8,9 further in view of Nittur Seidhar et al. (US 2022/0035877 A1):
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BORDES et al. (US 2023/0188713 A1) in view of MERTENS (US 2016/0307602 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,7 and 8,9 further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2020/0365118 A1):
Response to Amendment
The amendment was received 7/23/2026. Claims 1-9 pending:
PNG
media_image1.png
400
83
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 limitation(s) is/are:
“the image summarization unit is arranged to measure luminance aspects” in claim 4.
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 (page 14 & fig. 3, reproduced below) 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.
PNG
media_image2.png
1336
933
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
1315
846
media_image3.png
Greyscale
35 USC § 101 – Positive statement
Claims 1,8 reflect the “appropriate re-gradings of any video” (applicant’s disclosure, page 19, l. 15) improvement via applicant’s disclosure, page 18 regarding equations [Eqs. 3] and [Eqs. 4] creating a “good quality… image”, applicant’s disclosure, ll. 18-21. Thus claims 1-9 are statutory under 35 USC 101.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner rejects claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, page 7, filed 7/23/2026, with respect to 35 USC 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 101 rejection of claim 9 has been withdrawn.
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, and 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. 102 over
Bordes et al. (USPA 2023/0288713, hereinafter Bordes).
Applicant's arguments filed 7/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
Applicants state in page 7:
The applicants respectfully traverse this rejection.
MPEP 2131 states:
"A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the
claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art
reference." Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628,631,
2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ... "The identical1 invention must be
shown in as complete detail as is contained in the ... claim." Richardson v.
Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236, 9 USPQ2d 1913, 1920 (Fed. Cir.
1989).
1. Bordes does not disclose an apparatus or method for luminance re-grading,
as claimed in independent claims 1 and 8.
Applicants state on page 8, 1st paragraph:
--The Examiner asserts:
"Re 1. (Currently Amended), BORDES discloses An apparatus for luminance re1-grading2 (i.e., combining again)" (Office action, page 8, lines 1-2).
Th is assertion is clearly erroneous. "Re-grading" is not defined as "combining again". In the footnote referencing Dictionary.com, "grade" is defined as "to pass by degrees from one color or shade to another". In context, the alternative definition of "blend" is not relevant.--
The examiner respectfully disagrees sine applicant’s disclosure says “mix”2, page 11,ll.20-35, which comprises blending (re-mix) of constituents: mix A with B then mix A+B as mixed with C: (A+B)+C:
PNG
media_image4.png
1344
947
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
1346
926
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Applicants state in page 8, 3rd para:
Further, even assuming in argument that luminance re-grading could be defined as "luminance re-combining", Bordes discloses a method for encoding images. Bordes does not disclose applying input lumas to a re-grading equation to obtain output lumas of an output image, as detailed further below.
The examiner respectfully disagrees since BORDES (US 2023/0188713 A1) teaches applying input lumas (or likewise “concatenated”, [0084] 2nd S, Y-luma pixel values “S”) to a re-grading equation (or likewise offset summing equation (2)) to obtain output lumas of an output image (via [0090][0094] fig. 10:
PNG
media_image6.png
1059
944
media_image6.png
Greyscale
).
Applicants state in page 8, 4th para:
Because Bordes does not disclose an apparatus or method that performs
luminance re-grading, Bordes cannot reasonably be said to be "identical"3 to the
applicants' claimed invention, as required in MPEP 2131. Withdrawal of th is rejection
is respectfully requested.
The examiner respectfully disagrees since Bordes teaches having the state of being likewise into view of consideration (as illustrated above with respect to said [0090][0094] FIG. 10) to applicant’s claimed invention.
2. Bordes does not disclose a first neural network processing circuit that has a
first input and at least two pluralities of first outputs, as claimed in independent
claims 1 and 8.
Applicants state in page 8,9:
PNG
media_image7.png
487
937
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The Examiner asserts:
"[Bordes discloses ... ] wherein the first neural network processing circuit has
a first input and at least two pluralities (fig. 17: 1,2,3,4) of first outputs"
wherein the at least two pluralities of first outputs comprise a first plurality (fig.
17:1,2) of first outputs and a second plurality (fig. 17:3,4) of first outputs"
(Office action, page 8, lines 4-5 and FIG. 17).
This assertion is clearly erroneous. As illustrated in Bordes' FIG. 17, the
annotations of "1" and "2" are internal to the neural network and are not "outputs"45 of
the neural network. Additionally, as illustrated in FIG. 17, Bordes' neural network
("CNN") has one output (W1 ); the annotations of "3" and "4" both refer to this single
output (W1 ).
In response, the corresponding “wherein” clauses of claim 1 is not “a limitation in a claim… where the clause gave ‘meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps’ (i.e., giving meaning and purpose to claim 1’s “for luminance re-grading”):
wherein the first neural network processing circuit has a first input and
at least two pluralities of first outputs,
wherein the at least two pluralities of first outputs comprise a first
plurality of first outputs and a second plurality of first outputs,
wherein a plurality of input pixel lumas of an input image is provided to
the first input,
wherein the first plurality of first outputs comprises at least two first
output parameters,
wherein the second plurality of first outputs comprises at least two
second output parameters;
via:
MPEP 2111.04 "Adapted to," "Adapted for," "Wherein," "Whereby," and Contingent Clauses [R-10.2019]
I. "ADAPTED TO," "ADAPTED FOR," "WHEREIN," and "WHEREBY"
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. However, examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are:
(A) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses;
(B) "wherein" clauses; and
(C) "whereby" clauses.
The determination of whether each of these clauses is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding that a "wherein" clause limited a process claim where the clause gave "meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps"). In In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1378, 109 USPQ2d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the court found that an "adapted to" clause limited a machine claim where "the written description makes clear that 'adapted to,' as used in the [patent] application, has a narrower meaning, viz., that the claimed machine is designed or constructed to be used as a rowing machine whereby a pulling force is exerted on the handles." In Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329, 74 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court held that when a "‘whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention." Id. However, the court noted that a "‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’" Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
Thus claim 1’s wherein clauses are” a narrow subset of claim scope… It is the subject matter of the properly construed claim that must be examined”:
--wherein the first neural network processing circuit has a first input and
at least two pluralities of first outputs,
wherein the at least two pluralities of first outputs comprise a first
plurality of first outputs and a second plurality of first outputs,
wherein a plurality of input pixel lumas of an input image is provided to
the first input,
wherein the first plurality of first outputs comprises at least two first
output parameters,
wherein the second plurality of first outputs comprises at least two
second output parameters;--
via:
MPEP 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024]
"All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art." In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970).
Examiners must consider all claim limitations when determining patentability of an invention over the prior art. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 403-04 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit the scope of the claim when given their broadest reasonable interpretation. In Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 73 F.4th 950, 958-59, 2023 USPQ2d 795 (Fed. Cir. 2023), the court found the claims were improperly narrowed based on a preferred embodiment to sacral anatomy or sacral neuromodulation, whereas the patent claims made no reference to sacral anatomy or sacral neuromodulation. Thus, the relevant prior art was improperly limited to a narrow subset of claim scope. See also MPEP § 2111 et seq. It is the subject matter of the properly construed6 claim that must be examined. The determination of whether particular language is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Thus the above “wherein” clauses are considered “improperly limited to a narrow subset of claim scope”. Accordingly “It is the subject matter of the properly construed claim that must be examined.”
Thus in view of MPEP 2111.04 & MPEP 2143.03, claim 1 will be “improperly limited to a narrow subset of claim scope” regardless of MEANING AND PURPOSE (i.e., claim 1’s preamble: “for luminance re-grading”) of claim 1 to address applicant’s remarks:
Applicants state in page 8,9:
PNG
media_image7.png
487
937
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The Examiner asserts:
"[Bordes discloses ... ] wherein the first neural network processing circuit has a first input and at least two pluralities (fig. 17: 1,2,3,4) of first outputs" wherein the at least two pluralities of first outputs comprise a first plurality (fig. 17:1,2) of first outputs and a second plurality (fig. 17:3,4) of first outputs" (Office action, page 8, lines 4-5 and FIG. 17).
This assertion is clearly erroneous. As illustrated in Bordes' FIG. 17, the
annotations of "1" and "2" are internal to the neural network and are not "outputs"78 of
the neural network. Additionally, as illustrated in FIG. 17, Bordes' neural network
("CNN") has one output (W1 ); the annotations of "3" and "4" both refer to this single
output (W1 ).
In response, fig. 17 has multiple arrows and ellipses (…) (whereat the CNN “layers…output” and “the CNN is…composed of several9 convolutional layers” BORDES [0080] & [0088] 3rd S, such as 3 CNN layer outputs) wherein the arrows and ellipses (…) are interpreted as outputs via fig. 17: zoom-in:
PNG
media_image8.png
393
524
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
898
639
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Further regarding the weight mask “W1” in figure 17 (zoomed-in above), BORDES teaches, via [0089][0092][0093]:
“the output is…W”;
“all the terms of W by the scalar value” (such as term W multiplied by term scalar value offset); and
“corresponding weight masks from the NN”:
[0089] For a block S to be encoded by the video encoder module (1010), the corresponding (local) reconstructed block is Ŝ. The video encoder (1010) may correspond to encoder 200, except the in-loop filter (265) that is extended or replaced with the proposed filter (1040). The NN (1020) is typically composed of several convolutional layers, but may be composed of fully connected and/or short cut links for example. Its input is the reconstructed block to be filtered and the output is the weight mask W.
[0092] The value of “offset” is encoded in the bitstream for each block (1050). In a variant, the value “offset” is quantized before coding. The operations “X” (1060) and “+” (1070) correspond to the product of all the terms of W by the scalar value “offset” and the sum term by term respectively. Because “offset” is used to scale the weight mask W, the offset may also be considered as a scaling parameter. In a variant, the values of W are clipped, for example between −1 and 1.
[0093] FIGS. 11(a), 11(b) and 11(c) illustrate a portion of the initial reconstructed picture to be filtered, the corresponding10 weight masks from the NN, and the filtered result, respectively. Here, a six-layer CNN is used, as shown in FIG. 12, with ReLU activation and one final clipping layer. In FIG. 11(b), different shades correspond to different weight values. Alternatively, one can use other activation function such as the Leaky-ReLU as depicted in FIG. 28 with alpha parameter equal to 0.1 for instance. Leaky-ReLU activation function has two merits. First it facilitates the error backpropagation algorithm hence convergence at the NN training stage; and second it allows negative weight mask values. In a variant, one uses Leaky-ReLU for internal layers and ReLU for the last layer only.
Accordingly, I count:
two (2) outputs or two terms “W” (from the neural network) in offset equation 2; and
three (3) outputs or three terms “W” (from the neural network) in offset equation 3:
PNG
media_image10.png
574
929
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Thus BORDES does not teach/disclose “this single output (W1)”.
3. Bordes does not disclose that the first plurality of first outputs comprises at
least two first output parameters, and the second plurality of first outputs
comprises at least two second output parameters, as claimed in independent
claims 1 and 8.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., page 10 “outputs of11 the neural network”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In contrast claim 1 says:
“wherein the first neural network processing circuit has12 a first input and
at least two pluralities of first outputs”.
4. Bordes does not disclose that at least one value from at least one sensor is
provided to the second input of the second neural network, as claimed in
independent claims 1 and 8.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., page 11, 3rd para: “value from a sensor that is provided as input to the second neural network”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In contrast claim 1 says:
“wherein at least one value from at least one sensor is provided to the
second input,”
5. Bordes does not disclose applying the input lumas of the input image to the
parametric re-grading equation to obtain output lumas of an output image, as
claimed in independent claims 1 and 8.
Applicants state in page 11,12:
--The Examiner asserts:
"[Bordes discloses ... ] wherein the luma mapping circu itis arranged to apply
the input lumas of the input image to the parametric re-grading equation
(represented in fig. 2 as 265: "In-loop Filters") to obtain output lumas of an
output image (as indicted by the filtered image in fig. 11 (c))" (Office action,
page 15, last paragraph.)
This assertion is clearly erroneous.
