DETAILED ACTION
*Note in the following document:
1. Texts in italic bold format are limitations quoted either directly or conceptually from claims/descriptions disclosed in the instant application.
2. Texts in regular italic format are quoted directly from cited reference or Applicant’s arguments.
3. Texts with underlining are added by the Examiner for emphasis.
4. Texts with
5. Acronym “PHOSITA” stands for “Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art”.
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 Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19 recites wherein the inverse data range reduction function with a value between about 1.1 and about 4. Suggest replacing “with” with “includes” to match the limitation wherein the data range reduction function includes a value between about 0.25 and about 0.9 as cited right before.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over various claims of U.S. Patent No. US-11069279-B2 OR US-11315466-B2 OR US-11984055-B2 OR US-11488510-B2 OR US-12444337-B2 OR US-11501419-B1 OR US-12469421-B2 OR US-12518365-B2 OR US-11816819-B2 OR US-11475819-B2 OR US-11410593-B2 OR US-11587491-B1 OR US-11978379-B2 OR US-12394348-B2 OR US-12148343-B2 OR US-11651718-B2 OR US-11341890-B2 OR US-11403987-B2 OR US-11721266-B2 OR US-12136376-B2 OR US-12462723-B2 OR US-12555507-B2 OR US-11682333-B2 OR US-12236826-B2 OR US-11532261-B1 OR US-11869408-B2 OR US-12243464-B2 either directly or in view of Rusanovskyy et al. (US 2018/0063500 A1) and Poynton (“Digital Video and HD Algorithms and Interfaces” ISBN 978-0-12-391926-7, 2012).
Furthermore, Claim(s) 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over various claim(s) of copending Application No. 18/747,872 or 18/946,304 or 19/028,450 or 19/028,510 or 19/327,556 or 19/353,027 or 19/360,450 or 19/407,654 directly or in view of Rusanovskyy et al. (US 2018/0063500 A1) and Poynton (“Digital Video and HD Algorithms and Interfaces” ISBN 978-0-12-391926-7, 2012). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of the instant application is either anticipated by, or the obvious variation of, the claim of patents or copending applications. This is because all above cited patent or patent application either directly claim(s) the limitations of applying a non-linear function to data related to the luminance value of a color space corresponding to a set of primary color signals as cited in independent Claim 1/14/18. Above patents or patent applications further discloses encoding/decoding and transporting the processed data and displaying the processed data on a display. Some of above patents or patent applications do not explicitly recite a data range reduction function and/or an inverse data range reduction function. However Poynton, in the field of primary display, teaches data range reduction function had been known to be used to process color images before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of f Poynton in order to conform HD video to SD studio standards.
claim(s) or those patents/patent applications can be combined with the teaching of Rusanovskyy and Poynton, which are in the same field of multi-primary display field.
Due to size of Double Patent rejection, the details comparisons are skipped. Applicant is strongly encouraged to contact the Examiner for any concern or disagreement.
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 of this title, 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rusanovskyy et al. (US 2018/0063500 A1) in view of Poynton (“Digital Video and HD Algorithms and Interfaces”, ISBN 978-0-12-391926-7, 2012).
Regarding Claim 1, Rusanovskyy discloses a system for displaying a primary color system, comprising:
a set of image data including a set of primary color signals (Fig.4: Linear 110 RGB and [0077]: Linear RGB data 110 may be HDR/WCG video data), wherein the set of primary color signals corresponds to a set of values in a color space, wherein the set of values in the color space includes a luminance ([0077]: Video compilation device 12 may utilize transfer function 112 to compact linear RGB data 110 using any number of non-linear transfer functions, e.g., the PQ TF as defined in SMPTE-2084. In some examples, video compilation device 12 performs color conversion process 114 to convert the compacted data into a more compact or robust color space (e.g., a YUV or YCrCb color space) that is more suitable for compression by a hybrid video encoder. The Y is the luminance);
an image data converter operable to encode and decode the set of values in the color space ([0007]: The source device may send, through a video interface, first video data to the sink device, which receives the first video data through the video interface. The sink device may then send, through a feedback channel of the video interface, preferred color gamut settings of the sink device to the source device. Fig.1: notice Video Encoder 20 and Video Decoder 30);
at least one non-linear function, wherein the at least one non-linear function is applied to data related to the luminance (Fig.4: Transfer function 112 and [0078]: With regard to the techniques of FIG. 4, in general, a transfer function is applied to data (e.g., HDR/WCG video data) to compact the dynamic range of the data. Such compaction allows the data to be represented with fewer bits. In one example, the transfer function may be a one-dimensional (1D) non-linear function and may reflect the inverse of an electro-optical transfer function (EOTF) of the end-user display, e.g., as specified for SDR in Rec. 709. [0091]: TF is applied to a normalized linear R, G, B values which results in nonlinear representation of R′G′B′ and [0102]: For modern video coding systems, typically used color space is YCbCr, as specified in ITU-R BT.709. The YCbCr color space in BT.709 standard specifies the following conversion process from R′G′B′ to Y′CbCr (non-constant luminance representation) …),
at least one viewing device (Fig.9: Display Device 36); and
wherein the image data converter is operable to convert the set of image data for display on the at least one viewing device (Fig.11).
Rusanovskyy fails to disclose wherein the at least one non-linear function includes a data range reduction function and/or an inverse data range reduction function.
However Poynton discloses Several different transfer functions have been standardized an are in use (p.320). One of the transfer function is 1/2.2 and the other is 1/2.8 (p.320 Section Opto-electronic conversion functions (OECFs) lines 12-16). Therefore it would have been obvious to one ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Poynton into that of Rusanovskyy and to include the limitation of wherein the at least one non-linear function includes a data range reduction function and/or an inverse data range reduction function in order to conform to SD studio standards.
Regarding Claim 2, Rusanovskyy teaches or suggests wherein the at least one viewing device is operable to display the primary color system based on the set of image data (Fig.1 and 9).
Regarding Claim 3, Rusanovskyy discloses wherein the color space is an International Commission on Illumination (CIE) Yxy color space ([0122]: In another instance, the sink device may define parameters of desired color gamut data may through color gamut primaries represented in a normalized representation, e.g. 0 . . . 1, as it shown in Table 1. In another instance, the sink device may provide a more elaborate description of the color volume supported by the display. This may include description of the color volume using RGB primaries, or using a footprint of the color volume in another color space, such as xyY or Lab. [0157]: In some examples, the preferred color gamut settings may further include one or more of a description of a color volume using RGB primaries and a footprint of a color volume in a color space. The color space may include an xyY color space or a Lab color space).
Regarding Claim 4, Rusanovskyy teaches or suggests wherein the image data converter is operable to convert the set of values in the color space to a plurality of color gamuts (Fig.11 and [0007]: In some examples, in adapting the second video data, the source device may determine a set of one or more color gamut mapping parameters to be used by the sink device for converting the second video data to the preferred color gamut).
Regarding Claim 5, Rusanovskyy as modified teaches or suggests wherein processed data is transported between the encode and the decode (Rusanovskyy: Fig.1: notice Video Encoder 20 and Video Decoder 30), wherein the image data converter is operable to subsample the processed data (Poynton .123: In component digital video (including M-JPEG, MPEG, and H.264), B’-Y’ and R’-Y’ are scaled to form CB and CR components, which can then be subsampled by digital filtering denoted 4:2:2 or 4:2:0). The same reason to combine as that of Claim 1 is applied.
Regarding Claim 6, Rusanovskyy further teaches or suggests wherein processed data is transported between the encode and the decode (Fig.1: notice Video Encoder 20 and Video Decoder 30), wherein the processed data is fully sampled ([0076]: HDR/WCG video data is typically acquired and stored at a very high precision per component (even floating point), with the 4:4:4 chroma sub-sampling format and a very wide color space (e.g., CIE XYZ).
Regarding Claim 7, Rusanovskyy further teaches or suggests wherein the encode includes scaling of two colorimetric coordinates, thereby creating a first scaled colorimetric coordinate and a second scaled colorimetric coordinate (Poynton p.571 lines 5-12: Different scale factors are applied to the basic B’-Y’ and R’-Y’ components for different applications. Y’PBPR scale factors are optimized for component analog video. Y’CBCR scale factors are optimized for component digital video, such as 4:2:2 studio video, JPEG, and MPEG. Correct use of the Y’UV and Y’IQ scale factors is limited to the formation of composite NTSC and PAL video). The same reason to combine as that of Claim 1 is applied.
Regarding Claim 8, Poynton further teaches or suggests wherein the scaling includes dividing a first colorimetric coordinate by a first divisor to create the first scaled colorimetric coordinate and dividing a second colorimetric coordinate by a second divisor to create the second scaled colorimetric coordinate (p.599 lines 3: notice Cb is divided by 0.701 and Cr is divided by 0.886). The same reason to combine as taught in Claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Regarding Claim 9, Rusanovskyy fails to disclose wherein the decode includes rescaling of data related to the first scaled colorimetric coordinate and data related to the second scaled colorimetric coordinate.
However Poynton teaches or suggests a skilled person before the effective filing date of the claimed invention had already known to include scale the two colorimetric coordinates (x,y), thereby creating a first scaled colorimetric coordinate and a second scaled colorimetric coordinate (p.571 lines 5-12: Different scale factors are applied to the basic B’-Y’ and R’-Y’ components for different applications. Y’PBPR scale factors are optimized for component analog video. Y’CBCR scale factors are optimized for component digital video, such as 4:2:2 studio video, JPEG, and MPEG. Correct use of the Y’UV and Y’IQ scale factors is limited to the formation of composite NTSC and PAL video). Since decoding is to inverse encoding as taught by Rusanovskyy (Fig.5), it would have been obvious to one ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Poynton into that of Rusanovskyy and to add the limitation of wherein the decode includes rescaling of data related to the first scaled colorimetric coordinate and data related to the second scaled colorimetric coordinate in order to satisfy different requirements as taught by Poynton.
Regarding Claim 10, Poynton further discloses wherein the rescaling includes multiplying the data related to the first scaled colorimetric coordinate by a first multiplier and multiplying the data related to the second colorimetric coordinate by a second multiplier (p.599 lines 3: notice Cb is divided by 0.701 and Cr is divided by 0.886 when encoding, therefore when decoding 1.427(or 1/0.701) and 1.129(or 1/0.886)). The same reason to combine as taught in Claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Regarding Claim 11, Poynton further teaches or suggests wherein the encode includes converting the set of primary color signals to XYZ data and then converting the XYZ data to create the set of values in the color space (p.297: Eq 26.1).
PNG
media_image1.png
109
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 12, Poynton further teaches or suggests wherein the decode includes converting processed data to XYZ data and then converting the XYZ data to a format operable to display on the at least one viewing device (p.297: Eq 26.2).
PNG
media_image2.png
87
728
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 13, Poynton further teaches or suggests wherein the data range reduction function includes a value between about 0.25 and about 0.9, and wherein the inverse data range reduction function includes a value between about 1.1 and about 4 (Poynton discloses Several different transfer functions have been standardized an are in use. See p.320. Poynton further discloses one of the transfer function is 1/2.2 and the other is 1/2.8, see p.320 Section Opto-electronic conversion functions (OECFs) lines 12-16. A skilled person would have known that 1/2.2 or 1/2.8 is between 0.25 to 0.9 and the inverse number 2.2 or 2.8 is between 1.1 to 4). The same reason to combine as that of Claim 1 is applied.
Regarding Claim 14, Rusanovskyy discloses a system for displaying a primary color system, comprising:
a set of image data including a set of primary color signals (Fig.4: Linear 110 RGB and [0077]: Linear RGB data 110 may be HDR/WCG video data), wherein the set of primary color signals corresponds to a set of values in a color space ([0077]: Video compilation device 12 may utilize transfer function 112 to compact linear RGB data 110 using any number of non-linear transfer functions, e.g., the PQ TF as defined in SMPTE-2084. In some examples, video compilation device 12 performs color conversion process 114 to convert the compacted data into a more compact or robust color space (e.g., a YUV or YCrCb color space) that is more suitable for compression by a hybrid video encoder. The Y is the luminance);
an image data converter operable to encode and decode the set of values in the color space ([0007]: The source device may send, through a video interface, first video data to the sink device, which receives the first video data through the video interface. The sink device may then send, through a feedback channel of the video interface, preferred color gamut settings of the sink device to the source device. Fig.1: notice Video Encoder 20 and Video Decoder 30);
at least one non-linear function, wherein the at least one non-linear function is applied to data related to luminance (Fig.4: Transfer function 112 and [0078]: With regard to the techniques of FIG. 4, in general, a transfer function is applied to data (e.g., HDR/WCG video data) to compact the dynamic range of the data. Such compaction allows the data to be represented with fewer bits. In one example, the transfer function may be a one-dimensional (1D) non-linear function and may reflect the inverse of an electro-optical transfer function (EOTF) of the end-user display, e.g., as specified for SDR in Rec. 709. [0091]: TF is applied to a normalized linear R, G, B values which results in nonlinear representation of R′G′B′ and [0102]: For modern video coding systems, typically used color space is YCbCr, as specified in ITU-R BT.709. The YCbCr color space in BT.709 standard specifies the following conversion process from R′G′B′ to Y′CbCr (non-constant luminance representation) …),
wherein the encode and the decode include transportation of processed data ([0038]: In one example, computer-readable medium 16 may comprise a communication medium to enable video compilation device 12 to transmit encoded video data directly to client device 14 in real-time. Also see Fig.1, notice Video Encoder 20 and Video Decoder 30); and
wherein the image data converter is operable to convert the set of image data for display (Fig.9, 11).
Rusanovskyy fails to disclose wherein the at least one non-linear function includes a data range reduction function and/or an inverse data range reduction function.
However Poynton discloses Several different transfer functions have been standardized an are in use (p.320). One of the transfer function is 1/2.2 and the other is 1/2.8 (p.320 Section Opto-electronic conversion functions (OECFs) lines 12-16). Therefore it would have been obvious to one ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Poynton into that of Rusanovskyy and to include the limitation of wherein the at least one non-linear function includes a data range reduction function and/or an inverse data range reduction function in order to conform to SD studio standards.
Regarding Claim 15, Poynton further teaches or suggests wherein the data range reduction function includes a value between about 0.25 and about 0.9, and wherein the inverse data range reduction function includes a value between about 1.1 and about 4 (Poynton discloses Several different transfer functions have been standardized an are in use. See p.320. Poynton further discloses one of the transfer function is 1/2.2 and the other is 1/2.8, see p.320 Section Opto-electronic conversion functions (OECFs) lines 12-16. A skilled person would have known that 1/2.2 or 1/2.8 is between 0.25 to 0.9 and the inverse number 2.2 or 2.8 is between 1.1 to 4). The same reason to combine as that of Claim 14 is applied.
Regarding Claim 16, Rusanovskyy further teaches or suggests , wherein the image data converter applies one or more of the at least one non-linear function to encode and/or decode the set of values in the color space (Fig.4: Transfer function 112 and [0078]: With regard to the techniques of FIG. 4, in general, a transfer function is applied to data (e.g., HDR/WCG video data) to compact the dynamic range of the data. Such compaction allows the data to be represented with fewer bits. In one example, the transfer function may be a one-dimensional (1D) non-linear function and may reflect the inverse of an electro-optical transfer function (EOTF) of the end-user display, e.g., as specified for SDR in Rec. 709. [0091]: TF is applied to a normalized linear R, G, B values which results in nonlinear representation of R′G′B′ and [0102]: For modern video coding systems, typically used color space is YCbCr, as specified in ITU-R BT.709. The YCbCr color space in BT.709 standard specifies the following conversion process from R′G′B′ to Y′CbCr (non-constant luminance representation) …).
Regarding Claim 17, Rusanovskyy discloses wherein the color space is an International Commission on Illumination (CIE) Yxy color space ([0122]: In another instance, the sink device may define parameters of desired color gamut data may through color gamut primaries represented in a normalized representation, e.g. 0 . . . 1, as it shown in Table 1. In another instance, the sink device may provide a more elaborate description of the color volume supported by the display. This may include description of the color volume using RGB primaries, or using a footprint of the color volume in another color space, such as xyY or Lab. [0157]: In some examples, the preferred color gamut settings may further include one or more of a description of a color volume using RGB primaries and a footprint of a color volume in a color space. The color space may include an xyY color space or a Lab color space).
Regarding Claim 18, Claim 18 is/are similar to Claims 14 except in the format of method and missing the limitation of wherein the encode and decode include transportation of processed data as claimed in Claim 14. Therefore the same reason(s) for rejections is/are applied to Claim 14 is/are also applied to Claim 18.
Regarding Claim 19, Claim 19 is/are similar to Claim 15 except in the format of method. Therefore the same reason(s) for rejection is/are applied to Claim 15 is/are also applied to Claims 19.
Regarding Claim 20, Rusanovskyy further teaches or suggests wherein the encoding and the decoding include transportation of processed data ([0038]: In one example, computer-readable medium 16 may comprise a communication medium to enable video compilation device 12 to transmit encoded video data directly to client device 14 in real-time. Also see Fig.1: notice Video Encoder 20 and Video Decoder 30).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YINGCHUN HE whose telephone number is (571)270-7218. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 MT.
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, Xiao M Wu can be reached at 571-272-7761. 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.
/YINGCHUN HE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights