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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the cited references fail to teach, disclose or suggest all limitations of claims, 14 and 20. In particular, Applicant asserts that the cited references fail to disclose “presenting, via a display device, the decoded video content at the first resolution the display device configured to present content at the first resolution.” Applicant argues that Bellis fails to discloses this feature because Bellis allegedly distributes lower resolution subframes across low resolution DMD panels and merely emulates or creates the effect of higher resolution image.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim does not recite that the display device must include a single native display panel having a native pixel array equal to the first resolution. The claim also does not recite that each display component must independently display the first resolution. Rather, the claim recites “presenting, via a display device, the decoded video content at the first resolution the display device configured to present content at the first resolution.”
Bellis, ¶ [0037], discloses “produce and display a color image having the same effective resolution as the high-resolution input image.” Therefore, Bellis discloses presenting context at the high resolution because Bellis produces and display an image having the same effective resolution as the high-resolution input image. Applicant’s argument improperly imports a native panel into the claim that is not recited.
Additionally, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the assertion that panels are not configured to display at higher resolution because they are combined to emulate the effects of displaying a high-resolution image.
This argument is not persuasive for the same reasons. The claim is directed to presentation of decoded video content at a first resolution, not to native pixel count of each individual display panel. Belli’s display assembly is configured to present high-resolution content by producing and displaying a color image having the same effective resolution as the high-resolution input image. Thus, Bellis teaches or suggests the claimed display device configured to present content at the first resolution under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation to combine is found in the reference themselves and in knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art as stated in the Office Action pages 4 and 5.
Applicant argues that the Office Action did explain how claim 10 and 11 are taught or suggested.
This argument is not persuasive. The rejection identified the teachings relied upon for the frame rate multiplication relationship. In particular, Takada teaches that, when 8K image data is displayed using a 4K display, one frame is divided into a plurality of subframes. Further, Takada explains that when one 60Hz frame is divided into four subframes, the corresponding subframe rate is 240Hz. Thus, Takada teaches that the presentation frame rate is multiplied relative to the base frame (edit) rate according to the of lower resolution subframes used to represent the higher resolution frame.
For claim 10, the claimed factor corresponds to the resolution based subframe relationship for two-dimensional content. For claim 11, Widdowson further teaches three-dimensional image content, and the additional factor of two corresponds to the two views used for three-dimensional presentation. Accordingly, the combination of the prior arts teaches or at least suggest the claimed relationship of claims 10 and 11.
The claims remain unpatentable over the applied prior art for the reasons previously set forth and further clarified herein. Accordingly, the rejections are maintained.
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.
Claims 1, 4-7, 13, 14, 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellis et al. (US20080088800A1), hereinafter referred to as Bellis, in view of Widdowson et al. (US20070052934A1), hereinafter referred to as Widdowson and further, in view of SMPTE 429-7 (“D-Cinema Packaging — Composition Playlist”, SMPTE 429-7-2006, Standard prepared by the Technology Committee DC28.Publisher: THE SOCIETY OF MOTION PICTURE AND TELEVISION ENGINEERS, October 3, 2006, Location of publication: 3 Barker Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601, 30 pages.), hereinafter referred to as SMPTE 429-7.
Regarding claim 1, Bellis discloses method comprising:
receiving video content, the video content configured to be presented at a first resolution and a first frame rate (¶ [0041] discloses that the image processing unit 221 is adapted to receive input image data 225, such as the frames of a digital video. Each frame of input image data 225 represents a high-resolution image);
encoding the video content, wherein:
said encoding the video content comprises dividing a frame of the video content into subframes (¶ [0042] discloses generate first and second subframe signals using a resolution reduction and interpolation algorithm, wherein the first and second subframe signals are taken from a single high-resolution frame of input image data 225, ),
the subframes have a second resolution the second resolution is lower than the first resolution (¶ [0042] discloses generate first and second subframe signals using a resolution reduction),
the subframes are associated with a second frame rate, the second frame rate is higher than the first frame rate (¶ [0009] discloses the generation of subframes at twice the normal frequency)
transmitting the encoded video content, wherein said transmitting the encoded video content comprises transmitting the subframes (¶ [0042] discloses transmit the first and second subframe signals),
receiving the encoded video content, wherein said receiving the encoded video content comprises receiving the subframes (¶ [0042] discloses that the DMD panel 201 and DMD panel 202 receives the first and second subframe signals),
decoding the encoded video content, wherein said decoding the encoded frame comprises reassembling the subframes (¶ [0042] discloses reconstruction the source frame) and
presenting, via a display device, the decoded video content at the first resolution the display device configured to present content at the first resolution (¶ [0037] discloses produce and display a color image having the same effective resolution as the high-resolution input image)
Bellis does not explicitly disclose the second resolution and the second frame rate are determined based on playlist metadata, wherein: the playlist metadata is for configuring video content presentation at the second resolution based on a predefined frame rate and a predefined edit rate, and the predefined frame rate and the predefined edit rate are different; and according to the playlist metadata.
However, Widdowson from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the second resolution and the second frame rate are determined based on metadata (¶ [0186] discloses that the controller module 101 and the projector modules 112 are configured to exchange metadata using XML-based message passing or other appropriate protocol. In this manner, controller module 101 automatically determines the number and specifications of the available projector modules 112 (e.g., resolution, color spectrum, frame rate, lumens, color wheel percentages, gamuts, etc.) and produces optimal sub-frames).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Bellis to add the teachings of Widdowson as above, in order to produces optimal sub-frames (Widdowson, [0186]).
Further, SMPTE 429-7 from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses a playlist metadata, (§ 3 disclosing that Composition Playlist (CLP), is a self-contained representation of a single complete D-Cinema work. It specifies the assembly of track files and is represented using the Extensible Markup Language (XML)) wherein the playlist metadata is for configuring video content presentation at the second resolution based on a predefined frame rate and a predefined edit rate and the predefined frame rate and the predefined edit rate are different (§ 4 disclosing Edit Rate and Frame rate. The CLP includes separate metadata elements for Edit Rate and Frame Rate establishing predefined values that are distinct in kind and independently specified).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Bellis and Widdowson to add the teachings of SMPTE 429-7 as above, because doing so provides a standardized, interoperable mechanism for conveying presentation parameters and ensures compatibility with established Digital Cinema workflows.
Regarding claim 4, Bellis, Widdowson and SMPTE 429-7disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Bellis does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the playlist metadata is associated with a Digital Cinema Package Composition Playlist.
However, SMPTE 429-7 from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the playlist metadata is associated with a Digital Cinema Package Composition Playlist (Tile disclosing D-Cinema Packaging Composition Playlist).
The motivation for combining Bellis, Widdowson and SMPTE 429-7 has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 5, Bellis, Widdowson and SMPTE 429-7disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Bellis discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising decoding second encoded video content, wherein said presenting the decoded video content comprises presenting the decoded video content concurrently with said decoding the second encoded video content (¶[0037] disclosing the display assembly 220 then projects the two subframes substantially simultaneously onto a focal plane FP to produce and display a color image having the same effective resolution as the high-resolution input image).
Regarding claim 6, Bellis, Widdowson and SMPTE 429-7disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Bellis does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising storing the decoded video content, wherein said presenting the decoded video content comprises presenting the stored decoded video content.
However, Widdowson from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising storing the decoded video content, wherein said presenting the decoded video content comprises presenting the stored decoded video content (¶ [0018] discloses that image frame buffer 104 includes memory for storing image data 102 for one or more image frames 106. Thus, image frame buffer 104 constitutes a database of one or more image frames 106. Image frame buffers 113 also include memory for storing sub-frames 110. See also Fig. 1).
The motivation for combining Bellis, Widdowson and SMPTE 429-7 has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 7, Bellis, Widdowson and SMPTE 429-7disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Bellis does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising storing the encoded video content, wherein said decoding the encoded video content comprises decoding the stored encoded video content.