As illustrated in Bordes' FIG. 2, the input image (optionally pre-encoding processed) is provided to the en coder 200. This is supported by the Examiner's reference to Bordes' [0094] to identify where Bordes discloses an input image. Bordes' [0094] identifies the input as "S", and FIG. 17, above, clearly indicates that the input to the Video encoder is "S". The cited In-loop Filters 265 do not apply the lumas of this input image to the encoder 200 to obtain lumas of an output image; the In-loop Filters 265 apply filters to the combination 255 of the output of the Inverse Transform 250 and the output of the Prediction Blending 263.--
In response the examiner respectfully disagrees since BORDES teaches scaled/multiplied offsets (figs. 17,18: W.offset, where fig. 17’s: “Pre-classif.” is the loop filter) to obtain a correct luma from the residual (subtraction) of fig. 2:210 via “The output of the NN filter…may be the scaled offsets (residuals) for correcting… luma… residuals” via [0098]:
[0098] FIG. 13 illustrates a decoder architecture (1300) according to an embodiment. The input of the decoder includes a bitstream, for example, one generated by encoder 1000. The video decoder module (1310) may correspond to decoder 300, except the in-loop filter (365) that is extended or replaced with the proposed filter (1340). The NN (1320) should be the same as the one used in a corresponding encoder in order to properly decode the bitstream. The input to the NN (1320) is the reconstructed block to be filtered and the output is the weight mask W. The output of the NN filter (1320) may be the scaled offsets (residuals) for correcting one component (1 channel) or more, e.g., luma and chroma residuals samples (3 channels) or 2 chroma residual samples (2 channels), with possibly other information.
PNG
media_image11.png
635
889
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
487
970
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
612
915
media_image13.png
Greyscale
The Examiner rejects:
claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Bordes and Mate et al. (USPA
2012/0229699);
claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Bordes and KIM et al. (WO
2020/256185);
claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Bordes and Nittur Seidhar et al.
(USPA 2022/0035877); and
claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Bordes and Zhang et al. (USPA
2020/0365118).
In response, the claims are rejected with new art (MERTENS):
Claim(s) 1,2,7 and 8,9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BORDES et al. (US 2023/0188713 A1) in view of MERTENS (US 2016/0307602 A1):
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BORDES et al. (US 2023/0188713 A1) in view of MERTENS (US 2016/0307602 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,7 and 8,9 further in view of Mate et al. (US 2012/0229699 A1):
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BORDES et al. (US 2023/0188713 A1) in view of MERTENS (US 2016/0307602 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,7 and 8,9 further in view of KIM et al. (WO 2020/256185 A1) with SEARCH machine translation:
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BORDES et al. (US 2023/0188713 A1) in view of MERTENS (US 2016/0307602 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,7 and 8,9 further in view of Nittur Seidhar et al. (US 2022/0035877 A1):
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BORDES et al. (US 2023/0188713 A1) in view of MERTENS (US 2016/0307602 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,7 and 8,9 further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2020/0365118 A1),
wherein MERTENS teaches content-dependent functions:
MERTENS teach the difference of claim 1 of:
(a {{{parametric}}} re-grading equation is [[) dependent (or likewise “dependent”-“re-grading display tuning HDR-to-MDR functions” via [0154], 2nd S:
[0154] Turning now to FIG. 12, schematically illustrated is a plot of (re)grading curves of optimal image luminance for various x nit PB_D vs. PB_C luminance of a master graded high dynamic range (M_HDR) image in accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure. This is an example of a rendering side TV (or computer, etc.) calculating all needed re-grading display tuning HDR-to-MDR functions, from whatever metadata describing the image content (in particular one or more content-dependent luminances, and/or luminance transformation functions, etc.), or needed type of tuning, happens to be received.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1,2,7 and 8,9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BORDES et al. (US 2023/0188713 A1) in view of MERTENS (US 2016/0307602 A1):
PNG
media_image14.png
412
522
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Re 1.13 (Currently Amended), BORDES teaches An apparatus for luminance re14-grading1516 (i.e., combining again) comprising17 (in a likewise manner):
a first {{{neural network}}} (fig. 17:top-“CNN) processing circuit,
PNG
media_image15.png
702
1064
media_image15.png
Greyscale
,
wherein a plurality of input pixel lumas (or likewise “pixel values” [0094]) of an input image is provided to the first input,
18
19
PNG
media_image15.png
702
1064
media_image15.png
Greyscale
a second {{{neural network}}} processing circuit (fig. 17:bottom-“CNN”),
PNG
media_image16.png
702
1064
media_image16.png
Greyscale
,
20 (or likewise “video”21 [0002] last S that receives a signal and responds to the signal via a sensitized screen: i.e., television)
[[
a combiner circuit (or likewise fig. 17: multiplication “X” & addition “+”, twice)
PNG
media_image16.png
702
1064
media_image16.png
Greyscale
,
0 and offset1 via fig. 24(e): wherein “offset”, four times, is a parameter),
2 and offset3 via fig. 24(e): wherein “offset”, four times, is a parameter),
0 and offset1) 2 and offset3)
PNG
media_image17.png
136
856
media_image17.png
Greyscale
,
22 (as similarly indicated in the above limitation with fig. 24(e)),
wherein a {{{parametric}}} re-grading23 equation is [[dependent24 upon25 the {{{combined}}} first output parameter and the {{{combined}}} second output parameter (as shown in said fig. 24(e):
PNG
media_image17.png
136
856
media_image17.png
Greyscale
)
; and
a luma mapping26 circuit (or likewise “The output…may be…luma…samples” [0098] last S : fig. 2),
wherein the luma mapping circuit is arranged to apply the input lumas of the input image to the {{{parametric}}}27 re-grading equation (represented in fig. 2 as 265: “In-loop Filters”) to obtain output lumas of an output image28 (as indicted by the filtered image in fig. 11(c)).
BORDES does not teach the difference of claim 1 of:
a {{{parametric}}} re-grading29 equation is [[)30 dependent31.
MERTENS teach the difference of claim 1 of:
a {{{parametric}}} re-grading32 equation is [[)33 dependent34 (or likewise “dependent”-“re-grading display tuning HDR-to-MDR functions” via [0154], 2nd S:
[0154] Turning now to FIG. 12, schematically illustrated is a plot of (re)grading curves of optimal image luminance for various x nit PB_D vs. PB_C luminance of a master graded high dynamic range (M_HDR) image in accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure. This is an example of a rendering side TV (or computer, etc.) calculating all needed re-grading display tuning HDR-to-MDR functions, from35 whatever metadata describing the image content (in particular one or more content-dependent luminances, and/or luminance transformation functions, etc.), or needed type of tuning, happens to be received.
