DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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.
Applicant’s submission filed on 07/21/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 5-7, 11-12, 21-23, and 30 were amended. Claims 1, 5-9, 11-12, 14-16, 18, 21-24, 26-28, and 30 are pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 12 recites “a maximum luminance display output of the display device” instead of “a maximum display luminance of the display device.” (See claims 22-23 and 30.) Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1, 7, 11, 14-16, 18, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward et al. (US 2012/0230597) in view of Wu et al. (US 10148907) and Lim et al. (US 2020/0152111).
Regarding claim 1, Ward teaches/suggests: A computer-implemented method comprising:
obtaining a first image depicting a particular scene, the first image having a first dynamic range (Ward [0023] “acquiring HDR image data 12”);
obtaining a second image depicting the particular scene, the second image having a second dynamic range that is lower than the first dynamic range (Ward [0024] “obtains (block 34) tone map data 15 corresponding to HDR image data 12. Tone map data 15 represents a likeness of the image of HDR image 12, but has a lower dynamic range than HDR image data 12”);
generating a recovery map based on the first image and the second image, wherein the recovery map encodes gains in luminances between portions of the first image and corresponding portions of the second image (Ward [0025] “an HDR information portion 16B, which contains information that may be combined by HDR decoder 20 with the data from tone map portion 16A to reconstruct HDR image data 12” [0010] “The high dynamic range information portion contains information describing ratios of luminance values in the tone map portion to luminance values of the high dynamic range image” [The HDR information meets the recovery map.]); and
providing the recovery map in an image container (Ward [0025] “stores tone map portion 16A and HDR information portion 16B in data structure 16”).
Ward does not teach/suggest:
providing the first image in an image container, wherein the image container is readable to display a derived image based on applying the recovery map to the first image, wherein the derived image has a dynamic range that is lower than the first dynamic range.
Wu, however, teaches/suggests a derived image based on applying the recovery map to the first image (Wu col. 5 ll. 10-25 “The luminance mapping ratio technique 112 can be used for dynamic range mapping (e.g. SDR to HDR and HDR to SDR)”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the HDR image (the first image) of Ward to be stored instead of the tone map as taught/suggested by Wu for HDR to SDR. As such, Ward as modified by Wu teaches/suggests:
providing the first image in an image container, wherein the image container is readable to display a derived image based on applying the recovery map to the first image, wherein the derived image has a dynamic range that is lower than the first dynamic range (Ward [0025] “stores tone map portion 16A and HDR information portion 16B in data structure 16” [0027] “The reconstructed HDR image is displayed” Wu col. 5 ll. 10-25 “The luminance mapping ratio technique 112 can be used for dynamic range mapping (e.g. SDR to HDR and HDR to SDR)” [In view of Ward and Wu, the SDR image would be reconstructed for display.]).
Ward as modified by Wu does not teach/suggest the gains encoded in the recovery map being scaled by a range scaling factor that is based on a ratio of a maximum luminance of the second image to a maximum luminance of the first image. Lim, however, teaches/suggests a range scaling factor (Lim [0019] “The second image quality compensation data may be the first image quality compensation data adjusted based on a ratio between the first maximum luminance value and the second maximum luminance value”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the data structure of Ward as modified by Wu to include the range scale factor of Lim for adjustment.
As such, Ward as modified by Wu and Lim teaches/suggests the gains encoded in the recovery map being scaled by a range scaling factor that is based on a ratio of a maximum luminance of the second image to a maximum luminance of the first image (Wu col. 5 ll. 10-25 “The luminance mapping ratio technique 112 can be used for dynamic range mapping (e.g. SDR to HDR and HDR to SDR)” Lim [0019] “The second image quality compensation data may be the first image quality compensation data adjusted based on a ratio between the first maximum luminance value and the second maximum luminance value”).
Regarding claim 7, Ward as modified by Wu and Lim teaches/suggests: The method of claim 1, wherein generating the recovery map is based on: recovery(x, y) = log(pixel_gain(x, y)) / log(range scaling factor), wherein recovery(x, y) is the recovery map for pixel position (x, y) of the second image, and pixel_gain(x, y) is a ratio of luminances at a position (x, y) of the second image to the first image (Ward [0046] “ratio data 57 may comprise information specifying a logarithm of such a ratio” Wu col. 4 ll. 28-54 “each output linear light R, G, B component of a second format signal 116 may be derived by a linear equation from each input linear light R, G, B component of a first format signal 110, multiplied by a luminance ratio (LMR[Y.sub.in]) of output and input pixels” Lim [0019] “The second image quality compensation data may be the first image quality compensation data adjusted based on a ratio between the first maximum luminance value and the second maximum luminance value”). The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 11, Ward as modified by Wu and Lim teaches/suggests: The method of claim 1, further comprising:
obtaining the image container (Ward [0027] “retrieves data from tone map portion 16A and HDR information portion 16B of data structure 16”);
scaling a plurality of pixel luminances of the first image in the image container based on the recovery map to obtain the derived image (Wu col. 4 ll. 28-54 “each output linear light R, G, B component of a second format signal 116 may be derived by a linear equation from each input linear light R, G, B component of a first format signal 110, multiplied by a luminance ratio (LMR[Y.sub.in]) of output and input pixels”); and
after the scaling, causing the derived image to be displayed by the display device as an output image that has a different dynamic range than the first image (Ward [0027] “The reconstructed HDR image is displayed” Wu col. 5 ll. 10-25 “The luminance mapping ratio technique 112 can be used for dynamic range mapping (e.g. SDR to HDR and HDR to SDR)” [In view of Ward and Wu, the SDR image would be reconstructed for display.]).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Ward as modified by Wu and Lim does not teach/suggest scaling … based on a particular luminance output of the display device. Wu further teaches/suggests scaling … based on a particular luminance output of the display device (Wu col. 7 line 60 – col. 8 line 5 “the output luminance for the pixel may be 300 nits. However, a display device may be able to provide a greater output (e.g. 400 nits). Accordingly, the scaling coefficient S may be set to 1.3 to increase the peak luminance to the desired output”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the luminance mapping (the recovery map) of Ward as modified by Wu and Lim to be scaled as taught/suggested by Wu to increase the peak luminance.
Regarding claim 14, Ward as modified by Wu and Lim teaches/suggests: The method of claim 1 wherein obtaining the second image comprises performing range compression on the first image (Ward [0033]-[0034] “tone map portion 16A may be generated using a suitable tone mapping operator … an original HDR input (i.e. original HDR image data 12) is mapped smoothly into a standard dynamic resolution (typically 24-bit) output domain”).
Regarding claim 15, Ward as modified by Wu and Lim teaches/suggests: The method of claim 1 wherein the image container is readable to:
display the first image by a first display device capable of displaying the first dynamic range (Ward [0020] “permits high dynamic range versions of the same images to be viewed in a high dynamic range mode using a HDR viewer and appropriate HDR display”); and
display the derived image by a second display device only capable of displaying a dynamic range lower than the first dynamic range (Ward [0022] “Data structure 16 may be decoded by a standard decoder 18 to provide a standard dynamic range image 19” [0027] “The reconstructed HDR image is displayed” Wu col. 5 ll. 10-25 “The luminance mapping ratio technique 112 can be used for dynamic range mapping (e.g. SDR to HDR and HDR to SDR)” [In view of Ward and Wu, the SDR image would be reconstructed for display.]).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 16, Ward as modified by Wu and Lim teaches/suggests: A computer-implemented method comprising:
obtaining an image container (Ward [0027] “retrieves data from tone map portion 16A and HDR information portion 16B of data structure 16”) that includes:
a first image having a first dynamic range (Ward [0023] “acquiring HDR image data 12” [0025] “stores tone map portion 16A and HDR information portion 16B in data structure 16” Wu col. 5 ll. 10-25 “The luminance mapping ratio technique 112 can be used for dynamic range mapping (e.g. SDR to HDR and HDR to SDR)” [In view of Ward and Wu, the HDR image would be stored.]); and
a recovery map that encodes luminance gains of pixels of the first image that are scaled by a range scaling factor that includes a ratio of a maximum luminance of a second image to a maximum luminance of the first image (Ward [0025] “an HDR information portion 16B, which contains information that may be combined by HDR decoder 20 with the data from tone map portion 16A to reconstruct HDR image data 12” Wu col. 5 ll. 10-25 “The luminance mapping ratio technique 112 can be used for dynamic range mapping (e.g. SDR to HDR and HDR to SDR)” Lim [0019] “The second image quality compensation data may be the first image quality compensation data adjusted based on a ratio between the first maximum luminance value and the second maximum luminance value”),
wherein the second image corresponds to the first image in depicted subject matter and has a second dynamic range that is lower than the first dynamic range (Ward [0024] “Tone map data 15 represents a likeness of the image of HDR image 12, but has a lower dynamic range than HDR image data 12”);
determining whether to display one of:
the first image (Ward [0020] “permits high dynamic range versions of the same images to be viewed in a high dynamic range mode using a HDR viewer and appropriate HDR display”) or a derived image having a dynamic range lower than the first dynamic range Ward [0022] “Data structure 16 may be decoded by a standard decoder 18 to provide a standard dynamic range image 19”; and
in response to determining to display the first image:
causing the first image to be displayed by a display device (Ward [0020] “permits high dynamic range versions of the same images to be viewed in a high dynamic range mode using a HDR viewer and appropriate HDR display”); and
in response to determining to display the derived image:
applying the luminance gains of the recovery map to luminances of pixels of the first image to determine respective corresponding pixel values of the derived image (Ward [0025] “an HDR information portion 16B, which contains information that may be combined by HDR decoder 20 with the data from tone map portion 16A to reconstruct HDR image data 12” Wu col. 4 ll. 28-54 “each output linear light R, G, B component of a second format signal 116 may be derived by a linear equation from each input linear light R, G, B component of a first format signal 110, multiplied by a luminance ratio (LMR[Y.sub.in]) of output and input pixels”); and
causing the derived image to be displayed by the display device (Ward [0027] “The reconstructed HDR image is displayed” Wu col. 5 ll. 10-25 “The luminance mapping ratio technique 112 can be used for dynamic range mapping (e.g. SDR to HDR and HDR to SDR)” [In view of Ward and Wu, the SDR image would be reconstructed for display.]).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 18, Ward as modified by Wu and Lim teaches/suggests: The method of claim 16, further comprising determining a maximum luminance display capability of the display device, wherein determining to display the first image is in response to determining that the display device is capable of displaying only a display dynamic range that is greater than the first dynamic range (Ward [0020] “permits high dynamic range versions of the same images to be viewed in a high dynamic range mode using a HDR viewer and appropriate HDR display” Wu col. 7 line 60 – col. 8 line 5 “the output luminance for the pixel may be 300 nits. However, a display device may be able to provide a greater output (e.g. 400 nits). Accordingly, the scaling coefficient S may be set to 1.3 to increase the peak luminance to the desired output”), and determining to display the derived image is in response to determining that the display device is capable of displaying a display dynamic range that is equal to or less than the first dynamic range (Ward [0022] “Data structure 16 may be decoded by a standard decoder 18 to provide a standard dynamic range image 19”). The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 24, Ward as modified by Wu and Lim teaches/suggests: The method of claim 16, further comprising, in response to determining to display the derived image, decoding the range scaling factor from the image container (Ward [0022] “Data structure 16 may be decoded by a standard decoder 18 to provide a standard dynamic range image 19” Wu col. 5 ll. 10-25 “The luminance mapping ratio technique 112 can be used for dynamic range mapping (e.g. SDR to HDR and HDR to SDR)” Lim [0019] “The second image quality compensation data may be the first image quality compensation data adjusted based on a ratio between the first maximum luminance value and the second maximum luminance value”). The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 5 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward et al. (US 2012/0230597) in view of Wu et al. (US 10148907) and Lim et al. (US 2020/0152111) as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Dinh et al. (US 2020/0126263).
Regarding claim 5, Ward as modified by Wu and Lim does not teach/suggest: The method of claim 1, wherein the gains encoded in the recovery map are scaled and normalized to a particular range by the range scaling factor. Dinh, however, teaches/suggests scaled and normalized to a particular range by the range scaling factor (Dinh [0339] “perform normalization by applying a second scale factor to the second result values. The processor 1720 may clip normalized values to a preset range and transform the clipped values into integer values”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the luminance mapping (the recovery map) of Ward as modified by Wu and Lim to be normalized as taught/suggested by Dinh for standardization.
Claim 21 recites limitation(s) similar in scope to those of claim 5, and is rejected for the same reason(s).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward et al. (US 2012/0230597) in view of Wu et al. (US 10148907) and Lim et al. (US 2020/0152111) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (US 2017/0103729).
Regarding claim 6, Ward as modified by Wu and Lim teaches/suggests: The method of claim 1,
wherein generating the recovery map includes encoding the gains in a logarithmic space, and wherein recovery map values are proportional to a difference of logarithms of the luminances divided by a logarithm of the range scaling factor (Ward [0046] “ratio data 57 may comprise information specifying a logarithm of such a ratio” Wu col. 4 ll. 28-54 “each output linear light R, G, B component of a second format signal 116 may be derived by a linear equation from each input linear light R, G, B component of a first format signal 110, multiplied by a luminance ratio (LMR[Y.sub.in]) of output and input pixels” Lim [0019] “The second image quality compensation data may be the first image quality compensation data adjusted based on a ratio between the first maximum luminance value and the second maximum luminance value”).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Ward, Wu, and Lim are silent regarding:
wherein generating the recovery map includes encoding the gains in luminances such that applying the gains to luminances of individual pixels of the first image results in pixels corresponding to pixels of the second image,
Huang, however, teaches/suggests:
wherein generating the recovery map includes encoding the gains in luminances such that applying the gains to luminances of individual pixels of the first image results in pixels corresponding to pixels of the second image (Huang [0006] “The mapping curve generator module generates a mapping curve that is used by the HDR-SDR mapping module to map the high dynamic range red, green, blue values to standard dynamic range red, green, blue values … The gain value is applied to the standard dynamic range red, green, blue values to obtain enhanced red, green, blue values within a standard dynamic range”),
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the gains of Ward as modified by Wu and Lim to be applied as taught/suggested by Huang for the HDR to SDR conversion.
Claim(s) 8 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward et al. (US 2012/0230597) in view of Wu et al. (US 10148907) and Lim et al. (US 2020/0152111) as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (US 2013/0162629).
Regarding claim 8, Ward as modified by Wu and Lim does not teach/suggest: The method of claim 1, wherein generating the recovery map includes encoding the recovery map into a bilateral grid, wherein the encoding includes determining a three-dimensional data structure of grid cells, wherein each grid cell is a vector element that is mapped to multiple pixels of the first image. Huang, however, teaches/suggests a bilateral grid (Huang [0024] “the filtering process of the initial depth values of each of the pixels of the image can be accelerated using a bilateral grid method”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the luminance mapping (the recovery map) of Ward as modified by Wu and Lim to be encoded using the bilateral grid of Huang for acceleration.
As such, Ward as modified by Wu, Lim, and Huang teaches/suggests encoding the recovery map into a bilateral grid, wherein the encoding includes determining a three-dimensional data structure of grid cells, wherein each grid cell is a vector element that is mapped to multiple pixels of the first image (Wu col. 5 ll. 10-25 “The luminance mapping ratio technique 112 can be used for dynamic range mapping (e.g. SDR to HDR and HDR to SDR)” Huang [0024] “After each pixel is mapped to a 3D grid, an average depth value for each cell is calculated according to the initial depth values of the respective pixels in the cell” [0018] “a specific value of the motion vector can be mapped to a specific initial depth value”).
Regarding claim 26, Ward as modified by Wu and Lim does not teach/suggest: The method of claim 16, further comprising:
extracting the recovery map from a bilateral grid stored in the image container.
Huang, in view of Wu, teaches/suggests:
extracting the recovery map from a bilateral grid stored in the image container (Wu col. 5 ll. 10-25 “The luminance mapping ratio technique 112 can be used for dynamic range mapping (e.g. SDR to HDR and HDR to SDR)” Huang [0024] “After each pixel is mapped to a 3D grid, an average depth value for each cell is calculated according to the initial depth values of the respective pixels in the cell”).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward et al. (US 2012/0230597) in view of Wu et al. (US 10148907) and Lim et al. (US 2020/0152111) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of De Haan et al. (US 2016/0163356).
Regarding claim 9, Ward as modified by Wu and Lim teaches/suggests: The method of claim 1, further comprising encoding the recovery map into a recovery image, wherein providing the recovery map in the image container includes providing the recovery image in the image container (Ward [0025] “stores tone map portion 16A and HDR information portion 16B in data structure 16” Wu col. 5 ll. 10-25 “The luminance mapping ratio technique 112 can be used for dynamic range mapping (e.g. SDR to HDR and HDR to SDR)”). The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Ward, Wu, and Lim are silent regarding wherein encoding the recovery map into the recovery image includes encoding the range scaling factor into the recovery image as metadata. De Haan, in view of Lim, teaches/suggests encoding the range scaling factor into the recovery image as metadata (Lim [0019] “The second image quality compensation data may be the first image quality compensation data adjusted based on a ratio between the first maximum luminance value and the second maximum luminance value” De Haan [0097]-[0098] “video processing metadata, which metadata defines how to convert between LDR and HDR video or vice versa … HDR video distribution system as described in the introductory part is enhanced so that the video processing metadata is transferred to the rendering side”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the range scale factor of Ward as modified by Wu and Lim to be encoded as metadata as taught/suggested by De Haan to enhance the distribution.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward et al. (US 2012/0230597) in view of Wu et al. (US 10148907) and Lim et al. (US 2020/0152111) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 2022/0301125).
Regarding claim 27, Ward as modified by Wu and Lim does not teach/suggest: The method of claim 16, wherein:
determining whether to display one of:
the first image or the derived image is performed by a server device, the determination based on a display dynamic range of the display device that is included in or coupled to a client device;
causing the first image to be displayed by the display device includes sending the first image from the server device to the client device such that the client device displays the first image; and
causing the derived image to be displayed by the display device includes sending the derived image from the server device to the client device such that the client device displays the derived image.
Park, however, teaches/suggests a server device (Park [0061] “The communication module 210 may communicatively connect the electronic device 101 to an external electronic device (e.g., ... the server 108)”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the computer system of Ward as modified by Wu and Lim to include the server of Park for client-server architecture. As such, Ward as modified by Wu, Lim, and Kim teaches/suggests:
determining whether to display one of:
the first image or the derived image is performed by a server device, the determination based on a display dynamic range of the display device that is included in or coupled to a client device (Ward [0020] “permits high dynamic range versions of the same images to be viewed in a high dynamic range mode using a HDR viewer and appropriate HDR display” Park [0061] “The communication module 210 may communicatively connect the electronic device 101 to an external electronic device (e.g., ... the server 108)”);
causing the first image to be displayed by the display device includes sending the first image from the server device to the client device such that the client device displays the first image (Ward [0020] “permits high dynamic range versions of the same images to be viewed in a high dynamic range mode using a HDR viewer and appropriate HDR display” Park [0061] “The communication module 210 may receive an HDR image from the external electronic device”); and
causing the derived image to be displayed by the display device includes sending the derived image from the server device to the client device such that the client device displays the derived image (Ward [0027] “The reconstructed HDR image is displayed” Wu col. 5 ll. 10-25 “The luminance mapping ratio technique 112 can be used for dynamic range mapping (e.g. SDR to HDR and HDR to SDR)” [In view of Ward and Wu, the SDR image would be reconstructed for display.] Park [0061] “The communication module 210 may also receive various images (e.g., SDR images)”).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward et al. (US 2012/0230597) in view of Wu et al. (US 10148907) and Lim et al. (US 2020/0152111) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2023/0230524).
Regarding claim 28, Ward as modified by Wu and Lim does not teach/suggest: The method of claim 16, wherein causing the derived image to be displayed by the display device includes reducing a maximum luminance level of the displayed derived image based on a system setting of a device that causes the derived image to be displayed, wherein the system setting is selected by a user. Kim, however, teaches/suggests reducing a maximum luminance level based on a system setting, wherein the system setting is selected by a user (Kim [0118] “the processor 230 may determine the user-specified brightness as the brightness of the display module 210” [0005] “the brightness of a target display having the maximum brightness of 1000 Nits is set to 500 Nits by a user”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display of Ward as modified by Wu and Lim such that its maximum luminance is reduced as taught/suggested by Kim for user preference.
As such, Ward as modified by Wu, Lim, and Kim teaches/suggests reducing a maximum luminance level of the displayed derived image based on a system setting of a device that causes the derived image to be displayed (Ward [0027] “The reconstructed HDR image is displayed”” Wu col. 5 ll. 10-25 “The luminance mapping ratio technique 112 can be used for dynamic range mapping (e.g. SDR to HDR and HDR to SDR)” [In view of Ward and Wu, the SDR image would be reconstructed for display.] Kim [0118] “the processor 230 may determine the user-specified brightness as the brightness of the display module 210” [0005] “the brightness of a target display having the maximum brightness of 1000 Nits is set to 500 Nits by a user”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 22-23 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.
Claim 30 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The limitation “a display factor that is a minimum of: the range scaling factor and a maximum display luminance of the display device,” taken as a whole, renders the claims patentably distinct over the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “the 'ratio between the first maximum luminance value and the second maximum luminance value' in Lim is a ratio between a smallest maximum and a largest maximum luminance value of a particular input image (e.g., Lim [0081-0082]), and is not 'a ratio of a maximum luminance of the second image to a maximum luminance of the first image' in which the second image has a lower dynamic range ... the ratio disclosed in Lim is not used to scale gains that are to be applied to a first image to obtain a derived image as recited in claim 1.” See Remarks, pp. 9-10.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Lim discloses a range scaling factor, not the one as claimed, for adjustment. In view of Lim, however, it would have been obvious for the luminance mapping of Ward as modified by Wu to be scaled by a maximum luminance of the SDR (the second) image to a maximum luminance of the HDR (the first) image for adjustment.
Applicant further argues “Wu's disclosed techniques of using a look-up table (LUT) or piecewise linear function (PWL) (Wu, col 4:65-67) are different than the techniques in Ward that use an 'HDR information portion 16B,' and the techniques of these two references cannot be combined to obtain a derived image that has a dynamic range lower than an input image as recited in claim 1.” See Remarks, p. 10.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ward converts the SDR image to the HDR image via the HDR information portion. Wu teaches/suggests HDR to SDR conversion. In view of Ward and Wu, an HDR image would be converted to an SDR via an SDR information portion.
Applicant further argues “the cited portions of Park are silent as to determining at a server which dynamic range image to display based on a display device of a client device and sending the image to the client device to be displayed.” See Remarks, p. 12.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Given that there are only two choices of such determining, i.e., at the display device of Wu or at the server of Park, it would have been obvious to try the determining at the server.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2021/0174763 – tone adjustment
US 2021/0360266 – scale factor
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ANH-TUAN V NGUYEN whose telephone number is 571-270-7513. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9AM-5PM ET. 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, JASON CHAN can be reached on 571-272-3022. 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.
/ANH-TUAN V NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619
