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
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) 1-2, 5-9, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jagmag (2008/0043031) in view of Zuo (CN112752146; see attached translation).
As for claims 1 and 8, Jagmag disclose a display device, comprising:
a display configured to display an image list (Multiple cells of various quality settings are displayed to a user to select from; Fig. 5B; [0024]-[0025]); and
a controller configured to:
receive a command to select a plurality of images from the image list (User makes a selection of a cell based on the picture quality that the user prefers and those settings are applied to future image/video [0026].),
obtain a plurality of scores of a plurality of picture quality elements corresponding to each of the plurality of images selected according to the received command,
calculate an average score and a variance score of each of the picture quality elements based on the obtained plurality of scores,
obtain initial picture quality setting values based on the calculated average score and the variance score, and
generate picture quality setting values adjusted from the initial picture quality setting values using a picture quality adjustment model (All future picture quality is adjusted based on user selection [0062], [0066]).
However, Jagmag fails to disclose:
obtain a plurality of scores of a plurality of picture quality elements corresponding to each of the plurality of images selected according to the received command,
calculate an average score and a variance score of each of the picture quality elements based on the obtained plurality of scores,
obtain initial picture quality setting values based on the calculated average score and the variance score;
In an analogous art, Zuo discloses:
obtain a plurality of scores of a plurality of picture quality elements corresponding to each of the plurality of images selected according to the received command ([n0077]-[n0079]),
calculate an average score and a variance score of each of the picture quality elements based on the obtained plurality of scores ([n0077]-[n0079]),
obtain initial picture quality setting values based on the calculated average score and the variance score ([n0077]-[n0079]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jagmag’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Zuo, for the advantage of improving the accuracy of video quality assessment.
As for claims 2 and 9, Jagmag discloses comprising a memory configured to store the adjusted picture quality setting values, and wherein the controller is configured to:
output an image reflecting the picture quality setting values stored in an input image on the display (All future picture quality is adjusted based on user selection [0062], [0066]).
As for claims 5 and 12, Zuo discloses wherein the picture quality adjustment model is an artificial neural network-based model that is supervised learning through deep learning or machine learning, and wherein a training data set used for learning the picture quality adjustment model includes picture quality setting values of the plurality of picture quality elements and labeling data labeled with picture quality setting values, and the labeling data is correct data reflecting a correlation between the picture quality elements ([n0098], [n0038]).
As for claims 6 and 13, Jagmag discloses the display device of wherein the controller is configured to sequentially display a plurality of image lists, and wherein the images included in each of the image list have different values for one picture quality element and the values for remaining picture quality elements are the same ([0024], [0008], [0009], [0012], [0064], [0069]).
As for claims 7 and 14, Jagmag discloses the display device of wherein the controller is configured to display a first image to which default setting values are applied for the same image and a second image to which the picture quality setting values are applied on the display ([0026], [0066]).
Claim(s) 3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jagmag and Zuo as applied to claim1 and 8 above, and further in view of Takashi (JP 2001014349).
As for claims 3 and 10, Jagmag and Zuo fail to disclose the display device of wherein the controller is configured to:
generate a two-dimensional picture quality vector based on the plurality of average scores and the plurality of variance scores corresponding to the plurality of picture quality elements, and
obtain the initial picture quality setting values using the generated two-dimensional picture quality vector.
In an analogous art, Takashi discloses:
generate a two-dimensional picture quality vector based on the plurality of average scores and the plurality of variance scores corresponding to the plurality of picture quality elements ([0052]-[0053], [0020], [0043]), and
obtain the initial picture quality setting values using the generated two-dimensional picture quality vector ([0052]-[0053], [0020], [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jagmag and Zuo’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Takashi, for the advantage of improving the accuracy of video quality assessment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 11 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.
Relevant Prior Art
Tokashiki (2010/0053441) discloses displaying multiple videos adjusted to a different image quality by the image quality adjustment unit.
Wang (2012/0268612) discloses rating average score and variance score of images.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUMAIYA A CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-8567. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-3:00 PM.
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, NATHAN FLYNN can be reached at (571)272-1915. 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.
SUMAIYA A. CHOWDHURY
Examiner
Art Unit 2421
/SUMAIYA A CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights