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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D11 or D22 and further in view of D3.3
With regard to claim 1, D1 teach at least one of generating and selecting, with one or more electronic processors, a hybrid image associated with a first interpretation corresponding to a first value of a media parameter and a second interpretation corresponding to a second value of the media parameter, wherein the hybrid image includes a first visibility ratio between the first interpretation and the second interpretation (see D1 § 2: hybrid image generation with a first and second parameter; see also D2 abstract, § V-A ¶ 2, B ¶ 1); refining, with the one or more electronic processors, the hybrid image to create a refined hybrid image that includes a second visibility ratio different than the first visibility ratio (see D1 § 2: refined hybrid image can be created by modifying the parameters; see D2 abstract, § V-A ¶ 2, B ¶ 1: modifying the parameters changes the hybrid image, see also D2 § V-C: tuning the values); displaying, on a display of a first playback device, the refined hybrid image (see D1 abstract, § 3 ¶ 2: displaying the image; see also D2 § VII-B: image is displayed on phone screen).
D1 fails to explicitly teach receiving, with the one or more electronic processors, a first user input from a first user, the first user input related to a first perception of the refined hybrid image by the first user; determining, with the one or more electronic processors and based at least in part on the first user input, an optimized value of the media parameter; and providing, over a network, first output media to the first playback device in accordance with the optimized value of the media parameter, the first output media configured to be output with the first playback device.
D3 teach a first user input from a first user, the first user input related to a first perception of the see ¶ 19: user enters input related to distance of the user from the display device; see abstract, ¶¶ 16-17: depending on the user input, image parameters are changed or optimized such as contrast or luminance; see ¶¶ 69-71: transmitting over the network to the end user device).
One skilled in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine the teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. D1 and/or D2 is related to displaying hybrid images to an end user device wherein the hybrid image perception is dependent on the user distance to the display screen. Separately, D3 teaches user inputting information about the distance in order to modify the display parameters of the image. It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to incorporate known teachings of D3 into the configuration of D1 or D2 yielding predictable results. The motivation would have been to optimize the hybrid image based on the information of the user position relative to the screen to enhance perception of the image.
With regard to claim 14, see discussion of claim 1.
With regard to claim 15, see discussion of claim 1.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 or D2 and in view of D3 and further in view of D4.4
With regard to claim 2, D1, D2 or D3 fail to explicitly teach wherein the optimized value of the media parameter includes an approximate minimum resolution for approximate maximum quality of experience (minmax QoE resolution) that is personalized for the first user based at least in part on the first user input. D4 teaches approximate maximum quality of experience (minmax QoE resolution) that is personalized for the first user based at least in part on the first user input (see abstract, § III: determining maximum quality of experience for personalized parameter selection).
One skilled in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine the teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. D1 and/or D2 is related to displaying hybrid images to an end user device wherein the hybrid image perception is dependent on the user distance to the display screen. Separately, D4 teach evaluating quality of experience of the user in order to personalize parameters. It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to incorporate known teachings of evaluating quality of experience of the user as taught by D4 into the configuration of D1 or D2 in order to optimize the parameters of the image, yielding predictable and enhanced viewer experience.
With regard to claim 3, D4 teach wherein the optimized value of the media parameter includes an estimated quality of experience (QoE) transfer function that is personalized for the first user based at least in part on the first user input (see abstract, § III: quality of experience function). The motivation for combining the references it the same as stated above.
Claims 4-13 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVINASH YENTRAPATI whose telephone number is (571)270-7982. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-5PM.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached on (571) 272-3638. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AVINASH YENTRAPATI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672
1 Oliva, Aude, Antonio Torralba, and Philippe G. Schyns. "Hybrid images." ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 25.3 (2006): 527-532.
2 Papadopoulos, Athanasios, et al. "Illusionpin: Shoulder-surfing resistant authentication using hybrid images." IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security 12.12 (2017): 2875-2889.
3 US Publication No. 2012/0299817.
4 Zhao, Jialin, et al. "QoE prediction model with personalized parameters in IPTV domain." 2019 IEEE International Conference on Consumer Electronics-Taiwan (ICCE-TW). IEEE, 2019.
Prosecution Insights