Since BORDES teaches/suggests distortion and noise and overload in a decoding channel as “dynamic range” as shown in figure 4:
[0061] FIG. 4 illustrates an example of successive loop filtering. In this example, four successive filters are applied: Bilateral filter (450), DBF (460), SAO (470) and ALF (480). The output is the reconstructed picture samples. For ease of notation, we refer to the input to the encoder as S, input to in-loop filtering as Ŝ, and output of in-loop filtering as {tilde over (S)}. Ŝ may also be referred to as an initial reconstruction or an initial version of reconstructed samples. As shown in FIG. 4, the input to in-loop filtering is the sum (430) of predicted samples (410) and the decoded/reconstructed prediction residuals (420), which may be clipped (440) to be within the dynamic range36 supported by the encoder/decoder. For certain blocks, when prediction residuals are zero or do not exist (e.g., in SKIP mode), the input to in-loop filtering is the predicted samples directly.
PNG
media_image18.png
450
866
media_image18.png
Greyscale
and MERTENS teaches a similar “HDR display”-“problem” [0022] 1st S:
[0022] If one understands that the above-described scenario is not just a problem of a single HDR37 display, but rather that the television/movie world is changing (e.g., not only do more consumers view movies on their low quality LCD laptops, but even on small portable displays like mobile phones and the like), one realizes that it may be advantageous to have a more controllable link between (i) what the actual content was supposed to look like (in particular, as determinable at the content creator side (also referred to herein as “creation side”), which has available not only the original scene, but also the artists/director of photography's intentions as to what look the scene should have (e.g., darkish, mystical, etc.)), and (ii) what it would actually look like on the receiver's side display 730 (FIG. 7), if no “correct” processing was done, or even “incorrect” display processing, which may worsen the resulting look.
one of skill in the art could or would have done is refer to others (MERTENS) as the fix making BORDES’ be as MERTENS’ seeing in the change goodness, via MERTENS [0025]:
[0025] Accordingly, the embodiments of the present disclosure offer solutions to further improve the controllability of what an artist would like people to see, versus what would be displayed, e.g., on a home television. In other words, what an artist/creator on the creation side would like people to see, versus what would be displayed on a rendering/receiving side display having a given display quality can take several forms. The several forms can depend on the kind of artist and the artist's preferences, from (i) an “I mostly want to do nothing, letting the viewer or television manufacturer doing the controlling—view” in which, e.g., only severe modifications of the content as finally rendered by the display are forbidden, on the one side of the spectrum of control options, to (ii) on the other side of the spectrum, attempts to bring a rendering as close as possible to an ideal reproduction of what the artist intended, given the rendering side display limitations, e.g., a display white luminance of the rending side display.
via explicit, creative, routine, inferential, Supreme Court steps, A,B,C:
A) install MERTEN’s fig. 14:1404: “Image Analysis Apparatus / Software” into BORDES’ fig. 2:201: “Pre-encoding processing”:
PNG
media_image19.png
2098
1113
media_image19.png
Greyscale
B) run MERTEN’s Image Analysis Software;
B1) use the user-interface’s metadata, content-dependent luminance functions for a movie (Ghost-Aliens) as shown in figures 4,6:
PNG
media_image20.png
648
984
media_image20.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image21.png
1053
788
media_image21.png
Greyscale
C) transmit re-graded Ghost Aliens connecting to BORDES’ encoder/decoder/offset parameters;
PNG
media_image22.png
133
856
media_image22.png
Greyscale
D) see what happens (I foresee goodness:
[0025] Accordingly, the embodiments of the present disclosure offer solutions to
further improve the controllability of what an artist would like people to see (on the output of BORDES’ video decoder), versus what would be displayed, e.g., on a home television. In other words, what an artist/creator on the creation side would like people to see, versus what would be displayed on a rendering/receiving side display having a given display quality can take several forms. The several forms can depend on the kind of artist and the artist's preferences, from (i) an “I mostly want to do nothing, letting the viewer or television manufacturer doing the controlling—view” in which, e.g., only severe modifications of the content as finally rendered by the display are forbidden, on the one side of the spectrum of control options, to (ii) on the other side of the spectrum, attempts to bring a rendering (Ghost Aliens on the output of BORDES’ video decoder) as close as possible to an ideal reproduction of what the artist intended, given the rendering side display limitations, e.g., a display white luminance of the rending side display (on the output of BORDES’ video decoder).
Re 2. (Previously Presented), BORDES of the combination BORDES-MERTEN teaches The apparatus for luminance re-grading as claimed in claim 1,
Re 7. (Previously presented), BORDES discloses The apparatus for luminance re-grading as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a video coding and communication apparatus (fig. 1:100),
Claim 8 is rejected/interpreted like claim 1:
Re 8. (Currently Amended), BORDES A method comprising:
providing a plurality of input pixel lumas to a first neural network processing circuit,
wherein the plurality of input pixel lumas comprises an input image,
wherein the first neural network processing circuit has at least two pluralities of first outputs,
wherein the at least two pluralities of first outputs comprise a first plurality of first outputs and a second plurality of first outputs,
wherein the first plurality of first outputs comprises at least two first output parameters,
wherein the second plurality of first outputs comprises at least two second output parameters;
providing at least one value from at least one sensor to a second neural network processing circuit,
wherein from the second neural network processing circuit has a third plurality of second output and a fourth plurality of second outputs,
wherein the third plurality of second outputs comprises at least two first
weights,
wherein the fourth plurality of second outputs comprises at least two
second weights;
[[
multiplying the at least two first output parameters by [[corresponding first weights to provide
multiplying the at least two second output parameters by [[corresponding second weights to provide
adding a first one of the at least two weighted first output parameters to a first one of the at least two weighted second output parameters yielding a combined first output parameter;
adding a second one of the at least two weighted first output parameters to a second one of the at least two weighted second output parameters yielding a combined second output parameter,
wherein a parametric re-grading equation dependent upon by the combined first output parameter and the combined second output parameter; and
applying the input lumas of the input image to the parametric re-grading equation to obtain output lumas of an output image.
Re 9. (Currently amended), BORDES discloses A non-transitory computer-readable medium38 comprising a computer program39 (fig. 1:100) , when executed on one or more processors, performs the method as claimed in claim 8.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BORDES et al. (US 2023/0188713 A1) in view of MERTENS (US 2016/0307602 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,7 and 8,9 further in view of Mate et al. (US 2012/0229699 A1):
PNG
media_image23.png
412
574
media_image23.png
Greyscale
Re 3. (Currently amended), BORDES teaches The apparatus for luminance re-grading as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the at least one sensor comprises a light meter,
wherein the light meter is arranged to provide a measure of a light (or likewise “a lighting system” [0047] 2nd S) in an environment.
BORDES does not teach the difference of claim 3 of:
the at least one sensor comprises a light meter,
wherein the light meter is arranged to provide a measure of (a light)40 in an environment.
Mate teach the difference of claim 3 of:
the at least one sensor light meter,
wherein the light meter is arranged to provide a measure of (a light)41 in an environment (or likewise:
[0051] The mobile terminal 40 may also include an illumination sensor 22, such as a light meter. As described above, a light meter is configured gather data representative of the ambient lighting conditions in proximity to the illumination sensor, such as by measuring the amount of light proximate to the light meter.).
Since BORDER suggest the possibility of sending a control signal to a lighting system by selecting a communications protocol that enable device control via [0047]:
[0047] The system 100 may provide an output signal to various output devices, including a display 165, speakers 175, and other peripheral devices 185. The other peripheral devices 185 include, in various examples of embodiments, one or more of a stand-alone DVR, a disk player, a stereo system, a lighting system, and other devices that provide a function based on the output of the system 100. In various embodiments, control signals are communicated between the system 100 and the display 165, speakers 175, or other peripheral devices 185 using signaling such as AV.Link, CEC, or other communications protocols that enable device-to-device control with or without user intervention. The output devices may be communicatively coupled to system 100 via dedicated connections through respective interfaces 160, 170, and 180. Alternatively, the output devices may be connected to system 100 using the communications channel 190 via the communications interface 150. The display 165 and speakers 175 may be integrated in a single unit with the other components of system 100 in an electronic device, for example, a television. In various embodiments, the display interface 160 includes a display driver, for example, a timing controller (T Con) chip.
one of skill in the art of controls could or would have done is to refer to other teachings of controls and respective communications protocols can make BORDER’s be as Mate’s seeing in the change “ desired lighting conditions…to illuminate the area of interest”, Mate [0053] last S via explicit or even routine steps:
MAKE A FLASHLIGHT:
a) install just like as shown in Mate’s fig. 4:22: “LIGHT METER” and fig. 4:12: “IMAGE SENSOR” to BORDES’s fig. 1;
b) write a computer illumination program based on Mate’s fig. 6;
c) install Mate’s illumination program into BORDES’ fig. 1:140: “Storage Device”;
d) run the installed illumination program.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BORDES et al. (US 2023/0188713 A1) in view of MERTENS (US 2016/0307602 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,7 and 8,9 further in view of KIM et al. (WO 2020/256185 A1) with SEARCH machine translation:
PNG
media_image24.png
412
582
media_image24.png
Greyscale
Re 4. (Currently amened), BORDES teaches The apparatus for luminance re-grading as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the at least one sensor comprises an image summarization unit,
wherein the image summarization unit42 is arranged to measure luminance aspects of the input image.
BORDES does not teach the difference of claim 4 of:
an image summarization unit,
wherein the image summarization unit is arranged to measure luminance aspects.
KIM teach the difference of claim 4 of:
an image summarization unit (or likewise “a histogram summarizing the result of measuring the luminance when the HDR image signal is output from the display unit 180.”, pg. 35, 1st txt blk, last S, via fig, 5: :503: “Histogram calculation unit”),
wherein the image summarization unit is arranged to measure luminance aspects (via fig. 5:503: “Histogram calculation unit”:
PNG
media_image25.png
666
892
media_image25.png
Greyscale
).
Since BORDES suggests other display controllers via [0047] last S:
[0047] The system 100 may provide an output signal to various output devices, including a display 165, speakers 175, and other peripheral devices 185. The other peripheral devices 185 include, in various examples of embodiments, one or more of a stand-alone DVR, a disk player, a stereo system, a lighting system, and other devices that provide a function based on the output of the system 100. In various embodiments, control signals are communicated between the system 100 and the display 165, speakers 175, or other peripheral devices 185 using signaling such as AV.Link, CEC, or other communications protocols that enable device-to-device control with or without user intervention. The output devices may be communicatively coupled to system 100 via dedicated connections through respective interfaces 160, 170, and 180. Alternatively, the output devices may be connected to system 100 using the communications channel 190 via the communications interface 150. The display 165 and speakers 175 may be integrated in a single unit with the other components of system 100 in an electronic device, for example, a television. In various embodiments, the display interface 160 includes a display driver, for example, a timing controller (T Con) chip.
one of skill in the art of controllers could or would have done is refer to other teachings of display controllers and thus make BORDES’ be as KIM’s seeing in the change “the expressive power of the image is enriched and the contrast is improved” , KIM, page 35, 2nd txt blk, last S via explicit creative or even routine steps:
a) install KIM’s “controller 170”, pg. 10, 5th txt blk, into BORDES’s “Display Interface” of fig. 1:160.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BORDES et al. (US 2023/0188713 A1) in view of MERTENS (US 2016/0307602 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,7 and 8,9 further in view of Nittur Seidhar et al. (US 2022/0035877 A1):
PNG
media_image26.png
411
802
media_image26.png
Greyscale
Re 5. (Currently amended), BORDES teaches The apparatus for luminance re-grading as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a user interface43 circuit (or likewise “Processor 110 may include embedded memory, input output interface” [0037] 2nd S) and a selector circuit (or likewise “ a single RDO module (1630) selects which CNN filter will be used finally” [0107] 3rd S),
th S),
[[
BORDES does not teach, including “a narrow subset of claim scope”44, the difference of claim 5 under the broadest reasonable interpretation of:
user (interface circuit)45…46
the user (interface circuit)…
user-specified (weights)…
user-specified (weight).
Nittur Sridhar teach the difference of claim 5 of:
user (interface circuit)47 (or likewise “ [0009] FIG. 3 depicts an example machine learning (ML) architecture search user interface according to various embodiments.”) …48
the user (interface circuit)…
user-specified (weights) (or likewise “user-specified weights 208d” via [0025] last three sentences:
“In some implementations, the ML config. 105 may include multiple AI/ML tasks 205a and user-specified weights 208d (see e.g., FIG. 2) or prioritizations of each specified AI/ML task 205a. For example, the ML config. 105 may include a first AI/ML task 205a with a largest weight 208d (or highest priority), a second AI/ML task 205a with a next largest weight 208d (or next highest priority), and so forth until a N-th AI/ML task 205a (where Nis a number) with a smallest weight 208d (or lowest priority). Additional aspects of the weights 208d are discussed infra with respect to FIG. 2.”)
…
user-specified (weight).
Since BORDES suggests other known “traditional” possibilities to train a neural network:
[0148] The training of NNs (setting of NN parameters) can be made with traditional methods based on supervised learning where the output of the NN is matched with the desired output (original signal), trying to minimize a loss function such as the difference between NN output and the desired output. One can use for example back-propagation methods where the computation of the gradient of the loss function with respect to the weights of the network allow adjusting iteratively the weights and biases of the NN, such as gradient descent or stochastic gradient descent.
one of skill in the art of neural nets could of or would of have done is refer to other teachings of training neural nets and thus make BORDES’ be as Nittur Sridhar’s seeing in the change “computer algorithms that improve automatically through experience and by the use of data”, Nittur Sridhar [0002] 1st S via explicit creative or even routine steps:
a) create a metrics program based on Nittur Sridhar’s fig. 7
PNG
media_image27.png
973
721
media_image27.png
Greyscale
;
b) install the metrics program into BORDES’s computer;
c) run the installed metrics program:
c1) input to the metrics program BORDE’s neural networks.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BORDES et al. (US 2023/0188713 A1) in view of MERTENS (US 2016/0307602 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,7 and 8,9 further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2020/0365118 A1):
PNG
media_image28.png
411
802
media_image28.png
Greyscale
Re 6. (Previously Presented), BORDES teaches The apparatus for luminance re-grading as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a display panel.
BORDES does not teach the difference of claim 6 of:
(display) panel.
Zhang teach the difference of claim 6 of:
(display) panel.
Since BORDES suggests other display controller drivers via “a display driver…example…controller” via [0047] last S:
[0047] The system 100 may provide an output signal to various output devices, including a display 165, speakers 175, and other peripheral devices 185. The other peripheral devices 185 include, in various examples of embodiments, one or more of a stand-alone DVR, a disk player, a stereo system, a lighting system, and other devices that provide a function based on the output of the system 100. In various embodiments, control signals are communicated between the system 100 and the display 165, speakers 175, or other peripheral devices 185 using signaling such as AV.Link, CEC, or other communications protocols that enable device-to-device control with or without user intervention. The output devices may be communicatively coupled to system 100 via dedicated connections through respective interfaces 160, 170, and 180. Alternatively, the output devices may be connected to system 100 using the communications channel 190 via the communications interface 150. The display 165 and speakers 175 may be integrated in a single unit with the other components of system 100 in an electronic device, for example, a television. In various embodiments, the display interface 160 includes a display driver, for example, a timing controller (T Con) chip.
one of skill in the art of display drivers could have or would have done is refer to other teachings of display drivers and thus make BORDES’ be as Zhang’s via explicit creative or even routine steps:
a) install Zhang’s fig. 6:40:44:”DISPLAY PANEL”: “DISPLAY DRIVER” into BORDES’ “Display Interface” of fig. 1:160.
Conclusion
The prior art “nearest to the subject matter defined in the claims” (MPEP 707.05) made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following table lists several references that are relevant to the subject matter claimed and disclosed in this Application. The references are not relied on by the Examiner, but are provided to assist the Applicant in responding to this Office action.
Citation
Relevance
MERTENS (WO 2013/144809 A2): same name as MERTENS (US 2016/0307602 A1) as applied in the above rejection of claims 1-9 under 35 USC 103
MERTENS (WO 2013/144809 A2) teaches “grey…processing functions…handled parametrically for…regradings” via page 12,ll.10-15:
Various grey differentiators gTS allow cospecification of various intended processing functions, and this structure can be handled parametrically for easy respecification of e.g. final rendering device colorimetric mappings, or regradings of the data (which needn't change the Im l code) etc.
as the closest to the claimed “a parametric re-grading equation is … dependent” of claim 1.
Muijs et al. (US 11,049,473 B2) corresponding to previously cited (US 2014/0002479 A1): same assignee
Muijs teaches “grey value…regrading functions” via c.12,ll.1-25:
As an example we will use FIG. 3 to show how to calculate a grading for an MDR (medium dynamic range) display intermediate between an LDR display (e.g. intended for classical L_max_LDR=500 nit 8 bit displays) and a HDR display (e.g. for a reference display of L_Max_HDR=5000 nit, according to which the HDR encoding was done), e.g. a HDR display of lesser quality only able of outputing 2000 nit white, solely on the basis of the available LDR and HDR gradings. The actual derivation of an MDR grading (and therefrom an MDR display driving signal, however in the example of FIG. 3 we immediately derive the driving signal d_norm) is done by a regrading unit 112, or method. The skilled person should understand that with similar considerations, similar versions of the comparison unit or method, and regrading unit or method may be built using in addition or solely other data encoding the grading of the second graded picture. E.g., if in an encoding the HDR picture is encoded predominantly based on a tone mapping IL_PRED from the LDR graded picture, then an inverse of that tone mapping may be a useful function (i.e. the skilled person can construct regradings similar to the below examples, not merely by tuning the regradings by the additional data—e.g. if the inverse tone mapping corresponds to a diminution of the grey value of particular objects to a certain extent, the regrading for MDR may do so to a lessened extent—but also by using these a sole data for deriving the regrading functions).
as the closest to the claimed “a parametric re-grading equation is … dependent” of claim 1.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS ROSARIO whose telephone number is (571)272-7397. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-5PM EST.
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.
/DENNIS ROSARIO/Examiner, Art Unit 2676
/Henok Shiferaw/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676
1 (This footnote in applicant’s remark of page 7 is by the examiner) identical: similar or alike in every way, wherein similar is defined: having a likeness or resemblance, especially in a general way, wherein likeness is defined: the state or fact of being like, wherein like is defined: of the same form, appearance, kind, character, amount, etc.., wherein etc. is defined: and others; and so forth; and so on (used to indicate that more of the same sort or class might have been mentioned, but for brevity have been omitted), wherein so is defined: likewise or correspondingly; also; too. (Dictionarry.com)
2 mix: to combine (substances, elements, things, etc.) into one mass, collection, or assemblage, generally with a thorough blending of the constituents. (Dictionary.com)
3 (This footnote in applicant’s remark of pages 7,8 is by the examiner) identical: similar or alike in every way, wherein similar is defined: having a likeness or resemblance, especially in a general way, wherein likeness is defined: the state or fact of being like, wherein like is defined: of the same form, appearance, kind, character, amount, etc.., wherein etc. is defined: and others; and so forth; and so on (used to indicate that more of the same sort or class might have been mentioned, but for brevity have been omitted), wherein so is defined: likewise or correspondingly; also; too, wherein forth is defined: out, as from concealment or inaction; into view or consideration. (Dictionarry.com)
4 (This footnote is examiner’s) output: Computers. information in a form suitable for transmission from internal to external units of a computer, or to an outside medium. (Dictionary.com)
5 (This footnote is examiner’s) output: The information that a computer produces by processing a specific input. (Dictionary.com: SCIENTIFIC)
6 construe: to give the meaning or intention of; explain; interpret, wherein interpret is defined: to give or provide the meaning (see said MPEP 2111.04 I. “the clause gave ‘meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps’) of; explain; explicate; elucidate. (Dictionary.com)
7 (This footnote is examiner’s) output: Computers. information in a form suitable for transmission from internal to external units of a computer, or to an outside medium. (Dictionary.com)
8 (This footnote is examiner’s) output: The information that a computer produces [W1, offset, W1offset, S1, (boffset + b),S, “layers…output” BORDES [0088] 3rd S)] by processing a specific input. (Dictionary.com: SCIENTIFIC)
9 several: being more than two (CNN layers) but fewer than many in number or kind. (Dictionary.com)
10 corresponding: identical in all essentials or respects. (Dictioanry.com)
11 of: (used to indicate possession, connection, or association). the king of France; the property of the church. (Dictionary.com)
12 has: a 3rd person singular present indicative of have, wherein have is defined: to possess; own; hold for use; contain. (Dictionary.com)
13 Claim 1 may be a Jepson claim: the improvement is not apparent in claim 1 itself: MPEP 2129 III. JEPSON CLAIMS and 35 CFR 1.775 (e): equations [Eqs.3] and [Eqs.4] in applicant’s disclosure, page 18, appears to be the disclosed the improvement.
14 re-: a prefix, occurring originally in loanwords from Latin, used with the meaning “again” or “again and again” to indicate repetition, or with the meaning “back” or “backward” to indicate withdrawal or backward motion. (Dictionary.com)
15 grading: present participle of grade, wherein grade VERB (USED WITHOUT OBJECT) is defined: to pass by degrees from one color or shade to another; blend wherein blend is defined: to mix or intermingle smoothly and inseparably, wherein mix is defined: to combine, unite, or join, wherein or is defined: (used to connect words, phrases, or clauses representing alternatives: such as (1) mix or (2) mix smoothly or (3) mix inseparably).(Dictionary.com)
16 MEANING AND PURPOSE I of claim 1 is “for luminance re-grading”
17 BROAD CLAIM LANGUAGE: a suffix of nouns formed from verbs, expressing the action of the verb or its result, product, material, etc. (the art of building; a new building; cotton wadding )m wherein etc. is defined: and others; and so forth; and so on (used to indicate that more of the same sort or class might have been mentioned, but for brevity have been omitted), wherein so is defined: likewise or correspondingly; also; too. (Dictionary.com)
18 comprise: to include or contain, wherein contain is defined: to be equal to. (Dictionary.com)
19 comprise: to include or contain, wherein contain is defined: to be equal to. (Dictionary.com)
20 BROAD CLAIM LANGUAGE: sensor: anything, such as a photoelectric cell, that receives a signal or stimulus and responds to it (Dictionary.com)
21 video: an informal name for television, wherein television is defined: the system or process of producing on a distant screen a series of transient visible images, usually with an accompanying sound signal. Electrical signals, converted from optical images by a camera tube, are transmitted by UHF or VHF radio waves or by cable and reconverted into optical images by means of a television tube inside a television set, wherein camera tube is defined: the part of a television camera that converts an optical image into an electrical signal See also image orthicon vidicon Plumbicon iconoscope, wherein television tube is defined: Also called: picture tube. Sometimes shortened to: tube. a cathode-ray tube designed for the reproduction of television pictures, wherein cathode-ray tube is defined: Electronics. a vacuum tube generating a focused beam of electrons that can be deflected by electric fields, magnetic fields, or both. The terminus of the beam is visible as a spot or line of luminescence caused by its impinging on a sensitized screen at one end of the tube. Cathode-ray tubes were formerly commonly used to study the shapes of electric waves, to reproduce images in television receivers, to display alphanumeric and graphical information on computer monitors, as an indicator in radar sets, etc. CRT, wherein sensitized is defined: Photography. to render (a film or the like) sensitive to light or other forms of radiant energy, wherein sensitive is defined: photog having a high sensitivity, wherein sensitivity is defined: photog the degree of response of an emulsion to light or other actinic radiation, esp to light of a particular colour, expressed in terms of its speed (Dictionary.com)
22 Each of the above MPEP 2111.04 "Adapted to," "Adapted for," "Wherein," "Whereby," and Contingent Clauses [R-10.2019]
I. "ADAPTED TO," "ADAPTED FOR," "WHEREIN," and "WHEREBY"
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. However, examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are:
(A) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses;
(B) "wherein" clauses; and
(C) "whereby" clauses.
The determination of whether each of these clauses is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding that a "wherein" clause limited a process claim where the clause gave "meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps").
23 grade: to pass by degrees from one color or shade to another; blend. (Dictionary.com)
24 dependent ADJECTIVE: Mathematics.
a. (of a variable) having values determined by one or more independent variables.
b. (of an (parametric re-grading) equation) having solutions that are identical to those of another equation or to those of a set of equations. (Dictionary.com)
25 upon: on (in any of various senses, used as an equivalent of on with no added idea of ascent or elevation, and preferred in certain cases only for euphonic or metrical reasons), wherein on is defined: in connection, association, or cooperation with; as a part or element of. (Dictionary.com)
26 “luma mapping” is interpreted as cumulative adjectives
27 The text in triple {{{curly brackets}}} in the claim set “is taught” via MPEP 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024]
"All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art." In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970).
Examiners must consider all claim limitations when determining patentability of an invention over the prior art. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 403-04 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit the scope of the claim when given their broadest reasonable interpretation. In Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 73 F.4th 950, 958-59, 2023 USPQ2d 795 (Fed. Cir. 2023), the court found the claims were improperly narrowed based on a preferred embodiment to sacral anatomy or sacral neuromodulation, whereas the patent claims made no reference to sacral anatomy or sacral neuromodulation. Thus, the relevant prior art was improperly limited to a narrow subset of claim scope. See also MPEP § 2111 et seq. It is the subject matter of the properly construed claim that must be examined. The determination of whether particular language is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
As a general matter, the grammar (e.g. coordinate adjectives, e.g., “parametric re-grading”) and ordinary meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. Language (“parametric re-grading”) that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives (“parametric re-grading”), the prior art (BORDES) teaches the element (“parametric”) if one of the alternatives (“re-grading”) is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
28 MEANING AND PURPOSE II (more of a continuation of MEANING AND PURPOSE I) of claim 1 is “to apply the input lumas of the input image to the parametric re-grading equation to obtain output lumas of an output image”
29 grade: to pass by degrees from one color or shade to another; blend. (Dictionary.com)
30 (italics) represent claim limitations already taught
31 dependent ADJECTIVE: Mathematics.
a. (of a variable) having values determined by one or more independent variables.
b. (of an (parametric re-grading) equation) having solutions that are identical to those of another equation or to those of a set of equations. (Dictionary.com)
32 grade: to pass by degrees from one color or shade to another; blend. (Dictionary.com)
33 (italics) represent claim limitations already taught
34 dependent ADJECTIVE: Mathematics.
a. (of a variable) having values determined by one or more independent variables.
b. (of an (parametric re-grading) equation) having solutions that are identical to those of another equation or to those of a set of equations. (Dictionary.com)
35 from: preposition: any member of a class of words found in many languages that are used before nouns (”metadata”), pronouns, or other substantives to form phrases (“from whatever metadata…in particular…content-dependent luminances”) functioning as modifiers of verbs, nouns (“functions” of “re-grading display tuning HDR-to-MDR functions”) , or adjectives, and that typically express a spatial, temporal, or other relationship, as in, on, by, to, since. (Dictioknary.com)
36 dynamic range: the range of signal amplitudes over which an electronic communications channel can operate within acceptable limits of distortion. The range is determined by system noise at the lower end and by the onset of overload at the upper end (Dictionary.com)
37 HDR is High Dynamic Range
38 Applicant’s disclosure of “medium” (“a carrier such as e.g., a disk” or “removable hard disks”):
Page 1,ll. 10-15
Such apparatuses or methods may be comprised in consumer devices such as television
displays, mobile phones, but also professional systems such as e.g. video communication in commercial
applications in shops, etc. On the HDR video creation and communication side, it may be applied e.g. in
the endpoint station of a deployer of a television communication network which communicates the HDR
video images to end customers (distribution), e.g. in a satellite, or cable head end, or mobile phone
15 communication network and the like, but it can also be used in contribution where the video is relayed
from a first professional (business) e.g. making the video, to a second business e.g. distributing the video
over a certain medium, area, or clientele.
Page 6,ll. 10-15:
After the action of the content video encoder 221, from the image communication
technology perspective, the rest of the communication chain pretends it gets a "normal SDR" image as
IO input. So e.g. a transmission formatter 204 may apply all the necessary transformations to format the data to go over some transmission medium 205 (e.g. channel coding to store on a BD disk, or frequency coding for cable transmission, cut the video into suitable data packets, etc.).
Subsequently the image data travel over some transmission medium 205, e.g. a satellite or
cable or internet transmission, e.g. according to ATSC 3 .0, or DVB, or whatever video signal
communication principle, to one or more receiving side(s), which may be a consumer video device like a
television set, or a settopbox, or a professional system like a movie theatre reception unit, etc.
Page 10, ll. 10:
US2016/0100183 teaches a reproduction device for sending images from a recording
10 medium (e.g. blu-ray disk) to a television, where the medium contains images and luminance mapping functions. If the TV communicates certain information, the reproduction device will send the images and function, and if it does not communicate such information regular SDR images are sent to the TV.
Page 28, last paragraph continued on page 29, 2nd para:
The computer program product denotation should be understood to encompass any
physical realization of a collection of commands enabling a generic or special purpose processor, after a
series of loading steps (which may include intermediate conversion steps, such as translation to an
intermediate language, and a final processor language) to enter the commands into the processor, to
execute any of the characteristic functions of an invention. In particular, the computer program product
may be realized as data on a carrier such as e.g. a disk or tape, data present in a memory, data traveling via a network connection -wired or wireless- , or program code on paper. Apart from program code, characteristic data required for the program may also be embodied as a computer program product. Suchdata may be (partially) supplied in any way.
The invention or any data usable according to any philosophy of the present embodiments
like video data, may also be embodied as signals on data carriers, which may be removable memories like optical disks, flash memories, removable hard disks, portable devices writeable via wireless means, etc.
39 MEANING AND PURPOSE of claim 9 is “program”, wherein program is defined: Also called computer program. Digital Technology. a precise sequence of instructions enabling a computer to perform a task; a piece of software., wherein to is defined: (used for expressing aim, purpose, or intention). (Dictioary.com)
40 (italics) represent claim limitations already taught
41 (italics) represent claim limitations already taught
42 Due to amendment in claim 4, 35 USC 112(f) is invoked in claim 4
43 user interface: Digital Technology. the interface features through which users interact with the hardware and software of computers and other electronic devices. UI (Dictionary.com)
44 MPEP 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024]
"All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art." In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970).
Examiners must consider all claim limitations when determining patentability of an invention over the prior art. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 403-04 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit the scope of the claim when given their broadest reasonable interpretation. In Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 73 F.4th 950, 958-59, 2023 USPQ2d 795 (Fed. Cir. 2023), the court found the claims were improperly narrowed based on a preferred embodiment to sacral anatomy or sacral neuromodulation, whereas the patent claims made no reference to sacral anatomy or sacral neuromodulation. Thus, the relevant prior art was improperly limited to a narrow subset of claim scope. See also MPEP § 2111 et seq. It is the subject matter of the properly construed claim that must be examined. The determination of whether particular language is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
45 (italics) represent claim limitations already taught
46 ellipses (…) represent claim limitations already taught
47 (italics) represent claim limitations already taught
48 ellipses (…) represent claim limitations already taught
Prosecution Insights