However, Widdowson from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising storing the encoded video content, wherein said decoding the encoded video content comprises decoding the stored encoded video content. (¶ [0018] discloses that image frame buffer 104 includes memory for storing image data 102 for one or more image frames 106. Thus, image frame buffer 104 constitutes a database of one or more image frames 106. Image frame buffers 113 also include memory for storing sub-frames 110. See also Fig. 1).
The motivation for combining Bellis, Widdowson and SMPTE 429-7 has been discussed in connection with claim1, above.
Regarding claim 13, Bellis, Widdowson and SMPTE 429-7disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Bellis discloses method of claim 1, further comprising:
compressing the subframes; said transmitting the subframes comprises transmitting the compressed subframes, (¶ [0042] discloses transmit the first and second subframe signals),
decompressing the received subframes, wherein: said receiving the subframes comprises receiving the compressed subframes (¶ [0042] discloses that the DMD panel 201 and DMD panel 202 receives the first and second subframe signals);
Regarding claims 14, 17 and 18, these claims are rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to the method of claims 1, 4 and 5, since they claim analogous subject matter in the form of a system for performing the same or equivalent functionality.
Regarding claim 20, this claim is rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to the method of claim 1, since they claim analogous subject matter in the form of a non-transitory computer-readable medium for performing the same or equivalent functionality.
Furthermore, Widdowson discloses a computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions for performing a method (claim 28)
Claims 2, 3, 8-11, 15 and 16are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellis in view of Widdowson and SMPTE 429-7 and further, in view of Takada (US 20240184099 A1) hereinafter referred to as Takada.
Regarding claim 2, Bellis, Widdowson and SMPTE 429-7disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Bellis does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the first resolution is 8K and the second resolution is 4K.
However, Takada from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first resolution is 8K and the second resolution is 4K (¶ [0157] discloses the video data of the frame having the 8K resolution is displayed as the video data of the subframe having the 4K resolution).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Bellis, Widdowson and SMPTE 429-7 to add the teachings of SMPTE 429-7 as above, in order to when image data having 8K resolution is displayed on a display device having 4K resolution, a display period of one frame is divided into display periods of a plurality of subframes and the plurality of subframes are displayed in the display period of one frame (Takada, [0157]).
Regarding claim 3, Bellis, Widdowson and SMPTE 429-7disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Bellis does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the first frame rate is 24fps and the second frame rate is 96fps.
However, SMPTE 429-7 from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first frame rate is 24fps (§ 4 disclosing <cpl:FrameRate>24 l</cpl:FrameRate>)
Further, SMPTE 429-7 from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses and the second frame rate is 96fps (¶[0157] disclosing when one frame is 60 Hz video data and divided into four subframes, in one subframe period, a predetermined gradation has to be displayed in a very short time of 240 Hz)
SMPTE 429-7 defines a 24-fps framerate. Takada teaches that dividing one frame into four subframes results in a 4 times display rate. Applying the same disclosed relationship to a 24 fps of SMPTE 429-7 yields a 96 fps subframe rate.
The motivation for combining Bellis, Widdowson, Takada and SMPTE 429-7 has been discussed in connection with claim 2, above.
Regarding claim 8, Bellis, Widdowson and SMPTE 429-7disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Bellis does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein each of the subframes comprises a quadrant of a corresponding frame.
However, Takada from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the method of claim 1, wherein each of the subframes comprises a quadrant of a corresponding frame (¶[0157] disclosing that when one frame is 60 Hz video data and divided into four subframes, in one subframe period, a predetermined gradation has to be displayed in a very short time of 240 Hz).
The motivation for combining Bellis, Widdowson, Takada and SMPTE 429-7 has been discussed in connection with claim 2, above.
Regarding claim 9, Bellis, Widdowson and SMPTE 429-7disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Bellis does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein: the subframes are transmitted according to an order, and the subframes are reassembled according to the order.
However, Takada from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the method of claim 1, wherein: the subframes are transmitted according to an order (¶[0157] and Fig. 1 disclosing sequential subframes displayed withing a frame period), and the subframes are reassembled according to the order (¶[0157] and Fig. 1 disclosing correct reconstruction requires ordered reassembly of pixel subsets)
The motivation for combining Bellis, Widdowson, Takada and SMPTE 429-7 has been discussed in connection with claim 2, above.
Regarding claim 10, Bellis, Widdowson and SMPTE 429-7disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Bellis discloses the method of claim 1, wherein: the video content comprises two-dimensional content (¶ [0029] teaching image source 100 comprising two-dimensional content), and.
Bellis does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein: the predefined frame rate is the predefined edit rate multiplied by a factor, the factor being the first resolution divided by the second resolution.
However, Takada from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the predefined frame rate is the predefined edit rate multiplied by a factor, the factor being the first resolution divided by the second resolution (¶[0157] discloses when image data having 8K resolution is displayed on a display device having 4K resolution, a display period of one frame is divided into display periods of a plurality of subframes and when one frame is 60 Hz video data and divided into four subframes … of 240 Hz)
The motivation for combining Bellis, Widdowson, Takada and SMPTE 429-7 has been discussed in connection with claim 2, above.
Regarding claim 11, Bellis, Widdowson and SMPTE 429-7disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Bellis does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein: the predefined frame rate is the predefined edit rate multiplied by a factor, the factor being the first resolution divided by the second resolution.
However, Widdowson from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the method of claim 1, wherein: the video content comprises two-dimensional content (¶[00218] images 114 that have a three-dimensional (3D) appearance), and.
Further, Takada from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the predefined frame rate is the predefined edit rate multiplied by a factor, the factor being the first resolution divided by the second resolution (¶[0157] discloses when image data having 8K resolution is displayed on a display device having 4K resolution, a display period of one frame is divided into display periods of a plurality of subframes and when one frame is 60 Hz video data and divided into four subframes … of 240 Hz)
The motivation for combining Bellis, Widdowson, Takada and SMPTE 429-7 has been discussed in connection with claim 2, above.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, these claims are rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to the method of claims 2 and 3, since they claim analogous subject matter in the form of a system for performing the same or equivalent functionality.
Claims 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellis in view of Widdowson and SMPTE 429-7 and further, in view of “Digital Cinema System Specification” Version 1.4.5, (build 0c325a2), Approved for Distribution May 29, 2024, Digital Cinema Initiatives, LLC, Member Representative Committee, 121 pages. hereinafter referred to as DCSS.
Regarding claim 12, Bellis, Widdowson and SMPTE 429-7disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Bellis does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein:
the predefined frame rate corresponds to the second frame rate, and
the predefined edit rate corresponds to the first frame rate.
However, DCSS from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the method of claim 1, wherein: the predefined frame rate corresponds to the second frame rate, and
the predefined edit rate corresponds to the first frame rate. (§ 10.2.2 discloses DCPs for stereoscopic presentations shall interleave the left and right eye frames alternating at a 48 frames per second rate (predefined frame rate corresponds to the second frame rat). The left and right eye material shall each be captured for 24 FPS presentation (the predefined edit rate corresponds to the first frame rate)).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Bellis, Widdowson and SMPTE 429-7 to add the teachings of SMPTE 429-7 as above, in order to have a single stereoscopic DCP be able to be used for all stereoscopic implementations (e.g., no stereoscopic exhibition system shall require a unique color or density timing), wherein it is not required or intended that tile same image track tile used for stereoscopic DCPs also be used for non-stereoscopic DCPs. (DCSS, § 10.2.1).
Regarding claim 19, this claim is rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to the method of claim 12, since it claims analogous subject matter in the form of a system for performing the same or equivalent functionality.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 FABIO S LIMA whose telephone number is (571)270-0625. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 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, Jamie Atala can be reached on (571) 272-7384. 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.
/FABIO S LIMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights